Non-attachment vs non-caring

[tekart]

I am really on the fence with non-attachment on one side and non-caring on the other. I feel that if I could understand this better (who is really understanding?) part of the me that I think I am will drop away leaving me with less of the "me", which of course is what we all are looking to do. All semantics and rhetoric aside, what is the answer?

[Plato]

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. I think it comes down to a different type of caring than the one you're currently used to. Right now you care because something will influence your emotions. But with the loss of attachment to self you won't lose the abillity to feel compassion and love. It comes from a mindset of abundance and is far richer than anything you can know from a place of neediness.

Only thing I know for sure is you'll know when "you" reach the othe side.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Hmm I struggle with this.

On one side you can NOT care about people, or life. But you'd still run to save someone whos been hit by a car you know?

Or...

Well you'd have to read some Eastern Guru's opinion on the other side. I can't comment.

[Rhythman]

Attachments usually have a clinging/wanting quality to them. While feeling attachment for something, I am only concerned with my egoic neediness and there is no room for caring.

When I am in a state of not attachment, I need and want nothing. Compassion seems to naturally arise in this state rather than a not caring attitude.

Rhythman

[Mato Kinze]

I coach managers on this all the time. How I explain it to them is by using Einstein, emotion, and a river.

You've all heard of Einstein's theory of relativity, right? You know: E=mC2? In this theory, E = "energy".

Therefore, E motion = "energy in motion."

When we have attachment to something, we "hold" it or "hang on" to it. This ceases the motion part of the equation.

It's like thinking a river is beautiful so you create a dam to keep it from getting away.

When you bottle up your emotions like that, they become poisonous. This is the problem with attachment. And not just attachment to emotions. Attachment to anything and anyone is detrimental.

Attachment comes from the belief that somehow, we own or can somehow posess something or someone. Loved ones are a perfect example of common natural attachment.

When we care for someone, we want to keep them close to us. For some, this leads to jealousy and posession. In other, more natural cases, such as the attachment to a parent or a child, it can stifle the relationship and be a cause of grief.

Caring, on the other hand involves acknowledging something, honoring it, and then letting it go; allowing it to continue the journey it was meant to have. Accepting that you don't "own" anything and that nothing "belongs" to you becomes the most powerful way of being in that you are constantly exercising humility, are constantly appreciative (even of things you never thought you would be), and focus your energies on valuing what you have, not what you might lose.

If you're a reading type, Don Miguel Ruiz, one of Carlos Castaneda's students, speaks of attachment in his book, "The Four Agreements" and discusses extensively how one remains unattached but caring. It's a good read. I reccommend it highly.

If you prefer Eastern philosophies, "The Places That Scare You" by Pema Chodron, also discuss losing attachment.

[The Cloud]

Who is understanding indeed? If nobody is doing the understanding, then the understanding must be you. You are you actions, not the source of them. You are the thinking, not the thought. You are the seeing, not the thing seeing is acting on. Your actions are what you are.

[danas]

I think non attachment means not being attached to the outcome.
i.e knowing that whatever happens is for the best.
Lets say you want a job- You care enough to give it your best shot, but if you dont get it you will not be upset because you are not attached to the outcome.
non attachment is about total trust in the process, but I think if you dont "care" about things then you wont get what you want.
In other words: desire is healthy, and needed as long as you arent attached to the result.

[Fullcrum]

I make this a clear distinction in my mind, not a complex or ambiguous definition like many people ascribe to it. When acting through non-attachment, the action is done for the JOY of creation. The joy of seeing yourself do the thing, the joy of seeing it created, etc.

I believe that only from this can something truly pure be created. Otherwise, it will be stifled and defiled by the filth of one's own neediness. And that sucks ^^

[24evita]

Originally Posted by Mato Kinze

When we have attachment to something, we "hold" it or "hang on" to it. This ceases the motion part of the equation.

Attachment comes from the belief that somehow, we own or can somehow posess something or someone. Loved ones are a perfect example of common natural attachment.

When we care for someone, we want to keep them close to us. For some, this leads to jealousy and posession. In other, more natural cases, such as the attachment to a parent or a child, it can stifle the relationship and be a cause of grief.

Caring, on the other hand involves acknowledging something, honoring it, and then letting it go; allowing it to continue the journey it was meant to have. Accepting that you don't "own" anything and that nothing "belongs" to you becomes the most powerful way of being in that you are constantly exercising humility, are constantly appreciative (even of things you never thought you would be), and focus your energies on valuing what you have, not what you might lose.

Really well said!
There is definitely a huge difference between the two. So often though people equate non-attachement with not caring from other parties and that is too bad as they usually end up hurting themselves a lot, by misunderstanding the other person and their intentions. I think the ego has a lot to do with that