tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78578791088510184002024-03-05T08:35:23.382-08:00Nothing Is Enough -- A Buddhist PathA blog about buddhism from an American, mostly Theravada. NothingIsEnough, NothingIsEnoughBuddhismEugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.comBlogger155125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-30952577821074510092023-08-15T10:40:00.001-07:002023-08-15T10:40:25.524-07:00four qualities of a teacher: GALEin Thanissaro bhkkhis article on finding a good teacher, he lists four qualities to look for.<div><br></div><div>wisdom</div><div>1. generosity (aware and giving)</div><div>2. actions matter</div><div>virtue</div><div>3. doesnt deliberately LIE, and if so, is ashamed</div><div>4. even handed in applying rules (to themself, others, people they like and don't like).</div><div><br></div><div>acronym: GALE, generosity, actions, lying, and even-handed. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-88670881906866041862023-08-09T09:37:00.001-07:002023-08-09T09:37:46.908-07:00Is 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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>But heedfulness is rarer.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Uudr </div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-50529577542028376572023-08-02T20:42:00.001-07:002023-08-02T20:42:08.519-07:00Happiness is tricky, some questions to askHappiness is tricky and messy. Here are some questions to ask to look at your happiness:<div><br></div><div>Is your happiness based (only) on your own actions or depends on the actions of others?</div><div><br></div><div>Is your happiness bsed on your mind and mind's actions? Or dependent on comforts of the body?</div><div><br></div><div>Is your happiness in conflict in the happiness of others? This can be looked at both shallowly and deeply.</div><div><br></div><div>Shallowly: are you looking for some positionality or possession that someone else covets? If so, there can only be one winner.</div><div><br></div><div>Deeply: is your happiness dependent on the exploitation of others, indirectly?</div><div><br></div><div>Deep and edgy: is your happiness dependent on the exploitation of others, directly, but you look the other way?</div><div><br></div><div>(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)</div><div><br></div><div>A lot of happiness is self-indulgence, disguised as reasonableness, masking grandiosity and greed.</div><div><br></div><div>Due dilligence is good and consent is good, but neither are really sufficient if you want to be very heedful.</div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-84557068519053873812023-04-25T09:24:00.001-07:002023-04-25T09:24:26.039-07:00unperturbable<div>No matter what the conditions are outside, you don't have to suffer.</div><div><br></div><div>You find a basis for happiness beyond the touch of conditions.</div><div><br></div><div>That's the part of the dharma that is off the charts.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>From <span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;">Thanissaro Bhikkhu - 080819 A Dhamma Map.mp3</span></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-47839448739896610932023-03-16T09:10:00.002-07:002023-03-16T09:10:21.713-07:00Brene Brown is 90-95% helpful, perhaps?<span style="font-family: arial;"><br /><br /> Brene Brown is 90-95% helpful. I think that's higher than me! She is well studied, well-researched. But she is not 100% helpful. Barely anyone is 100%. Even God and the Bible or <insert your favorite holy text> is fallable, even if only because your interpretation of the text is fallable. So this idea of wise-judgment or discernment is pretty essential, regardless of if you are Buddhist or not. Taking something in whole-hog can be dangerous. <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2021/12/some-praise-and-critiques-of-nvc.html">See my post on NVC.</a><br /><br /><br />Let's take a specific example:<br /><br />https://brenebrown.com/resources/atlas-of-the-heart-list-of-emotions/<br />A list of 87 emotions and about 8 anti-patterns for empathy (e.g., fake empathy)<br /><br />As I read through her list, I'm struck by how much the emotions are about emotional <b><i>narratives</i></b>. They aren't (all) raw emotions. They are emotions with context and reactions and justifications or avoidance. So they are complex emotions; they are the emotions then mixed with contact with stories/ego, and then secondary emotions, and then maybe social context.</span><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">It seems, to me, like she is missing some basic things from the list of 87. And overemphasizing the secondary emotions.<br /><br /></span><div><span style="font-family: arial;">She doesn't have unsafe (and safe). Some might not call these emotions, but in trauma work, that sense of safety is beyond words, possibly before emotions, and hard wired into the Amygdala, the Limbic system, and various midbrain structures. Most people don't experience "unsafe" by itself because they are primed to then go to the reaction. Often fear. Or frustration. Or blame. These, Brown lists. But a big part of Buddhism (IMHO) is to be able to experience safe and unsafe in it's raw form. And then to watch the chain of the brain.<br /><br />In Buddhism we have Vedana, translated as feeling tone or emotions. A buddhist innovation seems to be to separate into 3 categories: Pleasure and Pain and Neutral (or neither). Pleasure and pain are not directly listed in Brown's list, but there are synonyms or subcategories included. Again, the subcategories may be elaborations, and hence in Buddhism, they are seen as possible unhelpful elaborations: me-making and my-making, the chain of clinging or papanca.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">The overemphasizing is the small space she gives to neutral. She has "calm" and "contented" and a few others. In my Buddhism, I've noticed how much of life is inherently neutral and impersonal. And how much my own story making is what turns it into something positive or negative, and personal. This distinction is lost in Brown's roadmap.<br /><br />To praise Brown's work, it is excellent at helping people feel more. In the investigation phase of meditation, it's very good to ask whether one is feeling any of those 87 emotions. It's a tremendous vocabulary, and I think it's eye opening to read. One might spend a day or even a week on each one. So, in explore mode, these 87 are great.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">In a normative sense, it can be problematic. Brown's arc is one of progress and change and healing. And so it is asking us to privilege and reinforce some emotions while trying to move away from others. Buddhism has some similar prescriptions. We are encouraged to give up anger (or a specific type of anger, to be precise), for example. But, in both Brown's map and Buddhism's map, we really ought to look at and deeply understand that anger. We are looking toward transformation and resilience. Not avoidance or "smash". That subtle distinction can easily get lost.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Her take on "more empathy"... again, probably 90-95% helpful. But some cautions.<br /><br />There are people where more empathy is 100% helpful for right now. And there are people where more empathy is not helpful. A prime example is people in trauma; getting more into empathy and in touch with their emotions is not exactly the optimal trauma treatment. It starts with getting people safe in their bodies. It then goes toward something about "reintegration" and a "window of tolerance". For some people, it can be very story-based. And for those people, Freudian approaches can be very helpful. But for some people, Freudian approaches are "too much, too fast" and they can shut down. Because shut down can be a sever setback, we want to be extra, extra careful.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">It is skillful to have empathy for people's lack of empathy. And there are ways of reading Brown's work that allows for those grey areas; and there are ways to read it that tend to exorcise those grey areas, which creates it's own clinging, judgment, hiding of our own judgments, etc etc etc.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A Pascal-ian Wager, 95%</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: arial;">So, I think approaching Brown as 90-95% helpful is very beneficial, because one is asked to look and judge for themselves. In the first pass of learning, you just copy and try to get bearings. But the 95% tells you that you can't memorize everything and that's the end. You gotta "be the scientist" and test it out to see if you get the effects. Sometimes you won't get the expected effect, and the 95% rule says, "that's good, keep looking".</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">If it turns out Brown was 100% correct, you haven't really lost anything. Looking with a careful, discerning eye gives you more knowledge. Knowledge form doing the work and checking, not just ingesting the work.<br /></span><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;">ON SHAME</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Buddhism's take on shame is helpful to sharpen some of Brown's research on shame. Brown sees shame (in my reading) as universally negative, and some may say she has been a powerful force to bring light to the issue of shame. Shame leads people to hide and feel stuck. These are not fun experiences/emotions, so people (in a humanistic and human-centered way) might look to get rid of shame. One might say she is the leader of the war on shame.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">To the extent that this "war on shame" is accurate (I think she probably has more nuance, and I am glossing it over and focusing on her main message, not her careful, technical work, which I appreciate), I think it overreaches. Buddhism talks about healthy shame, where we hurt someone or did something we ourselves consider unskillful. In those cases, we are "ashamed" of our actions. The thought of doing it again gives us a sick feeling in the stomach. And that shame protects us; it keeps us from doing the thing again. In that case, shame doesn't beat ourselves up.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">One might say that this "shame" stuff is just an issue of using different definitions. Yes and no. Brene Brown's early books on shame talk about what should be defined as shame? Does embarassment count? Is regret shame? I think she settles on some element of hiding. And, yes, if we make a mistake and can openly admit it, then this is a best case scenario. We share with friends and don't feel hiding-shame. This may be optimal, but is it necessary or even common place. I don't think so. If we told a big lie and hurt other people, and we feel shame, we might have some desire to hide it and put it behind us. Angulimala, the Buddhist era serial killer (999 thumbs), probably felt shame about his past as a serial killer once he became a monk, and an accomplished monk at that. As the story goes, people he had hurt would shun him and throw things at him, even when he was highly attained. As he was an arahant, he probably could see that his serial killing had ripple affects, that it chained these people he had hurt to cling to anger and thoughts of revenge. So he might be double ashamed, ashamed at his actions and ashamed at the impacts of fermenting anger in those he hurt.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">To be ungenerous to Brene's work to make a point, Brene acolytes (just like NVC acolytes) might say that Angulimala has to get rid of that shame. What would that even mean? To their credit, they don't mean that Angulimala should stop feeling ashamed by bypassing the pain he caused. But it's be easy for an inpatient follower to use Brene's work as a sort of bypass: "Brene says don't be ashamed. You can't tell me I hurt you because that causes me shame". A more patient follower might acknowledge mistakes but then encourage Angulimala to embrace the story or to find a way not to hide. This is probably useful in general, but has a couple of backfires and gotchas. Angulimala, having become an arahant, has gone beyond that tactic; he is beyond the stories and identification. His shame is only to the extent that it makes him careful and heedful in his actions. On the other side, there are apologists or even PTSD people who can get stuck in their stories. So even a transformative story of healing from shame can backfire. Cognitively, it may work. But in the limbic system and the emotions, it can have no effect.</span></div></div></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-67513485987248433032023-02-14T19:09:00.001-08:002023-02-14T19:09:16.571-08:00Traveling Nunk, I was wrong, you definitely are deeply practicedI just went to an online dharma discussion with Traveling Nunk <a href="http://travelingnunk.org">(link)</a>. And I can vouch that her teachings are very good, not fake, helpful.<div><br></div><div>And since I went into it feeling a bit suspicious. I want to admit my mistake and say I was wrong to be suspicious.</div><div><br></div><div>The monk/nun/mendicant is Sister Clear Grace. She has been written up twice in Tricycle:</div><div><br></div><div><div>Meet the Traveling Nunk and Her Mobile Monastery - Tricycle: The Buddhist Review <a href="https://tricycle.org/article/traveling-nunk-monastery/">https://tricycle.org/article/traveling-nunk-monastery/</a></div><div><br></div><div>Her claim to notoreity/novelty is that she outfitted a van and decided to go out driving her van and doing Buddhism. I tried to do this in late 2019 and utterly failed. I was expecting she would face similar difficulties.</div><div><br></div><div>I also was suspicious since she has some (major?) training in both Theravada and Thich Nhat Hanh / Plum Village, and although I value a lot of what Tai/Hanh teaches, I wasn't sure how much emptiness-based approaches and more traditional Pali canon / 4 noble truths approaches would jive. Further skepticism (to further dig my own hole) was what I saw as her taking on certain elements of "engaged Buddhism" which suggests that taking on social causes is obligatory. My teachers have been cautious about engaged Buddhism, because it can distort the Buddhism.</div><div><br></div><div>I was very wrong.</div><div><br></div><div>First, her project/van, the Great Aspiration, is going to places where she feels called, which include homeless camps and other places. She is not glorifying this or trying to show off. In fact, I feel she does this respectfully and quietly. From what I heard from reading the <a href="https://amaravati.org/dhamma-books/dear-jane-wisdom-from-the-forest-for-an-english-buddhist/">Dear Jane</a> letters by Ajahn Pannavaddho, one of the Zen patriarchs was very careful about engaged Buddhism and the Bodhisattva vows. That patriarch advised that one should take that vow, to alleviate all suffering in the world, but add the caveat at the end: <i>in my mind.</i> Therefore, the vow is to end all suffering in the world <i>in one's own mind.</i> Given how much the Buddha warned about the <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2022/09/avoid-politics.html?m=1">insufficiency of the world (Uno Loco, Atitto, Tanha Daso)</a>, all the attempts to clean up the world are bound to fail if it doesn't mean cleaning up the mind. And one can only start with one's own mind first. So, Sister Clear Grace made several statements suggesting that she not only understands this intellectually, but also knows it in her bones. This doesn't mean we don't strive for unlimited Metta/Goodwill or do what we can in the world. But it does mean we don't expect the world to change just because we try harder, and furthermore that we don't hang the clarity of our mind on the condition of the world.</div><div><br></div><div>Second, I think she skillfully merges Theravada teachings and Plum Village teachings. From what I understand of how Tai taught (I never saw him in person), he kept on keeping compassion and interbeing as central teachings, similar to how the Dalai Lama teaches, or the teachings on Tsewa (tenderness) by Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche. Deeply influenced by my own conditioning to be a people pleaser, I am easily caught by unhelpful ways of approaching interbeing, patterns of self sacrifice. So I really appreciated the warnings to proceed cautiously in the Pali canon and Ajahn Geoff. Most notably, item 4 of the 5 daily remembrances: you will be separated from everything you hold dear.</div><div><br></div><div>In contrast to the Sharon Salzberg approach to loving-kindness which kinda hides the unhelpful reality of remembrance #4, Sister Clear Grace taught in way that doesn't hide this ordinarily brutal truth/reality. Initially, when she spoke of the beauty of being in nature and Sangha, I internally rolled my eyes and thought, "not another Buddhist positivity practitioner". But later she talked about the impermanence of beauty and about how beauty can also catch us into the "stories" or cycle of clinging. I was lucky to hear her present and cover the 12 steps of dependent co-arising (which in Tai's tradition are translated as interdependent co-arising, I believe). It was refreshing to hear (in both her words and he nonverbal cues) that it seemed like she had struggled with this thorny beast and thicket of brambles.</div><div><br></div><div>She spoke eloquently about the pleasures of meditation that are "not of the flesh" (technical Pali phrasing), that the Buddha encouraged. In my own understanding, these relate to finding sequentially more and more wholesome pleasures to help stabilize the mind, to do the work.</div><div><br></div><div>After speaking of that direct experience, she then remarked, somewhat casually and without fanfare, that even that experience ends. I heard some words of hers that I hope I will remember and resonate in me for a long time coming. "The Dharma shatters at every level."</div><div><br></div><div>In the beginning, the Dharma shatters some very coarse Kilesas, like ill will. But in the middle it shatters pleasure seeking, and even pride from virtue (what Ajahn Geoff discusses as the 9 types of conceit). I have experienced these two. And, towards the end, it even shatters itself. I think it was Ajahn Maha Boowa who wrote about his experience of enlightenment. He thought he had achieved it; he was quite learned and quite practiced. But he put his realization to the test. And he found that the pleasure/experience/total release that he had tasted was conditional; something like on the 3rd day of testing, he found a very subtle perturbation. Tan Ajahn had already achieved stream entry and was beyond many of the lower fetters (the lower 3 at least, probably the lower 7 of ten). But he was able to see little bits of the last 3. And so he kept practicing, watching, vigilant clear.</div><div><br></div><div>"The Dharma shatters at every level." I am touched to have heard that.</div><div><br></div><div>The Buddha himself wrote about this when touching on the nature of Nirvana. It's all to easy to mistake peak experience with Nirvana. And he cautioned that conceiving oneself as being Nirvana, having it, having caused it or anything of those terms is good indication you <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-time-bhikkhus-did-not-delight-in.html?m=1">do not have the taste of Nirvana</a>. In the end, the Dhamma shatters itself, the flame goes out. There is cessation and the knowledge of the cessation.</div><div><br></div><div>So, thank you Sister Clear Grace. I was wrong. I was not wrong to be suspicious; I'm suspicious of everyone's teachings including my own. But my suspicions were wrong, unfounded. I, of course, cannot vouch off a 90 minute zoom call on your attainments. But nothing you said was out of line with the word or tone of Buddhist teachings (as I understand them), and much of what you said was deep and in concert with my own understandings (which are admittedly meager).</div><div><br></div><div>CODA</div><div>I still don't LOVE emptiness and interbeing as <i>teachings</i>, not because I disagree with them when used well, but just because they are too often not used well. And I similarly don't like the word truth; it's got to many English meanings and connotations. I use skillful and unskillful, helpful and unhelpful, or kusala and akusala. (And, if it is the paramita of <i>sacca,</i> I would use reality, accuracy, unveiled reality, or fidelity.) But, as they say, those quibbles are just words and <i>teachings, </i>not the reality of the practice or fruit of practice itself. You appear (and so few do) to speak from direct practice and experience, and Tai was certainly as attained person who spoke from direct practice and experience. It reminds me of how my teacher Ajahn Geoff enjoys skewering the teachings of modern "masters" who overstate emptiness as a complete path, but he has deep respect for Dogen, who (I speculate) used emptiness as a <i>descriptor </i>of the whole path (as opposed to a shortcut).</div><div><br></div><div>May you, SCG (teavelingnunk), continue to teach and also progress in your own path. May all the power of all the Buddha, dhamma, and samgha protect you. May you have all the Metta blessings and look after yourself with ease.</div><div><br></div><div>PS</div><div>The website blog and YouTube channel as of feb2023 are very outdated, with the last update in late 2021, I believe. The most up to date is Facebook.</div><div><br></div><div>The website IS a good place to offer donations or to contact her, or her team of supporters. FB messenger also works. Currently, she is in the middle of a 50 week weekly Zoom meetup. You can sign up for that via a pop-up on her webpage.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-1980903556421894052023-01-24T09:00:00.001-08:002023-01-25T17:14:18.177-08:00My 4 poisons of escapeIn my Buddhist journey, I've done a good job with greed and anger. I'm not very materialistic. I don't get angry or offended easily.<div><br></div><div>But that doesn't mean I don't get caught. And my biggest way of getting caught is to look for escape. These are my 4 poisons and the color coding I give to them.</div><div><br></div><div>Green poison; chess. Other mindless habits, like netflix?</div><div>Red poison; sexual and sensual desires, sometimes food</div><div>Blue poison; grandiosity</div><div>Black poison; escape</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>These aren't mutually exclusive. For example, I often have Green+Black together.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm pretty good at seeing the poisons. But that doesn't stop.me from taking them. It's like part of me is craving numbing out. And I get convinced to numb out.</div><div><br></div><div>I no longer trick myself into pretending these aren't poisons. I used to say that sex is natural. Yes, the urge is natural. But the indulgence in it needs to be skillful and careful. Not wishful thinking. Not heedless and making a mess. I used to say grandiosity was necessary, to dream big. Grandiosity can be helpful, sometimes. But the helpfulness is just a small part; the majority is "if only" thinking.</div><div><br></div><div>The antidotes to poison are where I should be focusing. Pleasures not of the flesh and skillful pleasures, like Jhana as tuaght by Ajahn Geoff. Or Metta meditation and practice. Or the looking at drawbacks.</div><div><br></div><div>The biggest impediment to abandoning the poisons is my impatience. It's like junk food. Yummy and filling in an immediate way. You pay for it later, or it's empty calories. And it crowds out other more skillful things, and habituated oneself to crave the unskillful things.</div><div><br></div><div>I've given up Junk Food sex. There, I had a long list of messes that sex created that I felt I needed to clean up. But I haven't given up Junk Food escape. Or junk food mindlessness. Those are solo affairs, so my desire to not get entangled with others (helpful in those cases) doesn't work with solo cases. Or, I should be more precise: it doesn't work reliably enough. It works sometimes. Like right now I had an urge to Netflix or watch porn, and instead I am recollecting Dhamma and writing this post. But I am fairly certain I will succumb a few times this week. Escape, escape, escape... A dangerous friend. (Which is not actually your friend)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-81828431470063158372023-01-24T08:25:00.002-08:002023-04-25T09:28:28.309-07:00In praise of bed bugs, as training for the mindThe house I bought has bed bugs. Not an insane amount active, but when removing trim and ceiling tiles, I saw their telltale stain.<div><br></div><div>They have been good training for the mind.</div><div><br></div><div>I recall a passage where a well trained mind can have a mind not disgusted in the face of what is disgusting. And all combos of <reaction, trigger>, including being disgusted by what is attractive.</div><div><br></div><div>Bed bugs are definitely not pleasant. They itch. It is easy to get obsessed with them. There is a stigma. And there is a harm if I accidentally pass them on to others. It would be awful to cause an infestation in some other house.</div><div><br></div><div>But I gotta think about scale. They don't carry disease like mosquitoes. They are a nuisance. I am the itch, but also bigger than the itch (a la Thich Nhat Hanh). In the grand scheme of things, if I cannot even put up with the discomfort of an itch of a bed bug, what possible chance do I have against greed or delusion or the itches of addiction?</div><div><br></div><div>I'm also not just rolling over. I'm washing clothes, vacuuming, and caulking gaps. I'm replacing or refinishing floors.</div><div><br></div><div>But the training is to not get hijacked by needing the outside world conform to my vision of it. Or, to use that quote from Lou Reed /Laurie Anderson in rolling stone magazine:</div><div><br></div><div>To feel the pain but not be the pain.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Update april2023: not bed bugs. Probably mites or rat mites. Even trickier (and smaller).</div><div><br></div><div>Good mind training.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-15897412229335821742023-01-13T12:03:00.000-08:002023-01-13T12:03:02.956-08:0030 minute video about the dangers of Getting What you Want<p> I have a 30 minute video on the dangers of Getting What You Want.</p><p>It touches on getting what you want, transitory happiness, safety, and growth.</p><p>It uses graphs.</p><p>It uses Buddhism and hedonic treadmill ideas.</p><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwRmOor9VbU">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwRmOor9VbU</a></p><p>Slidedeck link is <a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1z6YZniHnAoASdjYuWwtX3uO-r1XNbfyRwFBbbfCuXN8/edit?usp=sharing">https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1z6YZniHnAoASdjYuWwtX3uO-r1XNbfyRwFBbbfCuXN8/edit?usp=sharing</a></p><p><br /></p>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-31100452003022974142023-01-12T20:09:00.004-08:002023-01-12T20:09:53.880-08:004 functions of meditation: CLIF<p> In my own meditation, I've looked at my mind over many years and with many techniques in mind. There are many different ways to approach it. The Satipatthana sutta has 4 frames of reference and about a dozen lists. Those 4 frames are helpful, but they are ways of looking.</p><p><br /></p><p>The 4 functions of meditations are frameworks of <i>activity</i>. These are mostly my own invention (to the best of my knowledge), though they mirror tetrad 3 of Anapanasati.</p><p>1. Concentration or Focus</p><p>2. Listening, Careful Observations</p><p>3. Insight, or different ways of looking</p><p>4. Fabrication or Creation. This is making the mind do things or see things.</p><p><br /></p><p>In concentration, one is trying to keep the mind on one object. This is planting a deep pole into the ground. Stay here is both the intention and the result. It's okay to wander, but one is supposed to not focus on the wandering, but simply come back. It's like training a dog. It's about doing one thing over and over and, when needed correcting. And our minds are unruly dogs... They must be corrected over and over and over. The object of concentration can be the breath, an idea, a vision, or a mantra.</p><p>Somatically, I teach students to imagine grabbing a stick and sticking it in the ground, and then identifying with that stick and their object of meditation.</p><p><br /></p><p>In listening, one is trying to make a careful observation of what arises, as quickly and as detailed as possible. This is the heart of awareness meditation, which is what Joseph Goldstein teaches to beginners. Watch it arise, name or note it, then begin again. Don't follow the storyline. If you feel an itch, name it and note it and then just watch it. Don't scratch immediately. Watch it and then, if you must, scratch it slowly, ie mindfully. One is not trying to do any analysis in the sense of picking any thought process apart, or trying to see connections.</p><p>Somaticizing listening, I suggest people hold out open hands and wiggle their fingers. Imagine being a spider in the middle of a spider web, and get super sensitive to the web. And notice anything that gets caught in that web.</p><p><br /></p><p>In insight, the point is to see in a different way and to see connections. Insight comes mostly after listening. You can't have much insight if 90% of the story is in your blind spot. Listening let's you see the story and the blind spots. Now that you can see all the individual objects, you start seeing connections. A useful analogy might be that listening is snapshots/stills and insight is video clips. You see A happen first, then B happen next, and then you add C by choice, and then D happens. Listening might mean sometimes you see B only. Or sometimes just D. Insight is seeing the patterns. The Satipatthana sutta (4 frames of reference for mindfulness) is another form of insight. Instead of trying to look at time sequences or co-arising, one looks at individual moments, but from different perspectives. Suppose we mostly look at a person and see the face. Satipatthana suggest we look at the back of the person. And maybe zoomed in to the feet, then legs, etc (component parts). Then maybe zoomed out as one person in a large city or room. And then maybe with a boroscope like in a colonoscopy. Satipatthana, in all 4 frames, also says to look at it as arising and passing away (over time, or over the lifecycle) and also as a non personal observation ("independent and unsustained")</p><p>This can be passive, but it can also be active. Like in Satipatthana #3, we can look and ask specific questions. Is there greed, or no greed, or half-half greed? The active is setting the frame. Then we listen.</p><p>Somaticizing this, I suggest people get a rock or a mug or a pencil. And then I have them turn it over, put their eye really close, close there eyes and "look" with their hands, etc. This gets into the detail side of insight. And then, imagining the life cycle. The item breaking. But also the component parts. This is related to the Tangerine meditation made famous by Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh.</p><p><br /></p><p>Finally, there is Fabrication. This isn't the final method, in that you need to do the first three to reach the 4. They can come in any order and loop. I just list it last. It is the most active element. At it's heart, fabrication is getting good at arising or extinguishing any mental state. At it's perfection, anger is something you can turn on and off like a light switch. So is Metta/loving kindness. So is desire.</p><p>Sharon Salzberg encourages people to start with Metta meditation. It's a good technique for many (but not all). Metta meditation fabricates Goodwill for all people. Kindness is another term that is used. By doing Metta meditation, we are fabricating Goodwill and extinguishing ill-will. We wish nobody to be poisoned or wronged, even if they are "bad people" who cause lots of harm. Fabrication is the main part, but in the course of fabrication, we develop the focus element (#1). And the listening element (#2), because we notice places where it is hard to generate Metta. For example, many people have trouble generating Metta for noisy neighbors or other bothersome people. Probably more have problems generating Metta for themselves. Third, insight is developed, sometimes naturally or by accident, because we start seeing the arising of Metta and its passing, or the arising of ill will and its passing.</p><p>Fabrication (including fabricating Metta) is fully active. Hence, there is the possibility of "steamrolling" our emotions. Our emotions might be grief and sadness. Rather than sitting quietly and listening, we might force ourselves (inadvertently) to do Metta. This is what I call "yanky", like yanking the leash of a dog. It works, but it's not skillful. Sometimes we need to yank, but often we don't. The experimental mode of fabrication is to experiment... How can I use the minimum yank to generate Metta? How can I generate Metta with a lot of force because I want it quickly? How can I generate Metta by just allowing it to appear, rather than pushing for it to appear?</p><p>We want to get good at fabrication, but the Buddha was quite clear that the end of suffering requires the end of fabrication. We use fabrication as we need to, especially to keep our defilements and destructive habits in check. Convincing ourselves we don't need that 5th piece of cake is a fabrication exercise. We have to take that step first, so I'm not deriding people who take such a step. But I'm giving you a foreshadowing. At some point, you'll have to look at the urge for that 5th piece of cake. Seems impossible to stop the urge... It seems like you can only respond to the urge. But it is very possible to cut off urges before they become actionable. Hint: it requires insight. One tip is that it's possible to notice a pain in the body as just a pain in the body, before it becomes a pain in the mind. And then that pain generates it's own urges, mainly aversion and possibly ill-will and blame.</p><p>Somatically, I would give people a set of 10 stones and maybe a piece of paper with 4 quadrants. Fabrication is the arranging of the stones of our mind.</p><p><br /></p><p>My annoyance of western reductionist approaches to meditation is that they tend to focus on just one of these 4 functions. Some emphasize focus. Some emphasize listening. Some emphasize insight (and fabricating insight is not possible... any fabricated insight is mostly false). Some emphasize fabricating things, like kindness or equanimity.</p><p>These are 4 beautiful tools. They are interrelated. In some sense, focus is fabricated. And insight leads better focus. Which leads to better insight. And that can allow us to disentangle processes, which means we can fabricate more adeptly. In the processes of these 4 functions, they all have arrows to every other one. So, in a technical sense, every teacher is right. Focusing on any 1 can get you all 4. But focusing on 1 can also get you only that 1. As early as possible, I think people should be given a taste of all 4.</p><p><br /></p><p>Tetrad 3 of the Anapanasati has all 4. Sensitive to the mind is listening. Gladdening the mind is fabrication. Steadying the mind is focus. Relinquishing and releasing the mind is insight, maybe with some fabrication.</p><p><br /></p><p>Meditation and these 4 functions are value-free in that they can be used for skillful or unskillful purposes. If you want to manipulate the world and become all powerful (like Devadatta), you can use meditation for that defilement-filled purpose. But, to follow the Buddhist path requires adopting Right View, which is clarity on what is helpful and unhelpful, but also how things arise and pass away. Insight that is skillful is right view. But insight all by itself could be unskillful. You can see how things are fabricated, but maybe you are blind to the harmful consequences. Or you are greedy and care only about yourself, willful or oblivious to harming others.</p><p><br /></p><p>May you explore and master all 4 functions. May you experiment and see for yourself. And may you use them to decrease suffering and increase deep happiness and contentment and peace.</p><p><br /></p><p>UUDR </p><p><br /></p>Howard Chonghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08454421376030380728noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-28711362923254103922022-12-04T16:06:00.003-08:002022-12-16T10:15:38.104-08:00On 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.<div><br /></div><div>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 <i>others</i> for what is right).</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>(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" (!)".)</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i>I'm happy to help you (and everyone) who earnestly approaches Buddhism.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>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.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>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.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>As a slogan: don't disappear without a word.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>If you do want to disappear, just send a note, like "I'm dropping Buddhism."</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>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.</div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>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.</i></div></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-68423782547397695132022-11-27T14:37:00.001-08:002022-11-27T14:37:49.456-08:00Commercials, a museum of "if only" thoughtsI'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.<div><br></div><div>Gil Fronsdal has<a href="http://audiodharma.org"> a fairy tale</a> that talks about all the if only thoughts we have.</div><div><br></div><div>The jewelry commercial reminds me of all the "love is forever" stories. And the stories that "if you really love someone, it means...".</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>So many commercials are aspirational. Whispering, "you deserve more, more". Like the new iPhone.</div><div><br></div><div>Then there are the guilt commercials. About germs and laundry detergent. "Is it really clean unless you..."</div><div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>I am thankful I am somewhat innoculated/vaccinated against that line of thinking.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-91330854917830749262022-11-27T08:06:00.003-08:002022-12-16T10:23:43.682-08:00Rope, Wind, Escape, BingeIt'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.<div> </div><div>But I see this pattern! And I'm excited to finally see the pattern. Rope. Wind. Escape. Binge.</div><div><br /></div><div> 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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-26488098354641924012022-11-10T10:26:00.002-08:002022-11-10T10:26:35.237-08:00The time the Bhikkhus did not delight in what the Buddha said<p> In <a href="https://cdn.amaravati.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/20/The-Island-Web.pdf">The Island</a> (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.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p></p><blockquote><p>“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)</p><p>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.”</p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p></p><blockquote>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 </blockquote><p></p><p></p>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-49541570581745742882022-10-06T22:34:00.002-07:002022-12-16T10:27:19.873-08:00Dear Humans. This blog is optional.Dear Humans,<div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I am writing this, spurred by reading <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50891570-group">Group</a>, 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.</div><div><br /></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-68642462699125695372022-09-22T12:07:00.001-07:002022-09-22T12:07:32.299-07:00Is "True Nature" helpful? yes and no, but mostly noOld 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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Today's me asks a much different question that right or wrong. It asks, what is the helpful way to approach True Nature?</div><div><br></div><div>A recent quote from a Tricycle magazine newsletter is typical</div><div><br></div><div>"<span style="background-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: "trebuchet ms", "lucida grande", "lucida sans unicode", "lucida sans", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: normal;">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. "</span></div><br style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: "trebuchet ms", "lucida grande", "lucida sans unicode", "lucida sans", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; letter-spacing: normal; background-color: rgb(238, 238, 238);"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>I find it confusing that something could be innate, in our "nature" and yet be lost. Which is it?</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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 <i>avoid</i> 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.</div><div><br></div><div>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 <i>and aware</i>, 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 <i>in that flow</i>. 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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>And that inquiry can take you all the way. At least, that is what I have heard and what I am working on.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-48725054173312472552022-09-19T09:31:00.000-07:002022-09-19T09:31:10.071-07:00Avoid politicsOne of the best pieces of advice I've gotten is to avoid politics when one is following the Buddhist path. <div><br></div><div>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.<div><br></div><div>As I've touched on in other posts, <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2022/09/interconnectedness-when-is-it-helpful.html?m=1">link1</a> <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2021/12/some-praise-and-critiques-of-nvc.html?m=1">link2</a> <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2021/12/some-praise-and-critiques-of-nvc.html?m=1">link3</a>, 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 i<span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;">s it hallucinating, bordering on increasing inflexibility and tension.</span></div><div><br></div><div> 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 <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2022/01/ewww-and-yuck-are-most-dangerous.html?m=1">yuck</a> instinct.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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... t<span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;">hat 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. </span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;">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.</span></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. <i>Uno loco atitto tanha daso</i>. C<span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;">raving, a slave to it. That is the danger of identifying with worldly outcomes. Remember, everybody dies, ages, gets sick. Separation is normal, unavoidable.</span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="letter-spacing: 0.2px;"> 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.</span></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-69168940801492049012022-09-19T09:09:00.001-07:002022-09-19T09:09:02.517-07:00fear vs dangerAt both Wat Metta and Forest Dhamma Monastery, the Khanda Paritta is chanted as a Group Protection.<div>https://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Buddhism/lib/misc/chanting/blessings.html#khandha</div><div><br></div><div>If memory serves me correct, this is what the Buddha taught when the monks were scared of all the dangers in the forest.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>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.)</div><div><br></div><div>Summary:</div><div><br></div><div>Fear, with avoidable danger --> maybe avoid it.</div><div>Fear, feeding on fear --> subdue it with Metta. Then choose a wise course of action.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>(I'm okay with the bike theft. But I'll be better with locking my bike.)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-38206336277189292542022-09-02T11:31:00.002-07:002022-09-19T09:41:39.566-07:00Interconnectedness: when is it helpful vs unhelpful?<p> 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.</p><p>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" ( <a href="https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhistRomanticism/Section0012.html">link to his talks</a>, <a href="https://www.audiodharma.org/talks/117">audio</a>), the idea that suffering comes from separateness; something introduced circa 1700-1800's. </p><p>So how do we square these disparate views?</p><p>I want to share my experience with it.</p><p>TLDR version: </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Interconnectedness in the <i>outside</i> world is pervasive and usually inescapable. It is skillful and important to notice. Interconnectedness in the <i>inside (mental)</i> world is pervasive and <i><b><u>is</u></b></i> escapable.</p></blockquote><p> </p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> It's not easy to escape, hence the idea that the Buddhist path is "against the grain". It is a <i>dead end</i> (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.</p></blockquote><p><br></p><p>==== </p><p><br></p><p>Recently, in a <i>Tricycle</i> newsletter, it said</p><blockquote><p><span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #111111; font-family: "trebuchet ms", "lucida grande", "lucida sans unicode", "lucida sans", tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">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)</span></p></blockquote><p> 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 <i>in the world</i> are connected to other beings.</p><p>The key phrase I highlight is <i>in the world</i>. 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.</p><p>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 <i>in the mind </i>is about the <i>outside </i>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>That freedom is a freedom <i>away from</i> 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 <i>Emotions Revealed</i> 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.</p><p>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 <b>is</b> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>So, this interconnectedness and interbeing; those are things that <b>definitely</b> are to be seen. But they aren't to be glorified. They are to be <i style="font-weight: bold;">cleaned up</i>. But our cleaning up should aim to not create more entanglements.</p><p><br></p><p>If your form of Buddhism is to be a <a href="https://nothingisenoughbuddhism.blogspot.com/2022/09/avoid-politics.html?m=1">socially-engaged</a> 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.)</p><p><br></p><p>UUDR.</p><p><br></p>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-24510643324987338822022-09-01T11:50:00.006-07:002022-09-01T18:20:42.599-07:00Shorty: Deprivation can backfire<p> </p><p>Many people have been surprised by the strength of their desire after a period of deprivation.</p>- Gil Fronsdal, from the IRC newsletter, Summer-Fall 2022, on the topic of Renunciation<p><br /></p><p>From</p><p>https://mailchi.mp/insightretreatcenter.org/93l4yxvksu-8987842?e=5266e119f6</p><p>or </p><p> https://insightretreatcenter.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=4617ba61346c1677e4a4215b4&id=74f4c83d3f&e=5266e119f6</p>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-92140883044768192272022-08-28T18:29:00.004-07:002022-08-30T13:15:47.272-07:00A relationship acronym: APTPB - Apartment Peanut Butter<p> I used this, perhaps not consistently enough, as a relating framework when things get rough.</p><p><br /></p><p>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)</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. "Team". When things get confrontational, remember that you want to be on the same team.</p><p><br /></p><p>4. "Practice". Embrace mistakes and struggles as practice, to do good relating processes.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Shorthand is Apartment Peanut Butter, or APT PB.</p>Howard Chonghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08454421376030380728noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-72431575611893363252022-08-18T10:39:00.001-07:002022-08-18T10:39:10.080-07:00I want what I want(KK is one of the people I know quite well. I've spend hundreds of thousands of hours with KK.)<div><br></div><div>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".</div><div><br></div><div> 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.</div><div><br></div><div>Yet dispute I do. And, in some ways, dispute the Buddha does.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>The reverse choice, deciding to start smoking, is also an example or Karma and intentions.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div> For those who feel their tastes define them, they are painting themselves into that corner. By choosing not to see other options.</div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-87057691174969648682022-08-08T11:57:00.006-07:002022-08-14T14:11:31.439-07:00Novelty and SpectacleNovelty and spectacle are two related ideas of feeding, upadana. And they both have very obvious (when you look at it) routes to suffering.<div><br /></div><div>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".</div><div><br /></div><div>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".</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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).</div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-51360882371711574442022-06-25T16:40:00.001-07:002022-06-25T16:40:16.496-07:00Buddhists stay in the closetI'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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>These are important and powerful, <b>public </b>shows of acceptance for people as they are.</div><div><br></div><div>And, in the processes of public life, which includes identity and interpersonal interaction, the publicness of things is important.</div><div><br></div><div>Which makes it contested. A battleground.</div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>So Buddhists stay in the closet, in a sense. There is no part of the path that says we gotta put up a billboard.</div><div><br></div><div>For Buddhists, silence is no death.</div><div>For Buddhists, staying in the spiritual closet has a safety to it, a heedfulness to it.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7857879108851018400.post-6372489148220766882022-06-24T10:17:00.001-07:002022-06-24T10:17:25.342-07:00SHORTY: never waiting for an apologyThank you, Buddhism.<div><br></div><div>Buddhism means never having to blame other people for what goes on in my mind.</div><div><br></div><div>Buddhism has meant that I will never have to wait for apology or the outside world to change before moving on.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>MORE</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div>It's not easy.</div><div>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.)</div><div><br></div><div>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 <i>so that I can calm/tame the mind.</i></div><div><br></div><div> This is different from "there are no wrongs". There <i>are</i> morals. The 5 precepts. And, above that, it is unskillful (socially and personally) to hurt other people. And oneself. But the <i>simile of the saw</i> 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.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Eugene Cho Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01564533320751182650noreply@blogger.com0