Emotions

 The hardest thing in life is to appropriately deal with emotions. By that I mean to incorporate them meaningfully rather than to disregard them, to dismiss them as unnecessary, unwanted, useless or as obstacles. 

As human beings we can conjure up any thought we desire in an instant. To some degree we may also perform any action we desire at any time given that it doesn't break the laws of physics. But the realm of emotions presents a curious paradox in that what may 'seem right' might not at all 'feel right'. At times our feelings are at odds with our conscience, our ethics, our morals or sense of worth. 

Often we 'do the right thing' amidst feeling quite uncomfortable about it. Or we may delight in doing something we know is quite sinister and unwarranted, yet go ahead regardless. So what rôle do emotions play in shaping our character? What is shame for? Regret? Remorse? Hate? Vindictiveness? Fear? Love? Laziness? 

Domesticated animals with proper training might appear to display human traits such as calm, sombre patience, austerity and charity, discipline and obedience; but really they are just acting the part in expectation of a future reward. A way to know this for sure is to withhold any 'treats' (rewards) for a period of time and soon one will witness them reverting back to animalistic sense gratification behaviours. In training them with 'human' traits they are reduced to robots imitating learnt patterns. 

Human emotions - or for that matter, dog emotions - are a complex mixture of tastes (the Sanskrit term is rasa) whether they be positive (likes and preferences) or negative (dislikes and aversions). In one way these can all be classed as anarthas, unwanted things that get in the way of self-realisation, because they collectively represent impediments. The true transcendentalist is really not concerned with anything material, whether it be good or bad. Emotions can definitely be obstacles whenever they cloud our judgment. How many times have we made a bad decision based on being too emotional about a concern? How often do we let our partiality grant undue preference to an unworthy recipient? 

Let's take a hypothetical situation - one we would rather avoid at all costs. Picture two children trapped in a burning house. One is unknown to us, the other is our offspring who unfortunately is inflicted with a terminal disease with little time left to live. Who would we rescue? The child with the potential of having their whole life ahead of them, or our son or daughter who will be dead in a matter of months anyway? 

Of course, without even thinking most of us would instinctively rescue our close family. Emotions aside, it makes more sense to rescue the unknown child with greater lifetime potential. Altruism is borne by what is beneficial for the greater good rather than selfish considerations. 

All other things aside, the singlemost important factor in our lives is what makes us happy. This is 100% determined by our emotions. The happiness felt by a poverty-stricken child upon receiving a gift of a few beans may be far greater than what a corporate businessman feels making a couple of million dollars in a takeover. It's all relative, and it all comes down to rasa, the emotion we feel. 

Sometimes we need a pat on the back, sometimes we get more out of doing something for someone anonymously. It all depends. When I played in a band I'd get a buzz out of the audience cheering at gigs. But as a busker I sensed the appreciation more when a passer-by chucked in a gold coin for a Beatles or Stones cover. That is a truly individually motivated action, and one I learnt to cherish. Often drunkards leaning on the bar don't even clap because they are too busy using one of their hands to hold their beverage.