In my most recent post, I wrote about the potential for reconciling the different meanings of love, focusing on whether or not romantic love can be thought of as helpful in our spiritual quests.
Based on this idea, and based on Aneesh and Madhura’s comments, I have a somewhat related question: To what extent, if any, should attachment play in our lives? Many Hindu scriptures advise us to be detached — but what exactly does this detachment mean? In a Gita Study Group session last Friday, Swami Tyagananda, the Swamiji at the Vedanta Society in Boston, discussed Chapter 2 of the Bhagavad-Gita with us. During our question and answer session, we brought up the idea of detachment multiple times — and the idea that seemed to prevail was that detachment does not, by any means, mean that we should detach ourselves from having goals. Rather, we should be completely focus on higher goals, while still being detached enough not to get overly upset by failure, or overly confident from success. In that way, detachment is more like attachment to a higher purpose.
Still, the idea of attachment to people remains unclear — to what extent should we be attached to others? If the goal is to be detached, should householders (and not just saints) renounce their ties to their families and friends in order to be equally attached to everyone? Or is the ideal householder one that doesn’t renounce these ties, but continually uses them as a way towards spiritual progress…Perhaps the ideal householder is one who, despite being attached to family and friends, is able to love others just as much — and in that way, makes the whole world his own by expanding his definition of family and friends to ultimately include every living creature. Somehow, this is the most appealing idea to me — the idea that it isn’t wrong to be attached to others, as long as we are making the effort to see the God in everyone (not just in those close to us), with the hopes that eventually we will be good enough to love everyone.
Still, I have my doubts about whether this is really how I should be thinking, or whether I am saying it for convenience (since I think that on many levels, I am nowhere near ready to detach myself from my loved ones.) Is the ideal practitioner of detachment one who isn’t close to anyone? Or is the ideal practitioner of detachment one who is infinitely attached to everyone? What do you think?
Related posts:
6 Comments
The ideal householder must definitely not renounce his ties to family and friends- that would be completely irresponsible and adharmic by our own scriptural standards. Duty to one’s family is of primary importance; one must give his children all the love and attention they need to grow into healthy adults. The scriptures support the idea that a householder can pursue wealth for his family (artha) so as to assure its well-being. Total detachment is reserved for the fourth stage of life, that of a sannyasi, or ascetic. Only after performing his duty to family and friends should one begin the process of rejecting the material world and submit himself to the quest of attaining moksha. Premature enterance into this stage of life has disastrous consequences, namely for the householder’s family, and therefore cannot be considered an act of detachment but rather an act of negligence.
The Mahabharata reaffirms this. Krishna told Arjuna to fight, even with the cost in blood, for dharma. Arjuna had a duty, and he had to complete his duty before attempting higher goals like detachment. Even after learning of the various yogas that led to moksha, Arjuna was told to fulfill his duty before anything else. His nature, perhaps reinforced by notions of caste, was rajasic, and therefore Arjuna was meant first and foremost to fulfill his dharma as a warrior. Perhaps Krishna would have told a being more spiritually advanced being with a sattvic nature not in a position of such responsibility to detach himself from the situation. Arjuna was not yet ready for this approach, however.
I agree with your supposition that the ideal householder continually uses his ties to further his personal spiritual progress and expands his definition of “loved ones” to include family, then friends, and eventually all living beings. This is not a convenient belief by any means; it is practical and makes progress realistic and achievable.
All of us are on a spiritual journey, and must accept where we are and strive on from this point forward. We should not try to undertake what we are not ready for (total detachment, for instance) but make incremental steps forward, with the eventual goal, and I do mean “goal,” in mind. Over our rebirths, our souls (atma) will gradually be purified of worldly desires (vasanas) until we reach the point where we can actually detach ourselves from the world. We should still remain proactive in this continual effort, but if we try to be overambitious, unconscious of what we are actually ready for, we will fail, and risk being discouraged from future attempts at spiritual progress.
The ideal practioner of detachment can either be one who is infinitely attached to everyone or one who isn’t attached to anyone, because both in actuality approach the same goal. Brahman is everything, so to love everyone is a way of expressing your understanding of, and oneness with, Brahman. On the other hand, nothing material is real, but only temporary, so you must eventually detach yourself from material things and desires that arise from the ego (including conditional love for kith and kin). Either method takes you to the understanding that Truth is One, real and permanent; and to experience that reality you must reach the spiritual understanding by eliminating attachment to all that is unreal, or loving all that is real.
I once asked a learned man, who is doing the more good, the sadhu meditating in Himalayas detached from the world, or the selfless saint fighting against poverty and serving others because she sees God in all? I was told that there is no difference, but I still do not fully understand how or why, and to this day that question baffles my mind.
Dear Friends,
One cant commence ones schooling from the 8th or 9th std.You have to start school in Nursery and work your way up. Pre school and junior school lay the foundations for what is to follow. The curriculum of the higher classes is gibberish to one in the 1st or 2nd standard.It is essential to familiarize oneself with the fundamentals of Sanatana Dharma (Misnomer-Hinduism) or else, confusion will prevail! There is no such Religion as Hinduism though the word is commonly and loosly used to describe a confusing jumble of beliefs, rituals, methods, systems etc followed by the majority population of Bharat (Misnomer- India).
The Vedas are the fountainhead of the Sanatana Dharma. Simply put Veda means knowledge (Vid) and Vedanta means ‘end of knowledge’. Now why would anyone want to end knowledge? Simply put, because knowledge or the lack of it, is of the Mind and that which is Eternal (Timeless) is the source of the mind! That, which is all pervasive, omnipotent and all knowing IS the Timeless Essence of the Universe (which includes Us!).It is the source and substance of everything. It is Sanatana (Timeless) Dharma (Essence). It is the TRUTH ie it never changes, it is the unchanging background. It is often referred to as God, Brahman,Absolute,Love or in Bharat as Sat- Chit- Ananda Bhagwan. You are that Truth but cant as yet comprehend it. It is what Krishna told Arjuna on the battlefield. Infact you are really Krishna but you think you are Arjuna!
Forgive me if I have not conveyed some ideas clearly but this is the way to go. This is the Highest knowledge we can aspire to, beyond it there is That.
Bless you all.
Attachment does and should play a huge role in our lives. However, like you said, the key is to be attached to the higher goals and ideas. Such attachment will motivate and drive the person to do what he or she can to be able to achieve that goal that he or she is attached to. Again, like you said, it would be best to not be too attached to aspiring for that goal for if one fails to achieve that goal, being too attached to the goal will result in a loss of control of the emotions and the senses.
As for being attached to people, I feel that that is also very necessary for the progress of humankind. Though the ultimate goal is to be detached, the householder is attached to the goal of maintaining and protecting his family.
To answer the question you posed at the very end of your post, the ideal practitioner of detachment is not one that is detached from everyone, nor is he one that is infinitely attached to everyone. He is one that understand that there is God in all, but he also understands that it may not be wise to be infinitely attached to everyone. Therefore, the ideal practitioner is also the pragmatic practitioner– seeing god in all, but knowing that God may be more prevalent in some than others.
Those who argue detachment from people generally do so within the four stages of life framework (brahmachari, grihasta, vanaprastha, and sannyasi) play in. When you are a family member and raising kids, you definitely need to be attached to them and look out for their best interests. However, certain theories of attaining moksha allow for detachment from other people, but they successfully bracket it into a final “sannyasi” lifestage set in isolation so that there is no “shirking” of duties in the process.
Attachment or detachment, it depends on where weare. Geeta says be not attached to the fruit of action, It also says “nor let your attachment be to inaction” what I understand is LET YOUR ATTACHMENT BE INTO ACTION”
This makes sense that attachment to very action itself is VIKARMA that is Putting heart and love into the action. When we do that sicerely the action feels like an Inaction.
My point is to what extent this,’attachment/detachment to children etc. could go on and upto what point. There must be a, ‘what next’. Can anybody eloberate on this? I for instance have tried several times,attenpt,to find out what next, without success. I am an elederlygrihasta, still having attachment to wife, son, grand-daughter, daughter, son in law and grand children, had detachment to several routine shows of affection with the fond hope this act will lift my spiritual quest. But none, so far. Could any one throw light on this?
Post a Comment