That which you cling to will define you (The case for Moderation)

That which you cling to will define you.

The attachment of material possessions is simply the objective expression of attachment. The subjective expression of attachment is the that which the objective attachments ultimately serve. The subjective expression of attachment is to that which one assumes to be self.

It is the attachment to the supposed self from which one's desire to stay rooted in any specific belief or direction originates. (Belief is direction.)

One clings to the supposition of self out of a desire to be secure in the face of upheaval (chaos). This is the echo of a response to physical pain and physical death which has carried over into the psyche of humanity. The egoic forces are focused on the survival of self in a mental pantomime of preserving the body. Ultimately this is a psychological expression of genetic desires.

When faced with a frustration, clinging to the same definition of self can become the actual force which prevents one from realizing their desires and fulfilling their motivations. Therefore, that which you cling to will define you. This is the true meaning of "Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword", for your very life and death shall be defined by that which you cling to; one's attempt to constrain the self to a rigid definition, at all costs, or one's attempt to maintain a sense of conviction about anything, at all costs.

Let the argument go, allow your neighbor to be right sometimes no matter how illogical it may appear. You will find a path to greater peace and harmony there, as you develop a harmonious (synergistic) relationship *in spite of* of your differences, than if you were to be unable to develop any relationship *because* of your differences.

Surely this logic, supersedes the local logic; which you can release your attachment to in order to find harmony (symbiosis) with your neighbor.

Nice post.

Looking deeper still, the need to have others agree or the need to "be right" stems from insecurity, except if its only played as a game as some do it here.

But what kind of world would we live in if we got everyone to agree with us? We`d live in an anti-diverse world of bland sameness. So on that level demanding agreement with ones beliefs and concepts = wanting sameness = stagnation and ultimately = death.

Appreciation of Diversity on the other hand, then = Life. Respect and Appreciation of others Beliefs has the side effect of Peace. Differences then become the cause of Fascination rather than Strife.

Too much of an attachment to ones own beliefs automatically creates Aversions toward the beliefs of others.

The need to change others beliefs (which is quite impossible) is also indicative that the evangelizing person is not entirely restful in his own convictions. Were he truly convinced of his own view he would not feel the urge to continually confirm it and seek confirmation.

That which is truly true need not be confirmed, justified or defended because it is self-evident.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Skyfloating


Thank you Sky Floating for both your compliments on the thread as well as extending the ideas into even deeper insights.