If anyone has ever read Victor Frankl's book Man's Search for Meaning, they probably might have remembered a part in it where one of the concentration camp survivors recounts how he managed to keep his spirit alive. He used a photo of his wife to remind him and keep connected with a meaningful relationship. Even when this man had not seen his wife in such a long time, he is able to maintain a spirit connection with her. (Interested readers can also refer a book called Kything by Savory and Berne, where the authors explore the notion of spiritually connecting with someone who is not near).
A skeptic is likely to wonder, is there such a thing as a 'real' connection through imagining someone else? But I think there are two problems here. The first is that we are always bound to frame others according to our perceptions and memories, even when they are present in front of us. I am reminded of a story where the psychologist Carl Jung related: when a husband and wife get into bed, they are really sleeping with 6 people: themselves, their parents, and their partner's parents. This is because of the influence of the past relationships on what one experiences in the present. In this sense, there is never a true 'in person' encounter. If there is one, it is much harder to come by, and it is also challenged by the question: who is separate from others?
The second problem is more logistical. I find that many people around me, including myself at times ,tend to be 'realist' by nature. They might argue: it's not about whether something is comforting or 'feels meaningful', but more whether it is really there or not. But I wonder, where does this idea of reality come from? A lot of times, a person faces a challenge and then says, "it's not in my cards for this to turn out this way". But does anyone really know what is possible or not possible? If my intention is to benefit someone else, would that intention not cause me to make steps to benefiting the other person? On the other hand, if I simply conclude that the situation is not probable or possible, I may not even venture to try or to experiment with different possibilities. It seems that one needs to be careful in assigning value or judgment on what is 'real' and 'not real', since that judgment itself can shape a person's unfolding reality.
But to go back to the more concrete example mentioned in Frankl's book: I think using an image to inspire one could work to alleviate some kinds of suffering. But it only seems to work when one fully knows or accepts that the energy to sustain that image comes from the mind. If I try to pin that image to a 'real' person who is supposed to arise at my wish, I am bound to feel disillusioned after a while. I end up waiting for the 'real' person to arrive, when I am only engaging the image. I think it's because deep down inside, I have rejected the image in favor of the real person who is supposed to be behind the image. My thought about the image struggles with my thought of the 'reality behind' the image. If I see the image for what it is without connecting it to anything else, then the image no longer induces suffering.
Pragmatically and ethically speaking, having images can be a blessing. With images of teachers or those whom I love or feel inspired, I can be inspired to be a positive person. Without those images, life might at times feel bland or somehow a bit 'too' realist. On the other hand, relying on images to achieve desired results is a bit like setting oneself up for disappointment and trouble. I think the key is not to treat an image as a means to something else, but as an intrinsically valuable thought. In that way, I am free to adopt that image when lacking inspiration, but I put it down if it causes me to feel anxiety, desire or vexation.
No comments:
Post a Comment