Living in Moderation

Share

I may one day have to live with nothing…or at least almost nothing.  I may want for food someday, I may miss my loved ones someday, because of separation or death.  I often imagine my life without some of the good things that I enjoy now.  I even make an effort to deprive myself of things “on purpose” (most notably food, sweets) to more fully appreciate them.

Is this enough?

However, I see no reason why I should live a deprived life, and I see no reason why it would make me more enlightened.  I strive a to live a simple life, but I do enjoy some things that aren’t simple.  Further, I see no reason to live the life of a monk or an ascetic.  An ascetic deprives himself of things like food, water, clothes, etc., thinking that by not having worldly wants, then he will be closer to enlightenment, God, the oneness of the universe, etc.

Is this aescetic taking the easy way out?

Beyond a certain level, it seems that having more stuff doesn’t seem to make anyone more or less happy.  OK, the studies are conflicting:  click here.

In any case, it is the desire for stuff, I think, that gets us into happiness deficit.   If my life revolves around getting more stuff, then I think that is when I would be disappointed, regardless of how much stuff I have.  The trick is, how much is too much?  I think ascetics try to make it black and white:  All stuff leads to unhappiness!  I think this is a cop out.  Real life requires judgment of what is and is not moderation.

DON’T FORGET TO READ PART 2

Zen and Stoicism…Two Sides of the Same Coin

Share

For 15 years, I have been studying and practicing, as best I can, some of the teachings of Buddhism (mixed with a little Eastern thought in general).  The school of Buddhism called Zen concentrates on direct insight into “how things are” through meditation and by calming, then tripping up the mind (unlike some schools which emphasize knowledge of doctrine and the writings of Buddhist teachers).  One of the ways Zen masters trip up the minds of their students is through the use of koans (a kind of unsolvable riddle)  One of the most well-known of these koans is as follows:

Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?

A koan is designed to break your mind free of previous paradigms.  It rattles your perception free of its previous conclusions.  This continues as you meditate upon the question or puzzle of the koan.  The very pursuit of an answer is intended to break your mind free of previous illusion/delusion.  In everyday life, we make conclusions based on a few inputs, then we move on.  We accept our conclusion as true, and often we never return to reexamine.  Thus, we build our own truth based on previous assumptions.  A koan helps your mind enter a state where previous assumptions are questioned. For you Zen gurus out there, I know, koans are supposed to lead you to enlightenment…but I left that pursuit, and tend to be a bit more practical with my koans.  I guess it’s a result of my Stoic side.

Breaking through illusion

Here is an example of a possible truth you may have built.  What if your parents wanted you to go to college?  When you were young, they told you that college is good and will ensure you get a good job, which implies you can earn more money, which will allow you to buy things you like.  Presumably, this would lead to greater happiness.  They didn’t specifically say the thing about happiness, but some of what they said, as well as societal influence certainly led you to believe that this was true.  So, college = good…you built a truth, and then moved on.  But what if that conclusion was wrong?  What about other jobs that might have made you happy without a college degree?  Do you really need a lot of money to be happy?  Do you need  any money to be happy?  If you are that smart (smart enough to get into college), couldn’t you have spent those 4 years building your own business, teaching yourself how to run it?   What if the $60,000+ spent on a college degree, and the $100,000+ loss of four years of wages weren’t worth it?  These are questions that we may all answer a little differently, but my point is that if we’ve moved on without questioning, then we’ve assumed “college = good” is true.  I lived for over 30 years with this “truth,” without ever reexamining.  I am questioning it now.  In a way, I’ve presented a koan to myself to break my paradigm.  A practical one:  “What is the worth of not going to college?”  I have teenagers of college age, and this question is an important one for me to answer.  Practicing with koans gets me in the habit of viewing something from a different perspective.

So, viewing things from a different perspective is an important tool we can take from Zen.  The Stoic does this as well, by examining whether his actions and reactions to the events of his day are correct.

Another of the most important facets of Zen is to be aware.  Awareness of the present moment allows us to observe our situation clearly.  The mere effort of being aware allows me to examine my motives clearly.  It is in this pursuit of awareness that I think a second very strong connection between Zen and Stoicism occurs.

So Zen and Stoicism are similar in these two ways:

  1. We try to gain a new perspective.
  2. We try to become more aware of the present moment and how we fit in it.

The Stoic makes every effort to be aware of his place in life.  What is in his control, what is not.  If my goal is to be aware at all times of what is in my control and what is not, then I must practice and cultivate this awareness.  The beginnings of this type of awareness are found in meditation.  Zen meditation focuses on making the mind still, focusing on the present moment, maybe even working through a koan.  Stoic meditation is similar, but it is more reflective, more examining.  “What things did I react badly to today?  How could I have utilized the things I can control, my thoughts, reactions, emotions, to be a better man?”  Either way (Stoic or Zen), meditation gets us into the habit of awareness, increases our perspective, and into the habit of asking these questions.

(Feature photo by Kriss Szkurlatowski)

 

 

Passionate Equanimity

Share

Passionate Equanimity – this term, found in my creed, I owe to Ken Wilber, or rather his wife Treya.  In his book, Grace and Grit: Spirituality and Healing in the Life and Death of Treya Killam Wilber, he details his relationship and journey with his wife, Treya, who discovers she has cancer 10 days after they are married.  Five years later, she dies of the cancer.  The book reflects on this time with his and her thoughts.

Treya writes in her journal:  “What if you had passion without all that stuff, passion without attachment, passion clean and pure? What would that be like, what would that mean? I thought of those moments in meditation when I’ve felt my heart open, a painfully wonderful sensation, a passionate feeling but without clinging to any content or person or thing. And the two words suddenly coupled in my mind and made a whole. Passionate equanimity, passionate equanimity – to be fully passionate about all aspects of life, about one’s relationship with spirit, to care to the depths of one’s being but with no trace of clinging or holding, that’s what the phrase has come to mean to me. It feels full, rounded, complete, and challenging.”

Treya Killam Wilber starts with passion and ends with equanimity.  I think many of us do that; we start with passion in our blood, ready to take on the world, to change it, to succeed, to be a champion.  Without a doubt, when I was younger I was 99% passion and very little equanimity.  Then, as I aged and matured, I started to get some perspective, yeah, some of that equanimity.  It took me years and years, and I’m still working on it…on gaining more equanimity.  I think we’re all like that:  we start with passion first, then maybe we gain the perspective.  In the Air Force, we would say “that guy is all thrust, and no vector.”  I think most of us have a lot less vector than we think…especially when we are young.

Bungee Jumping…all thrust, no vector?

Before I get too far, I think it is best to describe equanimity further.  It is the ability to distance yourself from a situation.  It is to be “dispassionate,” unemotional, and rational about a particular situation.  I think I will use an analogy here.  Think of a bad situation in your life as like a drop of deadly cyanide.  A drop of cyanide is enough to kill a person quickly and cleanly.  However, if I took that drop and placed it in the ocean, it would disperse quite quickly.  Would it kill any fish, or swimmers? Very unlikely…even more so as time goes by and the drop becomes mixed in with the sea.  So, if the situation is that drop of cyanide, then the ocean is equanimity.  Equanimity helps us dilute that poison in our life and gain some tranquility about a situation.  In a sense, it is the opposite of passion!  That’s what makes “passionate equanimity” such an intriguing concept.

Unlike Treya Killam Wilber and myself, who started with passion then found equanimity, Stoicism starts with equanimity (well, the Stoics might call it tranquility).  With our logic and our values, and with acceptance that so much is out of our control, we can gain perspective, which in turn gives us equanimity.  Further, the Stoic accepts that tragedy will befall us, because it is our fate.  If we can dispassionately accept the impermanence of the world around us, then we can have some perspective.  Once I have a large measure of equanimity, I have a better understanding of my situation juxtaposed with my own values, then I can better cultivate a passion for what I set out to do.

I think it works better to start with equanimity, and only then be passionate about our calling.  I think that this works better because when we rationally observe our lot in life or our current situation, we can make a better choice about what to be passionate about.  I am a living example of this:  I was passionate about my job as an AF pilot and officer, but I think I would have been happier if I had examined what my job was really about:  killing for a government, rather than defending “freedom.”  In a sense, I think I lacked the big picture of what my values should be because I did not reflect enough before I acted.  I committed to something without fully understanding it, and thus I was dissatisfied with what I was doing.  Possibly, I just didn’t have enough information.  In any case, gaining equanimity helped me vector my passions in a different direction.

USAF F-4: Loads of Passion with little Equanimity

I suppose it is inevitable that we lack equanimity in our youth, and in fact, some never get it.  As you read, I hope this helps you gain some equanimity.  Again, I throw a little seed your way….I hope it helps you.

An End to War…World Peace is Possible!

Share

I want to fix the world, it’s really messed up.  Sometimes I think I can.  A lot of people do.  A special class of people who think they can fix everybody’s problems pretty much all the time, are the politicians.  They think that they can make the world a better place by compelling others to fit their view of the perfect world.  I suppose there will always be those who think that not only do they know better, but they can force people to accept their view.  These people are annoying when I meet them, but they are dangerous when they have power (like those in the government).

You will agree with me, I will make you!

But that’s not me.  I DO know better (just ask me), but I reject the notion that I can force any individual to think the way I think.  In fact, this is a fundamental belief that I have:  that I have no right to compel any person to think, do, or not do anything, as long as they are not interfering with another person’s life, liberty, or property.

A few days ago, I posted a short quote from a Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hahn, about how the roots of war are within us each individually.  You can read it here.  I’ll admit, I purposely posted it to foreshadow this post.  I already had a general idea of what I wanted to share about how the individual mind is where the “seeds” of peace are planted.  Just like Thich Nhat Hahn, I feel that peace is best won by changing the individual, not the masses.  Moreover, that change is a result of persuasion and then introspection, not coercion.  That’s the way I share here.  I throw some seeds out to you, and if you can see the logic, then the seeds germinate into an idea or some enlightenment.

So here’s the seed I’m throwing today.  If an individual can be at peace with herself, then she has peace in her own world.  You see, peace is in your own thought, in your view of life.  If more and more people find tranquility for themselves, less conflict will occur among groups of people.

World Peace…One Post at a Time (Get it?)

So, I guess that’s my goal; lead one person at a time to tranquility one post at a time, one page view at a time.  The Stoic hero accepts what is around him.  He has a tranquil mind because he recognizes that nothing is permanent, but still has a duty to himself to maintain his integrity.  The Stoic hero I envision also recognizes that each individual has a right to choose their path, even if it means misfortune for that person.  As I try to be like this hero, I can try to help as much as I can, but in the end each individual is responsible for their own destiny.

I will never forget the power of individual liberty–this is from my personal creed.

World peace, one mind at a time.  Go internet!