I was reading this article :
and I realized that much of it applies to my way of dealing with relationships with people, espcially when it comes to these thoughts:
-“Being detached seems so cold and aloof. You can’t be that way when you love and care for a person. It’s either 100 percent all the way or no way at all.”
-“Detachment sounds so final. It sounds so distant and non-reachable. You could never allow yourself to have a relationship where there is so much emotional distance between you and others. It seems so unnatural.”
-“You never want anybody in a relationship to be emotionally detached from you so why would you think it a good thing to do for others?”
-“The family that plays together stays together. It’s all for one and one for all. Never do anything without including the significant others in your life.”
-“Tough love is a cruel, inhuman and anti-loving philosophy of dealing with the troubled people in our lives and you should instead love them more when they are in trouble since “love” is the answer to all problems. ”
It just seems to me illogical to love someone and be distant from them, and not help when you think they need you, and not protect them, but at the same time I understand that it is silly to keep wanting to save them the pain and trouble, to doubt that they are capable of managing things on their own and to feel that it is your duty to help them and prevent them from making mistakes.
What do you guys feel about that?
I think Osho answers this in the best sense…
How to be sensitive and yet detached? These two things are not contraries, they are not opposites. If you are more sensitive, you will be detached; or, if you are detached, you will become more and more sensitive. Sensitivity is not attachment, sensitivity is awareness. Only an aware person can be sensitive. If you are not aware you will be insensitive. When you are unconscious you are totally insensitive – the more consciousness, the more sensitivity. A Buddha is totally sensitive, he has optimum sensitivity, because he will feel and he will be aware to his total capacity.
But when you are sensitive and aware you will not be attached. You will be detached, because the very phenomenon of awareness breaks the bridge, destroys the bridge, between you and things, between you and persons, between you and the world. Unconsciousness, unawareness, is the cause of attachment.
For attachment you need not be aware and alert. There is no need. Even animals can be attached very easily, rather, more easily. A dog is more attached to his master than any man can be. The dog is completely unconscious so attachment happens. That is why in the countries where human relationship has become poor, such as in the West, man goes on seeking relationship with animals, with dogs, with other animals, because the human relationship is no longer there. Human society is disappearing and every man feels isolated, alienated, alone. The crowd is there but you are not related to it. You are alone in the crowd and this aloneness scares. One becomes afraid and fearful.
When you are related, attached to someone, and someone is attached to you, you feel you are not alone in this world, in this strange world. Someone is with you. That feeling of belonging gives you a sort of security. When human relationship becomes impossible then men and women try to make relationships with animals.
For attachment, awareness is not necessary; rather, awareness is the barrier. The more aware you become the less you will be attached, because the need for attachment disappears. Why do you want to be attached to someone? Because alone you feel you are not enough. You lack something. Something is incomplete in you. You are not a whole. You need someone to complete you. Hence, attachment. If you are aware, you are complete, you are a whole; the circle is now complete, nothing is lacking in you – you don’t need anyone. You, alone, feel a total independence, a feeling of wholeness.
That doesn’t mean that you will not love persons; rather, on the contrary, only you can love. A person who is dependent on you cannot love you: he will hate you. A person who needs you cannot love you. He will hate you because you become the bondage. He feels that without you he cannot live, without you he cannot be happy, so you are the cause of both his happiness and unhappiness. He cannot afford to lose you. This will give a feeling of imprisonment: he is imprisoned by you and he will resent it, he will fight against it. Persons hate and love together, but this love cannot be very deep. Only a person who is aware can love, because he doesn’t need you. But then love has a totally different dimension: it is not attachment, it is not dependence. He is not dependent on you and he will not make you dependent on him; he will remain a freedom and he will allow you to remain a freedom. You will be two free agents, two total, whole beings, meeting. That meeting will be a festivity, a celebration – not a dependence. That meeting will be a fun, a play.
@kidvisions, Kunal’s response is spot on (at least in my point of view). Detachment isn’t a cutting off of emotions, it’s an accepting/allowance of emotions to the point where you realize you are not the emotions themselves, but the awareness behind them which perceives them (one you truly realize this beyond conceptualization, that is detachment). It is very different from denial (a cutting off of emotions). In a detached state, you are able to control your emotions better and truly feel them. You aren’t apathetic at all, but are more expressive.
You said you’d like books that talk about that subject. Specifically with detachment in love relationships? Or detachment in every aspect of life? If it’s the latter, then I’d recommend Eckhart Tolle’s A New Earth and the Power of Now. There’s tons of others, but these two really opened my eyes.
@kunal, you are spot on there. very well written too!
@kidvisions, here is something along the lines of what kunal said towards the end – ” love has a totally different dimension: it is not attachment, it is not dependence. He is not dependent on you and he will not make you dependent on him; he will remain a freedom and he will allow you to remain a freedom. You will be two free agents, two total, whole beings, meeting. That meeting will be a festivity, a celebration – not a dependence. That meeting will be a fun, a play.”
(Shel Silverstein was an American poet, cartoonist and children’s author)
@tine7, I think that @mikeyw829, here explained that it was not “supression” but on the contrary! It was letting them go, oberve them…
Well I guess our feelings come from our EGO (call it the ID = Freudian Subconscious if you will– I like what Buddhism has to say about this though—but this is a different stiry), and the more we learn to let go of its demands the more it stops controlling us, so basically what I’ve been trying to say is the more we stop trying to control, the more we learn to accept how things are and how we feel about them, the more we learn to become an observer of our own feelings the less they will have an impact on us (negative feelings of course) and to borrow Mathieu Ricard’s words –approximatively –” we become like the ocean,storms may come and move the surface but the bottom will forever remain unchanged, not even shaken by what’s going on… it is like a state of mind, we can be in a state of well being while being sad”
@vizznou, Thank you dear friend! :)
@thinknowlivenow, I’m glad you are enjoying this!! :)
@tine7, I think this is turning into a semantical argument. Everything you said makes sense, except for the word detachment. If you substitute the word denial, then I’d wholeheartedly agree with you. Detachment is something completely different though. It’s impossible to detach from emotions without fully going into them and feeling them and observing them. Detachment isn’t an action, it is a state of consciousness. I can’t just decide one day, “I’m going to detach from my emotions.” With denial, you can do that. Detachment is a byproduct of presence.
When I say I am a detached person I was refering to emotional connections with others. I am actually extremely in touch with my imotions, I just seldom share them with others. I joke around with people in person, I am usually more serious on here but on here when I write my mind usually speaks calmly. I don’t know if what I write is perceived as passionate and emotional but there is rarely an exitable mental verbalization in what I am writing or about to write.