four qualities of a teacher: GALE

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

wisdom

1. generosity (aware and giving)

2. actions matter

virtue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unperturbable

No matter what the conditions are outside, you don't have to suffer.

You find a basis for happiness beyond the touch of conditions.

That's the part of the dharma that is off the charts.

From Thanissaro Bhikkhu - 080819 A Dhamma Map.mp3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only 2 categorical teachings

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

1. Abandon what is unskillful, develop what is skillful

2. The four Noble truths

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

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

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

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

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

Fault Tolerance and Testing in Buddhism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHORTY: When to criticize.

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

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

If not, I need to keep quiet.

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

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

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

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

- Thanissaro Bhikkhu

I write a lot about safety, too.

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

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

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

Link: Meditations9

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

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

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

Instead

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

The full quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mistakes are very helpful if there are two follow ups:

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

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

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

THE NOT SUBTLE CASE

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

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

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

THE SUBTLE CASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

NOTE:

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

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

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

----

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

SHORTY: Sati and lack of sati

Nothing good comes from a lack of sati*.

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

NOTES

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

Tetrads, Anapanasati

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tried restraint, but failed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

Look at your poop (look with two eyes)

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

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

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

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

But the poop is also you.

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

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

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

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

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


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

etc.

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

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

It continues:

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Mad Libs for the Craving Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

====

SOURCE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

his free ebook: On the Path

Prince Dighavu, quarreling, and revenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With metta blessing, EC.

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

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

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

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