Why strive for anything spiritually?

Nice post and response... some comments...

BlackBillBlake, you hit the nail on the head with the Blake quote. I must comment however that you are only attached to things on earth because you choose to be. You find total detachment unrealistic. Why? If you think it's too difficult, it's possible that you have the wrong idea of attachment. As the next poster said, you still enjoy yourself, you still love your children and you still feel pain when they are hurt. But the thing is, you see the big picture. You just take it as it comes, and let it go as it goes, because you understand the nature of impermanence, etc. Yes it seems biologically impossible to detach from your children, but its just a matter of seeing the big picture and accepting reality with total love.

"Perhaps that is a deeper aspect of my self which oversees the day to day attchment of the outward ego and persona...." You're definitely onto something here

"The thing is that it is just as easy to get attached to 'virtue' as it is to 'vice'.
Feelings of moral self-righteousness etc are one symptom of this." - This is a CRUCIAL point, one that is often overlooked (by yours truly, at times!)

"I'm not sure that total non-attachment is a realistic possibility for the human being." I disagree here. It has been attained in the past. Yes, it takes a very special person. Your average human has absolutely no chance of even coming close. However, it can be done.

"How for example, can a parent be non-attached to their child and it's fate? To be so would to be less than human - not some superhuman achievement." This where I think you really go astray. This could not be farther from the truth. An enlightened person is going to love his/her child as much as any person ever could... absolute, unconditional, compassionate, empathetic, pure holy love. No one would ever recommend otherwise. You aren't making the distinction between love/caring/involvement and attachment. Someone can love their child, and want the best for their child, with all of his/her heart, and still remain detached. It's the clinging that is the problem. By becoming detached and eliminating the clinging and grasping, one can be an objectively loving parent who still allows their children room to grow, etc. I have experienced first hand a parent who loves her child more than anything in the world, yet she clings to him so much and is so full of attachment for him, investing so much energy in his every move, that it has done much to damage both the mother and son. Because in the end, your child is not you, and you are not your child. Every human's first priority is to work on himself, purifying himself, loving himself... by ridding yourself of attachment, even to your child, you are freeing your own soul, thus equiping you with the mindset necessary to be a good parent. The perfect parent is the detached parent, because the clinging, grasping parent always has that pesky ego, that pesky desire to control, etc., standing in the way. Now this does not mean that the perfect parent sets no rules for his/her child - it's much deeper than that.

"Some say to this - ok, so there are good and bad attachments" Again I can't agree. There are no good attachments - detachment is almost an all or nothing thing. You are either detached from our earthly existence, or you aren't.

"being attached to the welfare of other beings and the universe is a good attachment." No, I'm afraid even that will lead one astray. That very thing has plagued me for years, actually. I was always so obsesssed with "being a good person" and using my talents to do the most for humanity, that I became completely lost, always devising elaborate schemes for how I could best make a positive difference in the world, and it just doesn't work. Attachment is like obsession, addiction. Think of it that way. Addictions cloud judgment. An addiction is something born out of the ego, it is something you do for your own pleasure... true selflessness cannot come from attachment. Selflessness with addiction/obsession is actually selfish, because the good is mostly likely done only to satisfy the do-gooder's ego. The englightened one does not obsess over doing good, he just does it because it's the obvious answer.

"It's the same with desires - it varies for each person which desires it is ok to fulfill and which ones have to be kept under control." Enlightenment is a state of completely satisfaction. There is no more desire to be kept under control.

"Money, status, power etc are usually negative attachments. Addiction to 'cheap thrills' in whatever form is usually bad. But one can't generalize even here. What looks like cheap thrills to one person may have some deep significance for another -" Ah ha, I think this is another key point... see, these are always negative attachments. All attachment is bad, and all addiction is bad. However, it is not the cheap thrill itself that is bad. There is nothing wrong with sex. It is attachment to sex that is bad. Having sex every night with a loved one, without attachment, is perfectly acceptable - masturbating to vile pornography at all hours of the day is not. There is a distinction that must be made between wanting money and being attached to money. I want money because with it I can provide a safe, healthy life full of opportunity for myself and my loved ones. Money is also important because with money comes the ability to effect change, the ability to make things happen. It's hard to build a home for the needy without any material/financial resources. However I am not attached to money. Based on the wealth of my family and the amount of money I expect to make in my life, I will probably be pretty well off one day. I'm fine with this, I won't turn it down, because I know I can put it to good use. However, if I were to somehow lose a million dollars, I wouldn't lose sleep over it, because I'm not attached to it. I don't really care. It will be great to have money, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't happen. Same with love. I very much want to find my "soulmate" or whatever. That has been very important to me for as long as I can remember. However, I am detached from it, and if I die alone, fine, it was meant to be. It just isn't that big of a deal. There are plenty of other couples out there doing their love thing, and if I am not destined to join their ranks, then whatever, there's nothing I can do about it. My love and I would just end up dying anyway


"As Vivekananda said , " The true man is he who has developed his powers of concentration (attachment) and detachment. He will be able to attach to a thing with all his heart or soul and get the best out of it, and at the same he will be able to detach himself at will. Such a man will be able to get the best out of nature."" - I agree with this completely, except I take issue with the word attachment. All attachment is bad, because attachment is clinging. I am extremely involved in music, and I pour my entire being into it, but I am not attached to it. The point is the same - that you can engage with full emotion and thought with whatever you are doing, and then detach from it - but I think it's misleading to say one can attach and detach at will. If you're attached, you're attached, and it's usually not easy to turn it off.

"And I believe this is the peak of manhood, where one is not affected by anything and loves all unconditionally. And I believe this is pure love as well." Rock on!!!

 

True but if they misbehave most parents get upset . Same thing if they get low grades, or doesn't measure up to expectations . And most parents I know, instead of pragmatically thinking of solutions (which comes from a detached mind )for their childrens woes, get emotive due to their intense emotional attachment for them and blame them or exert pressure on them to succeed at any cost illogically . I have seen this a lot.

I am not saying that one should not love them. One ought to love them, tenderly with all one's heart , and at the same time reserve the power of detachment as well. It is a bit hard, but it is possible.

Well, Krishna and Buddha and many others have achieved this state of non-attachment, and at the same time you cannot say they didn't have love in their hearts.

Just because you are detached from everything doesn't mean that you should not do your duties ( which Krishna and Buddha clearly emphasizes everyone must do).
Eating food to take of your body is a duty and righteous act, and if you do not do that you naturally come to trouble.

May be for you, but not for me. I think manliness is a virtue, and this has been stated by Vivekananda as well.

Any way I don't think feminists will be offended by me or Vivekananda, as both of us see women as the manifestation of the Divine Mother of the universe, and revere them. Vivekananda and Ramakrishna worshipped them.

Most feminists will be happy about that.

 

One other thing I meant to mention: BlackBillBlake, you said that it is impossible to be totally detached unless one is in some sort of trance like state. I think this is an important point. At one time I feared that enlightenment really is just a trance of numbness - I've heard stories of TM practitioners becoming very spacy, and there are quite a few acid casualties who are just a little too spaced out... However, I no longer believe this is the case. A story that illustrates this is the story of Neem Karoli Baba's acid trip. He actually took acid at least twice. The first time he took 900 micrograms, an extremely strong dose, and it appeared to have no effect on him. Ram Dass was so blown away, that he actually thought that perhaps the guru had tricked him and avoided swallowing the pills. The second time, he took an even bigger dose - 1200 micrograms. This time, Ram Dass to extra care to watch him swallow the pills. An hour later, the guru turned to Ram Dass and asked, "Do you have anything stronger?" Obviously the acid was not having a major effect on him. Now, why is that? At first I thought maybe it was because the guru had worked himself into some sort of a trance over the years. Perhaps the Maharaji actually trips all day long, just be being enlightened! But I don't think this is quite the case.

You see, when you look at a picture of the guru, you cannot ever, EVER imagine him being genuinely distressed about anything. And that is because HE LITERALLY CANNOT BE UPSET BY ANYTHING. Of COURSE he wasn't blown away by 1200 micrograms of acid... because guess what... you could cut off his damn FOOT and he could take it! Because *HE SIMPLY DOES NOT CARE.* He is not attached. His inner consciousness is completely detached from reality. No matter what is happening to his body - whether he is being tortured, whether his senses are being overloaded on a major heavy acid trip, or if nothing is happening at all - he is not attached to it and he does not overly concern himself with it. I don't know if you've tripped, but if you have, then you will see just how unbelievable it is that someone could remain completely unaffected, outwardly, by 1200 mikes of acid, simply by being detached. It is the most amazing testament to the power of our mind to simply LET GO that I have ever seen. In Tomorrow Never Knows, John Lennon instructs acid trippers, "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream." That is how experienced trippers handle it without freaking out. And that is exactly what Neem Karoli Baba does all day long. He simply relaxes and floats downstream.

 

The term 'Attach' according to my oxford dictionary is to fasten or join. I believe this is distinct from clinging. Hence I believe attachment is somewhat synonymous with concentration.

Any way Vivekananda uses the terms concentration (mainly) and attachment too.
Anyway the message is the same.

 

Non-attachment or detachment is a state of mind that comes with meditation, yoga or living in the present moment.

Taking drugs is counter productive to spiritual evolution , and it damages the brain and the nervous system. And I believe all those so-called gurus who take drugs are frauds and charlatans, and this is not condoned by Hinduism, Buddhism or the other Dharmic religions.

 

Hare Krishna!

Total detachment is possible only when total attachment is achieved. Only unconditional love makes both possible. You get totally attached with the whole creation and at the same time you remain detached because both become meaningless. Unconditional love is possible only when you become one and all.

 

Who has been totally unattached? How do you know they were un-attached?

This would only apply if you equated 'enlightened' with 'non-attached'.
You could say that an enlightened person sees that they have no choice but to be attached, and so they are careful about what they become attached to. The line taken by the Vaishnava school is something like this.

I don't think so.

As I said in my previous post, to seek happiness by proxy through one's children is an abberation.
In parenting, balance is needed - a child needs to feel loved, but not smothered -

If you have children, your first priority is changed until the time they reach responsible age. That has to be clearly understood.
The idea present in some Indian religion of going off and leaving one's family to become a 'holy man' or something, is a totally unacceptable thing for a responsible person in today's world.
Since we're using the rather unPC term 'manhood' - I'd say that it is best exemplified in the devoted and loving father.

Aggh.

I think I made it clear enough that I myself feel many attachments, but know they will end with death. I really don't subscribe to this idea that one can get out of all attachments. I am attched to many things in my earthly existence. I see no advantage in deluding myself into imagining I'm not attached - and really, a part of love is attachment. I mean of course, love which has some object. And I wonder what the function oif love could be without some object.

Well I didn't mean you should set out to save the world. That's beyond the capacity of any one person. You can only do a limited amount.
But what I meant is more a kind of underlying positive attitude towards other people, other animals, the earth itself.
Since I think that the non-attached state is actually an illusion, I feel that it is better to be attached to acting with kindness and so on than projecting either negativity or an aura of the aloofness.

Are you speaking here from direct experience as an enlightened person? If not, then how do you know this is so.
If you think you are, obviously I'd have to say think again.

I'm glad you agree that there's nothing wrong with sex. But when I said cheap thrills it wasn't necesarilly sex I was thinking of - more stuff like alcohol, coke, TV, computer games -

There's also attachment to non-attchment to consider in all this. If you insist on this idea, aren't you showing attachment in doing so? Attachment to a mental-linguitic construct?

 

I would agree that this is a state we can enter - it would perhaps be what is called 'bhava samhadi'. The thing is though that as you say, in such a state the whole idea of a self, attachment, non-attchment - all become utterly meaningless. Like so much dust on an obscure shelf somwhere..
However - we can't usually remain permanantly in such a state - there is a kind of re-entry into the small self with it's karmic attachments and obligations. At least that seems to be so for ordinary people.

When one reads accounts of saints of the past like Chaitanya, usually whilst in this higher state, they would become very aloof from ordinary life - they would be in a trance type of state.
This is all good and wonderful - but as the old proverb states, 'someone has to bring home the bacon' - what I mean is that to function properly in the everyday world where one may have a family to care for or other responsibilities, one can't be wandering around all the time in trance.
I am stressing this because most of the forum users are presumably people living more or less 'normal' mundane lives. I think it is important for people to act with responsibility - in fact, I think the only way we can build a better world is for people to become more responsible and self-regulating.
I believe that Krishna says that one must never give up one's proper duties - so in everyday life I think attachment to doing things correctly can be a good thing, but no doubt there are states in which attachment and everything else, all conception whatsoever falls away...
I'd go furher and say that even a glimpse of what you are talking about gives an entirely new perspective on our life here - and above all, the absolute super-exellence of love.
If we can see the All, then we can learn how to function properly as the small part of that which we humans are. Knowing that we are That and at the same time we are these small creatures wandering about the world....with all the flaws and attachments.

EDIT: The idea that we should be attached to the good of all is really something which comes from Buddhism in my own mind. 'The welfare of all sentient beings'.
I'd say that taking such an attitude may be one way in which we can move towards the experience of the All. Just by making ourselves think of others, putting ourselves in their shoes, perhaps we gradually get away from relating everything to our selves all the time. Thus we rise into a higher self - and so it goes on like layers of an onion.
Probably that's also part of the reason Jesus told us to love one another.

 

I don't mean just that kind of trance. Some ecstatic Indian mystics like Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and others used to enter into an ecstatic active state known as bhava samhadi.
The outward signs of this vary, but are certainly very far from numbness.

In general, Indian philosophy speaks of two kinds of samhadi, or absorbtion in the One, Unity with the divine.
There is savi-kalpa samhadi and nirvi-kalpa samdhadi. Neither is a state of nunbness or unconsciousness, but degrees of a superconscious state.
Savi-kalpa samhadi is samhadi where there are still some dualities, some attributes. So far as my knowledge extends, bhava samahadi is a type of savi-kalpa samhadi.
Nirvi-kalpa samhadi is said to take one entirely beyond the renge of cosmic existence and time. It is said that it is quite rare for anyone who experiences this to remain in the body. They will only return into the circles of time and manifest existence if they have a special mission. It reperesnts the total anhilitation of the individual, so it's hard to see in a way what could return.....
Vivekananda is said to have had this experience during his time with Sri Ramkrishna prior to coming to the west. It is said that it took him many weeks to recover normal functions after the experience.

In other traditions too, like Chan and Zen Buddhism, there is no suggestion that satori is a passive experience, or a turning away from the world - rather it is a direct and immediate seeing into the nature of reality.

There are innumerable accounts of special states of consciousness from many different sources and diverse cultures.

 

I wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't for the context. If this was aimed at men only as a teaching, fine. If for instance you were talking to a group of soldiers - fine. If we were asking what constitutes 'manliness' fine.
But here is a teaching aimed, I assume, at all humanity, thus it is unfortunate to phrase it in male oriented terms.
What if he'd said 'it represents the height of womanliness' and just left it at that? You see what I'm saying here. It is purely a cultural usage of the time which is not appropriate today. Like calling black folks niggers or gay people by all manner of names. We have to aim to be inclusive.
I actually quite admire Vivekekananda, but he expressed himself sometimes in language which was acceptable in that time and society - I'm sure if he were to speak today, he would choose different words in line with the new social conditions which now exist, with new sensitivities that are necessary, where women are seen as equal to men, and so things are to be expressed to reflect that.

Anyway, although I am a femminist sympathizer, I'm not against the idea of maleness.I don't think men should become effeminate. Far from it.:H
I do think that in the west, a lot of men have lost touch with their inner femminine side - and that is unfortunate and leads to a variety of machismo type models of what maleness is. In my view a complete man knows both the masculine and the femminine. But that doean't lead to either effeminacy or androgony.

A man is a true man who has discovered the nobility of his own true inner nature. Guided by that, he acts with compassion, and can move beyond the limited sphere of self interest.
It is the man who works both for his own betterment and the betterment of the world around him, even if that is only in what seem small ways.

 

This I'm afraid is a total absurdity.
If you cut off someones foot, they will generally either bleed to death or die from cardiac arrest. Further, if you stop the bleeding and they survive, they will no longer be able to walk. Thus they have been changed by the experience.

What is more absurd still, is to imagine that a master such as Neem Baba is detached from reality. A master is a master because he has seen reality. He has become 'reality'.
What is the 'inner consciousness' in which he was so immersed other than reality? Why do you think it was different from his outer consciousness?

On a day which celebrates the death of a greater master than Baba by nailing to a tree, the absurdity ought to be clear.

It would have been interesting IMO if when Baba asked for something stronger Ram Das had given him ketamine.

 

I agree 100% , thank you!!

 

I don't know to what you are pointing this argument, but i see that you seem to look at this from the perspective of the body, while in the quote that you are responding to, the person is referring to the individual as not the body. Obviously there is a change in the individual physically, but mentally and spiritually even though there is pain physically, a detached individual does not suffer.

you see pain is a physical response, suffering is not, it is actually a mental and emotional response. He will not make the foot injury ruin the rest of his life is what I think this person is trying to say.

 

I don't believe that the individual wouldn't suffer if you cut off the foot.
Everyone has the same sensitivity to pain etc. And I'm equally sure they would be affected in more than body. The pain etc would surely provoke some vital/mental reaction.

 

Well, through manliness, Vivekananda emphasizes strength and courage.

Also I have clearly read a letter of Vivekananda in a letter to a female friend of his, asking her to imbibe manliness, considering the fact that she was facing some problems which had shaken her and left her despondent.

So you can see that Vivekananda emphasizes manliness , for all humanity.

There is no meaning for womanliness in my oxford dictionary , and hence I cannot comment on that.

Also 'womanliness', doesn't have the connotations of strength and courage.

However, I must say that Vivekananda, had stated that " The true man is he who is brave and strong as strength itself, and at the same time , has the heart of a woman. "

He has many times expressed reverence and admiration for the heart of a woman, especially the mother.

Well Vivekananda lived in the times where the terms '******' were quite common parlance in the West. However , while he used the term 'manliness' , he never used the term '******' even though it was a commonly used word at those times.

I disagree with this. I can't say about Vivekananda, but I will definetely use the word 'manliness' , in order to emphasize the noble masculine virtues like strength of character and courage and firmness.



Also wish to state an another quote of Vivekananda to put things in perspective......

"Manliness without saintliness is the devils dance. Saintliness without manliness is hypocrisy and humbug. "

Yeah, according to Hindu philosophy, every person has a masculine and feminine side in him or her, and this is expressed in the idea of " ardhanareshwara" or Shiva Shakti.

 

The fact that Vivekanandaji used the term "manliness" is not a big deal if you can see it in the context that he was using it... as Niranjan pointed it out. Besides at the time it is true that the term "mankind" was used over "humankind"... its kind of silly to argue over it. What he is saying itself is sort of more important than whether or not he is PC about it (and hey...aren't we neither and both man and woman for we are migratory atman and not our bodies? hehehe)

 

Its quite alright, you will start believing it when you see it happen.

 

That is not the trend. Many Rishis lived with their families and had children,and were highly responsible and loving towards them, and at the same time was in a state of non-attachment.

Janaka, the famous king of ancient India, achieved enlightenment through Karma Yoga ( the yoga of action ), without having any need to leave his family or subjects.

Same thing too with Rama , Krishna, Ramakrishna, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Mata Amritanandamayi, Sri Yukteshwar, Guru Nanak, Guru Govind Singh,Guru Teg Bahadur and other great yogis who had families and fulfulled their responsibilities to their family well.

I don't think there is any need to leave your family in order to pursue spirituality . However I must say that it is sometimes important to temporarily withdraw from your family, friends and loved ones, in order to acquire a certain level of development in spirituality and also for introspection.

A few days or a few months at the most is enough.


After attaining a fair level of spiritual development and consequent powers of concentration and detachment and self-discipline through yoga, then one is able to stay with ones family and friends and loved ones, without any danger of being inordinately attached to them or anything else. This would also enable them to be better lovers and do their duties well without the clouding of the mind by uncontrolled attachments.

This will definetely result in an enhanced quality of life, both professionally and personally.

Also wish to state that this temporary withdrawal from family is only sometimes needed. You can also stay in the midst of your family and friends, and through yoga , develop yourself spiritually and develop other qualities as well as I have stated above. However one ought to be well-focussed and disciplined, and keep the goal in mind, and strictly give some time to oneself.


Siddhartha is one Indian who left his family and kingdom , in his search for wisdom and truth.

And in a way I believe this is synonymous with a soldier, who loves his family, but leaves them in order to fight for the defence of his country against foreign aggression.

It is true that his family loses him in the process, but he saves the lives of other families by fighting in their defence, and hence his so-called irresponsibility against his family is overlooked. It is the same with the Buddha. Siddhartha left his family and kingdom in order to find the cause of suffering and how to eradicate it. And in the process he got himself enlightened, which is a tremondous achievement in itself, taught the world his wisdom and knowledge, thereby elevating the moral and intellectual and spiritual culture of the world.Many have become enlightened through his teachings, and many have achieved peace and happiness and righteousness through them as well.

Considering the great good that has come through the Buddha's efforts, you can overlook his failure to fulfil his duties towards his family and kingdom, but through that , the whole world has gained from it. His family's loss was the world's gain and good fortune.

Also wish to state that Buddha came back to his family with his disciples and inducted his wife and son to monkhood and taught his wisdom to them as well.

 

Sorry to be niggling, but it was easy for Buddha's family to survive when he left them as he was a rich man - a prince.

In practical terms in todays world it would be irresponsible for the ordinary person.

Ramakrishna too recommended a temporary withdrawal from family life, and that seems ok.

However, I've met at least one iskconite who left a wife and children to join up. This is IMO a purely selfish action. The man had no problem begetting the children, but then fails in his responsibility towards them. If one can't care for one's own dependents even, how can one care for all humanity?

Or are we saying that non-attachment means indifference and even coldness towards others?

 

If you have children ...I would think your Dharma would be to care for those children and provide for them and a family. I would think that you might be spiritual and unattached and still be a householder... if you couldn't...wouldn't you limit yourself... and I suppose you wouldn't be very unattached...as I suppose to be unattached has to hold steady through any and all situations