four qualities of a teacher: GALE

in Thanissaro bhkkhis article on finding a good teacher, he lists four qualities to look for.

wisdom

1. generosity (aware and giving)

2. actions matter

virtue

3. doesnt deliberately LIE, and if so, is ashamed

4. even handed in applying rules (to themself, others, people they like and don't like).

acronym: GALE, generosity, actions, lying, and even-handed. 

on generosity, it's actually more or most important than they can recognize generosity whenever present, however small.  if a villain does a small kindness, the teacher can see both the kindness and the larger harm. the opposite is to see nothing positive just because a person is not liked. 

on actions matter, this is a belief that actions matter, that consequences matter. this is what is largely meant by Karma/Karma in the Buddhist canon. the opposites are that everything is fate and our actions don't matter. or, that one can do some chants or good deeds to erase the consequences of their actions.

on lying, it's straightforward in part: don't lie. but the way Thanissaro Bhikkhu presents it, he emphasizes having shame if you do lie. I think this is more pertinent, since modern culture excuses lots of little lies. it acknowledges that people do lie. it sets a bar: even if you catch a teacher in a lie, see if they admit to it and fess up. they should show shame, rather than justification and digging in. the opposite is shameless lying, and also convenient lies.

one even handedness, this means they aren't partisan in applying rules. for example, they don't justify some people's shady actions because they are friends or beneficial to our cause, but then denounce the other side's same actions. this is the anti hypocrite and anti double-standard rule. the opposite is partisanship. 

Is it easier to find an educated human than a heedful human?

As I wrap up my time in Kansas, I have an insight that has taken a long time to uncover. Laughably long, because it's easy to see once it is pointed out.

I have historically valued and lauded intelligence and education and knowledge. If someone has a PhD or 10 years of experience in something, that seems the most amazing. I then make the leap that they can see things with incredible nuance and discernment. That last step is not quite accurate.

I've seen and discerned how many "educated" folks aren't careful and aren't trustworthy. They know the vocabulary to a large extent. They know what other people know. They know lots of facts. But I have also seen them prone to shortcuts. Prone to anti-intellectualism. They are nannies (status quo rule followers) rather than nerds (investigators of how things work and how they can break). With stature, that gives them an excuse. "I know a lot, so just trust me on this one". I had a very senior economist from MIT glibly say that "energy efficiency doesn't work" to dismiss a line of inquiry. How can you trust someone as an umpire and gatekeepers who would be so uncareful in their words?

Education and deep experience is rare. This is true for Masters degree holders as well as Master Plumbers. And just using that title, which takes a lot of effort to get, it would seem like finding people of deep education is very rare. In the USA, this is probably about 1 to 3% of the population who have Masters or are masters of something.

But heedfulness is rarer.

This is puzzling in a way because heedfulness is cheap and requires no special equipment or tuition fees. To get a master's degree or to become a master tradesperson, that typically requires 12 years of normal schooling and then another 6-10+ years is specialty schooling. But, to be heedful, one might even have no schooling. One needs to look, observe, and act carefully. That is enough. If your job is to gather water from the local well, doing that job heedfully means taking it seriously and doing a good job. One can even have fun with it. But one can't use fun as an excuse to be non-heedful, to excuse mistakes and carelessness.

And, that's part of the thing with society. Modern society, with it's consumer siren song, celebrates carelessness and mistakes (that you get away with). Ancient society did similar things, so it wasn't a world where "things were so much better before XYZ". Very few cultures have emphasized heedfulness. In a weird way, all the religions and all the cultures that promoted "duty" to family or tribe were teaching some elements of heedfulness, albeit inadvertently. So, I do agree (also in a weird way) that the reactionary Christians in America are actually (inadvertently) teaching some heedfulness when they try to promote "traditional Christian values". Or, if I were looking for heedful kids, I'd find more coming out of a church then coming out of an Instagram feed; even a progressive Instagram feed.

So heedfulness is rarer than erudite education. I'm not sure on the number, but my guess is approx 1 out of 1000 or less. 

These days, I am trying to hone my heedfulness meter so I can find these folks. My main difficulty is that my heedfulness meter is biased to people who are heedful in the way I am. If they are heedful in a way that looks very different, it's very easy for me to miss them.

Lastly, and Topeka and Cornell has taught me this, heedfulness is not very correlated with education or social status.  You can find a lot of unheedful people who are doctors or policy makers. They are probably good enough for their jobs, but I wouldn't trust them to be gentle or careful when tempted by pleasure, greedy, or revenge.

Uudr 

Happiness is tricky, some questions to ask

Happiness is tricky and messy. Here are some questions to ask to look at your happiness:

Is your happiness based (only) on your own actions or depends on the actions of others?

Is your happiness bsed on your mind and mind's actions? Or dependent on comforts of the body?

Is your happiness in conflict in the happiness of others? This can be looked at both shallowly and deeply.

Shallowly: are you looking for some positionality or possession that someone else covets? If so, there can only be one winner.

Deeply: is your happiness dependent on the exploitation of others, indirectly?

Deep and edgy: is your happiness dependent on the exploitation of others, directly, but you look the other way?

(Note: your survival is likely dependent on harm to others, and this is unavoidable. It can be lessened, but dont get in fights about who is is holier than others. Your happiness does not need to depend on harm to others, because your happiness (in the buddhist perspective) actually does not depend on your survival)

A lot of happiness is self-indulgence, disguised as reasonableness, masking grandiosity and greed.

Due dilligence is good and consent is good, but neither are really sufficient if you want to be very heedful.