The Puzzle of Buddhist Non-Attachment: A Challenge for Laypersons

Abstract

This article explores the challenges associated with practicing Buddhist non-attachment as a layperson and whether its application in everyday life represents a puzzle. In Buddhism, practicing non-attachment implies becoming free of desires, as prescribed by Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy in pursuit of liberation. This raises a critical challenge to form and maintain friendships in this increasingly competitive and demanding environment. To thrive, one must pursue beneficial goals to ensure a meaningful existence. A layperson, therefore, cannot entirely detach from their goals and aspirations without potentially abandoning the Buddhist path to enlightenment. Thus, non-attachment presents a dilemma for laypersons, creating a challenge in reconciling Buddhist philosophy with the realities of worldly existence.

1. Introduction

Like other Indian philosophical systems, Buddhism offers specific ideals for practice in the pursuit of the ultimate goal in life or summum bonum. However, practitioners, particularly laypersons, may face a dilemma. At first glance, this dilemma seems apparent rather than substantive, as no Indian philosophical school posits ideals that are entirely impractical. Buddhist philosophy, too, remains grounded in practicality. Upon achieving enlightenment, Lord Buddha delivered sermons focused on liberating individuals from worldly suffering through the Four Noble Truths. Among these truths, the second, “each suffering has a cause”, introduces twelve interconnected components of a causal chain, known as the Bhava-chakra [1]. According to the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta [2] (SN 56.11), the need for sensuous pleasures, existence, and non-existence is what drives fresh existence, which includes lust and ecstasy, and the pursuit of pleasure here and there. Hence, Samudaya: the cause of suffering is the Second Noble Truth. In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, “the cessation of suffering is the fading away and ceasing of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, and non-reliance on it”. Thus, Nirodha: the end of suffering is the Third Noble Truth. Unlike the First and Second Noble Truths, which first identify the issue and its root cause, the Third Noble Truth (Nirodha) effectively offers the solution first. The Third Noble Truth presents the end of suffering first and then explains that it is attained by giving up cravings, reversing the sequence of the Second Noble Truth. According to the Second Truth, “craving is the cause of suffering”. This is inverted by the Third Truth, which states that “craving ceases when suffering ceases”.

Breaking this chain is essential for liberation, and one critical component is Trsnā, or desire, which represents an obstacle to crossing the threshold of enlightenment. Desire binds us to worldly objects, and for laypersons engaged in everyday activities, desire is often central to their decision-making processes. Thus, practicing non-attachment becomes a formidable challenge for the layperson.

Despite being a fundamental Buddhist concept, non-attachment (virāga) is more difficult for laypeople (upāsaka/upāsikā) to practice than for monastics (bhikkhus/bhikkhunīs). The main reason for this is that monastics abstain from worldly obligations, whilst laypeople must manage them. Worldly attachments involve laypeople in contrast to monks and nuns, who make renunciation vows. Laypeople participate in relationships (strong emotional ties foster connection in friendships, family, and marriage), require financial stability and livelihood (laypeople need to make a living, which is frequently related to material concerns), and have social obligations and roles that necessitate interacting with social systems, which promotes identification with reputation and position. It is challenging to develop total detachment (upekkhā) because each of these factors strengthens connection. The kind of life that monks lead is especially intended to reduce worldly attachment. Interaction with transient things (relationships, money, ambitions) is a necessary part of the lay life. Laypeople are unable to completely give up these worries, in contrast to monastics. Renouncing the world is not as difficult as practicing non-attachment while still interacting with it. Because lay practitioners must incorporate non-attachment into an active, engaged lifestyle rather than a renunciant one, it is particularly difficult for them, even though it is difficult for everyone.

Although the idea of non-attachment (Vairāgya/Upekkhā) is fundamental to both Mahāyāna and Theravāda Buddhism, there are significant differences in their theoretical underpinnings and interpretations. The Theravāda viewpoint on individual liberation via non-attachment is that the main goal of non-attachment is to put an end to pain (dukkha) by overcoming yearning (taṇhā). Through wisdom (paññā), moral behavior (sīla), and mental discipline (samādhi), nirvāṇa is attained. Ignorance (avijjā) is the root cause of attachment, which in turn causes sorrow and yearning (taṇhā). Letting go of ties to one’s body, emotions, thoughts, and outside objects is a result of realizing anatta (non-self). The practical application of non-attachment in monastic life is the practice of renunciation or nekkhamm, which is highly prized. Upekkhā, or equanimity, is the ability to endure both pleasure and grief without being attached. Sati, or mindfulness, is the ability to observe desires without holding onto them. By rejecting worldly pleasures, a Theravāda monk demonstrates non-attachment because they are temporary diversions from nirvāṇa. Individual freedom from pain is the main goal. Since worldly pleasures are fleeting distractions from nirvāṇa, a Theravāda monk exhibits non-attachment by rejecting them. From the Mahāyāna viewpoint, the primary objective is to liberate each person from pain. Through emptiness (Śūnyatā) and the bodhisattva path, the goal of non-attachment is to benefit all living things, not just oneself. Śūnyatā (emptiness) is the idea that it is foolish to cling to anything (self, ideas, even nirvāṇa) because everything lacks fundamental existence. The ideal is the bodhisattva, who practices non-attachment while still interacting with samsāra and stays in the world to assist others. Being non-attached means not being constrained by one’s own wishes and acting with compassion (karuṇā). Engaging with the world while acknowledging that it is temporary and illusory is the practical application of non-attachment put into practice by skillful means (Upaya), assisting people according to their needs, independent of the results. Even the concept of nirvāṇa is non-attachment; enlightenment itself is not clung to. Like a bodhisattva, a Mahāyāna practitioner works in society, assisting others without regard for fame, prosperity, or even enlightenment. Individual relief from pain is not the main goal, universal freedom is. While non-attachment is taught in both traditions, the emphasis is different; Theravāda emphasizes letting go of attachments in order to avoid suffering. According to Mahāyāna, interaction with the outside world is essential, provided that one does not hold on to the results.

Non-attachment is a core tenet of Buddhist philosophy, without which one cannot follow the path pioneered by the Buddha. However, in the current era of progress and competition, losing attachment to worldly goals and ambitions would almost certainly result in an individual falling behind. The assumption that worldly and spiritual goals are fundamentally incompatible is complicated by the belief that pursuing enlightenment is a goal in and of itself. Indeed, pursuing awakening (bodhi, nibbāna) is a Buddhist life aim; nevertheless, due to its qualitative nature, it differs from worldly aspirations. Awakening is about overcoming attachment, craving, and ignorance, as opposed to objectives connected to monetary achievement, pleasure, or status. But there is not always a conflict between spiritual and material goals because of this divergence. Both early (Theravāda) and later (Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna) Buddhist teachings place a strong emphasis on improving the material world and assisting others as essential components of the path. It is oversimplified to assume that Buddhism is solely about detachment and personal freedom. In actuality, Buddhist practice is firmly rooted on compassion and ethical engagement. A contradiction is not necessarily created by the fact that someone who aspires to goals beyond this world is still alive.

From a practical standpoint, complete non-attachment seems counterproductive. This contradiction directly challenges one of the central teachings of Buddhism and raises a practical puzzle. Indian philosophy, deeply rooted in acknowledging life’s inherent suffering [3], offers pathways toward liberation based on realistic assessments of human existence. Thus, there must be a way to reconcile the Buddhist concept of non-attachment with the realities of lay life.

The fact that detachment and non-attachment can actually make it easier to deal with worldly issues in a more efficient, composed, and balanced way is a crucial realization. In order for readers to grasp that detachment does not imply withdrawal from the world but rather a more adept, calm, and ultimately more successful involvement with it, I believe that it would be beneficial to state this conclusion up front. One’s capacity to participate and achieve is enhanced when non-attachment is applied practically in worldly concerns. A practitioner can operate in the world with a calm and concentrated mindset that results from detachment, not out of a desire for selfish gain but rather out of a sincere desire to help others and make wise choices; hence, they might have better outcomes. Non-attachment does not mean that one should renounce worldly aspirations; on the contrary, it enables the practitioner to manage such goals more effectively, mindfully, and compassionately. This conclusion, which I should have made more explicit at the outset, demonstrates that Buddhism’s teachings on detachment and non-attachment are about enhancing our interactions with life rather than rejecting it. This paper seeks to address this puzzle, focusing on the crux of the Buddhist concept of non-attachment and its implications for laypersons striving for success.

2. Setting the Stage

The problem arises from the tension between the Buddhist ideal of non-attachment and the practical necessities of daily life. Buddhism does not always assert that pursuing materialistic objectives inevitably leads to issues. Although it has been highlighted in some types of Buddhist discourse, the belief that worldly goals must conflict with spiritual goals is not a universal position. Let us examine what Buddhism actually teaches on attachment, worldly engagement, and spiritual advancement in order to make this clear. Buddhism makes it clear that there is a conflict between the practical needs of everyday living and non-attachment, which is a central Buddhist teaching. Although it does emerge in some Buddhist interpretations, the notion of a tension or conflict between these two is not a universal or absolute doctrine found in all Buddhist traditions. Although it is not stated directly in all Buddhist teachings, the idea that there is a conflict between non-attachment and the pragmatic needs of everyday life comes up in how the ideal is interpreted. However, because lay Buddhists are part of the world, they must deal with this tension more directly. They are not expected to give up all material attachments, but they are urged to live moral and thoughtful lives. They must, however, learn to be non-attached to results or not become unduly preoccupied with the consequences of their activities. The conflict between material and spiritual objectives is not as prominent in Mahayāna Buddhism (such as Zen or Tibetan Buddhism). Practitioners of Mahāyāna, especially bodhisattvas, make commitments to be active in the world to assist others, turning material worries into the path to enlightenment. The bodhisattva path views compassion, social service, and worldly involvement as manifestations of spiritual awakening. The idea of being skillful (upāya), in which worldly actions are carried out with wisdom rather than attachment, is frequently used to resolve the conflict between worldly and spiritual aspirations. Therefore, different Buddhists have different perspectives on this tension. While Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna traditions frequently resolve this contradiction by reinterpreting worldly interaction as an expression of spiritual practice, Theravāda may view it as more of a challenge for laypeople.

This article focuses on the layperson, and in Buddhism they are termed as a “householder”. The terms “upāsaka” (for males) and “upāsikā” (for women) are also frequently used and mean “lay devotee”. In contrast to monks (bhikkhus) and nuns (bhikkhunīs), lay Buddhists continue to strive for spiritual advancement without giving up their material lives. As laypersons, if we aim to practice non-attachment and become free from desires in pursuit of liberation, how are we to manage life’s increasing challenges? In this regard, the authors, Chang-Seong Hong and Tomoji Shogenji discuss the useful applications of non-attachment in daily life, including how it might enable people to deal more calmly with relationships, material wants, and expectations. [4] To survive in an ever more competitive world, one must strive for success, achievement, and personal growth. These desires are inherently tied to goals, and laypersons must attach themselves to these goals in order to succeed. However, this attachment appears to conflict with the Buddhist call for detachment from worldly pursuits. The dilemma for laypersons is whether to follow the path of liberation, which requires relinquishing worldly attachments, or to embrace ambition, which necessitates attachment to goals. Either path seems to lead to a compromise: one risks abandoning the Buddhist ideal or sacrificing the practicality of daily life.

Monastics continue to engage in activities such as teaching, charitable giving, and even temple administration, as well as interacting with laypeople and depending on material resources. Although monastic practices take place in the world, their goal is to transcend rather than strengthen worldly attachments. They involve worldly deeds, but the distinction lies in the separation and aim. Monks perform these actions without any sense of pride or self-interest. Furthermore, it is valid to question the notion that the only way to distinguish laypeople from monastics is by outward appearance (such as donning robes). Behavior, commitments, and intentions, rather than only external symbols, provide a greater level of proof. Buddhism prioritizes moral behavior and intention over social standing.

Now consider if a monk is driven by comfort, fame, or power. They might be linked to status in the monastic hierarchy, may have privileges, income (from donations), and influence, even disobey monastic regulations (such as those pertaining to money management and political engagement). Do they remain monastic? Yes, theoretically, as long as they continue to be ordained and adhere to the fundamental Vinaya, but in practice, no, if their motivations are ego and prestige rather than renunciation.

I would like to examine the different levels, conditions, and limitations of “attachment” and “non-attachment” in Buddhist contexts as suggested by the reviewer. The arguments and implications are extracted from canonical texts from the Mahāyāna. The idea of attachment (upādāna) is fundamental to Mahāyāna Buddhism’s understanding of suffering (dukkha), and it is also closely related to the bodhisattvas’ journey and eventual liberation. Mahāyāna literature goes into detail about the different types of attachment and how to overcome them, particularly in relation to bodhicitta (the selfless desire to become a Buddha for the sake of all beings) and the realization of emptiness (śūnyatā). Within the framework of the bodhisattva path and the ultimate aim of nirvāṇa, these writings provide a nuanced description of attachment, noting its various levels, conditions, and restrictions. Attachment is generally categorized as clinging to a fictitious sense of self or identity (ātman), known as attachment to the self, and it breeds egoism and ignorance. Since all phenomena, including the self, are thought to lack inherent, independent existence, the realization of emptiness (śūnyatā) is crucial to severing this attachment in Mahāyāna literature and attachment to phenomena that encompass attachment to material belongings, relationships, experiences, and the physical world. Because these attachments are predicated on the delusion of permanence and self-sufficiency, they feed the cycle of pain and yearning (taṇhā). The bodhisattva path stresses the development of non-attachment to phenomena, which is necessary for the bodhisattva to cultivate compassion and realize emptiness, as described in books such as the Bodhisattvabhūmi (A Treatise on the Stages of the Bodhisattva) [5]. Different stages of attachment are distinguished in Mahāyāna scriptures, especially when discussing the practice of the bodhisattva; according to Mahāyāna teachings, attachment to a self that is seen as real and autonomous is the most basic type of attachment (attachment to the self/Avidyā). Mahāyāna cautions against attachment to bodhisattva vows or ideals, even as it highlights altruistic attachment to others’ suffering and desires to assist others in becoming Buddhas (attachment to bodhisattva ideals); according to the Vimalakīrti Nirdesa Sūtra [6], a true bodhisattva acts compassionately with an unattached mind to the outcome and is not attracted to the bodhisattva’s image. Bodhicitta, according to Mahāyāna, is the desire to become a Buddha for the benefit of all living things. Attachment to the concept of bodhicitta itself, however, can prevent the bodhisattva from attaining actual insight if it is regarded egoistically or as a source of pride (attachment to bodhicitta). According to Mahāyāna literature, attachment develops under specific circumstances that are frequently impacted by delusion, ignorance (avidyā), and a false sense of permanence. Mahāyāna Buddhism limits attachment in ways that foster wisdom and compassion, even as it promotes disengagement from worldly attachments and self-centered worries. The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra explains how these poisons cause attachment and how developing compassion and insight counteracts attachment.

On a superficial level, it could appear that being non-attached means we have no ambition. Non-attachment, however, does not imply apathy or a lack of purpose in Buddhism: we can have objectives, but reaching them is not a prerequisite for happiness; we take deliberate action, yet we do not hold onto results or allow failure to disrupt our inner tranquility; we strive for perfection, but we do not let setbacks depress us. For instance, a monk meditates every day because it is part of the discipline, not because they are interested in being “enlightened”. Therefore, aspiration is not destroyed by non-attachment; rather, it is enhanced by it, as the emphasis is shifted from desiring results to participating in the process. Setting objectives can cause attachment, such as an obsession with achievement or a fear of failing, but it does not have to if performed with the correct attitude. The negative approach is attachment to a goal: thinking that success is a prerequisite for happiness, fear of failing, which causes tension and pain, and feeling empty or unfulfilled despite accomplishing a task. The positive approach to attachment to a goal is pursuing objectives while acknowledging the uncertainty of the results, savoring the process rather than being fixated on outcomes, and letting things evolve instead of sticking to a strict plan. For instance, a scientist looks at ways to treat a sickness. Despite their intense motivation, they are aware that success is unpredictable. Instead of obsessing over assured outcomes, they concentrate on the effort. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, a layman can pursue meaningful life goals and practice non-attachment at the same time. The secret is to approach the world with compassion (karuṇā) and wisdom (paññā), while acknowledging that all objectives are ephemeral and interconnected. Therefore, setting objectives is not a sign of non-attachment; rather, it indicates that we are totally involved and do not let failure depress us. Depending on whether we are focused on the destination or on the journey, having goals does not always equate to attachment.

The question at the heart of this paper is whether non-attachment inevitably results in a lack of aspiration and goal setting or goal orientation necessarily leads to attachment. In other words, can a layperson simultaneously practice non-attachment while pursuing meaningful life goals?

Buddhist Non-Attachment—Dispelling Misconceptions

The puzzle of non-attachment is a significant issue within both Buddhist and broader Indian philosophical discourse. Resolving this dilemma would not only strengthen the dissemination of Buddhist philosophy but also defend Indian philosophy against critiques that say it promotes impractical ideals in modern society. Critics often claim that Indian philosophy encourages asceticism and disengagement, contributing little to the demands of contemporary life. Indian philosophies, especially their emphasis on asceticism and detachment, have been criticized by a number of people, including Max Weber, Friedrich Nietzsche, and colonial philosophers, for not meeting the needs of modern, material-oriented existence. Indian philosophical schools like Sāṃkhya, Advaita Vedānta, and Sannyasa Upanishads prominently tend to encourage abstinence from earthly affairs. The primary source of both bondage (saṃsāra) and suffering is ignorance (avidyā). The path to transcending this suffering thus leads through the acquisition of knowledge [7,8,9].

This paper seeks to address these critiques by offering a more nuanced understanding of non-attachment. A thorough examination of the drawbacks of attachment and the positive aspects of non-attachment may be found in the Pāli Canon. The Buddha stresses the transience of the five aggregates (form, emotion, perception, mental formations, and awareness) in the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59) [2] and teaches that attachment to them results in suffering. Freedom from pain results from acknowledging their transient nature and letting go of attachment to them. The Buddha introduces the idea that, although compassion for others is extremely important, it must be based on the wisdom of non-attachment as in the Cūḷasīhanāda Sutta (SN 36.6) [2]. When someone is intelligent and free from clinging, they do not project their own emotional attachments onto other people or get overwhelmed by their pain. They are able to behave compassionately because of this wisdom, free from attachment or a personal interest in the result. Through the persona of Vimalakīrti, a lay bodhisattva, the Vimalakīrti Nirdesa Sūtra provides a profound understanding of the interplay between compassion and detachment. In the sūtra, Vimalakīrti shows how the realization of emptiness (shunyatā), or the knowledge that everything is devoid of inherent, independent existence, is the source of true compassion. This insight releases one from the need to maintain a “self” and permits a caring interaction with the outside world that is unimpaired by selfishness or self-interest [10]. Compassion becomes purer and more selfless when it is non-attached from egoistic self-interest or personal ambitions. Without being overtaken by their own emotional entanglements, a detached individual who is free from self-centered attachments can behave more freely and efficiently in the service of others. Buddhism views non-attachment and compassion as complementing qualities rather than as mutually exclusive. The mental clarity and emotional independence required for compassion to be genuinely selfless, intelligent, and successful are provided by non-attachment. The teachings of key Buddhist texts make it abundantly evident that detachment enables the practitioner to behave with true charity and compassion for others by releasing them from the confines of egoic concerns and personal ambitions.

In attempting this, it follows in the footsteps of other authors who grappled with similar issues. Elizabeth J. Harris, in her seminal paper “Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism”, explores a similar puzzle in the relationship between detachment and compassion. She notes that to English-speaking audiences, Buddhism’s emphasis on detachment may seem incompatible with its calls for compassion, particularly for those engaged in social or political activism. Her inquiry centers on the question of whether detachment entails a lack of concern for others or whether it can coexist with active compassion. This issue resonates with the current paper’s focus on whether non-attachment can be practiced alongside ambition and goal setting in lay life [11].

What lessons, if any, can we draw from her reinterpretation of both non-attachment and compassion for the purpose of this paper? Can we, after all, reconcile the Buddhist idea of practicing non-attachment with pursuing goals and forming and maintaining personal relationships? Harris conceives of non-attachment as something liberating and engaging with compassion. She clarifies the importance of the Buddhist idea of “wise friendship”, or kalyāṇa-mittatā, and how essential wise friends are to each other’s moral and spiritual development. Friends who are non-attached may appreciate each other without worrying about losing or needing anything from one another, which creates a more loving and caring atmosphere [11]. Friendships thrive when open and honest communication is fostered, and this mindfulness practice helps with that. There are many ancient and modern Buddhist scholars who have identified and addressed misconceptions regarding the idea of anupādāna (non-attachment). These misconceptions are sometimes the result of misreading Buddhist texts, philosophical presumptions, or cultural interpretations. Although terminology like upādāna (clinging) and anupādāna (non-clinging) are sometimes translated into English as “attachment” and “non-attachment”, their original Buddhist meanings are not the same in Western perspectives, and scholars like Rupert Gethin, Damien Keown, and Richard Gombrich have addressed these misconceptions. The main textual source for comprehending this idea is the Khandha Saṃyutta (SN 22) in the Saṃyutta Nikāya [2]. Most scholars concur that Buddhist non-attachment refers to the absence of clinging (upādāna) to transient things rather than emotional repression. Also, in the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59), which teaches that the aggregates should be viewed as “not mine, not me, not myself”, it results in the end of suffering and provides important textual evidence [2]. The meaning of Buddhist non-attachment is sometimes interpreted as emotional disengagement from obligations and relationships, such as how Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains deeper emotional involvement as being possible when one is not attached and is not controlled by aversion or craving [12]. Non-attachment, according to certain critics, entails a disconnecting from moral and social obligations; Charles Goodman refutes this by demonstrating how Buddhist ethics promote altruistic behavior free from self-centered attachment [13]. The Loka Sutta (SN 35.88) teaches that being detached from the outside world does not equate to being idle but rather to being free from cravings [12]. We can look at important sections of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, especially SN 22, to bolster the academic discussion of non-attachment (anupādāna) [2]. These verses make clear that non-attachment is a thorough understanding of impermanence (anicca), pain (dukkha), and non-self (anattā), rather than nihilism, apathy, or avoiding responsibility. In the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, “Bhikkhus, form is non-self. If form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible [to say] of form” [2]. By showing that the five aggregates are prone to change and suffering, this chapter disproves the notion of a permanent self. The realization that we have no ownership or control over the aggregates leads to non-attachment. It encourages freedom from the suffering-causing false concept of self rather than apathy. In the Nakulapitu Sutta (SN 22.1), “One who has developed and cultivated the perception of non-self (anattā-saññā) has abandoned the conceit ‘I am’ (asmi-māna), and is one who has attained nibbāna in this very life” [2], i.e., an elderly lay follower named Nakulapitu is reassured by the Buddha that although the body (rūpa) is prone to suffering, the mind is not. Non-attachment does not imply avoiding suffering but observing it with insight. The following dispels the myth that being detached causes one to become disengaged from the difficulties of life. In the Upādāna Sutta (SN 22.29), “Bhikkhus, when one does not cling, the mind is not obsessed. When the mind is not obsessed, one is free from craving (taṇhā), and when one is free from craving, there is no suffering” [2]. This verse makes a clear connection between the end of suffering and non-attachment. Obsession and mental illness are caused by clinging (upādāna), and taṇhā, or freedom from desiring, is a change in perspective rather than a rejection of the outside world.

Detachment so conceived may occur with and reinforce constructive compassion, rather than devoid one of empathy for other people. Individuals can have inner peace and clarity and still participate effectively in the world [11], contrary to popular Western conceptions that equate detachment with emotional indifference. Harris contends that in Buddhism, detachment not only does not contradict compassion but rather strengthens it. Compassion and detachment are not mutually exclusive but rather require each other as a foundation; compassion is more than just a sentiment, it is an active force, and detachment should not be confused with emotional neglect [11].

Many people believe that compassion denotes a strong emotional bond, whereas detachment denotes a lack of feeling. However, the two are complementary rather than mutually exclusive in Buddhism, Hinduism, and other spiritual traditions. Each is required for the other to fully manifest itself.

3. Buddhist Non-Attachment as Equanimity

Equanimity, or upekkhā, is one of the four brahmavihārā, or Four Immeasurables, in Mahāyāna Buddhism. These are virtues to practice in both daily life and meditation: empathy (Muditā), compassion (Karuṇā), loving-kindness (mettā), and equanimity (upekkhā). Equanimity is referred to in Buddhism as upekkha, which literally translates as “to look over” or “to see with patience and understanding” [14]. It stands for a type of detachment that, by not holding on to pleasure or pushing away from suffering, enables one to maintain composure and serenity regardless of the outside environment. Being emotionally neutral means avoiding extremes. A person who possesses equanimity reacts to circumstances with a cool, collected head rather than becoming unduly attached to happy or unpleasant experiences. Buddhism holds that wisdom (paññā), especially the understanding of the essence of reality, is the foundation of serenity [15]. A person with equanimity may operate without being emotionally motivated or attached to specific outcomes, maintaining clarity and purpose while being open to the natural flow of events. This is because they recognize that everything is temporary and linked.

This idea has been interpreted and presented by a few prominent scholars like Leesa S. Davis and Bruce Alan Wallace. The Buddha emphasizes the value of developing equanimity in the Dhammapada in order to combat mental fluctuations: “He who is not disturbed by the fluctuations of mind, who is not bound by attachments, who does not react to joy or sorrow, he is truly at peace” (Dhammapada, verse 221) [16]. Similar to this, the Buddha describes the characteristics of a Sotāpanna (stream-enterer) who has started down the path to freedom in the Samaññaphala Sutta (DN 2). It is said that the Sotāpanna has learned to remain calm in the face of life’s ups and downs, unfazed by the fluctuations of experience [17]. Wallace claims that the importance of Buddhist equanimity and non-attachment is achieving mental stability and spiritual freedom. Wallace highlights that letting go of our attachment to both pleasure and pain results in a profound sense of inner freedom rather than apathy or separation from the outside world. He says that one might develop equanimity by realizing how everything is temporary and linked, which will keep one grounded and unfazed by life’s inevitable ups and downs [18,19,20]. Davis claims that non-attachment, in the Buddhist context, is the mental state in which one does not readily identify with the objects, people, or events of the perceptible world. This state leads to equanimity, a balanced mental condition in which one is not swayed by success or failure. Practicing non-attachment does not mean renouncing efforts to improve one’s life. Instead, it involves letting go of the desire for specific outcomes and finding joy in the process itself. Both authors highlight the importance of mindfulness, but Davis promotes it in her explanation of non-attachment. She contends that practicing mindfulness helps people break free from negative thought habits [15]. Wallace, on the other hand, places mindfulness in the context of the Brahmavihārās, emphasizing in particular how equanimity strikes a balance between emotional reactions and compassionate action [20].

As Pema Chödrön pointed out, non-attachment promotes a more flexible approach to life. By relinquishing control over outcomes, individuals can engage with life more fully, without being weighed down by emotional dependencies or fixations [21]. This understanding of non-attachment allows laypersons to pursue their goals while maintaining a sense of inner freedom from attachment to those goals.

From the non-attachment standpoint of Buddhism, the issue lies in encouraging the practice of non-attachment. Specifically, how can one motivate themselves to pursue their goals if they are not attached to them? In other words, how can one be impartial about whether their goals are achieved or not? Being non-attached indicates a change in the kind of motivation rather than an absence of it; pursuing objectives in order to avoid failure or to obtain external rewards frequently results in attachment to results (success, recognition, money gain), i.e., being influenced externally. Being motivated by an innate desire to do something just for fun (the excitement of discovering new things, developing oneself, or becoming an expert at a skill) is being driven internally.

The interpretation addressed in this article as non-attachment entails letting go of a focus on outcomes from Buddhist perspectives. This does not negate the importance of motivation, though. We do not have to hold on to a particular result in order to behave with aim and purpose. Therefore, the main concept is to act with intention but disengage from the outcome. The argument “Buddhism explains non-attachment from the result rather than discounting the role of motivation” interprets Buddhism as an emphasis on drive while teaching non-attachment to outcomes. Although Buddhism encourages people to let go of their connection to outcomes, this does not imply that motivation is unimportant. Intention is still important. Rather than being driven by the outcome, their motivation comes from actually doing the work, as motivation alone should drive action rather than merely pursuing outcomes. One should act out of inner drive rather than anticipation of a particular outcome. While both the concepts are consistent with Buddhist philosophy, the first focuses more on elucidating non-attachment, while the second discusses how motivation ought to work in real-world situations. The Vimalakirti Sutra explains how a layperson (Vimalakirti) maintains full engagement with the world while engaging in detached activity [6].

Buddhism explains non-attachment from the result rather than discounting the role of motivation or suggesting that encouraging non-attachment will make one less motivated. For instance, when someone practices non-attachment, they do not get emotionally attached to whether the outcome is precisely what they had in mind, even though they may put a lot of effort into assisting people or finishing a job. Rather than being driven by the outcome, their motivation comes from actually doing the work.

4. Mahāyāna Buddhist Teachings on Non-Attachment

In the context of Buddhist teachings on non-attachment, a discussion of how to maintain motivation to pursue goals without being attached to them is crucial. Buddhist theory suggests that one important strategy is to redirect attention from the result to the process itself. Being non-attached is a shift in the way one views one’s actions, rather than an indication of lack of motivation or concern for them. The Buddhist principle of conducting oneself with the right effort derives motivation from the intrinsic worth of skilled deeds rather than the fear of losing or the prospect of gaining [22]. In Buddhism, the nature of attachment (upādāna) and desire (taṇhā) is the primary reason why material objectives frequently conflict with spiritual ones. Mindful engagement can help people stay motivated by emphasizing the effort and worth of the present moment. There is a disparity between unwholesome desire (taṇhā) and wholesome motivation in Buddhism, as the former leads to suffering due to clinging to desire. However, desire and motivation are connected to intention (cetanā), the mental aspect that directs or governs this decision-making process. In this process, a driving force or incentive that we might refer to as “desire” has an impact on intention. An intention intends to satisfy a desire to go somewhere, obtain something, or do something. Now, what is the desire and how is it defined? That is fundamentally derived from likes and dislikes. This activity involves several factors: knowledge, or “intelligence” or “wisdom”, is the ability to recognize and identify different objects in one’s immediate surroundings; yearning, or “taṇhā”, is the want to acquire or get rid of specific objects; and intention, or “cetanā”, is the decision to act in accordance with these desires [23].

Although detachment, or virāga in Buddhism, is frequently presented as a spiritual objective, it can also serve as a psychological reaction to failure in the material world, leading to detachment being encouraged as a response to suffering. Detachment, however, may turn into spiritual bypassing if it is solely employed as a justification for failure. In this case, one avoids dealing with emotions while posing as wise. In Buddhism, insight (paññā) reveals the ephemeral (anicca), unsatisfying (dukkha), and selfless (anattā) nature of everything, which leads to non-attachment. Wisdom teaches one to let go after realizing the misery that clinging brings. Mindfulness and understanding dependent origination aid in the gradual deterioration of attachment. Non-attachment refers to a caring, well-rounded style of living rather than apathy. Nibbāna, the cessation of suffering, is ultimately the result of profound knowledge.

A person is inherently drawn in the opposite direction of spiritual detachment by worldly aims because they are usually motivated by ego, attachment, and cravings. While spiritual practice aims to eradicate negations, such as the majority of worldly goals, career success, wealth, and power reinforce them. Suffering increases with the degree of attachment to these. Spiritual objectives, on the other hand, emphasize letting go as opposed to acquiring. Buddhism views the ego as a delusion; hence, any objective that satisfies the ego is inevitably at odds with spiritual development. Buddhism does not forbid all worldly pursuits, yet an intense desire for material achievement results in suffering. According to Majjhima Patipada, the Middle Way recommends compassion and the right livelihood, living sensibly and selflessly. A layman may interact with the outside world without harboring feelings of greed, anger, or illusion.

The interpretation is people often develop attachments to what they encounter, reinforcing craving and suffering, i.e., people tend to develop desires in response to their surroundings, though not necessarily for everything they see, and that triggers the attachment formation process. Thus explains a fundamental mechanism of suffering: coming into contact with objects, developing attachments, strengthening cravings, and then feeling lost or unsatisfied. The difficulty lies not in rejecting every experience but rather in embracing them without becoming overly attached.

One wants everything one comes into contact with and interacts with to reach its ideal level of completion. Furthermore, one aspires to actively contribute to the fulfillment and completion of this feeling; it is not a sense that is detached. Generally speaking, in Buddhist thinking, the circle of ignorance leads to craving and that leads to intention, which leads to suffering. The question is whether wanting everything one encounters could truly be a sort of self-development that helps break this pattern. Since craving (taṇhā) is one of the main factors that maintains the cycle of suffering (saṃsāra), it initially appears to be the reverse of self-development. Buddhism views attachment and want as the source of suffering, and if you “want everything you come into contact with”, you are feeding these emotions continuously. The perspective addressed in this article interprets this in the following manner: “wanting everything” could be a technique for self-awareness if it is understood to imply acknowledging and completely experiencing desire without attachment. Over time, yearning may be weakened if, for instance, one sees a lovely object and acknowledges the desire but does nothing about it. This specific form of self-development weakens the cycle of ignorance–craving–intention (avijjā-taṇhā-cetanā). This cycle is also known as ignorance–craving–unwholesome conduct (avijjā-taṇhā-akusala kamma). The path of wisdom–wholesome desire–wholesome action (paññā-chanda-kusala kamma) or wisdom–wholesome desire–wholesome intention (paññā-chanda-cetanā) takes precedence [24]. Ultimately, this path leads to the manner of existence of awakened beings.

The motivation and the result vary between wholesome and unwholesome desire–intention–action. Actions that are wholesome are motivated by wisdom, compassion, and non-attachment, whereas actions that are unwholesome are motivated by delusion, hatred, and greed. Buddhism holds that getting rid of attachment and selfish appetites and developing good intentions, desires, and deeds is the path to enlightenment [23]. This code of ethics directs practitioners towards a life of harmony, empathy, and, in the end, pain-free living.

Chanda offers a non-egoistic, enduring inner drive that is based on compassion, wisdom, and self-improvement [23]. Thus, one can pursue objectives without the emotional strain of desiring particular results, such as learning, personal development, or improving the lives of others. The way to do this is to remain equanimous, to work hard without getting attached to the result. This is a liberation from emotional highs and lows depending on success or failure, not a lack of concern. Even though one cannot fully control the outcome, one can nevertheless put all of their effort into pursuing a goal. This state of mind promotes action without becoming fixated, lowering stress and boosting resilience.

While the application of non-attachment and the psychological framing of desire show a moderate degree of novelty to laypeople, Buddhism places a strong emphasis on using proper knowledge and mindfulness as techniques to reduce attachment. Since this interior, cognitive paradigm of detachment signifies a move from purely behavioral renunciation to psychological understanding, the degree of novelty is moderate. There is a moderate level of novelty [25]. Although renunciation was still the best option, it was more inclusive to let householders make significant spiritual advancements through non-attachment. For laypeople, the level of novelty in Buddhist non-attachment is moderate. Although the importance of detachment was widely recognized, Buddhism made innovations by psychologically explaining the idea of desire, encouraging householders to practice non-attachment via ethics and mindfulness, reinventing spirituality in daily living. This contributed to the spiritual landscape’s expansion beyond extreme asceticism and priestly ritual contradiction. Buddhist non-attachment, as it relates to lay practice, is moderately fresh, straddling the line between innovation in ethical and psychological conceptualization and continuity with prior Indian traditions. Buddhism did not create non-attachment; rather, it democratized and reinterpreted it so that it was relevant and accessible to the general public without requiring renunciation. A moderate degree of novelty in the application of Buddhist non-attachment to contemporary lay life is discussed in this manuscript. Although prior adaptations have addressed components of lay practice, such as mindfulness-based therapy, socially active Buddhism, and secular reinterpretations, they frequently narrowly focus on activism, stress alleviation, or existential meaning. This method, on the other hand, reinterprets non-attachment as non-clinging social engagement, addressing neglected topics such as digital life, interpersonal dynamics, and consumption. It builds upon current applications rather than drastically changing them, with roots in traditional Buddhist ethics but modified for contemporary secular situations.

5. Implications for the Charge of Impracticality

Buddhism uses the terms “worldly” and “beyond-worldly” to describe two distinct kinds of ambitions that direct a person’s behavior, motivations, and ultimate objective, especially in the context of Mahāyāna philosophy. Goals and desires pertaining to normal, everyday life are known as worldly aims (Laukika aims). They are frequently linked to monetary gain, individual accomplishments, and social acceptance. In the traditional world, worldly goals usually center on the welfare of the individual. Beyond-worldly aims (Lokottara aims) are concerned with spiritual growth and the emancipation of all beings, and they go beyond the traditional, material world. The quest for enlightenment and the end of suffering for oneself and others are the foundation of beyond-worldly goals. A practitioner of Mahāyāna Buddhism can simultaneously strive for beyond-worldly aspirations and pursue earthly goals without attachment. This dual pursuit is embodied in the bodhisattva ideal: pursuing enlightenment for the benefit of all beings (beyond-worldly objective) while simultaneously working in the world to help others (worldly aim). This way, one can pursue worldly goals wisely, acknowledging that they are fleeting and not the ultimate source of happiness, rather than giving them up. A practitioner of non-attachment can pursue both kinds of goals while preserving compassion and inner serenity. For laypersons, practicing non-attachment does not require the complete abandonment of ambition or aspirations. Rather, it requires a balanced approach in which goals are pursued without allowing them to dominate one’s sense of self or well-being. Non-attachment teaches individuals to focus on the present moment, free from the compulsion to cling to future success or avoid future failure. This fosters a more resilient mindset, enabling individuals to adapt to life’s uncertainties without becoming emotionally entangled.

It is not the same as “being indifferent to whether you succeed or fail”, to be free from the need to cling to success or escape failure. The emotional reaction to the results and the attitude and motivation guiding one’s activities are what make a difference. Being emotionally free from the grip of a crippling dread of failing or an obsession with success is what it means to be non-attached. It involves taking deliberate action and exerting effort without allowing the outcome to determine one’s value or cause emotional distress. This is not the same as indifference, where a person may not even be motivated or concerned. What is encouraged by non-attachment is active engagement in life’s activities with all of one’s attention and energy, without being fixated on the outcome. Apathy, on the other hand, suggests a lack of drive or care. An indifferent individual would only half-heartedly pursue a goal, giving little thought to whether they succeed or fail. They do not really get involved emotionally in the process. For instance, a non-attachment practitioner might put in a lot of effort to advance in their career, but in the event of failure or setbacks, they maintain emotional equilibrium and do not let it break them. Rather than being driven by a need for approval from others, their activities are driven by internal motivations like personal growth or contribution. This is similar to the idea of flow, where people are completely absorbed in the task at hand not because they are anticipating a certain result but rather because they find fulfilment in the work itself.

Buddhist non-attachment in relationships also provides valuable insights. As Thich Nhat Hanh suggests, “you must love in such a way that the person you love feels free” [26]. This type of love, devoid of possessiveness, is a form of non-attachment that allows for deeper, healthier connections. Non-attachment, therefore, is not about indifference or disengagement but about fostering compassion and emotional freedom in relationships.

Buddhist teachings do not advocate for withdrawal from interpersonal connections or emotional indifference. Rather, they provide an alternative to attachment, restriction, and clinging that allows one to love and care for others. To elaborate on the discussions, let us emphasize the relationship between non-attachment and compassion, relationships involving emotional freedom, love without attachment, harmony in modern partnerships, absence of expectations, and empathy without ego.

Conversely, non-attachment frees us from the need to control events or satisfy our desires, allowing us to love others freely and unconditionally. With this viewpoint, we can act not out of self-serving need or expectation but rather out of genuine concern for the welfare of others. The bodhisattva ideal in Mahāyāna Buddhism represents the ideal harmony of compassion and non-attachment. A bodhisattva dedicates their life to serving all living things, without regard for the results of their labors [24]. This implies that the motivation is compassion, unencumbered by egotistical needs or emotional reliance on other people’s reactions to them or the success of their endeavors.

Non-attachment implies being free from toxic emotional dependencies that might cause worry, jealousy, or manipulation, not a lack of love or closeness. When people are dependent on a certain result in a relationship, for example, they may experience worry or act more out of control than out of real concern, and they frequently experience anxiety. On the other hand, non-attachment teaches that relationships flourish in environments of freedom, respect, and trust, where each person’s needs are met without requiring possession or undue control. Non-attachment can help modern relationships strike a better balance between intimacy and independence [14]. Clinging or possessiveness are common in attachment-based relationships, when one partner may mostly rely on the other for identity, emotional support, or approval. People can preserve a strong feeling of independence and self-worth by practicing non-attachment, which creates space for healthy relationships. This enhances love instead of lessening it. Partners are allowed to develop separately without clinging while providing mutual care and support. Maintaining emotional independence and personal boundaries in partnerships is crucial for preventing codependency and fostering stronger emotional attachments, according to modern therapists. Suffering frequently results from our expectations of our loved ones or partners’ actions or roles. Disappointment and conflict result when they fall short of these standards. Non-attached people are encouraged to let go of these expectations, which frees up relationships to develop organically without the stress of predetermined roles or results [14]. This method makes room for respect and acceptance of one another. It acknowledges that individuals are prone to change, just like everything else, and that attempting to cling onto or control them will only cause frustration. This is how relationships are strengthened by non-attachment, which gives each individual the opportunity to change without worrying about losing the love or acceptance of the other. Non-attachment necessitates an emphasis on being real and present in relationships, letting others be free while completely interacting with them without making demands motivated by ego. In this sense, relationships become places of mutual growth and freedom rather than conflict or codependency, and actions of love and compassion become acts of giving rather than receiving.

Fundamentally, emotional freedom that results from non-attachment enables people to interact more fully and honestly in relationships without the distortions brought on by fear, neediness, or possessiveness. We can develop a more sincere and compassionate manner of interacting with others by engaging in non-attachment practices, which improves our own lives as well as the lives of those we love.

6. Conclusions

Non-attachment, when understood correctly, is not a rejection of ambition or relationships but a liberation from the emotional burdens that arise from attachment. It allows individuals to engage with life and relationships more fully while remaining free from the suffering that attachment often brings. For laypersons, non-attachment offers a way to navigate life’s challenges without becoming consumed by desires for success or fear of failure. By letting go of attachment to specific outcomes, one can live a more adaptable and meaningful life, balancing ambition with the Buddhist path toward inner freedom.

Buddhism provides a range of coping and transformation techniques that are still available to lay practitioners, even though attachment can take many different forms, from moderate preferences to intense clutching. Practices of appreciation and mindfulness foster happiness without reliance for people with modest attachments or desires (chanda). People who experience moderate craving (taṇhā) might better understand the transient and unfulfilling nature of their desires by practicing insight meditation (vipassanā) and reflecting on impermanence. More sophisticated techniques like self-inquiry using the five aggregates and loving-kindness (mettā) might lessen identification with ego-based attachments in cases of extreme clinging (upādāna). Lay practitioners are better prepared to treat non-attachment as an evolving inner discipline that responds to daily emotional and relational problems rather than just as renunciation when these practices are mapped to certain attachment intensities.

The concepts in this conclusion are not wholly novel; rather, they are consistent with established Mahāyāna principles, especially those contained in the bodhisattva path, Yogācāra (mind-only teachings), and Madhyamaka (Nāgārjuna’s emptiness). The ways these concepts are presented to contemporary lay practitioners, who frequently find it difficult to reconcile Buddhist non-attachment with active participation in relationships, jobs, and self-improvement, are unarguably novel. Buddhism’s novelty is defined as the extent to which its teachings, rituals, and worldview mark a substantial break from or advancement over earlier Indian religious and philosophical traditions, especially the Vedic and Brahmanical systems that were prevalent in the Buddha’s day (c. 5th–6th century BCE) [27]. According to Mahāyāna, the difficulty of non-attachment for lay practitioners is not about giving up the world but rather about changing one’s relationship with it by compassion (karuṇā) and knowledge (prajñā). Mahāyāna Buddhism provides a moderate path that allows for full engagement with work, relationships, and personal development without clinging to ego, results, or fixed identities, in contrast to a strictly austere approach. To summarize, although the fundamental ideas are conventional, their application to contemporary lay life should be considered novel.