#(but I do think people don't realize how significant the spiritual component to our being is)

[a-space-for-mimi]

PMDD is not fun. lol.

[sagebodisattva]

Practical Detachment in the Modern World

So, in wrapping up the three part series on detachment, our general overview of the philosophical concept has revealed that this particular specialty is a very difficult undertaking for mankind to accomplish. This is why I think it is more apt to be called a discipline, rather then a philosophical concept, as proficiency in detachment requires a prolonged continuous effort, the sustained practice, of which, eventually leading to adept mastery. It is fair to say that the majority of mankind's spiritual struggles all have some kind of relation to attachments. Indeed, the ego's very existence itself could be said to be an embodiment of attachment. Now, this is not to say that this makes the ego bad, or that the ego should be punished or eliminated, as an ego is just an instrumentation, but that one can utilIze the ego as a means to realize that associations with illusions are not an identity. In others words, the true self is not the ego. The recognition of this dates back thousands and thousands of years. Detachment, as release from desire and consequently from suffering, is an important principle, or even ideal, in the Bahá'í Faith, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Taoism. In Buddhist and Hindu religious texts the opposite concept is expressed as upādāna, translated as "attachment". Attachment, that is the inability to practice or embrace detachment, is viewed as the main obstacle towards a serene and fulfilled life.

Many other spiritual traditions identify the lack of detachment with the continuous worries and restlessness produced by desire and personal ambitions. So this struggle has been the case for the ego ever since the emergence of the ego; that is, as the evolution of consciousness moved from a purely instinctual operating system into self consciousness. Was this shift in consciousness an original sin? Was this development when mankind fell from grace, as some dubious theological myths would have us believe? Well, these types of judgments are unnecessary, and this in itself represents the crux of the overall problem: with self consciousness comes delusion, for to become self conscious necessarily involves the use of false constructs to establish distinctions; and these false constructs are primarily produced and sustained through ideology and the acquisition of knowledge; which thereby give rise to judgments, which in themselves facilitate attachments; that is: anxiety and suffering cultivated through a thinking process that invests a sense of well being and equilibrium in desire, of which, is the constant flux of visceral affect, such as excitement or suffering, that is dependent on perceivables behaving a specific way, accordingly to how they have been framed by the judgments. This isn't ever an issue with the instinctual operating system. Indeed, this only becomes a psychological struggle, aka suffering, with the advent of self consciousness. Without the psychological component, organisms simply navigate feelings, which are not the same thing as emotions; just as, similarly, pain is not the same thing as suffering. People seek to infuse feelings with emotions, or pain with suffering, because they don't want to admit that emotions and suffering are the result of a cognitive disturbance. That they are, in fact, self inflicted afflictions produced wholly by thinking mind narrative about what the feelings and pain mean to the persona. In other words, they are judgments on feelings, which disturb the default calm of the mind with a contrived self imposed deception.

Now some will say that pain and suffering, or feelings and emotions, go hand in hand, but I'm gonna call bullshit on that, not because it isn't the case, but because it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be the case. It's completely optional; like salad dressing.

To illustrate this point, dig this twofold story: In story A, a man on a bicycle runs over the mailman's foot. The mailman is in pain, and reacts to it. He sits down on the curb, writhing and groaning a bit, rubbing his foot, but the pain eventually begins to subside, and he thinks nothing of it. The biker apologizes and the mailman tells him not to worry about it. The mailman resumes his route. The end. In story B, a man on a bicycle runs over the mailman's foot. The mailman is in pain and reacts to it. He is also extremely angry and offended, and feels a bit embarrassed, thinking he may look foolish, or that the biker has possibly done him an injustice. The mailman feels compelled to retaliate. He ignores the pain and punches the apologetic biker in the face, knocking him to the ground, then curses him out, picks up the bicycle and smashes it down onto the concrete. As he gives the biker one last swift kick to the ribs, he screams that he fucked with the wrong one and warns him that next time he'll get it even worse. The police come. The mailman is arrested, charged and hauled off to jail, then later loses his job. The end.

Now, is there any difference between these two stories? If so, what is it exactly? If feelings and emotions go hand in hand, and pain and suffering go hand in hand, then why was there two possible outcomes to this story? Why is that, on one side of the globe, a stoic monk can get lashed with a salted whip, then wink and smile at his abuser, and buy him a beer, while on the other side of the globe, a whiny depressed middle class gothic emo teen will cry and consider suicide because a girl turned him down for the prom on the same day that they ran out of rude black floral skull print sweatshirts at Hot Topic? I'll tell you why: because there's a difference between stubbing your toe and self pity. There's a difference between experiencing an inequity in life and playing a victim as a result. There's a difference between an unconditional love that seeks to set everything free, and a desperate possessiveness that seeks to restrict and control everything in an attempt to mask jealous insecurity. The difference being, in all cases, the stark line between detachment and attachment.

Now, as said earlier, detachment has been around for quite some time, and has been a subject of significance in many different philosophies and theologies throughout the ages. And if you have an active interest in researching any of this, I would strongly recommend focusing mainly on detachment as related to Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism, as these come the closest to being in accord with the true spirit of detachment, as opposed to Baha'i, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, which are worth skipping, unless it's sought as just some general background information to use as filler in your class paper, or if you are interested in learning about the perversions of the discipline, or examples of detachment being done wrong. But after you have concluded your history lesson, you may be wondering about the practical application of the discipline in the modern world. Indeed. How would such an ancient function be pragmatically employed in a contemporary setting?

Well, there are some exercises, or practices, many of which you may have already heard of, but probably never fully appreciated their deeper meaning hitherto. The most common one almost everyone is familiar with is selflessness, which gets expressed in various forms, including charity, civic duty, public service and volunteer work. But, people get this messed up in confusion mostly, because they get caught up in thinking that, what's important about all these practices, is the common good they create. And while the common good may indeed be a nice byproduct of the exercise, it certainly isn't the aim or goal of it. Selfless acts are selfless acts because they are done without any interest of a self. The motive of selfless acts isn't to attain a change in illusion... the aim of selfless acts is to reduce awareness's dependency on illusion to maintain an equilibrium.

Now, wow, did you hear that? This is a very crucial point, a key to the crux of a profound misunderstanding: the motive of selflessness isn't to change illusion, the motive is to gain independence from reliance on illusion. If you can ever ascertain a knowing of this key point, you will have unraveled much of the mystery of spiritualism. You are not here to shape, change, or rearrange illusion. You are here to learn how to discern illusion and not depend on it, no matter what tactics it employs, under pain of even death. This is, after all, already the truth of the matter, but you are apparently stuck in a dream state where you have created this delusion that insists that it is somehow otherwise. The reasons of which, is due to a construct that you attribute as a so called ego, who is seemingly FROM another construct you attribute as a so called world.

So again: Selflessness has nothing to do with the curation of illusion. Selflessness is the transformative method by which awareness gains independence from its reliance on false constructs; and this can be cultivated by dropping expectations, seeking no rewards, and focusing will and intent in the pure engagement of activities with no regard to their outcome. Now this doesn't mean reckless or evil activities, as respect and mindfulness are vital to ensure that the practices don't become more delusional utility directed towards externalizations. This is a discipline, and a discipline necessarily requires precision and mastery, and the recklessness of evil is not conducive towards this end.

This is why, even for those who are wrapped up in the apparent GOOD outcomes of selfless acts, a more bare bones application may be prudent: and this would consist of engaging in harmless nonsense.

“Huh?”

Yeah, I know, right? Isn't that something? Dr. Sage is writing you a prescription for a little harmless nonsense, because, you know, as the old adage goes:

A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.

Yes, it's so true. I love nonsense! And the practical application of such a practice would be partaking in acts that have no rational purpose or motive. Just be nonsensical. Talk gibberish. Move your body in deliberately meaningless ways. And be smart about it. You don't need the men in white coats chasing you down with butterfly nets, so do it alone. You don't need an audience to be effective. This is building up within you the propensity to not associate the doings of the ego to the desire for perceived outcomes. Once you are deft in the ways of nonsense, you will then be able to better apply yourself to selfless acts that produce neutral or good effects, still without any ulterior motives. This cultivates an even stronger mind, as it steps up the challenge for awareness to find peace and contentment in duties of purpose, still without being conditional to the cravings for outcome. This, in itself, becoming a foundation for sustenance and abundance, as a peaceful serene mind attracts without wants, whereas the greedy mind repels with it's toxic passion. Through this, you will learn great patience, which is an essential virtue, as the expression of impatience is simply an experience of anger that is fostered by frustrated desire for outcome... this makes it doubly difficult, as: with impatience, obstacles will leap to get in your path. Letting go, everything will open up to you. It seems contrary, but it isn't.

Much like the beautiful lotus flower that has its roots in the scummy muck of a mud swamp, it's long stalks stretching up to the surface of the water, where it blossoms under the bright sunshine of enlightenment, illuminated fully in all it's glory, breath taking to behold in it's simplicity and purity, beads of water easily sliding off it's pedals, much akin to the discipline of detachment.