Can complete detachment exist when there is no moral framework?

To answer this question, we must first distinguish between two types of detachment in this example:

1. Detachment from the fruits of one’s actions.
2. Action without a plan, which is equivalent to detachment from purpose (if there exists a purpose, by definition there must exist a goal, and a goal is the most basic plan possible).

Detachment from the fruits of one’s actions is one part of the Hindu concept of detachment. As Krishna tells Arjuna:

You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.(Bhagavad Gita, 2.47, emphasis added)

While this type of detachment typically receives the most attention, it is not enough:

Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection. (Bhagavad Gita, 3.4, emphasis added)

In fact, Krishna explicitly warns Arjuna against detachment from fruitive action combined with detachment from purpose:

That action which is regulated, without attachment, like or dislike and done without desiring the result is said to be of goodness. But that work which is done in hot pursuit, identified with the material, or again is done with a lot of pressure; that is said to be in the mode of passion. But that work which is after attachment, is destructive, causes distress and has no regard for the consequences or is begun being mistaken about ones own capacity; that is said to be of ignorance. (Bhagavad Gita, 18.23-25, emphasis added)

In other words, detachment in Hinduism has two components: detachment from fruitive action guided by attachment to purpose. Of course, any attachment to purpose will not do. Purpose must be aligned with duty — that is, dharma:

But with all these activities must without doubt, performing them out of duty, the association with their results be given up; that, o son of Prithâ, is My last and best word on it. (Bhagavad Gita, 18.6, emphasis added)

Therefore, if we define detachment as detachment from fruitive action guided by attachment to duty, I argue that the answer to our original question is a resounding “no”.

So in what sense is the Joker attached?

1. Detachment from fruitive action. I do not think the Joker is detached from the fruits of his actions at all. Consider his quote “If you are good at something, never do it for free” — this is hardly what we would expect to hear from someone who performs actions without any hope of gain. Even the rhetorical climax that Saketh cites is an example of the Joker’s attachment to fruitive action — he gets pleasure out of showing others the futility of their plans.
2. Detachment from duty. While the Joker is not detached from purpose — he cannot possibly be attached to fruitive action and detached from purpose — purpose and duty are clearly not aligned since his action lacks morality.

But this is attachment to fruitive action guided by detachment from duty — the exact opposite of detachment in Hinduism. Therein lies the horror of the Joker’s character: he is truly the ultimate villain.

Related posts:

1. Detachment In the “current question” Saketh posted earlier, he mentioned the...
2. The Dark Knight If you live in America and have access to the...
3. Emerson and the Bhagavad-Gita While I was reading Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay “Spiritual Laws,”...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.