Lent and "giving up". Or is it ..."letting go"?
A good friend, this week, shared her intention of "giving up" something she really likes - I think it was chocolate. This, because of Lent. A time very auspicious for character building given that "it is in the air" that so many give up things, or fast, or do small sacrifices here and there (which can be 'huge' at times), so that there is that 'feeling of support, 'we are all doing it' energies, etc., etc.
Well, when she put it in facebook, I was practicing how to "play" in that social networking cyberfield, getting 'lost' all the time, not knowing what to do, etc., etc., and decided to "comment" on her post. The thought that came up was around the nuances of letting go, of allowing things to happen, or accepting what is, releasing, yielding to, observing, witnessing, not clinging, AND not that sense of "giving up" as in "I have it already and I am going to 'give it', 'offer it', donate it', 'take it away from me and give it to the other', type sense of the expression.
Yes - they are so similar. Yes, they might be the same "thing". Yes, yes, yes. But! if I think of it a little, there is a huge world of difference.
Is there a difference between "to act" and "to react"? In both, we "act". But we treat them differently. One is an agent of an 'effect', and thus 'affects' the other, and the other becomes "the effect" of having been "affected", and in turn starts becoming "the agent of an upcoming effect", and then.... Ah? Complicated...!
But think of it. Think of the complaints we hear daily, everywhere, "he/she did this (to me, to us), and I (in turn) did this ('cause he/she') had it coming to them/needed a lesson/I needed to protect myself", etc., etc. Act - react. React - Act, react -Act...Unending! We affect each other endlessly!
And then, how about "to act" and "not react"? Is there a difference between "to act" and "not react"? In both, we "act" - yes. But we treat them differently. One is an agent of an 'effect', and thus 'affects' the other, but the "other" then doesn't "do anything"."The effect" of having been "affected" is...well, nothing. Ah? Complicated...!
Which one is more of a sacrifice?
Say, that I make a promise such as "I will 'not' ____ " for so many days (fill in the blank - eat, drink, smoke, drive, run, walk, dance, sing, etc.). You are intending NOT-TO-DO something that (most probably) you like a lot. You are willing not to do it in the future. You will - most probably - plan it out: you will see yourself in the future, NOT-DOING it in circumstances that YOU visualize. Your behavior will be one of stopping an action - first - and then, later, getting to the stage where you will stop the impulse of that action. A drive. A desire to do it will be stopped in tis tracks. Sounds like a "plan". Clear. Let's "do"it!
OK.So, huge forces will be generated. It almost feels already like a match between two arm wrestlers. The problem is that there are not two: it is the same force on either side. As if it were the same arm across the table, in 'bilocation' mode.
So, let's go for the nuance. How about practicing with situations where you "let be". You do not create a scenario. You do not establish the "10 ways in which to control __________". You just accept, willingly, that you will accept "what is". The emphasis is not in "not doing something", but in "being". In "watching". In a sense, it is somewhat more than "doing" : it is "being" present to whatever happens, watch it, live it, be fully present to it, and allowing it to happen.
The "doing" is "not doing"; not being an "effect", and thus, an engine for a retaliation, keeping on the cyclic energies going. How about that for a change!
Thus, there will be no reaction. No anticipatory preparations and schemes. No need to practice behaviors, for allowing is its own practice. You just "do it" by "not doing". Get it? Isn't it simpleR?
Sometimes I think I get it, then it elopes me...
Let me know how it goes...Lent has always been...
So....interesting...
Well, when she put it in facebook, I was practicing how to "play" in that social networking cyberfield, getting 'lost' all the time, not knowing what to do, etc., etc., and decided to "comment" on her post. The thought that came up was around the nuances of letting go, of allowing things to happen, or accepting what is, releasing, yielding to, observing, witnessing, not clinging, AND not that sense of "giving up" as in "I have it already and I am going to 'give it', 'offer it', donate it', 'take it away from me and give it to the other', type sense of the expression.
Yes - they are so similar. Yes, they might be the same "thing". Yes, yes, yes. But! if I think of it a little, there is a huge world of difference.
Is there a difference between "to act" and "to react"? In both, we "act". But we treat them differently. One is an agent of an 'effect', and thus 'affects' the other, and the other becomes "the effect" of having been "affected", and in turn starts becoming "the agent of an upcoming effect", and then.... Ah? Complicated...!
But think of it. Think of the complaints we hear daily, everywhere, "he/she did this (to me, to us), and I (in turn) did this ('cause he/she') had it coming to them/needed a lesson/I needed to protect myself", etc., etc. Act - react. React - Act, react -Act...Unending! We affect each other endlessly!
And then, how about "to act" and "not react"? Is there a difference between "to act" and "not react"? In both, we "act" - yes. But we treat them differently. One is an agent of an 'effect', and thus 'affects' the other, but the "other" then doesn't "do anything"."The effect" of having been "affected" is...well, nothing. Ah? Complicated...!
Which one is more of a sacrifice?
Say, that I make a promise such as "I will 'not' ____ " for so many days (fill in the blank - eat, drink, smoke, drive, run, walk, dance, sing, etc.). You are intending NOT-TO-DO something that (most probably) you like a lot. You are willing not to do it in the future. You will - most probably - plan it out: you will see yourself in the future, NOT-DOING it in circumstances that YOU visualize. Your behavior will be one of stopping an action - first - and then, later, getting to the stage where you will stop the impulse of that action. A drive. A desire to do it will be stopped in tis tracks. Sounds like a "plan". Clear. Let's "do"it!
OK.So, huge forces will be generated. It almost feels already like a match between two arm wrestlers. The problem is that there are not two: it is the same force on either side. As if it were the same arm across the table, in 'bilocation' mode.So, let's go for the nuance. How about practicing with situations where you "let be". You do not create a scenario. You do not establish the "10 ways in which to control __________". You just accept, willingly, that you will accept "what is". The emphasis is not in "not doing something", but in "being". In "watching". In a sense, it is somewhat more than "doing" : it is "being" present to whatever happens, watch it, live it, be fully present to it, and allowing it to happen.
The "doing" is "not doing"; not being an "effect", and thus, an engine for a retaliation, keeping on the cyclic energies going. How about that for a change!
Thus, there will be no reaction. No anticipatory preparations and schemes. No need to practice behaviors, for allowing is its own practice. You just "do it" by "not doing". Get it? Isn't it simpleR?
Sometimes I think I get it, then it elopes me...
Let me know how it goes...Lent has always been...
So....interesting...
Comments
Post a Comment
Share with me your thoughts, insights, reactions, your way of seeing it;. That is a real conversation. Thanks! ¡Gracias!