Detached from detachment.

[Vindex]

As the subject was coming up in the other thread I will address it here. The ideal of absolute detachment is false. The Gita was rewrote later on by the priest caste in the Vedic civilization, way later on. The original attitude towards life and war of the original Aryan Vedics can be seen in the Rig veda, it is the same attitude as seen in the Iliad and the Norse/Germanic Mythology. It is the practice of the olympian or master morality. The examples used to prove absolute detachment in the past are the opposite in reality the examples given are proof of attachment to battle, as they delighted in the action and struggle of will. I do not think Thor was useing absolute detachment when he bashed in the faces of the gaints with his hammer, or Achilles when he cut Hector into the earth.etc Or the Red Baron when he had trophies created for every opponent he turned into bullet hidden, dead burned up victims, either.

The brahmins where a group who where not of the warrior caste and never saw or trained for battles, but sat on their rears all day, they became the ancient equivalent to the ivory tower academics of today. So it is important to understand the source of the idea of absolute detachment and how out of touch with natural reality it is. Just because a ancient book said so does not make it so. 2000 year old bs is still bs.

[antibuddha]

The idea of detachment likely arose, became popular, accepted, etc. precisely because of the long-term effects on social and spiritual life of a warrior and war-glorifying mentality. Returning to it will just set you back on another point of the circle only to come around to world-weary detachment again. There's a reason many (especially intellectuals) in the, formerly more, Faustian west have adopted an interest in Buddhism and the like.

[Draugen]

As the subject was coming up in the other thread I will address it here. The ideal of absolute detachment is false. The Gita was rewrote later on by the priest caste in the Vedic civilization, way later on. The original attitude towards life and war of the original Aryan Vedics can be seen in the Rig veda, it is the same attitude as seen in the Iliad and the Norse/Germanic Mythology. It is the practice of the olympian or master morality. The examples used to prove absolute detachment in the past are the opposite in reality the examples given are proof of attachment to battle, as they delighted in the action and struggle of will. I do not think Thor was useing absolute detachment when he bashed in the faces of the gaints with his hammer, or Achilles when he cut Hector into the earth.etc Or the Red Baron when he had trophies created for every opponent he turned into bullet hidden, dead burned up victims, either.

The brahmins where a group who where not of the warrior caste and never saw or trained for battles, but sat on their rears all day, they became the ancient equivalent to the ivory tower academics of today. So it is important to understand the source of the idea of absolute detachment and how out of touch with natural reality it is. Just because a ancient book said so does not make it so. 2000 year old bs is still bs.

Your reference to the "ideal" of detachment in the Gita as an "absolute detachment", a product of the mind of idle academics, in opposition to the "Olympian" and "master morality" of older traditions evidences a fundamental misunderstanding of the message expressed in the Gita. Nietzsche and other Western scholars shared the same prejudice when referring to the ascetic life, understanding only what in their minds stood as method of negating pain through constant suppression of life's impulses, with the long-term goal of an unobstructed, desensitized passivity. The message of the Gita couldn't be more opposed to such a practice. First of all, detachment is not supposed to be against "natural reality" ( It is, however as a matter of principle, above naturalistic visions of reality, which is a completely different issue ), but an unequivocal expression of it:


One attains the highest perfection by devotion to one's natural
work. Listen to Me how one attains perfection while engaged in
natural work. (18.45)(...)

One's inferior natural work is better than superior unnatural
work. One who does the work ordained by one's inherent nature
(without selfish motives) incurs no sin (or Karmic reaction). (18.47)

As for not being warriorlike enough, here are some excerpts which prove otherwise:

Considering also your duty as a warrior you should not waver.
Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a
righteous war. (2.31)

Only the fortunate warriors, O Arjuna, get such an opportunity for
an unsought war that is like an open door to heaven. (2.32)

If you will not fight this righteous war, then you will fail in
your duty, lose your reputation, and incur sin.

People will talk about your disgrace forever. To the honored,
dishonor is worse than death. (2.34)

The great warriors will think that you have retreated from the
battle out of fear. Those who have greatly esteemed you will lose
respect for you. (2.35)

Your enemies will speak many unmentionable words and scorn your
ability. What could be more painful than this? (2.36)

You will go to heaven if killed, or you will enjoy the earth if
victorious. Therefore, get up with a determination to fight, O
Arjuna. (2.37)

What could serve as a better demonstration of heroism than those verses? Detachment in the Gita means abandonment of ego and lustful cravings(illusion), obstacles which block our way to cosmic awareness(truth). It is, in all possible aspects, an authentic path towards "Olympian" existence.

[Vindex]

Flip ahead in the Gita and this becomes a reality.


when referring to the ascetic life, understanding only what in their minds stood as method of negating pain through constant suppression of life's impulses, with the long-term goal of an unobstructed, desensitized passivity.


And who frames reality, people who live isolated from it in the priest caste?

First of all, detachment is not supposed to be against "natural reality" ( It is, however as a matter of principle, above naturalistic visions of reality, which is a completely different issue ), but an unequivocal expression of it:

No it means aims for more then that, who decides what is a lustful craving? And what makes it wrong, and what is cosmic awareness in this book but the truth according to the social framers of the time. Without ego we have no true identity.

What could serve as a better demonstration of heroism than those verses? Detachment in the Gita means abandonment of ego and lustful cravings(illusion), obstacles which block our way to cosmic awareness(truth). It is, in all possible aspects, an authentic path towards "Olympian" existence.

[Draugen]

Flip ahead in the Gita and this becomes a reality.

Sorry, I don't know the meaning of the expression 'flip ahead'. Do you mean reading through it without paying attention or jumping parts? In that case, yes, that's what would happen, but that's irrelevant to my point.


And who frames reality, people who live isolated from it in the priest caste?

Religious texts in other cultures were usually put to written form by their respective equivalent of the Indian priest caste, so I don't know where you're trying to get at. Besides, saying that the brahmins live isolated from reality is not a very reasonable assertion.

And maybe you are missing the fact that the whole dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna, which is the sole focus of the Gita, consists of the latter exhorting the former to do battle. What in there goes against the spirit of the warrior and the hero?

No it means aims for more then that, who decides what is a lustful craving? And what makes it wrong, and what is cosmic awareness in this book but the truth according to the social framers of the time.

I didn't know you were a relativist.

Without ego we have no true identity.

Identity loses its individual contingency to fuse itself with the cosmos, reaching thus perfection and godhood.

[Vindex]

As stated the brahmins became separated from reality as time in India rolled foward and they became isolated from the reality by their civilizations decadent attitude it is the same as today with the wests situation.

Religious texts in other cultures were usually put to written form by their respective equivalent of the Indian priest caste, so I don't know where you're trying to get at. Besides, saying that the brahmins live isolated from reality is not a very reasonable assertion.

Their is more then one chapter in the book the starting chapters mention warrior attitudes with absolute detachment aspect. But the other chapters become very christian like.

And maybe you are missing the fact that the whole dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna, which is the sole focus of the Gita, consists of the latter exhorting the former to do battle. What in there goes against the spirit of the warrior and the hero?


Nope Iam myself.
I didn't know you were a relativist.


Nope each person is diverse and has their own individual psyche that evolves as they reach higher levels of evolutionary empowerment. By total evolution of the individuals personality they are acting as in the natural path to be.

Now on the other hand religions that have a special interest in keeping people inline and good serfs, create ideologies that preach the greatness of nothingness.


Identity loses its individual contingency to fuse itself with the cosmos, reaching thus perfection and godhood.

[Björn]

I agree with Vindex here. Those who condone detachement often decree that happens here is a reflection of the above and vice versa and yet contradict this by taking on a static existence. If we are static here we are static there so to speak. A man who has yet to read a single spiritual text can still be an adept simply by means of his own conviction and experiences.

[Aryan Imperium]

When people speak of detachment,especially `westerners` I believe that they are misinterpreting the term and consequently missing the point.
We should not confuse detachment with inactivity as has been suggested in this thread.
Detachment is concerned with a basic attitude and a way of approaching things. Perhaps lack of attachment would be a better way of describing it.
There is nothing as far as I recall in the Gita which suggests that Arjuna become inactive.
Julius Evola helps to throw some light on the concept:

"In the Gita the god Krishna incites Arjuna to fight on and to kill even those friends and relatives militating on the enemy`s side,declaring that his actions would not generate karma and be considered sinful as long as they were performed in a pure,detached,impersonal way,that is beyond the ideas of victory and defeat,joy and suffering,good and bad luck,I and Thou." [The Yoga of Power]

The detached man is able to see beyond the narrow limits of subject and object, I and thou. He is able to perform an action with the greater goal in sight and with an absence of malice or anticipation. He does what needs to be done regardless of the chances of him achieving the outcome, simply because this is his role, his duty etc.
When a warrior kills out of hatred and malice he becomes bestial, less than a man, certainly less than an Aryan. Himmler understood this and sought to instil in his men a sense of detachment, particularly in those who had the more difficult, the more distasteful tasks to perform.

[Draugen]

As stated the brahmins became separated from reality as time in India rolled foward and they became isolated from the reality by their civilizations decadent attitude it is the same as today with the wests situation.

That Indian culture has been decaying progressively since the time of the Vedas is an opinion shared by many, including myself. But you have yet to demonstrate how that is relevant to the fundamental message expressed in the Gita.

Their is more then one chapter in the book the starting chapters mention warrior attitudes with absolute detachment aspect. But the other chapters become very christian like.

Again, you have to provide demonstrations of what exactly you are talking about. What is "becoming christian like", and in what way is that relevant?

And what is "absolute detachment"? Wasn't that the very thing you were criticizing?

Nope each person is diverse and has their own individual psyche that evolves as they reach higher levels of evolutionary empowerment. By total evolution of the individuals personality they are acting as in the natural path to be.

So we do not misunderstand each other, I wanted to refer to "identity" not as the intrinsical and inextricable constitution of the individual as a living human being, but as that special particularism commanded by our egos, the nature of which prevents us from reaching the 'Absolute'. (my apologies if I'm not making the concepts clear enough)

Being that the 'Absolute' stands above and beyond all things, to communicate with it means actually to be able to identify with it, to align our consciousness in the same principle that it represents. To do that implies, by definition, to be stripped of individual contingencies, or better saying, sacrificing them to the greater, more legitimate force. No pain or defeat is involved, as the 'Absolute' is not an exterior power, but that which contains all things, including the body, mind and soul of all living creatures.

Unfortunately, what I tried to describe can never be adequately conveyed in words - it must be experienced.

Now on the other hand religions that have a special interest in keeping people inline and good serfs, create ideologies that preach the greatness of nothingness.

I mantain that you, like many Western scholars and philosophers from past and present, do not understand the Bhagavad Gita.

Btw, do you believe in the caste system?

[Vindex]

Once again your only reading from the early chapters and forgetting the ones after it. Where it preaches total slave morality.

When people speak of detachment,especially `westerners` I believe that they are misinterpreting the term and consequently missing the point.
We should not confuse detachment with inactivity as has been suggested in this thread.
Detachment is concerned with a basic attitude and a way of approaching things. Perhaps lack of attachment would be a better way of describing it.
There is nothing as far as I recall in the Gita which suggests that Arjuna become inactive.
Julius Evola helps to throw some light on the concept:

"In the Gita the god Krishna incites Arjuna to fight on and to kill even those friends and relatives militating on the enemy`s side,declaring that his actions would not generate karma and be considered sinful as long as they were performed in a pure,detached,impersonal way,that is beyond the ideas of victory and defeat,joy and suffering,good and bad luck,I and Thou." [The Yoga of Power]

The detached man is able to see beyond the narrow limits of subject and object, I and thou. He is able to perform an action with the greater goal in sight and with an absence of malice or anticipation. He does what needs to be done regardless of the chances of him achieving the outcome, simply because this is his role, his duty etc.
When a warrior kills out of hatred and malice he becomes bestial, less than a man, certainly less than an Aryan. Himmler understood this and sought to instil in his men a sense of detachment, particularly in those who had the more difficult, the more distasteful tasks to perform.

[Vindex]

No I have yet to explain what you want to hear.

That Indian culture has been decaying progressively since the time of the Vedas is an opinion shared by many, including myself. But you have yet to demonstrate how that is relevant to the fundamental message expressed in the Gita.



Again, you have to provide demonstrations of what exactly you are talking about. What is "becoming christian like", and in what way is that relevant?

And what is "absolute detachment"? Wasn't that the very thing you were criticizing?



So we do not misunderstand each other, I wanted to refer to "identity" not as the intrinsical and inextricable constitution of the individual as a living human being, but as that special particularism commanded by our egos, the nature of which prevents us from reaching the 'Absolute'. (my apologies if I'm not making the concepts clear enough)

Being that the 'Absolute' stands above and beyond all things, to communicate with it means actually to be able to identify with it, to align our consciousness in the same principle that it represents. To do that implies, by definition, to be stripped of individual contingencies, or better saying, sacrificing them to the greater, more legitimate force. No pain or defeat is involved, as the 'Absolute' is not an exterior power, but that which contains all things, including the body, mind and soul of all living creatures.

Unfortunately, what I tried to describe can never be adequately conveyed in words - it must be experienced.



I mantain that you, like many Western scholars and philosophers from past and present, do not understand the Bhagavad Gita.

Btw, do you believe in the caste system?

[Aryan Imperium]

Once again your only reading from the early chapters and forgetting the ones after it. Where it preaches total slave morality.

The issue being debated is specifically that of detatchment and whether this is desireable and indeed compatable with an Aryan Weltanschauung.
My main contention was that the concept has been misrepresented in the post opening this thread. It should not be understood as a resignation from life or a reason for inactivity. Indeed I would argue that it helps to provide focus and clarity to our aims and actions.
You may recall that the Gita was Heinrich Himmler`s favourite book and he went nowhere without it just as Alexander the Great went nowhere without his copy of Homer`s Illiad. It was a constant source of inspiraition to him.
If you wish to debate other aspects of the teaching of the Gita then perhaps a different thread should be initiated or at the very least provide some chapter references so that we can more easily debate other issues.

[Vindex]

The issue was detachment is for fictional adroids like Data from star trek. Just because Himmler believed or liked a thing does not make it true. I don't like the slave morality in the Gita or the anti-reality adroid behaviour it preaches. Alexander the Great is a more realistic example of a great Warrior like his hero Achilles was.

If a person is going to look to the Vedic texts why not just stick with the original Aryan attitude in the Rig? That is the same attitude found in the Illiad.



The issue being debated is specifically that of detatchment and whether this is desireable and indeed compatable with an Aryan Weltanschauung.
My main contention was that the concept has been misrepresented in the post opening this thread. It should not be understood as a resignation from life or a reason for inactivity. Indeed I would argue that it helps to provide focus and clarity to our aims and actions.
You may recall that the Gita was Heinrich Himmler`s favourite book and he went nowhere without it just as Alexander the Great went nowhere without his copy of Homer`s Illiad. It was a constant source of inspiraition to him.
If you wish to debate other aspects of the teaching of the Gita then perhaps a different thread should be initiated or at the very least provide some chapter references so that we can more easily debate other issues.

[Sandee]

It would be simpler to say attached to the fruits of your actions rather than detached from detachment.

Detachment, as I understood it from the Gita, is to carry one's duties whether one wants to or not, as was the case for Arjuna. He didn't desire to fight but was encouraged to fight by Lord Sri Krishna. He was attached to his relatives and didn't want to cause them harm. He put aside his attachment and fought. So, he had to detach himself from the attachment to family and kins and fight.

He was able to enjoy the fruits of his actions AFTER the fight. It was for his own benefit but he wasn't keen on fighting before and during he had to detach himself from that attachment. He didn't look forward to the fruits of his actions but he ended up enjoying them anyway: They got their rightful heritage and Kingdom back.

[Aryan Imperium]

It would be simpler to say attached to the fruits of your actions rather than detached from detachment.

Detachment, as I understood it from the Gita, is to carry one's duties whether one wants to or not, as was the case for Arjuna. He didn't desire to fight but was encouraged to fight by Lord Sri Krishna. He was attached to his relatives and didn't want to cause them harm. He put aside his attachment and fought. So, he had to detach himself from the attachment to family and kins and fight.

He was able to enjoy the fruits of his actions AFTER the fight. It was for his own benefit but he wasn't keen on fighting before and during he had to detach himself from that attachment. He didn't look forward to the fruits of his actions but he ended up enjoying them anyway: They got their rightful heritage and Kingdom back.


Agreed.
An excellent and clear analysis of detachment.

[Vindex]

How attached, what person does not do a thing for personal gain on some level. There is no such thing as such total altruism in all reality. Let us call it what it was then he was told and understood in the longer run it was better for the greater health of his People and his honour to fight in the civil war and not sit it out.

It would be simpler to say attached to the fruits of your actions rather than detached from detachment.

He was able to enjoy the fruits of his actions AFTER the fight.

[Sandee]

How attached, what person does not do a thing for personal gain on some level. There is no such thing as such total altruism in all reality. Let us call it what it was then he was told and understood in the longer run it was better for the greater health of his People and his honour to fight in the civil war and not sit it out.


Well, his personal gain in this context would be the Kingdom in itself and being able to enjoy everything that comes with it. However, to achieve this, he had to fight. His personal attachment were his feelings for his relatives who, in comparison to him, were ready to fight him. He wasn't being altruist here but more like acting out of cowardice and false compassion. His wife's honor was tainted when Duryodhana tried to strip her in front of an assembly during a gambling game. In this case, they won and they were able to enjoy the Kingdom. If they had lost, they wouldn't have been able to enjoy the kingdom. So, detachment in the Gita context, is to be able to put aside your desires to carry out a higher cause when the situation calls for it.

I suppose the word detachment seems to convey the idea of non-commitment which isn't truly what it's about. You detach yourself from mundane feelings to commit yourself to a higher cause/duty (which might/might not be for your own personal gain).

For example, monks try to detach themselves from mundane material pleasures (or at most regulate and control them) and engage themselves more in spiritual activities. You detach yourself from one thing to commit yourself to another.

[Sean]

I think that society contains both types of individuals, those who are active in life and those who are detached. The existence of both can be explained by historical analysis: Toynbee in his Study of History said, quoting someone else, I think, that the heroic ideal--the glorification of valor and war, etc.--emerges after the Volkervanderrung, when society has settled down; this is when we see the emergence of the great epics like the Eddas and the Iliad. If I'm not mistaken, the ideal of detachment and withdrawal becomes widespread in times of social decline and decay (though, of course, their are many individual instances of it in happier times, but this isn't when it takes hold of entire populaces). It is silly to claim that one ideal is superior to another, when they are both merely products of an individual's constitution.

Many would argue though that the ideal of detachment is a result of decadence, and there is probably a point to it, but I see no reason to disparage it since it is the only thing which gives certain people solace. For the most part, there will always be a mixture of both in advanced societies, and probably within individuals even. Detachment is an essential trait of the contemplative spirit, and this as well is just as crucial to human nature as the active part--it is just that some traits dominate more in some individuals over others.

[Vindex]

No one can really be all altruism, atleast he got called for using pity as egoism. What if your desire is to carry out what is deemed the "higher cause." Then you are not acting in detachment because you are enjoying yourself alot. Just like a certain fellow who gets alot of press in the West these days from India.


Well, his personal gain in this context would be the Kingdom in itself and being able to enjoy everything that comes with it. However, to achieve this, he had to fight. His personal attachment were his feelings for his relatives who, in comparison to him, were ready to fight him. He wasn't being altruist here but more like acting out of cowardice and false compassion. His wife's honor was tainted when Duryodhana tried to strip her in front of an assembly during a gambling game. In this case, they won and they were able to enjoy the Kingdom. If they had lost, they wouldn't have been able to enjoy the kingdom. So, detachment in the Gita context, is to be able to put aside your desires to carry out a higher cause when the situation calls for it.


All those monks do is exchange one source of pleasure for another like horse whipping themselves shitless or standing upside down for days or not eating for months and trying to be asexual cyborgs which always desends into neurotic behaviour such as bizzare hate for females, buggering each other and general ass-raping of the unwilling as we see in the actions of the catholic(assolic) priests of pedophilic, pope molesto. And other Sado styled follies. Then call it "spiritual" when they need to be in a mental health ward. The worst is when mudane people believe thier insanity is divine.

For example, monks try to detach themselves from mundane material pleasures (or at most regulate and control them) and engage themselves more in spiritual activities. You detach yourself from one thing to commit yourself to another.

[Vindex]

I agree with this more, I think that society as a whole has a energy which if harnessed for higher order can create and evolve in a healthy sense. And if channelled the other way becomes downward and chaotic. And when this energy flow is diverted from active and creative in the upward sense, into more mass man type ways of being causes such downward going. Which causes a downward evolution all across the board.

I think that society contains both types of individuals, those who are active in life and those who are detached. The existence of both can be explained by historical analysis: Toynbee in his Study of History said, quoting someone else, I think, that the heroic ideal--the glorification of valor and war, etc.--emerges after the Volkervanderrung, when society has settled down; this is when we see the emergence of the great epics like the Eddas and the Iliad. If I'm not mistaking, the ideal of detachment and withdrawal becomes widespread in times of social decline and decay (though, of course, their are many individual instances of it happier times, but this isn't when it takes hold of entire populaces). It is silly to claim that one ideal is superior to another, when they are both merely products of an individual's constitution.

Many would argue though that the ideal of detachment is a result of decadence, and there is probably a point to it, but I see no reason to disparage it since it is the only thing which gives certain people solace. For the most part, there will always be a mixture of both in advanced societies, and probably within individuals even. Detachment is an essential trait of the contemplative spirit, and this as well is just as crucial to human nature as the active part--it is just that some traits dominate more in some individuals over others.

[Sandee]

No one can really be all altruism, atleast he got called for using pity as egoism. What if your desire is to carry out what is deemed the "higher cause." Then you are not acting in detachment because you are enjoying yourself alot. Just like a certain fellow who gets alot of press in the West these days from India.

I don't think he enjoyed killing his relatives but yes, it turned out that after the war, he did enjoy the Kingdom they inherited.

There are people who choose to act for a "Higher cause" because they gravitate towards such ideals. True, they're replacing one attachment with another.

I meant in the context where you have to act against your desires. Arjuna didn't desire to fight. He wanted to go live as a hermit (his desire) but he was encouraged to fight (because he was a born warrior) and he finally surrendered to the will of Sri Krishna and fought. He was 'detached' in that despite not wanting to fight, he had to carry out his duties before thinking about his own desires.

All those monks do is exchange one source of pleasure for another like horse whipping themselves shitless or standing upside down for days or not eating for months and trying to be asexual cyborgs which always desends into neurotic behaviour such as bizzare hate for females, buggering each other and general ass-raping of the unwilling as we see in the actions of the catholic(assolic) priests of pedophilic, pope molesto. And other Sado styled follies. Then call it "spiritual" when they need to be in a mental health ward. The worst is when mudane people believe thier insanity is divine.

Well, not every person who practises 'detachment' (it's relative) is going to end up being a pedo. If you're attached to material things, you might be less attached to spiritual things (detached). Sure, they substitute one form of attachment for another. I suppose that to a buddhist monk, our attachment to material things would seem mundane. It's just a matter of perceiving things differently. One person may find themselves more fulfilled in spiritual pursuits rather than material ones. In the same way, a person who indulges in material pleasures cannot comprehend what a spiritual-seeker derives/gains from adopting the strict lifestyle that he does.

[Vindex]

Even then their still not detached because by the fact they are forcing themselves to act against their desires shows they still have strong desires.

I don't think he enjoyed killing his relatives but yes, it turned out that after the war, he did enjoy the Kingdom they inherited.

There are people who choose to act for a "Higher cause" because they gravitate towards such ideals. True, they're replacing one attachment with another.

I meant in the context where you have to act against your desires

Because no person practises detachment they just become attached to something else. That is honest human nature, the ones who like to live as a monk enjoy the feeling of empowerment they feel from doing so. Given the huge amount of strange S&M behaviour alot of so called spiritual seekers like to inflict on themselves I would just call them what they are sadomasichists with a religion.

Now what is a spiritual thing and how do we define spirit? If living without materialism is a spiritual thing, then every homeless alleyway bum is the next Dali Lama.(Who ironically if I recall is living in a luxury appartment in the West.)

Well, not every person who practises 'detachment' (it's relative) is going to end up being a pedo. If you're attached to material things, you might be less attached to spiritual things (detached). Sure, they substitute one form of attachment for another. I suppose that to a buddhist monk, our attachment to material things would seem mundane. It's just a matter of perceiving things differently. One person may find themselves more fulfilled in spiritual pursuits rather than material ones. In the same way, a person who indulges in material pleasures cannot comprehend what a spiritual-seeker derives/gains from adopting the strict lifestyle that he does.