Cultivation of Detachment

[Kali_Upasaka]

Total Surrender and detachment combined would take us on our way to spirituality. In the thread on materialism and Spiritulism we saw about Saranagatham.

 

This link is to an article on understanding our attachments and practice of non-attachment.

 

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/divinelife/essays/attachment.asp

 

A fairly good article.

 

But there is a major flaw in the argument. Renunciation is not Detachment. There is a lot of confusion between the two.

 

Renunciation is advocated in certain Hindu traditions. But it is not for all.

 

As I mentioned in the thread about materialism Vs spiritualism, detachment and not renunciation is the easiest way to progress spiritually and ideal for a Grahastha. It is a combination of Karma and Bhakthi Yogas.

 

We should be like a mud fish who stays in the mud all the time, without the mud-sticking to it. Renunciation would be like asking the mud-fish to get out of the mud.

 

We are all like the mud-fish.

 

1. The author says that I should let go of my attachment to money by donating it and doing voluntary work. Good idea. But I am being paid for rendering certain services for which I have qualified myself by studying well. I am being paid for my knowledge. I do not exploit any one. I may doing a service to the society by producing goods/rendering services. So my money is not tainted.

 

2. As a Grahastha I have a duty towards my family. Wife and children. May be some left over duty towards my parents.

 

3. In fulfilling these duties money plays a big role. How do I provide good eduction to my children if I do not have money? I can give up the luxuries of life. But is it correct to expect my wife also to do it?

 

So as long as I have duties to my family, I have to earn money. Earn as much as I can.

 

4. Even after leaving the Grahastha stage and entering Vana Prastha stage, you need money. You can not go to forest and live in these modern times. India has very limited forests and too many people. In U.S I will be arrested if I go and live in a forest.

 

So you relocate to some place which is like a jungle. But relocation also costs money. No one is going to feed you. You need money for meeting your daily needs.

 

Even spiritual exploration costs money. There is a 6 day spiritual camp which I would like to attend. It costs $1200 per person. A lot of money in Indian rupee terms. Rs.60000.

 

What do you think? Your thoughts.

 

Let us not quote the scriptures or Acharyas. There is an Acharya who teaches the path of the Yoga. In his book he advocates getting up at Brahma Muhurtha (3 hours before dawn) and doing five hours of Meditation. When I asked one of his disciples about how practical this advice is, he replied "That is possible only when you become a Sannyasi and live in an Ashram".

 

So scriptures written centuries back and books by sannyasis may not help us much. They show us the way. Bhagavad Gita shows the way.

 

But the nitty-gritty part of it is left to us. The Gurus/Acharyas show the correct path. But since the environment under which we live is not the same for all of us, the details have to be worked out only by us.

 

No one can write a book on " How do a software professional working in Florida, U.S progress towards spirituality". You get the drift.

[kshama]

Thank you for bringing up a substantial thread with a substantial message. I do think detachment or renunciation is difficult to perform these days, but it is not impossible. What is important, to my little knowledge is vairagya. How to cultivate, nourish and maintain the vairagya is another thing to ponder about....How? Namaste.

[kaisersose]

Basic question. Are detachment and renunciation relevant to a non-sanyasi at all?

 

I do not think so. In my opinion, detachment and renunciation run counter to the concept of grhastashrama, of someone living in society. For example, if you practice detachment towards your wife and son, that is going to reflect negatively in your relationship with them. If you practice renunciation and give up on material comforts, that is going to impact them negatively too.

 

I think most people are confused about what they are required to do, to be spiritual. Those who are interested in spiritual pursuits should take the time to clearly understand the roles and responsibilities of non-sanyasis and sanyasis. This understanding may help remove a lot of this confusion.

 

This trend of blurring the line between sanyasashrama and grhastashrama is a fairly new concept. Telling married couples to abstain from sex, threatening them with grim consequences, etc., is outright silly and shows a clear lack of understanding of fundamental concepts...not to mention a lack of precedent. Traditionally, detachment, renunciation, etc., has been only for sanyasis and it should be noted that sanyasa is not for everyone.

 

Cheers

[theist]

In principle there is no mystery to the question of detachment. Everything belongs to Krishna and should be used in His service.

 

If one accepts and REALIZES this fact then there is nothing to detach one's desires from because the misconception of false ownership does not arise.

 

Getting to this stage of realization is the product of karma/bhakti yoga practiced as taught by the Vaisnava acaryas.

 

Why do I emphasize Vaisnava acaryas? Because they have the developed vision of Krishna as the only owner and correct receiver of sacrifice.

[Durgaputra]

Kaisersose,

In your post, you seem to equate Detachment and Renunciation. Both are complementary and are not the same. There is no confusion between what is needed for a sanyasi or a grhasta.

 

Detachment is for the householder as well as the sanyasi. One can live in a palace surrounded by a harem and all comforts and still be detached. there is no need to go to the forests- so say the sastras. Even the Bhagavat Gita prescribes detachment from the fruits of ones actions and describes it as karma yoga.

 

Renunciation is for the sanyasi- where one gives up the world and its objects externally. Renunciation without detachment is not good since one can still be attached to things. Going to a forest and thinking of ones family does not give moksha.

 

These are not modern concepts. Every human is to strive for the four purusharthas and there is no prescription to wait till vanaprastha or sanyasa ashrama to strive for moksha. This striving starts from ones brahmacharya ashram.

 

Coming to celibacy- not every path sees celibacy as a pre-condition for siddhi or moksha. If you dont want to be celibate, then one can choose a path that does not need you to be so. In this great sanatana dharma, the divine one has shown different paths for different kinds of people.

[Kali_Upasaka]

I had clearly said at the beginning that

 

 

Renunciation is not Detachment. There is a lot of confusion between the two.

 

Renunciation is advocated in certain Hindu traditions. But it is not for all.

We are talking here about Nishkamya Karma and Sarangatha Bhakthi as the paths for spiritual progress.

 

The four asramas mentioned in the scriptures are

 

1. Brahmacharya

 

2. Grahastha

 

3. Vanaprastha

 

4. Sannyasa.

 

In this Sannyasa became a model only after 800 A.D. Most of the Vedic rishis like Vashishta, Gautama, Yagnavalkya were not Sannyasis. Some renunciate Rishis are also mentioned in the Vedas.

 

Most of the Acharyas of Hinduism in the last 1200 years have been sannyasis. So more emphasis was laid on Sannyasa. The prime duty of a Guru is to teach/show the path by which he has realised/reached GOD. So the sannyasi Gurus stressed the Sannyasa path which they had taken.

 

Bhagavad Gita does not glorify Sannyasa. The main paths are Nishkamya Karma and Saranagatha Bhakthi.

 

As I mentioned in the other thread the idea is to reach a state of Sahaja.

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453697-materialisitic-vs-religious-people-2.html#post1144692

 

Post#32

 

kaiser rose, there is no renunciation in the path of Nishkamya Karma and Saranagatha Bhakthi. No renunciation is called for in grahasthashrama.

 

Renunciation is part of vanaprastha. But here we are talking basically about grahastha.

 

Celibacy is not part of the path to Sahaja. The attainment of Sahaja is considered supreme even by some sampradhyas where the rule is "Do as you please. Anything goes."

[gHari]

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 2.58:

 

yadA saMharate cAyaM

kUrmo 'GgAnIva sarvazaH

indriyANIndriyArthebhyas

tasya prajJA pratiSThitA

yadA--when; saMharate--winds up; ca--also; ayam--he; kUrmaH--tortoise; aGgAni--limbs; iva--like; sarvazaH--altogether; indriyANi--senses; indriya-arthebhyaH--from the sense objects; tasya--his; prajJA--consciousness; pratiSThitA--fixed.

 

 

 

One who is able to withdraw his senses from sense objects, as the tortoise draws its limbs within the shell, is firmly fixed in perfect consciousness.

 

 

PURPORT

 

The test of a yogI, devotee, or self-realized soul is that he is able to control the senses according to his plan. Most people, however, are servants of the senses and are thus directed by the dictation of the senses. That is the answer to the question as to how the yogI is situated. The senses are compared to venomous serpents. They want to act very loosely and without restriction. The yogI, or the devotee, must be very strong to control the serpents--like a snake charmer. He never allows them to act independently.

 

 

There are many injunctions in the revealed scriptures; some of them are do-not's, and some of them are do's. Unless one is able to follow the do's and the do-not's, restricting oneself from sense enjoyment, it is not possible to be firmly fixed in KRSNa consciousness. The best example, set herein, is the tortoise. The tortoise can at any moment wind up his senses and exhibit them again at any time for particular purposes. Similarly, the senses of the KRSNa conscious persons are used only for some particular purpose in the service of the Lord and are withdrawn otherwise. Arjuna is being taught here to use his senses for the service of the Lord, instead of for his own satisfaction. Keeping the senses always in the service of the Lord is the example set by the analogy of the tortoise, who keeps the senses within.

[kaisersose]

 

kaiser rose, there is no renunciation in the path of Nishkamya Karma and Saranagatha Bhakthi. No renunciation is called for in grahasthashrama.

 

No detachment can be called for either. An an example, a Grhasta having a little child cannot be aloof when the child is in pain, imagining himself to be detached. If such detachment exists in someone, that would be very unnatural. In general, as an individual with a family, any form of detachment would be unnatural.

 

Nishkamya Karma and Sharanagati are almost the same, in my opinion. They do not require detachment or renunciation. In very simple terms, they are about accepting/understanding the role of something higher in every aspect of one's life. Sharanagati is a prerequisite for Nishkamya Karma. Though it appears simple, it is a lot more complex than it sounds.

 

This is the way I see it. Obviously, if you disagree, I would like to hear more. Nishkamya Karma is a non-trivial concept that has not been adequately explained by most Gita commentators including Shankara. The only commentary I found sensible on this topic is by Madhva/Raghavendra.

 

Cheers

[hindustani]

In my experence Rudraksha really gives detachment and helps you a lot in your spiritual path,wear them with proper pooja and mantra.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

In my experence Rudraksha really gives detachment and helps you a lot in your spiritual path,wear them with proper pooja and mantra.

I only wish it were true. In India today it is a fashion to wear a Rudraksha. You find hate spewing politicians, movie stars and the like wearing and showing off their Ek-mukhi Rudraksha.

 

The only short cut is Divine Grace. But there also we only read about instances of people suddenly renouncing the world.

 

What we are talking about is a gradual process.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

No detachment can be called for either. An an example, a Grhasta having a little child cannot be aloof when the child is in pain, imagining himself to be detached. If such detachment exists in someone, that would be very unnatural. In general, as an individual with a family, any form of detachment would be unnatural.

A detached person does not stand idle when a human being or for that matter any living thing (including trees and plants) suffer. He will do his utmost to see that the suffering is alleviated. The father who is terribly attached to the child would be in many cases become so unhappy that he may not even think of the best ways of relieving the child of its pain. He is overtaken by emotion. Have we not seen people who are so overcome by the love for the dear ones that they do not even know what to do?

 

A detached person will think of the best possible way of alleviating the pain of the child and act accordingly. Being detached does not mean that he does not love his child.

 

As I explained in the other thread a detached person does not become a jadam or an unfeeling person. Neither is he lazy or inactive. In fact he acts more efficiently than the attached person who allows himself to be carried away by emotion/attachment.

 

I will post about the second part separately.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

If such detachment exists in someone, that would be very unnatural. In general, as an individual with a family, any form of detachment would be unnatural.

 

Cheers

There is a misunderstanding here. A Detached person does not cease to Love his family or children. He loves them. And also he is aware of his duties and responsibilities to his family.

 

His love is not the selfish love of the attached person. It is love without any expectations. This selfless love does not turn to hatred. Nor does it arouse jealousy. Normal Love has these drawbacks.

 

Again most parents have their favourites. The father loves one son/daughter more than other children. Parents are seldom impartial while dealing with their children. Detachment gives you the capacity to act impartially. Love all the children equally and treat them accordingly.

 

There is nothing unnatural about this.

[aranya baba]

I don't understand all this talk of cultivating this and cultivating that. As Vaisnavas we only cultivate bhakti. The rest comes on its own.

[sant]

I thought renunciation and detachment go hand in hand.

[sambya]

 

For example, if you practice detachment towards your wife and son, that is going to reflect negatively in your relationship with them. If you practice renunciation and give up on material comforts, that is going to impact them negatively too.

 

 

its true that detachment is very hard to practice and maintain . only the highest of souls can actually be detached . other aspirants try to get attached to a higher cause ( their deities , mantra etc ) .

 

but in persons who were perfectly detached we see an outburst of positivity . they feel for their wives or children even more than any ordinary person . when you are attached materially with your family you love them for what they give to you ( physical pleasure , security etc) . but a perfectly detached person loves his family for what they are . his love is not concentrated on his own little world and hence he loves all in his 'big' world . this you can notice in many sages and mahatmas of india . in a detached person the focus of love is on jivas . but in an attached person the focus of love is on his self and no one else . thus this second form of love is more short lived and perishes as soon as this 'self' is injured . whereas the first form of love is more mature and doesnt perish even if his self recieves any harm .

 

what can be said , however , is that this kind of perfect detachment is a rarest of rare phenomenon . only a few individuals can attain to that blessed state .................... whereas the vast majority of us are illusioned into thinking displeasure or dislike as detachment .

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

Nishkamya Karma and Sharanagati are almost the same, in my opinion. They do not require detachment or renunciation. In very simple terms, they are about accepting/understanding the role of something higher in every aspect of one's life. Sharanagati is a prerequisite for Nishkamya Karma. Though it appears simple, it is a lot more complex than it sounds.

 

This is the way I see it. Obviously, if you disagree, I would like to hear more. Nishkamya Karma is a non-trivial concept that has not been adequately explained by most Gita commentators including Shankara. The only commentary I found sensible on this topic is by Madhva/Raghavendra.

 

Cheers

Yes. I do agree that Nishkamya Karma and Sharanagati are almost the same. But then there are many who do not like the Bhakthi aspect and consider themselves jnanis. Of course these discussions are not for them.

 

But both Nishkamya Karma and Sharanagathi are more complicated than they look. The basis is that you accept God's will and accept every thing is for the Good.

 

But in practical life, a setback in one's career, a sickness to loved one or other adverse circumstances are difficult to accept. To accept these we need Detachment.

 

I have read a number of commentaries on Gita. The Pejawar Swamiji ( head of the Pejawar math, Udipi, Karnataka) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishvesha_Tirtha started it all long time back when he gave us a small Bhagavad Gita and asked us to write it down in a notebook. These notebooks with Gita written in it were used as a foundation for a mandap that was being constructed in the Udipi Krishna temple.

 

I am not qualified to comment on the Bhashyas of any Acharyas. If I understand something incorrectly, it is solely my fault.

[hindustani]

First and far most rule for Sansaris is,dont show your Rudraksha to others,wear it under your "Vastra"only sanyasis are allowed to wear in such a way that others can see it(coz most of Sanyasis dont wear anything on upper part of their body).

 

I only wish it were true. In India today it is a fashion to wear a Rudraksha. You find hate spewing politicians, movie stars and the like wearing and showing off their Ek-mukhi Rudraksha.

It will be surely a slow process by Rudraksha IF wearer finds a genuine one and use proper pran pratishtha and pooja after wearing them,you may disagree with me but my own experence tells me that these beads are divine beads with upmost powers.Thanks Kaliji.

 

What we are talking about is a gradual process.

 

[sant]

 

First and far most rule for Sansaris is,dont show your Rudraksha to others,wear it under your "Vastra"only sanyasis are allowed to wear in such a way that others can see it(coz most of Sanyasis dont wear anything on upper part of their body).

Quote:

I only wish it were true. In India today it is a fashion to wear a Rudraksha. You find hate spewing politicians, movie stars and the like wearing and showing off their Ek-mukhi Rudraksha.

It will be surely a slow process by Rudraksha IF wearer finds a genuine one and use proper pran pratishtha and pooja after wearing them,you may disagree with me but my own experence tells me that these beads are divine beads with upmost powers.Thanks Kaliji.

Quote:

What we are talking about is a gradual process.

Can you tell me hindustani where you get all these rules from.I was reading somewhere that shudras should wear different color rudraksh and kshatriyas should wera different rudraksh etc.

[hindustani]

Hope I am not hijacking this thread but I need to answer to santji else I shall get PM from him asking to clear his doubts! Here is my answer santji.

the ancient scriptures narrated that four colours of rudraksha are available viz. white, red, yellow and black which are to be worn by the four castes viz. brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras respectively.

 

however, in the present kaliyuga, neither white nor black coloured rudraksha are available. most rudraksha available are either red or yellow. this may imply (though not necessarily true) that most people are by virtues falling under these two castes which is why the nature is making available only these two colours.

Hope I managed to clear your doubts and one more thing santji,try to understand nature and keep open our eyes and ears to accept those things which is beyond our limits,surely one day we shall able to find answers of our doubts.

So santji mother nature tells indirectly to us that in this world now only 2 casts are there as per their karmas and they are Kshatriyas and Vaishyas!This also tells us that when White and Black species are not found we can assume that Brahmanas and Shudras don't exists on this universe.(by their karmas and not by their cast),this is the magic of Rudrakshas Santji and this is why I just love them.

 

Can you tell me hindustani where you get all these rules from.I was reading somewhere that shudras should wear different color rudraksh and kshatriyas should wera different rudraksh etc.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Have you had enough posts about Rudrakshas in all the threads? 30 or 40 posts or more than that.

 

Sant, there is a Rudraksha Purana. Not available on the net. There are enough people making a fortune out of Rudrakshas on the net. Google ( 3,68,000 hits on the last count) and you will get all the information. Going through all the web sites should keep you busy for the next 20 years.

[hindustani]

Wish I end up my life writing on Rudraksha Kaliji,mission has just begun.

 

Have you had enough posts about Rudrakshas in all the threads? 30 or 40 posts or more than that

[Kulapavana]

Good topic! Very practical.

Renunciation has it's proper place in spiritual life, but if practiced incorrectly or prematurely it can lead to disastrous consequences. We have seen many people who thought they are ready to renounce the world only to find themselves totally absorbed in materialistic thoughts only a short time later. Pseudo-sannyasis craving both subtle and physical sense gratification are not helping anyone, including themselves.

Detachment is a similar issue. Detachment of a father towards his family is totally wrong and does not lead to any spiritual benefit. Attachment to acting in the mode of goodness allows people to have a proper life - both materially and spiritually. Beware of people who claim to be above acting in the mode of goodness as they are usually a fraud.

 

[kaisersose]

 

There is a misunderstanding here. A Detached person does not cease to Love his family or children. He loves them. And also he is aware of his duties and responsibilities to his family.

 

His love is not the selfish love of the attached person. It is love without any expectations. This selfless love does not turn to hatred. Nor does it arouse jealousy. Normal Love has these drawbacks.

 

I am either attached or detached. Partial detachment does not make sense and I would simply categorize it as attachment.

 

If I am in love with my family, then I am attached. The love of a parent is generally not contingent upon reciprocation. You love your child and worry about his welfare even when he has no time for you. Detachment is defined by Webster as "indifference to worldly concerns" and for it to make sense, it should include indifference to the pain/joys of one's family.

 

This is why I said earlier that detachment cannot meaningfully apply to a family man. One can always be detached to social status, lifestyle, and such other things. But that is partial detachment and is also likely to adversely impact family life.

 

In summary, both renunciation and detachment make sense only to the Sanyasi. And once again, sanyasa is not for everyone.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

actually no one can practise detachment , i guess

 

when a soul reaches sufficient purity levels through numerous births and sadhana , his attachment for god gradually increases . and when this attachment for god reaches a high level , there arises spontaneous detachment towards anything not related to god.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Why are we so much attached to Attachment? There is a lot of difference between renunciation and detachment. I would not refer to Wester's definition for the meaning of Hindu spiritual terms.

 

Most of the articles and sppeches in the last centuries have been authored by Sannyasis for whom renunciation is detachment. And also the distinction between a Karma Yogi and Sannyasi is not emphasized. The examples of "water on a lotus leaf" and "the mud fish" are from the scriptures.

 

Bhagavad Gita emphasizes Karma Yoga. Nishkamya Karma.

 

This article on Buddhism does convey the meaning to an extent.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/introduction/basic_question_detachment_nonviolence_compassion.html

 

We read the story of the great Bhakthas to learn from their stories. What is common to all of them is total devotion to GOD. All of them were Grahasthas with families. Their relationship with their families varied. But they were all detached. They did not let their love for their family take them away from their total devotion.

 

 

actually no one can practise detachment , i guess

 

when a soul reaches sufficient purity levels through numerous births and sadhana , his attachment for god gradually increases . and when this attachment for god reaches a high level , there arises spontaneous detachment towards anything not related to god.

This is called mental conditioning. Sadhana. Why take so many births? There are sampradhayas who believe that you extend your life (kayakalpa) and also change your body (Para kaya Pravesa) so that you live till you attain your goal.