Wednesday, October 17, 2007

On the Division between Spiritual and Worldly Goals

1) I said in the paper below, “by ‘goals’ I do not mean the goals necessary for day-to-day living, but goals for self-improvement and self-fulfillment – goals which involve the ‘self’ in some fashion or other. While the former set of goals will have no relevance and cease to be once they are achieved, the latter persist in our consciousness and create endless striving. Indeed, the continuity of the ‘self’ is perpetuated by the contemplation and striving for these goals.”

And Vito raised a question about this distinction:

“But in your essay you also talk as though the rational mind has its
legitimate place in solving “practical” problems.
As you put it,
“I have to use thought to solve problems, for sure, to plan ahead
and to organize my life – in short, to lead a successful life in this
complex civilization.” But what is it that requires us to “plan ahead,”
and what is to count as a “successful” life?
When I retired, with
a pension of $1500, our financial adviser thought we were nuts.

The definition of “financial security” is itself another thought
product.
Do you see what I am getting at?  I think that the dichotomy spiritual:
practical may be shaky.
It may be that everything is thought, that
the mind entirely pervades human functioning and we can’t get rid of
it.”

And so did Elliot (see below). Now is the time to discuss this issue:

Is this distinction that clear-cut? When my goal is to make money, does that not also involve my self? When I make money, I feel elated, when I lose it I feel lost. Will I ever stop making money? Then isn’t that a spiritual goal?

A typical goal of going to some place just drops off when we arrive there. But it’s not so simple with other goals. Many of these wants are generally part of other wants, means to other goals. When the bigger ones are satisfied we find going after other wants or more of the same (better food or more of the same food, for example.) In this same example, of course, when you finish cooking a meal, the desire to cook that meal comes to a stop. But another desire is instantly formed from the success of it; viz., I must cook something like this again, or cook a different thing again. Or if the cooking is not successful, I say I must do it better again. Desiring, based on goal-formation, is something, as Hobbes says, which only ceases in death.

2) There is a constant restlessness in us which keeps seeking goals, wanting us to become something other than ourselves. On the one hand, this is based on our awareness of what we are at the moment, which evaluates the present condition and posits a goal to make it continue, or make it better etc.

On the other hand, we also have a restlessness which looks for anchoring, seeking some foundation. Notice this condition when we have nothing to do, when for just a moment, the mind is blank. Why does it have to go anywhere, become anything else or do anything?

It seems that, therefore, in the ultimate analysis, all goals are spiritual goals. They all want to make you better, change you into something other than what you are.

So where does that leave us?

3) Pleasure-seeking, goal-seeking, becoming something other than oneself etc. must all amount to the same thing. They are all goal-seeking behaviors. In other words, whatever we do, directly or indirectly involves goal-seeking or pleasure-seeking.

Still, when Elliot asked me the question whether money-making is worldly or spiritual, I said that it is worldly, as long as you can quit it when you have as much as you want or satisfied with. In other words, money can be worldly or spiritual depending on whether you can let go of the goal when you have enough of it.

That doesn’t mean you are free from all pleasure-seeking goals. If not money, you will be seeking something else.

To stop the movement of goals means you have to ‘die’! When for just a moment the movement stops, there is a strong impetus to go after something, to think about something, to become something. It’s a very unstable situation! You have to accept death and be disillusioned about all goals. Then you will probably recede into the body and be a mere awareness, at least temporarily.

And when you are drawn by some situation into action, then you can just do what’s needed for the moment and get back to ‘dying’ again! Even if that involves what may seem to be goal-seeking or pleasure-seeking.

4) Then there is the factor of thought complicating the issue: More often than not, thinking is not such an innocent function. It’s most of the time used to perpetuate or continue the self in some fashion or other. That means, there is a goal-seeking, pleasure-seeking activity going on whenever you think. At times, the mere recognition of an object is enough to judge and evaluate and therefore to seek a goal. Perhaps there are moments when you get tired of the whole thing, go into a mode of mere reflection.

5) But what is reflection? Isn’t it another form of perpetuating the self? Yes, in the absolute sense. Even when you are aware that you are aware of images and sounds! And as long as there is brain activity, it may just have to go on. Then what the hell is all this writing about? Why am I doing it?

6) That’s why UG kept saying that you have to clinically die! There is no final solution to problems except the final solution!

But then in UG’s case at least, there may be thought functioning without there being a thinker and without its perpetuating the self.

But until then, at least relatively speaking, you could be disillusioned with goals and attain some amount of peace. Or is that another one of our grand delusions!



2 comments:

Bruce said...

Narayana: If UG was still here, would you be writing this blog of your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

When I read your posts relating self awareness.. It reminds of the "passive awareness" concept of J.K. Where you observe or know everything rather passively without any want .Is it the same ?