Talk:Nonattachment (philosophy)

message: To expand upon this article stub and precisely clarify the terms "attachment", "nonattachment" and "detachment" deserves a better articulation that I can offer. So, I'm asking for (divine and/or secular) editorial intervention from a more authoritative source to manifest, and be organized into the proper format. No, I'm not too lazy to do it myself, I just know my limits--and when to defer.
These are conceptually complex topics that can be easily muddled in English by  our using multiple derived prefixes with similar meanings as much as by the assumptions that saturate the various translation paths from the 2,500+ year old context of Siddhartha Gautama (the historical Buddha) into our contemporary Western one.
There is no Buddhist doctrine promoting "detachment" as described in this article, but Buddha advised deliberately cultivating "non-attachment"; even though the two terms can appear interchangeable, they are not.
"Attachment".
Buddha described a principal cause of human suffering as "attachment"; that is to say any sentient being's attitude that clings to or grasps at anything (ANYTHING: including the notion of ego/self, the notion of other/not-self, emotions, concepts, memories, desires, events, outcomes, judgements, objects, places, beliefs, relationships--really ANY phenomena which can occur, be experienced, imagined, noticed and/or labeled) as if "it" were limited by an imposed judgement, fixed in status, space, or time, permanent, self-existent, controllable, or even tangibly real. Attachment drives an insatiable frustration of grasping vainly at that which can not truly be held onto because of its illusory, impermanent nature.
"Non-Attachment".
Non-attachment is that state of mind whereby a sentient being is able to perceive, discern, understand or otherwise appreciate anything (once again--ANYTHING--any phenomena that can be said to occur, be imagined, be labeled and/or be experienced)--sometimes called "an object of mind" or simply "labeled phenomena" as it is, in its fullness as a temporary and illusive occurrence  within an infinite web of interdependent interconnected occurrences, but ABSENT the desire to judge it, control it, view it is as permanent, self-existent, and/or indepedendent of causes and effects. Non-attachment is not clinging, not grasping. Non-attachment is related to equanimity: that equalizing yet discerning observance from all sides simultaneously without judgement or expectation. Non-attachment is necessary for the cultivation of the omniscient (enlightened) mind.
"Detachment"
Detachment is a different concept altogether, and it's description in this article stub is largely accurate, but it has nothing to do with Buddhism. Detachment is that illusion whereby the sentient being holds an object of mind at the artificial distance of aloof denial; it means to actively not care about something whether it is noticed or not; to willfullt or carelessly attempt to deny it power or essence with the numbing opiate that is correctly called apathy, or disassociation.
Neither attachment nor detachment are exemplary of the enlightened mind; both can be described as unskilled activities common to sentient beings, both are breakable habits, and both equally keep the sentient being in the realm of samsara (the infinite cycle of the common incarnate existence that includes birth, sickness, suffering, death, bardo, re-birth, etc). Detachment flees; Attachment chases. Buddha spoke of practicing non-attachment as the necessary middle path beyond ever-fragmenting samsara into all-absorbing nirvana.
67.188.109.185 11:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  expand from stub 

message: .Detachment and the search for truth
.Detachment and non suffering
.Detachment and compassion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.106.25 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the article can please everyone or even be exhaustive. I have tried to balance it as much as I can. But still, the English words "Detachment" and "Non-attachment" themselves are a compromise and should be regarded as such. They cannot be expected to reflect all the differences in shade, emphasis and degree that meet the requirements and needs of the whole array of philosophies and religions which have "detachment" as an ideal or main principle. Whew! Xufanc (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: DETACHEMENT & NPOV

message: I can't make out whether this is an article about Buddhism and non-attachment or about some other philosophy. The confusion seems to be about the terms "non-attachment" and "detachment" which the article, affirmed by the first comment in this talk section, seems to equate.
The term "non-attachment" is not usually equated with the word "detachment" in Buddhism, and that is because the latter is used to describe a quite different idea. Non-attachment of course means what it usually means in Buddhism. However, detachment is a word commonly used in the west to describe an attitude of mind that simulates non-attachment, in the sense that one is "not emotionally involved", is removed, or to be more subjective, "cold", and even perhaps uncaring. More often (but not always) this describes a person. To venture into more careless territory, it hints at a suppression of feeling which one suspects is the psychological mechanism behind this. The difference is that the non-attached person remains engaged; the detached person does not.
Hardly a scientific analysis, but then again, this is not science...which tends to be detached.
--70.79.64.157 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of terms