Being detached makes sense in many ways: detachment is undoubtedly more conducive to peace, strength, stability and having a sense of control of one’s life. It was none other than Buddha who once cited desire as the cause of suffering. And desire involves the will to ‘attach’ onself to someone, something or some psychological state. I have used the term ‘attach’ to imply its broadest sense, because it is more useful to think of it that way, as opposed to using ‘attach’ and ‘attachment’ to merely imply an emotional connection.
Attachment, put simply, is our means of surviving, deriving gratification and maintaining stability. It is a way to fill voids we find within ourselves, due to particular psychological and/or environmental states—both of which are prone to frequent change. In a sense, we ‘consume’ the world in order to fill this void. A natural question arises then: how much of the world do we need to consume, in order to have peace and stability—if that is what we would like? Indeed, much anguish in life is a consequence of attachment to the physical and mental world–attachment to the self, other living beings, inanimate objects and pleasure. The more attached we are to things and other beings, and the more things and beings we are attached to, the more we increase our risk towards instability, anxiety, stress and a lack of control; we see this often in the case of attachment to other human beings. Also, greater attachment often goes hand-in-hand with greater expectation, and some expectations are unrealistic from the outset. When our expectations are not realised, they often cause disappointment, pain or stress. Self-attachment would include, among other things, the ego and thus would account for drives born from the ego. Perhaps this is why some eastern schools of spirituality prescribe detachment–to undo or lessen the proclivity to emotional instability and anguish that attachment often creates. Of course, self-attachment is an intrinsic facet of a human being. Clearly, self-preservation also demands self-attachment, but the idea of detachment should not be construed as an attempt to remove even this modicum of self-attachment. I am reminded of the tale in Indian mythology of the little boy, Dhruva. He managed to go so deep into a meditative stage that at one point, he stopped eating, and ultimately even stopped breathing. The boy’s endeavour used to inspire me; it still does. However, I doubt that the level of self-detachment that Dhruva attained would be possible in reality. It is important to note that a discussion of detachment becomes pointless when we consider some things—say for instance, war-zones or poverty. Take the latter of these, poverty: were it the case that we were living in a world and a system, in which there was a cost-free and always-adequate supply of things, and which covered basic needs for all, things may have been different. However, the unfortunate reality of the world is that people have to earn their living, and many people live in penury and squalor. This automatically brings into action survivalist drives and the need of such individuals to fight and prove themselves. In such circumstances, attachment in its various manifestations becomes the means of escaping to a better life. While attachment brings great pleasure, it also brings great pain. The ego gives rise to desires, ambitions and vanity; sometimes, egotistical drives manifest themselves as animal aggression. Egotistical desires often bring frustration and anguish to people when they are faced with the prospect of failure. Also when there is desire, then intolerance, envy, exploitation, deceit, greed, desperation and pain may follow; sometimes these desires make one ruthless and may bring hatred and violence in their wake.
On the other hand, attachment has also brought much richness and diversity to our world. Much art and ideation has come out of attempting to satiate the ego. People have created music and paintings, invented philosophies, written books, built monuments, become rich and powerful—often in their quest for immortality; in fact, many people have children for want of immortality. It is ironic that intelligence hasn’t made us see past this lure of immortality, and it is doubly ironic that this lure, along with vanity, has propelled so much creation, procreation, and ideation. Science and technology have transformed the way we think and live. Many scientific discoveries and breakthroughs too, like other fields and activities, have been propelled by individuals wanting to prove themselves to others. Of course, it is possible to create, ideate or achieve, without wanting in the least to satiate the ego–indeed there would be examples of this happening. But this is largely not the case, and it is not without reason why it is so: more often than not, the more latent desire to entertain oneself or to keep oneself occupied, or do something purely out of happiness will not provide sufficient incentive or drive, to push oneself beyond one’s comfort zone or make sacrifices. In other words, self-detachment would largely undermine such drives–it would render competitiveness and egotistical drives useless, and not forget to elucidate the stupidity and pettiness of human behaviour while doing so.
Consider for a minute a system, in which everyone is treated equal, and in which there is no credit or reward given for excelling or achieving something difficult—no money, power, glory or recognition. Furthermore, imagine that no individual in this society has a name. Thus, all achievement, creation, and ideation in this system would be anonymous. We would find two fundamental problems while considering such a system: 1. Human beings are fundamentally unequal; 2. Human beings have a natural proclivity for attachment, to the self or otherwise. We would thus, sooner or later, find problems emerging in this society. This is because total equality is an illusion and is not in-sync with the intrinsic human machinery of attachment. Communism attempted to build an equal and classless society, and clearly ran into problems. On the other hand, meritocratic systems provide people with the incentive and drive to compete and work hard; in such systems, the deserving are rewarded and/or recognised. This in turn fuels creativity, innovation, and wealth creation. Capitalism, with all its goods and evils, is an example of such a system. How about when it comes to finding a mate? What about the cosmetics industry? Clearly, the method to find a mate and the costmetics industry work the way they do largely because of attachment: no self-attachment would mean no displays—egotistical or otherwise—of oneself, and the state of having no desire to look attractive would largely undermine the mechanisms that make sexuality or the cosmetics industry work the way they do.
Egotistical desires are an outcome of a natural competitive instinct that humans have–as do all animals. Attachment in its various forms is thus, a natural state of human beings. Thus, if it is detachment that we seek, then we would have to strive towards it, unless of course if due to particular events in our life and/or natural shifts in our psychology, detachment finds us. But the question still remains: exactly how does one become more detached? The answer: we would have to first understand ourselves. After this, we would have to strengthen our selves–strengthen the inner core of our being, if you will. Understanding our self and our relationship with the world is vital: after all, it is hard to work on, improve or strengthen something you do not understand. Once we understand, we would be able to isolate the things that destabilise us and cause us anxiety and stress. We would then have to discipline our selves into making choices that ensure that the anxiety and stress causing attachments are not chosen. Strengthening oneself is essentially to do with developing greater self-control. Consequently, we would be able to work on increasing peace and stability. Greater knowledge of oneself and one’s relationship to one’s world is effectively a kind of consciousness expansion. This expanded consciousness would, among other things, naturally lead to a more comprehensive weighing of the pros and cons of the choices that we face, and allow us to better answer whether a particular choice would actually make us achieve what we want to achieve. Strengthening the self would cause us to become more self-reliant and consequently reduce our dependencies on the external world. The ‘inner void’ would reduce, which would translate to less ‘consumption’ of the external world. We would effectively become more detached than before; as mentioned at the beginning of this essay, this would bring us more peace, stability and a greater sense of control to our life. Clearly, this is not at all an easy task. It is imaginable that some people would think that, given their psychological and/or environmental conditions, it is impossible for them to let go of attachments. Detachment would involve a fair bit of discipline and hardship to achieve; after all in the normal scheme of things, detachment is not a state that comes naturally to human beings. But then, being disciplined and enduring hardships are to be expected when we want to achieve something that is hard to attain. States such as the sex-drive, love, and the ego are arguably the hardest things to be detached about, after of course the basic survival-oriented states such as thirst, hunger, cold, heat, pain etc. Satiating these survival-oriented states would comprise the modicum of self-attachment that was mentioned earlier; thus, we need not go into them. The states of the sex-drive, love, and the ego are entrenched deep into our being. They are evolutionary strategies that have been responsible, in no small measure, for the evolution and perpetuation of human beings. It is thus easy to imagine that detachment from these forces, in the normal scheme of things, would prove to be very difficult because their very purpose is to create attachment. In other words, these states are antithetical to the cause of detachment. Unfortunately, the aforementioned triumvirate is also exactly what causes the greatest instability and lack of peace, when the voids created by them are not filled, or filled but not with the right stuff. While proponents of attachment would argue that love—both the giving and receiving of it—brings joy, and the stronger one’s attachment is with someone, the more intense the love felt is likely to be. In a sense, the reward that attachment offers in a relationship is commensurate with the risk of pain—which loss, separation and strife would bring. Also, while one derives pleasure from one’s attachments, sometimes they may feel like a drain on one’s time and energy. Essentially for the proponents of attachment, it may come down to accepting the occasional bad things that come with the good things. Moreover, if for whatever reason we do not feel happy, then attachments—especially human attachments—may help us feel better. Furthermore, for the emotionally unstable or clinically depressed, detachment may be an insurmountable task. Indeed, it may be case that any kind of detachment is impossible for some. That said, an individual should be careful in ascribing impossibility to a task: it may well be the lack of the will to make an effort, because of which an individual thinks he or she is incapable of doing something. On the other hand, if we manage to strengthen our inner core, we would find more contentment within ourselves, and consequently seek less attachment from the outside. The point here is, that when we are attached to things, our desires, and consequently the choices we make, may be naturally different from the choices we make, when we are detached from those things. The central things to remember here are that it all depends on one’s frame of consciousness, and that psychology is mutable–inner voids would change with shifting psychology. Consequently, the kind and level of attachment we would seek with the world may also change. I mentioned in the opening passage that attachment is a way to fill voids we find in ourselves, due to particular psychological and/or environmental states. Here are two examples to make this point clear:
1. Person X passes by a shop, and an item on display there catches his/her attention. He/she is instantly attracted to it, and desires to own it.
2. Person Y is feeling depressed and lonely. He/she starts telephoning and text-messaging known people to get some affection or emotional comfort from them.
Clearly both examples illustrate that a combination of psychological and environmental states lead to the will to attach oneself to something or someone. In X’s case, the environmental state, of being close to a shop and being attracted to some object, is more influential; In Y’s case, it is the psychological state of being depressed that is more influential. If both X and Y were to follow the steps to become more detached–the steps: understanding and strengthening oneself–they would have greater control over their desires to buy some item or telephone people. The understanding-of-self bit would tell X and Y, the reasons why they are seeking those attachments and that the actions they want to take would only solve the purpose of filling short-lived voids. The strengthening bit would aid in controlling their desires. In the above examples, X and Y would most probably not have harmed themselves if they had succumbed to their desires. The idea here is merely to illustrate how detachment works and that it can change the outcomes of events, essentially by changing or influencing our psychology and hence also our choices.
The point of this discussion has been to understand, how attachment as well as detachment influence us and our world. The motivation behind this essay has been to elucidate the pros and cons associated with the two, rather than to profess that one or the other is the better one to follow. Ultimately, it is up to an individual to decide what works best for him or her. If a person is generally happy with the way things are in his or her life, and is well aware of the potential risks that attachments bring with them, then clearly, there is no need to make changes. However, if one feels anxiety, stress or a general lack of stability, it is worthwhile to try different things and see if one ends up feeling any better. The process itself, of trying new things, can make us understand ourselves better. Essentially, this happens because new experiences can lend insight, into the choices we make and also why we make those choices. Moreover, the line between needs and wants can be re-negotiated in order to achieve a more stable equilibrium. This understanding itself is a step forward in the direction of making better choices and choosing our attachments wisely. In the long run, this is likely to serve us well.
End.
