Detachment

Viveka and viråga are the two Påli words which have been translated as "detachment." The two, however, are not synonymous. The primary meaning of viveka is separation, aloofness, seclusion. Often physical withdrawal is implied. The later commentTimes New Roman tradition, however, identifies three forms of viveka: kåya-viveka (physical withdrawal), citta-viveka (mental withdrawal), and upadhi-viveka (withdrawal from the roots of suffering). 

Kåya-viveka, as a chosen way of life, was not uncommon during the time of the Buddha. To withdraw from the household life, renounce possessions, and adopt a solitary mendicancy was a recognized path. The formation of the Buddhist monastic Sangha was grounded in the belief that going out from home to homelessness (agårasmå anagåriyaµ pabbajati) could aid concentrated spiritual effort. Yet to equate the renunciation which the Buddha encouraged with a physical withdrawal which either punished the body or completely rejected human contact would be a mistake.

The Buddha made it clear that the detachment of a noble disciple (ariyasåvaka)-the detachment connected with the path-was not essentially a physical act of withdrawal, let alone austerity. Kåya-viveka was valuable only if seen as a means to the inner purging and mental transformation connected with the destruction of craving. This is illustrated in the Udumbarika S¥hanåda Sutta in which the Buddha claims that the asceticism of a recluse who clings to solitude could lead to pride, carelessness, attention-seeking, and hypocrisy, if not linked to the cultivation of moral virtues and the effort to gain insight through meditation.³

A further insight is given in the Nivåpa Sutta, which weaves a lengthy story around the relationship of four herds of deer with a certain crop, representing sensual pleasure, sown by the hunter (Måra) for the deers' ensnaring. Both the ascetics who crave for pleasure, and those who deny themselves any enjoyment in an extreme way, are destroyed. Referring to the latter, the Buddha says:

"Because their bodies were extremely emaciated, their strength and energy diminished, freedom of mind diminished; because freedom of mind diminished, they went back to the very crop sown by Måra-the material things of this world."⁴

The message of the sutta is that ascetic withdrawal can reduce the mind's ability to discern. It can also lead to the repression of mental tendencies rather than to their rooting out and destruction.

The detachment of which Buddhism speaks, therefore, is not an extreme turning away from that which normally nourishes the human body. Neither is it a closing of the eyes to all beauty, as is clear from the following:

"Delightful, reverend Ónanda, is the Gosinga sal-wood. It is a clear moonlit night; the sal-trees are in full blossom. Methinks deva-like scents are being wafted around ."⁵

This is an expression of delight uttered by Såriputta, an arahant, on meeting some fellow monks one night.

One must look away from external acts and towards the area of inner attitudes and motivation for a true understanding of the role of detachment in Buddhism. Physical withdrawal is only justified if it is linked to inner moral purification and meditation. In this light, citta-viveka and upadhi-viveka become necessary subdivisions to bring out the full implications of detachment within Buddhist spiritual practice. Upadhi-viveka, as withdrawal from the roots of suffering, links up with viråga, the second word used within Buddhism to denote detachment.

Viråga literally means the absence of råga: the absence of lust, desire, and craving for existence. Hence, it denotes indifference or non-attachment to the usual objects of råga, such as material goods or sense pleasures. Non-attachment is an important term here if the Påli is to be meaningful to speakers of English. It is far more appropriate than "detachment" because of the negative connotations "detachment" possesses in English. Råga is a close relation of upådåna (grasping) which, within the causal chain binding human beings to repeated births, grows from taˆhå (craving) and results in bhava-continued saµsåric existence. The English word "non-attachment" suggests a way of looking at both of them.

The Buddhist texts refer to four strands of grasping (upådåna): grasping of sense pleasures (kåmupådåna), of views (di††hËpådåna), of rule and custom (s¥labbatupådåna), of doctrines of self (attavådupådåna). All of these can also be described as forms of råga or desire. To destroy their power over the human psyche, attachment to them must be transformed into non-attachment. Non-attachment or non-grasping would therefore flow from the awareness that no possession, no relationship, no achievement is permanent or able to give lasting satisfaction; from the discovery that there is no self which needs to be protected, promoted, or defended; and from the realization that searching for selfish sensual gratification is pointless, since it leads only to craving and obsession. Phrases which overlap with attachment in this context and which can help to clarify its meaning are: possessiveness in relationships, defensiveness, jealousy, covetousness, acquisitiveness, and competitiveness. Through non-attachment, these are attenuated and overcome. There is nothing yet in this description which points to a lack of concern for humanity or the world. The emphasis is rather on inner transformation so that destructive and divisive traits can be destroyed, making way for their opposites to flourish.

To take attachment to sense pleasures as an example, many suttas mention the peril involved. The person attached to sense pleasures is likened to a "wet, sappy stick" placed in water. As such a stick cannot be used to light a fire, so the one addicted to sense pleasures cannot attain the "incomparable self-awakening" (anuttaråya sambodhåya).⁶ He is one with whom Måra can do what he likes.⁷ He is like one holding a blazing torch, which must be dropped if burning and pain is to be avoided.⁸ In fact, it is stressed that attachment to sense pleasures destroys the mind's ability to think clearly and objectively. Viråga, on the other hand, is linked to the practice of mindfulness (satipa††håna) and to seeing into the truth of things. For Buddhists, therefore, non-attachment or detachment (viråga) does not mean a withdrawal from striving for truth but a movement towards seeing the true nature of things more clearly. In contrast, saråga (attachment) leads to biased and false perceptions, since objects are sensed through a net of predispositions towards attraction and aversion.

Seeing the truth through non-attachment can operate both at a mundane and a higher level. At a mundane level, for instance, if greed always arises when an opportunity for gaining quick wealth is glimpsed, wealth will never be seen objectively as it really is-as transient, subject to change, and no answer to the search for happiness. Because of råga, neither the consequences nor the alternatives will be appreciated. In fact, if any decision has to be made, the alternatives will not be seen clearly as long as the mind is clouded by råga. Dishonesty and the manipulation of others in order to gain what is craved might result. 

With reference to the higher stages of insight, satipa††håna, viveka, and viråga are intertwined. Found in many suttas are words such as the following:

"He (the monk) chooses some lonely spot to rest on his way-in the woods, at the foot of tree, on a hillside and returning there after alms round, he seats himself, when his meal is done, cross-legged ." (kåya-viveka)⁹

"Putting away the hankering after the world, he remains with a heart that hankers not, and purifies his mind of lusts."¹⁰

"Aloof from the pleasures of the senses, aloof from unskilled states of mind, he enters and abides in the first jhåna ." (citta-viveka and viråga).¹¹

The ultimate results of such practices are the four jhånas or absorptions; the verification, by direct vision, of the doctrine of karma; insight into the Four Noble Truths; and eventually, the knowledge that release from rebirth has been gained. Viråga is, in fact, a prerequisite for attaining nibbåna and the treatment of the word in the texts implies that the two are almost synonymous. 

At this point, it is worth looking at how the word "detachment" has been used in the Western tradition. In colloquial usage, to say that a person is detached can be derogatory, implying that the person is not willing to become involved with others or that he or she is neither approachable nor sympathetic. This current usage must be born in mind. Three strands of meaning, however, emerge from most dictionary definitions. Primarily, detachment refers to the action and process of separating. Flowing from this has come the military usage to describe the dispatch of a body of troops. More relevant to this study, however, is the third body of meanings connected with detachment as an attitude of mind. "Aloofness" and "indifference to worldly concerns" are phrases used to describe this attitude. Although these might appear to conform to the above-mentioned contemporary connotations, we find linked with this (in Webster's Dictionary, for example) "freedom from bias and prejudice." Thus, in both the Western tradition and the Eastern, "detachment" is linked with clarity of perception, nonpartiality, and fair judgement. 

Voices supporting this come from the Christian mystical tradition and the contemporary scientific world. Classical Christian mysticism saw indifference to worldly and material concerns as an essential component of the movement towards God. Fulfilling God's will with total love and obedience was accompanied by detachment from the worldly. In modern scientific research a similar quality is emphasized. A commitment to truth is recognized but so is the necessity for a mind detached from the results of research, detached from the wish for a particular outcome. For it is known that if the scientist is searching for one particular scientific result, he might unconsciously manipulate the experiments or observations in order to obtain that result.

Therefore, when looking at the implications of "detachment," it is worth taking into account Western usage as well. The socially active person can be quick to look down on those who appear either distanced from or untouched by the social, economic, and political crises facing the world. But they should remember that detachment can have a positive fruit even in relation to social activism: the ability to see the truth more clearly and to judge more impartially.

To return to the Buddhist tradition: The Buddha was once faced with the remark that the most worthy person is the one who speaks neither in dispraise of the unworthy nor in praise of the praiseworthy. The Buddha disagreed with this. He replied that, because of his ability to discriminate, the person who speaks in dispraise of the unworthy and in praise of worthy is best.¹² The Buddha rejects the self-distancing which refuses to take sides or to speak out against what should be condemned. He criticizes the desire to keep the truth inviolate and unspoken through a wish not to become involved with society. Viveka and viråga therefore do not imply the kind of withdrawal which is unconcerned with what is good or bad for human welfare.

The fruits of non-attachment are not only linked with the gaining of knowledge, the "incomparable self-awakening," but are also related to creating a just and harmonious society. The Mahådukkhakkhandha Sutta makes a direct connection between attachment to sense pleasures and the movement towards chaos in society. Greed for the possessions of another leads to disputes and contentions at the level of both the family and nation, until "having taken sword and shield, having girded bow and quiver, both sides mass for battle and arrows are hurled and swords are flashing."¹³ In the same sutta, theft, adultery, and vicious corporal punishment are likewise attributed to sense pleasures and attachment to them.

In other texts, attachment to views is spoken about as a cause of disputes, especially in the religious community. Yet the point drawn is relevant to the whole of society. The result of a person asserting, "This is the very truth, all else is falsehood," is dispute. And: "If there is dispute, there is contention; if there is contention, there is trouble; if there is trouble, there is vexation."¹⁴

Therefore, far from implying lack of concern for the welfare of others, detachment from such things as sensual desires and the urge to assert dogmatic views is seen as essential to it. We are back to the four strands of grasping and the need to root these out.