(no subject)
Ok, I think my discussion on non-violence sort of blew up. I think I need to start from a different arena, beause it only makes sense coming from a view of non-attachment. I was starting to have to talk much more about individuation, or non-attachment (if I'm using this term erroneously, someone will have to correct me) than I was about non-violence.
So, first off I'll get started on non-attachment. So, non-attachment starts from the foundation that there are attachments that we have in life that might be deletarious to our progress as individuals, in an emotional sense. For example, if I have to have a cup of chocolate icecream every night while I watch CSI, and my day is ruined if I do not have that precise combination, then that is a bad attachment. Ok, well, that seems pretty obvious, but let's take a different look at the situation. Perhaps something a little more commonplace. For example, I have a friend who needs everything to be spotless. So, this person cannot leave the house if there are dirty dishes or dirt on the carpet. The day cannot begin until cleaning is done. Cleanliness is a good trait, don't get me wrong, but if someone's day is completely thrown off by fretting that there is a plate in the sink with marinara sauce still adhered to it, that seems a little needless to me.
There is another friend that I have who deals with work-related stress out by smoking. He is using an external source to deal with emotional trauma. Another friend deals with stress from a significant oter by playing computer games. Now, I don't think that it is a problem to enjoy computer games, but in both cases there is a defense mechanism in place to cope with issues. Sometimes, as in the case of the first friend, the issues are not able to be controlled, and sometimes there are issues, as in the case of the second, that can be addressed. But in both cases the behavior is avoidant. So, in both cases there are attachments to external sources that are crutches in the way of personal development. The latter two examples are easier to see where the resolution lies. I would call none of these issues "problems," and I don't think the situations themselves necessarily need to be addressed. I think that all three situations are indicative of personal evolution that needs to occur.
All of us know people who are or were involved in relationships not healthy for their emotional state at the time; I've done the same thing myself. All of us know people who are involved in trying to influence their mood with external stimulus, or whose mood is contingent on external circimstances. For instance, if you'd planned to go to the movies all week, and then a friend can't make it and everything is called off. Some people would be unfazed: "Eh, that's just the way things happen. I'll make it later." Some people are crushed, "Oh, I'd planned all week to do this. Well, that's the last time I try to plan something on a Friday night..." Okay, so maybe those examples are cliche, but they've probably happened.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe it's better to be independent of external sources and to be happy with things from an internal perspective. Now, there certainly are limits, but if we can begin interpreting our circumstances and stop letting our circumstances interpret us (does that make any sense? That sounds lame), we have more freedom. Right?
So, if we can look at a rainy, gray, cold, and windy day and say, "hey, this isn't dreary, it's just a day, and there's beauty in this like any other"; if we can look at happenstance and say, "oh well, I didn't get to go to the movies/ to have chocolate icecream, I'll have something else instead" then we're not trapped by those things. Freedom starts on the inside, and it comes from recognizing attachments and severing the ones that are holding us back.
Comments?
So, first off I'll get started on non-attachment. So, non-attachment starts from the foundation that there are attachments that we have in life that might be deletarious to our progress as individuals, in an emotional sense. For example, if I have to have a cup of chocolate icecream every night while I watch CSI, and my day is ruined if I do not have that precise combination, then that is a bad attachment. Ok, well, that seems pretty obvious, but let's take a different look at the situation. Perhaps something a little more commonplace. For example, I have a friend who needs everything to be spotless. So, this person cannot leave the house if there are dirty dishes or dirt on the carpet. The day cannot begin until cleaning is done. Cleanliness is a good trait, don't get me wrong, but if someone's day is completely thrown off by fretting that there is a plate in the sink with marinara sauce still adhered to it, that seems a little needless to me.
There is another friend that I have who deals with work-related stress out by smoking. He is using an external source to deal with emotional trauma. Another friend deals with stress from a significant oter by playing computer games. Now, I don't think that it is a problem to enjoy computer games, but in both cases there is a defense mechanism in place to cope with issues. Sometimes, as in the case of the first friend, the issues are not able to be controlled, and sometimes there are issues, as in the case of the second, that can be addressed. But in both cases the behavior is avoidant. So, in both cases there are attachments to external sources that are crutches in the way of personal development. The latter two examples are easier to see where the resolution lies. I would call none of these issues "problems," and I don't think the situations themselves necessarily need to be addressed. I think that all three situations are indicative of personal evolution that needs to occur.
All of us know people who are or were involved in relationships not healthy for their emotional state at the time; I've done the same thing myself. All of us know people who are involved in trying to influence their mood with external stimulus, or whose mood is contingent on external circimstances. For instance, if you'd planned to go to the movies all week, and then a friend can't make it and everything is called off. Some people would be unfazed: "Eh, that's just the way things happen. I'll make it later." Some people are crushed, "Oh, I'd planned all week to do this. Well, that's the last time I try to plan something on a Friday night..." Okay, so maybe those examples are cliche, but they've probably happened.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe it's better to be independent of external sources and to be happy with things from an internal perspective. Now, there certainly are limits, but if we can begin interpreting our circumstances and stop letting our circumstances interpret us (does that make any sense? That sounds lame), we have more freedom. Right?
So, if we can look at a rainy, gray, cold, and windy day and say, "hey, this isn't dreary, it's just a day, and there's beauty in this like any other"; if we can look at happenstance and say, "oh well, I didn't get to go to the movies/ to have chocolate icecream, I'll have something else instead" then we're not trapped by those things. Freedom starts on the inside, and it comes from recognizing attachments and severing the ones that are holding us back.
Comments?