dwai

Getting rid of fear and anger

Recommended Posts

I appreciate  monks, nuns  or renunciates for what they do... but how many of them can they honestly criticize the lives and dharma's of householders who are dealing with the world?  Obviously not many,  and for some of them to do so if they are supported by householders seems  more or less nuts.  ( for they don't have to deal with the common and understandable fears and angers of being a householder in the world, including not having to  grind away at difficult jobs for 50+ years to support themselves and a family)  

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3bob said:

I appreciate  monks, nuns  or renunciates for what they do... but how many of them can they honestly criticize the lives and dharma's of householders who are dealing with the world?  Obviously not many,  and for some of them to do so if they are supported by householders seems  more or less nuts.  ( for they don't have to deal with the common and understandable fears and angers of being a householder in the world, including not having to  grind away at difficult jobs for 50+ years to support themselves and a family)  

I have no idea what to make of the subtext in your comment. What is wrong in letting go of attachment? Can’t love be unattached? Can’t duty be unattached? Attachment here means “drawing one’s identity and sense of being” from something.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a different and more drastic example being something that few can do in this day and age, for instance that of the historic Buddha renouncing the world and no longer having to deal with his wife and child and his many other responsibilities to his household by retreating to a life as a renunciate in basically open areas with a moderate forest climate...and then later more or less criticizing common people for their lack of  non-attachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dwai said:

What is wrong in letting go of attachment? Can’t love be unattached? Can’t duty be unattached?

Speaking to Dwai.

 

Nothing wrong at all but nearly impossible for most including myself to do all the way all at once.

 

Practices help make changes a little bit at a time then more and more this triple codependent activity the Swami was explaining becomes less and less.

 

This Swami has an entertaining delivery but there is nothing new in what he is saying, these are not his instructions or his discovery alone  it is all in the Gita. I like the way he is saying it,  great delivery,  to the point and is not telling anyone what to do.

 

Anyone can improve in this area they need not be a Swami or a monk it is different for householders in many ways because they are constantly confronted with varying degrees of many issues from many different directions all the time all day every day.

 

Householders can make even more rapid progress than one who becomes a monk because of these very challenges.

 

One thing is certain the householder will know when they have as there is no other way for them but to work out everything from basic survival and social enteractions that make survival possible and more.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 3bob said:

a different and more drastic example being something that few can do in this day and age, for instance that of the historic Buddha renouncing the world and no longer having to deal with his wife and child and his many other responsibilities to his household by retreating to a life as a renunciate in basically open areas with a moderate forest climate...and then later more or less criticizing common people for their lack of  non-attachment.

One can be a householder and not be attached. Love and duty doesn’t have any relation with attachment. Attachment is a result of superimposing of something/someone else to the self identity. Which we know is false, because the Self is not an identity/personality anyway. 

 

While it it might be true that the path of the monk and the householder seems different, they are only different on the surface. Both should live without attachment and do one’s duty with dedication and love (but not attachment). 

 

I think there is something to introspect here, if such a beneficial presentation causes irritation or discord. Might be worthwhile investigating “what about the advice to be free of attachment is so irksome? Who is it that finds it irksome?” 

 

@Pilgrim very well articulated. This life is an opportunity to dissolve our vāsanās (chronically recurring patterns, that reinforce karma). 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  right, there is the ideal you speak of,  but I was not speaking of the ideal but what is often factual.

 

ps. as you know the traditional paths (of most forms of Hinduism) in regards to householders and renunciates are very different besides just being so on the surface, although later in life the householder may become a renunciate after settling their family and worldly affairs...

Edited by 3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 3bob said:

  right, there is the ideal you speak of,  but I was not speaking of the ideal but what is often factual.

 

ps. as you know the traditional paths (of most forms of Hinduism) in regards to householders and renunciates are very different besides just being so on the surface, although later in life the householder may become a renunciate after settling their family and worldly affairs...

The ideals exist for us to aspire towards. Even if we get to 50% of the ideal, we are better off than 0% :) 

And it's really not that hard to do, when you put things in the right context. Which is why, a dedicated practice is required. 

 

Ramana Maharshi would often say "Renunciation is in the mind. One need not quit everything and go live in the forest for it..."

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much easier to let go of stuff as a house-holder, IMO, because stuff is constantly being challenged everyday.  I am aware when it happens and, hopefully, the issues self liberate... Of course sometimes, it’s more like chipping away at ice 😀

 

When I sit in meditation and seclusion, it is easier to remain unaware of such issues. Although it feels great. 

 

 I sure enjoy doing both - movement and repose, to maintain balance. It is in my quiet meditation such issues are processed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to truly examine the secluded life vs the householders life.

 

The secluded can lay bare some of the most delicate uprisings and be with them for prolonged periods. It is extensive stillness with a nakedness rarely possible in an ongoing outside interaction. But it can also be a place to easily hide. And we find many examples of monks that have been asked to go West and teach and fall to sex, money and alcohol abuse.

 

For the householder in ardent practice the difficulty of baring one’s self within a framework in the general population is often incredibly lonesome and isolating.

 

But in either case - attachment is the cause of all suffering and it is no more difficult for the one or the other to drop it - for as was stated in the video and by so many elsewhere including myself - attachment has no value - it does nothing but hold one in pasts and futures - it is at once “not in the moment”. It is always an obstruction. It does not help in anything - it is always a dragging anchor and acts as a catalyst to further obstructive obscuring patterning.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A rhetorical like question:  So could the entire manifest universe be seen as or dismissed  (which some do)  as only being an "illusion" or an attachment  of or to form?   Further, since most of us should be able to assume that there are forces greater than our particular state and form, thus forces that are sometimes called the Tao or Nature that wastes not in its purposes or its ways  -  then what purpose is there for form that is connected to, attached to and in dependence on Tao?  (or Tao itself having an aspect of form thus a Tao that is not in denial of form and is also mother to it!)

Edited by 3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites