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.
Depths of Hurt: An Intriguing Emotion
At its core, hurt is an emotional response to a perceived loss or violation. This loss can be tangible, such as the loss of a loved one, or intangible, like the loss of respect or love. The perception of this loss is crucial; it’s not the objective situation that determines hurt, but how one interprets and internalizes it. The origins of hurt can be traced back to our earliest human experiences. As infants, we are utterly dependent on others for our survival, leading to a deep-rooted need for attachment and acceptance. This need, while essential for survival, also becomes the breeding ground for hurt. When our expectations of support, love, or acknowledgment are unmet, we experience hurt.
Hurt often manifests differently in personal and professional contexts, yet the underlying mechanics are surprisingly similar. In personal relationships, hurt is often more directly linked to emotional bonds and expectations of love, loyalty, and understanding. In professional settings, while the emotional stakes may seem lower, the hurt can still be profound. It often stems from unmet expectations regarding respect, recognition, or the outcome of our efforts. The statement “don’t take it personally” in professional environments is an acknowledgment of this complexity. It attempts to draw a boundary between the personal self and the professional role. Yet, this separation is often not as clear-cut as it seems. Our professional lives are an extension of our personal selves; the values, aspirations, and efforts we put into our work are deeply personal. Thus, when we face criticism, rejection, or failure at work, it can still impact our personal self-esteem and sense of worth.
The hurt one experiences is often a reflection of internal expectations and self-perception. When others do not meet our expectations, or when we fail to meet our own, we experience a sense of loss. This loss is not just about the external situation but also about our internal narrative. We construct stories about who we are and how the world should respond to us. When reality diverges from these stories, we feel hurt. Understanding hurt requires dissecting the dichotomy between external causes and internal reactions. Is hurt caused by others, or is it self-inflicted? The answer is nuanced. Others can act as triggers, but the actual experience of hurt is an internal process. It is our interpretation of events, filtered through our personal beliefs and past experiences, that generates hurt. human experience. We are beings of desire and expectation, living in a world that is constantly changing and often unpredictable. This disconnect between our desires and reality is a fertile ground for hurt. However, this inevitability doesn’t imply helplessness. It requires a shift from external validation to internal self-acceptance, and from rigid expectations to flexible aspirations. This journey towards resilience is not about becoming indifferent or uncaring, but about cultivating a grounded sense of self that can navigate the ups and downs of life with equanimity.
Developmental psychology, for instance, sheds light on how early experiences shape our vulnerability to hurt. Childhood, where the foundation of our self-esteem and worldviews are formed, significantly influences how we perceive and react to potential hurts in later life. Attachment suggests that our early bonding experiences with caregivers form templates for future relationships. Secure attachments lead to resilience, while insecure attachments can heighten our sensitivity to rejection and loss, predisposing us to deeper hurt.
Hurt also stems from conflicts of human existence – our search for meaning in an indifferent universe, the realization of our freedoms and limitations, and the ultimate confrontation with our mortality. Our self-perception plays a critical role in this process. If we perceive ourselves as capable and deserving, failing to meet expectations can lead to self-criticism and hurt. Conversely, if we see ourselves as unworthy, we may internalize external negative outcomes as confirmations of this belief, perpetuating cycles of hurt and low self-esteem.
Let us take a simple example where you feel hurt due to a longing for more time and attention from a loved one, even though you recognize they are doing their best. At the heart of your experience lies a paradox: you have an expectation (desiring more time and attention) and simultaneously an understanding (knowing your loved one is doing their best). This dichotomy is not just a matter of conflicting thoughts, but a reflection of the complex nature of human needs and empathy. On one hand, your need for time and attention is genuine – a fundamental aspect of human relationships where such connections and affirmations are essential for emotional bonding and fulfillment. On the other hand, your empathetic understanding of your loved one’s circumstances shows a depth of maturity and compassion. Feeling hurt in this context may arise from an unmet need, which is central to your emotional wellbeing. It’s important to recognize that such needs are not just whimsical desires; they are integral to our sense of connection and belonging. When these needs are not fully met, even in the presence of understanding and rationalization, it creates an emotional void, often experienced as hurt. The consequences of this paradox can be profound. When the fear of burdening outweighs the need for communication, individuals might choose to suppress or hide their feelings. This suppression, while it might seem to maintain harmony in the short term, can lead to several negative outcomes like emotional distance, resentment or misunderstanding. However, this need for emotional expression often collides with an equally powerful force – the fear of overburdening others. This fear stems from a place of empathy and concern, where we become acutely aware of the other person’s potential struggles and challenges. It also arises from our own vulnerabilities; the fear of being seen as needy, weak, or burdensome. Moreover, there’s an underlying concern about the dynamics of the relationship itself – the worry that being too open about our troubles or desires might alter the equilibrium of the relationship, potentially leading to conflict, distance, or discomfort.
At the heart of this paradox is our self-concept, the multifaceted perception we hold of ourselves. This self-concept is not static; it is shaped by our experiences, beliefs, and the feedback we receive from our environment. When we consider communicating our innermost thoughts and feelings, we are also negotiating with our self-concept. Are we someone who burdens others? Are we worthy of being heard and understood? These questions reflect deeper insecurities and beliefs about our worthiness and role in our relationships. The fear of being a burden often stems from a vulnerable place in our self-concept, where we doubt our value in the eyes of others. The complexity of this paradox also lies in the dynamic nature of human relationships. Each relationship we form is a unique intersection of personalities, histories, and expectations. In some relationships, there may be an established pattern of one person being the caregiver and the other the receiver. Attempting to reverse or alter these roles by expressing one’s own vulnerabilities can feel disruptive and fraught with uncertainty. There’s also the aspect of reciprocity – the balance of give and take. In healthy relationships, this balance is fluid and flexible, but the fear of disturbing this balance can make the act of communication seem daunting.
Psychologically, this paradox is intersecting with our deepest fears and vulnerabilities. It often triggers core issues related to self-worth, rejection, and abandonment. When we contemplate sharing our burdens, we are not just sharing a specific problem or feeling; we are also, on a deeper level, testing our acceptability and worthiness in the eyes of others. The fear that our vulnerabilities might make us less worthy of love or respect can be a powerful deterrent to open communication…
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.
Understanding Dussehra: The morality spectrum
One of the most ancient concepts that explain duality is the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang. Everything has an opposite: where there’s light, there’s shadow; for life, there’s death. These dualities aren’t necessarily in opposition but rather in harmony, feeding into and defining each other.
Ravana’s Ten Heads: Ravana, the primary antagonist of the Ramayana whose defeat is celebrated on Dussehra, had ten heads. These are often seen as symbolic of ten human flaws. The act of Lord Rama killing Ravana isn’t about annihilating evil in its entirety but rather about overcoming these flaws.
The war in Ramayana, and by extension Dussehra, can be seen as an allegory for the inner battles we all face. It’s about making choices that align more with our higher self than our base instincts. Good and evil, in many ways, are relative. What’s “good” in one culture or time period might be seen as “evil” in another. They’re constructs that help humans navigate complex social and moral landscapes. What’s deemed good or evil can be relative, varying across cultures, religions, and individual beliefs. For example, a warrior killing an enemy might be considered heroic in one culture but a grave sin in another.
While Ravana is the antagonist in the Ramayana, he’s also a complex figure. A devout Shiva worshiper, an accomplished scholar, and a powerful king, his multifaceted personality blurs the lines between good and evil, suggesting that these concepts aren’t always black and white. After Ravana’s defeat, Sita undergoes a trial by fire to prove her purity. This episode raises questions about societal judgments, honor, and the complexities of righteousness.
Good Within Evil: Often, acts categorized as “evil” might have underlying “good” intentions or vice versa. A person may commit a crime to feed their starving family—how do we reconcile the act’s morality? The very existence of “good” necessitates “evil.” Without shadows, there’s no appreciation of light. This balance is essential for growth, evolution, and understanding. The cyclical celebration of Dussehra may symbolize the perpetual battle between our higher aspirations and our baser instincts, emphasizing the ongoing nature of personal evolution. By celebrating the triumph of good over evil, we’re also acknowledging the existence and importance of the dark side. It’s a recognition that the path to wisdom and righteousness involves confronting and understanding our own inner demons.
In today’s world, where moral lines often blur, the external representation of Dussehra’s battle might symbolize the internal conflicts we face in determining what’s right, navigating societal expectations, and personal desires. Ravana’s downfall began with his attachment and desire for Sita. This can serve as a reflection on how attachments can lead to one’s undoing, emphasizing the importance of detachment and self-awareness.
While the core message of Dussehra remains consistent, its interpretation and celebration can vary. In some parts, it’s about Rama’s victory over Ravana, while in others, it’s Goddess Durga’s triumph over the buffalo demon Mahishasura. This variance underlines how societies adapt stories to reflect their values and lessons they find most pertinent.
Annually commemorating the triumph of good over evil serves as a reminder for individuals to assess their moral compass, encouraging them to uphold righteousness in the face of wrongdoing. With changing times, the interpretations of ancient tales also evolve. For the newer generation, Ravana might not just symbolize a demonic force but could represent systemic societal issues like corruption, prejudice, or environmental neglect. The battle is then between collective societal good and these modern ‘evils’. In an era of individualism, many use Dussehra as a time of personal reflection, confronting their own Ravanas, be it anger, jealousy, greed, or other personal challenges.
Choice “Paralysis“
A choice implies that there is an alternative, and with every alternative comes the weight of consequences, perceived or real.
You speak of a ‘neutral’ stand, but let’s investigate what that really means. In reality, the idea of a neutral stance is a contradiction in terms. The very act of choosing neutrality is in itself a choice, made in opposition to other possible choices. So, the notion of being ‘neutral’ is inherently paradoxical because it cannot exist without the conditions that make it a choice to begin with.
For example, When you agree to a certain dosage of medication, you exercise control by making an informed decision. However, you also surrender control to the effects of that dosage, which may not be entirely predictable. This brings emotional complexity into play: the comfort of taking action (choosing the dosage) juxtaposed against the uncertainty of outcome. When we agree to disagree, we are on the contrary acknowledging that a middle ground is unreachable, yet we’re finding a sort of middle ground in that very acknowledgment. The challenge lies in our psychological need for validation and agreement, which often feels at odds with the more rational understanding that it’s perfectly okay for different viewpoints to coexist. We often fail to agree to disagree because our conditionings, our egos, don’t allow us to let go without a ‘win’ or a ‘loss.’
Every choice, by definition, is a rejection of its alternative. Therefore, choices are always relative, biased, and limited by the options that exist. In that sense, a choice cannot be independent because it is defined by the conditions that make it a choice. The idea of a ‘choice’ presupposes the existence of an alternative, of a comparison. In a context where there is only one thing that exists independently, the notion of ‘choice’ would be meaningless because there would be nothing to choose from. Therefore, it wouldn’t be a choice; it would simply be a state of being. The paradox exists because we try to define and understand choice within the limited framework of language and duality. However, once you recognize that the very nature of choice is paradoxical and conditional, and you embrace that paradox rather than trying to resolve it, you arrive at a sort of meta-clarity. This does not mean you’ve resolved the paradox; it simply means you’ve stepped outside of it. You’ve transcended the limitations that come with the dualistic thinking of ‘this or that,’ ‘yes or no,’ ‘neutral or biased.’
Choices are never made in emotional vacuums. They are laden with expectations, fears, and desires that stem from our past experiences, conditionings, and inherent personality traits. Even the seemingly most “logical” choice is often deeply influenced by emotions we may not even be fully aware of. The emotional charge of expectations is often the heaviest. When we make a choice, it is often governed by what we expect the outcome will bring us—pleasure, validation, success, or the avoidance of pain and conflict. The emotion here is one of anticipation, coupled with anxiety about whether our expectations will be met.
Then there’s desire, an emotion that often masquerades as need. The choices we make based on desire are emotionally charged with hopes for fulfillment, achievement, or recognition. But desire is a double-edged sword: while it motivates us, it also sets us up for disappointment if things don’t go as planned.
Even when we think we are making a “neutral” choice, what we are often trying to do is distance ourselves emotionally from the implications of the decision. We might say it’s “purely logical,” but the underlying emotion is often one of self-preservation—we wish to remain unscathed by the emotional weight that comes with making a more obviously partial choice.
One reason choices are emotionally charged is that they give us the illusion of control. Making a decision allows us to feel like we have some say over our fate. However, this control is always somewhat illusory. Life’s unpredictability ensures that our choices, no matter how well-considered, often have unexpected outcomes. The realization that our control is limited can bring up a host of emotions like helplessness or existential dread. Every choice we make, big or small, adds a brick to the edifice of our self-identity. We look for validation through our choices; when they lead to desired outcomes, it reinforces our sense of self-worth. When they don’t, it challenges our self-image and can lead to emotions like self-doubt, shame, or regret.
Our choices also affect how we are viewed by others, adding another layer of emotional complexity. Sometimes we make choices that conform to societal norms or expectations to avoid judgment or gain approval. The emotions at play here are often related to a fear of rejection or a need for social cohesion. At other times, we may make choices that go against the grain, driven by a desire for individuality or authenticity. This can lead to a complicated cocktail of pride, liberation, but also potential loneliness.
When it comes to seemingly paradoxical choices—like choosing wisdom over a loved one or maintaining a “neutral” stance—the emotional texture becomes even more intricate. For instance, choosing wisdom over a loved one might be a defense mechanism to protect oneself from future emotional pain, yet it can also lead to immediate emotional pain due to the distancing from the loved one. Here, both foresight and dread, love and rationality, are locked in an emotional tussle.
In cases where we choose to be “neutral,” what we are really doing is choosing not to engage emotionally in a way that makes us vulnerable. We might convince ourselves that we’re staying above the fray, but deep down, the need to protect ourselves emotionally is dictating that ‘neutral’ choice. The emotion behind neutrality is often a fear of emotional engagement, wrapped up in a protective layer of rationality. Ultimately, emotional maturity plays a large role in how we navigate the sea of choices and their associated feelings. Being aware of our emotional drivers allows us to make more ‘informed’ choices, even if that information is coming from within ourselves. This kind of self-awareness can temper the more reactive emotions like fear and desire and allow room for more nuanced feelings like contentment, acceptance, and genuine love to inform our decisions.
Choice is often seen as liberating, an act of free will that puts us in the driver’s seat of our destiny. However, with every choice we make, we also close off other possibilities, limiting ourselves in certain ways. The emotional paradox here is the simultaneous existence of freedom and constraint within the same action. We may feel exuberant for choosing a particular path, but there can be a latent sadness or anxiety about the paths left unexplored.
While choices often feel monumental in the moment, their impact can wane over time, sometimes even reversing in significance. What seemed like a terrible choice in the past may later appear wise, or vice versa. This fluidity can generate complex emotions, such as regret for past choices or anxiety about the unpredictability of future choices and their unforeseeable emotional implications.
Ultimately, where every action presents us with a choice and counter choices, we sometimes find ourselves paralyzed, suspended in a moment of indecision. Yet, this paralysis isn’t a dead end; it’s a pause, a sacred space that invites us to reflect, to feel, and to become keenly aware of our humanity.
What if we reframe this so-called “choice paralysis” not as a dilemma but as a moment of pause in the great narrative of our lives? It becomes not a prison, but a platform; not a quagmire, but a quest. In this paused state, we are philosophers, artists, and explorers of the inner cosmos. We grapple not just with options but with identities, not merely with pros and cons but with hopes and fears, love and loss.
In this pause, we are not frozen; we are fervently alive. We are composing in our minds the symphony of our future, writing the next act of our life’s drama, sculpting the clay of our becoming.
And when the pause lifts—as it always does—we make a choice, yes, but we also do something more profound: we embrace our capacity to choose, even when the choices are hard, even when the path is foggy. For it’s in the wrestling with choices that we come to know who we truly are.
So, the next time you find yourself in the clutches of choice paralysis, remember: you are standing at the confluence of many rivers, each leading to a different ocean but all part of the same Earth. And it’s okay to stand there for a while, to feel the currents, to listen to their distinct murmurs, before stepping into the stream that will carry you to your next adventure.
And so, we are forever navigating, forever choosing. Not in search of resolution, but in pursuit of growth. In the end, it’s not about making the perfect choice, but about making our choices perfect us.
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.
Whispers of the Quiet Quest!!
Silent seeker’s quest
In the realm of the silent seeker’s stride,
Where bridges burn, and shadows hide,
A journey deep, through time’s vast tide,
To realms within, where truths reside.
The witness stands, on shores of mind,
Observing life, to ties unbind.
Yet comes a time, the seeker finds,
To transcend watch, and life entwined.
For what’s an end, but a new dawn?
A realization, a reborn fawn.
Not a destination, but a stretch yawning wide,
A shift of soul, where truths reside.
Observer, witness, names do vary,
Yet their essence, one mustn’t miscarry.
A silent gaze, detached, unweary,
In the dance of life, a step so necessary.
The ego’s song, a siren’s call,
Binds the soul, in a webbed thrall.
But in awakened states, its grip does fall,
As vastness reigns, over the minuscule and small.
Time, a river, flowing swift and sure,
Past’s lessons, future’s lure.
Yet in the present, lies the cure,
To manifest dreams, pure and pure.
Intention sets the compass’ needle,
Visualization paints the dream’s easel.
Emotion fuels, action’s sequel,
And gratitude wraps, life’s upheaval.
In the dance of duality, the rhythm is profound,
Yet beyond the beats, a silence is found.
For in the heart of existence, where truths are unbound,
Lies the song of the soul, an eternal sound.
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.
Abhishek Fanse 