I have often alternated between the desire to live in two different ways: One way is the Buddhist way which I think of as walking down the middle path. The essence of it is balance, characterized by leading a simple life, being honest and compassionate to oneself and others, being at peace with oneself regardless of external circumstances, being unattached to desire and aversion. All the aspects of this lifestyle seemed intrinsically appealing to me, except the part about being unattached. Because it raises some fundamental questions in my mind:
How can someone become unattached while living in a world of attachment without actually becoming a hermit? And more importantly, why would we want to become unattached in the first place? The Buddhist answer to this question is: to end suffering. Suffering comes from attachment. If there is no attachment, there is no suffering. It is easy to follow the philosophy when you use words like desire and aversion when they translate to greed for money or lust for power. Everyone knows these are vices, almost everyone can comfort themselves saying they don't have either of these. But here's the tricky part... where do relationships fall in this spectrum of desire? What constitutes desire? Aren't one of our biggest attachments our relationships? Is love desire? Don't all emotions fall somewhere between desire or aversion, pleasure and discomfort? Wouldn't being unattached to desire and aversion imply not feeling any feelings and not experiencing emotions?
This brings me to the other way of living, something resembling the Epicurean way, where the essence of life is pleasure. I would, however, like to expand the philosophy from just seeking pleasure to seeking to experience life fully and completely in its pleasure and its sorrows. It can be seen as a life of complete involvement in whatever life has to offer. If attachment brings suffering, I will suffer greatly. I will also love greatly. I will experience and just be...
It sounds almost zen, doesn't it?
I think that's the common thread. These two seemingly opposing philosophies meet at the intersection of acceptance. No matter which path I choose, the underlying theme seems to be a deep awareness of myself and an acceptance of my surroundings. In the acceptance lies the detachment of the Buddhist and the experience of the Epicurean. Where you are neither really thinking nor exactly feeling. You are just being in the silent in-between.
I don't know quite yet which path I am following, but I'm starting to get a clearer idea what either path implies. That's fair enough for now.
How can someone become unattached while living in a world of attachment without actually becoming a hermit? And more importantly, why would we want to become unattached in the first place? The Buddhist answer to this question is: to end suffering. Suffering comes from attachment. If there is no attachment, there is no suffering. It is easy to follow the philosophy when you use words like desire and aversion when they translate to greed for money or lust for power. Everyone knows these are vices, almost everyone can comfort themselves saying they don't have either of these. But here's the tricky part... where do relationships fall in this spectrum of desire? What constitutes desire? Aren't one of our biggest attachments our relationships? Is love desire? Don't all emotions fall somewhere between desire or aversion, pleasure and discomfort? Wouldn't being unattached to desire and aversion imply not feeling any feelings and not experiencing emotions?
This brings me to the other way of living, something resembling the Epicurean way, where the essence of life is pleasure. I would, however, like to expand the philosophy from just seeking pleasure to seeking to experience life fully and completely in its pleasure and its sorrows. It can be seen as a life of complete involvement in whatever life has to offer. If attachment brings suffering, I will suffer greatly. I will also love greatly. I will experience and just be...
It sounds almost zen, doesn't it?
I think that's the common thread. These two seemingly opposing philosophies meet at the intersection of acceptance. No matter which path I choose, the underlying theme seems to be a deep awareness of myself and an acceptance of my surroundings. In the acceptance lies the detachment of the Buddhist and the experience of the Epicurean. Where you are neither really thinking nor exactly feeling. You are just being in the silent in-between.
I don't know quite yet which path I am following, but I'm starting to get a clearer idea what either path implies. That's fair enough for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment