Letting Go of Attachment


I would like to get a feel for what everyone thinks of when they think of what exactly “Attachment” means to them. Many esoteric practices require the student to disband all attachment. Nevertheless, the definition seems to stray and waver according to each school of thought.
I am still quite undecided, or should I say, unknowing of what the actual meaning of attachment is, and how to actually “let go”.
Thoughts? Ideas? References?


Dk The Mage…I am not getting too in-depth here as over analyzing this would be a distraction from a simple answer…To be attached to something means that I cannot walk away from it or cut myself off from it, for any length of time…Whether it be a person, place, idea, or object…I think, and on my path personally, to master letting go, one needs to be able to constantly alter their perception and by doing so that will always change the dynamics of “attachment” a.k.a. the thing(s) that control(s) and/or has power over you…When you change your perception, you alter your reality…That is one of the most powerful abilities…


To me attachments can sum up everything your egoic mind clings to; beliefs, superstitions, past experiences, future fantasies about how life could be better or worse, how you view yourself as a person, how you perceive others and the world around you, your general personality and demeanour. Any craving or desire is an attachment according to eastern teachings, and will become a cause of suffering.

Your ego is all of that, your soul is free of all that. And remember, wanting to let go of attachments is an attachment itself! I think if this earth and reality is all an illusion, just recognise it as such and enjoy it while you got it.

At the moment I am attached to my anger because of my piss weak theta meditations!

Have you read 'The power of Now" by E. Tolle?

Its westernised Zen


Emotional attachment is any unnecessary attention you give to anything that is not directly helpful to your own personal evolution.


I’d suggest A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle. It’s easier to read.


I may take a look into that. I’ve always had a sort of … well, for some reason I’ve always been turned off by Tolle - but, to be honest, I’ve never given him a legitimate chance either. I can’t really say where the bias has come from. I may give him a shot at some point. Thanks for the tip :slight_smile:


I feel like the whole “letting go of attachments” is, like many bits of advice of this sort, more of a mindset that you attain rather than advice that you follow. As Brutus mentioned, “wanting to let go […]” is an attachment as well. Being an ascetic can be just as self-indulging as being a hedonist.

So, letting go of attachments is a state of being that arises as you embody the mindset that comes with it. You start to behave as if the things around you only affect you as you see fit, and your will begins to manifest it. I wish I could describe it more clearly than this, but that is how I understand it to work and how I have had success in freeing myself.

And yes, practicing presence/empty-mind/etc. in your normal waking life is a useful adjunct to gaining this mindset. Tolle’s rhetoric is sometimes pretty self-helpy, but his techniques are quite effective and easy to implement in my opinion. I’ve used them to induce certain states in lucid dreaming, for instance.


I could tend to agree with much of this. My main point of inquiry though is concerning the concept “attachment”. It seems the philosophies surrounding it are vague and, at the very least, barely helpful. For instance, disassociation to the point that you would have no problems picking up and completely leaving your life behind in pursuit of training, or at the whim of a teacher’s request. That it’s not the attachment at all, but the willingness to let go of anything at any time for any reason. The book, The Yoga of Power, suggests that many tantric ritualists were taught to leg go to such a degree, that if it were required for sexual magick, they would have no problems with intercourse with their sister or mother for the purpose of magickal practices. Not even a second thought. While other’s maintain the mindset that attachment is ok, but it’s the attachment, as has already been said, to things that detract from your spiritual progression - however, depending on the view point, that could be just about everything - or it could be absolutely nothing if you see your attachments as “lessons to be learned” in your progression.
As Timothy explains, attachment is anything you don’t need for progression - which seems to make a lot of sense to me, personally.
Perhaps, on a deeper level - it all makes sense together. Release any unnecessary attachments, learn and grow on the ones you do have, but when they become obsolete - whether it is a job, a family, a habit, a hobby, or simply a change in your personal point of view toward something notwithstanding it’s nature, it becomes an obstacle and one must remove it as such.
Perhaps they’re all worthy philosophies - each to only be realized at a specific point in development and magickal maturity. Once realized, however, the paradox of attachment becomes attachment itself, and one must adhere to the rule and sever it.


Well and that’s what I was trying to get at - “attachment” as a philosophical concept is much more difficult to intellectually understand than actually progressing toward the state of “no attachments”. Similarly, trying to get someone to understand how to ride a bike is more difficult than simply making them go out there and actually ride a bike.

One intellectualization on the topic that I feel pretty confident about: attempting to understand everything intellectually/rationally is an attachment. Intellectual understanding is often an impediment to achievement if it stops the practitioner from progressing through the practice. This isn’t to say that one should not use every tool at one’s disposal, including the intellect, to further understanding. But one should also not be stopped by the whys, whats, and hows; especially if one can simply do.


I guess one way to see it is how, lets say someone who is “awakened” and has experienced supernatural, astral projection, new belief systems, evocations, etc… Is very scared of heights and he has to cross a bridge. One that shakes and swings and forces you to look down. Well even though it scares him he has no problem crossing it because he is detached from the “fear of dying” and so if he fell he knows that life would still go on and whatnot. So he isnt trying to get killed, but if the bridge did happen to fall. He wouldnt be so attached to his physical 3d life. And so it wouldnt be as much of a problem and obstacle as it could be if he was.

I dont know if that explains it but thats just something I pondered and thought up while I was doing handstands.


Attachement to me means being attached to the idea of the you who exists as having some kind of ultimate reality…I like Tolle’s views on this too…His intro at the beginning of The Power if Now reminds me a bit of your experiments with alternate selves D.K. as he flips from the ‘me’ that he has been all his life to the realisation that there is another version of himself witnessing his unhappiness, then he connects with that self and is absorbed by it achieving a kind of satori. Whats funny though is that he then spends two years sitting on park benches being so blissed out with no attachments he becomes virtually a bum. I prefer the Samurai version of detachment I think where one acts and is empowered but becomes detached from the self who relies upon a particular outcome…


Ah! Now I know why I’ve put off reading his books. My healer has proposed his work to me several times and each time I declined because I just felt like it had this ‘Celine Dion undertone’ of “Oh my god, I blew my nose and snot came out! It’s a MIRACLE!”. Perhaps I should give him a try after all.


You’re not wrong in your assessment - there are times it really does read that way. However, the techniques are very practical and applicable. I’ve used his presence techniques in place of other inner silence techniques and they appear to work just the same, but are somewhat simpler to setup.