Detachment Vs. Integration

[FoxFoxFox]

Recently I've seen some threads here where people argue with each other to challenge people's claims to enlightenment. The argument goes something like this:

"Ganesh, you believe in such and such and that is the paradigm you believe in." The point being that because someone has certain beliefs, they could not be enlightened.

Ganesh then defends their own point of view and attacks with a similar angle. They to point out the "ego" in the other person and claim that they are not enlightened because of it.

Let's look at God's play closely:

Detachment is denying one's direct experience while integration is merging with it. One results in crystallization of the ego as the "guru" while the other results in consciousness flowing freely. I'm only sharing this because i think its a trap that could easily cost someone a decades stuck with in the spiritual path.

Here's a story I remember as told by Alan Watts in "The Way of Zen":

One day a monk in a monastery finds a fellow who is crying in anguish. Such behavior as you might know, is highly uncommon in Zen monastic life where people are taught complete mindfulness and detachment from their behavior and emotions. Seeing the fellow in tears, a monk approaches him and says "What has become of you? What is the reason for your tears?" the man replies that his mother has passed away and that he is crying because he is sad. The monk then says that he is a disgrace and that such behavior is only for the ignorant. "After all, don't you know that in truth you never had any mother to lose?" The grieving man then raises his head and says: "Do not be an idiot. I'm crying because I want to." The first monk then experienced his Satori and awakens.

In the story, the monk was the detached "guru". He became a guru, because consciousness crystallized around the concept of detachment. Instead of using detachment as a tool to find his true nature, he instead clenched his heart and bound himself to the notion of invincibility. In effect he hypnotized himself to believe he is an imperceptible being who is other than his direct experience. In other words, he failed to see his true nature, that his experience, whatever it may be, is God. Instead he made his teaching into yet another veil, denying whats before his eyes, believing in a shadowy void that he thought was his real being.

The grieving man instead WAS consciousness. He didn't create a second mind, ever watchful over his feelings and emotions, and so he was enlightened, perhaps not even knowing it himself. But even if he did, crying would not get in the way of enlightenment. Of course, the "ignorant" monk himself is not separate from God either, but his inner experience could not have been one of peace, freedom, and flow - because he resisted.

[WelcometoReality]

@FoxFoxFox That's a good pointer. And an interesting story. I like how these stories are used to convey truth. It doesn't become abstract theory but a story we can relate to. In my own experience there was first detachment and then there was integration. The Importance is in not fixating on one or the other. 

Truth is multi faceted and one perspective is never enough to convey it.

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

Detachment is denying one's direct experience while integration is merging with it. One results in crystallization of the ego as the "guru" while the other results in consciousness flowing freely. I'm only sharing this because i think its a trap that could easily cost someone a decades stuck with in the spiritual path.

In the context of how you are using the term "detachment", I think you make a great observation and it would indeed be a trap. 

I think there could be a distinction made between two different forms of detachment:

Pure detachment: simple awareness of whatever arises. Thoughts and feelings may arise, yet there is no attachment and identification with the thoughts/feelings. There is no judgement or criticism of the thoughts. Thoughts are merely impulses in the brain, similar to how the sound of bird chirps are merely impulses that occur in the brain. 

Attached detachment: once the awareness described above, it is very tempting for the psychological self to take ownership of it. The self now identifies as being the observer watching the thoughts. This can be a safe haven for the self to hide out undetected. Yet once this identification as being the observer has taken place, I would no longer call it detached awareness. There is now attachment/identification to the awareness. And this is absolutely a trap. One I was in for many years and I've seen it in others. A mind can build an elaborate identity about being the observer.

 

[mandyjw]

I think detachment is a common pitfall especially for men because many have been taught to suppress their emotions since children and they never learned to integrate them properly. One big selling point of this work is that it makes you bulletproof or superhuman. If you started the journey trying to be more manly those traits are very desirable and it can be hard to realize that you might have to first learn to feel your emotions fully before you can integrate them. 

The shortest verse in the bible is "Jesus wept." He cried when a friend died even though he brought him back to life anyway. 

The idea that you can be enlightened and also completely detached and not care about other people is a complete fantasy. If it was real who would want it anyway. The work is about finding your soul not losing it. The good news is that sometimes you have to detach in order to learn that that's NOT how to integrate.  I think almost everybody does it at some point or another. 

[DrewNows]

2 hours ago, mandyjw said:

I think detachment is a common pitfall especially for men because many have been taught to suppress their emotions since children and they never learned to integrate them properly. One big selling point of this work is that it makes you bulletproof or superhuman. If you started the journey trying to be more manly those traits are very desirable and it can be hard to realize that you might have to first learn to feel your emotions fully before you can integrate them. 

The shortest verse in the bible is "Jesus wept." He cried when a friend died even though he brought him back to life anyway. 

The idea that you can be enlightened and also completely detached and not care about other people is a complete fantasy. If it was real who would want it anyway. The work is about finding your soul not losing it. The good news is that sometimes you have to detach in order to learn that that's NOT how to integrate.  I think almost everybody does it at some point or another. 

hey good point! I was asking myself earlier "why do people seek enlightenment?" and then i realized most just see it as the easiest or only way to end their suffering. And once we get on the journey we find out well damn im using spirituality to avoid feeling myself completely and to simply bypass my emotions/fear/desires etc which only creates more disconnect in my life

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, DrewNows said:

hey good point! I was asking myself earlier "why do people seek enlightenment?" and then i realized most just see it as the easiest or only way to end their suffering. And once we get on the journey we find out well damn im using spirituality to avoid feeling myself completely and to simply bypass my emotions/fear/desires etc which only creates more disconnect in my life

Wow.  That's a great insight!

[FoxFoxFox]

@Serotoninluv

Quote

Pure detachment: simple awareness of whatever arises. Thoughts and feelings may arise, yet there is no attachment and identification with the thoughts/feelings. There is no judgement or criticism of the thoughts. Thoughts are merely impulses in the brain, similar to how the sound of bird chirps are merely impulses that occur in the brain. 

Pure detachment is what I call integration in the post

Although, the way you described it makes it sound like a mediation practice. The idea is that there should not be an observer and an observed phenomena and that can only happen if the two merge. That's why i called it integration. I know you understand this. Just clarifying for the sake of others. 

[FoxFoxFox]

@mandyjw @DrewNows

Amen. 

[Forestluv]

20 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@Serotoninluv

Pure detachment is what I call integration in the post

Although, the way you described it makes it sound like a mediation practice. The idea is that there should not be an observer and an observed phenomena and that can only happen if the two merge. That's why i called it integration. I know you understand this. Just clarifying for the sake of others. 

Yea, I like ruprt spiras analogy of the movie screen on this one. 

I would say your integration stage is one step further than what I described as pure detachment. Because what I’m calling pure detachment still has subtle separation. There is a some thing to be aware of. 

I think the “observer + object” stage can be a big step for novices, yet it can be a big trap as well. I spent 20 years in this space and have observed meditation teachers and monks in this space.

[FoxFoxFox]

Quote

I would say your integration stage is one step further than what I described as pure detachment. Because what I’m calling pure detachment still has subtle separation. There is a some thing to be aware of. 

Ah yes. Then you are correct. There should be noo separation whatsoever. The best word for it is surrender really. Complete surrender. I gotta say, even after one surrenders, there is still so much more than can happen. Of course there is no longer a 'you' which these 'things' happen to. But still there is potential for infinite expansion and heightening of perception. 

[Lazy Self]

Could you provide a definition, or description, of complete surrender? @FoxFoxFox

[FoxFoxFox]

@Lazy Self To surrender is to realize you have never been separate from reality (or God or consciousness) in the first place. Reality is nothing but the totality of your direct experience, no matter what that experience actually is. Reality exists prior to your thoughts and ideas about it. Some would illustrate the notion by saying that surrender is when the world ceases to exist. Of course there is a trap here because you might think this means that the sense perceptions must go. This is not the case. The perceptions don't go anywhere. Instead the experience is a literal understanding that whatever thought you might have about reality is not reality itself. That is not to say thoughts themselves are anything but reality. Look at the attached image (the circles).

Here, thought (which themselves are a phenomena within reality) attempt to capture God or consciousness within a framework (which we call the logical frame work). Ignorance, is then mistaking the totality of your nature with the thought. That is to say, allowing the thoughts to limit you.

The most common way we limit ourselves is by believe that we end at the boundaries of the body. This is a thought (the start of the Ego). In English, its form is "I am". The "I am" thought is what used to limit reality. For example "I am a body" limits the totality of your experience with that of sense-perceptions of the human vessel. 

Now all this is just to answer your question. To surrender you do not actually need to believe all this. Surrender is already your nature. You need to investigate this yourself in your direct experience. To do that you have to challenge your assumptions and see if they are really true. These assumptions are the obstacles.

 

[Surfingthewave]

This is a great way of discussing thz topic @FoxFoxFox. For surrender, for me, challenging assumptions is the tricky part. As is being aware of how just being on the path itself can throw you off the path- you just read some recent topics/non duality arguments on this forum to see this. I can definitely relate to feeling stuck in the observer + object stage.