Giving ourselves permission to want things/circumstances seems to fly in the face of ‘non-attachment;’ attachment being the source of suffering in many spiritual/philosophical perspectives.

So how do we ‘want’ something without being attached to it (attached via the ‘wanting’)? By recognizing that the ‘wanting’ is happening when it is happening, rather than trying to deny the wanting-ness, or by trying to rationalize it as a ‘need,’ etc. By simply noticing the attachment, without judging it as ‘bad,’ the attachment part of wanting begins to fall away.

From what I can tell/understand at this point, judgment is directly tied to attachment; if we succeed in attaining what we are ‘attached’ to (ie what we are ‘wanting’ from an ego place), then we feel some sort of fulfillment—but because the fulfillment is based externally, it is never quite enough (because the ego is never satisfied—it always wants more) . . . the bar keeps getting set higher and higher; always a new ‘thing’ to accomplish.

So, once the judgment of ‘not achieving, accomplishing, or getting/attaining’ passes, we are not so tied up in attachment any longer . . . a want is free to just be a want . . . not an attachment via judgment, not a want masquerading as a need. You see, we are not ‘attached’ to breathing . . . we NEED breath, from a deep inner place, to survive in this body. But we do not NEED a high-end car, or a huge house, or the latest style of clothes in order to feel nice inside. As a matter of fact, if you feel nice (content/balanced) from the inside first, then you are MORE likely to put yourself in a position to accomplish what would otherwise be attachment-based wants (ie ego-based wants). Re-read those last few lines.

The problem can be that we get trained by society, media, family, etc. to pursue ‘things’ as markers of success. This teaches an externally based sense of success—by definition, if something is external, then for our ego to feel connected to it, we (ie our ego) have to be ‘attached’ to it. If we already have it (the sense of balance, contentment) inside of our own ‘self’ then there is no need to be tethered to it (ie no need to be attached to it) because it is already inside! This is not encouraging a ‘minimalist’ lifestyle at all; nor is it advocating a lavish lifestyle . . . it is simply encouraging non-attachment to your wants and possessions. I personally know quite a few very, VERY well-off people that are very high in terms of awareness/mindfulness . . . and I am certain that each of them would say something similar to what we are discussing here . . . having a drive/passion/enthusiasm for what you are looking for, but without defining your very sense of ‘self’ based on whatever ‘it’ is that you are working for. In his book Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogananda himself teaches that some of the highest yogis he ever met were very successful business people, because they approached their success in a non-attached, yet structured and enthusiastic perspective.

This is another slant on the Law of Attraction (LOA): if you own it on the inside via your thoughts and beliefs, then you will be more likely to behave in ways that increase the chances of getting what would otherwise be an attachment-based want. Want a new car or a million dollars? Then be in that space internally first and you will be more likely to see, and thus better able to take advantage of the opportunities that you may otherwise miss if you are not in a positive mind-set. The LOA is just a repackaging of what philosophy, psychology, and spirituality have been saying for many years (it’s been called The Power of Positive Thought/Self-Talk, The Power of Intention, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Cognitive Congruence, among many other names—all of them pointing at different aspects of this complex phenomenon that is currently marketed as the Law of Attraction).