Question on getting attached to outcomes

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

But what does one do after he attains Nirvana? Sure, now is now and now is the only time that ever exists, but what does an eternal now look like?

You just can't see it because you're focused on everything BUT the now.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by francstoic

I came across one of Steve's posts in which he suggests that being free from the attachment to outcomes is a healther/more positive way. He doesn't quite elaborate on that, so I'd like to have his (and anybody else's) opinion on that.

More generally, I want to ask whether it is "fair" to be attached to circumstances when they provide joy/happiness, but as soon as they produce suffering/sorrow, one abandons the attachment. I mean, I have known some Eastern philosophies talk about abandoning attachment to the world completely. Why would anyone want to do that?

Steve's Subjective Reality outlook is really very similar to some Eastern philosophies, and this is especially why I'm raising this question here. Steve hasn't, so far at least, talked about losing attachment to the world completely, at least not explicitly.

Is not giving up attachment to the world a giving up of both happiness and sorrow? I think it is. But if it is so, it renders the purpose of life incomplete on one of the aspects of Steve's Great Triangle (i.e., it lessens the importance of the joy that alignment with Love can bring). Is the pursuit of happiness wrong or at least less-than-ultimate? If not, then why should we give up attachment to outcomes? (Giving up attachment to outcomes means that you don't emotionally think of what the outcome will be, i.e. you don't expect it to give you happiness or sorrow, you're just neutral in passion and intellectual/logical when you look at events).

I'd be happy to know what you think.

As I see things, detachment gives you freedom to love.
I am with my wife, not because I am attached to her, but because I love her.
I need her because I love her, instead of loving her because I need her.
I love her because I want, not because I attached to her not to be alone.

Detachment does not imply staying away or running away.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

But what does one do after he attains Nirvana? Sure, now is now and now is the only time that ever exists, but what does an eternal now look like?

If you keep thinking. Thinking is what gets in the way of reaching it. You can't rationalize it until you figure it out. You can't "think" your way into not thinking. You have to stop thinking and experience the now. The way to begin is meditation.

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

But what does one do after he attains Nirvana? Sure, now is now and now is the only time that ever exists, but what does an eternal now look like?

No one really attains Nirvana, in the state of nirvana the illusion individuality (of doer-ship) is totally seen through. The rational mind requires individuality so Nirvana can't be truly understood rationally. What can be said of a person who "attains" Nirvana is that he/she is totally selfless and looks at all beings with equality.

Ramana Maharshi was definitely in that state and he stayed in his ashram for 50 years bestowing his grace on others. Ghandhi, I believe, was also in that state and he was very active politically and helped India to win its independence from the British. There is no rule about what a realized being does other than the fact that their actions never selfish. A realized being could be a hermit who seems to be mad, a great leader or a guy with a regular 9 to 5 job.