Detachment is apathy

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree 100%.

originally posted by: Bluesma

-Except she isn't suffering, it's a game she loves and takes pleasure in, even if I don't.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe people like her are running from something deep inside.

In any case, what will game players do when the game of games is over? What happens when all sources of pleasure have been removed? Is there more to life than chasing the next pleasure only to rinse and repeat?

"But certain people, for whatever reason, are led to suspect that there is more to human experience than this. In fact, many of them are led to suspect this by religion—by the claims of people like the Buddha or Jesus or some other celebrated religious figures. And such a person may begin to practice various disciplines of attention—often called “meditation” or “contemplation”—as a means of examining his moment to moment experience closely enough to see if a deeper basis of well-being is there to be found.

Such a person might even hole himself up in a cave, or in a monastery, for months or years at a time to facilitate this process. Why would somebody do this? Well, it amounts to a very simple experiment. Here’s the logic of it: if there is a form of psychological well-being that isn’t contingent upon merely repeating one’s pleasures, then this happiness should be available even when all the obvious sources of pleasure and satisfaction have been removed.

If it exists at all, this happiness should be available to a person who has renounced all her material possessions, and declined to marry her high school sweetheart, and gone off to a cave or to some other spot that would seem profoundly uncongenial to the satisfaction of ordinary desires and aspirations."

-Sam Harris

Yes, that happiness exists. It makes the pleasure of fashion games look like pain by comparison.

Sam continues:

"Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation."

There is a great deal of evidence to support Sam's assertion. Your sister-in-law would be happier and healthier in the long run if she detached from fashion so that she could use that time and energy practicing meditation and learning to fast. Oh but oops, that would require detachment from gustatory pleasure. Think of the chocolate!

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

You know, more and more, I wonder if the problem in our understanding each other is based in the current difficulty people have in finding that isolation?

So you can go find this stable state.... and it doesn't disappear if you jump back in the pool!

I was able to cut myself off from the society and others for a few years, and spend my time meditating and "detaching" from everything and everyone. It was a period of great awakening for me. Perhaps I was lucky, I was in a position where I could leave all my possessions, my ties to family and environment, not work, and become closed off from language communication.
This perhaps facilitated the opening to that experience.

But it didn't cease to be an underlying truth and experience in my depths, even when I felt I wanted to take an active part in emotional projection and attachment to the world, things and others.

That "attachment" became just a bonus game to play- it is not "running from" anything. (for there is nothing to "run from" or "to" and all that..).

Perhaps, to discern a difference between being attached and personally invested by choice, out of joy,
and being so out of fear,
One must actually experience it as a material and physical event? Then the thing most feared is over and out of the way.

Maybe the reason so many cultures or disciplines require a "time in the desert" or setting off into the wilderness alone, with no possession or others.

When you come back it is because that is just fun, -because of the realization that none of it is needed.

originally posted by: Bluesma
Now, choosing to believe others are in distress or state of suffering, certainly opens the path for the believer to then feel "compassionate" (thus, virtuous... ). But that is merely an internal experience, having nothing to do with those being compassioned over.

I hear your well-stated argument, Bluesma. However, everyone is in the same boat in this realm - everything and everyone we love will die! How is that situation acceptable in terms of this place being one in which we could possibly be satisfied, much less happy, because of?

Feel into this situation deeply - everyone you love will die! Yes, we can say all sorts of poetic things about this, that at least we had some time with them, could love them, but still that is unacceptable to me. This is a realm of great sorrow if you really feel into what is happening here.

This in and of itself would be very depressing. However, there is That which is prior to all conditionality, which can be recognized as real love, unity, and utterly free - and yet, not separate from all arising. But to only invest oneself in what is changing will inevitably result in loss, sorrow, and suffering.

Those that become more sensitive to our actual plight here, may start to notice the Reality in which we all appear and disappear. This makes all the difference - and truly results in real participation in life rather than trying to abstract from it or carrying on like all of this is okay in and of itself.

originally posted by: BlueMule


"Now let me just assert, on the basis of my own study and experience, that there is no question in my mind that people have improved their emotional lives, and their self-understanding, and their ethical intuitions, and have even had important insights about the nature of subjectivity itself through a variety of traditional practices like meditation."

There is a great deal of evidence to support Sam's assertion. Your sister-in-law would be happier and healthier in the long run if she detached from fashion so that she could use that time and energy practicing meditation and learning to fast. Oh but oops, that would require detachment from gustatory pleasure. Think of the chocolate!

👣

Perhaps. But the thing is, that would require her to first feel unhappy or dissatisfied with her current path of living. Which she is not!

Most of the people one can observe becoming happier because they took up meditation started to meditate because they were not satisfied and search for a different state of being.... so it is perfectly expected that there will be a contrast observed.

Just as people into expensive handbags could probably do a study on people who set off looking for expensive handbags, and find that a very high percentage of them found themselves to be happier once they found and bought one.
Aha! They could say- Proof! -everyone would benefit and have a more peaceful and happy life if they bought themselves a nice handbag!"

originally posted by: bb23108
everyone is in the same boat in this realm - everything and everyone we love will die! How is that situation acceptable in terms of this place being one in which we could possibly be satisfied, much less happy, because of?

Feel into this situation deeply - everyone you love will die! Yes, we can say all sorts of poetic things about this, that at least we had some time with them, could love them, but still that is unacceptable to me.

I don't feel any need to not accept this. Many of my loved ones have died, and the rest will all follow. And what of it?
I will feel the pull of loss... and so? Loss is part of life, like a color of the rainbow- do you feel blue is more acceptable than red. Green more acceptable than purple?

I will cease to exist also, could happen at any moment, could happen many years from now, makes no difference. That doesn't lessen the enjoyment I get from experiencing right now! The depth I can experience in emotion and relation to that which is impermanent. It makes no sense to me to limit that depth of experience just because it is impermanent, or transient.

Part of the reason we got pets when the kids were little- so that they can experience how it is worth it to love, even if loss is an inevitable part of that. Our home is now surrounded by buried pets, who were great teachers of that principle.

originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't feel any need to not accept this. Many of my loved ones have died, and the rest will all follow. And what of it?
I will feel the pull of loss... and so? Loss is part of life, like a color of the rainbow- do you feel blue is more acceptable than red. Green more acceptable than purple?

I will cease to exist also, could happen at any moment, could happen many years from now, makes no difference. That doesn't lessen the enjoyment I get from experiencing right now! The depth I can experience in emotion and relation to that which is impermanent. It makes no sense to me to limit that depth of experience just because it is impermanent, or transient.

What I am speaking about is that if one invests themselves, like your sister, in only what is conditional, it will result in loss, sorrow, and suffering. I have to assume in reading your last few responses just now that you recognize something greater than this realm in and of itself and so play in it with a certain kind of freedom. What is that recognition for you?

If you really think it makes no difference when someone dies, I wouldn't say that to someone who just lost a child - clearly it makes a great difference to them! Are you saying it would make no difference to you?

originally posted by: Bluesma

Perhaps. But the thing is, that would require her to first feel unhappy or dissatisfied with her current path of living. Which she is not!

To get to the root of female vanity would take more time than I have. Suffice it to say, she was raised in a self-esteem culture, not a self-compassion culture.

Her expensive addiction is not sustainable. Sooner or later she will crash and suffer. Either because she can no longer afford expensive handbags, or because she is too old and wrinkled to get a satisfying boost of confidence from a handbag.

www.npr.org...

'Unidentified Woman #2: I could feed a small nation on my handbag obsession.'

Just think how much homelessness and poverty could be eased by all that money men and women are wasting on shopping addictions.

Her closets full of barely used handbags will become a burden. I've seen it happen to women who in their youth were fashion models. They can go crazy in their old age, because they couldn't detach themselves before it was too late. They cling to their closets full of useless junk for dear life.

Suppose she were to find the wisdom to see that inevitability coming while she is still young enough to learn meditation, fasting, yoga, self-compassion. The question is, would her subsequent detachment from handbags be tantamount to "suppressing Love Generosity and all things good for Life". Would that hypothetical detachment be apathetic. Would it be a bad thing.

Women don't chase handbags just for the sake of handbags. They chase self-esteem.

'Love and lover live in eternity. Other desires are substitutes for that way of being.' ~Rumi



👣

originally posted by: bb23108
What I am speaking about is that if one invests themselves, like your sister, in only what is conditional, it will result in loss, sorrow, and suffering. I have to assume in reading your last few responses just now that you recognize something greater than this realm in and of itself and so play in it with a certain kind of freedom. What is that recognition for you?

If you really think it makes no difference when someone dies, I wouldn't say that to someone who just lost a child - clearly it makes a great difference to them! Are you saying it would make no difference to you?

It would not make a difference in my enthousiasm for loving, for relation, for deeply felt experience with other.
Loss, sorrow, suffering, it is all as impermanent as any other experience.

I could say it is sad if a parent who has a child die decides that from that point on, they will not get deeply emotionally involved with loving anyone else, so as to avoid experiencing that kind of pain again.... but then, that would be me applying my own preferences upon them, assuming them to be unsatisfied or unhappy with their choice. But if they feel more at peace not loving, the that is a totally valid choice.

I guess, somehow, my spiritual path ended up making a full circle at some point, and I came to this experience of the material and physical world as being... very spiritual. I can't explain it well, and my attempts to do so are getting wordy and confusing. I don't need anyone else to feel the same, I guess sometimes I think it would be nice if others would stop telling me I do not feel this way, I must be unhappy to find the spiritual and the material merged.

a reply to: Bluesma
John 16:33
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

detachment is indeed apathy. and perhaps it takes a certain apathy to see the forest in spite of the trees.

originally posted by: Bluesma
It would not make a difference in my enthousiasm for loving, for relation, for deeply felt experience with other.
Loss, sorrow, suffering, it is all as impermanent as any other experience.

Right. And it is the impermanence that makes the choice for solely that which is impermanent, untenable for me. This is not to say that I don't engage life fully, and I very much appreciate your passion for life! I just cannot naively think that such conditionality is going to really satisfy me - it never has.

I could say it is sad if a parent who has a child die decides that from that point on, they will not get deeply emotionally involved with loving anyone else, so as to avoid experiencing that kind of pain again.... but then, that would be me applying my own preferences upon them, assuming them to be unsatisfied or unhappy with their choice. But if they feel more at peace not loving, the that is a totally valid choice.

I agree, it is best to love, to stay fully connected with life, even in the face of such great difficulties as losing a child, but such an instance would likely make the person wake up to the fact that the world is not some utopian possibility.

I guess, somehow, my spiritual path ended up making a full circle at some point, and I came to this experience of the material and physical world as being... very spiritual. I can't explain it well, and my attempts to do so are getting wordy and confusing. I don't need anyone else to feel the same, I guess sometimes I think it would be nice if others would stop telling me I do not feel this way, I must be unhappy to find the spiritual and the material merged.

Yes, I agree, that the material world is inherently spiritual, in that it arises in Reality, ultimately as a modification of conscious Light and Love that is Reality itself. But for most people they look for satisfaction/happiness in the things themselves rather than in the Reality in and as which we all appear.

a reply to: Bluesma

This is well put, and expresses so well what I keep seeing behind such belief systems- a desire to "overcome" the exterior world. To defeat, overpower, overwhelm. To run from that experience of powerlessness to control the exterior and others. To have a sense of power inside, simply from adjusting your belief about what you perceive.

The first sentence in the post you refer to was 'Overcome the world by realizing that the world is a concept'. It is not about defeating or overpowering the 'exterior world' - it is by realizing that the 'world' is a word, an idea or bunch of ideas - a concept.
There is no exterior or interior to what this is.

a reply to: Bluesma

Peace is nice- a good reason to take time in nature regularly and cease to experience separation for a while. But joy is nice too!

Nice is nice. Peace is peace and joy is joy.
All that arises is what it is and then there appears to be someone who says this is nice. Or this isn't nice.

originally posted by: bb23108

Right. And it is the impermanence that makes the choice for solely that which is impermanent, untenable for me. This is not to say that I don't engage life fully, and I very much appreciate your passion for life! I just cannot naively think that such conditionality is going to really satisfy me - it never has.

"The choice for solely that which is impermanent"..... but everything is impermanent, there is no optional choice to make, as far as I can see. Even this "I" which "sees" is impermanent.

I agree, it is best to love, to stay fully connected with life, even in the face of such great difficulties as losing a child, but such an instance would likely make the person wake up to the fact that the world is not some utopian possibility.

Maybe that is the gift/benefit of such experiences?

Yes, I agree, that the material world is inherently spiritual, in that it arises in Reality, ultimately as a modification of conscious Light and Love that is Reality itself. But for most people they look for satisfaction/happiness in the things themselves rather than in the Reality in and as which we all appear.

A part of us looks for happiness, rather than unhappiness, as a primal automatic drive. But "satisfaction" is a fleeting and impermanent state also... as soon as one goal or intent is reached, then another is born...so the concept of satisfaction is no more meaningful than that of dis-satisfaction. It is the state of disatisfaction which makes one open to more experience. Satisfaction, as a state of experience, entails a feeling of being "fulfilled" closed up, no more room for reception. I don't find that any more pleasurable than the process of getting there.

The pleasure of tasting a fabulous meal is not less pleasurable than the feeling of it ending and being full. The journey, or process, is most often more enjoyable than it's conclusion! The conclusion (or goal or intent) just becomes an excuse or reason to undertake the process.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Bluesma

This is well put, and expresses so well what I keep seeing behind such belief systems- a desire to "overcome" the exterior world. To defeat, overpower, overwhelm. To run from that experience of powerlessness to control the exterior and others. To have a sense of power inside, simply from adjusting your belief about what you perceive.

The first sentence in the post you refer to was 'Overcome the world by realizing that the world is a concept'. It is not about defeating or overpowering the 'exterior world' - it is by realizing that the 'world' is a word, an idea or bunch of ideas - a concept.
There is no exterior or interior to what this is.

Yes, choosing to perceive no separation between I and other, interior exterior, this thing and another thing, relieves one of all relationship between conceptualisations. It is a effective way of avoiding relation. All types of relation.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Bluesma
John 16:33
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

I love the world, and the experiences I have in/with it, I feel no desire to overcome it. Thanks for your (repeated) offers though.
I understand you do so with good intent, but your choice to consider that I do not exist as a separate individual makes it impossible to respect or relate to my experiences of feelings that are different from yours.
No reason to search to understand anyone else as long as you ignore that they exist, eh?

originally posted by: bb23108
And it is the impermanence that makes the choice for solely that which is impermanent, untenable for me. This is not to say that I don't engage life fully, and I very much appreciate your passion for life! I just cannot naively think that such conditionality is going to really satisfy me - it never has.

It hit me this offers me an opportunity to put into words more efficiently, that "full circle" I was talking about?
My spiritual "searching" began at a very young age (nothing was stable in my childhood, so I searched for "that which is permanent, universal". ) and it continued and continued, and I dived down deeper, expanded further, until I came to the ultimate realization that-
There is nothing. There is only unending potential. Nothing and everything in one.
So there remains really nothing else but to experience the present, in all it's forms, concepts, objects and entities, and fleeting impermanence!

And instead of being terribly uncertain, it became suddenly marvelously freeing.

originally posted by: Bluesma
No reason to search to understand anyone else as long as you ignore that they exist, eh?

Is there anyone else? Is there anyone at all?

There is nothing. There is only unending potential. Nothing and everything in one.
So there remains really nothing else but to experience the present, in all it's forms, concepts, objects and entities, and fleeting impermanence!

There is not a someone who experiences the present (duality - two things). The present presents itself as 'experiencing' (no dual - not two things) - which is not a thing (nothing/nothing).
'Experiencing' (which is not a thing) appears as everything.

a reply to: Bluesma

fulfilling relationships are like caffeine to me. and then solitude hits me like a blown fuse. detachment becomes a temptation at that point, because "nighttime" sometimes feels like it outweighs the "daytime". like joy would be a more than reasonable price to pay if i never felt pain or sorrow again. but i dont want to be a zombie. i have to remind myself that the night sky is just as much a part of the sun as one side of the pendulums arc is the other. a hard concept to hold onto sometimes, light and dark is a process of drawing lines between worse and better, black and white, up and down. me and not me. and if i lose that, then i lose me. detachment is only as useful as the attachment that shares its weight on the other side of the scale.