Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Notes on Meaning (part ten)

From The Specter of the Absurd
... Our capacity for suffering is the necessary concomitant of our capacity for commitment, caring and loving. Were we creatures of indifferent or dull sensibilities, our susceptibility to pain would be drastically reduced. But to be committed and to care and thus to feel deeply, is to be involved in relationships or ventures that do not always turn out in ways we hope for or expect. Such involvements can profoundly enrich our lives, but they also contain the seeds of disappointment and loss. To have persons and purposes for which to live and willingly to dedicate ourselves to them with intensity of concern, is also to run the risk of losing them or failing to attain them, or of getting hurt in the process of serving them. But only in this way can we hope to have things worth living for.
The next time somebody tells you to remain detached, to just do "one's dharma" without attachment to results, to have no desires and fears, you might want to ask him whether, when he makes love to his wife, his wife knows that he is just fulfilling his duty.

No attachment, no suffering. Vigorous nod, eh?

No attachment, no passion. Not too bad, is it?

No attachment, no motivation. A little shake of the head, non?

No attachment, no commitment. Getting it now, yes?

Desire, Attachment, Passion, Motivation, Commitment, Suffering. You want out?

A seeker goes into an ashram to ask his handicapped guru how to remove a thorn from his foot. The guru hacks his leg and throws it away. Both are happy.

Walking and reaching a real-world destination is never the motivation of the narcissist seeker. The removal of the thorn is, whatever the cost. Whatever the cost.

8 comments:

Modern Man said...

Harman,

1. Isn't the person who is seeking an end of suffering "passionate" and "committed" to this end? If so, then everyday that that person makes "progress" is a testament to his failure.

2. Making a plea to return to the everyday passions and commitments is respectable, but how does the aware individual finally "drown" himself again (to use your life-float analogy)? Is this not an impossible task? Or is there something important and worthwhile to be said about the continual struggle to so?

-MM

itsme said...

hmm.. what a change! Love this!

Harmanjit Singh said...

1. Isn't the person who is seeking an end of suffering "passionate" and "committed" to this end? If so, then everyday that that person makes "progress" is a testament to his failure.

Well, for spiritualists, there is still some consolation. They only remove (or at least claim to remove) the externally connected passions, the inner world still rages. Their connection with God is very passionate, though they are cognitively detached from the world outside.

What I practiced, Actualism, destroys both outer and inner contexts. It unequivocally targets the passionate faculty itself.

2. Making a plea to return to the everyday passions and commitments is respectable, but how does the aware individual finally "drown" himself again (to use your life-float analogy)? Is this not an impossible task? Or is there something important and worthwhile to be said about the continual struggle to so?

Trite though it may sound, having an engagement might help. Read a long book, start living with another person, have a material goal for the next few years. Of course there will be the "head bobbing up" once in a while, but now that you understand the mechanism, you might want to ignore such thoughts. :-)

And patience, I guess.

As Zapffe says: "By isolation I here mean a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling."

Change said...

//No attachment, no suffering. Vigorous nod, eh?//
//No attachment, no passion. Not too bad, is it?//
//No attachment, no motivation. A little shake of the head, non?//
//No attachment, no commitment. Getting it now, yes?//
//Desire, Attachment, Passion, Motivation, Commitment, Suffering. You want out?//

When we decide and believe on some thing, for sure, we can find many supporting arguments across the world. So is the case with rejection also. This is evident from your earlier views with respect to Spirituality and then AF. You have made many, many supporting arguments for those methods when you were following them. Now having rejected you can find any number of arguments against them.

But the important thing is let your insight guide you, with out agitation, with out self pity, with out arrogance, with out the urge to prove any point…. If you allow that, for sure you will find your destination. The already proved methods are only for those who proved it. Not for any body else. Others may take it as a guidance and go on their own path.

The comments you have given about attachment may be true for you. It may not be true for every one. It is an obvious knowledge, having spent so many years in self study/search or whatever you name it, You already know that… every one see any thing with certain perspective. You are also doing so. The perspective may not be the same. If you see the attachment with another perspective you may come up with another set of comments.

Any way, you have already started a new journey. Just forget about the earlier paths, keep looking ahead. Best wishes for your new journey! – If you accept my wishes.

Hope, still you provide enlightening writings in your blog in future.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Harmanjit Singh said...

What I practiced, Actualism, destroys both outer and inner contexts. It unequivocally targets the passionate faculty itself.

# Don't actualists primarily target 'Being' which upon extinction (if ever proven since all 4 claiming to have achieved such a feat have so far refused neuroscience examination) consequently deletes what they consider secondary: the instinctual passions?

Harmanjit Singh said...

@anonymous

Don't actualists primarily target 'Being' which upon extinction (if ever proven since all 4 claiming to have achieved such a feat have so far refused neuroscience examination) consequently deletes what they consider secondary: the instinctual passions?

"I am my feelings and my feelings are me." (AFT Website)

There is no difference. The aim of actualism is the end of the affective/passionate/intuitive faculty itself.

From http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/instinctualpassions.htm

"The time is now ripe and most humans, given sufficient will and intent , are now capable of weakening the chemical stranglehold that instinctual passions have on their thoughts and behaviour to such an extent that they can become virtually free of their influence. Then, and only then, is it possible that their elimination will occur through a mutation in the brain-stem causing a total and complete disconnection from their source in our primitive animal brain."

Anonymous said...

Harmanjit Singh said...

@anonymous

Don't actualists primarily target 'Being' which upon extinction (if ever proven since all 4 claiming to have achieved such a feat have so far refused neuroscience examination) consequently deletes what they consider secondary: the instinctual passions?

H: "I am my feelings and my feelings are me." (AFT Website) There is no difference. The aim of actualism is the end of the affective/passionate/intuitive faculty itself.

# I was referring to:
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-feelings.htm

RICHARD: Often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. That is, the biological instinctual package handed out by blind nature is deleted like a computer software programme (but with no ‘Recycle Bin’ to retrieve it from) so that the affective faculty is no more. Then – and only then – are there no feelings ... as in a pure consciousness experience...


# What I find helpful to remember is; if the sense of 'Being' and the affective faculties/animal passions are one and the same then the passions of all animals would morph into the same sense of 'Being' as humans have, yet actualists say (believe) they do not, other than the rudimentary sense of self experienced by higher primates.

So it's not JUST "I am my feelings and my feelings are me" there is another ghost in our particular configuration that we must contend with.

Anonymous said...

Well said...Change