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.
Illuminating the “Unseen” & “Unspoken”
Thought, in its essence, is an intellectual construct, a tool for navigating the practical aspects of life. It’s essential for planning, learning, and organizing. However, its fundamental limitation lies in its basis in the past – thoughts are a response to accumulated memories, knowledge, and experiences. This retrospective nature means thought is inherently unable to apprehend the present moment in its totality. It’s always a step removed from the direct experience, interpreting rather than experiencing. Thought can be understood as a mental process wherein ideas, images, and cognitive symbols are conjured and manipulated. It is a fundamental aspect of human consciousness leading to the formation of ideas, judgments, memories, and plans.
Biologically, thoughts arise from the neural activity in the brain. Psychologically, they are influenced by our experiences, emotions, culture, and subconscious mind. Philosophically, some argue that thoughts are more than mere brain activity; they might represent an interaction with a broader consciousness or a deeper, more intrinsic aspect of the self. The exploration of the psyche in it’s entirety beyond thoughts involves looking into the depths of consciousness, beyond the surface-level chatter of the mind. It’s an exploration of what remains when thoughts are quieted – the essence of being, the fundamental nature of consciousness.
Thought is inherently limited. It is born from our accumulated knowledge, memories, experiences, and conditioning. Each thought is a fragment, a part of the whole, filtered through our personal lens. The limitation of thought lies in its inability to capture the totality of what is, as it’s always colored by past conditioning and subjective interpretations.
Let’s understand if there’s any thinking without thought ? Exploring this notion of thinking without thought ventures into a paradoxical realm. Traditionally, thinking is seen as the process of using thoughts. However, there are some different perspectives revolving around the same. They speak of a state of ‘pure observation’ or ‘direct perception,’ where one is aware and attentive but not caught in the web of conceptual thinking. This is not thinking in the traditional sense but a state of heightened awareness where one perceives things as they are, unfiltered by thoughts. The inadequacy of language in capturing this entirety of an experience is a well-acknowledged philosophical challenge. Words are symbols, abstractions that represent reality but are not reality themselves. They can point towards the truth but cannot fully encapsulate it. This disconnect between the symbol and the actuality is why descriptions often fall short of conveying the full essence of an experience. Perceiving something without the interference of subjective knowledge or past experiences is a central aim in our exploration. It is akin to seeing with a ‘beginner’s mind’ in Zen Buddhism or practicing ‘choiceless awareness’. In such states, perception is not clouded by previous conditioning; one sees the ‘what is’ without the overlay of the ‘what has been’ or ‘what could be.’ Direct perception/reception or choiceless awareness is a key concept in understanding a state beyond the limitations of thought. This is a state of consciousness where one observes without the duality of the observer and the observed. In this state, the mind does not interpret, compare, or evaluate, but simply perceives what is. This kind of perception is devoid of the biases, filters, and conditioning that usually cloud our understanding.
Consciousness, in its purest form, is often described as a vast, boundless field of awareness that transcends the limitations of thought. In various spiritual traditions, this consciousness is seen as the fundamental essence of our being, uncolored by personal identity, cultural conditioning, or linguistic constructs. It’s an experiential state where the sense of separation between the self and the external world diminishes, leading to a profound sense of unity or oneness. Non-dual awareness refers to a state of consciousness where the artificial distinctions between subject and object, observer and observed, dissolve. In this state, one experiences reality as an undivided whole, where the dichotomies and dualities created by thought no longer hold sway. This non-dual awareness is often described as a direct experience of the true nature of reality, unmediated by the conceptual mind and ego. The ego is often seen as a construct of the mind, a collection of self-identifications, memories, and personality traits that create the illusion of a separate, distinct self. Transcending thought involves recognizing the ego as an illusion, a limited perspective that confines our understanding of ourselves and the universe.
Exploring this further, let’s delve deeper into the aspects where we try to understand if there can be observation without conditioning/ego/judgements/thoughts.
Interpreting an observation that is not shaped or driven by thought presents a unique challenge. By its very nature, this type of observation defies conventional interpretation, as interpretation itself is a function of thought. Therefore, experiences rooted in direct perception/reception or choiceless awareness are often described as ineffable or transcendental. They are understood not through the analytical mind but through a profound sense of knowing or/of being. Thought is inherently a movement of memory, knowledge, and experience. It is a dynamic process, always referencing the past, comparing, and categorizing based on previous data stored in the brain which is actually static. Due to its reliance on past information, thought is inherently limited in apprehending the new, the unknown, or the present moment in its fullness. It is always a step behind, processing and interpreting, rather than directly experiencing. It’s a process that, by its very nature, is retrospective, constantly referring to the past to make sense of the present. This reference to the past is both the strength and limitation of thought. It allows us to learn, plan, and reason, but simultaneously confines us within the boundaries of our previous experiences and conditioning. Every thought, therefore, is a reflection of this accumulated knowledge, a product of our individual histories and the collective history of our species. As we deepen our exploration, we begin to see the interplay between thought and awareness more clearly. We start to understand that thoughts, in themselves, are not the problem. The challenge lies in our identification with them, in our habitual pattern of mistaking the content of our thoughts for the totality of our being. This identification is what keeps us entangled in the web of ego and illusion, preventing us from experiencing the fullness of our true nature. The challenge and the beauty of experiencing the present moment beyond the framework of thought lies in stepping out of the known – the accumulated knowledge, memory, and experience – and entering the realm of direct, immediate experience.
When we delve into the concept of observation beyond thought, we venture into a realm that is often uncharted by our regular conscious experience. This form of observation is not an act of the thinking mind but a state of pure awareness. It is a form of perception that is immediate and direct, unmediated by the processes of cognition, analysis, or linguistic formulation. In this state, the mind is silent yet acutely aware, observing without the interference of preconceived notions, judgments, or interpretations. This is a form of observation where the observer is fully present, yet there is no active process of ‘observing’ in the conventional sense. Interpreting this thought-free observation poses a significant challenge because interpretation itself is a function of thought. To understand or articulate these experiences, we invariably revert to the tools of thought – language, symbols, and concepts. However, these tools are inadequate to fully capture the essence of such experiences. They are like trying to describe the taste of water using only colors; the medium is fundamentally incapable of conveying the actual experience. Hence, experiences rooted in direct perception or choiceless awareness are often described as ineffable or transcendent. They are understood not intellectually but experientially, as a profound sense of knowing or being that transcends the conventional modes of understanding. The movement of thought, being a continuum of memory and knowledge, inherently limits our perception of the present moment. It’s always a step behind, interpreting and processing rather than directly experiencing. This lag, this reliance on the past, is what prevents thought from apprehending the new, the unknown, or the present moment in its full immediacy. To step beyond this limitation requires a different quality of attention – an attention that is not bound by the linear, sequential process of thinking but is open, expansive, and fully present. This disengagement from the thought process allows for moments of clarity and direct perception, where one can experience reality as it is, not as it is interpreted or remembered. In this context, the role of the observer becomes crucial. In deep observation, the distinction between the observer and the observed begins to blur. This blurring is a realization that the separation between the self and the world is largely a construct of thought. When this artificial barrier falls away, what remains is a state of being where the observer is not separate from the observed but is an integral part of a unified field of awareness. This realization can lead to a profound shift in consciousness, a shift from the duality of subject and object to a state of non-dual awareness. To truly understand and integrate this understanding into our lives we must confront the structures of thought that define our perception of reality.
The present moment, ever fleeting and elusive, exists beyond the grasp of our thoughts. Our attempts to understand the present through thought inevitably involve a retrospective analysis, a looking back to what we already know, to what we have already experienced. This backward glance prevents us from experiencing the present moment in its true essence. It’s like trying to capture the beauty of a sunset by looking only at its reflection in a mirror; the experience is always one step removed from reality. When we speak of observation beyond thought, we are referring to a state of pure awareness, an unfiltered engagement with the present moment. This is a form of observation that transcends the cognitive processes of the mind. It is not about thinking more clearly or more deeply; it is about not thinking at all. In this state, the mind is still, yet acutely aware. There are no judgments, no comparisons, no interpretations. There is only the experience of the present moment in its unadulterated form. This state of observation is not easily attainable, nor is it a permanent state of being. It is a fleeting glimpse into a reality that exists beyond the confines of our conditioned mind. It requires a quieting of the mental chatter, a suspension of the habitual thought processes that dominate our waking life. This quieting is not an act of suppression but an act of surrender, a letting go of the need to analyze, categorize, and understand. In this space of thought-free observation, we encounter the world in a way that is fundamentally different from our usual mode of experience. It is a mode of experience that is direct and immediate, unmediated by the filters of our past experiences and conditioning. In this space, we find a connection to the world that is more intimate and more profound than anything thought can provide. It is a connection that speaks to the interconnectedness of all things, to the fundamental unity of existence.
The challenge, however, lies in integrating this understanding into our daily lives. How do we maintain this connection to the present moment in a world that is constantly pulling us back into the realm of thought? The answer lies not in rejecting thought but in understanding its place and its limitations. It involves cultivating a balance between using thought as a tool for practical living and allowing ourselves to experience moments of thought-free awareness. This balance is not easily achieved. It requires practice, patience, and a willingness to explore the depths of our own consciousness. It involves cultivating mindfulness in our daily activities, being fully present in each moment, whether we are eating, walking, talking, or simply sitting. It involves meditation, not just as a formal practice but as a way of being, a constant attunement to the present moment. As we deepen our practice, we begin to notice subtle shifts in our perception. We start to see the world with a freshness and clarity that was previously obscured by the veil of our thoughts. We begin to experience moments of profound peace and connectedness, moments where the boundaries between self and other dissolve, and we are left with a sense of being part of a larger whole. We may find that our moments of thought-free awareness become more frequent and more profound. We may begin to experience flashes of insight and understanding that arise not from the thinking mind but from a deeper, more intuitive level of consciousness. These moments have the potential to be deeply transformative, offering a glimpse into a way of being that is free from the constraints of conditioned thought. This sense of interconnectedness is not merely a philosophical abstraction but a lived experience. It manifests in a deep sense of empathy and compassion, a genuine understanding of the interconnected nature of all life. In this understanding, the well-being of others becomes inseparable from our own. The artificial distinctions that thought creates between ‘us’ and ‘them’ lose their significance, and we begin to act from a place of intrinsic connection and unity.
The journey towards this understanding and experience is both personal and universal. It is personal in the sense that it requires a deep exploration of one’s own mind and consciousness. It involves a process of unlearning, of letting go of the preconceived notions and beliefs that cloud our perception of reality. At the same time, it is a universal journey, one that has been embarked upon by seekers across different cultures and throughout history. It is a journey towards a truth that transcends the particularities of individual perspectives and cultural conditioning. Moreover, this journey brings us into a closer relationship with the mystery of existence. It opens us to the wonder and awe of life, allowing us to experience the world with a freshness and immediacy that is often lost in adulthood. In this space, we find beauty in the mundane, joy in the simple act of being, and a sense of peace that transcends the ups and downs of daily life. Yet, this journey is not about permanently residing in a state beyond thought. Such an expectation would be unrealistic and contrary to the very nature of human existence. Rather, it is about cultivating the ability to move fluidly between different states of consciousness. It is about learning to use thought when it is useful and necessary, while also being able to step beyond it to experience a more direct and unmediated connection with life.
As we continue to explore this deeper dimension of ourselves, we encounter a paradox. On one hand, there is a sense of individuality, the unique perspective and experiences that each of us brings to the world. On the other hand, there is a sense of universality, a recognition that at the core, we are all expressions of the same fundamental consciousness. This duality of individuality and universality is one of the great mysteries of human existence, a mystery that challenges the linear and rational mind but is intimately known to the heart. In this space beyond thought, we also begin to experience time differently. The usual linear progression of past, present, and future gives way to a more fluid and expansive experience of time. Moments of deep presence and awareness can feel timeless, as if we are touching an eternal now that underlies the changing scenes of life. This experience of timelessness is not an escape from the world but a deeper engagement with it, a recognition that each moment is a doorway to the infinite. This deeper exploration also challenges our conventional understanding of not only time but space as well. In the realm of pure awareness, the linear progression of time gives way to a more fluid and expansive experience. We begin to see time not as a series of discrete moments but as a continuous flow, a flow of creation and dissolution in which we are intimately involved. Similarly, our experience of space transforms from a fixed, three-dimensional framework to a more dynamic and interconnected field. We start to perceive space not as something that separates but as something that unites, a medium through which the dance of existence unfolds.
In this deeper realm, we encounter the concept of the Absolute, a term used in various philosophical and spiritual traditions to denote the ultimate, indivisible reality. The Absolute is often described as the source and substance of all that exists, transcending all categories of thought, including being and non-being. This is not an entity or a being in the traditional sense, but the very ground of being itself. In the presence of the Absolute, the distinctions that dominate our usual experience of reality – between subject and object, self and other, observer and observed – dissolve into a state of non-dual awareness. In this state, the individual consciousness recognizes its unity with the Absolute, realizing that the separation it perceives in the ordinary state of consciousness is an illusion. The dualities that govern our ordinary perception – light and dark, good and evil, pleasure and pain – are seen as expressions of a deeper unity. This perception brings with it a sense of profound peace and equanimity, as one realizes that the essential nature of reality is unchanging and eternal, despite the ever-changing play of phenomena.
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.
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.
The Fluidity of Stillness: Understanding Stagnation Amidst Movement
“Movement in Stagnation” captures the tension between seemingly opposite states—feeling spiritually stuck or stagnant while simultaneously experiencing inner changes or shifts. This suggests that even within periods of seeming inertia, movement is happening, whether you recognize it or not.
The experience of feeling both movement and stagnation simultaneously—or alternately—can be influenced by various factors, including your emotional state, external circumstances, and perspective. On a day-to-day basis, there are changes, interactions, and new experiences, which might seem like movement. However, these might not register on the long-term scale, where overarching goals and life trajectories are considered.
ertain philosophies and spiritual perspectives propose that time is not linear but cyclical. Thus, the repetition or perceived stagnation may actually be a part of natural cycles. However, Emotions are incredibly transient; they can change from moment to moment. This emotional flux might be what you’re identifying as “movement” within the stagnation. Emotional highs feel even higher when coming out of a low and vice versa. This contrast might contribute to the sensation of significant movement even when your situation hasn’t drastically changed.
Humans are wired to identify patterns. When you start noticing recurring themes or experiences, your brain flags these as patterns, which can feel like you’re stuck in a loop. Once you recognize a pattern or feel stuck, you’re more likely to notice information that confirms this belief, thereby reinforcing the feeling of being stuck.
Some spiritual teachings suggest that life inherently consists of repetitive cycles—birth, growth, decay, death, and rebirth—and that recognizing this can free you from the illusion of stagnation. Certain philosophies like Buddhism focus on the present moment as the only “real” moment, suggesting that both the past (stagnation) and the future (movement) are constructs of the mind.
When you look at your life on a daily basis, you can see a lot of activities, interactions, and events that unfold. The sun rises and sets, you go to work, eat, sleep, talk to people, perhaps engage in some hobbies. This flurry of activity can give you the impression that things are constantly moving and changing. However, if you were to zoom out and look at a larger slice of your life, say a year or a decade, the feeling is often quite different. Major life circumstances—your job, where you live, your relationship status—may not change as frequently. Even if they do, the underlying patterns of behavior, the kinds of relationships you engage in, and your day-to-day experiences might not undergo a significant transformation. This is where the feeling of “stagnation” often comes in. Despite the constant activity and interactions, there may be an underlying sense that nothing much has really changed—or is going to change.
Emotions, by their very nature, are transient and fluid. Even within a single day, you might experience a range of emotions—joy, frustration, excitement, boredom, love, irritation—and these emotions have a way of coloring your perception. When you’re joyful, the world seems vibrant, full of possibilities; you feel like you’re “moving.” When you’re frustrated or bored, the world can seem dull, repetitive; hence the feeling of “stagnation.”
The mind has certain tendencies that influence this dual experience of movement and stillness. One of these is the brain’s knack for pattern recognition. We make sense of the world by recognizing patterns; it’s how we learn and navigate complex realities. However, this strength can turn into a trap when the patterns you recognize lead to a sense of helplessness or stagnation. For instance, if you’ve had several failed relationships, you may start to believe that all relationships are doomed to fail, leading to a feeling of being “stuck.”
Finally from a more spiritual or existential standpoint, the very idea of movement and stagnation can be questioned. Certain spiritual teachings suggest that the material world is an illusion, and that true “movement” is a journey inward, toward understanding one’s own nature and the nature of reality. In this context, both the feeling of “moving” and “being stuck” can be seen as distractions from the true journey, which is neither about moving nor staying but about understanding and being.
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.
Intellect and Intelligence: A Journey Beyond Thought
The concepts of intellect and intelligence are often used interchangeably, yet they represent distinct aspects of the human mind.
- The Realm of the Intellect:
The intellect is the thinking, reasoning, and analytical aspect of the mind. It is the faculty responsible for processing information, solving problems, and making decisions. While the intellect is a powerful tool that has enabled us to create remarkable advances in science, technology, and culture, it is also limited in its scope and understanding.
The intellect, with its reliance on thought, memory, and knowledge, can only provide us with a superficial understanding of reality. By clinging to our intellectual constructs, we inadvertently create barriers that prevent us from directly experiencing the deeper truths of life.
- The Nature of Intelligence:
Intelligence is a holistic and intuitive understanding that transcends the limitations of the intellect. It is a state of awareness that arises when the mind is quiet, unburdened by thought, and fully present in the moment.
True intelligence is not dependent on knowledge or experience; rather, it is an innate capacity for insight, creativity, and empathy that is accessible to everyone. In this state of heightened awareness, we are able to perceive the interconnectedness of all things and respond to the world with clarity, compassion, and wisdom.
- Moving Beyond the Intellect:
Cultivating intelligence requires us to move beyond the confines of the intellect and its thought-based processes. This involves recognizing the limitations of thought, questioning our assumptions and beliefs, and letting go of our attachment to knowledge.
By developing a practice of self-inquiry, mindfulness, and meditation, we can learn to quiet the mind and cultivate a space of inner stillness. In this state of silence, we can access the deeper intelligence that lies at the core of our being, free from the constraints of thought and the intellect.
- The Power of Direct Perception:
Direct perception – the ability to experience reality as it is, without the interference of thought or the intellect. By cultivating a state of intelligence, we can bypass the limitations of the intellect and experience the world directly, without the filter of our mental constructs.
This direct perception allows us to see the true nature of reality, unclouded by our beliefs, assumptions, and expectations. It opens the door to a more profound understanding of ourselves and the world around us, leading to greater clarity, insight, and inner peace.
- The Transformative Potential of Intelligence:
As we develop our capacity for intelligence and learn to move beyond the limitations of the intellect, we can experience a profound transformation in our lives. The cultivation of intelligence allows us to relate to the world with greater empathy, compassion, and understanding, fostering deeper connections with ourselves and others.
Moreover, intelligence offers us the possibility of living with a sense of freedom, unburdened by the constraints of thought, and fully present in the richness of each moment. This freedom enables us to embrace the uncertainty and impermanence of life, responding to the challenges and opportunities that arise with grace, wisdom, and creativity.
Abhishek Fanse 