Detachment vs. Antisocial Personality Disorder

[viniketa]

When reading sutras and other Buddhist writings, we learn about being detached from things, people, events, etc. as an antidote to attachment. It almost seems as if we are supposed to be emotionless robots. Sometimes, particularly early in our practice, we may practice "detachment" a little too diligently. Psychology has a name for this state of mind: Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Yet, when we observe great masters, they seem to be anything but emotionless. We see laughter, humor, seriousness, sometimes a hint of sadness in compassion. One thing I love about HHDL's face is its expressiveness.

Isn't detachment another way of talking about "equanimity"? Is the idea not to be "emotionless" but to prefer no one emotion over another?

Thoughts appreciated.

[Indrajala]

When reading sutras and other Buddhist writings, we learn about being detached from things, people, events, etc. as an antidote to attachment. It almost seems as if we are supposed to be emotionless robots. Sometimes, particularly early in our practice, we may practice "detachment" a little too diligently. Psychology has a name for this state of mind: Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Western psychology is of limited utility and is irrelevant to the Buddhist project. I say that with sincerity, too. Western psychology with a few exceptions should be largely rejected.

The point of detachment is to reduce craving and desire which are fuel for unwholesome deeds and moreover condition rebirth. Human relationships are largely driven by craving and desire. We will sit around and gossip with people just creating unwholesome verbal karma. Family is unfortunately an attachment that leads people away from liberation. A lot of friendships are likewise for entertainment purposes and prompt people towards unwholesome deeds.

That being said, there is no cause for becoming a miserable character, or stone cold for that matter. The Buddha is on record grinning here and there. One of the qualities that arises from detachment is subtle joy and even humour. The vicissitudes of human emotion are avoided and as such a kind of stoic ease can be attained.

Isn't detachment another way of talking about "equanimity"? Is the idea not to be "emotionless" but to prefer no one emotion over another?

Detachment is the process, equanimity is the result. Emotions which are brought about due to unwholesome acts or desires, such as anger or even hysteric happiness, should be severed. I think good emotions which naturally arise as a result of morality, meditative concentration and insight are inevitable. This is one of the good fruits of proper practice: being more chilled out than before. You in effect suffer less and people around you likewise enjoy your peace of mind. Your lack of neurotic behaviour will not spark similar behaviour in others. In other words life gets that much more easier.

[lobster]

I think good emotions which naturally arise as a result of morality, meditative concentration and insight are inevitable.

Exactly so.
It is quite natural through practice to be more self sufficient emotionally. It is also quite natural to be less emotionally susceptible to the 'normal' triggers. It is also quite natural for negative emotions like fear and anger to disipate.

[ghost01]

I remember reading a passage somewhere that said emotions were like poison, and to me that seemed absurd.. the very drive to become 'enlightened', is an emotional one. I think this was one of the first things I read that made me question Buddhism as a path actually.

It almost seems as if we are supposed to be emotionless robots.

Isn't the entire point of detachment to no longer rely on impermanent things for happiness? (happiness/non-suffering) by stoping grasping/craving, and then happiness naturally comes about. Isn't that entirely the point? Emotions aren't the problem then, I suppose is what I'm saying.

No?

[KeithBC]

Isn't detachment another way of talking about "equanimity"? Is the idea not to be "emotionless" but to prefer no one emotion over another?

I think you are on the right track.

The people who are like robots, showing no feelings, are likely too attached to their emotions. They have to resist expressing them because they have trouble breaking through the attachment. Detachment is loose; resisting is rigid.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[BuddhaSoup]

When reading sutras and other Buddhist writings, we learn about being detached from things, people, events, etc. as an antidote to attachment. It almost seems as if we are supposed to be emotionless robots. Sometimes, particularly early in our practice, we may practice "detachment" a little too diligently. Psychology has a name for this state of mind: Antisocial Personality Disorder.

It's important to note that the DSM definition of Antisocial PD does not mirror the idea of "detachment" as is described in the post above. Antisocial personality disorder is a serious mental health condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal. People with APD can be considered sociopaths; they commit significant harm on others without remorse.

My sense of 'detachment" is the admonition in Buddhist practice that attachments create suffering, dukkha. My sense is that being mindful of attachments, we practice with the idea to rid ourselves of unhealthy fetters that keep us in the wheel of dukkha. It can also be said that we must also practice in an engaged way, not to become automatons, but to engage in a karuna and metta filled way.

Gassho

[duckfiasco]

I've had people ask me about this, too.

In my limited experience, what comes from detachment isn't stone-cold apathy. It's like a man heaving around a backpack full of boulders. When he can set it down, even for just a minute, it feels so good he has to run around and do cartwheels. Taking the friction and resistance out of samsara makes a lot of it not samsara anymore. When everything stops being A Very Big Deal© I think most people would find a lot to laugh about in our situation as humans

In fact, I think one of the warning signs that something's gone amiss is if everything becomes more burdensome and despairing. Oh, I have to save all beings? Or oh, I have to detach myself from everything? That's where the gentleness to see where our wisdom is lacking is important. I can see why someone would take equanimity or detachment to mean "I'm a robot" but doing that is taking the teaching out of context in a naive way.

Detachment with still a strong pull towards ego means we strengthen the gulf between ourselves and others, and our own natural spontaneity becomes stifled. Another ego trip. We fall into ourselves and our crystallized ideas about detachment. Detachment with a strong practice of bodhicitta and renunciation of things, including detachment, I think results in a lighter relationship with the world. The vigorous energy that is now free from our own self-interests can be redirected towards the relief of suffering. The natural result of skillful equanimity is joy, opening up, and humor

That's my two cents. I think this is a very crucial point that can be misunderstood, especially by the people in our lives who don't practice, so I'm really eager to read more learned and experienced answers here.

[BuddhaSoup]

I've had people ask me about this, too.

In my limited experience, what comes from detachment isn't stone-cold apathy. It's like a man heaving around a backpack full of boulders. When he can set it down, even for just a minute, it feels so good he has to run around and do cartwheels. Taking the friction and resistance out of samsara makes a lot of it not samsara anymore. When everything stops being A Very Big Deal© I think most people would find a lot to laugh about in our situation as humans

In fact, I think one of the warning signs that something's gone amiss is if everything becomes more burdensome and despairing. Oh, I have to save all beings? Or oh, I have to detach myself from everything? That's where the gentleness to see where our wisdom is lacking is important. I can see why someone would take equanimity or detachment to mean "I'm a robot" but doing that is taking the teaching out of context in a naive way.

Detachment with still a strong pull towards ego means we strengthen the gulf between ourselves and others, and our own natural spontaneity becomes stifled. Another ego trip. We fall into ourselves and our crystallized ideas about detachment. Detachment with a strong practice of bodhicitta and renunciation of things, including detachment, I think results in a lighter relationship with the world. The vigorous energy that is now free from our own self-interests can be redirected towards the relief of suffering. The natural result of skillful equanimity is joy, opening up, and humor

That's my two cents. I think this is a very crucial point that can be misunderstood, especially by the people in our lives who don't practice, so I'm really eager to read more learned and experienced answers here.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Detachment is loose; resisting is rigid.

[freefromsamsara]

When reading sutras and other Buddhist writings, we learn about being detached from things, people, events, etc. as an antidote to attachment. It almost seems as if we are supposed to be emotionless robots. Sometimes, particularly early in our practice, we may practice "detachment" a little too diligently. Psychology has a name for this state of mind: Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Yet, when we observe great masters, they seem to be anything but emotionless. We see laughter, humor, seriousness, sometimes a hint of sadness in compassion. One thing I love about HHDL's face is its expressiveness.

Isn't detachment another way of talking about "equanimity"? Is the idea not to be "emotionless" but to prefer no one emotion over another?

Thoughts appreciated.

Your definitions of emotions are different from the masters' definitions of emotions.