Gone Beyond...?

Once again, from a discussion somewhere in the ether:

[CJ]
And sure, I know, YOU have personally gone beyond all the 'dogma' of "religion"...to a place which few understand.

[Darrell]
I don't go anywhere that any other human can't go.

[CJ]
Yet, is not the 'church' nor the 'temple' nor the 'mosque' -- correct? And, then, why do we argue?

[Darrell]
Because of a desperate need (of the ego) to validate ourselves externally for the sake of security. If we could accept that there is nothing permanent, no security or guarantee, then we would likely be less worried about whether we were right and more interested in what we are being right about.

Any thoughts, world?

D

Death and Enlightenment

I am talking with some friends about immortality, the nature of time and similar trivia when one of them posts this:

Lest I am mistaken, death should be feared because of the cessation of all of the pleasurable and rewarding activities in which we engage, or because of the physical pain accompanying whatever malady or mishap produces death; it should not be feared because of the pain of death itself. Imagine your mind emptied of all fears, of all hostilities, of all recollections of the good and evil that has filled your life. Imagine the tranquility of dreamlike sleep when nothing from your various worries troubles you nor does the warmth of your little victories nourish you, nor the bogeyman of nasty personalities haunt you, nor the pleasures of friends and family delight you. Imagine utter stillness and peace. That is what I have tasted and what I feel death of the body is like.
—Ken Wear, Love to Live and Live to Love. http://www.rationallink.org/

I responded by telling him that this sounded to me a lot like what enlightenment or awakening or nirvana is billed to be. Duh, right? So why would I fear it?

Then I thought a bit more. Allow me some generalizing: some people fear death. Some also fear change. Some fear being wrong, whether the topic is religion or sports. Is there a common thread?

One theory is that the ego fears nonexistence. Substitute any word for ego that you are comfortable with - I'll use it here provisionally. The ego's mission is to survive. To do so, of course, it has to keep the organism alive, so the fear of death is logical. But to tie this to the rest, I need to make a leap: the ego identifies with the stances it takes, the opinions it asserts.

The hypothesis is that the ego attempts to validate and reinforce its existence through phenomena external to the person. And it takes this activity very seriously. When it identifies with a sports team or a political candidate, a perceived failure on the part of these is a threat to the ego's existence.

Why the fear? In my speculative theory, the ego was included in the package as a survival tool. It includes the stream-of-consciousness chatter that is always focused on past or future. Its job is to ensure that stream is dealing with issues that protect the organism, pulling past lessons from memory and measuring potential future scenarios against them. This makes for a very useful tool.

At some point, we humans began mistakenly identifying the ego as our core self, as the I. Perhaps this was because it was such a great tool that we used it more and more often, until it was constantly running? Likely we won't know that answer, but in any case we are now in the position where we accept the ego's choices as our choices, identifying with them as though we had no option.

As Ken is alluding to in his post, death itself has no inherent reason to cause fear. No matter what I may believe about the post-death experience, the fact that life ends is a fundamental reality that we as a species have had plenty of time to get used to. It may be that we have a genetic drive to survive and it may be that we have to deal with pain or discomfort in our own death, but these don't seem to me like sensible reasons to be afraid in advance of the actual event.

My thought is that the ego, equipped as it is to plan for the future and ingrained with the need to avoid ending at any cost, is the phenomenon that is afraid of death. And it is also the one behind the resistance to all the little deaths that are represented by the home team losing a game or by being wrong in an argument.

The key to peace seems to be recognizing that the ego is not I. Sometimes I think of it as a loyal, beloved dog: excited over many things and not always obedient, but certainly not the one who should be in charge! It is a part of me, but it is not me.

I can watch the stream of consciousness without getting caught up in it. Mindfulness, for instance, is one technique that can be used for this. When I dissociate from the internal chatter, returning to the present moment, I am not caught up in the scenario the ego is playing out. Watching from the outside, I realize that I am not ending in this moment, that the team's loss was simply a game score, that I will still be existent whether my favorite politician wins or loses. I do not need to get caught up in the drama.

The way to nurture and mature the new perspective is spelled out in many spiritual traditions - I won't dive into it now. What I want to emphasize here is that there is a discrepancy between what death is and the fear commonly assigned to it. Death is as common as rain. It may be preceded by pain or lingering deterioration, but it seems to be in itself an almost instantaneous transition.

The only thing death can threaten us with is the ending it represents, and that would only be scary if some part of us could not come to terms with the concept of nonexistence. But why would we fear nonexistence in the future when we exist right now? When it does happen, we won't be here to be bothered by it.

So, why are we afraid of something that won't happen right now and won't matter after it does? What is wrong with this picture? Should I mistake the defensive posturing of the ego for reality?

D

Inner Harmony: Dutiful Commitment and Spontaneous Enjoyment

The text below is in response to a post from a long discussion around the topic of being of divided mind and motivation when pursuing goals. My general thought during the thread was to look into why I would occasionally pursue self-sabotaging behaviors. Or even feel mindsets of this type. Why, for instance, would I fully support the advantages of a fitness program but then often resist executing it? Theories abound, but I am all about practicality, so I have embarked on a mission to see just how far I can bring the divided motivations into line with each other.

In practical advice, to be "my own taskmaster" is likely one of the most useful even as simply obvious as it seems. There are times when I recognize the object to a given task as a temporary laziness, a fleeting lack of energy, and I perform the task anyway because my rational mind presents a good case for the benefits. In this, I believe I am not an unusual human being. And yes, I have a bit of the perfectionist in me - a very useful observation!

It is interesting that I often give that rational, thinking mind the lead in these things, though. What I once saw as completely sensible and logical, I now question on occasion. For instance, it was once (in my far away youth) not uncommon for me to decide that today was a great day to skip work and pursue some less responsible pleasure for the day. This behavior had predictable outcomes and eventually I became more firm with my commitment to meeting my commitments...:). In doing so, however, I chose between the goal-setting rational mind and the more spontaneous motivations that it conflicted with. I lost some care-free joy in favor of a mindset toward sober duty.

Whether or not one agrees in that instance, it becomes an issue of interest when we discuss similar conflicts. Am I also making the right choice when I stick to my dieting or fitness goals, even if my day becomes tedious at times? My studies? Volunteer commitments? What about writing a paper for class when I feel like adding to my unborn novel? Do I stifle my creativity then? Discourage myself from completing the novel in pursuit of a degree meant to buy me credibility with others?

Obviously I judge these situations individually, but I often chose in favor of the obligatory commitment rather than the spontaneous impulse. So, am I living a life of responsibility and duty, or am I missing the opportunity for properly experience the joys of life?

Example: I have chosen yoga as a form of exercise and meditation because it sensibly addresses recent new goals for my workout: to support feeling good on a moment-to-moment scale rather than to support an ability to exert force against my problems. Daily comfort and energy vs. situational strength and speed. It makes sense based upon the evidence of the effects of aging and the average historical day in my life, but I often still think about exercise as a way to ensure I can deal with adversity - I feel regret at giving up my old ways. And I have plenty of times when I'd rather do something else than my workout. Interesting that I can be so divided even when I give something extensive consideration and feel when asked that I made an absolutely correct decision.

I think one of the reasons I've enjoyed reading about Buddhist psychology over the past few months is that it drew what was for me a very eye-opening line between transient sensual pleasure and true lasting contentment or happiness. In doing so, it addressed some of the conflicts helpfully. I'm trying to expand upon that now by using self-hypnosis and by choosing which thoughts to spend time with as ways of influencing my divided motivations to combine in support of considered goals. I'm also collecting references from these discussions to look into. I think I have made progress on a very slippery journey.

My highest goal for the discussion on pursing goals(!) is to be comfortable at any given moment with my present activity and with my ongoing progress toward goals as well. Inner harmony. Or, in other words, to truly enjoy living in a healthy way. Some of it is likely to be prioritization, some of it responsible discipline, but I also have the feeling that there is something gentler and more relaxed that I am missing.

I have a nagging feeling it shouldn't be such a chore to do the right thing every time!

I'll bring the results here if I have anything worth writing about!

D

Contribute to the Species?

From a discussion about the drive and direction of each person to contribute to the human race as a whole. Examples mentioned included art, science and similar positive possibilities. As usual, I had to go off on a tangent...:).

I don't tend to think in species-wide terms, but perhaps I feel a similar urge. To me, the way to build a healthy structure is to ensure each brick is of high quality and placed with care. Thus, it makes sense (to me) to focus on the individual.

We can't teach everything in schools. Perhaps we should teach emotional health and judgment more proactively, the skills necessary to allow healthy interpersonal interaction. But we focus instead on cultural values and on trying to achieve immortality through our progeny: learn my beliefs, my values, child! Fear-based curriculums. Perhaps we should just teach young people to think, evaluate, self-explore. Or perhaps the hidden agenda is just to train future serfs and I'm being silly thinking the goal is to produce mature thinking citizens. Pet peeve...:).

Religions, governments, wars, crimes - all are composed of or enacted by individuals. In our culture, we accept that the focus that produces results is material in nature: social achievement, earning power, physical beauty, attaining occupational goals. I postulate that the fundamental priority of the species should be personal psychological health development, be it termed religious, spiritual or emotional/cognitive. People should be taught to understand themselves first, then to focus on social and material achievement.

Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but it seems to me that a roomful of people who don't feel threatened by each other might just find something productive to do with their time...:).

It seems obvious to me that the collective health is rooted in that of the individual member. The goals of health appear obvious to me as well: increased happiness and well-being, decreased suffering and illness. There are recipes for success recorded throughout history and never has information been more readily available to the average person than today. Will we use this power?

D

Morality? Me? I Can't Quite See...

Another discussion list post. We are talking about morality and a concept one personal labels sacrificial love - her assertion is that it is a uniquely Christian behavior and is superior to other forms of love. This didn't feel totally accurate to me and I was trying to feel out why.

(Dr. Molla was a woman who took a health risk in order to safely complete a pregnancy. She died because of this and was later canonized by the Catholic Church for the decision.)

OK, so good example. The mother chose to risk and accept death in order to provide the child a chance at life. I don't for a moment question the validity of her decision. In her case.

Doctor Molla made a personal decision based on her own morals and the structure of the current situation. This resulted in an outcome she approved of. Now, if she had decided to preserve her own life at the expense of the baby, she would also have made a valid choice through a personal decision.

It is when we extrapolate this into a stricture for me to follow, I look up in amazement. This was her choice and it was a beautiful thing for her and her family in this situation, coming from her strongest beliefs and applied to what was happening then, at that time, to her and the others involved. It does not necessarily apply to me and mine, right now. I am in a new situation with new people and new facts, which would seem to support a new decision!

So, why do people feel the need to replace thinking with blanket rules of behavior? A person who choses to be a Christian should fully explore that path rather than learning a set of rules and then running off to dinner. If he fully understands and accepts the concept, then his decision will support this.

A person who choses to accept Islam instead, should do the same with Islam. And the Christian and the Muslim can each accept that his neighbor will make differing choices because of differing philosophies. Peace.

Yet there is something threatening about seeing someone living according to different rules! Hell, I've identified with my rules - they define me! If another set of rules works, too, then maybe mine are not as valid as I thought! Then I might not be as valid as I thought! Oh my God, what if I have to continuously question who and what I am? For life?!? What if I am never sure!

It's not the beauty of such moral lessons I don't see. It's the validity of applying them en masse. Even more, it's the fallacy of identifying with them. I am not my religion or my philosophy. I can accept change, accept that I may in time learn these are off-course. Even totally wrong. I am not my clothing, my body image, the morals I follow or the history I come from.

In this discussion, I was struck with the fact that it would be easy for me to identify with the stance that I don't identify with such things. It seems there is an endless adaptability to this tendency. Yet once I succumb, I am one more step removed from me, looking through a filter of yet another concept I've accepted to represent myself.

Mindfulness and Stories

In response to a question on a discussion list regarding what mindfulness is, of what use it might be...

One theory has it that we possess six senses: the five external organs and the mind, which provides input from memory and imagination. In this viewpoint, the brain can not tell inherently the difference between input from the mind and that from any other sense. Thus the realism of dreams, hallucinations, illusions.

Sensation delivers information to the brain. Perception is the initial conceptual interpretation of the information. These don't always agree as perception may include judgments or other filters. Information delivered from memory is already filtered, given meaning and connotations, distorted from the original reality by virtue of being the principle's version of that reality.

Emotion is a reaction to perception from any of the six senses. Last week I saw a squirrel hit by a car, left in the road with its little tail going up and down twice like a old pump handle. I felt saddened for the squirrel's end, brought on by the thought that it had been on its way from here to there and suddenly it was all done - something like that. The longer I considered it, the sadder I felt.

The event was a catalyst, but the impact came from my perception - the mental story I built from the incoming information. By dwelling on this story, I sustained and nurtured the accompanying emotion. The sadness hurt, yet even though I had seen a real event, the sadness came from my interpretation of that event. Thus, since the source of the emotion was internal, it might be possible to affect it.

Mindfulness is the act of consciously focusing on something. That thing can be within the mind, the body or out in the environment. We might say that it is being present-minded as opposed to absent-minded...:). When I was thinking about the squirrel, for instance, I wasn't paying much attention to the next few moments. I was lost in my story, not even consciously realizing I was lost in my story. I was reacting emotionally to a fantasy.

Applying mindfulness to my own thinking means to look at what I am thinking about and evaluate it - to observe the thinker. In this way I recognize the stories and can do a check on my emotional state: is it appropriate to the reality around me or is it a reaction to a illusion?

When I did this in the car after the squirrel tragedy, I looked around and saw that we had moved on. There was nothing dying at this moment within sight. I focused on the scene really in front of me and the emotion faded.

The premise here is that we don't recognize when we are responding to conceptual reality as opposed to actual reality. The squirrel died, I responded with sadness - all well and good. Reality ended there, though, and I kept going on a sort of imaginary sidetrack. Mindfulness is to recognize this, to re-center in reality. Absurdly simple concept, but quite effective since I can only think about one thing at a time with my conscious, rational mind.