Search This Blog

Poem

Nothing is Enough // Or everything is not enough. // I have a hunger... //// The hunger is me. // If I feed it, it wants more. // Mostly, it wants something else. //// A wise person, said STOP. //

Sunday, December 4, 2022

On how to repay a teacher, not disappearing, and the problems of sarcasm.

I am incredibly indebted to Thanissaro Bhikkhu and the phrase of "Practicing the dhamma in line with the Dhamma, not in line with your preferences".  It paints a sharp line. If you know better, a follower of Buddhism is duty bound to not disrespect the Dhamma. One can make mistakes, even 100s of mistakes. But the transgression of the rule is to lie to oneself: to pretend one is earnestly practicing the Dhamma when one is just messing around, often using it for entertainment.

The phrase, "if you know better" is key. For years, I was using Buddhism is a way I would now see as questionable. I was dabbling with Buddhism and picking and choosing the bits that "resonated" with my beliefs that made me feel good. But, eventually I realized that the bits that "resonated" were often the bits that resonated with my bad habits, with greed or anger or wishful thinking. Or with self aggrandizement or some myth of "I am right (and ready to fight)" (see other blog post on the folly of fighting others for what is right).

The below text message is with a new friend who is inconsistent with communication, and hence, I mistook them as someone it's not helpful for me to interact with around Buddhism. But his email to me (that I am not including) reflected back that he had deeply absorbed and explored what I taught him, about being careful of being sucked into backstories (the "second Arrow" story in Buddhism). He just never reported back.

A student is never never never obligated to report back to the teacher. There is no "owing". But a student, especially in the modern informal age, should know that the majority of students (and even of monks) don't put into practice what a teacher teaches. In that information vacuum, a teacher has two quandaries: (1) they can't tell if you are putting in effort or, like the majority, just going through motions, and (2) they don't know what to teach you, since what is taught, especially in Buddhism, is tailored to the student's aptitudes and deficiencies. So help your teacher and help yourself: keep notes on what you do and don't do. And share the poignant parts (which are sometimes dull parts, by the way), so they can better guide you.  Otherwise, don't be shocked that a teacher writes you off or gives you generic fluff.

(NOTE: this is not how things were in olden days, in a full-time training center, or on an intimate retreat. The process of sharing the daily meal, watching how chores are performed and even just looking at nonverbal body language... a good teacher can grok/read a lot from just being in shared space with another person. So there, it's not as important to verbalize, because your actions will speak louder than your words. Some teachers (like Ajaan Maha Boowa, famously) are said to be able to read minds. But not all can, or some can only do so vaguely. So, it is helpful to speak up when you are having issues with practice or with an idea. But realize, also that a skilled teacher will not often give a direct answer. There is a lot of "try this or that", or "this works sometimes", or the dreaded, "work on it yourself and see what you can come up with" (!)".)


As for how a student can repay the teacher: I like the Thai response (Ajaan Fuang? Chah? Both?). A student repays the teacher by trying out and putting what the teacher taught into practice. Hence, it's fine if a student never reports back. The wish is only that the student put the teaching to good use, to develop helpful and skillful habits.




I'm happy to help you (and everyone) who earnestly approaches Buddhism.

I'm wary of two things (not just you): 1) people who jump to Buddhism only when they feel like it or in crisis. (This is like people who pray only when they want help). 2) and people who don't put in the work. In general, 1 hour of meeting should be linked to at least 1 or 2 hours of homework/personal practice. It's unfortunately common that people go to talks like they go to a movie, for some relaxation, and do 0 homework.

It's helpful whenever you report back to me what works and what you have tried, what ideas you've worked with. Like what you wrote in this text. You get just as much credit when you earnestly work with an idea as when you report back that it doesn't work for you. (I e., Don't pretend something works if it doesn't ). But you get no credit or negative credit when you don't report back at all. Hence, I had mostly written your earnestness off since you haven't reported back. until this message, which sets you more square.

As a slogan: don't disappear without a word.

If you do want to disappear, just send a note, like "I'm dropping Buddhism."


The person also is very sarcastic and I said to him that I will push him to not use sarcasm around me. He related this to an issue of disrespect to Buddhism (which it sometimes is, but sometimes isn't). And that sarcasm might be treating Buddhism as entertainment, not a serious and useful path.

My distaste for sarcasm is about sarcasm being 50% of the time a bad habit, a habit that promotes cynicism but also avoiding tough conversations. It can be useful as a stress reliever when things are very fucked up (like gallows humor), but the popularity of sarcasm is more indicative that most US society is very fucked up, and sarcasm is rarely a reliable sign that someone is clever. It mostly signals that they like appearing clever.

Sunday, November 27, 2022

Commercials, a museum of "if only" thoughts

I'm watching TV (too much) lately. It's a strong negative in my concentration practice, but there is a sliver of a silver lining. It's like visiting a museum of all the "if only" thinking that I am learning to give up.

Gil Fronsdal has a fairy tale that talks about all the if only thoughts we have.

The jewelry commercial reminds me of all the "love is forever" stories. And the stories that "if you really love someone, it means...".

The car commercials reminds me of the "you deserve it" story. Gil Fronsdal talks about the time the car salesman said, "you deserve an air conditioner." (Back when AC was not standard).

The food commercials remind me of "indulge, revel". Reminds me of Thanissaro's comment on "obey your thirst"... A dangerous but common slogan of life.

So many commercials are aspirational. Whispering, "you deserve more, more". Like the new iPhone.

Then there are the guilt commercials. About germs and laundry detergent.  "Is it really clean unless you..."

---

I like to remind people how much can be done with so little. Buddha was 2600 years ago. Christ was about 2000 years. They didn't even have clean water. Medical knowledge was very rudimentary. Communication was verbal... You had to walk to the next town to learn what someone might be teaching. Famine was commonplace.

With that said, modern life has way more temptation. Commercials and ads are virtually unavoidable. We are whispered, "more, more, more" all the time, and all over the place. And it's much easier to just show the good side (i.e. lie by hiding drawbacks).

There is a culture of commercials, to suggest that you can have all the upside with none of the downside. And maybe none of the work either. Get rich quick, get rich for free.

I am thankful I am somewhat innoculated/vaccinated against that line of thinking.


Rope, Wind, Escape, Binge

It's interesting to be coming off this long flu recovery. I've been sick for about 2 weeks. One week of fever. One week of cough and low energy. I am also here in Kansas where it's getting cold. And that cold is sapping energy and effort for me, too.
 
But I see this pattern! And I'm excited to finally see the pattern. Rope. Wind. Escape. Binge.

 The first two are things that happened to me (external), but that I'm a willing participant in, somehow. I feed it. I let it take over and dominate my narrative... because then I can get the escape. And then that creates urges that I then either succumb to or grab. The urge to escape. And the use of binging to escape.

I'm excited to finally see the pattern. Old me sort of saw the pattern, but loved to justify it and make up stories. Stories that I deserved these shiny (but shitty) escapes. Stories that this is normal, justified. Stories that I was doing better than other people so that's okay (shitty behavior justification machine). I still make up those stories, but a part of me is very good at watching me make up those stories. So I'm able to see these patterns. That's a big step in discernment, insight.

I also have to admit that I'm pretty lousy at remembering to use alternatives. Isn't Jhana something I have developed? Jhana is a good "instead"; it is a wholesome and heedful escape, into concentration, with equanimity. But I decide to wallow in Netflix or chess or porn. Which disquiet the mind but, moreover, are exhausting (not restorative, not restful). I can do better. I hope I can remember that I can do better.

Thursday, November 10, 2022

The time the Bhikkhus did not delight in what the Buddha said

 In The Island (pg 97), there is a passage of the time the Bhikkhus did not delight and rejoice in the teachings of the Buddha. I have referenced it several times in helping me understand how against the stream the Buddha's teachings were. At the end, with full insight, all self identification, philosophizing, and metaphysical framework-ing has to melt away.



“He directly knows water as water ... the All as All. .. Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he does not conceive [himself as] Nibbāna, he does not conceive [himself] in Nibbāna, he does not conceive [himself] apart [or coming] from Nibbāna, he does not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being [as condition] there is birth and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme, full enlightenment, I say.” ~ M 1.3-194, (abridged)

At the end of the discourse the reader is treated to a rare finishing touch: “That is what the Blessed One said but those bhikkhus did not delight in the Blessed One’s words.”


It is said that the group of monks whom the Buddha was addressing were formerly brahmin priests and that perhaps this dismantlement of the conception of ‘being’ was too threatening for them to take. In addition, in other situations, even though the deconstruction of the sense of being that the anattā teaching provided might have been approved of, this was not always the end of the matter. For, no matter how hard the Buddha tried to convey that the teaching on anattā was not a  philosophical or metaphysical position, but rather skilfull means to free the heart, the teaching was regularly taken in the wrong way – and, not surprisingly, it has been repeatedly misconstrued in the intervening centuries 

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Dear Humans. This blog is optional.

Dear Humans,

This blog is optional. What I write here in no way is specific advice for your situation. I want you to decide for yourself. I'm happy if you decide for yourself.

Yes. The Dhamma of Buddhism is the path to the end of suffering (or so sayeth Buddhism). It's both simple and complicated. Simple because it is about being free of craving... to achieve the end of suffering. Complex and intricate because clinging and suffering come in so many different flavors.

I'm pretty darn committed to the path, to understand and loosen every single flavor of that suffering and clinging. It's not easy. And so what I write here is my exploration, my field notes, my map. Your map will probably look quite a bit different. May you meet good mapmakers along the way, to help you fill in your blind spots.

What I'm trying to say with this post is: I'm not saying you need to agree with me. This is true in two distinct ways. (1) you might not be trying to end all suffering. You might have a different goal. And if that's true, don't try to apply what I am sharing. It will be the wrong medicine. (2) even if you are trying to end all suffering, your path may be different. According to the Buddha, all paths must go through the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Like you need discernment/insight and you need concentration. But the exact sequencing and obstacles and the words you will use to describe--- all that will vary.


I am writing this, spurred by reading Group, by Christie Tate. I enjoyed it a lot. It is a wonderful path, with lots of overlap to what I've learned in Buddhism. But ultimately, it's not about ending all suffering in the Buddhist (monastic?) sense. But it has many lessons of learning to be comfortable in one's own mind, of listening to our internal machinations. And that is no small thing at all.

Thursday, September 22, 2022

Is "True Nature" helpful? yes and no, but mostly no

Old me would have been angry when people talked about Nirvana or awareness as our "true nature". I'd have an attitude: Dammit! That's a distortion of Buddhism.

Even older me would have romanticized true nature and tried to merge with it, like a love affair or sex. Like as escape from my present situation.

Today's me asks a much different question that right or wrong. It asks, what is the helpful way to approach True Nature?

A recent quote from a Tricycle magazine newsletter is typical

"By looking inward and working with our own minds, we can liberate ourselves from the causes of suffering and learn to access the peaceful, open-hearted state of awareness that is our true nature. "

The general aim of looking inward (as opposed to outward) and working with our minds (rather than our wealth, health, or our friendships) is the right direction. (No big quarrels there, though there could be debates about avoid complete self-involvement.) The next part about causes of suffering is straight from the 4 Noble Truths. But the last part about true nature is dangerous, I would say. Dangerous because it is helpful sometimes and unhelpful in a way that can ruin one's path.

Let's start with helpful. True Nature is related to a concept that it is innate to us. A related idea is human nature. Somehow, we are hard wired to sweat when it's hot and to like sweet things. That's human nature. So the true nature of open awareness is, accordingly, something innate. But, in a twist, it is something innate that was lost and we have to develop.

I find it confusing that something could be innate, in our "nature" and yet be lost. Which is it?

To be generous, true nature might be pointing to two ideas. First, all humans have access to it. There is no special talent that one needs to start this path. There were beggars and idiots as well as rich people and kings that achieved arahatship. So, it is available to every social class. Second, there are no special outside tools or conditions that are needed. You don't need money, or a secret orb, or the permission of some elders, or to speak a certain language. If someone teaches you (including someone dead via books) the path, and you develop the path, you can achieve it. Just like learning an instrument, it just takes practice. And, in general, diligent practice is a bigger factor than some innate talent.

These are two things that I think are common in most presentations of Buddhism, especially by acknowledged masters. And, in a world where there are so many gatekeepers, it is downright inspiring that everyone has the same access and potential. The difficulty isn't the same for everyone, but the path and potential (you can make it if you try) IS THE SAME.

The dangers of "true nature" is that is can lead to misleading, often romanticized, notions of what Buddhism and release from suffering is. There is a notion, somewhat narcissistic, that our true nature is what is "naturally" there when we strip away all of our attachments. The narcissism is that this attitude can be counterproductive. We start regarding the "outside things" as the attachments we have to strip away. This is a good start, but not complete. We do have to strip away obsessions about money, about sex, about fairness, about social standing, about respect. But once we become separated from the world (unperturbable?) that's not the end. We have to look at our own notions of who we are, the 9 kinds of conceit/comparison. And there, I have found that I cannot skip the step of UNDERSTANDING those attachments. Too often, I have wanted to avoid the attachment, which is like trimming the plant but not cutting it off by the root. And then, further along, in both a Zen and Thai Forest tradition, we have to also cut off self-identification that is unhelpful; we have to cut off this idea of "look at me and all this peacefulness I have attained by being aware and unattached". Because all fabricated things, have that tension. So we have to, in a sense, break through the tension of having no tension. Or, maybe, to have tension without tension: that is having some release and discipline without the tension of clinging.

Another danger of true nature is that is invites using it as an excuse. As one develops a strong level of awareness and open heartedness, can this be misused by our Kilesas or Mara (or Loki, the clever trickster) to convince ourselves we are justified to favor certain things? In psychology, there is a notion of a "flow" state, where there is intense concentration. Like basketball players in the NBA finals. That "flow" state feels natural, and it can be easy to confuse the flow as our true nature. When I am in a flow state and aware, it can feel open hearted, effortless, natural. It feels like my true nature. But, if I look carefully, I can still see greed, aversion, and wishful thinking. In fact, wishful thinking is especially prominent, because I want to stay in that flow.  Romantic love (obsession, eros) can have similarities to that flow. Full or awareness, but with blind spots. It can lead us to do stupid things. It can feel so natural. And, if our training is to look for awareness + pleasantness + effortlessness, that can admit a lot of GAD. And if we further think that the "true nature" is our endpoint, we set our goal as a place with a lot of GAD. At a minimum, proponents of "true nature" should teach checks like looking for Greed, Anger, and Delusion (lobha, dosa, moha). And, along the path, it's okay to see some GAD. But we should be honest when we see it. And we should (hopefully) have decreasing levels of each. But, as we dig deeper into our mind, we should be prepared that we may find a big mother lode of GAD that was hidden. That's okay. Our first step is to look carefully at what is.

So, True Nature, misused, can cause us to NOT look carefully at what is. I've met some dear people, very kind and loving, who are so convinced they understand their "true nature", that all sorts of GAD leak out unawares to them.

More sharply to the point: I'm wary of Buddhist reductionism and aware how easy it is to want to believe in the shortcut. The reductionism is to simplify the path: take the 4 Noble Truths and dropping it to 1. Or the eightfold path and taking some out.
At best, the true nature of awareness is only 1 or 2 steps of the 8fold path. It is tied up with right knowledge (samma ditthi), which is often presented as awareness of karma, awareness of causes and consequences. Not "isn't it all so nice" awareness. It is also tied up with right mindfulness (samma sati). But the 4 foundations talks about looking "without greed and distress for the world", which I will edit as "without preferences for or against the world". If your mindfulness (awareness) is happy and only sees the good side (like open heartedness, and peace), that's probably wrong mindfulness. 

But I know how easy it is to wish we could keep our sacred happy bits and have a shortcut. Like "awareness + what we like". But it leaves out renunciation. It leaves out right speech and right action. It leaves out right concentration and right effort.

Now, I'm strongly saying "awareness as true nature" is misleading and problematic, but it isn't worthless. Note that I'm not saying it's not alluring or an acceptable choice. It isn't the complete Buddhist path (as I understand it) and it doesn't develop the right mix of tools or have the right map. But it can clean up a lot of reactivity. It can clean up a lot of misery from being unaware, narrow-minded, needing things to be a certain way. So, if you have the True Nature map, it might take you a quarter of the way. But that's legit. If you just want to go 1/4, do it. May it be of benefit. Just don't tell people it's the whole way. And, secondly, if you correctly advertise it as 1/4 of the way, people who get that far can be imbued with a sense of exploration. "Wow, I got all these results going 1/4 of the way. I wonder what else there is?" Or, I have this awareness tool. When is it useful? When doesn't it help? What other tools are out there?

And that inquiry can take you all the way. At least, that is what I have heard and what I am working on.


Monday, September 19, 2022

Avoid politics

One of the best pieces of advice I've gotten is to avoid politics when one is following the Buddhist path. 

This is not a popular piece of advice, even amongst Buddhists. There are strong factions within the Buddhist Community who see political striving for peace and justice to be a Buddhist pillar. I think the label that's been used is Engaged Buddhism. That we develop some Buddhist principles, and then we apply them to the world, as if the world is a person. So we have metta towards the world. We have metta towards the struggles of an underclass or oppressed class.

As I've touched on in other posts, link1 link2 link3, this could be beneficial. If it is helpful in us understanding our blind spots, we should go for it. There's nothing wrong with generosity, and nothing wrong with some a kinship to help homeless people or the environment; it is helpful to the world. But is it helpful for the mind? Or is it hallucinating, bordering on increasing inflexibility and tension.

 To be specific, it is most dramatically and obviously helpful if someone who has been disgusted by homeless people, learns about homeless people and then changes their mind. And in whatever way, which could be just donating to a food pantry, or direct advocacy and relief work, that person loosens the previous yuck instinct.

For environmentalism, it is helpful when someone doesn't care about the environment at all and doesn't see the impact of their actions. In some way, this is someone who is very consumerist oriented and very selfish. But then they realize how much their use of fossil fuels or land development is causing damage to the world and its environment. Maybe it's a local issue where there's an animal sanctuary that developers want to tear down so they can build more housing and shopping. And this person becomes inspired to think beyond their own benefits, and to look at the broader benefits.

But the environmental story can get dogmatic and become an unhelpful one. We can become a stereotypical Eco crusader, who sees things in stark black and white. You're either with us or against us. There is a moral imperative to save the whales. And if you are hurting the whales, I have some justification to hurt you.

When things get political, it gets very easy to think in terms of right and wrong. Even if we move towards a more nuanced approach, where there are better choices and worst choices. The key mistaken thought construct is that we assign some universality to the ranking of choices. Keeping a park is always better than building a shopping plaza. And furthermore, the rationalization where we amplify and spin the benefits of a park versus the detriment of a shopping plaza. Essentially assigning an affect of yuck to the shopping plaza, and glorifying the benefits of the park. In a Buddhist approach, there is deep listening in deep seeing in deep observation. We can see the myriad benefits of the shopping plaza, and the myriad problems. We can also see the myriad benefits of the park and it's myriad problems. And furthermore we can look at our own brain's functioning of how it wants to glorify or simplify or what not around each. Essentially the stories we tell ourselves. And the stories we have deeply ingrained that give us our perspective. So for me, when things get political, it's very helpful for me to start applying analysis of qualities, and to start looking at the features that I'm not that used to seeing. Especially how I am seeing. And also looking at how my brain has impulses towards right and wrong, towards making good choices.

And this is further complexifies (moving away from black and white) because there might actually be a better choice. Buddhism isn't there to say that there are worse and better choices, full stop, universal, follow the dogma. Where there is a choice that leads to less harm to others, that leaves less harm to myself, and one that promotes this idea of there being enough, I have enough and I don't need things to be exactly the way I want them... that can be beneficial. And having a sense of care, even if there is some harm to some groups, to acknowledge the harm to those groups, and to acknowledge and include them in a process of figuring out how to mitigate those harms. That can be beneficial. 

And one shouldn't be surprised if the people who want the harm mitigated are never satisfied. Or the people who want to deny the harms don't want to include the other side. If politics is done in an observational way (like Alien visitors, trying to figure out how things work), that can be okay. Better than the black-white version of political spin. But even that is potentially distracting from internal assurance and refuge, which is the goal of a Buddhist trying to reach nirvana.

The Buddha himself faced this issue in a dramatic way. His cousin tried to kill him. There were other religious groups at the time who said that harming any other creature was very very bad, and one needed to make every effort to avoid killing other creatures. The example I hear given most is the Jains. They sweep the floor in front of them so that they don't kill any insects. The Buddha didn't reject this, but he didn't embrace it. He put a lot of weights on the idea of intention. That it isn't just the results or output, but it is the input and the thinking process that leads one towards a decision. So, if one takes the right path but for the wrong reasons, it won't be helpful to one's own mind. And if one takes the wrong path for the right reasons, it will be helpful to one's own mind. Especially since when one realizes the mistake, they very easily shift the path.

In the Buddha's situation, it was Devadatta and his intentions of usurping control of the Sangha. D had an approach to creating  a schism based on vegetarianism. He criticized the Buddha for eating meats. And he said that the monk should adopt the rule to be vegetarians. This is an interesting story even for today's age. The Buddha didn't disregard this idea. He said it could be beneficial and a monk could choose to be vegetarian and to refuse to eat meat, but he said that monks could maintain meat eating if they wanted to. It was, in a sense, a part of the training. In fact, the Vinaya, it talks about food a lot. The monks have to live based on alms and beggings. And they take what they can get. This approach allows or forces them to develop flexibility about what they eat. See and eat what's given. There is a modern phrase for little kids: we get what we get and we don't get upset. Or we get what we get and we don't throw a fit. I think there's a lot of wisdom to this rule about alms food, it shows that the Buddha took care in these rules. One has to remember that some villagers might have more meat, and want to share that meat. Or some villagers might want to give an extravagant gift, and they might extremely value their meat, so the act of sharing their meat is actually an expression of their generosity and their opening to the dhamma. On the monk side, there are good mental and verbal fabrications around the idea that even vegetarian food is not without cost. It doesn't cost an animal's direct life. But there are all the insects that go into the growing of the food. The weeding of certain plants. The eating of fruits means depriving the seeds of being able to become potential new plants. Not to mention the labors of the farmers who have to work in toil to produce those foods. So these are perspectives where we can start seeing that all food is (in the worldly sense) tainted with death and exploitation and oppression. It isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

I'm not sure if this was in the Buddha's mind when he faced Devadatta. But what is recorded is that the Buddha said I will not make that a rule of forced vegetarianism. And there was a schism. Devadatta was able to persuade several hundred monks to come with him with this stricter discipline. Apparently there was a one-upsmanship in the Buddhist time about who could be more sacrificing and more pious by being more poor. There were austerities around starving or restrictive in food that were praised, and to be fair they had positive effects for many, but it was not a complete path like many people talked about.

And that's just the thing about politics and Buddhism, or environmentalism or engaged Buddhism or vegetarianism. It can be part of the path but it's not the complete path. And the biggest danger for someone further along in the path is what an Engaged Buddhism leaves out. And it leaves out a lot of the analysis of qualities especially around samsara and dispassion and the insufficiency of the world. The world meaning the outside world. It is a slave to craving; it is insufficient insatiable. Uno loco atitto tanha daso.  Craving, a slave to it. That is the danger of identifying with worldly outcomes. Remember, everybody dies, ages, gets sick. Separation is normal, unavoidable.

 So don't identify with the politics without seeing that there is a slaving to craving that one accepts when one dabbles too much in politics. It comes a bit back to that book of Dhamma questions (I think of Buddhadasa), the five ways to approach all things. To see it's components to see it's origination to see the allure and the danger. And finally to have the skillful view of it to be able to use it without being used by it. And the using it is using it for one's own mental development, not to use it for accumulation of wealth or status.

So I am thankful to our Ajahn Geoff and Ajahn Dick Silarantano. Because their discussion of politics and activism has really re-centered and reframed what I thought were black and white universals. And I feel more squarely on the path.

fear vs danger

At both Wat Metta and Forest Dhamma Monastery, the Khanda Paritta is chanted as a Group Protection.
https://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Buddhism/lib/misc/chanting/blessings.html#khandha

If memory serves me correct, this is what the Buddha taught when the monks were scared of all the dangers in the forest.

It's very instructive. Here, we use a verbal/mental fabrication to combat fear. The tool used was to have metta. To develop metta to all the sources of danger and fear. And to extend that Metta to snakes and bears. And, I can personally attest, metta is an antidote to fear.

Yesterday my bike was stolen from my back yard. I just happened to see the person stealing it, at least in the hazy darkness. I did get afraid, and my brain went into papanca overdrive. I was able to notice my mind originating and passing away all these thoughts. At the same time that I was *IN* those thoughts, meaning I felt the emotions coursing through me, and I felt the chemicals of adrenaline acting, there was a part of me (Citta?) that wasn't *IN*, that was just watching. And this control tower could reason with me. Explain that I wasn't in actual danger. That this bike was one I got from the bike shop. That I had enough. I recalled and reflected on all the Buddha had given up (as a prince) and all the hardships he had to face. And, though it wasn't consciously directed, in reflecting on last night, I did notice that I kept metta with me. Just as one is instructed with the more extreme "Simile of the Saw". (I also listened to audiobooks to distract, to ride out the adrenaline induced papanca).

But metta isn't an antidote to danger. As the SGI Buddhist taught me in college, being a Buddhist doesn't mean being a sap. One doesn't see a deadly snake, walk up to it, and practice metta. We avoid the dangers where we can. I know that I've heard the the Buddha had a boulder rolled at him by devadatta and the Buddha dodged it, but still got a painful rock splinter on his foot. The thing I'm highlighting right now is that the Buddha dodged. He didn't just sit, resigned at the danger coming. I also imagine that the Buddha would leave places/towns that were dangerous, where the vibe was bad. But he didn't do it just because it was uncomfortable. If the town was adherents of another religion and very dogmatic, why contribute to the strife and discord? There is also the Ajaan Lee story I heard at Wat Metta, where some primitive natives put poisonous food in his begging bowl. Ajaan Lee confronted them. He wasn't a sap that just ate it. At the same time, Cunda and the Buddha's last meal... He did eat the food he knew was poisonous. He accepted that impact on his skin suit body. The lesson there is that one doesn't have to be attached to life, even. (But it isn't all or nothing. It's situational and many-pathed. Or, to quote a jazz standard: it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.)

Summary:

Fear, with avoidable danger --> maybe avoid it.
Fear, feeding on fear --> subdue it with Metta. Then choose a wise course of action.


(I'm okay with the bike theft. But I'll be better with locking my bike.)


Friday, September 2, 2022

Interconnectedness: when is it helpful vs unhelpful?

 Interconnectedness (and interbeing and interconnectedness) are concepts often used in Mahayana traditions, which have the Bodhisatva ideal. The Dalai Lama, to whom I am indebted for many powerful teachings, praises and teaches interbeing.

On the other hand, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Ajaan Geoff), another teacher I am indebted to, shines caution on the concepts of interbeing. He links it to "Buddhist Romanticism" ( link to his talks, audio), the idea that suffering comes from separateness; something introduced circa 1700-1800's.  

So how do we square these disparate views?

I want to share my experience with it.

TLDR version: 

Interconnectedness in the outside world is pervasive and usually inescapable. It is skillful and important to notice. Interconnectedness in the inside (mental) world is pervasive and is escapable.

 

It's not easy to escape, hence the idea that the Buddhist path is "against the grain". It is a dead end (and a dangerous dead end) to consider interconnectedness in the inside world to be inescapable, which is a pitfall of Mahayana as I have seen it practiced. But, as a step on the path, getting to know (very intricately) our inside/internal interconnectedness is a useful and necessary step. So, we do want to listen to the internal interconnectedness, to become a connoisseur of our neuroses.  But not to be caught up in it. It's a tool, not the goal.


==== 


Recently, in a Tricycle newsletter, it said

At the heart of the Buddha’s teachings is the truth of interdependence—the interconnectivity of all living beings. Our joys and sorrows, happiness and suffering, are shared. (March 17, 2022, newsletter)

 The idea of interdependence as foundational (here stated as "the heart of Buddha's teaching") is appealing, and has support in observations in the world. One person's actions affect another's. Especially anger or greed, or unvirtuous actions like stealing and killing.  So, I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu would even agree that the law of Karma (action) suggests that things in the world are connected to other beings.

The key phrase I highlight is in the world. It's a good start, since most of us are super-enamored of our being / our mind. We believe that what we see, smell, taste, touch, hear, and think... that those are true and important and essential. Especially the last one: that our thoughts help define us.

This isn't terrible. Kids (like at school) use their minds to find patterns. Not just about reading and numbers. Patterns about how the teacher treats them and how other kids treat them. And what actions lead to what results. But the obsession in the mind is about the outside world. It's about ordering the outside world. That's an important initial task related to survival (in both a food and a social order way).

But the task of Buddhism isn't about the outside world, at least not in the Thai Forest tradition. The mind is focused inward, at the mind itself. At how the mind makes (crazy, varied, numerous) determinations and interpretations that shape how our mind itself works. And when we can start looking at the mind as a process, we start getting a bit more at how reality is perceived. And that gives us freedom.

That freedom is a freedom away from interbeing. We see that being in the world involves a lot of interbeing, a lot of mental activity related to these external phenomenon. But all those thoughts go through the mind/perception/machine. So, if we can be able to flip those switches in the mind, we can start exercising some control and expertise over our reactions. We aren't bound, like so many animals are, to want to attack when we are attacked. Or to flee when we are scared. Those "instincts" get reprogrammed, in a sense. In my own view (and in the preface to Emotions Revealed by Ekman), the first thought can't be fully controlled, even by expert meditators. That is a "biological"-based thought. But there are ways to moderate it, through very strong goodwill practices or very strong preparation (in the Boy Scout sense). If we have prepped for an injury, we don't have to panic when the injury prepares. In that way, we get the freedom of not being bewildered or thrown off by life. We get very good at preparation. Either by deliberately visiting situations like fear or pride. Or, just through the natural vicissitudes of life, we get plenty of practice facing fear, facing pride. And then, we have freedom by seeing, "oh, this is a thought (or bio-thought-reflex)". And then we learn that we don't have to be entangled.

But first, we have to get very familiar with that entangling. We don't get past entangling by wishing that we never get into situations of entangling. That is a poor training. Like a pilot who trains only to fly in good weather. We need to get good at bad weather. And we need to get good at noticing how we, metaphorically, go and seek out bad weather. How we feed our anger, impatience, greed, wishful thinking, delusion. And an exploration of interbeing in our mind is precisely a great way of exploring GAD and mind states. How they arise. How they pass away. Mahayana-ists, to the extent they do mindfulness-satipatthana and calm abiding meditation, they do get to see the arising of things and the passing away. They do get  to be very familiar. And then they start to see the endless chain, the thoughts that span other thoughts, the feeding that spans other feeding.

So, in that way, to be encouraged to look at interbeing is powerful. We get very good at looking into the mind. But the dangerous element is that we start thinking the whole path is to generate wholesome interbeing. This is akin to what Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls people who have tried to take the 4 Noble Truths and turn it into the 1-fold path of metta. It fits the trend: the idea that kindness is all that is needed to take you all the way. (like in a sports show: he... could... go... all... the... ... ... WAY; it is exciting). But here, the middle way is important, to not go to the extreme of getting enamored and entangled in kindness itself. Certainly, when one must make a choice to act in the world, having an attitude of helpfulness is wonderful. But for every action in the world, I think there are a few million actions in the mind, many unseen or hard to see. But it is possible to see more when we look closer. A photo has a few million points, and we can never encode all the millions of points: but we can look more carefully and see not just the foreground or the background, but to see the "hidden indians" (old kids puzzle), and to see the grain of the film itself.

I think it was stuff related to Walter Benjamin (who I haven't read directly, but I have heard allusions to), who talked about perception. And, it might be said, it's impossible to conclude which perspective is the "true" one. We each see with some angle. We each have some hidden features, and some not. Even if you have the sharp tele-photographic lens, if everyone else has a blurry view, that is, in some way "the truth". To Benjamin, I think it was said that it is harder to see the glasses we look than the glasses sitting on the counter.

Buddhism is about "seeing". Seeing things that are hard to see, that we just don't see because they are so much in the background. Things like clinging and feeding and craving. Things like interconnectedness. 

Or, maybe it should be said that Buddhism is about "listening". Closing our eyes and tuning in to those things that are hard to hear. The crickets. The hum of a fan. The beating of our own heart. The wind in our lungs.

So, this interconnectedness and interbeing; those are things that definitely are to be seen. But they aren't to be glorified. They are to be cleaned up. But our cleaning up should aim to not create more entanglements.


If your form of Buddhism is to be a socially-engaged Buddhist, then the interconnectedness is a good foundation to match the two things. But the Buddha wasn't a crusader or persuader. He was reported to have said that there are very few with little dust in their eyes. And, accordingly, it's not his job to try to wipe dust out of eyes that don't want that dust wiped away. In fact, a lot of us like the dust in our eyes. (I know I have my attachments that I haven't appreciated the drawbacks of enough to not be entangled by them.)


UUDR.


Thursday, September 1, 2022

Shorty: Deprivation can backfire

 

Many people have been surprised by the strength of their desire after a period of deprivation.

- Gil Fronsdal, from the IRC newsletter, Summer-Fall 2022, on the topic of Renunciation


From

https://mailchi.mp/insightretreatcenter.org/93l4yxvksu-8987842?e=5266e119f6

or 

 https://insightretreatcenter.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4617ba61346c1677e4a4215b4&id=74f4c83d3f&e=5266e119f6

Sunday, August 28, 2022

A relationship acronym: APTPB - Apartment Peanut Butter

 I used this, perhaps not consistently enough, as a relating framework when things get rough.


1. "All of me, All of you". We show up with complete selves. We don't hide. (Ok to pause to find good timing, but not okay to hide)


2. "Put yourself first." I often translate this to "neither of us owes each other to the extent to put ourselves second." Each of us owns our self, self-care.


3. "Team". When things get confrontational, remember that you want to be on the same team.


4. "Practice". Embrace mistakes and struggles as practice, to do good relating processes.


5. "Bullets". Use the right bullets for your issue. Logical problems can be approached with logical bullets. Emotional problems with emotional problems.  If you try to use logical bullets for an emotional problem, don't be surprised if it is ineffective or makes it worse! And vice-versa.


Shorthand is Apartment Peanut Butter, or APT PB.

Thursday, August 18, 2022

I want what I want

(KK is one of the people I know quite well. I've spend hundreds of thousands of hours with KK.)

A lot of things for KK come down to "I want what I want" and the corrolary, "I don't want what I don't want".

 In behavioral economics, one scholar I knew reduced some things down to "de gustibus non est disputandum", often translated as "there is no accounting for taste". Which means different people just want different things. There is no use disputing that.

Yet dispute I do. And, in some ways, dispute the Buddha does.

First, the Buddha. The Buddha disputes that the taste for things is the essential thing. Taste relates to the flavor, the appeal, the craving (tanha). Taste is part of a process. Perspective, consciousness, etc are part of the causal chain (12 steps of dependent co-arising). Importantly, the chain can be broken or adapted. There are feedback loops and control variables.

The idea of Karma is exactly about the fact that we have choice and that choice can affect this chain. Think of a person trying to quit smoking. One day they decide smoking is worth it. Another day, their intention shifts: smoking not worth it. That volition is choice. That choice has consequences. 

The reverse choice, deciding to start smoking, is also an example or Karma and intentions.

If one chooses to enter the Buddhist path, the path leads to dispassion because the path points out that all clinging leads to suffering. So our enjoyment of gummy bears is not the essential thing. As we learn and decide that gummy bears or smoking has drawbacks, we can let go or loosen that "taste's" hold.

It's funny and instructive to hear that some of the great Thai Forest masters were addicted to smoking or to chewing betel nut. But, at some level, the action isn't the issue. The issue is the phrase "I do what I want." And the Thai masters, to the extent that they developed the path, we're not bound or fooled by that notion.


For me, even pre-buddhism, I was heavy on reflection and re-evaluation. If something I did didn't make much sense, I would change it. Like, right now, I am struggling with laziness fueled by rewatching old TV shows and playing dopamine-spiking blitz chess. I can see it doesn't serve me well, and I can change it.

But for KK, the phrase "I just like what I like" is the answer to internal conflict: I do things in X way. But I know X way doesn't work.  (I'm not sure I'm being fair... They may just be pointing to the allure side of X and that they are drawn to it. Down the line, they may be seeing the drawbacks and working towards a shift. So this may not apply to KK or all who say "I like what I like".) There are those (including my past selves) that used that justification to blind themselves to the drawback. And, accordingly, they just say stuck.

Being stuck is mostly awful. It is also comfortable, because it is familiar. But being stuck is a dead end. The worst dead end. A comfortable dead end. Like the Sirens luring in Odysseus to his demise. 

 For those who feel their tastes define them, they are painting themselves into that corner. By choosing not to see other options.

Monday, August 8, 2022

Novelty and Spectacle

Novelty and spectacle are two related ideas of feeding, upadana. And they both have very obvious (when you look at it) routes to suffering.

Novelty is newness. It can be an old favorite with some extra pizazz, like truffle oil Mac and Cheese. Or it is a new song or TV show. There are also less capitalistic / consumption focused elements of novelty. Like going to a new city. Or noticing a new plant. Or getting a new book from the library.  There is a neurological neurotransmitter pathway related to novelty. Some mix of serotonin and dopamine would be my guess. For me, I just think of it as "NEAT".

Spectacle is over-the-top-ness. Like 100 cheese Mac and Cheese. Or the world's biggest pizza. Or an action movie with more explosives. Drama that is even more drama. You find spectacle in cities. Like the downtown area of Kansas City with the jumbotron and huge amount of shops. The key ideas here are "overwhelm" or "WOW".

I share these in this Buddhist blog because I've found it useful when looking at the allure (5 parts, deconstruction) of things I crave and feed on. I have to be careful to notice both. Some things are spectacular, but not new. And some things aren't very spectacular, but they are new. And sometimes the same thing can be novel on some occasions and spectacular on others. It's not just a feature of the thing itself. It's sometimes (often?) a feature of my taste buds.

Once I notice spectacle or novelty, I need to also look at it's helpfulness. The word WOW is a very Gil Fronsdal approach to developing mindfulness. We might look at mundane things and our reaction and say WOW. The biggest WOW is often about how chaotic our minds are.

But escapist spectacle and novelty (TV, usually) are not so helpful. There are exceptions. Some PBS is super helpful, bridging, exploratory. I don't think the Power Rangers kids show was ever helpful in itself. But watching how fascinated I was with it was helpful. And, in a sense... kids that obsess and hyperfocus... that's sometimes something they need to play with. It depends on the person, their context, and what their goal is. Even PBS is not useful sometimes. Just like the Dhamma teachings as words and opinions--these grow less useful once one has a direct experience with practice.

The suffering from WOW and NEAT come from the feeling fading, and our wishing it could stay forever. In my former dating life, that new realationship novelty is something that is so intoxicating and addictive, and it always fades. Part of Buddhism is an acceptance that nothing lasts, and so we don't want to hang our wellbeing on the hook of things that don't last. So WOW and NEAT are good lessons on anicca/impermanence. It's fine to be wowed by or tickled by an event. 

But trying to keep it going is always complex, and often not under our control, especially if it involves the world (and not just our mind).

Saturday, June 25, 2022

Buddhists stay in the closet

I'm exploring LGBTQ pride month here in the Bible Belt. And there is a big conflict. Some people want to deny the existence of gays (see conversion therapy, yuck). And others, advocates, say things like Silence = Death.

One TV program said that living in the closet is hell, and that one can't live in the closet, hiding. The route talks about authenticity, and needing to be seen, so others can see that it's okay.

These are important and powerful, public shows of acceptance for people as they are.

And, in the processes of public life, which includes identity and interpersonal interaction, the publicness of things is important.

Which makes it contested. A battleground.

Buddhists, however, are fine with our spiritual lives being in the closet. We display, publicly, via maroon robes, shaved heads, and shaved eyebrows who we are. But we don't broadcast or evangelize. And, furthermore, there are many who keep their Buddhism quiet. Because, in the depths of Buddhism, it's a solo journey. Yes, the path is much easier if you have teachers. But it's not essential. The Buddha didn't have a teacher. And had a long time meditating and developing on his own. Nobody can meditate for you. Or save you for you (unlike the parable of Jesus).

So Buddhists stay in the closet, in a sense. There is no part of the path that says we gotta put up a billboard.

For Buddhists, silence is no death.
For Buddhists, staying in the spiritual closet has a safety to it, a heedfulness to it.







Friday, June 24, 2022

SHORTY: never waiting for an apology

Thank you, Buddhism.

Buddhism means never having to blame other people for what goes on in my mind.

Buddhism has meant that I will never have to wait for apology or the outside world to change before moving on.


MORE

What happens in my mind is up to me. Or, more precisely: partly and definitively up to me. Yes, the past and my conditioning/habits affect my mind. But my present/now allows me to influence it. To open some gates and close others. And, if I build the will to stop some habit, that habit can lessen and stop.
It's not easy.
But it is always a choice I have, especially since I have been shown/see the path. (That is, people who can't even see the path or who have never been shown... They aren't culpable.)

And hence, I'm never waiting for an apology. There is no story I'm looking to draft others for (the romance story, the social justice story, the X-is-right story). There are no wrongs to be righted so that I can calm/tame the mind.

 This is different from "there are no wrongs". There are morals. The 5 precepts. And, above that, it is unskillful (socially and personally) to hurt other people. And oneself. But the simile of the saw stands out. Even from the greatest injustice, that affects you and your kin directly, one can (and must) have Metta. Not Metta to the injustice. But Metta for all beings, without exception.  It is akin to "hate the sin, love the sinner". Because that is the skill that is sometimes needed. To calm the mind when all we can see is revenge. Or, harder yet, naked pain.


SHORTY: Stories as stress

All stories are stress. (But sometimes the stress is "hidden".)
But some stories help us release the stories.
Including itself.


-inspired by thanissaro bhkkhu 050101 - protection from fools

Sunday, June 12, 2022

Practicing the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma VS I am special

"Everyone is different.
Then you realize everyone is the same.
And then, everyone is different."
  (Recalled memory of some Dhamma story)

---

Let's get the main point out of the way.

It is important and essential to practice the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma if one wants to make progress in Buddhism.

* Most people practice the Dhamma in line with their preferences.
* Looking for ways for Buddhism to justify what you like to do is a dead end
* It's okay and normal to mess up: to think you are in line with the Dhamma but actually aligned with your preferences or Kilesas. To notice one's off-ness... that noticing is in line with the Dhamma. (See blog post: path of mistakes)

It's important to entertain, skillfully and with good timing, "I am not special."

I've met a few people who really wanted to study some Buddhism or some path to the end of suffering (though they don't call it Buddhism). And, putting aside other flaws, they all had a flaw that they couldn't see: they thought they needed to understand and explain themselves before they could get started with Buddhism. I'd talk to them about the basics: maybe watching the breath, maybe Metta, maybe generosity/gifts. And, these people would mostly want to say, "that sounds good, but first I have to tell you about this feature of my life, and this argument, and this truth I discovered, and, and ,and..." Delay and distraction, maybe, (subliminally?). But, maybe just a unwise view that they needed to keep all those ideas.

It ultimately really hard to imagine a path that isn't filled with the narrative and goalposts we used to have. For them, Buddhism isn't about getting new, better goalposts (which is 100% true.. the eightfold path becomes the goalposts), but rather Buddhism is something they fit into their existing goalposts. And since everyone has different goalposts, snowflake like (they are similar, but different when looking up close), there isn't a surefire way to approach dismantling of goalposts. There are some regularities. Like dismantling the goalpost of chasing money. Or the goalpost of chasing pleasure.  But romance is highly varied. And self-worth comes in 1000s of flavors. And some might even chase justice unskillfully. Or chase Goodwill and generosity poorly.

This isn't to look down on any specific person. I was stuck there for a long time. I was stuck where I thought I could fit Buddhism into my general do-goodery and save-the-world grandiosity.  After all, Buddhism was good, and doing good is good, therefore, by my feeble-at-the-time logic that meant Buddhism and my do-goodery we're the same! I was so lost, I couldn't see my mixed up goalposts at part of the problem. I clung to the goalposts because they seemed like the solution.

Recently, the snowflakiness (pun intended) has manifested in people sharing their origin story or some essential narrative and saying, in essence: "I want to learn Buddhism, but first I have to tell you about these idiots I just roasted". And then a wall of text, 5 pages long, painting others in a light so that their own first player glory can be depicted. Tiresome

Was I ever this tiresome? Yes! I still am sometimes.

But I am noticing, and not falling into the hole I just dug. 

When I do lapse, I mostly catch myself and laugh, remembering some key lessons.

* Gil Fronsdal telling me his one word wisdom: "ridiculous".
* My own mantra+koan: Rope and Wind
* 3 last breaths
* The simile of the saw
* 100 years, all new people
* Nothing is enough
* What is this (?)


Sunday, May 22, 2022

heedlessness and getting what you want

More and more, I see the dangers of heedlessness and the peace of heedfulness.


I have joked (see earlier post), that people are easily happy when they get everything they want.

But the real finesse/trick is where nothing is enough.


The most dangerous person might be there person who wants unattainable things. Or who doesn't realize what they want, but is inexorably drawn to it, like an addict.


Reminds me of people who equate what feels good with what is skillful.

Sometimes what is skillful feels good.
Sometimes what is unskillful feels good.
Sometimes what is skillful feels bad.
Sometimes what is unskillful feels bad.

So, that criteria is a dangerous one... to chase what feels good. Remember, revenge feels really good. We've seen countless historical and dramatic examples.


So, to be heedful, careful, in what one wants. This is a very high peace.


I've met many who have been divorced, and their divorce was mainly because they chose uncarefully. Remember, everyone is nice when they get what they want. But how do they react when stifled.


To see these things is real spiritual wealth. Something king's and thieves and illness cannot take away.

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

shorty: Spiritual Overtime / Bonus Time

 shorty: I answered their question:  "I feel like I'm in spiritual overtime. It's bonus time. I beat most of the main puzzles, I'm not caught in those traps. And now I get to just operate in the world without being caught in the world."


more:

This is quite a 180. I used to be so stuck in the world that I couldn't see any other way. My conception of being "outside" the world was like that of an angsty teenager, dripping in alternative street-cred talismans. "Look," I might say. "The mainstream is yuck." While I revel in the angst-version of the mainstream.

But now, now I can say I'm pretty far outside the main stream. I'm against the stream. I do, sometimes, still get caught. But I don't make the same mistakes of perception.


I'm in spiritual bonus time. I've got nothing I need to do or prove. (And, in a 100 year horizon, nothing I "do" in the world can't be "undone". I'm sobered by that too. The world has it's own causes, it's own karma.)


"I'm right, and I will fight"

What is the difference between a liberal social justice warrior and a MAGA freedom fighter? 
 
One of them thinks they're right.
And one of them knows they are right.


What is the difference between a liberal social justice warrior and a MAGA freedom fighter and a wise person, a wise Buddhist.

Two of them fight for what is right. And the other one doesn't bite, is harmless, is heedful. And doesn't get sucked in. Sucked into an inquiry full of dead ends and trick questions, about what is right and what is supposedly "Worth Fighting For".


Can you notice the difference, between
"I'm right, and I will fight"
and
"I'm right, and I will fight"

Friday, April 8, 2022

patimokkha: Not to open the mouth before the food reaches its level. (Sekhiya 41)

Reread rule Sekhiya 41 of the monastic rules.

Not to open the mouth before the food reaches its level.

Today was a timely day to read it. 

One can take it literally, as not to open one's physical mouth before the food goes to the mouth. This is a practice of reflection, patience, slowing down, mindfulness.

I'm taking it an additional way. To reflect on my pleasure seeking mouth. This relates to the scan&find mentality for distractions and escapes. Like prowling for Netflix, or distractions by cute women. I want to keep that "feeding" partially in check. There are some desires to be enjoyed. But carefully. Like joy in renunciation. Joy in picking a less harmful alternative.

Delight in developing.
Delight in abandoning.

Uudr

Friday, February 25, 2022

Theravada; step 1 and step 2

I've written elsewhere about what to read if starting/exploring Buddhism.

In this post, I want to specifically touch on two awesome resources for Theravada Buddhism. Both are free to download.

Step 1: 
The Buddha's teachings, an introduction

This booklet (about 30 pages) covers the main tools an ideas with enough breadth and variation that it isn't reductionist. Other intros will focus too much only on the 8fold path or only on suffering or only on metta.

A reader of this introduction should get the impression: "Buddhism has a lot of different aspects that point toward calming the mind. And the mind is tricky, so there are a lot of skills to learn."

If the reader has innate curiosity, this can inspire a good sense of adventure, and a desire to explore.

Other intros (some of which have been very useful to me) can have too much of a "feed me" orientation. Buddhism is ultimately very active and methodical, not passive/check the boxes.


Step 2: 
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/thate/stepsalong.html

This short booklet, by Ajahn Thate, covers 11 points about meditation and how to start. It was "co-written" by a Jewish man who spent 6 months with Ajahn Thate learning to meditate.

Why I love it? It's very pragmatic without getting too far into jargon. And, unlike other manuals, it doesn't stop at concentration. It makes the subtle point that:
* Concentration, when developed, can be used for many different purposes.
* Using concentration solely for pleasure is not the path. At some point, it needs to be a tool to develop insight and wisdom.


(Another book I think is excellent, Bhante G's manual(s) on meditation.)



What is Step 3? Go and try it out.

How many steps are there?
Somewhere between 3 and 100000000001. (Wink, grin)

Sunday, February 13, 2022

Metta Lyrics: Peaceful Easy Feeling (Eagles, 1970s)

Sitting in Panera in KS. And heard this nice metta "calling".

--

… 'Cause I get a peaceful easy feelin' (1)
And I know you won't let me down (2)
'Cause I'm already standin'
I'm already standin'
Yes, I'm already standin'
On the ground (3)


Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Jack Tempchin
Band: The Eagles

--

Annotations
1. Metta is a peaceful easy feeling. Also, see the idea of piti and sukkha in the 1st Jhana.
2. Consider the 7 qualities in the "Mitta Sutta" on friendship. "you won't let me down" sounds like a grasping to friendship. (In attachment theory, maybe anxious attachment.) But the knowledge of the other person not letting us down (is) can be more about metta. If the metta is strong, it doesn't require constant verbal validation. In an inner, spiritual way: we can be brothers and sisters, on the same team, pulling together, rooting for each other. Even though externally we may not lift a finger or even say a word. (One teacher of mine has never answered a question of mine directly or definitively, yet I have been helped more than if they spoonfed me the answer.) You won't let me down is more about heedfulness than about pandering.
3. Consider the famous sayings of the Buddha about "be an island to oneself" or "be a light unto oneself". It makes us grounded, stable, like a pillar 16 spans deep. If we are on the ground ourselves, we don't need to feed. And when we don't need to feed, we are able not to be blown around by praise and blame and the other winds or the 8 world's winds.

UUDR

Saturday, February 12, 2022

quote: lust burns

Pain hurts, just as greed intoxicates and lust burns.



From Neil Gaiman, American Gods

Excess ain't rebellion

Excess aint rebellion. But to my younger self, aiming and worshipping the older "bad kids", the "rad kids", the rebels...

Excess feels the closest in my outside universe to rebellion. So that's what we copy. Paste. Repeat.

But not, seeing more clearly, renunciation is closer to the rebellion I seek. Heedfulness is the rebellion I seek.

Excess ain't rebellion. It is lusting after escape. Running away. Trying. Failing.

Saturday, February 5, 2022

SHORTY: ease

be
ill at ease, but as ease

and not
at ease, but ill at ease

-
Hat tip to Joy Williams's shirt story Dimmer, in Paris Review anthology titled Object Lessons.

In Lawrence, KS

Thursday, January 27, 2022

SHORTY: The flowers of pleasure

The distracted mind only plucks the flowers of pleasure.
Unaware(?) of the dangers of plucking.



Raw:

Dhammapada (47)
pupphāni heva pacinantaṃ, byāsattamanasaṃ naraṃ.
suttaṃ gāmaṃ mahoghova, maccu ādāya gacchati.

As a mighty flood sweeps away the sleeping village, so death carries away the person of distracted mind who only plucks the flowers (of pleasure).

Saturday, January 22, 2022

"Ewww" and "Yuck" are the most dangerous emotions-reaction-expressions

One of the most powerful emotions is disgust. Best exemplified by the words "Eww" and "Yuck". Paul Ekman calls it one of the universal emotions, an emotion he has found in every culture. Even babies, pre-language, have a "yuck" look on their face.

So, in a sense, having the yuck emotion is unavoidable. If we are human, we will meet with situations that are yuck.

And yuck is closely related to aversion. Aversion, being the situation of "I don't want it" and "get away from it" and "go away". Yuck fits all these things.

But, there's then a paradox. The Buddha said there was a way to end greed, aversion/anger, and delusion (GAD).

It turns out that it is possible to get rid of the feeding of aversion and anger. And that is the most essential part of the trick. When we are being stung by bees, it is a normal human reaction to want it to stop. Go away! But we don't have to make a big story about it.


Eww and Yuck are more dangerous than just feeding on it. It creates dangerous patterns, both interpersonally and in ourselves. It perpetuates patterns of harm to ourselves and to others.


Yuck and Other People

When we say "yuck" when around other people, we are making a very bold statement. We are saying, "I do not like this at all." And, in social situations, we are often also saying, "And nobody should like this. An interesting situation is when we say yuck to someone else's clothing. This is very common for teens and pre-teens. This is when we start policing each other. We try to establish norms of cool. And then create hierarchies. At least, this is the typical way things happen in US schools. If you have an ugly sweater or an unfashionable haircut, that is when some bullying person will say yuck, either to your fae or behind your back. And, all around, it creates a sense of "othering", i.e. dismissing people as not belonging to the group. If this is said to your face, it is meant to hurt you directly. And, if you care, and most kids and adults do care, the hurt lands and lingers. Deep. Because we all know that fundamental feeling of disgust. Like when we taste something that is bitter or rotten. So, when other people say yuck to our face, it's like they are equating us with rotten food. Yuck. Disgusting. How could anyone like that.

When it isn't said to our face, it creates this complicated dance. We don't know this person has it out for us. And we don't know who else has it out for us. And, when our friends are told "yuck", there is a danger that they will be persuaded and torn. They may like us and want to hang with us. But they may also want to hang with the person who "yucked" us. And, that person, often a cooler bully, is trying to draw lines in the sand. And there are many many lines in the sand. In a rational world, people might realize the destructiveness of the bully and try to have a new way without yuck. But this usually doesn't work. The yuck-meister spreads these mines all over the place, and they, for some reason, hold some great power over other people. Other people want this person's approval. They want to not be "yucked" by the yuck-meister.

It is possible that the bully is so toxic that they get removed from their place of power. But, in most situations I've seen, there is just another form of yuck-bullying that appears. So, the emotional content and the minefields are still there, just the content differs. So, if we overthrow the yuck-meister who likes to be mean, that's often replaced by a "yuck" reaction to meanness. This can be helpful, as people stop being mean. But then the meanness police gets very zealous, and they start overapplying their yuck reaction. There is a way to discourage meanness without using a public-yucking reaction. The buddha seems to me to have pointed it out. Look. Reflect. See the drawbacks and dangers. And, in your own heart, use yuck to get away from that unskillful yuck reaction. Yes, we can skillfully use the yuck on yuck itself. But, at some point, there is still stress there. We have to realize that we have to find something besides yucking on yuck. That something is the release from yucking entirely, the release from needing to feed that yuck.

Importantly, there is almost no usefulness to public declarations of yuck. That public shaming usually just digs some people in or takes them into a shame spiral. An exception is if someone is very advanced but has a blind spot. In that case, some public yucking can help snap them out of it. But this is VERY rare, because most people are too defensive. Also, most of us can't "yuck" with helpful intent. We do it incredibly quickly, as quickly as a knee-jerking reaction. And then it travels out our mouths, creating an intent which is to make the other person GO THE FUCK AWAY!!!!!

Ewww and Ourselves

We can say Ewww, quietly to ourselves. Importantly, it's not only the words we need to keep silent. We need to also keep quiet the facial expressions and nonverbal communications. We have to really keep it to ourselves. We usually can't stop the facial expressions (see Ekman), but we can separate ourselves from others, or cover our face, or turn away.

When we are able to do that, we have made a big step. We've chosen to be harmless to others.

But what about harmlessness to ourselves?

Well, the Ewww reaction is tricky in that there is a lot of feeding. "Ewww" demands to be right. It seems to proclaim, "I know what is disgusting. And THIS. IS. DISGUSTING." It's the internal bully. And when it comes out, we can become the bully, taking it as our primary perspective. It is a very powerful perspective. When someone is really captured by the Ewww response, it's usually not useful at all to try to communicate with them. It's usually impossible to get them to see something besides their Ewww.

But, it can be done. Importantly, it can only be done with the cooperation of the person (or the person's "control tower" to use Gil Fronsdal/Thanissaro Bhikkhu terminology). If the person really wants to, and often it's because they are curious or willing to investigate the possibility that it is unskillful, then they can start to see it. Importantly, again, they can't skip the initial step which is just to be aware of the Ewww and get to really know it. That is, they can't go straight to smash/squashing it. Because, that doesn't work in the long run. The trouble is that it can work in the short run, via sheer force of will. But, doing so just papers over it. It doesn't address the underlying cause.

So, Ewww is something to be worked with. Something not to be fed. Something we can watch arise and pass away. And then something we can watch for the causes of the Ewww. I'm not talking about the disgusting fashion/haircut/food. I'm talking about our worldview and the ignorance at the heart. The part of us that feels there is a big self to protect. Who picks a fight with the fashion/haircut/food. Who then feeds the Ewww. And feeds the identity of Ewww. And the identifying with Ewww.

Examples

My sister is very good at "Ewww". She said it once with regards to camping. She has said it regards to my life choices. We have a famous fight about cheese. I find it very unskillful how quickly she could make it personal. And, as I wrote above, it's impossible to get someone to reflect on the Ewww unless they really want to.

I see it often with teenagers in high school.

I see it often with adults who think they are right. There is an "Yuck" or "Ewww" applied to poor people. Or people who are different. To kimchi (which is delicious IMHO). Or to people who dislike kimchi (who are obviously idiots, yuck!).

What's the instead/opposite of Ewww/Yuck? It's silly in how simple it is. It's the ability to say "I don't like this" without investing in it. In particular, one might say, "Look! There is a me that doesn't like this. How interesting." As Ruth King says it, don't take your feelings/preferences personally. As Gil Fronsdal says it, get curious about the negative emotions, rather than pushing them away.

NOTE: Yuck and Ewww aren't different feelings in the mind. When I'm alone, they can both appear. When I'm with others, Ewww can be just as othering. I just chose them as words so I could easily distinguish between an interpersonal disgust (Yuck) and an intrapersonal disgust (Ewww). By all means, pick your own words.




Monday, January 17, 2022

Shorty: Feeling is distinct from being

 “You need to try to master the ability to feel sad without actually being sad.”


- From Laurie Anderson, about Lou Reed, Rolling Stone magazine.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/laurie-andersons-farewell-to-lou-reed-a-rolling-stone-exclusive-243792/

Instead: What to read instead of this blog

 If you are only reading this blog to get your Buddhism perspectives, then your diet is way too narrow. You should mix in reading some other sources.

  • If you are at the exploration stage of Buddhism
    • Read Tricycle (online or in print). It is how I got started and explored the different versions of Buddhism. There is also Lion's Roar
      • Understand that American Buddhism is generally very white and middle class. This has strengths and limits.
      • Tricycle and Lion's Roar does a good mix of many threads.
      • Try it out and see what sticks for you. At this phase, you should be looking at getting interested and motivated. Don't focus on "what is true". Ask, "What is helpful to get me started"
    • If you identify racially as black (or minority in general), read Ruth King or bell hooks or the Black and Buddhist anthology.
      • In particular, you will be able to get a different perspective that might "speak to you" better than a white, middle class tailored Buddhism.
    • Listen to 5 audio podcasts (free) at audiodharma.org. Make sure to try different speakers.
      • Tips: Try Gil Fronsdal, Andrea Fella, Diane Clark, and Nikkhi Mirghafori as speakers.
      • Tips: Use the search to search a topic. Like anger, trauma, frustration, or relationships
      • Tip: Some (but not all) of the talks might also be on Youtube.
    • Go to your library and pick up 5 Buddhist books. Skim each for 10 minutes.
      • Why 5? It gives you 5 different takes. It also helps you see what's common to all approaches to Buddhism, but also (importantly) what's different about different approaches to Buddhism. Even within one tradition (like Theravada), you will find differences.
      • Tip: Pema Chodron is very very good.
    • Do not just click on "Buddhist" things on facebook or youtube randomly.
      • The problem with clicking based on youtube or facebook is that they recommend what is popular.
        • Popular buddhism is bound to be very caught up in making people feel better, especially in the short term. 
        • Buddhism, fundamentally, is about both the short and long term. And, it will challenge your belief systems in helpful ways.
        • Popular buddhism, because it has appeal to the masses, is the subset that doesn't challenge people's belief systems, that are filled with greed, anger, and delusion/wishfulThinking. So, there is a big trap of falling in love with the face/aspect of Buddhism that you like the most, rather than the parts that will be most helpful/useful.
more tips...

Saturday, January 15, 2022

sneezing and itching

When meditating and developing concentration, samadhi, it is a wonderful path of "mistakes". It's almost cruel to give the guidance: don't think and quiet the mind. We are doomed to fail at first. But can we fail in interesting ways. Can we fail and learn? 

Two wonderful "mistakes" are sneezing and itching. And, for me, the skillful response is very different.

(You may find other approaches more helpful. So don't just blindly copy this. Try it out. Treat it as an instead. Uudr.)

Old me thought in two unhelpful ways.

Unhelpful1: sneezing and itching are two involuntary acts. So just allow them to happen and move on. Get back to the meditation.

Unhelpful2: sneezing and itching are two distracting involuntary acts but that I can control. Resist both as much as you can. If only.... If only you were skilled enough, you would never have to sneeze or scratch an itch during meditation.

Both these views are interesting. But adhering to either one is a quagmire. Approach 1 is too passive. Approach 2 is too lockdown/tense/allOrNothing. This isn't to say they should be abandoned completely. But they need to be used when they are useful.

Gil Fronsdal and a western Vipassana approach would suggest getting curious and watching. I think Gil said, if you have to scratch, take a few deep breaths first. Bring the whole scene to you awareness. The itch. The urge to scratch. The mind that writes the story and validates it. I would add that one can play with the story: imagine an angel or spirit blowing on your itchy ear. And then, if you still need to scratch, scratch slowly. And really notice (aware) of the scratching.

But what about sneezing. That more.involuntary. we can't always take a few deep breaths.

So, for itching and sneezing, it's good to do some "cross training". Take different approaches. Maybe switch it up on different days. So you see and learn more.

Look for what works and the exceptions.

Sometimes I find this helpful:
For itches, put up a good fight, maybe for 10 breaths. Yes, this will have some tension. But don't feed it. Melt into the body tension. No second arrow around the body. You might even recruit the mind to help.

For sneezes, just get really curious and allow. But try to watch it. Like in SLO motions. Maybe pay attention to the shape of the mouth. Similarly, one can add a bit of activeness. Play around with sneezing more softly. Or super loudly.

This is very much personal. Look for insteads. And check yourself for greed, anger, and delusion often. In both the long and short term. Let any wisdom you gain be long term. Let any forced stories you make be short term only.


what sacrifice looks like from the inside

We are such social creatures. We like to think we are individuals, with our own minds. 

But how much and how often do we do things for others.
...for praise
...for avoiding blame.
...for appearances.

Even when we sacrifice, publicly. For sacrifice is a most public act. "Look at me, I sacrificed"
Therefore
I am superior
I am virtuous
I am praiseworthy
I am reformed, to be forgiven
I am without blame
(tension)

Maybe if we sacrifice enough, we can get a prize. Safety, as given by the outside. A safety that allows heedlessness. And also a safety that doesn't last.

For those who know, and see.
Someone from the outside would see "sacrifice", and the ascribed motives and external interpretations. Comment chains. A quagmire, a thicket of views off the mark.
The one who knows, from the inside, doesn't see sacrifice. They see common sense. Or no sacrifice at all. They see heedfulness. (less and less tension)

SHORTY: beware martyrdom

beware martyrdom. It's not a badge to be misunderstood.

Look for tension, within, and release, within.
Knowing 5 ways, directly, touched
Knowing the cause, the consequence, the drawbacks, the allure, and the path with less and less dukkha.
Knowing oneself once beats being understood by outsiders every time.

Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Learn to Juggle

 I'm thinking a lot lately about learning processes and teaching kids (and humans in general) "learning how to learn".

Most of the things we would teach people are too complex. Take reading as an example. We might tell kids, "go learn to read. It's easy". But it's not. There are lots of formal rules. Unwritten rules. Exceptions. Feedback loops can be slow. Grades are confusing. Getting an A in grade 1 is very different from Grade 10. And reading Hemmingway, one might judge his sentence structure to be "too simple". 

ASIDE: I've had teachers mark points off my writing for using the same word in two sentences. In programming, using the same word is NORMAL and IMPORTANT. But some judge writing by rules by, "never end with a proposition". "Don't use sentence fragments". And "never start a sentence with a contraction". Or "Put the period inside the quotation marks". Or "Don't use nested parenthesis (like [brackets] can also be considered parentheses)"

I'm trying to learn the Thai alphabet. And, this might be something every 2nd grader in Thailand gets. But it's taking me a long time.


So, one of the ideas is that we need to teach kids how to learn by using very simple domains. This is also helpful in Buddhism. Use very simple domains.


Hence, juggling. 

  • Juggling give instantaneous and obvious feedback.
  • Either you catch the ball or you drop it.
  • Practice shows results. In this case, the beginning progress is fast.
  • Tasks can be "chunked" or broken down. Throwing. Catching. Timing. Each can be improved independently.
So, if you are stuck in your buddhism, consider learning to juggle. I find it also helps with turning off the discursive (papanca) mind. But that is secondary to using juggling to develop the skill of learning to learn. And to troubleshoot and watch how the mind doesn't like learning to learn.

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Everybody "means well"

My good friend NS told me once: Everybody "means well".

It's so obvious, but it was also one of my biggest blind spots. 

Sunday, January 9, 2022

Dabbling: when is it helpful? when is it limiting?

 People dabble. And they dabble at Buddhism. And tonight I realized I've been too harsh on dabbling.

After all, I dabbled myself. On Buddhism and also other things (Chess, home repair, 3D printing, psychology)

Dabbling is normal and possibly necessary and unavoidable on the path of learning and exploration.

But dabbling is also an impediment at some point.

The question of dabbling is actually pretty essential. It speaks to learning and change. When something is important, dabbling is a good start. But if someone gets stuck at the "dabbling-stage", then they may not go very far.

Buddhist Baseball Bat

I can remember it fondly. I was on a long drive near Rochester New York. I was spinning in my own thoughts about Buddhism, it's awesomeness, and the awesomeness of how I was such a good Buddhist. I was learning so fast. Things were clicking.

Somehow, probably from listening to a Thanissaro Bhikkhu talk, I had some ability to see this spinning. And the pride and sense of superiority. I thought I knew it all. And I thought I knew how to judge other people, inferior Buddhists.

I named this style of thinking the "Buddhist Baseball Bat". That name has stuck. Anytime I'm starting to use Buddhism to

  • Criticize other people, especially in a mean way
  • Focus on my superiority
  • Or criticize myself, in terms of "A real Buddhist would XYZ, and you're not doing that Eugene..."
That is the Buddhist Baseball Bat.

And when I call it that, some mix of awareness and humor helps me snap out of it. The "spinning" is blunted. And I've broken that instance of the chain of dependent co-arising.

It helps me not fall for my own thoughts.

UUDR.

SHORTY: Ask: is this not helpful?

Don't forget ask: is this not helpful?

Saturday, January 8, 2022

Audio: Real wealth is a satisfied mind. - Johnny Cash

 

Wow. Listening to Kill Bil Vol2 soundtrack and happened on this Buddhism-western crossover gem:

"Satisfied Mind". Video and lyrics below. Reminds me of the sutta on mountains of gold, and also of Hatthaka of Alavi.



Lyrics
How many times have
You heard someone say
If I had his money
I could do things my way
But little they know
That it's so hard to find
One rich man in ten
With a satisfied mind
Once I was waitin'
In fortune and fame
Everything that I dreamed for
To get a start in life's game
Then suddenly it happened
I lost every dime
But I'm richer by far
With a satisfied mind
Money can't buy back
Your youth when you're old
Or a friend when you're lonely
Or a love that's grown cold
The wealthiest person
Is a pauper at times
Compared to the man
With a satisfied mind
When my life has ended
And my time has run out
My friends and my loved ones
I'll leave there's no doubt
But one thing's for certain
When it comes my time
I'll leave this old world
With a satisfied mind
How many times have
You heard someone say
If I had his money
I could do things my way
But little they know
That it's so hard to find
One rich man in ten
With a satisfied mind
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Red Hays / Jack Rhodes
Satisfied Mind lyrics © Carlin America Inc


Featured Post

The Castle, The Watcher, and The Guardian

The slogan "Nothing is Enough" may give the impression that this is "anything goes". It is not. Some have said that you ...

Popular Posts