Detachment

[TheColonel]

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about taking action to experience manifestations. And I think there is a consensus, that yes, action must be taken. Although I still see varying opinions on how much action and when it should be taken (here and other forums).

There is a concept known as 'detachment' which has often been spoken of in context of prayer, IM and realizing one's desires. I've seen it brought up a few times around here, but I don't remember anyone focusing discussion on it.

Many spiritual teachers through the centuries have spoken of the importance of detachment. From what I've heard or read, it seems to be that a detachment from the how something will manifest will better allow its manifestation.

How does this coincide with your belief in taking action? Are you practicing detachment?

[Frans]

Originally Posted by TheColonel

There is a concept known as 'detachment' which has often been spoken of in context of prayer, IM and realizing one's desires.

TheColonel, as far as I know "detachment" is the opposite of "realizing one's desires".
This is the definition of detachment according to Wikipedia:

Detachment is a state in which a person, theoretically, overcomes his or her attachment to desire for things, people or concepts of the world and thus attains a heightened perspective.

With that definition, it seems to me that detachment is totally incompatible with I-M (which is used by many here to get the things of their desire).

[TheColonel]

I think many would say that in the IM process, you set your intention or desire. You focus energy or emotion (or gratitude or whatever) on the belief that it is coming and already a done deal.

This is where IMO 'detachment' comes in. With things in motion, you remove your attention from "how" it will arrive and simply look for synchronicities. When you spot one, you take action.

The fact that detachment is not talked about much in this context does not exclude it from the manifestation process.

[AndyMartin]

Originally Posted by Frans

TheColonel, as far as I know "detachment" is the opposite of "realizing one's desires".
This is the definition of detachment according to Wikipedia:

With that definition, it seems to me that detachment is totally incompatible with I-M (which is used by many here to get the things of their desire).

You are confusing desire with attachment to desire. Realizing desires and attachment to desires are not the same thing. Detachment does not refer to the annihilation of wants. It refers to the separation of the self, or the identity, from the wants, fulfilled or unfulfilled, and their outcomes. You may still want things or experiences, but those desires, and more specifically the realization of those desires, ceases to be a part of your self-identification. Whether and how it happens has no impact on your self-existence.

Detachment refers equally to the identification relationship with with what you have and what you don't have (ie desires). Practice of detachment with respect to what you have can be expressed as gratitude; you separate or detach your identity from the having; you are grateful for what you have, but you don't depend on their presence for your self-existence.

In that sense, detachment is not only compatible with, but a critical aspect of LoA that the various teachers and practitioners simply describe in a different way.

[Antarananda]

Excellent topic. The detachment is towards the end-result of action, not towards performing action. This is actually the art of skillful activity, where one remains as a witness, and does not get elated with success, nor dejected with failure.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna in essence advises, " You have the right to act, but you do not have the right to the fruits of your action. Therefore you must act without the anticipation of the result, yet without succumbing to inaction (never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities)."

So, after being established in the natural state of equanimity and bliss, when one thinks or acts from that state it automatically results in excellence, because all mental energies have been conserved and directed towards the task at hand with singular, laser-like focus. This sort of action will naturally produce superior results.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by AndyMartin

You are confusing desire with attachment to desire. Realizing desires and attachment to desires are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Antarananda

The detachment is towards the end-result of action, not towards performing action. This is actually the art of skillful activity, where one remains as a witness, and does not get elated with success, nor dejected with failure.

Both of you are right.

This leaves me with one question though:
Would a person who is detached from material desire use I-M to get material things?

[Lil Chris]

Is detachment like letting go...?

[Athena]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

where one remains as a witness, and does not get elated with success

hmmm isn't it okay to enjoy and celebrate your successes?
so long as you do not own them or become attached to them?

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Athena

hmmm isn't it okay to enjoy and celebrate your successes?
so long as you do not own them or become attached to them?

Sure, but all outer success is only icing on the cake, with the cake being your internal state of eternal bliss

[TheColonel]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

Sure, but all outer success is only icing on the cake, with the cake being your internal state of eternal bliss

I prefer the icing to the cake itself. But I catch your drift...

[Antarananda]

Originally Posted by Frans

This leaves me with one question though:
Would a person who is detached from material desire use I-M to get material things?

As I said, one becomes detached from the outcome of action; desire (impulse to think or act) still exists. So, a desire can appear in the mind, and it can either be fulfilled, or simply left alone, and the person is fine with either outcome.

So, the way one would manifest desires is through a more relaxed, flowing attitude of laissez faire towards what is naturally attracted in one's life as a result of thought and action which does not spring from ego or a sense of doership. Bliss attracts fortune if fortune is what one desires, and one does enjoy the fortune when it comes around, too. But if the very next day all riches were lost, one would still maintain the inner state of a king. That is true detachment.

[Acting Like Godot]

Perhaps a simple example will be helpful.

Suppose you are a sportsman. Your intention is to set a new record at a certain competition next year.

Now obviously you will have to train hard and regularly, to achieve that goal. However, if you are not detached, but attached, you will keep thinking and worrying:

"What if I don't succeed? I must succeed. But what if so-&-so beats me? I hear he's training very hard too, ahd he's very good. Oh no. If I don't succeed I don't know what I'm gonna do next in life. What would people say? I If I succeed, that would be fantastic ...! " etc etc.

If you are detached, you will simply plant the intention "I set a new record at ______." Then everyday till then, you simply do your necessary training, consistently, without fear or anxiety.

[magickmystik]

But if the very next day all riches were lost, one would still maintain the inner state of a king. That is true detachment.

[Andrew Brunelle]

It's about your state of inner being. Outcomes are out there, your being is inside you. Learn to accept your inner being and get to the point where you no longer need outcomes to justify your feeling of joy and happiness. From the joy and happiness, it will be easier to manifest things, even though you don't reallly care about the outcome.

[Ati]

Wonderful posts here, and yes I think a form of detachment is present in many spiritual teachings.

Perhaps detachment helps us also to avoid attracting the opposite of what we are seeking, because if we don't put forth our intention and then detach ourselves from the outcomes, is it not easier to find ourselves worrying in one way or another abt the outcome not coming forth?

Also, as intention leads to positive action, then detachment leads to more focus on the positive and more energy for continued intention and continued positive action. No or little energy being sapped by worrying about the outcome.

Anyone have any experiences with this?

I am currently working on some positive outcomes in my work place and in my family (double duty these days!!). I'm working hard to focus on the positive and I thank you for reminding me of something I have not been so attentive to, that of actively detaching myself from specific outcomes, after I have done every thing I can.

I'll add that in. So often there are things we know intellectually or by prior experience but we forget to actually act upon.

Thank you!

[Liara Covert]

If you wish for something and then you acknowledge it doesn't matter whether or not you receive or achieve it, then detachment may indeed influence circumstances you do not expect. We hear that some of the best situations evolve when we least expect them, but I believe part of us is often seeking something in our soul or it wouldn't manifest. We need to be observant enough to recognize love or other opportunities that appear nearby. If you detach yourself from completely outcomes, they may come even if you don't wish for them, and you may let them float bywithout acknowledgement even if they would be good for you .

[Lallymac]

A friend was talking about 'adding value' to IM by adding 'or something better' to intention manifestation. Then you ALLOW the universe to work its magic. By adding an unknown element to your intent your rational mind doesn't kick in as readily with its 'the only way it can happen is if I do this or that happens first.' You also have to detatch and TRUST.
Lallymac

[Alex_InjoyGames]

It is always incrediable how thought vibrations work...

Right after reading a new Law to me, The Law of Detachment, I decide to visit Steve's forums finally and read something...
And whats the first thread I see?

Yep, Detachment.

In any case, if anyone wants a little insight...
Law of Detachment

[TheColonel]

Thanks for the link Alex. Like attracts like...

[Vicariously Yours]

I'm missing something, I think. Maybe someone can clarify things for me. Whenever I have a desire, there always follows a certain amount of emotional tension that can only be resolved by the realization of my desire. Hence, if I am truly unconcerned whether my desire is fulfilled or not, then it is not (to me) a genuine desire. I think of Steve's MDE, and cannot help but think that notmanifesting a million dollars will cause at least some disappointment. Is that not attachment to outcome? And, for ALG, won't the athlete striving to set a new record feel at least some disappointment if he does not, indeed, set a new record? And is he, therefore, not attached to the outcome?

I'm not trying to be ascerbic here, I'm really trying to understand. In truth, I believe wholeheartedly in the principles of I-M, but I'm having a heck of a time with the mechanics of it all. There seems to be a whole range of interpretations flying around.

What I think I have heard in the distant past regarding attachment and detachment is this: believe that your desire will be (has already been) fulfilled, but do not be too concerned (i.e., attached) with how it will be fulfilled, or whether the result is exactly as you envisioned it. That is how I understand "not being attached to the outcome." It is quite different from not caring whether the desire is fulfilled. And, yes, adding a "this or something better" to my affirmation might be a step in the right direction. But it still doesn't relieve me of an expectation that something will manifest, or from feeling disappointment if it is not fulfilled.

Perhaps I need some more practical examples of detachment. Anyone?

[Antarananda]

The truly detached ones are the Buddhas and enlightened Masters of this world. They don't run around trying to "manifest" stuff. That's not to say that all are passive; in fact my own spiritual Master is just 29, and more dynamic than anyone else I have ever met. Yet, he is just as relaxed and detached and blissful now as he was in his early days staying in a little hut in south India, despite speaking and teaching and traveling engagements that keep him busy practically every day of the year.

I truly believe that developing the state where you are operating from your inner bliss as the locus of control, rather than focusing on outer manifestation, is the way to total success, both in the material world as well as the spiritual. Meditation and "letting go" emotionally are the tools to achieve that equipoise where one is in the world, but not of the world.

[Liara Covert]

Thanks Antarananda.
I am constantly learning about how to become more relaxed and detached.
Do you think that it is logical to become increasingly content and at ease when stress levels are rising all around me?

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Antarananda

The truly detached ones are the Buddhas and enlightened Masters of this world. They don't run around trying to "manifest" stuff.

I was waiting for that quote.

Is there any reason why people should use I-M for their spiritual development?

[Vicariously Yours]

If I recall, one of the main tenets of Buddhism is that "Life is suffering." And the cause of this suffering is desire. Even if your desires are fulfilled, they inevitably give rise to more desires, which perpetuates the cycle. Hence, to eliminate suffering requires detaching from all desire. I don't think I am misunderstanding this. It is true that the enlightened Masters on this planet do not generally "run around manifesting stuff." They do not because they ostensibly do not have (or, at least, should not have) any desires. That's ANY desires. Period.

This seems diametrically opposed to the teachings of the LoA, and virtually everything proposed by the Abraham-Hicks material, all of which state that it is impossible to NOT have desires, and, in fact, it is our desires (stemming from the development of preferences, which, in turn, stem from the various contrasts and variety that exist on our plane) that are the basis for the very expansion of the All That Is. Ergo: no desires = no expansion of the Universe. Period.

It's likely someone will have a different perspective on all this, and I'd like to hear it...it might help me solve this apparent dilemma.

[alexb5784]

To me, detachment seems to be the hardest thing to master with IM. I suppose it's about learning to trust your intentions and the universe. I am definitely working on this issue. Thanks for making this thread.

[Antarananda]

From observing my own enlightened Master and being around him, yes, it is correct that the enlightened ones are free from the push-pull of desire. Desire may exist, for example, one may desire to eat when hungry, but it can be more accurately described as a state of choiceless awareness.

As the Buddha said, "events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof". The Ashtavakra Gita is the purest expression of this type of spiritual teaching, one which I embrace myself.

In my opinion, the Abraham-Hicks type material is focused on material/emotional fulfillment, but as you correctly pointed out, desires only beget more desires; there's no end to it. It's a smarter option to realize the true nature of our Being, and then live life content and happy, whether we remain beggars, or become millionaires.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Vicariously Yours

If I recall, one of the main tenets of Buddhism is that "Life is suffering." And the cause of this suffering is desire. Even if your desires are fulfilled, they inevitably give rise to more desires, which perpetuates the cycle. Hence, to eliminate suffering requires detaching from all desire. I don't think I am misunderstanding this. It is true that the enlightened Masters on this planet do not generally "run around manifesting stuff." They do not because they ostensibly do not have (or, at least, should not have) any desires. That's ANY desires. Period.

This seems diametrically opposed to the teachings of the LoA, and virtually everything proposed by the Abraham-Hicks material, all of which state that it is impossible to NOT have desires, and, in fact, it is our desires (stemming from the development of preferences, which, in turn, stem from the various contrasts and variety that exist on our plane) that are the basis for the very expansion of the All That Is. Ergo: no desires = no expansion of the Universe. Period.

I agree with your conclusions.

I couldn't understand why people who said they were working on their personal development were cultivating their desires by applying I-M.
My mistake: I confused personal development with spiritual development.

[magickmystik]

Originally Posted by Frans

I agree with your conclusions.

I couldn't understand why people who said they were working on their personal development were cultivating their desires by applying I-M.
My mistake: I confused personal development with spiritual development.

lol
and all these time you are confusing others

[magickmystik]

Originally Posted by alexb5784

To me, detachment seems to be the hardest thing to master with IM. I suppose it's about learning to trust your intentions and the universe. I am definitely working on this issue. Thanks for making this thread.

Anticipating something decreases its chances of manifesting.

[Acting Like Godot]

I believe that what's being said is true. In particular, I agree with Antarananda. (I normally find myself agreeing with almost everything Antarananda says, but that's another story).

Problem for me is that I'm not ready to pursue the path of spiritual development wholeheartedly. I think that there are different paths, but I think truly, there are very few people who can, or even try to, live every day in line with their innermost spiritual self. I'm not one of them, not yet anyway.

I do believe that the use of LOA is a potential path to higher spiritual development. You begin by manifesting little things ... and then you manifest bigger things ... and bigger things .... and if you keep progressing and going on, I imagine that sooner or later you must reach a point when many material things no longer interest you. Because you have progressed so far that you know that whatever you want, you can get.

Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. What's happening is that you can use LOA to fulfill each level of need, and when it's done, you move to the next higher level, and you use LOA there, and then you move to the next higher level, and the next higher level. Finally you are at the level of self-actualisation, when things like money, or a nice home, or respect from others etc are no longer the point.

Then you become motivated by the deeper aspects of your self. The ever-deeper aspects of your self. What that leads you to do, depends on what your deeper aspects are. Once in a while, as you operate at the level of self-actualisation, you may have what Maslow calls a peak experience.

You can think of it as briefly touching the face of God. Or a mini-enlightenment.

Most people who have it don't stay there very long, of course.

On a separate point, I believe that LOA can be a (more) direct tool in spiritual development. In fact I believe that some applications of LOA are simply meditations in themselves.

For example, in some forms of Buddhist meditation, the meditator meditates until he experiences feelings of love, compassion, kindness etc and then sustains his meditative concentration on those feelings. I feel that you could see this as a form of IM. What he is manifesting is love, compassion & kindness. He is making these attributes manifest into his reality.

(Meditation is indeed often said to have the ability to make you a kinder, more compassionate person.)