SHORTY: perfectly okay before

Sometimes what was perfectly okay (useful) before, becomes not okay when you get more skilled. 

"Stepping stones"

Instead.

180413 Thanissaro talk.

When the Buddha gave up on people, "lost causes": lazy, unobservant, dishonest

The Buddha, it is said, has limitless compassion for all beings. Yes. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean he would give himself completely to save others. This is very different from the Christian ideal. The Buddha would not die to "save" all souls. He would probably say that it doesn't work that way.

The Buddha's compassion, Thanissaro said in a talk I heard, was that he went out of his way to teach people. To help them. He didn't owe them. He had his enlightenment. And he knew there would be many troubles in his teaching. We think about all the monks who succeeded, but there were also problem monks, like the Group of Six were constant troublemakers. And the Buddha initially refused to teach at all. But, the Buddha decided it would be worth it after initially thinking that he wouldn't teach.

But his compassion didn't mean he taught everyone. In MN80, he lays out some conditions for his teaching:

“Let an observant person come—one who is not fraudulent, not deceitful, one of an honest nature. I instruct him. I teach him the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, he in no long time knows for himself, sees for himself: ‘So this is how there is the right liberation from bondage, i.e., the bondage of ignorance.’” — MN 80

Let's break down this passage about "lost causes".

Sharing Food

Lately, I'm reflecting on my Buddhist journey. Generally well-meaning, but with lots of wrong turns. Mostly my own fault, but also useful mistakes. I have an attitude of "fail fast and learn more."

One thing has always been a right turn. Sharing food. When I'm travelling, I pack extra snacks. I'll give it to friends. I'll give it to strangers.

At Insight Retreat Center, near Santa Cruz, there is a plaque at the entrance. Something like:

“If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given…”

Which is in the suttas. (See below).

When the Buddha talks about the gradual path, he talks of giving as the first step. Even before virtue or renunciation. And, in the Theravada rituals, young kids scoop a little bit of rice into the monk's bowl. Even before they really understand what it means in a large, long term way. But in a short-term way, they know what giving is. And it can be ingrained, early in life and repeatedly. For our long-term happiness and benefit.

I've heard talk lately about a "caring economy". But it is possible to have a caring economy without a sharing mindset. And I've seen caring, but with greed/anger/delusion as a foundation. It can feed the body, but not the heart. If GAD is in the intention, it will not lead to long term benefit. I have never seen sharing, especially sharing of food, that is full of greed and anger (delusion maybe). (Note: When I do see sharing with greed or anger, it isn't real sharing. It's something like "performance sharing" or "virtue signaling", for display.)

May I remember to share food. Either directly putting it in the hands of others or making donations with a click so it is shared.

Happy holidays, this Christmas Eve, 2021.

--- notes

Discussion of the quote: https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/if-you-knew-what-i-know-about-the-power-of-giving-you-would-not-let-a-single-meal-pass-without-sharing-it-in-some-way/

Only 2 categorical teachings

According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's research, there are only two categorical answers in the Buddhist Pali canon.

1. Abandon what is unskillful, develop what is skillful

2. The four Noble truths

This is stated at minute 7 of https://youtu.be/1tMW4oSrsjc

It might also be stated in Skill in Questions (his book), but I looked for it and couldn't find it.

Why does this matter? All other answers are conditional, i.e. they are only correct or useful sometimes. This means they are sometimes misleading.

If you are weak on discernment and the ability to figure out from a group of competing ideas, this says you can always go back to #1 and #2. They will not lead you astray.

Fortunately and unfortunately, they don't spell out exactly what is skillful or what is unskillful, nor do they spell out how to accurately see suffering, its causes, and its cessation. So you still need to use your watcher and discernment to figure things out. But number one and number two give you a framework. You try something. You see if it's useful. You keep going with it if it is. And if it's not useful, you switch.

Some praise and critiques of NVC

 I just did a group Zoom call with a Non-violent Communication (NVC) study group. It was very interesting. I'm happy to say that I was able to keep my mouth shut and tuned more into watching and listening, rather than resisting and critiquing. I'm also happy to report that I did the activities/games and got a lot of benefit from it. Overall, it was a very positive experience.

I'm enthusiastic and cautious. NVC always includes some notion of making distinctions of feelings vs needs vs stories/reactions/actions/interpretations. In this way, there is considerable overlap with Buddhism: feelings are to be understood in an of themselves. And there is a recognition of the terrible self-harm we generate with our stories/interpretations, which we often identify with as "the only way". There is a focus on "insteads" and an emphasis on our ability to have choice / insight around the workings of our mind, rather than being hijacked.

Honing in on just one document, consider this table: Pathways to Liberation. In over a dozen dimensions, it demonstrates a domain and 4 levels of skillfulness in the domain. 

Example

Domain/Skill: Observing

Definition: Noticing (and possibly describing) our sensory and mental experiences, and distinguishing these experiences from the interpretations we ascribe to them.

1. Unskilled: Habitually confuses interpretation with observation; assumes that evaluations and interpretations are facts.
2. Awakening beginning: Becoming aware of interpretations as distinct from observations when reviewing past events; little skill or clarity of this distinction when interacting in real time.
3. Capable: Increasingly remembering and making the distinction between observation and interpretation.
4. Integrated: Effortlessly able to distinguish observations from interpretations.

---

The four levels are reasonable and even helpful. They give a bit of a roadmap by indicating the guideposts. In awakening, it's that you don't realize in the moment, but can notice when reviewing. Capable: Making a distinction between two ways of seeing. Integrated, the highest level, has effortlessness or, what Dreyfus might say, "intuitiveness". This is a fine map, but maybe only an initial map. Hence my critiques.

• NVC is the way
• This was not an issue in the group session, but I've seen this a lot. People adopt this as the way and start "weaponizing it" to start distinguishing and policing proper ways and improper ways. Even though NVC might have distaste for "should" statements, NVC does have shoulds: we should move away from Unskilled and toward Capable. In that way, NVC can be another way to push people to be a certain way and to get there quickly. Rather than an invitation, an exploration, and a "go at your own pace".
• Shuhari is an interesting Japanese idea about the levels of mastery. One learns at the dojo, first obeying its forms. But one knows that at one point, one needs to tinker and modify to be a real master (and not a rote reproducer). And then, finally, one leaves, looking at the whole picture without limitation of the rules (but still keeping the knowledge of those rules in mind).
• A distinction between helpful and unhelpful
• Building on the critique that "NVC is the way", NVC may have a weakness where adherence to its framework puts+subordinates one's own ability to see and evaluate. Specifically, if the NVC manual says X, but we find that X is not helpful, sometimes the NVC manual will interpret our sense of unhelpfulness as "resistance". It's as if the manual is saying, "If you just trust our process more than your own feelings, you'd make better progress." This is not without some merit, as the Kalama Sutta clearly states that we don't just follow what feels right for us. But that doesn't mean we give up our internal evaluation mechanism to accept an external evaluation mechanism. Buddhism resolves this with some non-personal tests: when you find it to be harmless, beneficial, and praised by wise people, then you can accept it as valid dhamma. I think a better way to say it is that it is "helpful" dhamma. And, a rule that we find in year 1 may be helpful for 10 years, but once it loses it's helpfulness, it's no longer dhamma for us. Theravada Buddhism and Zen Buddhism point to this pitfall of fixed and rigid wrong views.
• A toolkit, or an evaluation rubrik
• If NVC is treated as a toolkit, I think it can be universally recommended. It has a very useful typology of blindspots and internal and interpersonal cause-effect relationships. And I do see the temptation of wanting to accept it wholly. But I will keep it as a toolkit. Try these 4 columns out. And, futhermore, edit and rewrite the columns. Personalize the vocabulary, informed by your somatic experience. Be careful not to be too self-indulgent, but also don't treat it as an inviolable evaluation rubrik.
• Following on the Shuhari approach, don't just modify it to be a rebel. But you do want to tinker. For example, is "effortlessness" really a distinguishing quality of Integrated-level observing. In Buddhism, they say that the right effort is needed up until the very end. 
• Treating it as 90% correct vs 100% correct.
• This is a critique I find useful, for NVC but also my own assumptions. Hold them a little loosely. Since I love using numbers, this means treat them as 90% correct. That means, you'll be led in the right general direction if you follow them fully. But you could be misled. But it also says to look out for, actively, the 10% that is not correct. Or, more to the point, the 10% that is not useful. Keeping this around is helpful to keep the evaluation/watching parts of the brain active. Because, if we believe something is 100% correct, that means we keep trying to push the peg into the round hole, even if it is clearly square and won't fit. Because we know 100% that it will fit. If we instead allow it to be 90% correct, we don't force. We can look carefully and conclude, "this part isn't helpful in these ways", "this part isn't fitting". (But we still have to watch out for our own impatience or laziness telling us hard things are part of the 10% unhelpful).
• EXAMPLE (optional) The map analogy is helpful. I use Google Maps (GPS maps) a lot for directions. 90%+ of the time, they are correct. But occasionally, they are very wrong. Once, Google Maps had me drive down a dirt road and tried to tell me to cross a river.
• If I had accepted that GoogleMaps was 100% correct, then I'd conclude that my eyes were wrong. And I'd drive through the river and drown.
• If I remember that GoogleMaps is not 100% correct, then I could conclude that the directions to drive-through-river was a "bug" or "exception". I could over-rule GoogleMaps. I wouldn't drown. Essentially, I had a higher sense that the rule of "Don't drive through rivers" over-rules Google Maps.
  
• The analogy with NVC's rules? Buddhism offers a "don't drive through rivers" rule: if your action increases greed, anger, or delusion over the alternatives, don't do it. So, applied to NVC, this means: follow NVC rules except when it is unhelpful like when it increases greed, anger, and delusion.
• I've also had the opposite issue: over-ruling GoogleMaps when it was right and I was wrong. Once, I was impatient and driving in a town I thought I knew well. GoogleMaps had me take a long route that seemed confusing. I decided to use the rule, "I know my town better than GoogleMaps" to over-rule. Well, I took the direct route and, it turned out that there was some construction I didn't understand: temporary one way streets and closures. Looking back, it seems like the "I know my town" rule is not as infallible as "don't drive through rivers" rule, and most people would say that it's probably better to just follow Google Maps when it disagrees with "I know my town".
• The analogy here is that "I don't like this rule" is analogous to "I know my town better". If NVC tells you to do something you don't like, that's not an indication that the rule is wrong. In fact, NVC knows this and warns you that some of the things it teaches will be resisted. Buddhism does the same thing with the warning to "Practice the dhamma in line with the dhamma, and not in line with your likes and dislikes".
• What is the goal/underlying framework?
• NVC seems to be aimed at both the internal elements of the mind but also the "being in the world" elements and the interpersonal dynamics (exploration, negotiation, conflict, connection). So, when viewed via the lens of interpersonal dynamics, a lot what's written is super useful. Maybe 99% useful/helpful.
• However, Buddhism has a different starting point. It is very internal. It's aware of interpersonal elements (see metta, Brahmaviharas), but Theravada has interpreted these as valued for their protection to oneself, not for their benefits to others. Similarly, generosity and forgiveness are to help loosen one's tight heart; the actual benefit to others is secondary. In fact, forgiving someone (like my sister) in my heart is just as useful as actually calling her and apologizing out loud; just as useful in the internal dimension. In the interpersonal dimension, it's largely useless unless I open my mouth.
  Viewed from this lens, NVC is probably closer to 80-90% useful/helpful. Which is a fantastic starting point. But the lessons and approach are very different in the long term, when one knows it's not 100% from the get go, vs accepting that one has to shoehorn oneself into this "right answer" framework.

*** Somewhat amusingly, one can summarize: NVC is a framework where "no right answer" is the right answer. Wait, that's not right. Maybe NVC is often the right answer. (And that "maybe"+"often" can make a big difference.)

And, finally, may nobody mistake NVC for Buddhism or Buddhism for NVC. Related and highly overlapping... sure. But not identical, nor superset/subset. Nor even that they aim to the same purpose.

UUDR 

Fault Tolerance and Testing in Buddhism

In good software design, they say that testing is very important. Suppose you are writing software for a message board. You write tests to define how the system is expected to respond to actions like "new messages", "erase messages", "like messages". This is because, as you add more features, it's easy to make an unintended mistake to the code. So the tests protect you, who in this case is the programmer. It protects you from future change, some coming from the outside, some coming from oneself.

In good software design, it's possible that about half the work is actually testing.

One of the reasons I appreciate Buddhism is it's emphasis on testing. The Buddha didn't just proclaim, "I am the Buddha, all powerful, you must listen to me." In the Kalama Sutta and the sutta teaching his son, Rahula, he gives tests to judge whether something is useful or wise. He specifically says not to base your evaluation on your preferences or logic alone. First, he asks you to look at the results. Was it harmful or helpful? Is it praised by wise people, who may be able to see your blind spots? These are tests. Unlike tests at school that are meant to be stressful, these are tests that protect you.

Abortion, Gun Control, Affirmative Action, Militaries, Pollution, Gay Rights, Racism, "No Self"

 From my reading of Theravada Buddhism, specifically the Thai Forest Tradition, hot button topics are quagmires. Part of us wants to say, "there is a clearly right answer". And we want to align ourselves with the right side.

It's instructive that I reread Thanissaro's Bhikkhu's article on "No Self". A wanderer asked the Buddha if there was self. He was silent. They they asked if there was no self. He was silent.  The wander left, and he told his fellow mendicants that any answer would have guided the wanderer poorly.

The highlight is that the focus wasn't on the correctness of an answer, but on the helpfulness of an answer. Avoid the unhelpful/unskillful. Embrace the helpful/skillful.

SHORTY: When to criticize.

 “If someone points out your faults, regard that person as someone who’s pointed out treasure.”

If the person can see the criticism I want to say as treasure, then I can say it.

If not, I need to keep quiet.

I really, really, really need to learn to keep quiet. And part of this is pattern-interrupting, with the question, will they regard this as treasure?

(Mostly, the answer is no. Even if I wish it otherwise, that won't make them see it as treasure.)

Anger can be skillful

Anger gets a bad rap, for good reason, in Buddhism. Anger has a lot of energy, aimed at destruction. If not used carefully, it can destroy your mind.

bell hooks and Thich Nhat Hanh touch on this. bell hooks describes it in a NYT interview:

“I am so angry!” And he, of course, Mr. Calm himself, Mr. Peace, said, “Well, you know, hold on to your anger, and use it as compost for your garden.” And I thought, “Yes, yes, I can do that!” I tell that story to people all the time. I was telling him about the struggles I was having with my male partner at the time and he said, “It is O.K. to say I want to kill you, but then you need to step back from that, and remember what brought you to this person in the first place.” And I think that if we think of anger as compost, we think of it as energy that can be recycled in the direction of our good. It is an empowering force. If we don’t think about it that way, it becomes a debilitating and destructive force.

So, compost anger and make something beautiful. bell hooks might say channel it into constructive, militant love.

Gil Fronsdal, in an audio recording I recall (but can't find) says that Anger might be helpful about 5% of the time. But that it's mostly unhelpful.

My reading of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings and the Pali Canon suggest that anger (or at least clinging to it) does have to be given up to reach enlightenment. It's part of the big 3 of GAD: greed, anger, and delusion.

But before you reach enlightenment, use anger skillfully, when it's helpful. That is, avoid using it destructively or debilitatingly. Destroy only your bad habits! Not other people, or your ability to have compassion for everyone.

And "Don't believe everything you think is helpful" is actually helpful. I'm working on that last one a lot.

SHORTY: That's when you're really safe...

 You can prepare. You can get the mind ready for times when there’ll be aging, illness, and death. And yet you don’t have to suffer from them because you’ve learned how to separate the concern for pleasure and pain, and the pleasure and pains themselves, from your awareness. You let these aspects of the present separate themselves into three separate things. That way, the pleasures and pains, and your concerns about pleasures and pains, don’t have to weigh the mind down. They’re there, but they’re not having an impact on the mind. That’s when you’re really safe.

- Thanissaro Bhikkhu

I write a lot about safety, too.

SHORTY: Don't be overcome with passion...

Don't embrace all passions, especially those that consume you. 

develop the brahmaviharas—and particularly equanimity, along with the ability not to be overcome by pain and not to be overcome by pleasure.

Link: Meditations9

You did something stupid and harmful-- something you regret... now what?

Suppose you did something stupid and harmful. You regret it. What does Buddhism tell you to do?

More importantly, what doesn't it tell you to do? It doesn't tell you to feel guilty. (In fact, I heard that the Thai language doesn't have a word for the word guilt (culpa in Spanish), but never confirmed this myself.)

Instead

• Don't overly feel remorse.
• Don't do it again. (link1, link2)
• Develop the Brahmaviharas (!!??!!?)

That last one seems out of place. Brahmaviharas? What does equanimity, goodwill/kindness, and compassion have to do with the mistake?

Well, it has to do with the root causes of the stupid, harmful thing you did. If I had the brahmaviharas, I probably wouldn't:

• Do intentionally mean things.
• Act rashly, without thinking about the consequences to others.
• Act rashly, without thinking about the consequences to yourself.

---

Some stupid things I do unintentionally. Like, suppose I get into a car accident because of a tire blowout. Well, in that case, the brahmaviharas wouldn't have helped. Maybe I had old tires. I can just make a note to be more careful with my tires.

Most stupid things have some connection to my intention or inattention. There are obvious cases, like yelling at someone. By yelling, part of me intended to make them feel bad. The brahmaviharas are an antidote to that anger/aversion/animosity. 

Then there are subtle cases. Like, suppose I get into a car accident because I was distracted by my phone. I didn't mean to get into a car accident. But if I really develop the brahmaviharas, I see much more deeply and develop more care in my actions. I hold myself to a higher bar of harmlessness. When I drive, I don't just think, "I got to get places quickly". I realize the unintended consequences, things I rush past often, blindspots: "A car can kill people if I'm not careful." If I think this way, which is a natural offshoot of the brahmaviharas, I won't make an excuse about texting on my phone while driving. But, instead, if "I got to get places quickly" is the only thing I can see (a consequence of very little brahmaviharas), I will make excuses about texting, and I'll keep doing it. When something does go bad, I can always say "I didn't intend to hurt people" (true), and "I didn't expect this to happen" (true). But, I probably won't think, "I could have prevented this" afterward (true, but not thought). And I might even think, "I couldn't have expected this to happen" (false, but comforting). Notice the small difference between "didn't expect" (true) and "couldn't have" (false).

---

As a small aside to police shootings and misconduct, there is an unfortunate byproduct of our legal system around the idea of negligence. If a cop shoots an innocent person, they can plead, "I didn't expect this to happen", which takes murder off the table. But to get out of involuntary manslaughter, they have to claim, "I couldn't have expected this to happen." That it, there was no negligence. So, the processes of cognitive dissonance nudges them (or is it forces them?) to side with the false but comforting notion that they have no fault.

I wish there were a legal process where they could be honest and say, "I didn't expect this, but I could have expected this" without going to jail. Building on the Truth and Reconciliation movements of South Africa, I think it'd be instructive to have a way to plea to it, not serve jail time, but to work ardently to preventing it from happening again. That way, you use the avoidance of jailtime to get them on the side of fixing the problem. Instead our system aligns avoiding jailtime with denying the problem exists. Making the way forward something very split.

It'd be really interesting to see how many people would take that option: Serving 5-10 years in advocacy to make sure it doesn't happen again, rather than lying and a 50-50 chance of 5-10 years in prison.

Notes: Our 5th amendment (no self-incrimination) means that they don't have to self-testify the truth. And, furthermore, only they know in their heart of hearts if it's true that "I couldn't have expected this". So how can we really prove they could have expected it. But we do litigate it, by showing people's facebook posts or other things to try to point out a bias to suggest it *was* they could have expected it and did.

The full quote:

"The Buddha recommends that, if you want not to suffer from the results of past bad actions or past unskillful actions, you develop the brahmaviharas—and particularly equanimity, along with the ability not to be overcome by pain and not to be overcome by pleasure." from Remorse by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.