Part 5.
A strong belief in an idea or a principle makes us undergo suffering to uphold it. Without that strength (or attachment) to it, we would not be willing to inconvenience ourselves. Cognitive beliefs and ideas are rarely triggers for change. It is when something takes root in our being that its strength has the potential to change the environment.
Look at any of the great personalities from human history. From Socrates to Nelson Mandela, all sacrificed something of themselves so that the idea that they stood for did not get defeated. They were exceptional individuals and were consumed by the passion of their beliefs. They were willing to suffer for the sake of what they thought was right. Had the goal of their life been "avoidance of suffering", they would have lived mediocre lives, grumbling about injustices but not having the motivation to do something about it.
In day-to-day life, the impetus for action lies in our hearts and minds. If one is just doing one's job or some mundane act, not much motivation is needed. But to embark upon a long project, journey, effort-for-change, a battle to uphold a way of life, attachment and passion are essential.
To be willing to suffer for something is a mark of attachment. Understanding this, should "avoidance of suffering" or "non-attachment" be the goal of one's life? Or should suffering be seen as the price of achieving anything worthwhile and should one therefore develop the fortitude for handling adversity while progressing toward one's goal?
It is a well-known aphorism/quotation: "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything." The focus is still on oneself, what about the wider ramifications of non-attachment?
Let us rephrase the statement: If you are moved by nothing, nothing shall be moved by you.
Attachment is the very name of emotional involvement in something or someone.
Without that involvement, one can only be concerned, not caring. Only thoughtful, not passionate. Only reflective, not motivated. Only observant, not touched.
It is life lived at a distance, immune from sorrow as well as from ecstasy.
But no one can completely isolate oneself from life. As long as one is alive, the waves of life will continue to splash against the shore of one's heart and mind. One can go into a cave and live in darkness, but that's hardly living.
Attachment is what life is. Non-attachment is death.
A strong belief in an idea or a principle makes us undergo suffering to uphold it. Without that strength (or attachment) to it, we would not be willing to inconvenience ourselves. Cognitive beliefs and ideas are rarely triggers for change. It is when something takes root in our being that its strength has the potential to change the environment.
Look at any of the great personalities from human history. From Socrates to Nelson Mandela, all sacrificed something of themselves so that the idea that they stood for did not get defeated. They were exceptional individuals and were consumed by the passion of their beliefs. They were willing to suffer for the sake of what they thought was right. Had the goal of their life been "avoidance of suffering", they would have lived mediocre lives, grumbling about injustices but not having the motivation to do something about it.
In day-to-day life, the impetus for action lies in our hearts and minds. If one is just doing one's job or some mundane act, not much motivation is needed. But to embark upon a long project, journey, effort-for-change, a battle to uphold a way of life, attachment and passion are essential.
To be willing to suffer for something is a mark of attachment. Understanding this, should "avoidance of suffering" or "non-attachment" be the goal of one's life? Or should suffering be seen as the price of achieving anything worthwhile and should one therefore develop the fortitude for handling adversity while progressing toward one's goal?
It is a well-known aphorism/quotation: "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything." The focus is still on oneself, what about the wider ramifications of non-attachment?
Let us rephrase the statement: If you are moved by nothing, nothing shall be moved by you.
Attachment is the very name of emotional involvement in something or someone.
Without that involvement, one can only be concerned, not caring. Only thoughtful, not passionate. Only reflective, not motivated. Only observant, not touched.
It is life lived at a distance, immune from sorrow as well as from ecstasy.
But no one can completely isolate oneself from life. As long as one is alive, the waves of life will continue to splash against the shore of one's heart and mind. One can go into a cave and live in darkness, but that's hardly living.
Attachment is what life is. Non-attachment is death.
3 comments:
"A strong belief in an idea or a principle makes us undergo suffering to uphold it. ~ From Socrates to Nelson Mandela, all sacrificed something of themselves so that the idea that they stood for did not get defeated."
Do you think that Buddha also underwent suffering for his idea?
@anon
"Do you think that Buddha also underwent suffering for his idea?"
Yes. And that obviously leads itself to an interesting conundrum. Buddhists resolve it by introducing the concepts of Bodhisattva (one who undergoes suffering for the liberation of others) and Mahaparinirvana (final release from suffering, at physical death).
It's pretty obvious that *any* human advancement required effort, discipline and perseverance. Consider the invention of the computer, the discovery of antibiotics, the countless research articles published since the dawn of the scientific age and the meticulous recording of data.
I think one should understand the difference between needless suffering and worthwhile effort. Say, person X has no interest in becoming an engineer, but wishes to pursue acting. No matter how much he suffers, he will not achieve anything worthwhile as an engineer because his suffering (aka attachment) isn't translating into productivity. Yet, if he goes into acting, the suffering will not disappear (i.e he'll still have to audition for a role, prepare for the job, etc) but it will be productive
Post a Comment