• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is Detachment?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
To me, one sign of detachment is a lack of emotion from loss.
Lack of emotion from loss is not 'necessarily' a good thing, although too much emotion can be a bad thing.
For me, besides objects, it includes a wide variety of things, including other people's ideas, the future, financial success, etc.
I agree. Detachment is not only from material things, it is also from everyday happenings, which includes what you cited.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
You should know that the outer man can be active while the inner man is completely free of this activity and unmoved. Now Christ too had an outer man and an inner man, and so did our Lady, and whatever Christ and our Lady ever said about external things, they did so according to the outer man, but the inner man remained in unmoved detachment. Thus it was when Christ said, "My soul is sorrowful unto death," and whatever lamentations our Lady made, or whatever else she said, inwardly she was in a state of unmoved detachment. Here is an analogy: a door swings open and shuts on its hinge. I would compare the outer woodwork of the door to the outer man, and the hinge to the inner man. When the door opens and shuts, the boards move back and forth, but the hinge stays in the same place and is never moved thereby. It is the same in this case, if you understand it rightly.

(Meister Eckhart: On Detachment)

Meister Eckhart was one of the greatest Christian mystics and he praised detachment above all other virtues...
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You should know that the outer man can be active while the inner man is completely free of this activity and unmoved. Now Christ too had an outer man and an inner man, and so did our Lady, and whatever Christ and our Lady ever said about external things, they did so according to the outer man, but the inner man remained in unmoved detachment. Thus it was when Christ said, "My soul is sorrowful unto death," and whatever lamentations our Lady made, or whatever else she said, inwardly she was in a state of unmoved detachment. Here is an analogy: a door swings open and shuts on its hinge. I would compare the outer woodwork of the door to the outer man, and the hinge to the inner man. When the door opens and shuts, the boards move back and forth, but the hinge stays in the same place and is never moved thereby. It is the same in this case, if you understand it rightly.

(Meister Eckhart: On Detachment)

Meister Eckhart was one of the greatest Christian mystics and he praised detachment above all other virtues...
Thanks, that is a WINNER.

I also consider detachment to be above all other virtues, since I believe it is attachment in its various forms that intervenes between us and God.
If I think that something would intervene between me and God I don't want it. I know what intervenes since it has intervened in the past.
I have enough of a problem feeling close to God as it is, I don't need to add to that.
 
Last edited:

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
The soul should be entirely without admixture. If someone fixed anything to my hood or stuck anything on it, whoever pulled at the hood would pull all that with it. If I go away from here, all that is attached to me will go with me. Whatever the spirit rests on or is fastened to, whoever pulls that, pulls the spirit with it. If a man were to rest on nothing, and cling to nothing, then, if heaven and earth were overturned, he would remain unmoved, since he would cling to nothing, and nothing would cling to him. (M. Eckhart, Sermons)
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
So that is detachment as it is laid out in some religious scriptures. I do not think that Jesus meant that we should literally hate this life and not enjoy what there is in this life to enjoy, I think it means that we should not be so attached to our life in this world that we consider them more important than God. If we love this life so much that we live only for the things of this world then we lose eternal life, which is nearness to God, because we only think about things that are associated with this world.
It's funny how huge a difference in worldview there is between believers and non-believers. :) I think all non-believers would agree that we should live our lives to the best of our abilities and that we as humans ought to thrive towards improving the quality of life for people because this is the only one we have, so we should make the most out of it and make sure that it is as enjoyable and with as little suffering as humanly possible. If anything we ought to all give it 110% to work towards that :D

Not that I think believers don't agree or that they are worse, but the "other" side you are talking about is obviously not an option for us and is therefore considered irrelevant :)

It's just funny to see the difference in thinking, between the groups.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
As expected, there are many understandings of the word. To me, one sign of detachment is a lack of emotion from loss. For me, besides objects, it includes a wide variety of things, including other people's ideas, the future, financial success, etc.
For me it's just not becoming fixated on something that causes a disruption and hindrance.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It's funny how huge a difference in worldview there is between believers and non-believers. :) I think all non-believers would agree that we should live our lives to the best of our abilities and that we as humans ought to thrive towards improving the quality of life for people because this is the only one we have, so we should make the most out of it and make sure that it is as enjoyable and with as little suffering as humanly possible. If anything we ought to all give it 110% to work towards that :D

Not that I think believers don't agree or that they are worse, but the "other" side you are talking about is obviously not an option for us and is therefore considered irrelevant :)

It's just funny to see the difference in thinking, between the groups.
Believers do agree with what you said in your first paragraph, at least Baha'i believers agree. :)

The obvious difference between believers and non-believers is that we believe we should not be so attached to our life in this world that we consider what there is in this life to enjoy to be more important than God. ;)
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Some more thoughts on living in the now by Blaise Pascal (Thoughts):

We do not rest satisfied with the present. We anticipate the future as too slow in coming, as if in order to hasten its course; or we recall the past, to stop its too rapid flight. So imprudent are we that we wander in the times which are not ours, and do not think of the only one which belongs to us; and so idle are we that we dream of those times which are no more, and thoughtlessly overlook that which alone exists. For the present is generally painful to us. We conceal it from our sight, because it troubles us; and if it be delightful to us, we regret to see it pass away. We try to sustain it by the future, and think of arranging matters which are not in our power, for a time which we have no certainty of reaching.

Let each one examine his thoughts, and he will find them all occupied with the past and the future. We scarcely ever think of the present; and if we think of it, it is only to take light from it to arrange the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means; the future alone is our end. So we never live, but we hope to live; and, as we are always preparing to be happy, it is inevitable we should never be so.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Some more thoughts on living in the now by Blaise Pascal (Thoughts):
That really is a WINNER. I will just pick out a couple of thoughts I especially relate to.
For the present is generally painful to us. We conceal it from our sight, because it troubles us; and if it be delightful to us, we regret to see it pass away. We try to sustain it by the future, and think of arranging matters which are not in our power, for a time which we have no certainty of reaching.
I do the exact opposite. I live in the present and see all that is good in the present, the day I am living in. I don't look to the past because most of the past is painful, and I don't look to the future because there is no way to know or to control what will happen in the future. I never make any plans, I just live one day at a time. I leave the future to God and fate.
Let each one examine his thoughts, and he will find them all occupied with the past and the future. We scarcely ever think of the present; and if we think of it, it is only to take light from it to arrange the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means; the future alone is our end. So we never live, but we hope to live; and, as we are always preparing to be happy, it is inevitable we should never be so.
I just returned form my weekly GriefShare group at a Christian church, and this is what I observe most people doing. Most live in the past and worry about the future. I don't fault them for that, but it is the constant rumination over the past and attachment to it that keeps their grief going. I think it is better to live in the present and have hope for the future, but that is not always as easy as it sounds becaue we do not control the memories that come into our minds. However, when those memories come into my mind, I shift the focus to the present rather than dwell on the memories. The past is gone and we cannot ever get it back. It doesn't exist.
 
Top