"Man sacrifices his
health
in order to make
money,
then he sacrifices his
money
to recuperate his
health."
... The Dalai Lama
This essay,
A Life You Love II,
is the companion piece to
A Life You Love.
If you were to ask each person in your orbit what the characteristics
of a life they love are (if they're living a life they love) or would
be (if they're not), it's quite likely you'd get a wide variety of
answers.
Many of those
answers
would focus on what they'd have if they lived a life they
loved. They'd have
wealth.
They'd have a home. They'd have lots of free time. Other
answers
would focus on what they'd do if they lived a life they
loved. They'd read more. They'd work out. They'd engage themselves in
the activities that
make a real difference
for people (just by living their lives, they'd
make a difference
in
the world).
When I ask myself the same
question
ie when I ask myself "What does (or what would) a life you love, look
like Laurence?", it certainly includes some of the above ie having the
things I love to have, and doing the things I love to do. But the sum
total of all of the above would only account for a tiny fraction of
what a life I love to live, looks like. Listen: I would forgo in a
split-second all the things I have, to live a life I love, and I would
forgo in a split-second all the things I do, to live a life I love, in
favor of the being of living a life I love - in other
words, living a life you love is a way of being, not having or doing.
What would a life totally devoid of having the things I love to have,
look like? If I didn't have the things I love to have, could I still
live a life I love? What would a life totally devoid of doing the
things I love to do, look like? If I didn't do the things I love to do,
could I still live a life I love? At first,
the answers
to both
questions
are likely to hover in the "Maybe", "Hmmm ...", and "Yes and no"
ballparks even though
the questions
ferret out something much deeper.
So: the quarrel I have with both
questions,
is what they impose. Can you only live a life you love when you have
the things you love to have? Can you only live a life you love when you
do the things you love to do? If
the answer
to either
question
is "Yes", then the life you have is never enough. Both
questions
impose that for the life you have to be enough ie for the life you have
to be a life you love, you must have the things you love
to have, and you must do the things you love to do ... but lived by
itself, the life you have can never be enough ie by itself, the life
you have can never be a life you love. Do you get the trap we're on the
edge of? We aspire to having the things we love to have, and doing the
things we love to do, on top of our lives are never
enough.
That's not satisfactory to me. It plain wouldn't work if the ground
of being of life is always and only never enough until and
unless I add something to it. No, the life I love is a life in which
there's joy in just
being alive,
whatever I have and whatever I do notwithstanding, in which
the way it is
and
who I am,
is enough, whatever I have and whatever I do notwithstanding, and which
I experience as exquisite, whatever I have and whatever I do
notwithstanding.
Living a life you love is then a matter of not having the things you
have, get in your way (you live a life you love regardless
of the things you love to have) as well as a matter of not having the
things you do, get in your way (you live a life you love regardless of
the things you love to do). If you allow either of them to get in your
way, that's evidence of not realizing that
the way it is
and
who you are,
is enough ie that's evidence of being unclear on the concept.
