I've long railed against the word, "should." It's especially dangerous when we use it against ourselves, as in "I should be [insert various judgmental adjectives or participles]. When we should on ourselves, we are resisting "what is," which leads to suffering, and we are laying down a guilt trip, which likewise leads to no good. I wrote the following in my LiveJournal (long since abandoned) on November 13, 2006:
I think I have written about how using the word "should" - aloud or in our mental commentary - may well be a sign that we are in the land of judgment, which means resistance to what is, which leads to suffering.
Today, listening to Eckhart [Tolle] on the trip to campus (and he was NOT discussing this point but because I was conscious my creativity emerged), I realized that "should" is a past and future word! Any time we say "should" we are either saying something about the past (what "should" have happened) or the future (what "should" happen). I just cannot figure out a way to use "should" in reference to THIS moment. Even if I say "This moment right NOW should be different," by the time I utter or think that statement, it is too late to apply it to the present moment.
I think Jack Kerouac would dig my analysis, as it aligns nicely with Buddhist teachings.
In McCarthy's article, he recounts how after repeatedly peppering Ginsberg with questions, the beat poet said:
Should. Should. Should. Should. Should. You keep making this sound, "Should." I don't think anybody "should" do anything.
McCarthy got the point.
Do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment