' Attachment '...

But what does this non‑attachment mean?

The monks and ascetics glibly use this word but their sense of its meaning is not the same as the philosopher’s.

It does not mean that we are to prefer being well‑emaciated to being well‑nourished. It does not mean that we should deliberately choose dirty hovels in which to dwell, uncomfortable chairs in which to sit, ill‑paid menial work by which to earn our livelihood or poverty in preference to pros­perity.

And it certainly does not mean that we are to turn our backs on wife, child, parent, friend and social status. Those who say it does mean these things make the mistake of confusing different levels of ethical reference, of propagating for universal practice a moral attitude which is perfectly right for themselves alone, perfectly right for men who have outwardly renounced the world and become monks.

All such public advertisements of piety, however, leave the philosopher cold.

He practises non‑attachment by understanding the transiency of all things and there­fore by refusing to look for permanent happiness in this mundane sphere, by ever keeping at the back of his mind and in the inmost recess of his heart a secret reservation against dependence on any earthly thing or living creature for final happiness.

He will take the best that this world offers him, if he can, but at the same time he is fully prepared to take the worst. For he knows the real nature of the world and puts his ultimate faith in That where no person and no formed thing can dwell. He is, in fact, really attached only to one thing ‑ the Overself.


- Paul Brunton