Contemporary Buddhism, VoL 5, No.

2, 2004

D Routledge
g ^ TaylorfiifranciiCroi

A Study in Buddhist Psychology: is Buddhism truly pro-detachment and anti-attachment?

Lynken Ghose Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

Buddhism is often portrayed as pro-detachment and anti-attachment, yet is this really true? If we examine love, we can see that attachment is always a part of love, and, in fact, without a deep attachment or bond, one can question whether a relationship is loving at all. Thus, since the ultimate aim of Buddhism is to be compassionate, empathetic and loving towards both oneself and others, how can this goal truly be a complete lack of attachment? While it is plausible to interpret Buddhism's goal as that of detachment (detachment often being used as the antonym of attachment), as some of the scriptural passages seem to be translatable in this fashion. Buddhism could also be interpreted as accepting attachments based on love but not accepting attachments based on possessiveness. Along the same lines, rather than accepting all types of detachment, Buddhism could be interpreted as accepting detachment based on the desire to set someone or something free from one's acquisitiveness, yet as rejecting detachment that masks a lack of caring or subtle (or not so subtle) form of apathy. Thus, translators and interpreters of Buddhism should be very careful to make these distinctions. In spite of the largely technical nature of this paper, the topic itself is one of practical concem. The fact that many modem interpreters of Buddhism and translators of ancient scriptures argue that Buddhism is pro-detachment and anti-attachment, not defining these terms in a careful and precise manner could actually be quite harmful for those who rely on their interpretations for guidance. In fact, I have witnessed many Buddhist practitioners, in both the East and the West, attempting to distance themselves from their feelings, even the softer ones, because they truly believed that this type of distance was the meaning of Buddhist detachment. Instead, what they ended up doing was merely making themselves more unhappy, as they lost touch with their real feelings and became more apathetic towards the world. What is the meaning of the words 'attachment' and 'detachment' in English? For the most part, this study assumes that these two words are antonyms, as that seems to be the way that they are used in everyday English. In the Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1993), the following definitions are offered for attachment: 'a feeling (as affection) that binds a person, a regard' or 'the
ISSN 1463-9947 print; 1476-7953 online/04/020105-16 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1463994042000319807

106 L. Ghose physical connection by which one thing is attached to another, a fastening'. If we focus on the more psychological connotations of the word, 'attachment' implies a kind of special feeling of bonding to another person. In the same dictionary, detachment is defined as 'the act or feeling of detaching, separation', 'indifference to worldly concerns or partisan opinion' or 'absence of emotional bias, neutrality of feeling' {Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1993). Detachment connotes not only a lack of any special feeling or bond to another person, but also a kind of indifference or a complete lack of hierarchy in regard to one's feelings: thus, according to this definition of detachment, one might treat one's neighbor and one's mother in the same way. John Bowlby, one of the foundational researchers in Westem psychology on attachment theory, defines attachment as a '"primary motivational system" with its own workings and interface with other motivational systems' (Holmes 1993, 63).' Other modern psychological definitions, similar to the dictionary definitions quoted previously, seem to imply that attachment is 'the condition in which an individual is linked emotionally with another person ...' (Holmes 1993, 218). (Thus, detachment would be the absence of any emotional link.) Yet, it is perhaps not central to determine whether attachment is a 'motivational system' (i.e. some sort of volition) or an emotion. Instead, the significance attributed to attachment within the human psyche is of more import. Beginning with Bowlby's work on attachment, healthy attachment is seen as an essential ingredient of a human being's psychological make-up. Bowlby also emphasizes 'the importance of bonding between parents and children' and the 'need for a secure base and to feel attached' (Holmes 1993, 2). In addition, the importance of attachment is not restricted to the psychological life of the child; for adults and adolescents, attachment and bonding are also important. Bowlby states that deep, loving feelings correspond to a deep attachment (Holmes 1993, 69). In fact, he sees marriage as the 'adult manifestation of attachment whose companionship provides a secure base allowing for work and exploration, and a protective shell in times of need' (Holmes 1993, 81-2). In the folowing quote, Bowlby makes a link between the secure/insecure attachment of the child and subsequent feelings of security/insecurity that may develop later in life. A securely attached child will store an internal working model of a responsive, loving, reliable care-giver, and a self that is worthy of love and attention and will bring these assumptions to bear on all relationships. Conversely, an insecurely attached child may view the world as a dangerous place in which people are to be treated with great caution, and sees himself as ineffective and unworthy of love. (Holmes 1993, 79) Thus, in summary, it is evident from Bowlby's work and subsequent theorists on attachment theory that healthy attachment is an essential ingredient of the child's psyche and that the nature of the child's early attachments, especially to his/her caregiver, is especially important in the development of healthy, loving relationships in adult life. Also, modem Westem psychology in general asserts that deep love always includes deep attachment, even for adults.

Is Buddhism Truly Pro-detaehment and Anti-attachment?

107

One of the more precise descriptions of attachmetit in Buddhist literature comes from the Saundarananda of Asvaghosa. In verse 18.18-18.19, Asvaghosa offers a number of translations for this concept, including murchita, nisrita, samyoga, pratibaddha, sakta, and grathita. The word murchita comes from the verbal root mUrch + and is especially vivid in its connotation. It seems to imply a connection to something that has become so rigid as to be calcified. Sakta, pratibaddha, grathita, and so on imply a grasping, a fastening, or a clinging. caturvidhe naikavidhaprasatige yato 'hamdhdravidhdvasaktalf amurchitas cagrathitas ca tatra tribhyo vimukto 'smi tato bhavebhyahll (18.18, Saundarananda) Since I am unattached to the four types of food, all of which have many types of attachments (inherent within act of eating them) and (since) I am not bound nor attached (to them), I am free from the three worlds. anisritas cdpratibaddhacitto drstasrutddau vyavaharadharmel yasmdt samatmdnugatas ca tatra tasmdd visamyogagato 'smi muktahll (18.19, Saundaranandaf Since I am not dependent nor bound to the everyday world, characterized by (attachment to) the sense organs, and since I have come to have an equanimous mind towards this world, I am liberated, detached (from it). Another telling word that is used in association with attachment within the Saundarananda is asthd (17.6), In the context of the Saundarananda, this word seems to imply that one is waiting for a particular result from something, and hence anastha means the quality of non-waiting or non-expectation. Thus, if we combine the idea of asthd with murehita and so on, attachment connotes something like a hardened bond that brings about rigid expectations for a certain result, and so on. Another part of the standard Buddhist view on attachment is that it is intricately linked to parikalpa or delusion. In verse 13.49, of Asvaghosa's Saundarananda and in Kambala's Alokamdld,'^ the Buddhist admonition against parikalpa, and therefore, by extension, attachment, is clearly expressed, nendriyam visaye tdvat pravrttam api sajjatel ydvan na manasas tatra parikalpah pravartate//l3.49, Saundarananda/P As long as delusion does not exist in the mind, even if a sense organ is in use, it does not attach to its object. sarva eva prahdtavyah parikalpo Hpako api hi/ hrdaye 'bhiplavdyaiva bhrantirUpd hi kalpandll 8, Alokamdldlf' All conception(s) should be abandoned, even the smallest. For, conception, which of the nature of delusion, enters into the heart (i.e, and thus causes the heart to be deluded). In the passage from the Saundarananda, delusion (parikalpa) is what causes attachment, and thus attachment is entirely negative, being clearly associated

108 L Ghose with a misconception or a misunderstanding of the world. Without this delusion, there would be no attachment, only detachment, as we misconceive the things of the world as permanent, when they are, in fact, impermanent. The second passage from the Alokamdld gives us a further hint as to the implications of attachment by saying that conceptions themselves have the nature of delusion. This seems to imply that conceptions, due to their fixed nature and inability to approximate the specifics of an experience, may reinforce or strengthen one's attachments, and cause one suffering when these attachments are brought into question. For example, if one has the conception that a cow has four legs, weighs at least 1000 pounds, and has a white color, it may be difficult for one to adjust to the fact that a 1000 pound black animal with four legs could also be categorized as a 'cow', as one would be too attached to one's preconceptions about the 'whiteness' of a 'cow'. In summary, to combine the different portrayals of 'attachment' in the Saundarananda, attachment is characterized by a misunderstanding {parikalpa) and a certain, fixed expectation (dsthd), as well as being characterized by a hardened (mUrchita) bond between two people or between a person and a thing. From these passages from the Saundarananda and so on, one gets the impression that attachment is clearly something negative. This idea differs greatly from the Westem psychological understanding of Bowlby and others, which does not see all attachments as necessarily stemming from delusive thinking, nor does it see the bond of attachment as necessarily something negative. As was mentioned previously, in Western psychological thinking, love always includes some attachment. This brings into question translating words with a purely negative connotation in Buddhist Sanskrit texts (such as updddna, sakta, etc.), as 'attachment' because the English word 'attachment' carries some positive undertones. Perhaps a translation of 'negative attachment' or 'clinging' would always be better for these types of words. In his Clarifying the Natural State, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, a modem Tibetan interpreter of Buddhism, provides us with more clues as to the Buddhist understanding of detachment. For him, Buddhist detachment is primarily concemed with remaining 'unbound' in action and with neither being too much in pursuit of the pleasant (too 'accepting') nor too rejecting of the painful. The idea of being 'uninvolved in striving' may hark back to the idea of andsthd in the Saundarananda, as it implies that one should have a lack of concem for a certain fixed result. In addition, Tashi Namgyal's reference to 'naturalness' in the following text seems to be urging a cultivation of one's original state of mind before the advent of dualistic judgments, for these types of judgments disturb the inherent peace of the mind, especially if one gets too caught up in them. To be unbound, remain free from accepting and rejecting, remain effortless and leave the six sense impressions in naturalness. In this way, nine essential points are listed. Phrased differently. You should possess these three key points: remain artless in unconcemed naturalness; remain artless

Is Buddhism Truly Pro-detachment and Anti-attachment?

109

and uncontrived without judging; remain unbound and uninvolved in striving.^ In Buddhism, there are many words, in addition to those from the Saundarananda, that have been translated as 'detachment' or 'dispassion': viraga, upeksd, upddana are some that commonly occur. In the Majjhima Nikdya, viraga is frequently lauded as the goal of Buddhism, and is rendered as 'dispassion' by one modem translator, Bhikkhu Nanamoli; in Rune Johansson's Psychology of Nirvana, Johansson describes the feelings of the arhat as 'disinterested and impersonal'. In addition, in many standard Sanskrit-English and Pali-English dictionaries, virdga and upeksd {upekkhd, Pali) are translated as 'dispassionateness', 'indifference', 'zero point'.* Zero point seems to imply some point of non-feeling from which one observes feelings. Also, at times, upeksd is also rendered as 'equanimity' by some translators. E. H. Johnston, who can still be considered to be the principal scholarly figure in Asvaghosa studies, translates upeksd as 'indifference' and virdga as 'passionlessness'. In the same two verses, Alessandro Passi, a more recent translator of the Saundarananda, renders virdga as 'free of passion' (priva de passione) and upeksd as the state of being or remaining 'indifferent' {indijferente)? Many of these interpreters of Buddhism take the view that attachment is something negative to be extinguished. For example, Grace Burford, in her study of the Atthakavagga, states 'the general teaching against desire and attachment treats persons who detach themselves as ideal, exemplary' (Burford 1991, 50-1). Buddhadasa, a twentieth-century Thai Theravdda Buddhist master, states: 'Buddhism cannot be characterized as either optimistic or pessimistic ... Furthermore, it teaches us to form no attachments, to be neither glad over the benefits nor upset over the drawbacks' (Swearer 1991, 86). In the following passage, Geshe Gelsang Gyatso, a modem Tibetan teacher, echoes the sentiments of Buddhadasa. Likewise, the more attachment we have, the more problems we experience. At the moment most of our problems arise because of attachment. A thief, for example, may be sent to prison for the whole of his life because of his attachment... The Buddhist master Vasubandhu used many examples to show how attachment creates suffering. His first example was that flies have a very strong attachment to pleasing odours. Yet when they try to land on food, humans kill them. Moths are attached to beautiful forms such as light... They try to enter into the light and finally die. According to Vasubandhu, some living beings die from attachment to visual form or sound, taste, smell or touch. But human beings have strong attachment to all of these five sense objects. (Gyatso 1984, 5-6) In contrast. Lama Anagarika Govinda strongly asserts that the term 'detachment' is a misleading representation of Buddhist doctrine. In addition, he points out that it is not attachment itself that is necessarily unwholesome, but rather it is the motivation behind one's attachment that determines whether or not attachment is spiritually healthy or unhealthy. Perhaps one could extend this

110 L Ghose analogy of his to include positive and negative forms of detachment as well. The word attachment is frequently used by Buddhists in English. It is intended to express the idea that we bind ourselves through our passionate, demanding possessiveness, and that we therefore necessarily suffer hy being so bound when, sooner or later, the object of desire eludes our grasp. It is therefore non-attachment, in giving up and letting go (the sign of the true love that wishes to make not itself but the loved person happy) that the way to the overcoming of suffering is to be sought. This basic Buddhist attitude that teaches people to show first real love, real compassion, and unrestricted joy in the joy of others (while at the same time, we attain to an inner equanimity in regard to what happens to ourselves), was at a relatively early date reinterpreted and taken to mean that every kind of human attachment and love was devalued. This concept arose because of the wide range of meanings in the English word detachment, but the German-speaking Buddhists followed suit, using the words Verhatftetsein or Anhaften for all forms of love and affection, irrespective of whether it was a matter of passionate desire and possessiveness or of loving devotion. In this way. Western Buddhism was turned into a gloomily ascetic and anti-world doctrine ... (Govinda 1991, 87) Thus, Govinda asserts that a true understanding of Buddhism is that one should feel real joy at the happiness of others, or a kind of deep involvement with them; yet, one should practice a kind of equanimity in the face of one's own good and bad fortune or, in a sense, a kind of detachment towards one's own extemal situation and intemal mood. Govinda continues to explicate his understanding of attachment in Buddhism, by making very significant distinction: that of good versus bad attachments. We must test our attachment in regard to its specific nature and characteristics, for only by doing so can we determine whether it is wholesome or unwholesome. If we cling to things or beings with passionate possessiveness, we will experience suffering and learn the unwholesome nature of our actions. But if we are inclined toward things and beings with an inner freedom and with loving sentiments, that is wholesome. (Govinda 1991, 89) Thus, Lama Govinda, unlike many of the previously quoted modem interpreters and ancient sources, allows for wholesome and unwholesome attachments. There is such a thing as being attached in loving way and being attached in a non-loving way; it is not attachment itself that is the enemy. This seems to imply that an enlightened person could still have loving attachments, and hence his theory may have implications for the way we interpret the Buddhist conception of nirvdna. Lama Govinda's point of view resonates with more socially engaged Buddhist teachers, such as Chan Khong. In her book Learning True Love: How I Learned and Practice Social Change in Viet Nam, she states: "If tonight my heart ceases to beat, you will see me in all these sisters and

Is Buddhism

Truly Pro-detachment

and Anti-attachment?

Ill

brothers. There are those who continue my work for hungry children, others who enjoy my work of listening to the suffering of people in order to help them be healed" (1993, 251). Chan Khong does not believe in solitary enlightenment, nor does she see Buddhist practice outside of the care for the poor and the needy. For her, Buddhism always implies involvement in the suffering of others. One can never detach from or live outside of this involvement, even for a moment. Thus, although she does not state this directly, Chan Khong does not seem to be for 'detachment' in the sense of indifference or neutrality towards the sufferings of other people and the world in general, nor does she seem to be against attachments based on love and caring. In addition, although many of his interpretations put him at odds with Lama Govinda, one phrase within Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's comments on attachment seems to imply some sort of agreement: 'Also, in terms of family and personal relationships, intense attachment can lead to problems such as over-possessiveness' (Gyatso 1984, 5). The key phrase here is 'intense attachment'. This phrase indicates a distinction between 'intense attachment' and some other sort of attachmentperhaps a less clingy sort of attachment? If this distinction is indeed implied, then Kelsang Gyatso is closer to Lama Govinda's understanding. If one looks at the scriptural, commentarial and semi-scriptural literature'" in Buddhism, certain scriptural sources do seem to make distinctions between positive and negative types of attachments, as well as positive and negative types of detachments. One such discussion takes place in Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga. In one section of the text, Buddhaghosa discusses six major personality types: faithful, greedy, hating, intelligent, speculative and deluded. He then breaks this schema down into three pairs: the greedy personality is paired with the faithful one; the intelligent personality with the hating; and the speculative with the deluded. The paired personalities are considered to be parallel or linked in a certain way. The only positive personalities in this schema are the faithful and the intelligent; the rest seem to have qualities that are not conducive to Buddhist practice. Yasmd pana dosacaritassa kusalappavattisamaye pannd balavati hoti dosassa dsannagunattd/yathd hi akusalapakkhe doso nissineho na drammanarn alliyati eva kusalapakkhe pafind/ yathd ca doso abhUtarn pi dosameva pariyesati evam pamd bhutarn dosameva/ yathd doso sattaparivajjandkdrena pavattati, evarn pafind sankhdraparivajjdkdrena tasmd dosacaritassa buddhicarito sabhdgol {Visuddhimagga, 102)" One of intelligent temperament is parallel to one of hating temperament because understanding is strong when profitable {kamma) occurs in one of hating temperament, owing to its special qualities being near to those of hate. For, in an unprofitable way, hate is disaffected {nissineho) and does not cling to its object, and so, in a profitable way, is understanding. Hate seeks out only unreal {abhuta) faults and understanding seeks out only real {bhuta) faults. And hate occurs in the mode of condemning living

112 L. Ghose beings {satta), whole understanding occurs in the mode of condemning conditioned phenomena ^^ The key ideas in this quotation is that the hating personality is 'disaffected' in a negative way, whereas the intelligent personality is 'disaffected' {nissinehaf^ in a positive way; also, neither personality 'clings' to their object. If one makes 'disaffection' synonymous to 'detachment', then this seems to imply that there are negative and positive ways to he detached. According to Buddhaghosa, someone who is disaffected in a negative way will tend to seek out meaningless or 'unreal faults', whereas someone who is disaffected in a positive way tends to see things more as they are, and thus will only see real weaknesses or faults. Modem interpreters, such as Dakpo Tashi Namgyal from the Tibetan tradition, also seem to imply that there is such a thing as negative detachment. In his book Glarifying the Natural State, he calls this negative detachment 'indifferent calm'. Tashi Namgyal states that 'indifferent calm' can he easily mistaken for true awareness, hut it really is something different. Interestingly enough, Tashi Namgyal believes that this type of detachment is actually hased in the state of absent-mindedness. Moreover, if the meditation is regarded as absented-mindedly refraining from accepting or rejecting the entirety of perceptual experience, that is indifferent calm and is simply an ordinary state. (Tashi Namgyal 2001, 49) Westem psychology has also performed some studies of detached states in children, and it has found that detachment can be a sign of a child not being able to handle disruptions in their connection or bond to the caregiver. In the following passage, the author refers to the 'parent's departure'. In this case, 'departure' can refer to actual physical departure or to emotional absence or inaccessibility. Fear and anger are often combined in a child's protest of a parent's departure. As initial attempts to reestablish contact fail and the child's expectation for reunion are disappointed, he or she reappraises the situation, and frightened and angry efforts to reunite give way to sadness. Despair accompanies the recognition that protest will not succeed in reestablishing contact with the parent. Since prolonged despair and failure to reestablish contact leave the child in an intolerahly painful state, the child may attempt to reduce this pain with defensive efforts to exclude information about the absent parent. Defensive detachment becomes the only available means of coping with the severe distress that the child experiences. (Kobak 1999, 29) Thus, 'detachment' is a kind of defense against pain, a distance that a child puts between himself/herself and his/her emotions. This is something inherently unhealthy in that one is out of touch with one's feelings and never resolves or comes to peace with one's childhood feelings of fear and anger at being either emotionally or physically separated from one's caregiver. Judging from this type of evidence from modem Western psychology, it is important for Buddhist

Is Buddhism Truly Pro-detachment and Anti-attachment?

113

interpreters to take these nuances into account when they are making translations, for detachment can possibly signify something profoundly negative and unhealthy. Therefore, to put forth the English word 'detachment' as the goal of Buddhism, without some clear qualification, could lead those who read these translations to injure themselves psychologically. In Buddhaghosa's comparison of the faithful and greedy temperaments, one sees a similar analysis of attachment: the greedy temperament is being portrayed as attached in a negative way, whereas the faithful temperament is attached in a positive way. Tattha yasma ragacaritassa kusalappavattisamaye saddha balavati hoti rdgassa asannaguriatta/ Yathd hi akusalapakkhe rdgo siniddho ndtilukho evarn kusalapakkhe saddhd rdgo vatthukdme pariyesati evam saddhd silddigune/yathd rdgo ahitarn na pariccajati evarn saddhd hitarn na pariccajati tasmd rdgacaritassa saddhdcarlto sabhdgol {Visuddhimagga, 102)''' Herein, one of faithful temperament is parallel to one of greedy temperament because faith is strong when profitable {kamma) occurs in one of greedy temperament, owing to its special qualities being near to those of greed. For, in an unprofitable way, greed is affectionate {siniddho) and not over-austere, and so, in a profitable way, is faith. Greed seeks out sense desires as object, while faith seeks out the special qualities of virtue and so on. And greed does not give up what is harmful {ahita) while faith does not give up what is beneficial {hita}.^^ When Buddhaghosa says that 'greed does not give up what is harmful while faith does not give up what is beneficial', he seems to be implying that a faithful person is attached to things that are conducive to Buddhist practice whereas the greedy personality may remain attached to what is detrimental to practice. Also, Buddhaghosa states that both the greedy and faithful personalities possess desires; however, the faithful person will desire auspicious virtues whereas the greedy person will desire things that are inauspicious and unwholesome for Buddhist practice. The fact that desire exists seems to imply a certain amount of attachment to the object of that desire. In another portion of the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa expounds upon a theory that might explain the problem practitioners encounter in not being able to distinguish negative types of detachment from positive ones (and, by extension, negative types of attachment from positive ones): it is called the 'Near and Far Enemy' theory. In this theory, Buddhaghosa goes through the four divine abidingscompassion, lovingkindness, gladness and equanimity and their 'near' and 'far' enemies.'* A near enemy is one that can easily be mistaken for one of the divine abidings; a far enemy is the antithesis of one of the abidings. The expression 'near enemy' is similar to the expression 'close cousin' in English. While there is not really a divine abiding that matches up perfectly with my earlier idea of positive detachment, nor is there a near enemy that matches up perfectly with my idea of negative detachment, the fact that

114 L. Ghose Buddhaghosa recognizes the possibility of a negative psychological state being easily mistaken for a positive one does explain how Buddhist practitioners could easily fall into the trap of not heing able to distinguish apathy from the type of detachment that frees or liberates. The term upekkhd {upeksd in Sanskrit) is variously translated in the Pali-English dictionary as 'disinterestedness', 'equanimity', 'neutral feeling', 'indifference', or as a 'zero point between joy {somanassa) and sorrow {domanassa)', and so on. In his Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and its Burmese Vicissitudes, Melford Spiro also translates upekkhd with the word 'detachment' (1982, 48). One way of understanding the term upeksd is to analyze its component parts. The prefix 'upa' can mean 'close' or 'near', or it can connote respect. For example, the verb upacar + can mean 'respecting', 'worshipping', 'attending upon', and so on.'^ Thus, in a sense, one can think of the term upeksd as a careful kind of regard or attention, but also one that keeps a respectful distance. This would give it a different sense from the connotation of detachment as 'apathy'. If one looks at upeksd within the context of Buddhist texts like the Saundarananda, it is also useful to examine how Asvaghosa employs related words. For example, samupeksd connotes the idea of disregarding in a proper and careful way. In the Saundarananda, this word is used in the context of the goldsmith who leaves the gold alone for the proper time so that it is allowed to cool off and form correctly.'* The process of making gold is compared with the process of training the mind. One has to be careful to choose the right object of meditation {nimitta) for certain disturbances of mind: the correct nimitta will let the mind 'cool off properly while the incorrect one will disturb the disequilibrium of the mind even further. This 'leaving alone' or allowing of the gold to 'cool off {samupeksd), performed by the goldsmith, does not seem to be one of indifference, but rather a careful nurturing love of an artisan for her work. This idea of leaving something alone in a respectful and nurturing way, attached here, could also be attached to upeksd. In this case, the prefix 'sam' may just indicate a slight increase in the intensity of the careful (yet not too hovering) regard of upeksd, or perhaps the idea of 'along with' or 'together with' upeksd (Hayes 1995, 99). Thus, upeksd or samupeksd could connote the type of positive attachment that Govinda refers to. In addition, in certain passages of the Saundarananda, detachment or non-attachment is portrayed as something had and attachment as something good. Verse 8.24 speaks of there being no joy in the dharma for someone who is not attached to it and the suhsequent effects of practicing it. sravane graharie 'tha dhdrarie paramdrthdvagame manahsame avisaktamates caldtmano na hi dharme 'bhiratirvidh'yate //(8.24, Saundarananda)//'' For someone whose self is wavering, whose mind is unattached, there is no joy in the dharma, in the quieting of the mind, in the understanding of the ultimate truth, in practicing, grasping and hearing (of the dharma).

Is Buddhism Truly Pro-detachment and Anti-attachment?

115

Chi Tsang (549-623 CE), a Chinese Madhyamaka practitioner and scholar, believes that the goal of Nagarjuna's interpretation of Buddhism is to eliminate any attachment one can have to any concept, including the concept of non-attachment. In the following statement from Chi Tsang, 'nonacquisitiveness' can he taken as roughly synonymous to 'non-attachment'. If we take nonacquisitiveness as right, it would still be (a form of) acquisitiveness and is not called 'nonacquisitiveness'. Just the complete absence of dependence is called 'nonacquisitiveness' (Liu 1993, 2). Thus, Chi Tsang seems to be saying: do not get attached to any idea of non-attachment because then you are attached to some sort of codified preconception of reality and not reality itself. Reality itself should be more fluid. Kambala, in his Alokamdld, echoes Chi Tsang's main point. iti matvd dvayam mithyd rdgo vairdgyam eva ca / na kvacid bhinnamustitvdd rajyate na virajyate II Alokamdld, 34 // In reflecting upon the fact that hoth passion/attachment and dispassion/ detachment are false, (the sage) is neither attached to nor detached from anything, in that (everything) is of the nature of an open fist (i.e. empty). vairdgyam yasya rdgo 'pi tasya nihsamsayam punah tasmdd rdgaprahdndya vairdgyam api na sprset II Alokamdld, 35 // Someone who has dispassion/detachment will surely still have passion/attachment (as they are attached to the concept of detachment); therefore, in order to rid oneself of attachment, detachment also should not be conceived of. Chi Tsang and Kambala are concemed with the tendency in Buddhism (and religious thinking in general) to refute an opponent's ideas as calcified dogma, yet erect one's own ideas in their place, not realizing that one's own ideas may be just as rigid. Detachment may be an important practice, yet it can never become a fixed idea; rather, it has to stay in the realm of direct experience in order for it to he an effective Buddhist practice. Chi Tsang specifically comments upon the barriers constructed between Buddhist and non-Buddhist, as well as between Hinaydna and Mahdydna Buddhism. These barriers are another sign of the rigid, inflexible thinking that Chi Tsang and Madhyamaka in general are trying to fight.^" If an explanation conflicts with the Buddhist sutras and yet hearing it results in acceptance of the (Buddhist) Way, it becomes (salutary like) sweet dews and it is only right that it should be recorded down (Williams 1989, 5). If we harbor (the distinction between) Buddhist and non Buddhist and dwell upon (the division between) Mahayana and Hinayana, we shall fall into the falsehood of one-sidedness and lose sight of the true principle ... Only the simultaneous allaying of (the thoughts of) Buddhist and

116 L. Ghose non-Buddhist and the concurrent subduing (of the ideas of) Mahayana and Hinayana are known as the true principle (Williams 1989, 3). Now, these statements from the Madhayamaka and Yogdcdra (Kambala's Alokamdld), schools of Mahdydna thought seem to be saying something different to Lama Govinda. Govinda argued that certain types of attachment are actually acceptable as final ends of practice, and also that an apathetic type of detachment is not acceptable in Buddhist practice. Chi Tsang and Kambala are arguing that one's goal should be complete non-attachment or detachment; however, one cannot reach true non-attachment if one is merely practicing in a rigid way attached to some notion of non-attachment. Instead, in order to reach true detachment, any preconception of what this is has to be let go. However, in one way, Govinda, Chi Tsang, and Kambala are in agreement. All of them do seem to be critiquing any fixed conception of the Buddhist way, and that includes a strict notion that Buddhism is purely about detachment. An examination of standard Mahdydna doctrines, such as nirvdna equals samsdra and dsraya-pardvrtti, may shed further light on the problem of attachment versus detachment in Buddhist practice. Asraya-pardvrtti is often translated as something like 'revolution at the base'yet what exactly is meant by the word 'base'? I take this term to mean that our minds have a kind of base or foundation that underlies all mental phenomena (i.e. thoughts, desires and emotions): this is the foundation or dsraya. If this dsraya is defiled by selfishness, then all of our desires, emotions and thoughts will be egocentric; but if this dsraya is completely pure or unsullied (and one can probably ascertain this by paying attention to one's subjective experience of the dsraya), then all of our emotions, desires and thoughts will be free of egocentrism. This pure or unsullied base would be the foundation of nirvdna, just as an impure base would be at the foundation of samsdra. This interpretation of nirvdna equals samsdra also connects to ideas such as the trisvabhdva theory from Yogdcdra Buddhism. In this theory, an ordinary person's mind is considered deluded {parikalpita), in that the base of his/her mind is impure, yet through Buddhist practice his/her mind is purified to the point where it is perfected {parinispanna), thus being able to understand the paratantra or interdependent nature of the world itself (Cook 1981, 57). In Nichiren's writings, we find the following reference to the Buddhist teacher Nan-yueh and the idea of a purified and impure mind: 'the great teacher Nan-yueh says, "the entity of the mind is endowed with two aspects, the defiled and the pure. However, it does not have two different forms but is single in nature and without distinction" ' (Nichiren 1999, 418). This passage from Nichiren alludes to a the same Buddhist concept: the mind in sarnsdra is the defiled mind; when the mind becomes pure, it is the mind of nirvdna or the pure mind. Could we extend this argument conceming emotions, thoughts and desires to include attachment and detachment? Could there be such a thing as purified attachments and impure attachments, and purified detachment and impure detachment? In other words, could there be the attachments of samsdra, based

Is Buddhism Truly Pro-detachment and Anti-attachment?

117

on clinginess and self interest, and yet also the attachments of nirvdria based on love and the bond of true human affection? And, could there he the detachment of sdmsdra, based on apathy and uncaring, and the detachment of nirvdna that seeks to set a loved one free only of one's own clinginess?

Concluding remarks The purpose of this article has been merely to question monolithic interpretations of Buddhism. Judging from the evidence and reflections presented. Buddhism does not appear to be purely pro-detachment nor purely anti-attachment; however, this interpretation has been taken by the majority of modem Buddhist interpreters. This may be because many of these interpretations have been based on translations that have not taken into account the full semantic range of the English words 'detachment' and 'attachment'. Translators have often not investigated the latest research in Westem psychology on these ideas; yet Westem psychological research on these ideas is especially important, as, like Buddhism, the clinical aspect of Westem psychology is heavily focused upon understanding the human psyche in order to heal it. Thus, in translating healing-oriented concepts in Buddhism into English, it seems more important to examine their meanings in the context of Westem psychology rather than within the medium of Westem philosophy or Christianity. Even the meanings given in standard English dictionaries may be less central to our translation process. Perhaps the most significant points in this study come from Buddhaghosa, Lama Govinda, Chi Tsang and Kambala. Buddhaghosa and Lama Govinda assert that there are good and bad attachments, as well as good and bad ways of being detached. This type of interpretation is more all-encompassing in that it covers the broad spectrum of human feeling inherent within attachment. After all, we can probably all conjure up moments when our attachment to someone has been healthy and loving, and also moments when are attachment to someone has been destructive. Chi Tsang and Kambala imply that, while non-attachment or detachment may be the ultimate goal and thus the ultimate good, one cannot be rigidly attached to any notion of detachment. Notions or concepts imply dualistic thinking. In order to have a conception about detachment, one has to have a point of comparison (i.e. attachment). Thus, by questioning any rigid conception of detachment, Chi Tsang and Kambala are also calling into question the dichotomy between attachment and detachment. Chi Tsang and Kambala may be trying to give us a hint here. Perhaps detachment and attachment are merely two sides of the same coin. After all, one needs both attachment and detachment in a loving relationship. A mother should be intimately involved with every aspect of her child's life, but she also has to leam to let go at times in order to let the child grow. Hence, both feelings, attachment and detachment, can be encompassed within love. The great Indian sage, Kabir, spoke directly to this problem. If we substitute the word 'attachment' for 'love' in the following, Kabir's formulation comes very close to the non-dualistic one that I have just offered here.

118 L Ghose The devout seeker is he who mingles in his heart the double currents of love and detachment, like the mingling of the streams of the Ganges and Jumna. In his heart the sacred water flows day and night; and thus the round of births and deaths is brought to an end.^' On the other hand, the concept of 'detachment' is a particularly tricky one. Even though Buddhist texts claim the opposite, it could be that detachment is never constructive or healthy. Westem psychological often indicates that detachment is merely a defense mechanism or a way of distancing oneself from unwanted feelings, and Westem psychotherapy has also proven that being in touch with one's feelings improves mental health. This Westem psychotherapeutic position is not far from the position taken in the Pali Canon conceming 'mindfulness of feeling'. Hence, if being in constant touch with one's feelings is indeed of ultimate importance, then using the word 'detachment' to translate any healing-oriented Buddhist concept must be questioned, as detachment could imply an excessive distance from feelings. Finally, I would like to close with a passage from Thich Nhat Hanh, which echoes many scriptural passages on Buddhist mindfulness such as are found in Santideva's Bodhicarydvatdra, the Pali Canon's Satipatthdna Sutta and so on.^^ In this passage Hanh touches upon a Buddhist concept that comes up frequently in the literature: namely, that any feeling, no matter whether it is good or bad, powerful or light, should be paid attention to with mindfulness, and that mindfulness can be thought of as a force that protects the psyche from harm. This latter point may be the most important for healing, and it is one that is also less well known: unbiased awareness itself guards one from the harm one can do to oneself by dwelling or attempting to push away thoughts and feelings. The essential thing is not to let any feeling or thought arise without recognizing it in mindfulness, like a palace guard who is aware of every face that passes through the front corridor (Hanh 1976, 38). Thus, in conclusion, perhaps attachment and detachment are both merely feelings, and therefore should be treated as just another object of mindfulness. And perhaps it is only through unbiased awareness that we can uncover their true meaning for our psychic health, and therein discover a more fluid, less rigid version of the Buddhist path. Notes
1 Holmes (1993, 63). Here, I have chosen to situate myself within Westem psychology rather than Westem philosophy and so on, because the Westem psychology has a clinical, healing-oriented aspect that seems to correspond more closely to Buddhism's stress on meditation and so on. 2 According to Monier-Monier Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary, vidhi can be used pleonastically at the end of a compound. For example, mathana-vidhi can mean 'act of chuming or stirring'. 3 Asvaghosa (1975, 136). 4 Lindtner, Christian, tr. A Garland of Light: Kambala's Alokamdla. Fremont: Asian Humanities Press, 2003, p. x. Lindtner labels Kambala as a thinker from the

Is Buddhism Truly Pro-detachment and Anti-attachment?

119

Yogdcdra school of thought. 5 Asvaghosa (1975, 94). 6 Lindtner, Christian, tr. A Garland of Light: Kambala's Alokamala, 8, p. 15. On p. 2, Lindtner states that the Tibetan version is 'a sorry piece of work'. For this reason, and for the reason that my Tibetan is not as strong as my Sanskrit, I have chosen to derive my meaning primarily from the Sanskrit. 7 Tashi Namgyal (2001, 56). 8 Johansson (1970, 27), Monier-Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary (pp. 215, 982), and Davids and Stede's Pali-English Dictionary (pp. 150, 634). Also, in Bhikkhu Nanamoli's translation of the Majjhima Nikdya, viraga is rendered as 'dispassion' and upekkhd as 'equanimity' (Bhikkhu Nanamoli 1995, 1384). 9 Asvaghosa. Saundarananda, 17.32, 17.50, etc., E.H. Johnston, tr. Asvaghosa. Saundarananda, 17.32, 17.50, etc., Alessandro Passi, tr. 10 Here, I am referring to such works as Asvaghosa's Saundarananda, Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, and so on. 11 Buddhaghosa, Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa (1977, 82). 12 Buddhaghosa, The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga, 102 (1991, 102). Here, I have changed Bhikkhu Nanamoli's translation according to what I have read in Mathieu Boisvert's explanation of sakhara. See Boisvert (1995, 93-105). 13 In looking at the original text, I could not entirely follow the translation; however, I do not feel confident enough, at this point, to question it. Please see the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa (Buddhaghosa 1977, 82). 14 Buddhaghosa, Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa (1977, 82). 15 Buddhaghosa, Visuddhimagga, 102 (1991, 101-2). 16 Buddhaghosa, Visuddhimagga. 319 (1991, 311-2). 17 Apte (1992, 280) and Richard Hayes (1995, 100). Hayes' notes are unpublished and in use just at McGill University. 18 Asvaghosa. Saundarananda. E.H. Johnston, tr. (pp. 119-20). 19 Asvaghosa. Saundarananda. E.H. Johnston, tr. (p. 52). 20 Williams (1989), on p. 211 of this overview, alludes to Fa Tsang, from the Hua Yen school, and states that Fa Tsang may have argued that a bodhisattva is not entirely devoid of attachment, but rather may retain a 'sliver of attachment' related to compassion. See also Williams' footnote on this. 21 Fisher and Bailey (2000, 80). It is possible that the word 'love' is a debatable translation. Kabir is basically a non-sectarian sage, although he is revered by Hindu, Muslim and Sikh alike. 22 See 5.3-5.5, etc., of ^dntideva's Bodhicarydvatara {Santideva 1990).

References
Apte, Vaman S. 1992. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Asvaghosa. 1975. Saundarananda, in E.H. Johnston (ed), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (Sanskrit and English). Bhikkhu Nanamoli (trans). 1995. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, Boston: Wisdom Publications. Boisvert, Mathieu. 1995. The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravdda Psychology and Soteriology, Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press. Buddhaghosa. 1977. Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa, Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati (Pali). Buddhaghosa. 1991. The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga), 5th edn, Bhikkhu Nanamoli (trans), Kandy: Buddliist Publication Society, 1991. Burford, Grace. 1991. Desire, Death and Goodness: The Conflict of Ultimate Values in Theravdda Buddhism, New York: P. Lang.

120 L. Ghose
Cook, Francis. 1981. Hua Yen Buddhism, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Fisher, Mary Pat and Bailey, Lee W. 2000. An Anthology of World Religions, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Govinda, Lama Anagarika. 1991. Buddhist Reflections, York Beach: S. Weiser. Gyatso, Geshe Kelsang. 1984. Buddhism in the Tibetan Tradition, London: Penguin. Hanh, Thich Nhat. 1976. The Miracle of Mindfulness, Boston: Beacon Press. Hayes, Richard. 1995. Continuing Sanskrit, Unpublished notes on Sanskrit grammar, Montreal: McGill University. Holmes, Jeremy. 1993. John Bowlby and Attachment Theory, New York: Routledge. Johansson, Rune E.A. 1970. Psychology of Nirvana. Garden City: Anchor Books. Kambala. 2002. Garland of Light: Alokamala, Christian Lindtner (trans), Fremont: Asian Humanities Press (Sanskrit, Tibetan and English). Khong, Chan. 1993. Leaming True Love: How I Learned and Practiced Social Change in Viet Nam, Berkeley: Parallax Press. Kobak, Roger. 1999. 'The Emotional Dynamics of Disruptions in Attachment Relationships', in Jude Cassidy and Phillip Shaver (eds). Handbook of Attachment, New York: Guilford Press. Liu, Ming-Wood. 1993. 'A Chinese Madhyamaka Theory of Truth: The Case of Chi Tsang', Philosophy East and West, 43(4). Nagarjuna. 1992. Mylamadhyamakakdrikds de Nagdrjuna, in Louis de la Vallee Poussin (ed), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (Sanskrit). Nichiren. 1999. The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Gosho Translation Committee (trans), Tokyo: Soka Gakkai. Santideva. 1990. ^antideva's Bodhicaryavatara, Parmananda Sharma (trans). New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan (Sanskrit and English), Spiro, Melford E. 1982. Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and its Burmese Vicissitudes, 2nd edn, Berkeley: University of California Press. Swearer, Donald (ed). 1991. Me and Mine: Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Delhi: Satguru. Tashi Namgyal, Dakpo. 2001. Clarifying The Natural State, Hongkong: Rangjung Yeshe Publications (Tibetan and English). Webster's Third New International Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster, 1993. Williams, Paul. 1989. Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, London: Routledge. Correspondence address: Lynken Ghose, Department of Philosophy and Religion, Butler University, 4600 Sunset Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46208-3485, USA. E-mail: lghose@butler.edu or lynkenghose@hotmail.com