I'm not so worried about meeting difficult people. There aren't too many traps with them. The ones I am afraid of are those who appear good, but have hidden problems. I don't want to be the fish that falls for the shiny bait, only to find a hook in my throat.
The Mr Wrongs are Easy.
Beware of Mr Almost Right.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Thursday, December 26, 2019
SHORTY+SHOUTOUT: Enlivening is not inner thriving.
"Enlivening is not inner thriving. If you don't have enough inner thriving and depend too much on enlivening, then it's a shallow world."
A commentary of trolls on the internet, but also the practice in general of praising your own views and denigrating others. For them, it is enlivening and can make them feel powerful. But it's not very fulfilling.
I would extend the "enlivening" label to the clinging to sensual pleasures.
-Gil Fronsdal
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
SHORTY: Not my monkeys, not my circus.
These holidays, it's been easy to get entangled in old habits. Like getting sucked in to arguments on the right way to wash dishes.
It's been helpful to remember:
Not my monkeys, not my circus.
It's been helpful to remember:
Not my monkeys, not my circus.
Friday, December 20, 2019
Love not based on your looks
Spend some time in any populated place in the world, and you'll see it: people are trying to look better. What do they hope to gain from looking better?
Well, duh, love! (sarcasm). If you look better, you have a higher chance of attracting a partner. And friends. And success at work. And of keeping your partner. I don't want to lose my partner because I've let my looks slide. And ever little bit counts. So, why give them a reason to leave you because your tushy is mushy. Firm it up!
That phrase, "Every little bit counts", can be helpful and can be dangerous. If it's something worthwhile, every little bit does help build the practice to get there. If it's a dead end or fantasy, like attaching to looks, then every little bit is a waste of time.
I'd love to tell you that looks don't matter in how you are perceived, but it definitely, totally does. I remember a Tyra Banks episode where she wore a fat suit for a few days. She lamented, "Why are people so mean!?!" I have a fat friend (who is fit, just big) and she calls it "fat invisibility". In my own situation of living out of a van for many months of the year, I don't always look very clean. And, when I don't look so clean, people treat me different and leave me alone. Since I like being in the shadows, observing, I call this using the "ugly stick" to hide myself. A shirt with some paint stains or a couple of rips (not the strategic rips of the luxe, faded look) instantly signals, "not someone with money".
But, this is not to lament how the world treats people based on their looks. Instead, I've thought about this puzzle: is there a love that isn't based on your looks? Certainly, don't look for it in the mainstream dating market. Even the alternative dating market has its visual signifiers of attractiveness. Well, maybe family provides unconditioned love? I'm not so sure. How many parents have the mindset, "I don't care how you look, I just want you to be happy"? Much more common seems to be parents caring and helping and further enforcing beauty standards or conventional success standards (looking rich). Either through modeling behavior (mom with make-up, dad with macho physical strength) or nagging (you should look X) or even a pragmatic sense ("I don't care how you look, but society and your friends will care. Maybe just a little, to fit in."). There are so many cues that your looks do matter.
So not dating, and not family. Maybe family gives unconditioned love? Friends are a minefield too, some mix of family and dating dynamics. There are loyal friends, and they don't base it on looks. But it may be conditioned on you holding certain beliefs and opinions.
So, what about at the workplace? Nope. Workplaces are run by people, and people have all sorts of hidden biases. Similarly, if you get pulled over by a cop, it absolutely matters if you are driving a 20 year old Honda minivan (me) or a new Lexus (also me, different time period).
I really want places of religion to be a place where love is not based on your looks. But I'm not sure. Religion, especially popular religion, is a mix of standards of conduct and the cultural values. Just look at Joel Osteen and Kanye West. I think they argue by their actions that God loves richness. They might never say this directly (lookup: do they say it directly) because it's not culturally acceptable to point out that God loves rich people more. But, just look at the conformity in the audience. Do they go looking to save the souls of the homeless and those who have fallen through the cracks? I have a saying, that the number one reason people do things is to feel good about themselves. And if helping homeless doesn't fit in that self-focused agenda (and sometimes self-focused doesn't look like "selfish"), no matter what a religious tradition stands for, the religion in practice isn't going to actually help the homeless. Similarly, if helping homeless does fit, you bet it often will be done with a sense of making us feel good about ourselves.
So, it seems to me that there is a great need for this: a love that is not based on looks. With a tiny corner of the world that offers this, people won't be held hostage to a culture that is focusing on the scarcity of love and attention by playing at an arms race for more. The reason for this goes from pragmatic to revolutionary. In the pragmatic side, what would it be like if women (and men) weren't saddled with the 1-2 hours a day making themselves pretty and presentable. Programmers have figured this out... let people dress how they want to (within reason). And treat people based on what they do, not how they look. (But, that is changing, and even programmers have their "codes".)
On the revolutionary side, creating a love that is not based on your looks is deeply healing and gives people an alternative way to structure their lives. It is a major safety square in a world where it seems feeling unsafe is pandemic.
Some people do want the world to be remade in their image or according to their views (liberal and conservative). They will never be satisfied. But a great deal of people don't want their asses worshiped or wiped... they would be greatly helped just by having someone see them, listen, and care about them. Someone to cheer them on and give them high 5s, to hold their hand (physically or virtually, holding space) when things are going all wrong.
There is something much better than people trying to chase love and acceptance by getting pretty and getting the attention of being pretty (which we're all supposed to want), and hence chasing something which will never be stable. There are some who are able to have consistent love from a specific partner. But, more likely, that love will morph and not be what we bargained for, or we will change in what we need. Love from a specific person is far from guaranteed or guarantee-able (people die, after all). But love from someone (that someone changes, let it change), and especially love and self-esteem from oneself, is something that persists over time.
Well, duh, love! (sarcasm). If you look better, you have a higher chance of attracting a partner. And friends. And success at work. And of keeping your partner. I don't want to lose my partner because I've let my looks slide. And ever little bit counts. So, why give them a reason to leave you because your tushy is mushy. Firm it up!
That phrase, "Every little bit counts", can be helpful and can be dangerous. If it's something worthwhile, every little bit does help build the practice to get there. If it's a dead end or fantasy, like attaching to looks, then every little bit is a waste of time.
I'd love to tell you that looks don't matter in how you are perceived, but it definitely, totally does. I remember a Tyra Banks episode where she wore a fat suit for a few days. She lamented, "Why are people so mean!?!" I have a fat friend (who is fit, just big) and she calls it "fat invisibility". In my own situation of living out of a van for many months of the year, I don't always look very clean. And, when I don't look so clean, people treat me different and leave me alone. Since I like being in the shadows, observing, I call this using the "ugly stick" to hide myself. A shirt with some paint stains or a couple of rips (not the strategic rips of the luxe, faded look) instantly signals, "not someone with money".
But, this is not to lament how the world treats people based on their looks. Instead, I've thought about this puzzle: is there a love that isn't based on your looks? Certainly, don't look for it in the mainstream dating market. Even the alternative dating market has its visual signifiers of attractiveness. Well, maybe family provides unconditioned love? I'm not so sure. How many parents have the mindset, "I don't care how you look, I just want you to be happy"? Much more common seems to be parents caring and helping and further enforcing beauty standards or conventional success standards (looking rich). Either through modeling behavior (mom with make-up, dad with macho physical strength) or nagging (you should look X) or even a pragmatic sense ("I don't care how you look, but society and your friends will care. Maybe just a little, to fit in."). There are so many cues that your looks do matter.
So not dating, and not family. Maybe family gives unconditioned love? Friends are a minefield too, some mix of family and dating dynamics. There are loyal friends, and they don't base it on looks. But it may be conditioned on you holding certain beliefs and opinions.
So, what about at the workplace? Nope. Workplaces are run by people, and people have all sorts of hidden biases. Similarly, if you get pulled over by a cop, it absolutely matters if you are driving a 20 year old Honda minivan (me) or a new Lexus (also me, different time period).
I really want places of religion to be a place where love is not based on your looks. But I'm not sure. Religion, especially popular religion, is a mix of standards of conduct and the cultural values. Just look at Joel Osteen and Kanye West. I think they argue by their actions that God loves richness. They might never say this directly (lookup: do they say it directly) because it's not culturally acceptable to point out that God loves rich people more. But, just look at the conformity in the audience. Do they go looking to save the souls of the homeless and those who have fallen through the cracks? I have a saying, that the number one reason people do things is to feel good about themselves. And if helping homeless doesn't fit in that self-focused agenda (and sometimes self-focused doesn't look like "selfish"), no matter what a religious tradition stands for, the religion in practice isn't going to actually help the homeless. Similarly, if helping homeless does fit, you bet it often will be done with a sense of making us feel good about ourselves.
So, it seems to me that there is a great need for this: a love that is not based on looks. With a tiny corner of the world that offers this, people won't be held hostage to a culture that is focusing on the scarcity of love and attention by playing at an arms race for more. The reason for this goes from pragmatic to revolutionary. In the pragmatic side, what would it be like if women (and men) weren't saddled with the 1-2 hours a day making themselves pretty and presentable. Programmers have figured this out... let people dress how they want to (within reason). And treat people based on what they do, not how they look. (But, that is changing, and even programmers have their "codes".)
On the revolutionary side, creating a love that is not based on your looks is deeply healing and gives people an alternative way to structure their lives. It is a major safety square in a world where it seems feeling unsafe is pandemic.
Some people do want the world to be remade in their image or according to their views (liberal and conservative). They will never be satisfied. But a great deal of people don't want their asses worshiped or wiped... they would be greatly helped just by having someone see them, listen, and care about them. Someone to cheer them on and give them high 5s, to hold their hand (physically or virtually, holding space) when things are going all wrong.
There is something much better than people trying to chase love and acceptance by getting pretty and getting the attention of being pretty (which we're all supposed to want), and hence chasing something which will never be stable. There are some who are able to have consistent love from a specific partner. But, more likely, that love will morph and not be what we bargained for, or we will change in what we need. Love from a specific person is far from guaranteed or guarantee-able (people die, after all). But love from someone (that someone changes, let it change), and especially love and self-esteem from oneself, is something that persists over time.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Amygdala not firing
I had two helpful (for now) realizations during my meditation this morning.
First: Amygdala not firing. It seems like the amygdala (or my current conception of it) is at the center of fear, and the 4F's. Accordingly, these strong emotions are a big part of our personality. A motto might be, "It is what triggers us that defines us". I think this is actually a very apt phrase to describe how I've seen myself and others. "Trigger" needs to be defined broadly. Trigger here is about the amygdala firing. So it includes things that set us off to be passionate, or fearful, or indignant, or soft-hearted. So, the pleasures of meditation (in Jhana, for example) is actually not being triggered, or not being triggered much by the usual things. That is, we don't become super passionate about the breath, super fearful that we won't have it, super indignant, or super soft-hearted*. We go for calm. And the calm is the negation of clinging and triggered. Even as I write this, I am excited and trying to grasp at my understanding of the thoughts. But this is definitely NOT a state of Jhana. There is clinging, albeit beneficial, to write out a description of these thoughts. I'm trying to put down a marker and breadcrumbs. But, when I find my way back, the experience itself is about the negation of triggers and the negation of most activation (except activation on the breath, and then, only enough to keep the hungry-mind occupied, kinda like giving a kid an ipad with wifi turned off, or giving a dog a chew toy so they are occupied). I felt a strong identification with the notion: the amygdala is not firing.
*soft-heartedness is related to Metta. So, when doing metta, yes, aim for that kind of amygdala firing. No ill will. And actively goodwill. In Jhana1 on breath, we don't do soft-heartedness. We do aim for no ill-will. But we also aim for no goodwill(!). We aim for simpleness and attention. The amygdala not firing (at least not much?).
Second: There was a shell around me, and I let all sensations enter "me", but bounce off that shell. Thoughts would enter my mental "airspace", register on my radar, and then bounce off. I recognized my habitual mind considering that everything that hit my shell was me and important and had to be invested in. But, this time, I just kept the shell sealed and the sensations, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness stayed outside the shell. Inside the shell, I filled it with breath sensations and breath feelings. I took the advice that thoughts helpful to the breath are 100% allowed. And, I used as my test of helpful breath thoughts as those that actually connect me to the pattern of my breath, i.e., the in and out and further noticing of even subtler parts of the breath. An un-useful thought would be anything that was related to the thought but didn't follow the pattern and rhythm. An example would be thinking about how thoughts are such awesome things and having that thought spiral past 5 or 6 inhalations. But, if I thought awesome, in line with the breathing rhtyhm, that was fine. In general, thoughts about the actual rhythm of breath are good, helpful. There is a way-finding element of staying with the breath. That is, if I am in the forest and hiking, it is good to be able to notice the terrain as it is around me. To make notes that I am stepping here. Weight is here. Not stepping there. Weight is there. Not helpful would be too much thought about how steps are so much easier in houses or whatnot... things disconnected from this breath.
Inside the shell, I focus and stay on the breath. I'm aiming for Jhana1. And, importantly, I'm almost entirely protecting myself against me-making and mine-making. So, I recite the 3 phrases: This is not me. I am not this. This is not mine. And then I repeat with more specificity. This itch is not me. This is just an itch. (Relating to a khandha, perhaps.) This is not mine. This thought is just a thought. This is not me. In this way, the sensations "enter me", but they don't become me. This was an exciting thing to notice. (I guess it relates to equanimity, and before I had more indifference (not letting it enter my airspace), and today I was able to feel but not get sucked into the feeling, think but not get sucked into the thought.)
There is one big exception. With knowledge that it is just a fabrication, I "go to the movies and suspend my disbelief" and allow a specific form of me/my-making. That specific form: I make myself one with the breath. I allow my feeding mind to feed on the breath. I might say, "For training purposes, I am this breath. I make myself one with this breath. This breath is mine. This breath is me." And, my starved identification self starts feeding on the breath. Today, it fed strongly. Other days, not strongly at all. But, the breath is there to be fed on if needed (so as not to feed on other things), as a harmless thing (for now) to feed on. And this is the directed thought and evaluation and total absorption of Jhana1.
NOTES:
For Jhana1 description, see, amongst many, https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/WithEachAndEveryBreath/Section0007.html#sigil_toc_id_53; the Jhana section of With Each and Every Breath by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (now Ajaan Geoff). free download.
For breath meditation, consider the Anapanasati of Buddhadasa, free download, http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/anapanasati.pdf
For a very sweet story about me/my-making, try Gil Fronsdal's audio recording about A Fairy Tale. https://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/9424.html (free)
For the amygdala, I recommend Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky and also The Trauma of Everyday Things by Joseph Goldstein.
First: Amygdala not firing. It seems like the amygdala (or my current conception of it) is at the center of fear, and the 4F's. Accordingly, these strong emotions are a big part of our personality. A motto might be, "It is what triggers us that defines us". I think this is actually a very apt phrase to describe how I've seen myself and others. "Trigger" needs to be defined broadly. Trigger here is about the amygdala firing. So it includes things that set us off to be passionate, or fearful, or indignant, or soft-hearted. So, the pleasures of meditation (in Jhana, for example) is actually not being triggered, or not being triggered much by the usual things. That is, we don't become super passionate about the breath, super fearful that we won't have it, super indignant, or super soft-hearted*. We go for calm. And the calm is the negation of clinging and triggered. Even as I write this, I am excited and trying to grasp at my understanding of the thoughts. But this is definitely NOT a state of Jhana. There is clinging, albeit beneficial, to write out a description of these thoughts. I'm trying to put down a marker and breadcrumbs. But, when I find my way back, the experience itself is about the negation of triggers and the negation of most activation (except activation on the breath, and then, only enough to keep the hungry-mind occupied, kinda like giving a kid an ipad with wifi turned off, or giving a dog a chew toy so they are occupied). I felt a strong identification with the notion: the amygdala is not firing.
*soft-heartedness is related to Metta. So, when doing metta, yes, aim for that kind of amygdala firing. No ill will. And actively goodwill. In Jhana1 on breath, we don't do soft-heartedness. We do aim for no ill-will. But we also aim for no goodwill(!). We aim for simpleness and attention. The amygdala not firing (at least not much?).
Second: There was a shell around me, and I let all sensations enter "me", but bounce off that shell. Thoughts would enter my mental "airspace", register on my radar, and then bounce off. I recognized my habitual mind considering that everything that hit my shell was me and important and had to be invested in. But, this time, I just kept the shell sealed and the sensations, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness stayed outside the shell. Inside the shell, I filled it with breath sensations and breath feelings. I took the advice that thoughts helpful to the breath are 100% allowed. And, I used as my test of helpful breath thoughts as those that actually connect me to the pattern of my breath, i.e., the in and out and further noticing of even subtler parts of the breath. An un-useful thought would be anything that was related to the thought but didn't follow the pattern and rhythm. An example would be thinking about how thoughts are such awesome things and having that thought spiral past 5 or 6 inhalations. But, if I thought awesome, in line with the breathing rhtyhm, that was fine. In general, thoughts about the actual rhythm of breath are good, helpful. There is a way-finding element of staying with the breath. That is, if I am in the forest and hiking, it is good to be able to notice the terrain as it is around me. To make notes that I am stepping here. Weight is here. Not stepping there. Weight is there. Not helpful would be too much thought about how steps are so much easier in houses or whatnot... things disconnected from this breath.
Inside the shell, I focus and stay on the breath. I'm aiming for Jhana1. And, importantly, I'm almost entirely protecting myself against me-making and mine-making. So, I recite the 3 phrases: This is not me. I am not this. This is not mine. And then I repeat with more specificity. This itch is not me. This is just an itch. (Relating to a khandha, perhaps.) This is not mine. This thought is just a thought. This is not me. In this way, the sensations "enter me", but they don't become me. This was an exciting thing to notice. (I guess it relates to equanimity, and before I had more indifference (not letting it enter my airspace), and today I was able to feel but not get sucked into the feeling, think but not get sucked into the thought.)
There is one big exception. With knowledge that it is just a fabrication, I "go to the movies and suspend my disbelief" and allow a specific form of me/my-making. That specific form: I make myself one with the breath. I allow my feeding mind to feed on the breath. I might say, "For training purposes, I am this breath. I make myself one with this breath. This breath is mine. This breath is me." And, my starved identification self starts feeding on the breath. Today, it fed strongly. Other days, not strongly at all. But, the breath is there to be fed on if needed (so as not to feed on other things), as a harmless thing (for now) to feed on. And this is the directed thought and evaluation and total absorption of Jhana1.
NOTES:
For Jhana1 description, see, amongst many, https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/WithEachAndEveryBreath/Section0007.html#sigil_toc_id_53; the Jhana section of With Each and Every Breath by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (now Ajaan Geoff). free download.
For breath meditation, consider the Anapanasati of Buddhadasa, free download, http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/anapanasati.pdf
For a very sweet story about me/my-making, try Gil Fronsdal's audio recording about A Fairy Tale. https://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/9424.html (free)
For the amygdala, I recommend Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky and also The Trauma of Everyday Things by Joseph Goldstein.
Sunday, December 8, 2019
The tension inherent in high achieving
Just a moment before, I ran through a familiar "dreaming" sequence. I dreamed of completing my work on residential energy efficiency policy. About learning to program much better and building apps to help society. Inspired by the 2019 book, Prepared, I dreamed of helping revolutionize K-12 education. These are all pretty noble pursuits, nothing blameworthy in the pursuit. But, I had a momentary notion of great significance: there's tension in the dreaming.
Every time in life when I have in this dream mode, there's a tension. The idea develops and then a fervor, "I want to have it. How do I get it?!" And then the tunnel vision. And then the hijacking of the mind.
This is not true of all achievement. In learning to play the violin at age 38, there is surprisingly little tension. I'm really bad. But I enjoy it a lot. I'm not thinking about that big dream of "making a difference". I'm just focusing on the thing at hand. I'm absorbed in the activity, not the dreaming.
That focus isn't just for small-scale dreams. When I'm absorbed in programming, I'm absorbed without tension. I hesitate to hitch on to a popular phrase, but it is like a "flow" state. And, there, I'm not focused on this big dream of what I'm going to build. I'm focused on trying to understand the documentation on TileMode and gradients.
The issue seems to be the self consciousness of "high" achievement. There's a lot of wishful thinking, "if only" thinking. The greedy mind is trying to get the goal. And my mind is searching all the paths to get there, thinking, "if only I do this, maybe I'll get this piece. What about that piece?" That search could be done calmly, like planning out a route to run routine errands... something without a lot of involvement. But, there is a clinging when it is high stakes: like planning out a date with a promising guy/gal. Clinging.
There is a catch-22. To build something big, one does have to plan. And it is worthwhile to do big things. But, if the bigness is too high stakes and focal, I now have a sense that that is going to involve a lot of tension. unhelpful tension. And, I want to be aware of that tension.
The Buddhist path is for the heedful, those who are willing to put in tremendous focus and effort (eventually, not necessarily at the beginning). But, I want to be careful. If I approach it in my customary manner of aiming for the high achievement goal, there's going to be a lot of stress and tension involved.
So, I'm left with a puzzle. How to achieve without lots of stress? How to put in lots of effort without stress? My watcher is watching for the unnecessary clinging that I bring to the achievement planning. Now I have an inkling of a guess about: the "if only" thinking is source of the tension in high achievement.
Every time in life when I have in this dream mode, there's a tension. The idea develops and then a fervor, "I want to have it. How do I get it?!" And then the tunnel vision. And then the hijacking of the mind.
This is not true of all achievement. In learning to play the violin at age 38, there is surprisingly little tension. I'm really bad. But I enjoy it a lot. I'm not thinking about that big dream of "making a difference". I'm just focusing on the thing at hand. I'm absorbed in the activity, not the dreaming.
That focus isn't just for small-scale dreams. When I'm absorbed in programming, I'm absorbed without tension. I hesitate to hitch on to a popular phrase, but it is like a "flow" state. And, there, I'm not focused on this big dream of what I'm going to build. I'm focused on trying to understand the documentation on TileMode and gradients.
The issue seems to be the self consciousness of "high" achievement. There's a lot of wishful thinking, "if only" thinking. The greedy mind is trying to get the goal. And my mind is searching all the paths to get there, thinking, "if only I do this, maybe I'll get this piece. What about that piece?" That search could be done calmly, like planning out a route to run routine errands... something without a lot of involvement. But, there is a clinging when it is high stakes: like planning out a date with a promising guy/gal. Clinging.
There is a catch-22. To build something big, one does have to plan. And it is worthwhile to do big things. But, if the bigness is too high stakes and focal, I now have a sense that that is going to involve a lot of tension. unhelpful tension. And, I want to be aware of that tension.
The Buddhist path is for the heedful, those who are willing to put in tremendous focus and effort (eventually, not necessarily at the beginning). But, I want to be careful. If I approach it in my customary manner of aiming for the high achievement goal, there's going to be a lot of stress and tension involved.
So, I'm left with a puzzle. How to achieve without lots of stress? How to put in lots of effort without stress? My watcher is watching for the unnecessary clinging that I bring to the achievement planning. Now I have an inkling of a guess about: the "if only" thinking is source of the tension in high achievement.
Saturday, December 7, 2019
Chill but not stupid
I'm not a very chill person. So that's one of the things I work on. I get worked up by ideas, from anti-poverty programs to the grocery store lines at Costco. My mind gets whisked away, hijacked. I never realized I could ask, "Why do I do this?" So now I'm trying to stay more chill, to not get hijacked. Or, at the least, not collude with the hijackers.
There's a voice in society and, hence, my head that says, "Hey. If you become so chill, you're going to lose your edge." Chill doesn't mean stupid. I'm still watching. In fact, I'm watching more. And my guardian is exercising the restraint muscle, rather than going on quixotic quests. Like whether the Keto diet is awesome or stupid. I have a new tool: "I don't know. And I don't need to know."
In another way, chill is like being a spy. Disguised by a California "whatever" attitude, we are easily satisfied by food, clothes, shelter. It really is "all good" on the outside. (In the sense that there is no need to get perturbed. Updated nov2020.) Which makes others think we are harmless, maybe even stupid. But we are watching and not acting, externally. Chill but not stupid. And that is rich action, internally.
Seeing way more, because we aren't hijacked by this food, this shelter, these clothes, or this relationship and how it's supposed to be.
PS Shout out to NS: even no expectations are expectations. So careful not to let "chillness" itself hijack me.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
The Castle, The Watcher, and The Guardian
The slogan "Nothing is Enough" may give the impression that this is "anything goes". It is not. Some have said that you just see emotions arising and falling and have equanimity and no-identification with them. One phrase is just watching your emotions like waves on a beach; they roll in and roll out. That's useful in one way, but misleading in another very big way. When something like anger arises, it's very helpful to see it arise and see it fade. Don't feed it if you can, but if you do feed it, try to watch how you feed it. This is step 1. But, over time, you want to develop good strategies to combat anger. Specifically, in what ways are you complicit in the arising of anger? Can you head it off before it develops into trying to fight your sister about how she spoke harshly to you 3 Christmas's ago.
The distinction is about internal laissez-faire (which is unhelpful passivity) and external-laissez faire (which is adulting and acknowledging the world isn't always fair).
The nothing of "nothing is enough" is about things external to the mind. But, internal to the mind, this requires a large amount of vigilance and heedfulness. I have to be careful to stay alert and to cultivate the garden of my thoughts to guard against greed, anger, and wishful thinking (GAWT).
THE CASTLE
The Buddha gives the analogy of making your mind like a castle. Around this castle is a deep and wide moat and tall castle walls. There is only one entrance/exit: the main gate with a giant drawbridge. Unfortunately, it's stuck open, so all sorts of crazy visitors come in and out at all times of the day. These are the random thoughts, desires, plans, anxieties, greeds, aversions, shoulds, shouldn'ts, and wishful thoughts of winning the lottery that float through our everyday brain.
Ask people what to do, and they all say to raise the drawbridge. That's the equivalent of trying to smash all these thoughts and turn off the brain. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to turn off my brain. Also, if you close the gate, nobody can come in and out, and that "cold turkey" style of repression doesn't really calm the brain. The castle is stuck with whoever was in it last. So the Buddha said to first develop your watcher and your guardian.
The watcher is awareness. Position the watcher, alert and mindful of their duty, and have them catalog everyone who passes into the gate. Here is where we close our eyes and try to quiet our mind. But we're not actually supposed to succeed in quieting. That was mistake I had; that somehow I was weird in that my brain didn't turn off. Instead, it's an important first lesson: we notice how unquiet our mind is. We see, perhaps for the first time, all the swirling emotions. I think half the time I find it interesting and the other half frightening. But I keep watching. Because sticking my head in the sand and ostrich-ing doesn't work (a prime example of wishful thinking.) The watcher over time gets very good, and can tell who is coming in and out, what kind of things are hiding under the cloaks of entrants, etc. The watcher can give you a full report when you ask. That is greed. That is anger. That is calm. That is not greed. That is not calm. That is goodwill. That is needy. That is a sneaky self-sabotage. The watcher sees the comings and goings clearly. And it does so largely not at full thoughts (stories), because those aren't very reliable. For example, maybe you are tense. Is that tension justifiable because of the doctor's appointment tomorrow? Or am I overreacting? There is, unfortunately, no answer from the watcher. And fortunately. Fortunate because the watcher's job is just to say, "look, there is tension." "Look, it's related to the doctor's appointment." And, "Look, there is a thought that terrible things might happen that's adding tension." But whether it is reasonable or not is not the purpose of the watcher.
The other role is that of the guard/guardian. This soldier takes an active role, deciding how to manage the gate. The whole game is who to let in and who not to let in. There is a catch. Your guardian is super inexperienced, having binged Netflix for 15 years; he's very out of shape. So, for a long time, your guardian will have minimal effectiveness.
When we see the panic in our minds about that lump being cancer, what thoughts do we find helpful. Panic is sometimes not a choice, and so the guardian can't stop it. But, the guardian might be able to slow things down. To let in Panic, but not the Panic's friends of Catastrophizing and ShortnessOfBreath. In my own practice, I've found tremendous help from letting myself feel emotions (they have momentum: once started, they can't be stopped) but retaining my awareness of my breath. So, when it's shallow in Panic, I take a deep breath, maybe counting. And that is me asserting some control over it, saying, "I'm not letting you, Panic, run the whole of my mind." That's the guardian.
I think it was Woody Allen who said, "My life is full of terrible tragedies, most of which never actually happened." In other words, our minds can be our worst enemies.
But, our mind, when trained, can also be a great ally. That's the role of the guardian, aided by a watcher. In the beginning, though, it's weak. The guardian can only confront simpler things. Your soldier also has two key traits: strength and smarts. As is often the case in real battle too, smarts can win over strength. So, the soldier will also have to develop smarts, so as to use ingenuity to keep dangerous enemies (like ravenous greed and raging anger) out. The soldier might have to recruit other castle-dwellers to help. Or, the soldier will have to train and put out field agents to try to convince the dangerous enemies to not visit the castle. For me, Lust is a dangerous visitor, so my soldier might try to not put lots of triggers in my brain that spark lust. (I.e., I don't read Maxim magazine). Other dangerous visitors love chaos, so for them, keeping the castle clean and tidy (routine, get enough sleep) will help keep them from even trying to get in. We each have our own demons and dangerous visitors, so we have to be clever and individualized in how we deal with them. What works for me won't work for you. But, you might get some ideas. And, in every case, there are causes and reasons why they visit--so it always boils down to understanding the causes and dealing with the causes. This cannot be stressed enough. Causes! Through some combination of ingenuity and strength, the castle becomes a better and better place. Your mind calms. And nothing becomes enough.
So, my path is laissez-faire for things external-to-the-mind. This includes external-to-body (like my car and US politics) things, but also internal-to-the-body things like my health, nice smells, stinky smells, etc. Instead, it requires vigilance for mind itself, with a keen watcher (who needs to be developed) and strong and smart guardian (who also needs to be developed).
I also love the play on words of the phrase, "Nothing Is Enough". This is the motto of Type-A personalities who are driven to achieve more and more. In that way, nothing is enough because there always needs to be more. In this Buddhist twist, nothing is enough because more is never needed. Things (in the world, and in my body) as they are... that is enough to follow the call of Dhammapada 183: To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind.
The watcher and the guardian are the things you want to develop. Don't try to eliminate things like hatred and greed directly. Specifically, don't try to use reason to dissuade yourself. Your reasons may help, but it's the logical realm. In the realm of emotions and tricky ingrained-habits, your logic can't work. It's in the amygdala, if you like neuroscience. So, use your cortex to build that awareness and skillfulness first.
May you develop your watcher. May your guardian strengthen.
Use what's useful, discard the rest. UUDR
Manifesto, a beginning
I'm smiling right now. Because, ever since I learned the word "manifesto" in middle school, I've really enjoyed it. It's a document that announces to the world (or to anyone listening, at least) some important event or change or thought. Manifestos mark beginnings.
My name is Eugene. I am 40 years old, and my life is changing. Success is no longer about numbers in a bank account, tasty meals, or the number of friends I have.
I have enough.
This is pretty revolutionary. To declare, in a world that is fighting for money or resources or trying to say one view is better than another view, where there is a constant whirring for and against, for and against, for and against-- to declare that I'm not whirring anymore. I have enough. There are things that I am for and things I am against, but I'm not whirring. In Buddhist parlance, things are happening, but I'm not clinging. I'm not clinging and feeding on ideas of achievement needing to be attained (often questionably pushed by commerce or culture). There is notFeeding in me (on the good days, at least). I have enough. My name is Eugene and I have enough.
And, for most (but not all) of the path, one simple task encompasses it all: be aware of greed, anger, and wishfulThinking. Try not to feed them.
That's it. Every day, I reflect on where there is greed, anger, and wishfulThinking in myself. It has gotten me to a point of the peace of "Nothing is Enough".
So, this blog, "Nothing is Enough", is really all about my (continuing) journey to understand and not feed my greed, my anger, and my wishfulThinking.
Do not take this on faith. You have to try it out and see if this works for you. But, for now, I invite you to put on the hat of "Maybe Nothing is Enough" and take a look at this alternate way of seeing the world. It is very much against the stream of mainstream society. And it has given peace of billions through 2600 years.
Welcome, and may this be of benefit. Please, use what's useful and discard the rest. (UUDR)
Best, G
My name is Eugene. I am 40 years old, and my life is changing. Success is no longer about numbers in a bank account, tasty meals, or the number of friends I have.
I have enough.
This is pretty revolutionary. To declare, in a world that is fighting for money or resources or trying to say one view is better than another view, where there is a constant whirring for and against, for and against, for and against-- to declare that I'm not whirring anymore. I have enough. There are things that I am for and things I am against, but I'm not whirring. In Buddhist parlance, things are happening, but I'm not clinging. I'm not clinging and feeding on ideas of achievement needing to be attained (often questionably pushed by commerce or culture). There is notFeeding in me (on the good days, at least). I have enough. My name is Eugene and I have enough.
And, for most (but not all) of the path, one simple task encompasses it all: be aware of greed, anger, and wishfulThinking. Try not to feed them.
That's it. Every day, I reflect on where there is greed, anger, and wishfulThinking in myself. It has gotten me to a point of the peace of "Nothing is Enough".
So, this blog, "Nothing is Enough", is really all about my (continuing) journey to understand and not feed my greed, my anger, and my wishfulThinking.
Do not take this on faith. You have to try it out and see if this works for you. But, for now, I invite you to put on the hat of "Maybe Nothing is Enough" and take a look at this alternate way of seeing the world. It is very much against the stream of mainstream society. And it has given peace of billions through 2600 years.
Welcome, and may this be of benefit. Please, use what's useful and discard the rest. (UUDR)
Best, G
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)