Commercials, a museum of "if only" thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Rope, Wind, Escape, Binge

It's interesting to be coming off this long flu recovery. I've been sick for about 2 weeks. One week of fever. One week of cough and low energy. I am also here in Kansas where it's getting cold. And that cold is sapping energy and effort for me, too.

 

But I see this pattern! And I'm excited to finally see the pattern. Rope. Wind. Escape. Binge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Humans. This blog is optional.

Dear Humans,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent quote from a Tricycle magazine newsletter is typical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More sharply to the point: I'm wary of Buddhist reductionism and aware how easy it is to want to believe in the shortcut. The reductionism is to simplify the path: take the 4 Noble Truths and dropping it to 1. Or the eightfold path and taking some out.

At best, the true nature of awareness is only 1 or 2 steps of the 8fold path. It is tied up with right knowledge (samma ditthi), which is often presented as awareness of karma, awareness of causes and consequences. Not "isn't it all so nice" awareness. It is also tied up with right mindfulness (samma sati). But the 4 foundations talks about looking "without greed and distress for the world", which I will edit as "without preferences for or against the world". If your mindfulness (awareness) is happy and only sees the good side (like open heartedness, and peace), that's probably wrong mindfulness. 

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

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

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