The Anesthetization Trap - #11

Many approaches to “spiritual evolution” aim to encourage paths of “ascetic” renunciation.

There is the idea that renunciation is important for “spiritual evolution,” but this idea is nonsense.

Some believe that if they can experience the result (such as the peaceful effects of meditation or isolation) for long enough time that this will eventually trigger enlightenment. They are confusing the effect for the cause and the cause for the effect.

These approaches seek to encourage the individual (student, candidate, etc.) to detach themselves from the “problems” of everyday life, renouncing bodily pleasures and its natural needs (abstinence). They isolate themselves from others and anesthetize themselves from their emotions, which are generally considered negative.

A “peaceful” feeling is symptomatic of meditation, isolation and changes in perspective (realisation) which comes with enlightenment. However, without the changes in perspective the “peace” will disappear as soon as the circumstances change.

This means cutting yourself off from sex, good food, entertainment, social communication, or many other things.

There are two kinds of renunciation:

• The first is abstinence, which is cutting yourself off from “distractions” that you believe are not in line with your “spiritual evolution.”

• The second is anesthetization, which is trying to stop feeling emotions that you believe are not in line with your “spiritual evolution.”

In short, abstinence is the renunciation of certain things (such as good food and sex) and anesthetization is the renunciation of certain emotions (such as anger, envy, lust, etc.).

Many “spiritual” gurus push for “emotional anesthetization,” that is that you should not feel “bad” emotions. They also push for “renunciation” of certain things–giving up attachment to sensory pleasures, material things, and even relationships. Having things is the opposite of “renunciation.”

However, attachments can be useful. If you are not attached to your health, you will lose it. If you are not attached to your money, you will lose it. Such things are important to keeping you alive. Putting effort into renouncing pleasurable things is not going to make you “evolve spiritually.” Through effort, you will just pretend that you don’t want those things–but deep inside yourself you will still want them.

If you put effort into abstaining from pleasurable things, you become attached to “non-attachment,” which means you are attached to the idea of being more “holy” than other people. You are putting effort into renouncing pleasurable things so you can tell yourself you are superior to other people from a “spiritual perspective” because of this renunciation.

Any renunciation obtained from effort will only result in you pretending to not be attached. It is very important not to create a new attachment to the story of non-attachment by pretending not to be attached. Attachments arise either out of simple preferences, or because they are caused by a story. If the attachment is caused by a story, the only way to remove it is by realizing that it is caused by a story.

If the attachment is not caused by a story, it cannot be removed. That’s because it’s a simple preference instead of an attachment caused by a story.

Both attachment and non-attachment can be healthy or unhealthy.

Healthy attachment is when there is no story behind the attachment–we can call it a “natural” attachment. It is a simple preference. Healthy attachment is “caring.” For example, a healthy attachment can be attachment to useful things like your health and your money. In order to protect them, you will not eat a lot of junk food and you will not waste money on excessive gambling.

Unhealthy attachment is being attached to something because of a story. Let’s say you are attached to the story that you are the richest man in the town. It could be a fact–you may be the richest man in the town. But you could also be attached to the “story” that you are the richest man in town–it makes you feel good to believe this. It is part of your identity.

For example, let’s say a person moves to town who is richer than you. This does not change how much money you have, but now you are angry, disappointed, or frustrated. The reason for your pain is because the “story” of you being the richest man in the town–this story about your identity–is no longer true. There is an attachment to the story that you are the richest man in the town, and when it stops being true then it produces suffering–because it affects your identity.

Let’s compare these two types of attachment.

Healthy attachment is “caring about” or having a “preference for” something.

Unhealthy attachment is attachment caused by a story.

“I care about being healthy” is a healthy attachment.

But “I ‘should not’ be sick,” is only a belief that I should not be sick. It is not caring about being healthy.

This is “caring” (healthy attachment) versus “believing” (unhealthy attachment). If I care about being healthy, I will do things like eating the right foods and exercising, and if I get sick, I get sick. But if I believe I should not get sick, it means only that I have that belief–that I should not be sick–and I won’t take any action to avoid being sick. Then, if I get sick, I’ll feel it’s wrong I got sick, I’ll be angry that I’m sick, and I’ll feel it’s unfair–I would be ruled by a story of how things “should” be.

Healthy non-attachment is not being attached to stories of “should” and stories of identity, including not being attached to the story of you being not attached.

Unhealthy non-attachment is two things.

The first is being attached to the story of you being non-attached. This attachment to non-attachment becomes something that defines your identity and inflates your ego. The second is putting effort into trying to be not attached–it is “pretend” non-attachment. You are pretending to be non-attached, putting effort into behaving in a non-attached way.

For example, during an argument, your partner insults you:

• In healthy non-attachment, you respond by setting a boundary. You say something such as, “Don’t speak to me that way again.” It is healthy non-attachment because you are not attached to a story saying that you shouldn’t be bothered by an insult. You prefer not to be insulted, so you set a boundary.

• In unhealthy non-attachment, you are attached to a story of non-attachment that says, for example, “I should not care about insults.” When you are insulted, you have to pretend you don’t care instead of reacting by setting a boundary. It is unhealthy non-attachment: You are attached to a belief that you should not be bothered.

They promote a way of life that seeks the “purification” of body and “soul” from needs, passions, inclinations, and desires, favoring instead a “pure” life devoted entirely to “contemplation” and a questionable form of “spirituality.”

They make an assumption that certain things are “good,” certain things are “bad,” certain things are “pure,” others are “impure,” and so on. They believe that there is something wrong with needs, passions, inclinations, and desires.

Why would they believe such a thing, especially if those needs and passions don’t hurt anyone? If you want to have consensual sex, eat delicious food, play video games all day long, or you want luxurious things–and you have the money to do it, and it’s what you want, why not? What’s the problem?

The only reason to forcefully give up things you like would be to boost your ego so you can believe you are more “spiritual” than other people. You would be losing something real to acquire something fake.

This outlook on life often leads to detachment from our fellow human beings and the human community, from the turmoil of everyday life and the “problems” of existence (money, work, conflicts, and so on).

The often paradoxical outcome of such paths is captured in an anecdote:

A man, after a long period of retreat dedicated to “contemplation” and “spiritual life,” believed he had found “inner peace.”

He then decided to share his experience with others. As soon as he got off the plane, he went to the railway station, where a passerby bumped into him in the crowd. He instantly lost his temper and began swearing, shouting furiously at the person who had run into him.

This story teaches us that “enlightenment” achieved outside the context and conditions of “ordinary” existence has little substance. This is because, as soon as the idyllic context in which we “achieved” that “result” changes, the alleged “results” obtained are immediately lost.

In an artificial environment where you never get triggered, it is easy to believe that your lack of reactions or “negative” emotions means you are enlightened. But once you go back to the real world, when a trigger happens, your reaction to the trigger makes you realize that you are not enlightened at all. You realize that you still tell yourself many stories.

If someone pushes you in the railway station and you immediately get angry, you will realize that you haven’t dismantled any stories. When you were in an artificial environment where there were no triggers, you were never triggered–so you did not react, so you did not realize that you still believed many stories. You believed you were enlightened only because there were no triggers that “tested” you.

Enlightenment is realizing that certain beliefs that you have are only stories. In order to realize that those beliefs are only stories, you must first become aware of the existence of those stories–and this requires external triggers to trigger the reaction that is caused by the story.

If the cause of your anger is a story, then the anger will go away only when you dismantle the story that causes it–when you realize the story is just a story. Once you dismantle the story that people “should not” push you in the railway station, the anger goes away. It may still feel unpleasant, but you don’t believe the pushing “should not” have happened. Once you remove the story that people “should not” push you, then there is no trigger that can make you angry.

Isolating yourself from triggers does not lead to real enlightenment. Isolating yourself from triggers means only that you are not being triggered.

An indication of enlightenment is when you experience a trigger and, instead of impulsively reacting, you consider what to do and you respond accordingly. You do not react to the trigger because the story that causes it has been dismantled. Since the story is dismantled, you cannot make a judgment–because judgment is based on a story, and the story is no longer there. For example, when someone pushes you in the train station, it will still feel unpleasant. However, since you no longer tell yourself the story that people “should not” push you, you do not react with anger. The trigger–the pushing–will have no impact because the story you used to tell yourself has been dismantled.

The “external” events of daily life are not obstacles to enlightenment. On the contrary, they provide a positive stimulus. They enable us to know ourselves better, to observe our reactions and behaviors, and to recognize the stories in which we are caught.

When you apply pressure to an orange and you squeeze it, what comes out is what’s inside. What comes out is always what’s inside it. It’s never about the pressure but it’s about what’s inside.

Living in the world is an opportunity to be triggered by things that happen to us. We need those triggers so we can do introspection when they happen. We can observe our reactions and behavior, which helps us identify stories that cause certain reactions and behavior. We need to experience those triggers to understand ourselves better. If there is no trigger, then we will not be able to identify the stories behind those reactions.

Something happens to us and we can ask, “Why do I feel like this in relation to this event?” To do introspection, we need to be in environments that give us “problems.” They are opportunities to know ourselves better.

On the other hand, the absence of stimuli leads to anesthetization and makes it impossible to know ourselves in relation to life events.

Except for perhaps a little peace and quiet at the end of the day, isolating yourself is a terrible idea. If you are never triggered, then you will not know yourself–because you need triggers in order to react and then to try to find the stories behind your reaction.

Paradoxically, the greater the chaos in which we are caught up (within reasonable limits), the greater the opportunity to identify stories through introspection.

Of course there are limits. If you suffer too much pain, you won’t be able to process it. But if you have a lot of problems and they don’t cause you to lose your ability to function, they can be a useful opportunity for introspection.

For this reason, it is better to seek true enlightenment through full and authentic participation in everyday life.

Places like retreats and “getaways” are useless. The place to seek enlightenment is in daily life, in the city where you live and work, and in the places where you encounter your boss, your spouse, your friends, your opponents, your rivals, and your children. Of course these encounters are sometimes going to be difficult, even painful–but they are going to trigger you, and that’s your opportunity to engage in introspection and think about why you react the way you do and what stories are hiding behind those reactions.

In summary, the reason that leads some to renounce is the same one that leads others to accumulate: the assertion of the ego.