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.

When is "I was wrong" helpful? When is it unhelpful?

 I used to joke, that the 3 sexiest words to hear out of someone's mouth is "I was wrong". It's so rare that a person changes their mind, sees another perspective, or loosens their grip on their own perspective.

"I was wrong" has hidden connotations of permanence and self-identity. People can get stuck in an "I am bad, I am always wrong" mindset. So, the first edit I'd make is to say, replace "I was wrong" with "I made a mistake". That puts the focus on your actions, not on who you are. And, in Buddhism, the actions and intentions are the main game.

So, when is the phrase "I made a mistake" useful/helpful?

TLDR: The phrase is usually helpful, except when it is used as an excuse to give up.

I used to think it was always helpful (assuming it is said sincerely, and not just a knee-jerk apology out of politeness). As the opening joke stated, it's so rare that a person can admit a mistake. 

Ajahn Geoff tells the story of a med school program for brain surgery who used two questions to applicants:

1. When was the last time you made a mistake?
2. What did you learn?

And, that's the crux of the determination of helpful. Mistakes are the path of learning. I'm learning a new programming language, and the key to my learning is to make interesting mistakes. (And to read the documentation and stay observant; but, not being observant can be seen as a mistake too. So, that strengthens the view that mistakes are the heart of learning.) So, to not admit mistakes is to not allow oneself to learn.

Mistakes are very helpful if there are two follow ups:

• What can I learn from this mistake? (perhaps about the consequences of the mistake, the causes, etc. I.e. How is new-you wiser than old-you?)
• What can I do not to repeat this mistake? (The focus here is less on knowledge, but more on action)

But, even with these two provisions, saying I made a mistake is not always helpful. What's the reason? It's because sometimes we can over-use that phrase, especially if we are scared. Or, in other terms, the kilesa's can hijack that learning.

The prototypical example is someone who tries something new, like meditation. It's a skill that takes time to learn, just like catching a baseball or playing guitar. And, like most skills, it takes time to learn the skill. At the beginning, it might feel like we are getting nowhere. We see others doing it so well, like sitting for 60 minutes. And we can't even sit for 5 minutes. Here, patience/endurance is a key supporting virtue. Keep trying and notice the small improvement. Or, if there is no improvement, trust that today was not a great day of practice.

THE NOT SUBTLE CASE

The danger is to try it one time or one week, not "get it", and then give up. In this circumstance, it's very tempting to say, "I made a mistake", along the lines of "I can't meditate".

If one focuses too much on the results, one can conclude from a few bad initial results that good results will never come. There are some domains, like learning an instrument, where we know that improvements always come but take time. So, in those domains, "I made a mistake to try" is giving up incorrectly. This is called information cascade... taking a small bit of seed information and concluding prematurely. In social situations, this might be called bias/prejudice based on anomalous seed data. (Or, I had one bad experience eating Korean food so I'll never eat Korean because it's all bad.)

It is okay to say "The effort to practice isn't worth the gain". But totally incorrect to say "I'll never be able to do it.

THE SUBTLE CASE

But, this is obviously not a good use of "I made a mistake". We can see that a kid that takes 2 days to learn to catch a baseball, doesn't get it, and quits--- that kid is making a false conclusion: "I'm not getting it quickly, so I can't ever get it". They write it off prematurely.

Not so obvious: Jon works is really good at "awareness" meditation. He can enter in a very non-judgmental state of watching his thoughts and not identifying. He is taught a new meditation technique: breath+body-focused meditation. He tries is 2 days and doesn't get it. He much prefers to stick with awareness. He (reasonable to most people) decides to stick to awareness meditation, saying, "I made a mistake to try anapanasati, breath meditation." He learned not to question awareness meditation. He decides not to try anapanasati again.

This is a classic business school / life problem. Do you stick with what you got? Or do you go exploring for something better? In biz school, they call this "exploration vs exploitation". In my life, it can be "do I stick with this taco recipe, or do I try new ones". There is a cost exploring, and one piece of advice is that you try about 10-17 recipes. (In that case, it's about how many houses you look at before you settle on which one to buy). The idea is that after you have explored 10-17, you're kinda guaranteed something about +/- 5% (I'm making up numbers) to the optimum item if you searched forever. However, you'll need to search about 20 new houses to find one that might be better. So, the gain (in statistical expectation) from searching is less than the cost of searching.

With Jon, the Buddhist, and awareness vs anapanasati,  the difference is that the gains of anapanasati are huge and worthwhile. Yes, the search is very difficult, taking more time than visiting 20 homes. But, one can think that the gain is 100-1000X. And, the Buddha said it's worth it, colorfully saying that Nibbana (which is greater than anapanasati) would be worth it even if it meant being poked by 300 spears for 100 years. (SN 56.25).

It is up to Jon whether he wants to go forward. It is a struggle to practice and develop new skills. And awareness meditation well developed can put his mind in incredible ease. You might think of it as being in the top 1% of all humans who ever lived. But, Nibbana and what the Buddha taught wasn't a halfway measure.* So, he was always pressing his disciples to go all the way to Nibbana. To not rest on laurels of achievements in this world with it's eight worldly winds.

So, the big danger for Jon, is to say, "I made a mistake in trying for more". That is an excuse, given probably by the kilesa's, to sap Jon of effort and determination to go further in the path.

And, this is, in large part, what I think is a big danger in Buddhism today, in the west and also elsewhere. The really hard things, getting to Nibbana and moving deliberately toward Nibbana, are worthwhile. I have not tasted them myself, but I've had some states of rest that encourage me to keep searching.

There are people who just say, "That Nibbana stuff is too hard, and many people will never reach it in this lifetime. Stick with something attainable, like awareness meditation and lovingkindness." That's a fair opinion, but a dangerous one. Because by treating aiming high as a mistake, it is closing a door and locking it permanently. And it is also discouraging others from aiming high.

The story of the Thai Forest Tradition has many people saying that "Jhana is lost and not attainable" and "Nibbana is lost and not attainable" by the orthodox power-structure. But a few rebels said, "I'm not so sure, and I will go look for myself".

Had they concluded that 5 years of search without attainment meant "It was a mistake", it would have demoralized them.

Instead, sometimes when I'm tempted to say, "I made a mistake", i need to fall back on something I used to write off: faith. Faith that the Buddha awakened. That he honestly spelled out the roadmap to awakening. That I've explored a few years of that map and found some really interesting and helpful places. So, I'm going to give it a shot to really study the map and get to the treasure at the center of the map.

Until you see/touch/experience the treasure, you can never be sure the treasure is there. So, don't let not achieving it yet lead you to believe that looking is a mistake.

It's tricky, though, because 90%+ of what we need to do in Buddhism is let go and abandon things that are bad habits or dead ends. Some are even very pleasurable. So, we might think of the whole path as letting go.

As Ajahn Geoff points out, there is an important step of holding on to the right things along the path. Anapanasati is to be held onto tight. Metta is to be held onto tight, as a tool to fight aversion/animosity. Equanimity is a tool to be held on tight when we go on wishful-thinking binges. Effort and determination are to be held on to. Even rapture and some types of pleasure are to be held on to (see the seven Wings for Awakening).  Hold on to helpful things. And, you often have to develop them first. And that development, when it doesn't come quickly, doesn't make it a mistake. Don't give up so easily.

---

NOTE:

There is ample space for changes in tactics, readjustments, etc. Like, even within Anapanasati, there are at least 10-20 approaches that I've tried, some work more often than others, none works well everytime. But, even in the realm of appraoches-to-Anapanasati, make sure to give things a real tryout before abandoning any approaches.

The phrase I use often is "Idea to beat". In Anapanasati, get an idea, idea A, develop it. Then, mix in idea A and trying other ideas, B, C, D. By trying out the different ideas, we might find a superior tool. But, an even bigger part is that by exploring and comparing idea A with the other ideas, I learn a lot more about idea A. And that deepening of knowledge of the tool is HUGE.

Another phrase, "develop the menu". Holding on to one tool makes one fragile to problems that can't be solved by that tool. It also changes the perspective. If one only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Smash is our instinct, but not always appropriate/useful.

----

* There is a sutta where the Buddha admonishes a monk for teaching a halfway lesson. A wise man was dying and the monk taught that dying person a few preliminary practices, maybe metta and equanimity. When the Buddha was told, he admonished the monk saying that he should have taught him the full path. That had the monk taught the wise man the whole path, the wise man would have had better rebirths and been led to a rebirth path leading to Nibbana.

How to check your breath meditation: "Is This the Breath?"

 It's exciting that I've found a way to check my breath meditation that works for me, and that I think works for you. But, I had a lot of failed attempts.

What Works

It's simple. I just keep asking, "Is this the breath?" And I limit myself to two answers. "This is the breath." or "This is not the breath." And I keep repeating this.

What doesn't work

I've tried many things, and they don't work, at least not consistently. Unfortunately, the things that don't work don't fail 100% of the time. They work sometimes. And, in a measurement tool, a ruler that works sometimes is not a good ruler. Here are some things that I've found don't work.

Abhayagiri, (monastically intimate) reflections of the monks after Vassa

I'm very inspired today by the end of Vassa reflections by the monks and monastics at Abhayagiri Monastery. (see for yourself, about 2 hours of audio, about 10 speakers) https://youtu.be/peec4nWL77M?t=5455

This is a very unique thing. Because...

• A lot of Buddhist sharing is polished, like Dhamma talks or Dhamma books by Monastics. And I find some of that quite stale. Even the good ones, like some of the things I've read by Luang Por (Ajahn) Pannavaddho which are amazing, they are polished, giving the answer.
• Most stuff found on the Internet are from "dhamma teachers", who may be only partly in a tradition or doing anything monastic. Some of it can be very useful, but a lot of it is clearly people who dabble in Buddhism and are trying to think about how to package it to an average person or average practitioner.
• In contrast, these are full time, full Vinaya monks. And they are in the middle of their path. They are in the middle of figuring it out. And they are honestly sharing what they've learned. There's exploration, muddling through, questions. Fascinating.
• As inspiring as it is to hear from "masters", we often learn just as much or more when we see someone who is learning closer to our level.

I'm also surprised (and delighted) because monks generally stay very silent about their practice at some of the other monasteries I've been to. (Wat Metta, Forest Dhamma Monastery). And, there are good reasons. As one monk explained, they aren't authorized to teach and they don't have the awakened insight that allows them to make sure their words are helpful and complete. But, I think that as long as we understand that caveat, it is worth a listen. After all, the eightfold noble path is a search, and we are tasked to look and re-look, and evaluate for ourselves.

But that silence from the practitioners creates an unintended consequence: we don't see the struggle. And, so we might feel that other people aren't struggling--that our struggling are all our own. It's helping to read a bit about the struggles, the search, the dead ends, the breakthroughs, and the re-evaluations as we practice and learn more.

A piece of writing in a similar vein is the Dear Jane letters, letters from the 1960s between an Englishwoman and a Thai monastic who was also from England.

Worth a listen. Intimate. Down to earth.

----

cited works:

Dear Jane – Wisdom from the forest for an English Buddhist Dhamma Books

by Bhikkhu Paññāvaḍḍho, Jane Browne 2019 English

Eight Worldly Winds

Sutta AN 8.6

Gain/loss,

 status/disgrace,

 censure/praise,

 pleasure/pain:

these conditions among human beings

are inconstant,

 impermanent,

 subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,

ponders these changing conditions.

Desirable things don't charm the mind,

undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming

& rebelling are scattered,

 gone to their end,

 do not exist.

Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,

he discerns rightly,

 has gone, beyond becoming,

 to the Further Shore.

AN 8.6 PTS: A iv 157

Lokavipatti Sutta: The Failings of the World

translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 1997

Everyone else is wrong

Everyone else is wrong.

I feel this strongly, often lately.

The other Buddhist practitioners are wrong. They are soft, inconsistent.

My parents are wrong in how they treat me.

My teachers must be wrong. I don't like what they teach sometimes. Or what they teach contradicts each other, or themselves! Maybe one of them is right, but the rest are wrong.

The "dharma teachers" who aren't *my teachers* are even more wrong, of course. Like Mark Epstein.

The government is wrong. Not efficient. Corrupted.

My enemies are wrong.

Everyday people are wrong. They do the things that most cause their *own* suffering. But they like to blame others.

I'm wrong, too. I had misguided notions before about how to do things.

Rich people are wrong for being greedy.

Poor people are wrong for being short-sighted, unwilling to help themselves.

Nonprofits are wrong for being into their missions, but ultimately being pretty dysfunctional.

People in love are wrong because love doesn't last.

Everybody, everybody is wrong. When will they wake up?

.

.

.

(Reflecting)

I don't think this way of thinking is helpful.

.

.

As I reflect on my own actions, I have the seeds of many of these faults myself. (Sobering up)

There is intense hardening, too. That hardening isn't helpful.

.

.

I seem to think more these ways when I am uncomfortable. When I'm not getting what I want.

.

.

There seems to be a voice in my head that says that if I get *MY* way, everything will be better. Wishful thinking in two ways. First, I'm never gonna get things my way. Second, even if I did get my way in the world outside, that wouldn't solve my world inside. It wouldn't calm the mind. I need to remember this when I get into these "everybody is wrong" moods.

QUOTE: Comparison, concentrated and unconcentrated mind

I spent a long time (years) thinking I had developed a concentrated mind. I had falsely convinced myself.

I shifted toward an attitude of noticing the difference. Between concentrated and unconcentrated. And this helped me (1) learn how to use that concentration and (2) how to check if I was falsely convincing myself I was concentrated.

It turned out that what my old self thought was concentration was just a pleasant state of escapist mind. It felt different. It felt special. But it was still quite entangled with the world and my own concepts.

The real concentrated state has several forms (it's a region, more than a point), but in all instances has a sharper alertness combined with a easeful awareness (especially good if grounded in the body. It can be broad or narrow, depending on (if) a frame of reference used). It is without sensual greed, aversion, sloth, restlessness, or grandiose identification. It's also not trying to be something that one saw on TV or in a magazine ad or even in a sutta. It might take effort to get into a state of concentration, but once one is in it, the effort is either minimal (Jhana1) or none (Jhana2, internal assurance).

 It has a different feel from the everyday mind which is always striving and stirring, often feeding.

"The point is simply that you train the mind to be centered and then compare it to the state of mind that isn't centered, so that you can see how they differ, how the mind that has attained concentration and then withdraws to contemplate matters of the world and the Dhamma differs from the mind that hasn't attained concentration."

Ajaan Thate

"Buddho", by Phra Ajaan Thate Desaransi, translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 2 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/thate/buddho.html .

Loathsomeness

The Buddha relates that one of the benefits of mindfulness of breathing, when developed greatly, is a handle on loathsomeness. That is, one has control over the perception of what is loathsome.

This is one way to "test" your mindfulness of breath. Can it be directed to see the loathsomeness and unloathsomeness of things? And also to be equanimous, independent, unsustained, unentangled?

It's not just about pleasure or passive awareness.

---

EXCERPT

"If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.

 "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.

 "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.

 "If a monk should wish: 'May I remain percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.

 "If a monk should wish: 'May I — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting myself off from both — remain equanimous, mindful, & alert,' then he should attend carefully to this same concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.

See Dipa Sutta, SN 54.8

SHORTY: Sati and lack of sati

Nothing good comes from a lack of sati*.

Pg 126 of Sanditthiko, by Ajahn Maha Boowa, translated by Steven Towler.

NOTES

*Sati is usually translated as mindfulness. In particular, it refers to samma sati, or right mindfulness. After reading Ajaan Geoff/Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book Right Mindfulness, I prefer to use a longer translation of Mind-Memory-Framework-Yoke. This is because it's not just naked awareness. It is using the mind (effort, direction) and applying memory (how to do it. And what it is) to a framework (boundaries for the mind, or the lens to be used. Like breath or body or feelings, in and of themselves) and yoking oneself to that framework (staying in that framework).

Shorty: No Gaps

In your concentration, aim for no gaps.

Like tracking a bird or insect with your eyes. No gaps.

AKA, keep your eye on the "ball", the breath energy or your meditation object.

shorty: appreciate

Appreciation is never owed, never required, always skillful.

Details

When I look around the world so many people feel like the Good Fortune they have attained is expected, Fair, Nothing to be celebrated. But when you look with two eyes and see how many people cheat, how many people lie, how many people steal, how many people twist things just so that they can get a little more of the scraps of the world-that's when I can marvel and appreciate when a shop clerk makes a little effort to pack the bags better, or there's a roadside stop with a clean bathroom. And the people who I appreciate are not Buddhists. They aren't necessarily religious or even "wholly good", but they can understand that there is something called goodness that we can treat each other with. At least sometimes. Even the most radical ("Trumpy") people can have that goodness.

Appreciation is never required, but when given it nourishes the GIVER. It attunes me to see with two eyes the ways that people treat each other well and also don't. It's so easy to get caught up in "the world is terrible for me". Also easy to get caught up in an idea that "the world is wonderful for me". The world is a very weird mix, but our actions do matter. Including the tiny kindnesses of others and myself. And the tiny appreciation of myself and others.

With metta.

Tetrads, Anapanasati

Just a note that I am reading Right Mindfulness (https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/RightMindfulness/Section0001.html) and it is clarifying a lot of my practice. But, a few notes:

1. I don't like the word Mindfulness because it is overloaded with too many meanings. I now use the bulky but precise phrase: Mind-Memory-Framework-Yoke. Mindfulness involves picking a framework, applying memory to stick with and yoke oneself to that framework. In that way, mindfulness is active, even when people do "mental noting". Because mental noting IS a framework itself.

2. Right mindfulness is that which gives insight and develops concentration and discernment. But there are many "almost right" mindfulness'es that are, unfortunately, misleading or wrong. The book covers this in  Chap4 and other places.

3. There is a ton of vocabulary and one needs to have a lot of attunement and "on the cushion" experience for the book to make a difference. Otherwise, it's too easy to have all this floating as abstract ideas. If one reads this first, one needs to be extra careful to notice when one is and isn't in line with the 4 tetrads. The danger is to copy the tetrads and match the "shape" but not the heartwood of the tetrads AND to mistake the shape for the real thing. Trial and error is key here.

Telling your sexual partner it was great, but not that important.

I hadn't had sex for about 2 or 3 years. Sex, for a long time, was very important. I enjoy it a lot. My partners tell me I'm pretty good at it. My superpower in bed: I listen. Sexuality is very interconnected, relaxed, like a dance.

Although I hadn't had sex for several years, there are some past lovers that I'm still friends with. And, putting it simply, I'm not a saint. I sometimes give in to my urges. So, in 20XX, I met up with one of those partners. We didn't have sex, but things got quite sexual.

I should have known better. We talked about keeping things platonic. I was in town for other reasons, but stayed at her house. I should have known better because we've tried to be platonic before. The sexual temptation is just too great.

I thought we were past sex, partly because I did say to her that "I don't want to be too tempted with the situation." I was trying to practice restraint of the senses, especially lust. She reacted negatively to the word, "tempted". She said she didn't want to be a temptress. She suggested I had some psychological hangups about sex. She said she was happy to see me as a friend, but didn't want anything to do with the role of temptress.

I tried restraint, but failed.

I think I started by asking her if we could cuddle. I hadn't had much physical contact having been isolated for a while, so I thought that maybe I could keep it at cuddling and chatting. 

It was also kind of a test for me. How would I react? Would I hold off on sex? Would we get intimate but without the drawbacks that I've started to see in my practice? Would I be disenchanted? Or would I change my mind about staying on the Buddhist path?

As many readers may know, a little bit of touching is a slippery slope to more and more. Hormones flowed, more and more. Clothes came off.

It was very good. Natural. Relaxed. As far as sexuality is concerned, it was extremely wholesome and enjoyable. We are both stable, sober adults. Both of us are loving and virtuous. I think we both keep largely to the 5 precepts. By the rules of 20XX, there is no blame for either of us. Consensual pleasure. And lots and lots of pleasure.

But during the sex, an interesting things happened. Normally, I get entranced in the sex and become one with the experience. A flow state. It adds to the pleasure to be immersed, reactive to the experience without much evaluation. But this time, because of my buddhist practice, I had a corner of my mind outside of the experience, watch. And it watched with two eyes. It saw all the allure, that I know all too well about. But it saw the drawbacks. I've had a lot of sex, and where did it get me in the end? Sex is fun, but unreliable. It hijacks the mind. It perpetuates the wandering on of samsara.

We didn't have intercourse (penis in vagina), but we did both have orgasms. I slept very soundly. We did it again a day or two later. And this time, I tried to convince her to have intercourse, but she declined. I'm glad she did. Intercourse changes things, supercharges things. At least for me. So, we didn't pass that gate.

After our second horizontal romp, we chatted a bit afterward. And I remember sharing some Buddhist reflections. She is Buddhist, too, but a different version of Buddhism. I said something like, "That was great, but also not that important." I told her it was physically really similar, but that I wasn't as enchanted or attached to the experience. I was not pushing her away, but putting the experience in perspective. She had known I was straddling the line between turning to be a monk or staying in the lay world and practicing Buddhism.

Well, there was conflict. Her buddhism is one that doesn't praise dispassion and praises interconnectedness. And her way of practicing Buddhism includes a lot of taking joy in (wholesome) pleasures. Sex is included in wholesome pleasures, especially the connected and relaxed kind of sex we have.

The conflict arose a few days later. I let her know I was leaving town soon. Through a miscommunication, she thought I'd be coming back soon after and be there the better part of a month. As it turned out, I was to be there for a little over a week. I can't say for sure what was going on in her mind, but she was unhappy. She said as much. She said she wasn't mad at me, because she wants me to do what I want. But she was disappointed and frustrated and felt misled. Also, what we have with each other in terms of connection is rare, for both her and me. For her, it seems something to hold on to and fight for. And for me, it's "not that important". Albeit very pleasurable in a sensual pleasure kind of way. She shared her displeasure over some long talks. Confusion may be a better word. There was something she wanted more of but she couldn't have it. And, furthermore, the confusion is exacerbated in that it was also good for me and, in some ways, I wanted it too. But I had parts of me that didn't want it, parts that I'm not sure she can understand. I think 99% of the world would side with her that I'm the crazy one. But, I and my understanding of the Dhamma sides with me, that I'm sane to see samsara, dispassion, disenchantment.

A few days later, even though I was leaving, and even though she had been angry, she asked if I wanted to cuddle with her. Was she now a temptress? Or maybe just someone seeing no drawbacks to some more pleasure. I was tempted, but I had gotten more resolved since our first two bed sessions. I politely declined. I think I left the next day.

We remained friends and she has treated me with nothing less than stellar friendship. I wholeheartedly praise her for that.

----

Where do we go from here? The future is unwritten.

I think there's a 50% chance that we may hook up again. The pleasure, albeit worldly, is extremely intense and alluring. And the drawbacks are pretty minimal. Except for the (understandable) hurt feelings afterward, there's no interpersonal drama.

And there's a 50% chance that I stay away, putting more of my chips into the Dhamma category and sense restraint.

But there is a 100% chance that it will not be as important as it used to be.

----

ASIDE: The Rajja Sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn04/sn04.020.than.html has an interesting passage about how even a mountain of gold wouldn't satisfy (quench desire/greed/wanting). In today's modern age, even a mountain of orgasms is not the route to peace and durable happiness.

Look at your poop (look with two eyes)

 Look at your poop. This is meant to be humorous and serious advice to people exploring Buddhism.

Why look at your poop? Well, first, what do you see when you look at your poop?

• Are you disgusted?
• Are you amazed at how different it is day by day?
• Do you see chunks of corn?
• Do you have an urge to wash your hands? (or wash your eyes?!?!! LOL)

Those are some common responses, valid responses. It is a pretty ordinary way of looking at poop. Look at it like you'd look at dog poop on the street. Kinda gross. Kinda peculiar.

But the poop is also you.

Hatred: don't get worked up about impossibilities

The world is insufficient, insatiable. (From the 4 dhamma summaries). Especially, there is suffering for YOU around hatred and frustration if you feed and engage in it.

It is common in Buddhist circles to regard hatred as self-harming. This is true in the early texts (see Dhammapada). This is true in pop-buddhism you might find in a magazine. And true for Mahayanists and across Buddhist sects.

I recently found an amusing take on how to address hatred. It starts: "There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten?

Then it goes through having harm done now, in the past, and possibly in the future. And it says, "but what can you do?"

Then, it concludes with a flourish: [10] "One does not get worked up over impossibilities"

The impossibility (in my reading) is that you convince the other person to act differently.

--

The other person may be breaking custom, breaking a social norm, be in the wrong, motivated by a misunderstanding, malicious, or even breaking a federal law. And it may be very true that they would harm others less and harm themselves less if they didn't cause that harm. But, from the equanimity chant, that all beings are the owners of their own actions, we don't get to make choices for others. If we wish it were different, one is getting worked up about impossibilities.

This is not to dominish the harm or to say law enforcement or a polite note isn't in order. But the hating... That just harm's our own mind. It breeds a hating habit when we don't get what we want. And speaking for myself, that hatred can spread quickly and broadly. I have hated mosquitoes. I have hated business partners. I have hated students. I have hated monks. I have hated the rain.

But all those things don't change by my hatred. The rain doesn't care. And the mean neighbor isn't going to be persuaded by my hatred. So, why get worked up over impossibilities.

Part of hatred is being hurt. And that part, we can look at carefully to gain wisdom. But the part of hate that is revengeful, story-making, and full of ill-will, that part isn't very helpful.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.080.than.html

Antidotes

I keep on looking this up, so I'm gonna post it here. This is from page 100 of The Island, essays on Nibbana.

5.17) “Contemplation of unattractiveness of the body should be

cultivated for the overcoming of sexual desire; loving-kindness should be

cultivated for the overcoming of ill will; mindfulness of breathing should

be cultivated for the cutting off of discursive thinking; contemplation of

impermanence should be cultivated for the dispelling of the conceit ‘I

am’ (asmi-māna). For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the

perception of not-self is established. With the perception of not-self, the

conceit ‘I am’ is eliminated, and that is Nibbāna here and now.”

~ Ud 4.1, A 9.3

5.18) “Seclusion is happiness for one content,

who knows the Dhamma, who has seen;

“Friendship with the world is happiness

for those restrained toward all beings;

“Dispassion amidst the world is happiness

for those who have let go of sense desires;

“But the end of the conceit ‘I am’ –

that’s the greatest happiness of all.”

~ Ud 2.1

True, but not helpful: The Buddha's first encounter with teaching

 Right Speech is characterized as having 3 qualities: it is true, it is beneficial, it is well timed. The first time the Buddha tried to "teach", he was truthful, but not helpful.

In Pañcavaggiyakathā (Mv.I.6.1) (https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/Mv/MvI.html), the Buddha is a few weeks after his moment of full awakening. Upaka the Ājīvaka meets him on the road and asks him who his teacher is and what his teachings are."Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”

When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses:

“All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things,
unadhering.


All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?"

etc.

And the Buddha goes on for a bit. It's all "true", but isn't very helpful or persuasive. It directly answers the question of who the teacher is, but doesn't give any flavor of what is being taught.

How is Upaka supposed to differentiate the Buddha from another person claiming great attainments? What wisdom has the Buddha shared? None.

It continues:

Upaka: “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.”


Buddha: “Conquerors are those like me
who have reached fermentations’ end.
I’ve conquered evil qualities,
and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”


When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.

I bolded the "shaking his head" to emphasize that the Buddha didn't impart any knowledge. He didn't teach any Dhamma. Upaka couldn't discern the Buddha from just another mendicant hopped up on their own sense of accomplishment.

And hence, the first "teaching" was a failure. I say this with caution, because it may very well be that the Buddha wasn't actually trying to teach, so no real failure occurred. He met a traveller on the road, and then answered his questions. But, it's undeniable that based on what was said, Upaka was not persuaded. The Buddha would have had to change his tack.

I find it interesting why this story is included in the Pali Canon. The Buddha would have been the only person to know this story besides Upaka. The Buddha could have skipped this story in his telling and gone straight to his (successful) turning the wheel of dhamma with the five monks. But, I find it helpful to see the contrast. To Upaka, he seems to boast, which gets nowhere. And with the 5 monks, he points to patterns of experience which the monks could understand and know (in their bones, in their own experience). The contrast illustrates a bit that the reasoning matter a lot in the teaching. Not the stature of the teacher. In fact, in the Kalama sutta, the way to evaluate what is genuine dhamma cautions about following a teaching just because the stature of the person who said it.

For me, this is a warning to watch out for grandiosity. I feel that I need to talk less and listen more. I do have this attitude that I am smart and know a lot. That other people should listen to me. But I want to be careful so that that doesn't slow down my development. Or, worse yet, I turn into a Devadatta.

Mad Libs for the Craving Mind

For a while, I've used the phrase "if only ____, then everything would be great" as a prime example of delusion. I.e., delusion as part of the trifecta: Greed, Aversion/Anger, Delusion.

But today I found that the Buddha actually gave the formula in the suttas, AN 4:199. He gave 36 of them.

• 18 craving verbalizations, and
• 18 craving verbalizations dependent on what is external

1. I am.
2. I am here.
3. I am like this.
4. I am otherwise.
5. I am bad.
6. I am good.
7. I might be.
8. I might be here.
9. I might be like this.
10. I might be otherwise.
11. May I be.
12. May I be here.
13. May I be like this.
14. May I be otherwise.
15. I will be.
16. I will be here.
17. I will be like this.
18. I will be otherwise.

The 18 "dependent on externals" adds "because of this" to each of the above phrases.

Take the word "this" and making it a fill in the blank, we have the Buddha's mad libs for a craving mind.

• I am ___
• I am ___ because of ____.
• May I be like  ____.
• May I be like _____ because of ____.
• etc.

My brain spends so much time cycling through these 36 templates. The templates are phrased a bit archaically, but they capture the verbalization of cravings, i.e. cravings put into words. In their raw form, there are three: sensual pleasures, becoming, and non becoming. Or in casual, everyday terms, "gimme what feels good", "gimme that", and "get rid of that". 

Meditation changed a bunch when I shifted from wanting to change what I am (I want to be happier), to just looking at what Jack Kornfield has called the pasta factory of the mind, endlessly churning out thoughts like pasta. Different shapes, all made from the same craving dough.

====

SOURCE:

Reading from: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/OnThePath/Section0008.html#sec126

 “And which craving is the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations? These 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.

“And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being ‘I am,’ there comes to be ‘I am here,’ there comes to be ‘I am like this’ … ‘I am otherwise’ … ‘I am bad’ … ‘I am good’ … ‘I might be’ … ‘I might be here’ … ‘I might be like this’ … ‘I might be otherwise’ … ‘May I be’ … ‘May I be here’ … ‘May I be like this’ … ‘May I be otherwise’ … ‘I will be’ … ‘I will be here’ … ‘I will be like this’ … ‘I will be otherwise.’ These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.

“And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being ‘I am because of this [or: by means of this],’ there comes to be ‘I am here because of this,’ there comes to be ‘I am like this because of this’ … ‘I am otherwise because of this’ … ‘I am bad because of this’ … ‘I am good because of this’ … ‘I might be because of this’ … ‘I might be here because of this’ … ‘I might be like this because of this’ … ‘I might be otherwise because of this’ … ‘May I be because of this’ … ‘May I be here because of this’ … ‘May I be like this because of this’ … ‘May I be otherwise because of this’ … ‘I will be because of this’ … ‘I will be here because of this’ … ‘I will be like this because of this’ … ‘I will be otherwise because of this.’ These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.

“Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.

“This, monks is the craving that’s the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations.” — AN 4:199

By Thanissaro Bhikkhu / Ajahn Geoff. As part of https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/OnThePath/Section0008.html

his free ebook: On the Path

Prince Dighavu, quarreling, and revenge

 I only recently learned about the dramatic tale of Prince Dighavu in the Buddhist canon. It tells the story of a prince, whose parents are killed by a rival king. Prince Dighavu sees his parents being mercilessly killed in the public square. His father shouts to him some cryptic words:

"Don't, my dear Dighavu, be far-sighted. Don't be near-sighted. For vengeance is not settled through vengeance. Vengeance is settled through non-vengeance."

The prince, in a wild twist of events, becomes the trusted servant of the King who killed his parents. The king doesn't know he is the prince. One day, out in the forest, he has an opportunity to avenge/revenge his parents. He pulls out a knife, but then sheaths it again.

The king awakens, dreaming that the prince is about to kill him. The prince tells the king he is the prince, but does so peaceably. The king asks for his life to be spared, and the prince responds that his life should be spared, too. Accordingly, they grant each other life and swear to each other friendship.

Later, the cryptic words of the dead father are explained by Prince Dighavu.

"What my father said to me as he was about to die — 'Don't be far-sighted' — 'Don't bear vengeance for a long time' is what he was saying to me as he was about to die. And what he said to me as he was about to die — 'Don't be near-sighted' — 'Don't be quick to break with a friend' is what he was saying to me as he was about to die. And what he said to me as he was about to die — 'For vengeance is not settled through vengeance. Vengeance is settled through non-vengeance' — My mother & father were killed by your majesty. If I were to deprive your majesty of life, those who hope for your majesty's well-being would deprive me of life. And those who hope for my well-being would deprive them of life. And in that way vengeance would not be settled by vengeance. But now I have been granted my life by your majesty, and your majesty has been granted your life by me. And in this way vengeance has been settled by non-vengeance. That is what my father was saying to me as he was about to die."

It's quite an amazing story, and one very much against the grain of what I consider to be American (and global) myth making of revenge and vengeance. The amazingness is to go the other path.

What about if the king were to kill the prince? Well, there's the Simile of the Saw sutta for that. It says, even if bandits were to hack your arms off with a two handed saw, you should not generate thoughts of ill will. Also amazing.

NOTES

The Dighavu story is also discussed in the book Recognizing the Dhamma (pdf or online version) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

The Prince Dighavu story is related in Mahavagga 10.2 (in context) and is told as part of an incident in the Buddha's community of monks. They were quarreling and wouldn't stop. (I think the quarrel was about bathroom etiquette and following the rules.) The Buddha found out and exhorted them to stop. He tells this story. But, even after 3 times of asking them to stop, they don't. So, he decides to leave.

Then the Blessed One, (thinking,) “These worthless men are hopeless—they’re not easy to convince,” got up from his seat and left.

Seclusion is not to be underestimated. But also not to be glorified. If one can find good companions, all the better. But, for myself, I have spent a lot of time reveling about people who care more about comfort than most else. Fun, but not the noble ones. Not bad people, but not ones where I benefit from following their example. So, I'm taking my friendship in many books, many chance encounters with goodness, and my own goodness, which I've taken a lot of effort to develop further and further.

Funnily enough, a quote came up from Jane Eyre in the Netflix show Anne with an "E" that seems to fit well:

“If all the world hated you, and believed you wicked, while your own conscience approved you, and absolved you from guilt, you would not be without friends.”

I didn't notice the parallel to Buddhism the first time I heard it, but it just so happened to spark a connection recently.

With metta blessing, EC.

An old poem of mine

 I wrote this poem about 20 years ago. It wasn't aimed at Buddhism per se (wasn't a Buddhist then), but it touches at watching and inconstancy and the earnest desire for wisdom of another way. Nowadays, it fits really well in some ways and so so in other ways.

You cannot ignore what goes on inside you.

You have to make things
   beautiful.

You cannot sit idly by while your heart dances in agony and delight.

Let me never forget the beauty of inconsistency and limbo within which I exist, that does not demand my awe or pity, but demands my attention.

(I was in a rental room in San Jose, interning at IBM, miserable.)

SHORTY: Alcoholics Anonymous and the Higher Power

 This is a quote from a Roger Ebert article:

The important thing is that you don't consider yourself to be your own Higher Power, because your own best thinking found your bottom for you.  

referring to step 3 in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)

MORE:

I think the same think applies to how Buddhism works. Buddhism isn't doctrine and dogma that you must follow. It's pragmatic. And, ultimately, it does point at not believing too much that you, on your own, have all the answers figured out already.

It's not actually essential you believe the Buddha to be perfect or enlightened, especially not at the start. You just have to believe in the possibility that the way you've been going about things isn't the best and only way.

And then you work the path. AA has 12 steps focused on alcohol addiction. Buddhism has 8 that focuses on clinging and craving that, ultimately, hurts ourselves a great deal.

AA is for people who used to think that alcohol could solve their troubles or be a reliable path to happiness.

Buddhism is for people who used to think that money, fame, possessions, romance or anything/something external in the world could solve their troubles and be a reliable path to happiness. If only I had ____.

To start to see that those thoughts are a path of greed, anger, and delusion, in both small and big ways, is a start.

Shorty: things needing to be a certain way

 If your identity rests on others being a certain way, what happens if and when they change.

strength and pain

I think I always thought that strength would prevent pain from happening. Puffing up my chest, flexing my muscles, surveying my friends/allies... I felt protected.

But now I know that strength doesn't really prevent pain, especially the wounds we inflict on ourselves. Strength can fool me into believing that fable: I'm invincible! But that's just a story, that I want to believe.

What is true? The fake strength actually impedes me. The real strength is to see pain, to feel it, to experience it. 

Wisdom allows me to avoid some pain and entanglements. But the bigger strength is to be able to hold the pains I can't avoid, or the lingering traumas my "stinking thinking" repeats.

Strength let's me go through and with the pain. That's real strength in this uncertain, unsatisfactory world.

Courage

My commitment to the world is to be able to walk anywhere in the world without my heart closing. How do I do that?

Ruth King, 2021. Black and buddhist summit.

Notes to Rahula: The path of mistakes. Be observant, don't lie, and notice what is skillful vs not skillful.

 In MN61, Instructions to Rahula, the Buddha instructs his own son. Siddharta Gautama left the palace shortly after the birth of his son to pursue the medicant/monk life. His son chose, many years later, to join the monkhood.

I get the impression that Rahula was a dedicated but kinda lax monk towards the beginning. In this sutta, we get the strong impression that Rahula lied about something. The Buddha chastised Rahula, pointing out that someone who lacks honesty has very little goodness in them. They can't be trusted by others. But they also can't be trusted by themselves.

But the main reason I want to share the Rahula Sutta is relating it to the path of mistakes. Buddhism isn't about getting it right on the first try through sheer force of will. We all have lots of accumulated habits and tendencies. I have found, in my own practice, that trying to impatiently bypass my bad habits doesn't work. They are repressed for a bit, but they just come back stronger when I am in a weak spot, with low ability to fight off old habits (sex, food, praise, money, comfort). Buddhism isn't about how we act when we get everything we want; it's a lot about how we act when things don't go our way.

Should I rage against the machinery? Or maybe just watch the puppy mind?

 Buddhism talks about Karma, which is about cause and effect. 

When there are the seeds of greed, we shouldn't be surprised greed arises. 

When there are the seeds of anger, we shouldn't be surprised anger arises.

When there are the seeds of delusion and wishful thinking, we shouldn't be surprised delusion and wishful thinking arise.

Some seeds we can control and some seeds we cannot.