nonattachment vs. detachment

[ethereal]

I've stumbled upon another big obstacle in my spiritual path and request help from more knowledgable folk here

While I can intellectually understand the difference between nonattachment (not being attached to outcomes, no desire or fear but allowing full participation) and detachment (not being attached to anything, avoiding things that bring up desire/fear instead of working through them), experientially I usually can't tell the difference. For example, I've recently stopped being interested in business and the workings of the world, but I don't know if it's because it truly doesn't interest me anymore or if I am just shirking responsibility. If I am truly non-attached, then it should mean that I wouldn't care either way whether I do it or not...? karma / love for other people in my life and the world would dictate my actions?

wondering if I'm understanding all this correctly... I don't think I am though, because I find myself withdrawn from the world and not particularly liking it, and wistfully hoping for more excitement and things to do. Awhile back I wanted to learn and experience everything; now, although I feel more peaceful not wanting to pursue anything, it's almost as if I don't care what happens anymore, and it's a scary thought. is this just the ego craving experiencing, or my higher Self wanting me to stop being detached and be more active?

confused

[JJH]

Hi ethereal,

I've recently been learning about detachment myself, and although I give the word a slightly different meaning, I think I understand what you mean.

A really simple way of thinking about it is like this: Feel free to desire anything and everything that you want - and enter into the actions that lead to those goals/intentions/desires with 100% presence. The trick is to become detached from any OUTCOME you may have imagined. That way, you are shifting your focus to the NOW, and enjoying the doing. So your state of being is not dependent on some "future" that may not be totally under your control.

The application of this has worked wonders for me!

[MindReality]

If you want to understand detachment, you can read a great deal about it here:

Law of Detachment - Flowing with God » Secrets of Mind and Reality

You should have a goal, an aim or intent about a certain outcome you want to achieve. Detachment means that you become someone who doesn't have a care in a the world about whatever obstacles and challenges you may face towards the fulfillment of that goal. You are aware of what problems you may face but you are detached from them, focusing solely on your intent only.

[helgi]

As I see it, the main difference is that detachment is static while non-attachment is dynamic.

What you describe sounds like you have some underlying resistance, the kind that comes up during the transitional time between letting go of the world and then getting involved in it again at a higher level.

I'm working through the same thing, and I've found that the 'spiritual ego' can actually get attached to the concept of detachment, however strange that may sound. The way to spot that ego movement is by noticing when it says that you should do this or shouldn't do that, etc. And while it seems like a tremendous balancing act to "be in the world but not of it," which is the essence of non-attachment, the only reason why it becomes complicated is when we start looking at the level of effect rather than cause. I.e., when we look to particulars instead of the underlying movement, like for instance when we equate material affluence with attachment, and material poverty with detachment.

If you feel a sense of unease, even if it's very subtle, it is probably because of attachment to something. Most likely an attachment to spiritual concepts like detachment etc.

[helgi]

Apologize for the back-to-back posting, but there's something I want to add.

It's about this transitional stage of spiritual advancement where you're no longer being driven forward through suffering. Much of the progress early on, as I've experienced it, is fuelled by suffering. You feel miserable, and so you're compelled to lots and lots of introspection that will then result in some radical glimpses of freedom.

But when you've reached a certain level of peace, a nice balance where there is very little if any real suffering, it is very easy to slack off in the spiritual practice and slowly get lost again. There may be a vague underlying feeling of unease, but not enough to motivate you to resolve it.

However, at this stage it is fairly easy to overcome whatever obstacles may appear. It's just about getting in the habit of practicing meditation/introspection even if it doesn't seem to be necessary (e.g. I feel fine, so why meditate?).

[Stevie B]

Originally Posted by ethereal

I don't think I am though, because I find myself withdrawn from the world and not particularly liking it, and wistfully hoping for more excitement and things to do. Awhile back I wanted to learn and experience everything; now, although I feel more peaceful not wanting to pursue anything, it's almost as if I don't care what happens anymore, and it's a scary thought.

MindReality touched on this already, but I'd like to ask what goal you had previously that you were excited about and do you feel that you've reached that goal? Also, what goal do you have now?

Steve

[Mike-2]

ethereal, I think your instincts are right -- you are experiencing detachment and indifference, not non-attachment. Speaking from what I know (Buddhist perspective), wanting to be free of unpleasant experiences is a form desire and ego craving. Both the desire to have and aversion - the desire not to have - are forms of attachment, as you suggested. Equanimity is described as the mental quality of inner balance and strength that counters ego craving and aversion, and there are various techniques to develop it. One important thing to note is that equanimity has two opposites - the far enemy and the near enemy - which detract from your ability to sustain it. Anxiety is the far enemy of equanimity, and we can clearly see how anxiety is the enemy of equanimity. But the near enemy is something that we could easily mistake for the quality itself, and in this case, it's indifference, which seems to be what you are experiencing.

One way of developing equanimity is to meditate on impermanence. We can never permanently escape from unpleasant experiences, no matter how much we wish we could. Our lives are always in motion between up and down, gain and loss, satisfaction and disappointment, and no set of circumstances, good or bad, lasts forever. Sometimes we might feel we are the only ones in the whole world who experience that, but if you look closely, you can see that this is a basic fact of existence that everyone experiences. Equanimity means that sometimes the world is not the way we want it to be, and sometimes it is. This is ok. Some might say that accepting the way the world is means that we are not motivated to make changes, but how can we make changes if we have obsessions? We can't clearly see what would be most beneficial and effective, and then we are discouraged and depressed and give up.

Some might say that in very difficult situations, its impossible for anyone to sustain equanimity. What if someone close to you died suddenly? In fact, it is possible to do it, it's just very, very hard, even for people who are advanced on a spiritual path. The good news is that it is not necessary to hold ourselves to such a high standard. I would say that even equanimity with our goals and desires is too hard to begin with. Can we sustain equanimity when someone fails to return our phone call promptly? What about when the line at the supermarket is slow? Or if we disappoint ourselves by forgetting to do something important? There are millions of insignificant events that we react to throughout the day that disturb our equanimity, and these should not be overlooked! They are important because mastering them gives us the sense of how to balance ourselves with an uncertain world, and gives us an intuitive feel for how to approach bigger things. Wrapping ourselves in a soft cocoon of indifference where we don't feel anything is unhelpful, because its only by noticing in great detail what lack of balance feels like that we can learn to be balanced. From the point of view of cultivating equanimity, its not very useful to say to youself, "Oh no! I'm unbalanced! I must escape from this terrible feeling!!" Its better to simply notice the feeling, knowing that it will eventually pass and extend compassion toward yourself by remembering that everyone feels this way sometimes. Of course, there's no point sticking around trying to cultivate equanimity in a truly overwhelming situation. If its too hard, try something a bit less challenging.

I found this talk on equanimity very helpful. Perhaps other will too.

[ethereal]

First of all, thanks everyone for the helpful responses, I feel you guys really hit the nail on the head

there's been a lot of factors, most prominently my graduation and living by myself with barely any outside influence and being able to contemplate and study spiritual texts. as helgi intuited, I finally had the freedom to completely let go of the world, and what a relief! To answer your question Stevie B, I used to want to help my dad with his business, earn a lot of money and use that money to help the world. But upon introspection and contemplating how Earth is like a free-will zone, allowing beings to choose, create, and experience what they will, I finally got a glimpse what the masters meant, "everything is perfect as is, the world does not need saving." As I currently see it, the best way (if there is any!) to help the world is to raise my own consciousness, be happy and make happy, and seek enlightenment, and affect people in the spiritual realm closer to the "cause" and not in the physical realm of "effects".

It's funny, I think I do have an attachment to detachment, paradoxically. I've been trying to de-energize the ego/mind/experiencer by withdrawing interest and abiding in the witness/awareness and shunning the world in general. the spiritual ego flares up and says, "i shouldn't be attached, i should be desireless, i should unconditionally accept everything", but the intention is wrong -- I wanted to avoid suffering/fear/pain and was using spirituality as a cure-all, exactly like what Mike said.

Perhaps the point is to not try to avoid suffering, but to embrace love? not to use spirituality as a means to achieve something, but for it's own sake? I did notice myself doing what helgi talked about -- wrongly attributing my desires as attachment and the specific opposite as non-attachment -- but I'm not sure how to find the underlying ego movement behind the whole thing. I'm reminded of one of David Hawkin's quotes where he said something to the effect of how you don't have to surrender your desires, you just have to surrender the ego "juice" powering them. If you can elaborate more on this I'd really appreciate it

Also, how would fear play into this? does it go under aversion, the desire not to have/experience?

Thanks again for the thoughtful replies!

[Mike-2]

Originally Posted by ethereal

Also, how would fear play into this? does it go under aversion, the desire not to have/experience?

I am delighted to learn that you have had this important realization! It's a common pitfall that I feel doesn't get very much attention from many spiritual teachers. I have found that the spiritual path is a constant discovery of where your ego has hidden itself. Here is a worthwhile discussion of this topic.

One potential source of confusion is the paradox of 'How can I desire to stop desiring?' Its important to note that, for a Buddhist, we have no unchanging self, and there is no permanent soul. But for someone following Advaita Vedanta and other nondual traditions, this is equivalent to saying that the self is not the Highest Self. In either case, the goal is cessation of desire, but in a sense, desire is defined differently than normal. We usually define desire to mean 'something that I want', but the real meaning is 'something that I want that is motivated out of ignorance of the true nature of the self'. But then the question is, how do you know the difference? For a Buddhist, the main source of confusion is holding on to what is impermanent, thinking we can keep it forever. Meditating on impermanence and the transient nature of the self is an important practice to avoid this. I'm not sure what the equivalent practice would be for traditions that teach about the Higher Self. I think Buddhist teachings tend to play it safe, since its easy to convince yourself that you are identifying with the Higher Self when in face, you are getting more involved with the ego. There is the concept of Bodhicitta which means "enlightened heart/mind". This is the solemn vow that one achieve enlightenment for the sake of all beings, that they be free of suffering. Someone who has achieved enlightenment with this intention is called a bodhisattva. This is considered to be the most noble motivation that should be cultivated, not a desire that we should be free of. Finally, beating ourselves up for not living up to a "spiritual" standard is a bit lacking in compassion to ourselves. And it kind of sucks the joy out of life.

To your question, I think fear would be categorized as aversion, although we have to be a bit careful. Fear is really just a sensation. There's nothing wrong or bad about it, but the way we respond to fear is often unhelpful. In response to fear, we try to protect ourselves and avoid confronting our inherent vulnerability. When our response to fear is to try to convince ourselves that we can really, finally and permanently become invulnerable, then we are setting ourselves up for more suffering when something comes along that blows the doors off that delusion. Pema Chodron has written much on fearlessness. Here is an excerpt from her book, The Wisdom of No Escape. Another book is called The Places That Scare You. I find that the titles by themselves speak from place of radical fearlessness and openness that I rarely encounter in most contemporary spiritual books.

[Liara Covert]

Hi ethereal.

As you work through your own ideas of detachment, this may be helpful:

The Berzin Archives - Basic Questions on Detachment, Nonviolence, and Compassion

"The Buddhist meaning of detachment is slightly different from what the word normally means in English. Detachment in Buddhism is connected with renunciation. The word “renunciation” in English is also misleading, for it implies that we have to give up everything and go live in a cave. Although there are examples of people like Milarepa who did give up everything and live in a cave, what they did is referred to by a different word, not the word that is translated as "renunciation" or "detachment". The word that has been translated as "renunciation" actually means "the determination to be free". We have a strong determination: “I must get out of my own problems and difficulties. My mind is totally firm on that goal.” We want to give up our ego games because we are determined to be free from all the problems they cause. This does not mean that we have to give up a comfortable house or the things that we enjoy. Rather, we are trying to stop the problems that we have in relation to these objects. That leads us to detachment.

Being detached does not mean that we cannot enjoy anything or enjoy being with anyone. Rather, it refers to the fact that clinging very strongly to anything or anyone causes us problems. We become dependent on that object or person and think, “If I lose it or cannot always have it, I am going to be miserable.” Detachment means, “If I get the food I like, very nice. If I do not get it, okay. It is not the end of the world.” There is no attachment or clinging to it."

[ethereal]

Thanks for the replies, Mike and Liara

Interesting synchronicity, I was just walking around my home in Berkeley and found this organization -- Berkeley Shambhala Center -- co-taught by Pema Chodron, as well as seeing her name pop up elsewhere recently too. God works in mysterious ways

As to what I understand about fear, from my own experience most of my fears are caused by ignorance and a lack of proper understanding / recontexualization. When understood and looked at from ever higher levels, they stop bothering me almost completely. This leads me to believe that there might be a way to completely remove fears through wisdom, like Steve did with his Subjective Reality beliefs, or how hypnotists/energy workers remove lifelong phobias. It seems like there are various approaches to fear: 1) it's completely unneeded, understanding/love removes fear, or 2) it comes up as it comes, it's not good or bad, you consciously choose better responses regardless. Still unsure which is more accurate, but fascinating subject I'll definitely try to check out the books you recommended.

Liara, thanks for the article, easy to understand and cleared things up more for me. These days the cloud of confusion finally lifted a bit, and I understood that it's the motivation/intention behind the thing that really counts, not the act or thought or feeling itself. I was attached to concrete, specific ideas/acts and tried to detach by giving them up or taking the opposite, but in reality what I needed to change was the intention itself and not the act. We can still do the same things or not, but the intention is one of detachment and not attachment.

Glad to be able to work out these things with other people's help instead of by myself Thanks again all!

[Erock]

Wow talk about coincidences. I remember glancing over this thread, and then later today I was reading David Hawkin's book Transcending the Levels of Consciousness, which is quite an intense read, but he has a section titled "Nonattachment versus Detachment." I thought I would type it up for you. It doesn't really say that much, but it might help:

(Page 99)

"Nonattachment versus Detachment
This is an important distinction, and failure to understand it can lead to important spiritual error. 'Detachment' is an ongoing process that, unfortunately, can lead to apathy and emotional flatness, noninvolvement, and indifference. It can also result in passivity and loss of interest in life. There are misunderstandings of spirituality that teach that even love is an attachment, which is a misconception, for love is an aspect of God; possessiveness is an aspect of ego.

An incorrect understanding of the pathway of negation can result in the sterility of the 'Void' or 'Nothingness'. While the void is an impressive spiritual experience, it is not the Ultimate State, which, correctly, is that of Allness. This arises from a misunderstanding of the teachings of the Buddha. 'Void' means nonlinear and the absence of 'thingness', or linearity. Beyond Voidness is the ultimate, non-linear reality of Allness. The subjective experience of the Void, although very impressive, is considerably different from the Reality of the state of the Presence of God as Allness, including the very major quality of Infinite Love itself."

I'm not sure that this section in itself will help you, but maybe I'm wrong. If it says anything more later I will add it.

Good luck
Erock