SHORTY: painful and helpful

Sometimes clinging to the practice is painful.

Sometimes clinging to the practice is helpful. Because it helps us not cling to something more painful.

-Andrea Fella, clinging to practice? On Audiodharma.

The Bargain of Buddhism

I like gimmicks and hypotheticals. So, I love asking questions like, "Would you trade X for Y?" For example, would you trade that hamburger for a milkshake? Would you trade 10% of your income for an extra hour of sleep everyday? Etc.

In Buddhism, there seems to be inherent bargains. I often call these insteads. Do you want to chase fame and fortune? Or give that up so that you can develop the spiritual path?

One of my phrases I like to remind myself: "You can do anything you want. But you can't do everything." I've had people agree. And others violently disagree. Others want to have their cake and eat it too. And all cakes. And all pies. NO LIMITS, MANIFEST YOUR DESTINY, YOLO!!!

I'm smiling as I write this because there is a specific bargain that I have made for my own buddhist path.

CONS

1. Probably 90% of people will never understand you. Most will politely ignore you. Others may violently disagree.
2. You won't be as rich or popular as you could be. You might even be very poor someday.
3. You won't get to obsess about and get frequent sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasures span the range from [eating good food frequently] to [sex] to [being warm]. There are literal bugs and bug bites on the path to put up with. 

PROS

1. You will learn how not to let your brain and your habits hijack you.
2. You will learn resiliency. No matter what happens, you will be able to be okay. You don't get flustered when outside things don't go your way.
3. You will be harmless.
4. You will find pleasures that don't depend on the outside world. Over time, these pleasures will surpass the [sensual] pleasures you gave up.

I have made this bargain, somewhat deliberately, and somewhat by accident. I still get frustrated that 90% of the world won't understand me. I'd rather they did understand me, but there's not much I can do about that. (Consider, the fire sermon.) And I didn't seek out to be harmless. In fact, old-Eugene thought he was already harmless. (See Dunning-Kruger). But, I've realized that I can be much much more harmless. 

I'm very much happy with the bargain. I would not undo it. I am embracing of it. Life is insufficient (Uno Loko, Four Dhamma Summaries), and not a stable thing to grab onto for metaphorical "ground".

MONKS

I'm also inspired by the monks I've met. Explicitly, they take on the 3 cons listed above, becoming renunciants. And, via the Vinaya, they will get the first 3 pros. 

The last pro, the finding of pleasure... that seems to be very mixed. Some monks get it. Some monks don't. And it may not come quickly. As we look more and more at the mind and our motivations, we see behind the curtain, and we see the mess behind the curtain. And the mess is distressing, dreary, horrifying. It's like in The Matrix, where the traitor sells out the crew because reality is very depressing. He'd rather a nice pleasant lie. Lies are pleasant, but they carry unskillful insanity. Albeit an occasionally pleasant and familiar unskillful insanity. It does have its appeal. That's why it is so hard to let go of.

But the monks, many monks, stick through it. And I am so grateful that they have. Tunneling through the "burn" or "the hump" common to learning all things. The difficulty of the new practice does bear good fruit, albeit not quickly enough for the impatient. 

It's worth it. The bargain is worth it.

DANGERS and FAKE BARGAINS

The most dangerous thing isn't that the practice is hard or that people give up. The most dangerous thing, and perhaps I am biased from listening to Thanissaro Bhikkhu too much, is that people mistake fake-dhamma for the real-dhamma. If people go halfway, thinking it's all the way... thats a big danger. They stop short, aren't prepared, and can end up bewildered. And when the outside world gets extra messy, they will lose faith in the Dhamma. They might get angry at the Dhamma, like we've seen in Christian parables. When disaster strikes in the world, some people will curse God. "Why have you forsaken me!!???!" Buddhists may give up on the Buddha's message, reasoning that Buddhism is supposed to prepare them for fire and death and fame and blame. "Why haven't you prepared me for this?!!!?!" If taken to heart, fully, Buddhism does prepare us. It teaches us not to get too entangled. But the "halfway-dhamma" will not prepare us. Halfway-dhamma is bewildered by the dukkha of change.

What are the Fake-Dhammas? Going back to what I wrote earlier, some Dhammas suggest that you can have your cake and eat it too. These are often new-agey proselytizers who might be said to argue for Buddhism Maximization. Using the bargain framework, I would say they argue that you can have all 4 PROs without having to give up any of the things the 3 CONS say you have to give up. Put crudely, you can have all the sex, food, comfort, money, success, and fame you want, and on top of that, you can sprinkle on ALL the benefits of Buddhism and Mindfulness. Like a late-night infomercial... "for the low low price of $9.99 a month!" Or, as my childhood friend would say, "A new car!!!" (insert Bob Barker voice).

This isn't entirely false. It is possible to get maybe half the PROS without the renunciation of giving up the CONS. In fact, old-Eugene was a Buddhist Maximizer. I reasoned, "I'm really smart, so I'm going to be able to get everything I want without giving up anything I currently have, except maybe some of the bad habits and the clinging." And, I did just that. I had a lot of good food, praise, sex, money, etc. And I got bump-ups/boosts of more skillfulness. Maybe I became halfway calm, halfway resilient, halfway harmless, and half spiritually pleased. Which, I (mistakenly) thought at the time, was the full thing. I thought I was sooooo darn clever.

But, specifically, the PRO#1 was problematic. My brain had given up half the hijacking. But it ended up just trading my old hijacking (I need to be right. I need things this way.) for a new hijacking, (My new way is right. I need things this new way.) The fundamental issue of hijacking was still very unsolved.

Through a lot of trial-and-error and a lot of slow-steady guidance, walking through a fog of buddhism and soaking it into the robes ove weeks and months (rather than drinking it down in one gulp), I was able to develop dispassion.* Samvega. And this has been a big benefit. Without it, I would have stayed enamored of the entanglements of the CONS. A willing accomplice to my own hijacking.

So, there are dangers in the bargain. We can go halfway and get stuck there. Part of this is mitigated by having good spiritual friends. Part of this is mitigated by being unfailingly honest in our self-reflection. Part of this is also aided by having a good sense of humor, so we can laugh at our mistakes and learn from them

It can be a lonely path. Remember that the Buddha is your spiritual friend. As are your good habits, your virtue/sila. And the long line of others who have made the bargain, stuck to it, and gotten to taste the fruit of the results. And who then help others.

UUDR

==== NOTES

* I don't want to give a wrong impression that I've got dispassion nailed. I'm still a bit shaky on dispassion. It's not 100% stable. Some dispassion is very stable, tested, and has withstood challenges. Inflexibility of view that leads to tension and dogmatism has been easy to give up. Some dispassion is shaky as hell. Sexual thinking, sugary snacks, and warm socks are hard to give up. Netflix too. I'm still working on it, and finding it's helpful to remember: "Delight in developing. Delight in abandoning."

SHORTY: perfectly okay before

Sometimes what was perfectly okay (useful) before, becomes not okay when you get more skilled. 

"Stepping stones"

Instead.

180413 Thanissaro talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharing Food

Lately, I'm reflecting on my Buddhist journey. Generally well-meaning, but with lots of wrong turns. Mostly my own fault, but also useful mistakes. I have an attitude of "fail fast and learn more."

One thing has always been a right turn. Sharing food. When I'm travelling, I pack extra snacks. I'll give it to friends. I'll give it to strangers.

At Insight Retreat Center, near Santa Cruz, there is a plaque at the entrance. Something like:

“If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given…”

Which is in the suttas. (See below).

When the Buddha talks about the gradual path, he talks of giving as the first step. Even before virtue or renunciation. And, in the Theravada rituals, young kids scoop a little bit of rice into the monk's bowl. Even before they really understand what it means in a large, long term way. But in a short-term way, they know what giving is. And it can be ingrained, early in life and repeatedly. For our long-term happiness and benefit.

I've heard talk lately about a "caring economy". But it is possible to have a caring economy without a sharing mindset. And I've seen caring, but with greed/anger/delusion as a foundation. It can feed the body, but not the heart. If GAD is in the intention, it will not lead to long term benefit. I have never seen sharing, especially sharing of food, that is full of greed and anger (delusion maybe). (Note: When I do see sharing with greed or anger, it isn't real sharing. It's something like "performance sharing" or "virtue signaling", for display.)

May I remember to share food. Either directly putting it in the hands of others or making donations with a click so it is shared.

Happy holidays, this Christmas Eve, 2021.

--- notes

Discussion of the quote: https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/if-you-knew-what-i-know-about-the-power-of-giving-you-would-not-let-a-single-meal-pass-without-sharing-it-in-some-way/