One person said she didn’t, as she felt it would prevent her enjoying concerts, theatre, and sharing jokes with friends. Another pointed out that Iain McGilchrist gives examples in his book about people who were completely detached, but he said that their brains were not working correctly. So if we become so detached we would be like a sheep who keeps munching when his friend nearby is being eaten by a wolf. Surely that isn’t what the Gita means? Others saw it differently:
- It’s about living in the present moment – being in the Here and Now. Most of our attachments relate to things in the past and worries about the future.
- Attachment can also be in the present moment – for example, when you get caught up in an argument.
- Attachment can get confused with desires. Some desires are OK. For example, if you are hungry you desire food and you eat. But being obsessed with food would be an attachment.
- It is possible to be detached and happy.
- The System description of ‘identification’ is easier to understand because it explains what is happening. There is also a distinctly recognisable feeling in the body which fluctuates according to the strength of the attachment. This is sometimes easier to spot. “When I am really awake this feeling disappears completely, there is no attachment and I feel very happy and relaxed. It can be easier to notice it that way.”
Someone reminded us that Arjuna’s duty was to be in the world and to fight. But he needed to do this without attachment. One form of identification is identification with the results of action. We need to just get on with what we are doing and not be constantly thinking forward to the result – ‘how nice it will be when I’ve finished it’.
Two examples were given of situations where non-attachment would be particularly beneficial:
- The miners trapped in Chile. If we were there would we be relaxed and positive?
- The father of one group member, who meditates regularly but thinks that attending to all his business worries is a virtue and that non-attachment is fine in theory, but impractical. He tries to draw everyone around him into both his happy and unhappy states. He needs to stop worrying but doesn’t realise that if you can just give up the desire it will come to you.
We were reminded of peeling the layers off an onion and finding nothing in the centre. (See quotation from Peer Gynt in Additional Material.)
Returning (again!) to Iain McGilchrist, one group member was astonished to read that King Lear (and many other of Shakespeare’s plays) had, for 150 years, been performed with a happy ending. Iain McGilchrist argues that negative emotions are a good thing; being entirely positive, he says, is a symptom of left-hemisphere dominance. Another group member had also read a book pointing out the dangers of positive thinking, and claiming that this was the cause of the recent financial crisis – no-one wanted to see things as they really are.
One person said that a long time ago she used to want to be successful and make a lot of money, but she doesn’t want that now. Another felt that it was possible to be attached to something that was inherently good, like wanting to be awake when you are struggling to deal with thoughts and desires – it can get in the way by distracting you into thinking about the past or future rather than just carrying on making efforts in the present.
Then some questions:
- How can we give up attachments when we can’t actually do anything? It was suggested that we can always observe ourselves – the mind and the body. Sometimes that can resolve the situation.
- But don’t we have to be awake to observe? Answer: No! We can always observe – and should try to do so all the time.