On Jul 9, 6:48 pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jul 9, 6:23 pm, Ed
earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> On Jul 9, 2:36 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>> On Jul 9, 10:06 am, Ed
earthlink.net> wrote:>
>>>> On Jul 8, 10:01 pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>>> "July 26, 2007
>
>>>>> “Do you want to know what my secret is?”
>
>>>>> ©Jim Dreaver, 2005
>
>>>>> Release Attachment To Outcomes
>
>>>>> A fear that many people have is that if they don’t hold tightly to
>>>>> their goals and dreams and think about them all day long, they won’t
>>>>> accomplish them. Yet it is the very attachment to outcomes, to getting
>>>>> a specific result, that sets the stage for anxiety, the fear that you
>>>>> won’t achieve what you want. As you learn to release the attachment,
>>>>> new creative energies—as well as feelings of courage and confidence—
>>>>> spring forth, and actually move you closer to your objectives.
>
>>>>> Worrying about the future is one of the main causes of stress in our
>>>>> lives. It is a habit that just perpetuates fear, the uncomfortable
>>>>> feeling that we aren’t enough as we are. It keeps us stuck in the
>>>>> belief that such-and-such must happen if we are going to be happy, and
>>>>> that if it doesn’t, our lives will be miserable.
>
>>>>> There’s a story about J. Krishnamurti that speaks reams about what it
>>>>> means to be free of this limiting, fear-based pattern of thinking.
>>>>> Every spring he used to give talks in a beautiful oak grove in Ojai,
>>>>> in southern California. He had been speaking there for over sixty
>>>>> years. On this particular occasion when I went to hear him, in the
>>>>> late nineteen-seventies, there must have been close to two thousand
>>>>> people in attendance, sitting on the grass, or in their folding
>>>>> chairs.
>
>>>>> It was always an extraordinary experience, hearing Krishnamurti in
>>>>> person. Aldous Huxley, who was a friend of Krishnamurti’s, described
>>>>> it as: “Like listening to a discourse of the Buddha—such authority,
>>>>> such intrinsic power.”
>
>>>>> Part way through this particular talk, Krishnamurti suddenly paused,
>>>>> leaned forward, and said, almost conspiratorially, “Do you want to
>>>>> know what my secret is?” Almost as though we were one body we sat up,
>>>>> even more alert than we had been, if that was possible. I could see
>>>>> people all around me lean forward, their ears straining and their
>>>>> mouths slowly opening in hushed anticipation.
>
>>>>> Krishnamurti rarely ever talked about himself or his own process, and
>>>>> now he was about to give us his secret! He was in many ways a
>>>>> mountaintop teacher—somewhat distant, aloof, seemingly unapproachable,
>>>>> unless you were part of his inner circle. Yet that’s why we came to
>>>>> Ojai every spring, to see if we could find out just what his secret
>>>>> was. We wanted to know how he managed to be so aware and enlightened,
>>>>> while we struggled with conflict and our numerous problems.
>
>>>>> There was a silence. Then he said in a soft, almost shy voice, “You
>>>>> see, I don’t mind what happens.”
>
>>>>> I don’t mind what happens. That is the essence of inner freedom. It is
>>>>> a timeless spiritual truth: release attachment to outcomes, and—deep
>>>>> inside yourself—you’ll feel good no matter what. You’ll feel good
>>>>> because you are connected to, one with, the energy of the universe,
>>>>> the beauty and power of creation itself. Or, as Krishnamurti himself
>>>>> put it:
>
>>>>> ‘When you live with this awareness, this sensitivity, life has an
>>>>> astonishing way of taking care of you. Then there is no problem of
>>>>> security, of what people say or do not say, and that is the beauty of
>>>>> life.’
>
>>>>> ©Jim Dreaver, 2005"
>
>
>>>> This works pretty good as long as what happens is mostly good or at
>>>> least not too bad. However, if something really bad happens to you,
>>>> like, say, being waterboarded by the CIA, I think one minds. Even if
>>>> one tries to not mind, the pain and fear break through.
>
>>>> Very few can not mind when something terrible happens to a loved one,
>>>> If one could do that it would be reasonable to ask "were they really a
>>>> loved one or just someone you knew?" Isn't that what having a loved
>>>> one means; that you care what happens to them? Suppose a loved one
>>>> were to lose their center, became fearful and angry, would you not
>>>> mind?
>
>>> I think there is a difference between "not caring" and "not minding".
>>> I think one can care, but still remain detached (and of course, words
>>> always fail to capture the subtleties).
>
>>> I agree though, it takes an extraordinary individual to remain
>>> detached in the face of such circumstances, and I don't claim to be
>>> one of them. But understanding it from an intellectual standpoint is
>>> at least a start.- Hide quoted text -
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> From my viewpoint remaining detached is not necessarily a good thing.
>> If I see my child in distress, let's agree I care, but if spiritually
>> advanced I don't mind, I accept things as they are and, in the end I
>> take no action.
>
> Not really. What you 'don't do' is allow your 'caring' to interfere
> with the actions necessary to save her. Perhaps you don't "rush over"
> as you say, but walk calmly while calling 911.
>
> I think that the proper way to see this kind of detachment is that you
> are detached from yourself, not from others. You are therefore more a
> part of them, and of the situation, without the baggage of self.
>
> -tg
Well put.
>> On the other hand, if I mind, I rush over and try to
>> save her from whatever it is, I have lost my detachment. In my town a
>> man was arrested for not interferring when the family dog nipped and
>> scratched a two year old. He just watched. Somehow I yearn for a more
>> activist morality.
>
>> How do those who are advanced enough to want detachment feel about
>> such things as sending aid to flood victims? Good deed or regression?
