Swadharma

In the “current question” Saketh posted earlier, he mentioned the idea of detachment; specifically, he said that “so long as the capacity for detachment exists, it is okay.” My thoughts for today stem from that question — beyond just the realm of psychoactive substances like caffeine — what is the right degree of detachment? And what exactly is detachment? Should we be distancing ourselves from the idea that life itself is something to be precious? Or does detachment simply mean that we shouldn’t place too much emphasis on material needs?

In Chapter 12 of the Bhagavad-Gita, Sri Krishna describes the qualities of the ideal bhakta, or devotee. The translation is as follows, as paraphrased by Swami Vivekananda:

“‘He who hates none, who is the friend of all, who is merciful to all, who has nothing of his own, who is free from egoism, who is even-minded in pain and pleasure, who is forbearing, who is always satisfied, who works always in Yoga, whose self has become controlled, whose will is firm, whose mind and intellect are given up unto Me, such a one is My beloved Bhakta. From whom comes no disturbance, who cannot be disturbed by others, who is pure and active, who does not care whether good comes or evil, and never becomes miserable, who has given up all efforts for himself; who is the same in praise or in blame, with a silent, thoughtful mind, blessed with what little comes in his way, homeless, for the whole world is his home, and who is steady in his ideas, such a one is My beloved Bhakta” (emphases added).

Detachment can come in many forms — but clearly, if it is interpreted the wrong way, detachment has the potential to be harmful. In this passage from the Gita, Krishna seems to suggest detachment in the form of three main categories:

1. Detachment from material goods, as seen by his description of the ideal bhakta as one “who has nothing of his own.” 
2. Detachment from the fruits of our actions, as seen by the references to the ideal devotee as one who “does not care whether good comes nor evil,” and “is the same in praise and blame.”
3. Detachment from intense emotional response, as evidenced by his description of the perfect bhakta as one who “is even-minded in pain and pleasure.”

The problem is, when any of these three categories are taken to the extreme, they can lead to destructive questions and conclusions, instead of ones that uplift us. For example – 

1. If the ideal is to detach ourselves completely from material needs, this suggests that material goods are not necessary for life. In this case, why should we keep the attachment to food, or to clothing, or to shelter? This may ultimately lead to the idea that in a sense, the body is also material– why stay attached to it? In other words, why live?
2. If we should not be attached to the fruits of our actions, it is possible to think that we can also be detached from any purpose behind doing action. For example, why bother doing good work, if it doesn’t really matter what comes from the work that I do?
3. If intense emotional response is bad, why bother to care?

Contemplating such questions can be destructive; instead, maybe it is better to turn the same questions the other way, and analyze how detachment help us in life. One of my teachers in Vidyapith once told us that detachment is nothing but attachment to something higher — whether that something “higher” is God, or an ideal quality you want to incorporate into your life, or an ambition you have. This idea has helped me to understand and ward off the sometimes scary aforementioned thoughts.

And with the idea that detachment is something to help us in this life, we can turn those questions into something positive:

1. Perhaps detachment to material things does mean we should not be attached to this body — but that is because attachment to the body means being attached to something which is transient. This doesn’t mean that we should loathe the body, or the idea of life– maybe it means that we should use this transient body as an instrument to do something higher, whether it is selfless service or any other ideal. In the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, the example is given that we should think of our lives as a maid thinks of her master’s children. When she is in her master’s house, she plays with the children like they are her own, and provides the best care for them. But the second her work is over, she leaves without any sign that she was attached to the children. Maybe this is the way we, too should live our lives– use life as an opportunity to serve others and make the world as good as we can make it, while still knowing that it is all transient, so that we do not get attached to that which isn’t ours.
2. Working without purpose, as Vikram mentioned in his post, is very different from working without attachment. So instead of becoming disillusioned about the purpose and outcome of our work, perhaps it is more important to continue to work for good — while at the same time realizing that working is all that we can do; there is no realistic way to control the results of all of our actions.
3. I am still struggling with this concept — so my thoughts on this may not be coherent. In my own life though, my only response to this type of logic has been to think to myself: “How can we afford not to care?” As I read in the textbook for Psychology 1 today, emotional response is a huge part of what makes us human, and plays a role in how we adapt to social situations and make decisions. Without any emotions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to survive. The problem lies with excessive emotion. The difficulty just lies in defining where exactly the line between appropriate and excessive emotion is.

Related posts:

1. Detachment and College Life
2. Detachment, attachment, and your loved ones
3. The Dark Knight, Continued
4. Gita Study Group 2.21.11
5. How to be a happy student