Honesty and Dishonesty: Beyond the surface
The concepts of honesty and dishonesty, fidelity and infidelity, often evoke strong reactions from people, shaped by moral, cultural, and societal conditioning. These binaries dominate much of human interaction, creating judgments about what is right and wrong, what is ethical and unethical. However, when we delve deeper into these ideas, we begin to see that these distinctions are part of a broader illusion of duality—a construct that humanity has built over millennia to navigate the complexities of life.
The very act of labeling actions as “honest” or “dishonest,” “faithful” or “unfaithful” stems from a worldview that is bound by dualistic thinking. In such a worldview, life is divided into opposites—good and bad, right and wrong, true and false. Yet, as we explore the nature of consciousness and presence, it becomes clear that these dichotomies are not fixed, but rather fluid, shaped by the limited perceptions of the human mind.
At the heart of this inquiry lies the question: what happens when one operates with complete presence, in a state of being where the mind is free from the constructs of past and future, of moral judgments, and of conditioned responses? In such a state, does the very notion of honesty and dishonesty, fidelity and infidelity, dissolve? Can we transcend the dualities that dominate our understanding of reality? And if so, what does that reveal about the nature of the “real world” we think we live in?
In this exploration, we will dive deep into these questions, dissecting the nature of honesty, dishonesty, fidelity, and infidelity, and ultimately aiming to dissolve the myths and illusions that surround them.
From an early age, we are taught that honesty is a virtue, a moral standard by which we should live. To be honest is to tell the truth, to be transparent, and to act in alignment with what is considered ethical. Dishonesty, on the other hand, is seen as a vice—deceiving, hiding the truth, or acting in ways that betray trust. Society has built intricate structures around these concepts, embedding them in legal systems, educational frameworks, and interpersonal relationships.
However, what we often fail to recognize is that both honesty and dishonesty are constructed within the realm of thought. They are ideas that arise from the human mind, shaped by cultural and historical contexts. What may be considered honest in one culture could be viewed as dishonest in another. For instance, in some cultures, withholding certain information is seen as a way to protect others, while in other societies, it may be seen as deceit. Thus, honesty and dishonesty are not objective truths; they are relative concepts that depend on context, perception, and belief systems. This recognition opens the door to questioning the very foundations of these moral judgments.
Honesty and dishonesty, as we commonly understand them, are rooted in dualistic thinking—the division of the world into opposites. Duality, in this sense, is a mental construct that allows us to navigate the complexities of life. It simplifies the world into categories of right and wrong, true and false, and gives us a sense of control over the moral and ethical landscape we inhabit.
But this division is inherently limiting. It creates conflict, both internally and externally, because it forces us to align with one side of the dichotomy and reject the other. When we view honesty and dishonesty as fixed opposites, we become trapped in a cycle of judgment, always measuring ourselves and others against these standards.
In relationships, fidelity is often equated with loyalty, faithfulness, and commitment. To be faithful is to remain true to one’s partner, to honor the bond of trust that has been established. Infidelity, by contrast, is seen as a betrayal—a breaking of that trust, a violation of the commitment made. These concepts are deeply ingrained in societal norms and expectations, particularly in romantic and marital relationships.
However, like honesty and dishonesty, fidelity and infidelity are also socially constructed. The very notion of what it means to be faithful or unfaithful varies across cultures and historical periods. In some societies, monogamy is seen as the ultimate expression of fidelity, while in others, polygamy or open relationships are accepted norms. The rules that govern fidelity are not universal; they are shaped by cultural, religious, and personal beliefs.
At the heart of fidelity and infidelity lies the idea of ownership—ownership of another person’s body, mind, and emotions. When we commit to a relationship, particularly in the context of marriage or long-term partnership, there is often an implicit expectation that we “own” each other in some way. This ownership manifests in the form of expectations about exclusivity, loyalty, and the boundaries of the relationship.
But this notion of ownership is illusory. No one can truly own another person, and attempting to do so creates a sense of possessiveness that is rooted in fear and insecurity. Fidelity, when seen through the lens of ownership, becomes a way of controlling the other person, of ensuring that they remain within the boundaries we have set for them.
True love is not possessive or conditional. When we love someone, we do not seek to control them or to bind them to our expectations. Instead, we allow them the freedom to be who they are, without judgment or restriction. This kind of love transcends the dualities of fidelity and infidelity because it is not based on ownership or attachment.
Infidelity, when it occurs, is often seen as the ultimate betrayal. It brings up feelings of hurt, anger, and rejection. But from a deeper perspective, infidelity can be understood as a mirror—an opportunity to examine the underlying dynamics of the relationship and the expectations that have been placed on it.
When someone is unfaithful, it is not necessarily a reflection of their character or moral standing. Rather, it can be a reflection of the unmet needs and desires that exist within the relationship. These unmet needs may be emotional, physical, or psychological, and they often stem from a lack of true connection or understanding between partners. Infidelity, in this sense, is not the cause of the problem but a symptom of deeper issues that have been ignored or suppressed. It forces us to confront the illusions we have built around relationships—the illusion of ownership, the illusion of permanence, and the illusion of control.
To operate with 100% presence in the moment is to be fully aware, fully engaged, and fully alive in the here and now. It means to live without the interference of past conditioning or future projections, to see reality as it is, without the filters of judgment, expectation, or attachment. Presence is the state of pure awareness, where the mind is not divided into opposites, and the self is not fragmented by thought. When we are truly present, the concepts of honesty and dishonesty, fidelity and infidelity, dissolve. In the state of presence, there is no division between right and wrong, true and false, because these are constructs of the mind. Presence transcends duality and brings us into direct contact with reality as it is—without the distortions of thought or emotion.
In the state of presence, honesty and dishonesty lose their meaning. Honesty is often defined as telling the truth, but what is truth? Truth, in its most profound sense, is not a fixed concept; it is fluid, dynamic, and constantly changing. When we are present, we do not cling to fixed ideas of truth or falsehood; we simply respond to the reality of the moment. Dishonesty, in this sense, is not about lying or deceiving others. It is about being out of alignment with the present moment—about acting from a place of conditioning, fear, or attachment, rather than from a place of awareness. When we are fully present, there is no need for dishonesty because we are in harmony with the flow of life. We do not need to manipulate or control the situation; we simply respond with clarity and integrity.
The concept of fidelity, too, dissolves when one operates in the present moment with full awareness. Fidelity, in its conventional sense, is often tied to promises, contracts, and the expectation of a continuous future. In relationships, it becomes a pledge to behave in certain ways over time, to stay within defined boundaries, and to remain “true” to another person. But these pledges are built upon mental constructs and future projections—on an imagined continuity that is bound by time and expectation.
When one is fully present, these future projections lose their weight, and fidelity is no longer about promises made for tomorrow but about the authenticity of being in relationship here and now. In presence, fidelity is not something forced or negotiated, but an expression of truth in the moment. One cannot be unfaithful in presence because one is not operating from a divided mind that clings to past commitments or fears future betrayals. Instead, there is simply an unfolding of truth as it is, unconditioned by the past and unconcerned with future outcomes.
Infidelity, often seen as the antithesis of fidelity, also loses its traditional meaning when approached from a place of presence. Infidelity typically arises from dissatisfaction, a feeling that something is lacking in the current relationship or situation. This dissatisfaction propels one to seek fulfillment elsewhere, outside the bounds of the established relationship. But what is at the root of this dissatisfaction? Often, it is the mind’s attachment to desires, projections, and unexamined needs that fuel the urge to look beyond the present relationship. In presence, there is no room for such projections. The mind, when it is fully attuned to the present, does not dwell on what is lacking or seek fulfillment outside of what is unfolding in the here and now. When one is present with a partner or in any relationship, the relationship is no longer bound by the rigid labels of fidelity and infidelity. There is simply a connection, a flow of being, that is not controlled by societal norms or personal insecurities. In this way, presence dissolves the very constructs that give rise to infidelity, not by imposing rules or boundaries, but by making them irrelevant.
Needs – Fulfilment or imaginary?
At its core, ‘need’ represents a perceived lack within our lives. Whether it’s a need for something material like food or shelter, or something psychological such as love or acceptance, every need suggests that something essential is missing. Desire, according to Buddhist philosophy, leads to suffering because it perpetuates a state of lacking and grasping. When needs arise, they disturb our peace by suggesting that our current state is insufficient.
When a need is fulfilled, it confirms its existence as something genuine. For example, the need for nourishment is affirmed as real when eating relieves the pangs of hunger. Here, the need aligns with a fundamental requirement for survival. Conversely, if a need fades away without being fulfilled, one might argue it was never a true need but rather a transient desire. This observation is particularly relevant in the context of emotional or psychological needs, where distinguishing between deep-seated necessities and superficial wants becomes complex.
The paradox lies in the dual nature of needs as both real and illusory. On one hand, certain needs are indisputably real, as their fulfillment directly pertains to survival and well-being. On the other, many needs, when scrutinized, reveal themselves as constructs of the mind, shaped by societal, cultural, and personal expectations and conditioning. Stoic philosophy, for instance, teaches the value of distinguishing between what we can control and what we cannot, urging a detachment from external desires and an acceptance of what is. This detachment is not about suppression of need but rather a profound understanding of the ephemerality of external conditions.
Existentially, needs can be viewed as anchors that give meaning to our lives. Yet, this meaning is often predicated on the continual pursuit of fulfillment, which can lead to an endless cycle of desire and disappointment. Spiritually, transcending needs can be seen as a path to enlightenment, where one achieves a state of contentment and unity with all existence, free from the dualities of lack and fulfillment. Exploring the concept of need across both living and non-living entities broadens our understanding of the fundamental nature of existence. In living beings, needs are typically biologically or psychologically driven, manifesting as impulses towards survival, reproduction, and social bonding. In contrast, the ‘needs’ of non-living entities—such as the need for maintenance or preservation—are attributed by human perspectives, often reflecting our own values or necessities imposed upon objects or systems.
When a need vanishes without fulfillment, it raises profound questions about its existence. Was it a real need, or merely a temporary desire? This question aligns with the philosophical inquiry into the nature of being and non-being. In metaphysical terms, the disappearance of a need without fulfillment suggests that it may have been a contingent, not a necessary state. Contingent needs are dependent on specific conditions and perceptions, which can change over time and context, leading to the dissolution of the perceived need. The journey towards fulfilling a need is often fraught with turmoil and dissatisfaction. This chaos, particularly evident in the human experience, stems from the tension between current states of lack and the anticipated states of fulfillment. Psychologically, this turmoil can be seen in the frustration, anxiety, and even despair that arise in the pursuit of unmet needs. The existential tension here is the human confrontation with limitation and imperfection.
Philosophically, the condition of being ‘in need’ can be seen as a fundamental aspect of the human condition. Existential philosophers have long grappled with the notion of lack as a core component of existence. Jean-Paul Sartre, for instance, discussed how human consciousness is defined by a lack—being “for-itself” implies a constant striving towards an elusive “in-itself,” a state of being that remains perpetually out of reach, creating a perpetual state of desire and resultant existential void.
From another perspective, the chaos and discomfort experienced in the face of unmet needs can also be transformative. This aligns with the concept of “creative destruction” in economic theory, where old structures must be destroyed to make way for new, potentially more adaptive arrangements. Psychologically, enduring the discomfort of unfulfilled needs can lead to personal growth, resilience, and a deeper understanding of oneself and one’s true priorities. In spiritual traditions, particularly those influenced by non-dualistic philosophies, the ultimate aim is often described as transcending need altogether. This transcendence is not about achieving a state where no physical or psychological needs exist, but rather reaching a state of consciousness where one is no longer enslaved by those needs. This state is characterized by a profound inner peace and contentment, where external conditions no longer dictate one’s inner state. Thus, the existence of need, its fulfillment, or its vanishing without impact each carry significant implications. These phenomena invite us to reflect on the ephemeral and often illusory nature of needs. They challenge us to consider whether true fulfillment comes from satisfying every need or from cultivating a state of being that is free from the tyranny of need.
As we delve further into the dynamics of need and its fulfillment, it becomes crucial to distinguish between short-term satisfaction and long-term fulfillment. Immediate resolution of needs often brings temporary relief, but the underlying drivers—whether emotional, psychological, or spiritual—may still persist. This introduces a cyclical pattern where fulfilled needs may resurface or evolve into new desires, suggesting that the root of need is not merely in the external lack but in a deeper, internal void. Existentially, the concept of need pushes individuals to confront their freedom and responsibility. Jean-Paul Sartre’s idea of existential freedom suggests that while we are free to pursue our needs, we are also responsible for the choices we make in response to these needs. This freedom is double-edged; it empowers but also burdens us with the responsibility of discernment and decision-making, highlighting the existential challenge of navigating needs without clear, predefined paths. The pursuit of fulfilling all needs can create an illusion that perpetual satisfaction is attainable. This illusion can lead to constant striving and dissatisfaction, as each fulfilled need often gives rise to new desires. Philosophically, this reflects the Buddhist teaching on the nature of desire and suffering. Recognizing this cycle can lead to a profound existential and spiritual inquiry: Is there an end to need, or is the human condition inherently defined by endless desire?
In spiritual traditions, particularly those advocating non-attachment and detachment, the ultimate freedom is described as a state of needlessness. This does not imply a lack of engagement with the world but rather an engagement that is free from the compulsion of needs. Achieving such a state is often described as enlightenment, where one exists in complete harmony with the universe, undisturbed by individual desires and aversions. One of the central paradoxes in the realm of need is the tension between dependence and independence. On one hand, fulfilling basic needs often requires interdependence—relying on others and the environment, which seemingly contradicts the ideal of self-sufficiency. On the other hand, the more we fulfill certain needs, the more autonomous we may become, capable of pursuing higher, more abstract needs such as self-actualization. Yet, this pursuit can lead back to new dependencies, such as the need for validation or intellectual stimulation, illustrating a cyclical return to interdependence.
Needs emerge from a sense of lack or emptiness, driving us to seek fulfillment to feel complete. Paradoxically, this quest for completion through fulfilling needs can deepen the sense of emptiness, as each fulfillment often reveals new voids. This reflects the Buddhist notion that desire (and its fulfillment) inherently leads to suffering due to the impermanent nature of all conditioned phenomena. Thus, the very act of seeking wholeness through external fulfillment paradoxically perpetuates emptiness. Another paradox lies in the relationship between desire and liberation. In many spiritual traditions, liberation is attained through the cessation of desire. However, the initial movement towards liberation itself arises from a desire—the desire to be free from suffering. This presents a fundamental paradox: one must harness desire to ultimately transcend all desires. The path to liberation, therefore, involves navigating through desires in a way that gradually diminishes their power over one’s state of being. The pursuit of self-improvement is often driven by the recognition of one’s needs and deficiencies. This pursuit, intended to overcome limitations, paradoxically reaffirms those limitations by constantly highlighting areas of lack. The more one engages in self-improvement, the more one might become aware of further imperfections, potentially leading to a never-ending cycle of self-enhancement and the persistent sense of being ‘not enough.’
The ultimate understanding is that distinctions between need and fulfillment are illusory—both are manifestations of the same underlying reality, perceived differently due to mental conditioning and dualistic thinking. Here, the paradox is that need and its resolution are not truly separate; they are two sides of the same coin. Recognizing this non-duality can lead to a profound shift in how one experiences need and fulfillment, seeing them not as opposing forces but as interconnected aspects of life’s unfolding.
Into the Heart of Now: “NOW” Unveiled
We are what we are doing right now” taps into the philosophical and psychological realms of existence, perception, and human behaviour. Going further, we begin to see a confluence of various factors, which draw us away from the present moment, and push us into the embrace of either the past or the future. At the very heart of human existence is our incessant need to find meaning. We seek purpose, direction, and a sense of understanding about our lives. This pursuit often becomes a bridge connecting the past, present, and future. Our past experiences, both triumphant and traumatic, linger in our minds, continuously shaping our present perceptions. They become stories we tell ourselves, lessons we’ve learned, and at times, scars that haven’t fully healed. The future, on the other hand, represents our hopes, fears, dreams, and anxieties. It’s a canvas upon which we project our desires and apprehensions.
The expectation of outcomes is an inherent human trait. It is rooted in our evolutionary drive for predictability and control. For our ancestors, predicting potential dangers and outcomes was a matter of survival. Over millennia, this instinct has got inculcated with our complex cognitive structures, resulting in our modern-day anxieties about the future and ruminations on the past. However, the irony lies in the fact that the more we seek to control outcomes, the more we find ourselves entangled in a web of expectations. These expectations often lead to inner conflicts. When the present doesn’t align with our anticipated future, dissatisfaction ensues. And when the weight of past regrets is heavy, it dims the light of the present. Furthermore, the very act of striving to stay in the ‘now’ can itself become a source of distraction. If one is perpetually conscious about remaining anchored in the present, then this very consciousness becomes a barrier. The effort to stay present can sometimes be as distracting as the past memories or future anxieties that pull us away.
In today’s world, there’s also the influence of societal structures and norms. We live in societies that prize outcomes—success is often defined not by the journey, but by the destination. From a young age, we’re conditioned to focus on results, whether it’s grades in school or milestones in personal and professional lives. This societal molding further deepens our attachment to outcomes and amplifies our detachment from the present.
It is also crucial to understand the role of human consciousness in shaping our experience of time. Our consciousness is not just a passive observer; it actively constructs our sense of reality. Every moment we live is filtered through a myriad of cognitive processes, memories, and emotions. This complexity means that we often don’t experience the world “as it is” but rather “as we are.”
Neurologically speaking, our brain’s default mode network, an intricate web of interconnected brain regions, becomes most active when our attention is not occupied by tasks. This network is linked with thinking about others, thinking about oneself, remembering the past, and planning for the future. Thus, even when we aim to be in the present, our brains often naturally drift towards contemplations of the past and future. The challenges in remaining present can also be attributed to our cognitive structures, which include biases, such as the “negativity bias” – our innate human tendency to give more weight to negative experiences than positive ones. This bias can cause past traumas or failures to overshadow current joys, anchoring us in bygone moments of pain or disappointment. On the other hand, the future holds the allure of the unknown. This uncertainty can be both enticing and anxiety-inducing. Our modern societies, with their rapid changes and technological advancements, amplify this by creating an environment where change is the only constant. The evolving landscapes of our personal and professional lives mean that the future is more unpredictable than ever, making it a potent magnet for our attention and energy. Yet, amidst these complexities, lies a simple truth: the only tangible reality is the present. While memories shape and color our past and aspirations carve out our perceived futures, the ‘now’ is the only temporal space where action occurs, where life is truly lived.
Let’s explore this further!
What if “Now” encapsulates everything – past, present, and future ? This perspective challenges traditional temporal distinctions or divisions we create in and between Past, Present and Future. This viewpoint reframes our understanding of time and our place within its continuum. When we speak of living in the now, it’s often portrayed as a juxtaposition against being lost in memories of the past or anxieties about the future. However, what if everything is indeed a part of the “now” ?
Imagine time as a vast river. In this river, every drop of water represents a moment. While some drops are behind us (the past) and others ahead (the future), they all collectively belong to the river, which is the “now”. In this perspective, the entirety of existence – our memories, current experiences, and anticipations – are interconnected and concurrently present in an expansive “now”. From this viewpoint, distractions aren’t diversions from the present moment; they are simply different facets of the ever-expanding “now”. The reminiscences of a childhood memory or the contemplation about a future event are as much a part of our current experience as the sensation of the chair we’re sitting on. Every thought, emotion, and sensation, regardless of the temporal context it references, emerges and is experienced in the present moment.
The division we often make between the past, present, and future might be a result of our cognitive architecture. The human mind, in its quest for order and understanding, categorizes experiences. This compartmentalization aids in processing complex information. For instance, labeling an experience as a “memory” helps us contextualize it, discern lessons from it, or even prevent future mistakes. Similarly, projecting into the future can be a survival mechanism, allowing us to anticipate potential threats or opportunities.
However, by understanding that everything occurs in the “now”, we can achieve a form of holistic consciousness. This realization offers liberation. It frees us from the confines of linear temporality and allows a more integrated experience of existence. Such a perspective is echoed in various spiritual and philosophical traditions. For instance, in Eastern philosophies, there’s an emphasis on the interconnectedness of all things, where dichotomies are more apparent than real. Yet, while this concept is enlightening, it’s also challenging. Our societal structures, languages, and even our neurobiology are geared towards a linear understanding of time. Overcoming this deeply ingrained perspective requires consistent introspection and possibly even a paradigm shift in our consciousness.
Let’s delve deeper into the expansive Present:
Linear time, where events occur in a sequence from past to present to future, might be more of a cognitive construct than an intrinsic property of the universe. Physics, especially in the realm of relativity and quantum mechanics, has already shown us that time doesn’t always behave in the ways our everyday experiences might suggest. The famous physicist John Wheeler once proposed the idea of a “participatory universe,” suggesting that observers play a role in shaping their own realities, which includes the experience of time. Every thought, emotion, or memory we experience happens in the present moment of consciousness. Even when we recall a past event or anticipate a future one, that activity occurs in the current moment of awareness. This raises the idea that consciousness itself might be beyond time. It’s a continuous stream where “past” and “future” are merely parts of the grander “now.”
If we fully embrace the idea that everything is part of the “now,” it alters how we relate to our experiences. Regret, nostalgia, anxiety, and hope, which are emotions anchored in our traditional understanding of time, undergo a transformation. For example, instead of feeling regretful for a past decision, understanding its occurrence in the vastness of “now” might lead to acceptance and integration of that experience. Memory plays a crucial role in our understanding of time. Our memories, though referencing past events, are dynamic and malleable. They’re reconstructed every time we recall them. In essence, every time we remember something, we’re experiencing it anew in the present moment. This blurs the boundaries between past events and current experiences, reinforcing the idea of an all-encompassing “now.” While the concept is philosophically and spiritually enriching, it poses challenges in our day-to-day lives dominated by schedules, deadlines, and plans. How does one reconcile the linear demands of modern life with a non-linear understanding of time? This balance requires us to function efficiently in the world while internally maintaining an awareness of the deeper, interconnected reality.
Let’s delve further into More finer details: what if we kill “Now”?
When we speak of “killing” the now, we’re essentially talking about transcending our typical awareness of time and moving into a state of pure being, a consciousness unfettered by the confines of temporal experience. The idea that time itself might be an illusion is not new. From the ancient Eastern philosophies to cutting-edge quantum mechanics, there are suggestions that what we experience as the flow of time might be a cognitive and perceptual construct. Our brains organize experiences in a linear fashion, from cause to effect, creating the sense of a flowing river of moments, from the past, through the present, and into the future. But if we could step outside this stream, what would consciousness look like? If we “kill” the now, we’re essentially trying to access a state of pure awareness—a consciousness devoid of content, without thoughts, perceptions, or sensations. Many meditative practices aim to reach this state, often described as “thoughtless awareness” or “contentless consciousness.” In this state, the meditator isn’t focused on any particular thing (like the breath, a mantra, or an image), but instead simply exists. It’s a state of being rather than doing.
Attempting to attain a state of pure awareness can be paradoxical. The very effort to reach this state can prevent one from achieving it, as effort and intention are temporal and future-oriented in nature. It’s like trying to smooth turbulent water with one’s hand—the act of trying only creates more turbulence. It requires a letting go rather than a striving, a surrender rather than a pursuit. To “kill” the now is to step beyond dualities—the past and future, cause and effect, self and other. This is a realm often spoken of in mysticism and spirituality, where one transcends the perceived divisions of existence. It’s a state of unity, of oneness, where the individual self melts away into the all-encompassing whole.
While these states of consciousness can be transformative, they can be challenging to maintain in our everyday, pragmatic world. Our society operates on schedules, plans, and routines. However, even fleeting experiences of this transcendent state can profoundly affect our daily lives. It can offer insights, change perspectives, and create a deep-seated sense of peace. From the perspective of many ancient traditions, the universe is in a constant dance of creation and destruction. The “now” that we experience is just one beat of this cosmic dance. To “kill” the now is not to negate or nullify it, but to merge with the dance itself, to become one with the rhythm of existence.
The Mirrored Self: Reflections of the Experiencer and Experienced
Experience, by its very nature, is inherently subjective. It is the culmination of one’s perceptions, interpretations, emotions, and cognitive processes. Every individual, with their unique personal history, values, beliefs, and physiological makeup, encounters the world in a way that is uniquely their own. For instance, two people might stand before a work of art—one sees profound beauty and feels deep emotion, while the other simply sees colors on canvas. Both are valid experiences, but they differ drastically based on the individual’s subjective lens.
Yet, the objective reality of the world persists. The artwork, the physical colors, and brushstrokes remain constant. It’s this duality of the objective and subjective that creates the richness of human experience. We all share the same objective world, but our subjective interpretations of it vary widely, leading to an immense diversity of human thought, emotion, and expression.
Despite the deeply personal nature of experience, there exists within us a contrary desire to communicate and validate our experiences with others. This need can be attributed to our inherently social nature. As social beings, we have an innate drive to connect, to be understood, and to find commonality with others.
However, the act of communication is fraught with challenges. Language, while powerful, often falls short of capturing the full depth and nuance of our experiences. Words are mere approximations, often failing to convey the entirety of what we feel or perceive. When faced with the ineffability of certain experiences, humans may resort to crafting stories, metaphors, or beliefs to encapsulate and convey the essence of their experiences to others. While these may not represent the experience in its entirety, they offer a bridge, a means to connect with others and share a glimpse of our internal world.
Consider an example of observing a tree. The act of seeing is immediate and direct, but the moment we try to articulate the experience, we find ourselves grappling with memory, association, and linguistic constraints. If the tree is of a kind we’ve never seen before, we still try to relate it to what we know, drawing parallels and making distinctions. This process, while it can enrich our understanding, can also distance us from the immediacy of the experience itself.
This leads us to the profound realization that perhaps the “experiencer” is indeed the “experienced.” Every thought, sensation, or emotion we have is not just a passive observation but an active engagement with our internal and external realities. The very act of experiencing reshapes our understanding, influencing future experiences in a continuously evolving cycle. One could argue that the realm of art, music, poetry, and other forms of non-verbal expression arises from this very challenge. When words fail, a painting, a melody, or a dance can capture and convey those intangible feelings and thoughts. They provide a medium that transcends linguistic barriers, offering glimpses into those profound depths of human experience. It’s no surprise that many people, when moved by a piece of art or music, often exclaim, “That’s exactly how I feel!” even if they couldn’t previously articulate that feeling.
Every individual, in their quest to understand and make sense of their experiences, inevitably draws from the collective knowledge and wisdom of humanity. Philosophies, religious teachings, scientific discoveries, and cultural narratives all play a role in shaping how one interprets and understands their experiences. They provide frameworks and lenses through which experiences are viewed, digested, and integrated.
This interplay between the individual and the collective further emphasizes the inherent tension between subjectivity and objectivity. While personal experiences are deeply subjective, the frameworks we use to understand them often have objective, shared components. A sunset viewed by an individual might evoke a personal memory or emotion, but the scientific understanding of why sunsets appear as they do, or the cultural or poetic interpretations of sunsets, come from collective human knowledge. Moreover, as individuals continue to share and communicate their experiences, they contribute to the collective understanding, which in turn shapes future individual and collective experiences. It’s a dynamic, reciprocal relationship, highlighting the interconnectedness of humanity.
The inherent elusiveness of pure experience, the ever-present gap between what is felt and what can be communicated, reminds us of the limitations of our human condition. Yet, it also highlights the beauty and depth of our existence. In our attempts to bridge this gap, we engage in some of the most profound human endeavors: art, literature, philosophy, and spirituality. Through these mediums, we continuously strive to touch the intangible, to grasp the ungraspable, and to share the very essence of what it means to be human.
Experience, in its fullest form, requires presence. To truly experience is to be fully in the moment, unburdened by the past and undistracted by the future. It’s here, in the pure and unfiltered present, that the experiencer and the experienced merge. This idea echoes in various spiritual traditions which posit that in moments of true presence, the duality of observer and observed collapses. Such moments, where one feels at one with the world, are often described as transcendent or mystical. They hint at a deeper interconnectedness, a web of existence that binds all things.
Yet, despite these profound moments, the human condition is also characterized by a fundamental sense of separateness. It’s this very separateness that gives rise to the desire to communicate, to reach out, to bridge the gap between self and other. We yearn to share, to be understood, and to understand. This yearning, however, is fraught with challenges. As earlier mentioned, the depth and richness of personal experience often evade linguistic encapsulation. But it’s not just about the inadequacy of language; it’s also about the limitations of perception.
Going into depths, In day-to-day life, we’re accustomed to distinguishing ourselves from our environment. We say “I am looking at the tree,” naturally separating the ‘I’ (experiencer) from the ‘tree’ (experienced). However, if we deconstruct this process, things become more intriguing. When you observe a tree, light reflected from its leaves and bark enters your eyes, gets processed by your brain, and forms an image. Here, the ‘tree’ you perceive isn’t the physical entity outside; it’s a manifestation within your consciousness. The tree, as you know it, exists within you, blurring the lines between the observer and the observed. Now, extend this idea to all experiences. Sounds you hear, emotions you feel, even thoughts that arise — all these are not ‘external’ or ‘separate’ events, but transformations within your field of consciousness. You never truly experience the world directly; you experience your consciousness’s interpretation of the world. This realization is profound: it suggests that what we consider ‘external’ is intricately woven into our ‘internal’ realms of experience. The division between us and the universe isn’t as sharp as it might seem.
Many spiritual traditions suggest that this feeling of separateness is a kind of illusion, often termed ‘maya’ in Hinduism. Beneath this illusion, it is proposed that there’s a deeper, unified reality where all distinctions merge. The Zen Buddhist concept of ‘interbeing’ beautifully encapsulates this: nothing exists independently; everything inter-is with everything else. So, in this interconnected dance of existence, to say “I am experiencing the tree” might be more aptly expressed as “The universe, in the form of ‘me’, is experiencing the universe in the form of ‘tree’.”
Exploring this further, we confront the nature of the ‘self’. If the experiencer and the experienced are one, what does this mean for our sense of identity? Who is the ‘I’ that experiences? These questions lie at the heart of self-inquiry in traditions like Advaita Vedanta, where meditative introspection is used to peel back layers of identity, seeking the true Self or ‘Atman’ beneath.
When one begins to deeply contemplate these ideas, the boundaries of self start to dissolve. This can lead to transformative experiences, often described as feelings of oneness or unity with all of existence. Such experiences are marked by a dissolution of the ego, a fading of the habitual sense of separateness. Individuals who have undergone such experiences often describe them as the most profound and meaningful of their lives, reshaping their understanding of themselves and the universe. However, embodying this perspective consistently in daily life is challenging. We’re evolutionarily wired to perceive separateness, as it’s useful for survival. But periodic glimpses into the interconnectedness of all things can offer solace, meaning, and a sense of belonging in a vast universe. They remind us that even amidst the diversity and multiplicity of existence, at the deepest levels, perhaps the experiencer truly is the experienced.
If we consider consciousness to be all-encompassing, then everything we experience is a manifestation within this field of awareness. This perspective aligns with the concept of non-duality, where there’s no division between the self and the rest of existence. In this view, consciousness isn’t something we have; it’s what we are. Our individual sense of self, our thoughts, emotions, and the world we perceive are all arising within and made of this same foundational consciousness.
When we say “I am experiencing this,” who is this ‘I’? Psychologically, it refers to the ego—a mental construct that represents our individual identity. The ego is essential for our survival and functioning, but it also gives us a sense of separateness. From birth, we’re conditioned by society, family, and culture, creating layers of beliefs, desires, and fears that shape this ego. We start identifying with our thoughts, our bodies, our roles, and possessions, forgetting our intrinsic connection with the wider universe. The ego, being a construct, is fragile. It seeks validation and fears annihilation. This is why even after a profound experience, there’s an urge to share or validate it. The ego wants assurance that its interpretation of the experience is ‘real’ or ‘valid’. In moments of deep meditation or spiritual insight, the boundaries of the ego can dissolve, giving a person a glimpse of a reality beyond the constructed self—a state where the experiencer and the experienced merge.
Our understanding of reality is based on our sensory perceptions and cognitive interpretations. But our senses have limits. There’s a vast spectrum of light we can’t see, sounds we can’t hear, and dimensions of reality we might be oblivious to. Quantum mechanics, for instance, has shown that at fundamental levels, particles don’t have definite states until observed, challenging our classical views of reality. Could it be that reality, as we perceive it, is just a sliver of what’s truly out there? And if our very observation shapes reality (as quantum mechanics suggests), then the distinction between the observer and the observed becomes even more blurred. The act of experiencing might be intrinsically linked to the shaping of reality itself. Finally, the experience, consciousness, and reality challenges our conventional beliefs and invites us question, to meditate, introspect and to realize that our fundamental nature might be far more interconnected and expansive than our day-to-day experiences suggest. The dance between the experiencer and the experienced isn’t just a philosophical or spiritual inquiry; it’s a journey into the very heart of existence!!
Understanding the fleeting nature of “Happiness”
Realising you’re happy and consequently puncturing that happiness—is a manifestation of the self-reflexive quality of human consciousness. It reflects our ability not only to experience emotions but also to have thoughts about those experiences, including the experience of happiness. At the most immediate level, we have sensory experiences and emotional reactions. These are our raw, unfiltered engagements with the world around us. But atop this immediate experience, we have a secondary layer of experience: our thoughts about our experiences. This secondary layer is where we interpret, judge, anticipate, and reflect.
The paradox here is that this second layer of experience can intrude upon and alter the first. By realizing we’re happy, we move the experience of happiness from the immediate realm into the realm of reflection and analysis. This can have a distancing effect, making the happiness less vivid and more abstract. The “self” that is experiencing happiness is no longer fully integrated with the experience; part of it has stepped aside to observe.
The awareness of happiness can also bring about a sense of sadness or melancholy. This is because our reflective consciousness is not only evaluative but also temporal; it exists in time. When we realize we’re happy, we also realize that the moment is fleeting, that it will pass. This injects a sense of loss or nostalgia into the current experience, dampening the happiness with a layer of sadness. There’s also the pressure that once identified, the feeling of happiness must be maintained, which turns it into an object of concern.
In some Eastern philosophies, for example, the ultimate state of happiness or enlightenment is one that transcends both happiness and sadness, existing in a state of pure “beingness” that is beyond dualities. Western philosophies often engage deeply with the notion of existential angst, the idea that human freedom and awareness are both a gift and a curse, capable of both elevating and diminishing our experiences. Humans are narrative creatures. We don’t just experience things; we also construct stories around our experiences, which become a part of the experience itself. Realizing you’re happy can sometimes feel like a narrative high point, a climax. But climaxes are, by their nature, transitional; they mark the point where a story begins to move toward its conclusion. This can create a sense of impending descent, which can tinge even the most joyous moments with a shade of melancholy. There’s a compelling argument to be made for the richness added to our lives by our ability to reflect on our experiences. This meta-experience, the experience of experiencing, adds depth and texture to our lives. It’s the thing that allows us to appreciate art, to fall in love, to engage in complex moral reasoning. But it comes at a cost: the cost of immediacy. The more we reflect on our experiences, the less we’re able to engage with them directly. It’s like being the actor and the audience at the same time. This dual nature of consciousness is both a blessing and a curse. While it allows us the richness of introspection and self-awareness, it also sets up a scenario where the observer can interfere with the experience.
When you realize you’re happy, you’re essentially stepping out of the experience to label it. The moment you do that, you bring in the concept of time. Emotions, when lived, are timeless. They’re states of being. But when you observe them, you also acknowledge their temporality—they become moments that have started and will eventually end. This implicit understanding of the fleeting nature of happiness casts a shadow on the experience, thereby altering its composition and introducing elements of sadness or anxiety.
The awareness of happiness can trigger broader questions about the nature of existence, purpose, and meaning. Happiness is often viewed as an ‘end,’ a goal in life. Once achieved, its realization can create a form of existential vacuum, a questioning of ‘what next?’ This moves you out of the emotional experience and into a cognitive one, involving existential questions that can often be more unsettling than comforting.
Your realization also exemplifies the duality inherent in life experiences. There’s a push and pull between opposing forces: happiness and sadness, awareness and ignorance, temporality and timelessness. Some philosophical traditions, particularly those from Eastern philosophies like Buddhism, suggest that the ultimate state of enlightenment is one that transcends this duality to experience a state of ‘oneness.’ In that state, the act of observing happiness and the experience of happiness itself become one unified experience, without a division that could puncture the emotion. When we experience happiness, it often fits into a story we have about what makes us happy and why. This narrative self can be in constant tension with the experiencing self. The act of realizing you’re happy is a narrative act—it fits this moment of joy into your broader life story. But life stories are complex and filled with ups and downs. Fitting a moment into a narrative can mean subjecting it to all the complexities and contradictions of that narrative, which can dilute the purity of the experience.
On the one hand, mindfulness and self-awareness teach us to observe our feelings, thoughts, and experiences. On the other hand, the very act of observing can sometimes alter or even negate the experience, particularly with transient states like happiness. In quantum physics, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation makes on the phenomenon being observed. In psychology, too, observing one’s thoughts and feelings can change them. This is the basis of therapies like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), where the act of observing and questioning one’s thoughts can lead to emotional regulation.
When you realize you’re happy and become acutely aware of that happiness, you might also become aware of the fleeting nature of emotions. This could potentially lead to a decrease in the intensity of your happiness, making it a self-limiting state. The joy is punctured by the awareness of its temporary nature or by the anxiety of losing it. It’s crucial to distinguish between mindfulness and hyper-awareness. Mindfulness means accepting each moment as it is, including your happiness, without clinging to it or fearing its loss. Hyper-awareness, on the other hand, involves scrutinizing the experience so closely that you can’t simply be in it. You’re essentially stepping out of the experience to examine it.
Some of the ways to deal with it:
1. The first step in navigating this paradox is to accept the transient nature of all emotional states. Once we make peace with the ebb and flow of life, the realization that our happiness is temporary becomes less threatening.
2. Aim for a detached form of observation. Observe your happiness without clinging to it, just as you would observe your breath during meditation.
3. Shifting the focus from “Being Happy” to “Being”. When your focus is simply on ‘being,’ without labeling the state you are in, you eliminate the self-imposed pressure to sustain any emotional state, be it happiness or otherwise.
4. Often the anxiety of losing happiness arises from either past experiences or future uncertainties. Dwelling in the present can alleviate that concern.
Love and Longing – A paradox ??
The experience of longing for love is universal and deeply rooted in our humanity. This longing, often described as an unquenchable thirst, is both a blessing and a burden, driving us to form connections, seek fulfillment, and explore the depths of our own emotions.
Delving into the realm of quantum physics, there’s an intriguing principle known as quantum entanglement. It suggests that two particles, once entwined, will remain connected irrespective of distance. A change in the state of one will instantly affect the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are.
Drawing a parallel to human emotions, particularly longing, one could argue that individuals form ’emotional entanglements.’ The sense of connection might not be physical but is as intense, enduring, and mystifying as quantum entanglements. This could be the reason why, even in separation, our emotions remain tethered to another person, place, or memory. Longing is a complex emotion that can arise from various sources. At its core, it’s a yearning for something that seems to be just out of reach. We might long for a loved one, for a sense of belonging, for an idealized version of the world, or for a deeper connection with ourselves.
Our longing for love can be seen as a biological imperative. Our ancestors who formed strong social bonds and felt a deep connection to their kin were more likely to survive and reproduce. As a result, the longing for love and connection is deeply ingrained in our genetic makeup. Our experiences shape our emotional responses. For instance, early attachment experiences with caregivers can influence our future relationships and how we perceive love. Similarly, our psychological makeup, shaped by both nature and nurture, affects how we experience longing.
The relationship between love and longing is paradoxical. On the one hand, love can make us feel whole, bringing joy and fulfillment. On the other hand, it can also create a sense of longing, especially when faced with separation or unfulfilled desires. This tension is often evident in poetry and art, where love and longing are intertwined in complex ways. When we are in love, we often feel a sense of completeness. The world seems brighter, and we may experience a deep sense of contentment. This feeling arises from the connection and emotional intimacy that love brings. In these moments, longing may fade into the background. Despite the fulfillment that love offers, it can also create a sense of longing. When separated from a loved one, the intensity of our love can manifest as a deep yearning for their presence. This longing can also arise from unmet emotional needs, unfulfilled desires, or the idealization of love.
Love and longing are not mutually exclusive; they often coexist. The very act of loving someone can make us more aware of their absence when they are not around. Similarly, longing can intensify our love, making us cherish our moments of connection even more. This dynamic interplay adds depth to our emotional experiences.
Longing is not a singular emotion; it encompasses a range of feelings, including hope, desire, melancholy, and even pain. Longing often involves a strong desire for something or someone. This desire can create a sense of anticipation, making us look forward to future possibilities. The act of longing can be both exciting and agonizing, as we await the fulfillment of our desires. Longing can also be rooted in the past. We may long for a time when we felt loved, accepted, or understood. This sense of nostalgia can be accompanied by melancholy, as we realize that the past cannot be recaptured. Sometimes, longing arises from idealization. We may create a mental image of the perfect partner, the ideal life, or a utopian world. These idealized visions can make us feel discontented with our current reality, fueling a sense of longing. Longing can be painful, especially when it feels unending or unrequited. The intensity of our yearning can create a sense of suffering, as we grapple with the gap between our desires and reality.
Wrestling with the feelings associated with longing can lead to deeper emotional intelligence. Through introspection, we can learn more about ourselves, our needs, and our desires. Understanding the root of our longing can help us address underlying issues or unmet needs in our lives. everyone has felt it at some point. Recognizing this shared experience can foster empathy towards others and deepen our human connections. By understanding our own feelings of longing, we become better equipped to empathize with others.
Life is characterized by dualities: happiness and sorrow, presence and absence, fulfillment and yearning. While these might seem contradictory, they often exist side by side and give depth to our experiences.
Presence in Absence: Even in the absence of what we long for, there’s a certain presence of that object or person in our thoughts and emotions. This phenomenon speaks to the power of our minds and hearts to transcend physical limitations.
Completeness in Incompleteness: The very feeling of longing suggests that there’s something we deem essential for our completeness. However, the journey of life is about realizing that, in many ways, we are already complete in our incompleteness. The gaps and spaces create room for growth, evolution, and understanding.
Stability in Flux: Our feelings, including longing, are in constant flux. They come and go, intensify and wane. But beneath these changing emotions, there’s a stable core of self, a foundational aspect of our being that remains unswayed.
Is harmony defined by us is really harmonious ?
The universe operates on a balance. Dualities like light and dark, joy and sorrow, and so on, are not in contention with each other but rather two sides of the same coin. They provide context and meaning. It’s akin to understanding that one cannot truly appreciate light without having known darkness. Our existence is enigmatic, where a myriad of elements interplay in a vast cosmic dance. Every action, no matter how minute, sends ripples across the fabric of the universe. Such is the interconnectedness and oneness that defines the cosmos. But amidst this vastness, we humans grapple with the age-old questions: Why are we here? Why do we feel disconnected when everything is intrinsically connected? And, why is our life, despite being a part of this vast universe, so often defined by duality?
Consider the universe as an immense symphony, where every entity is like a note, contributing to an eternal, harmonious melody. From the most massive stars to the tiniest organisms, everything is in sync, vibrating in tune with the universe. This sense of harmony is a constant, even if it’s not always immediately apparent. However, the human experience often feels at odds with this cosmic harmony. We frequently perceive life through the lens of duality: good vs. evil, happiness vs. sorrow, success vs. failure. Such bifurcations arise primarily from our mental frameworks, shaped by societal norms, personal experiences, and evolutionary predispositions.
In our evolutionary journey, the human brain developed cognitive systems to categorize, discriminate, and simplify the complex stimuli of the external world, making it digestible and navigable. This cognitive system is a survival tool, enabling us to swiftly identify threats from non-threats, edible food from inedible, and so on. Over time, as societies became more sophisticated, these dualistic mental models began to govern not just our interactions with the environment but also our self-perception, aspirations, and relationships. This dualistic approach further feeds into the illusion of separateness — a feeling that we are distinct from the rest of the universe. Despite being made of stardust and sharing common atomic ancestors with everything around us, we often feel isolated or alienated. Such feelings intensify when we face adversities, leading many to question the harmony and purpose of existence.
Our understanding of freedom is entwined with our perception of duality. True freedom is not just liberation from external constraints but also from internal ones, like prejudices, fears, and limiting beliefs. To break free from the life’s cycle, one needs to reconcile with dualities, recognizing them as constructs rather than inherent truths. As we delve deeper into the framework of existence, we find that duality isn’t inherently detrimental. Instead, it provides contrast, lending depth and dimension to our experiences. Just as the contrasting strokes of a painting give it life and depth, the dualities of our lives add vibrancy and richness to our existence. Without dark, there would be no understanding of light; without sorrow, the true essence of joy would remain unknown.
Much of our attachment to duality stems from societal and cultural conditioning. From childhood, we’re taught to label and categorize experiences: winning is good, losing is bad; happiness is desirable, sadness is not. Over time, these labels solidify into beliefs, shaping our perceptions and reactions. For instance, consider the universally accepted notion of success. Societal metrics of success often revolve around material wealth, social status, and professional achievements. However, if we were to strip away these conditioned beliefs and look at life through an unfiltered lens, we might find that true success lies in inner contentment, meaningful relationships, and personal growth.
Our fixation on the ephemeral aspects of life — fleeting emotions, transient experiences, and temporal possessions — further entrenches us in the duality trap. In the rush of life, we often overlook the eternal — the unchanging, omnipresent essence that underlies all existence. This essence, often referred to in spiritual contexts as the ‘Self’ or ‘Consciousness,’ remains unaffected by the dualities that play out on the surface.
By connecting with this eternal aspect of ourselves, we begin to view dualities with a sense of detachment. They appear as passing clouds against the vast sky of our existence, impactful in the moment but not defining our eternal essence. Aligning with the duality doesn’t mean becoming passive or indifferent. It means engaging with life wholeheartedly, experiencing every emotion, every high and low, but without letting them dictate our inner state. With heightened awareness, we can navigate the complexities of life with grace, recognizing the transient nature of our experiences.
This awareness doesn’t diminish our experiences but rather enriches them. When we embrace both the joys and sorrows of life with equanimity, we live more fully, more authentically. We begin to see challenges as opportunities for growth, failures as lessons, and successes as moments of gratitude.
Our perception of disharmony is influenced by our thoughts, emotions, and our attachments to outcomes. When we find ourselves in situations we didn’t desire or anticipate, our immediate response is resistance. This resistance, this non-acceptance, creates friction – a perceived disharmony.
The journey to non-duality is a continuous process of introspection, reflection, and growth. Various spiritual traditions offer paths to transcend duality: the Yogic tradition advocates for meditation and self-inquiry, Buddhism emphasizes mindfulness and compassion, while Taoism teaches the art of flowing with life, embracing both its yin and yang.
The common thread across these traditions is the idea of returning to one’s true nature — a state of pure consciousness, free from the constraints of duality.
Possessive possessions
As human beings, our relationship with possessions is multi-faceted and complex, steeped in a variety of psychological, sociological, and cultural influences. Why do we cherish and cling to material objects? How do these objects gain such profound significance in our lives that their loss can trigger profound distress?
The roots of possessiveness can be traced back to our earliest stages of development. Attachment theory, proposed by psychologist John Bowlby, suggests that as infants, we form attachments to our caregivers, perceiving them as a source of security. Objects, such as a favourite blanket or toy, can also become “attachment objects,” imbued with emotional significance and seen as sources of comfort and safety.
As we grow older, this tendency to form attachments does not diminish but simply evolves. We begin to assign emotional significance to a wider range of objects: a cherished book, a childhood home, a prized car, an heirloom passed down through generations. These objects are no longer just inanimate items; they become extensions of our identity, symbolic representations of our personal history, achievements, relationships, and aspirations.
These possessions reflect who we are, who we have been, and who we aspire to be. They’re a reflection of our interests, experiences, values, and dreams. A stamp collection is not just a bunch of stamps; it’s a testament to a person’s love for history and travel. A guitar is not just an instrument; it’s an emblem of someone’s passion for music and creativity.
However, our deep emotional attachment to our possessions has a flip side: the fear of losing them. The possibility of someone taking away our prized possessions triggers a fear of losing a part of ourselves, of our identities being eroded. This fear is the seed of possessiveness. We resist anyone interfering with our possessions, seeing such interference as an intrusion into our personal domain, a threat to our sense of self.
Our possessions also offer us a sense of control in a world often marked by uncertainty and unpredictability. In a life full of variables beyond our control, our possessions are something we can manage, organize, and control. This perceived control can offer us comfort, helping us navigate the unpredictability of life.
This dynamic of possession and control extends to our relationships as well. We might view our partners, friends, or family members as ‘ours,’ a part of our identity. In healthy relationships, this feeling manifests as a deep sense of connection and commitment. However, when driven by insecurity or fear of loss, it can devolve into possessiveness, stifling the other person’s freedom and autonomy.
Ironically, the attachment to possessions can create both a sense of fullness and emptiness. Fullness, because these objects can offer comfort, joy, and a sense of identity. Emptiness, because possessions, being impermanent, can be lost, damaged, or taken away. We might also feel empty when we realize that possessions, while they can offer temporary happiness, cannot provide the deep, lasting fulfillment we ultimately seek.
In this journey of understanding possessions, it’s critical to consider another aspect, the societal and cultural influences that shape our attitudes towards ownership and possession. Our societies, through advertising, media, and peer pressure, often promote materialism and the idea that acquiring possessions is a path to happiness and success. We’re constantly bombarded with messages that equate possessions with personal worth and social status. This reinforces our attachment to material objects, making them seem even more essential to our identities and well-being.
Take, for example, the car someone drives. It’s more than just a vehicle for transportation; it’s often seen as a status symbol, an outward sign of wealth and success. We assign value to the person based on the value of their car. This societal norm can significantly reinforce our desire to possess and protect our belongings, linking them directly to our self-worth and societal standing.
However, this attachment can lead us into a cycle of endless striving, where we’re constantly seeking the next thing to acquire, hoping it will bring us the satisfaction we crave. But as we’ve often seen, this satisfaction is usually temporary. The excitement of a new purchase eventually fades, and we’re left seeking the next thing, caught in an endless cycle of desire and dissatisfaction.
This cycle of possession and dissatisfaction is also reflected in our relationships. In an attempt to find security and happiness, we may seek to ‘possess’ people, to make them ‘ours.’ This can manifest in various ways, from the relatively benign (e.g., wanting to spend lots of time with a loved one) to the more harmful (e.g., trying to control a partner’s behavior or friendships).
When we treat people as possessions, we run into two main problems. First, people are autonomous beings with their own desires and needs, not objects to be owned or controlled. Trying to ‘possess’ a person invariably leads to conflict and harm. Second, like with material possessions, the security and happiness we seek in ‘possessing’ others are elusive. People change, relationships end, and the sense of security we hoped to find proves fleeting.
The idea of possession also often extends to the intangible elements of our lives, such as ideas, beliefs, and ideologies. These can also become ‘possessions’ we fiercely cling to and defend. For instance, political, religious, or philosophical beliefs often become integral parts of our identity. Just as with material possessions, we can react negatively if these beliefs are challenged, seeing such challenges as attacks on ourselves.
One reason we attach so deeply to these kinds of possessions is that they help to structure our understanding of the world. They provide a framework that makes sense of our experiences, giving us a sense of control and predictability. Therefore, when these beliefs are threatened, it can feel as though our whole understanding of the world is under threat, triggering a defensive reaction.
However, just as with physical possessions, this attachment can lead to problems. When we’re so deeply invested in a particular belief or ideology, it can close our minds to new ideas and perspectives. We can become rigid and inflexible, unable to adapt to new information or changing circumstances.
This rigidity can also lead to conflict with others who hold different beliefs. When our identities are so tied up with our beliefs, it can be challenging to engage in open, respectful dialogue with those who see the world differently. Instead, we may feel threatened by these differing viewpoints and respond with hostility.
Yet, one might ask, how can we not hold onto beliefs? Aren’t they necessary for making sense of the world? While it’s true that beliefs play a crucial role in our understanding of the world, the problem arises when we cling to them rigidly, refusing to consider alternative viewpoints or update our beliefs in the light of new information.
Just as we can enjoy material possessions without being attached to them, we can hold beliefs without being enslaved by them. This requires a certain level of open-mindedness, a willingness to question our beliefs and consider new ideas. It also requires a level of humility, an acknowledgment that our understanding of the world is always limited and imperfect.
By developing this kind of flexible, open-minded approach to our beliefs, we can avoid much of the conflict and suffering that comes with rigid attachment. We can engage more productively with those who hold different views, seeing these interactions not as threats, but as opportunities for learning and growth.
The concept of possessions, whether tangible or intangible, thus challenges us to reassess our relationship with the world around us. While possessions can provide a sense of security and identity, our attachment to them can also lead to suffering and conflict.
Can actions be detached?
The origin of action can be traced back to the very fabric of life itself. Every living entity, whether it’s a single-celled organism or a complex human being, is in a continuous state of action. Even in states of seeming inactivity, there are countless actions taking place within our bodies – cells dividing, heart beating, neurons firing. These actions are not born out of attachment, but rather out of the inherent nature of life and its ceaseless dynamism.
In human beings, actions become more complex. Many of our actions stem from cognitive processes, decision-making, emotions, motivations, desires, and fears. Some of these might be influenced by past experiences or expectations of future outcomes. While it’s true that past experiences can inform our actions, it doesn’t necessarily mean that every action is an outcome of attachment to past results.
Let’s take the example of learning to ride a bike. The initial attempts are informed by the desire to learn, and perhaps the fear of falling. Each attempt, whether successful or not, provides a learning experience which informs future attempts. Over time, as we master the skill, the act of riding a bike becomes almost second nature. It’s no longer driven by the initial desire or fear, but instead becomes an integrated action that we can perform almost effortlessly. In this scenario, the action of riding the bike is not an outcome of attachment, but a manifestation of learned skills and understanding.
Now, let’s consider the concept of detached action as explained in the Bhagavad Gita. Detachment in this context does not mean indifference or lack of care, but rather a state of being where one is not excessively attached to the fruits of their actions. When we perform an action with an attached mindset, we are often excessively focused on the outcome. This focus on the future can rob the action of its full potential, as our mind is not fully present in the action itself.
Detached action, on the other hand, allows us to be fully present in the act of doing. This presence can liberate the action from the constraints of past experiences or future expectations, allowing it to unfold with its full potential. A detached action is one that is performed with a sense of duty, with full attention, and without excessive attachment to the outcome. This doesn’t mean that we don’t care about the result. Instead, it means that we perform the action to the best of our ability, accepting whatever result comes as a consequence.
An important aspect to consider here is the interconnectedness of life. Our actions do not exist in a vacuum; they are part of an interconnected web of actions, reactions, and interactions. Understanding this can help us realise that while we have control over our own actions, the results are influenced by countless other factors, many of which are beyond our control. This realisation can foster a sense of humility, acceptance, and detachment, which can free us from the psychological burden of excessively identifying with the outcomes of our actions.
Moving further into the philosophy of actions, let’s delve into the concept of ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’. These two philosophical positions often clash when we try to understand the nature of our actions.
Free will posits that we, as conscious beings, have the power to make choices and act independently of any external constraints. It suggests that our actions originate from our conscious decisions and, thus, we bear full responsibility for them.
Determinism, on the other hand, suggests that every event, including human actions, is determined by previously existing causes. It argues that all our actions are the result of some cause, whether it is our genetic predisposition, upbringing, social environment, or other factors.
Both of these positions hold some truth. While we may feel that we have the freedom to choose our actions, we cannot deny that our choices are influenced by our past experiences, genetic predisposition, and external circumstances. So, our actions are both free and determined, depending on the perspective we adopt.
When we examine our actions closely, we find that they are not purely the result of our conscious decisions. Our subconscious mind, conditioned by past experiences and deep-seated beliefs, plays a significant role in our decision-making process. So, while we might believe that we are acting freely, many of our actions are habitual reactions conditioned by our past.
Understanding this can liberate us from the illusion of absolute control and the burden of excessive self-blame or self-congratulation. It can also foster a sense of compassion for ourselves and others, as we recognise that our actions are often the result of deep-seated conditioning and external circumstances, rather than purely intentional choices.
The key lies in the practice of mindfulness and self-awareness. By becoming more aware of our thoughts, feelings, and motivations, we can start to understand the forces that drive our actions. We can recognise our habitual patterns and start to make more conscious choices.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna advises Arjuna to act without attachment to the fruits of action. This does not mean acting without care or intention. Rather, it means acting with full attention and commitment, without getting caught up in the anxiety about the outcome. This attitude allows us to act with greater freedom and effectiveness, as we are not burdened by excessive worry about the future or regrets about the past.
When we act, we set into motion a series of events, and the consequences of those actions ripple out into the world. The impact of our actions is not confined to ourselves; it influences those around us, our environment, and ultimately the world at large. This chain of cause and effect is constantly in motion and is dictated by the nature and intent of the action.
Duality arises from the perceived differentiation between good and bad, positive and negative, joy and pain, and so forth. This perceived differentiation often causes conflict and suffering because we instinctively cling to what we perceive as good and resist what we perceive as bad. We are pleased when our actions yield positive outcomes and disappointed when they do not.
However, the Bhagavad Gita teaches us that the dichotomy of good and bad is a construct of our mind and that every action simply is. This is a difficult concept to understand because it runs counter to our instinctual desire to classify and judge things based on our subjective perspective.
In reality, an action is neither good nor bad; it is our attachment to the outcome that labels it so. When we act without attachment to the outcome, we act in the fullest expression of our being, free from the constraints of expectation or fear of failure. This state of detachment does not mean that we do not care about the outcome, but rather that we understand we cannot control every aspect of it.
Instead, our focus shifts to the process, the action itself. By doing so, we become more present, more mindful, and more engaged in our actions. We start to see our actions not as a means to an end but as an end in themselves.
Therefore, to navigate the duality of actions and their effects, we must cultivate awareness and detachment. By observing our thoughts, emotions, and actions without judgment or expectation, we can experience life as it is, without the filter of duality.
In the grand scheme of life, our actions are but tiny ripples in a vast ocean. They may cause waves, they may create turbulence, but eventually, they will settle, leaving the water calm and clear once more. It is in this state of calmness, free from the duality of actions and their effects, that we find true freedom and peace.
Abhishek Fanse 