********
Question: What's the complementary opposite of equanimity?
First let me explain the terms as I understand them.
Equanimity is a term denoting a posture, perspective, or relationship. For instance, it could be described as the still point between two dichotomous thought/feelings embodied in the happiness/sadness duality.
Equanimity is not “a state of counter-balance to a negative.” I don’t see it as a state at all, except in the process of objectifying it in order to talk about it. Rather, it is better understood as a center point of no value between positive and negative values; the dualities which we cling to, or recoil from, in our daily lives.
Equanimity does not have a material counterpart. It is a relationship that we attain - a posture, an attitude, an understanding, and/or acceptance of - with regard to the dualities that are present to our senses.
The term complementary opposite, to me refers to an opposite in the world of dualities which creates a “0” (so to speak) - as if I said, “the complementary opposite of -5 is +5,” and therefore we have “0.”
A “complementary” opposite is one that leaves no trace of either. It compliments one part of a duality so exactly that there is no longer either pole.
Now to answer the question “what is the complementary opposite of equanimity?” My response is, “Grasping" or "Attachment." Let me elaborate.
Equanimity is a “letting go” of preference, judgment, or we might say “letting go of the attachment to” these attitudes.
Grasping (or Aversion) refers to the action that comprises the attachment to these attitudes. Both letting go and grasping, or equanimity and attachment, are relationships not specific entities or things. They all require an object in order to refer to a specific thing.
Thus, if we suggest that a person is attached to “X” (or some particular result), that attachment will be eliminated by acquiring a posture of equanimity, or a releasing of our attachment to that particular “X.” It’s not as though the person will let go of “X” and then have something called “not-X” - “X” is merely negated. Our language makes it seem reasonable to say “the more equanimity we have, the less attachment we will suffer from,” but that is misleading.
Equanimity is not a thing that can be added or subtracted as apples in a basket. Equanimity is the relationship of having let go, or having dropped (a [-] minus) the object of attachment (a [+] positive) to which one clings. It correlates to the letting go of, or releasing, the dissecting process of dualism and thereby nullifying that duality.
Perhaps it would be helpful to see equanimity as an act of dropping (-) that object someone has grasped onto, and therein has become attached (+) to. For instance, if a person is standing in the yard empty-handed (0) and someone throws a ball and the person catches (grasps onto) it, the ball has been added (+). If the person subsequently drops the ball (-) however, he returns to the original state (0). The process of dropping (equanimity) refers to the act of “letting go of.”
Another picture with the same general analogy; a boy stands in the yard and his friend throws five apples to him. That would be 5 apples added to his person. He can maintain a posture whereby these five apples are attached to his person or he may choose to get rid of them. It will be a complementary opposite of the acquisition of these 5 apples, if he chooses to drop or throw the 5 apples away. On the other hand if he decides to take one apple home with him, he will remain attached (+) to one apple and the action is no longer complementary.
Perhaps what I’m suggesting has to be imagined metaphorically. If so, I hope the situation described as follows will be helpful.
We’re driving along a country road and we see the carcass of a newly killed fawn laying in the weeds next the road. We have some sort of emotional reaction. Let’s say we feel sad or perhaps angry with God or in some other way, we suffer as a result of what we see. This would be a negative reaction and noted above as an attachment or grasping (+), which arises out of our learning or experiences, having to do with baby deer or animals in general. Our history then becomes the condition for the arising of our suffering, in this case negative thoughts/feelings. We might even imagine acts of terrorism against the driver who ran it over.
In terms of my + and – discussion above, the negative emotional reaction, or thinking, is a +, or an addition to the simple registering of data. There is instead, the forming of a judgment or preference beyond, or more (+) than, just an observation.
However if we realize that the fawn’s death is just a natural part of the cycle of life and death, and that the carcass will decompose and become the food for, or condition, assisting many other arising forms in our world; the grass, flowers, food for scavenging birds and other animals, etc., our posture changes. At some point in this process, perhaps our teaching on Dependent-Arising comes back to us and we reach that moment where suffering disappears (-). Letting go arises and an acceptance is achieved which might be called “equanimity in the face of what is.”
Leading a life of equanimity is not a matter of going from anger to happiness, where the emotional pendulum swings in the opposite direction past zero. Nor is it about becoming an unfeeling automaton.
Equanimity is a posture wherein we are able to be with “what is” without attaching to either pole of a duality; pleasant/unpleasant or happy/sad etc. And it is a goal to aspire to - not a place where we can expect to arrive and set up housekeeping forever. When the preference (emotion, or attitude, etc.) is let go of, we will experience the balance or acceptance of what is (as-it-is). Equanimity arises as an attitude or relationship to our humanity without becoming attached to its extremes, and in this example, balances suffering and non-suffering in the Buddhist sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment