WillSpirit!

Where Will meets Spirit
∞ Love, Clarity, Balance, Peace, & Bliss ∞

A science, mental health and spirituality blog written by a physician.








  • Red_Exclamation_DotDisclaimer
    • Dear Visitors:
      Although I trained and practiced as a physician, my background does not include formal instruction in psychiatry beyond basic medical education. This journal presents ideas about treatment philosophy, but must not be considered therapeutic advice. Abrupt changes in one's psychiatric medications can trigger profound cognitive, emotional, and physical symptoms, including suicidal thoughts and actions. Consequently, pharmaceutical agents should not be increased or decreased without supervision by a mental health clinician.

    • ON THE OTHER HAND, your brain belongs to you, and your opinion counts. If you decide that changing your medication regimen will serve your best interest, then I believe your providers have an obligation to help you try to achieve your goals. I want everyone to be educated about their options, and do what will be most helpful for themselves. No one should feel pushed around by dogmatic and/or limited viewpoints, whether those of psychiatrists, anti-psychiatry advocates, or myself.


The Third Dart

Pain, illness, fear, and hunger make clear thinking difficult. They undermine efforts to behave well toward others. These effects have become obvious to me in this hospital bed, where I’ve hung out for seven days without eating, feeling pain ranging from mild cramping to agonizing pressure, and suffering with ongoing nausea that at one point morphed into twelve hours of retching.

To my chagrin, I’ve seen myself act more selfishly and distractedly than usual. When visitors arrive I sometimes talk about my dilemma non-stop, whereas other times I stare blankly without truly hearing what they say about their own trials. I try to remain focused on the needs of others, but it’s hard.

As never before, I understand how maturity and effectiveness can be undermined by adverse states of body-mind. But I’m trying to cut myself some slack and simply review the effects of starvation and pain on my actions and words. I want to learn from this experience but not suffer excessively because of it.

Life inevitably veers in unwanted directions. How much misery we feel depends to a large extent on how we respond to fate. This is true when life disappoints us, and also when we disappoint ourselves.

People sometimes slight us, leading to mild irritation. But as we mentally replay the offense later, we may build up resentment or even rage. Of course, we could instead view the occasion from a broader perspective and forgive the insult. Similarly, a personal gaffe can be made worse by negative obsession, or better by viewing it as a learning experience.

Before we begin to mature as adults, we may not be aware that such choices exist. Resentful obsession seems like the natural and inevitable response to an insult. Humiliated rumination seems like the deserved consequence of social mistakes.

Fortunately, as we gain skills we learn to transform resentment into forgiveness. We abandon narrow focus on a single slip-up for a broader and more compassionate perspective on our personality.

When we are faced with really serious illness or other trying circumstances, our resources can get overwhelmed. Our healthier skills are most likely to fail us when we are hurting, hungry, frightened, or lonely. Not only are we more likely to overreact to minor injustice, and to act childishly, we are more likely to punish ourselves afterward.

My system has seldom felt so physically stressed as it does now. As already mentioned (in this essay and the last), the duress has increased my tendency to behave with embarrassing immaturity and selfishness. Before I started paying attention to this cause and effect relationship, I had begun to berate myself for getting so far off track.

Yesterday during a conversation about these issues with a dear Buddhist friend, we talked about how the Buddha distinguished between what he termed the first and second darts.

Fate throws the first dart into our sphere. For instance, an unexpected major illness arises. It could be anything. For the sake of argument, let’s imagine sudden pain arises in the abdomen and doctors discover a nest of abnormal blood vessels near the pancreas, along with a bleeding aneurysm. Prolonged hospitalization becomes unavoidable, along with its discomforts and inconveniences.

We toss the second dart ourselves. Perhaps it penetrates consciousness in the form of worry: does a cancer lurk under that tangle of vasculature? Is death on the march? The second dart drives resentment and frustration: plagued by worry and feeling persecuted, we complain and act out. The second dart accentuates our misery. If we simply experienced unavoidable hardship without layering on toxic interpretations and retaliations, we suffer less.

During yesterday’s conversation with my friend, we came up with the idea of a third dart. We use this missile to attack our unskillful response to fate. Just as the second dart arises in reaction to the first, in that we worsen a bad situation by distorted thinking, the third dart flies as we reject our own negativity. We could choose to be compassionate toward the second dart: “Oh jeez, I yelled at that phlebotomist after he jabbed me a third time trying to suck blood out of my arm. How predictably human I am! When he comes back I’ll apologize.” Quite often, however, we instead launch the third dart and berate ourselves for shortcomings: “How ugly of me to sound so hostile! Didn’t I learn anything from all those years of meditation and acceptance practice?”

Notice we won’t be susceptible to such self-reproach if we don’t value skillful behavior. The red-faced tailgater leaning on his horn as traffic slows for a yellow light is unlikely to suffer from the third dart, though he is hitting himself hard with the second one. He probably won’t be blaming himself for his intolerance. In this sense, being self-critical shows more maturity than being self-righteous. Even so, the third dart does little to actually improve our responses. It simply makes us pay a higher price after we misstep.

The third dart is a danger to those of us who hope to tread a spiritual path, because we replace helpful noble intentions with damaging self-criticism. We feel painfully aware of our inadequacy compared to the highest exemplars, like the Buddha or Christ. To intend skillful behavior is edifying, but to punish ourselves for human failings is destructive. We gain nothing from the third dart.

I’ve been pulling a lot of third darts out of my butt lately. A prolonged hospitalization for a confusing, painful illness is a great way to lose one’s grip and begin acting unskillfully. Instead of giving in to my inclination to beat myself up afterwards, I’m working to recover my balance as quickly as possible: correct my behavior, apologize to whoever I hurt, and forgive myself. I yank out the third dart and keep aiming for my better path.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





Biology, Spirit, and Transcendence

My blog’s tagline includes the word spirituality, which has devolved into a vague term that can mean almost anything. In the interest of clarity and to balance the two previous posts that emphasized material takes on human life, this essay will outline my spiritual path and beliefs. Readers may or may not be interested, but it helps me to spell out my philosophy from time to time, especially since it’s still maturing.

What follows rambles through my ideas about different metaphysical stances, to my own personal experiences with them, to a description of my current stage of development. Since my understanding of the world’s religions is superficial, at best, don’t be surprised if my statements about faith and practice sound obvious or naive.

Two posts back I stated that our animal identity constitutes “the most central and accurate description we could give of ourselves.” After all, it seems unarguable that humans are mammals with large brains. Even while writing that sentence, however, I remained aware that many resist considering themselves ‘mere’ biological organisms. Indeed, when I posted the same essay on my Psychcentral blog, the following comment came in:

Hmmmm, so we are reduced to “cycles of carbon and calcium?” I prefer that we are “fearfully and wonderfully made” by our creator. As a believer, I will be returned to Him.

This reader’s opinion probably resonates with many who consider themselves religious or faithful. Here’s an edited version of what I wrote in reply:

You bring up the other common opinion about ultimate identity: that we are best described as conscious entities (souls) inhabiting organic forms. But even if one takes that view, at death the body is still reduced to its constituent elements and recycled in the biosphere. The two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. In fact, since our biological form is apparent, while our spiritual nature remains debatable, even believers should look for ways to interweave the two perspectives. To deny our biology is to deny material reality, just as to deny our divinity is to deny higher meaning.

Divinity, as I intend it here, is a loose term meant to suggest that we have inner measures of soulfulness that go beyond the solid, predictable qualities of organic matter.

In the opinion of Christians and Muslims, each person has an immortal soul that is born once to this world and then consigned to eternal bliss or damnation based on a lifetime’s accounting of virtue, sin, faithfulness, and redemption. The sensible person thus works toward righteous behavior in order to secure a place in Paradise.

According to many Hindus and Buddhists, a soul (or its equivalent) is reborn repeatedly through time because of karmic entanglements accrued in previous incarnations. The wise soul engages in right action to limit such attachments and thus escape the cycle of death and rebirth.

Not all religions postulate an eternal and personal soul. For instance, Western Buddhist teachers seldom mention reincarnation. They discuss the basic principles of detachment and right behavior without reference to rebirth. This obviates the need to discuss a soul-entity, and in fact the Buddha himself rejected the existence of a discrete soul, since he found no evidence for any consistent, fixed self in his deep explorations of mind. Most Buddhists in the USA seek direct, meditative insight into the nature of consciousness as the ultimate goal of practice and don’t worry about escaping the cycles of birth and death. The focus is on mental process without invocation of any divine or eternal soul.

Many contemplative traditions (including some strains of Sufism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism) also reject the personal soul-concept. However, they do so by invoking a universal consciousness that subsumes the individual. This is the non-dual stance, which sees no meaningful distinction between soul and body, or between spirit and matter, or between God and individual souls. According to this philosophy, all beings arise as creative expressions of one vast Presence that manifests in myriad forms but retains core unity, which unenlightened humans fail to grasp. Such analysis rejects boundaries as illusory, whether between individuals, between people and animals, or between people and Divine Nature. We are viewed as all of one body, in the deepest sense. This perspective is essentially ecological and fits well with what we see in the biosphere.

Those of conventional scientific persuasion bristle at mention of either soul or universal consciousness. They see any suggestion of mystical reality as unfounded, infantile, and dangerous. But there is no scientific evidence that rules out either individual souls or cosmic consciousness. Quantum mechanical principles such as entanglement and non-locality provide plausible, if completely unproven, mechanisms whereby enduring impressions of mental life could be retained in the cosmic matrix without violating established physical laws. These ‘recordings’ could possess all the qualities we expect of discrete souls or universal awareness.

Over the years I’ve explored many different metaphysical positions. Raised as an atheist and educated extensively as a biologist, I never seriously questioned the strict materialist perspective until age twenty-nine. At that time, as I entered Alcoholics Anonymous and felt encouraged to find a ‘higher power,’ fate connected me with the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Quakerism eschews dogma and doctrine in favor of direct, experiential discovery of ‘the light of Christ’ within each of us.

In 2000, after a series of profound (even shattering) spiritual experiences, I converted to Catholicism. For many years I went to mass several times a week and tried hard to buy into the Roman Catholic worldview. But although I appreciated the call to mysticism and the sacred rituals, the Church’s dogmatism, reactionary sociopolitical views, and rejection of female priesthood alienated me.

As an alternative, I explored Buddhist meditation. For two years I went to local meditation centers for weekly sittings and occasional longer retreats. At the same time, I undertook an intensive program of reading about Buddhism. The emphasis on silence and detached observation of thought felt quite helpful and fit with the clinically oriented mindfulness meditation I’d learned ten years earlier in classes at a local medical center. But in the end, I had trouble with Buddhist emphasis on emptiness and detachment. Although I see the value of exploring these qualities, they offer little in the way of felt love or sweetness. Meditative consciousness is vast and reverberant, but not inherently warm.

Next, I explored a Hindu offshoot at a retreat center that opened a couple of miles from my home. The monastics taught me to visualize my soul as residing in the area of the third eye in the middle of my forehead. I learned to concentrate on my soulful qualities rather than my bodily identity. This approach challenged me at first, because so much noise and confusion seems to arise in my head, and focusing my attention there failed to quiet the uproar. At the suggestion of a skilled meditator, I adjusted the technique by moving my conscious centerpoint to my heart, where there is more peace and warmth. Before long, I awoke to the powerful illumination of an ancient inner awareness that has little use for my day-to-day worries, ambitions, and desires. This inner light feels like a combination of personal soul and universal Presence arising from the cosmos itself.

Oddly, and beautifully, I now find myself having gone full circle. After all my explorations I am back at the Quaker starting point, only with a much more palpable sense of that divine light within each of us. This is experience and not belief. I cannot justify it in rational terms and see no reason to try. All I can do is describe what happens when my meditations go well. It matters little to me whether my direct apprehension of love, unity, and rightness resides only in my brain or truly connects, as it seems to, with a cosmic consciousness. Because it is experiential and not referential, it feels quite solid and unshakable. Some days I interpret my soulfulness in mystical terms, and other days I think about it in purely neurological ones. But no matter what I believe about this state of mind, it brings me peace.

Every person must choose her or his own path, and I have learned to judge no one’s, not even my own. Those who prefer material atheism have adopted a belief system that requires no leap of faith and has a logically satisfying internal consistency. Those who believe in heaven or reincarnation, and who view souls as eternal and individual, have found a comforting formula that gives meaning to what happens here on earth. Those who meditate mindfully to enter spacious states of consciousness experience inexpressible mental stillness. Non-dualists, in turn, use their practice to find (what seems like) experiential confirmation of an ageless and infinite cosmic unity.

For my part, I know only that there is something that feels divine and non-egoic in the center of my chest. It beats like a spiritual heart throbbing in unison with the biological pump that moves my blood. My metaphysical position is neither more nor less valid than any other. It has features in common with the tenets of materialism, since my bliss seems deeply rooted in my biology. It shares some aspects of the soul-religions, because the brightness within acts like an eternal spark that illuminates my better nature. Consciousness also feels enhanced, as I tune into the infinite harmony that comes with silent meditation. My practice has non-dual aspects too, since in its highest expression I feel merged with all beings and all Nature.

This is my spiritual trail, which has been blazed through two-and-a-half decades of searching and introspection. I believe each of us must choose whatever path feels right. We should seek the tradition(s) that can heal both our own wounds and the troubles of the larger world.

So although I spent two posts honoring humans as living, breathing organisms, it feels vital to round out the discussion with my conviction that we also embody a loving, timeless Presence that permeates and transcends our material forms. This may be a personal soul, or a universal one. It may be pure consciousness or an artifact of brain physiology. No matter. It dwells within each of us, waiting for the day we abandon our desperate scheming and open to Life in all its terror, splendor, and Grace.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





The Hungry Love of Life

Every once in awhile it pays to look within.

Deep inside our cells, there is a great deal of hollowness. This isn’t the emptiness that Buddhist meditators seek to apprehend directly, but simply a surprising lack of substance. For instance, if we enlarged the nucleus of a carbon atom up to the size of a basket ball, the nearest electron would orbit several miles away. So an accurate model of a DNA molecule, with its carbon, nitrogen, and other atoms spiraling in a helix, would look like myriad tiny dots very widely separated. The same with every other biomolecule that comprises our bodies.

Yet these specks are arranged with stunning precision in complex molecular machines that perform all the functions a lifeform requires. Proteins slide along DNA strands and copy them so our cells can regenerate, or so we can mate with the opposite gender and generate a new being. Proteins form enzymes that convert the sugars we eat into energy that allows us to perceive, move, and live. Proteins form receptors that detect hormones and neurotransmitters to sculpt the way we feel.

All these fabulous processes occur in cells, which in our bodies number trillions. Microscopic in size they are specialized as muscle cells, nerve cells, reproductive cells, skin cells, immune cells, and so on. All of this life orchestrated by ceaseless neural, hormonal, and sensory signals that we can’t begin to track consciously. At our best we might be aware of a tiny fraction of the activity that affects us from within and without.

And yet here we are: me writing, you reading, feeling very ordinary about it all. We hold notions about history. Perhaps we believe the universe to be random, and our presence here merely the result of happenstance. Perhaps we believe in a creative deity that formed us all. Perhaps we don’t know what to believe, or don’t care about origins, but we know our names and our families and our personal stories. So much information, so much interpretation, so much conjecture, our minds mulling things over but seldom stopping to look at the miracle this all represents.

For make no mistake: no matter how we came to be, we are miraculous. And so is the tiniest single-celled organism whirling about in a puddle outside. This is the beauty of biology, the stunning complexity and fecund activity of living.

My high school sweetheart’s mother was a research biologist. When she found out I shared her passion, she bought her daughter contraceptives. In her opinion, every life scientist starts out interested in sex, then moves on from there. Of course, that also describes the average teenaged boy, but I’ve never forgotten what she said, because yes, sex was one of the aspects of life that drew me in. But so did maple trees, dragonflies, ant colonies, turtle eggs, and mold.

Life is so miraculous, so utterly sublime, that it is worth remembering that we don’t just observe biology, we experience it. The next time you hear a meditation teacher guide you to follow your breathing, picture the inhalation bringing air into your lungs, and imagine the gases diffusing into your blood. The red cells extract oxygen while your heart pulses the soupy fluid through your body. Some of it races to your brain, powering acts of noticing, meditating, and loving.

Why did I choose to write about this tonight? Because of desire. Not only my yearning to highlight the majesty of the biosphere, but also my own bodily stirrings that make me want to breathe, eat, copulate, and ponder. All these urges propel me through life, as I stumble to make sense of it all and not hurt anyone in the process.

How could something as ancient and natural as desire be a bad thing? Hunger, and the striving it stimulates, are the bases of survival.

But don’t forget that unmanaged desire does lead to problems. It seduces us into bad decisions. It leaves us panting with frustration. It angers us.

Imagine, for a moment, that everything in your life felt wanted, exactly as it is. Imagine not worrying about expenses, or feeling frustrated with unreliable people, or irritated on the job, or wishing that your partner would act just a little more understanding. Imagine if you had no desire for anything to be different from the way it is in this very moment. I submit that would be true freedom.

But would it be true life?

Some day I hope to find ultimate peace and permanent, penetrating insight. It would be nice to never lapse into wanting anything other than what I already have. Until I find lasting grace, however, I will muddle along. I will montor my urges and aversions, my regrets and hopes, and I will try to make sensible choices. There is hope for realization, but in the meantime, there is life.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





Sinful Desire?

This will be my last word, for now, on desire. So far I’ve summarized the Eastern view on it and dealt with two of the questions that inevitably arise: How do we motivate ourselves if not by desire? and Are there not healthy forms of yearning?

To round out the discussion, let me point out that although one post was titled “The Road to Hell Is Paved with Desire,” I did not mean to imply that desire is sinful in the usual sense of the word.

We in the West are conditioned by Judeo-Christian theology. Within these religions, there is a presumption that God judges our actions and condemns our sins. Lust, greed, sloth, wrath, pride, gluttony, and envy are all related to desire in one way or another. When we yield to these “seven deadly sins,” and hence to our base hungers, God rebukes us. Or so we are told by the Abrahamic lineage.

This kind of thinking is at odds with the views of Eastern traditions. The Hindu God is a complex entity with many facets and manifestations. But if God appears in personal form at all, he (or she) is more a companion and neutral witness than a punitive judge. The Hindu and Buddhist concept of karma implies that we are free to choose and suffer the natural consequences of our choices. If we elect to cause harm, we will reap darkness in this or future lifetimes. If we choose compassion, we will receive mercy in kind, eventually. The emphasis is on inevitable cause and effect, not just desserts.

In spelling this out, I am not claiming that one view is necessarily right and the other wrong. Rather, my point is that both Divine punishment and Karmic consequence deal with ultimate effects, not immediate results. In contrast, these essays were not written to suggest that desire leads to a hellish afterlife or unhappy future birth, but to misery in the here and now. Craving creates hell on earth.

Desire causes suffering automatically. It is not sinful in the sense of leading to eternal damnation. Nor do we necessarily accrue bad karma if we choose to live by desire. But if we bank our happiness on satisfying wishes, on constantly adjusting our circumstances to meet our expectations, we are doomed to suffer disappointment. This is a utilitarian judgment, not an ethical one.

The many questions that arise when one proposes rejection of desire become less important when we see things this way. Those who prefer to live passionately, or who feel strong hungers and enjoy pursuing them, are perfectly free to do so. Such people are neither unworthy nor unspiritual. They are free to ride the stormy waves of yearning, satiation, and more yearning. No doubt they can, as much as anyone, find realization if they want it badly enough. They can choose ethically supportable desires and reject destructive ones; they can hunger for social justice and world peace; they can elevate their passion to mystical ecstasy and so counterbalance the grinding frustration of appetites.

But those of us who tire of the roller coaster, who seek equanimity, can find it by rejecting the promise of desire. We can see how pursuit of hungers leads to nagging dissatisfaction. We can transcend the yearnings of body and ego, and move to a deeper and quieter space within.

Yes, there will be a price to pay. Life will lose its power to stimulate and arouse. But we will gain steadiness and profound insight in exchange.

The choice is ours and ours alone. The universe will love us either way.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





The Healthy Desire for Righteousness

The last two posts argued that hoping for one outcome over another dooms us to suffering. Then what about the desire to escape desire? If our appetites lead to downfall, is it safe to hunger after realization?

Those of us who seek spiritual growth sometimes want very much to make progress. The Bhagavad Gita, mentioned last time, gives us an out by making an exception in the case of inclination toward righteousness. We even hear Krishna (God) equate his own divine presence as the source of such desire.

Even so, seekers understand that spiritual hunger can trap us just as easily as material wants. We see many leaders of churches, sects, and cults who have obviously lost their way by allowing their egos to claim credit for Grace. These are the ones who sleep with their disciples, accumulate fortunes, or incite destructive acts.

We can desire spiritual growth, but it is best to focus on the good of the whole world rather than the salvation of our individual souls. The Bodhisattva vows illustrate the safest stance: the seeker commits to remain engaged with the drudgery of material life until all beings are freed from the bonds of ignorance. If we pursue higher levels of understanding with altruistic motives, the web of desire cannot trap us.

But the path requires vigilance. The ego is persistent and cunning. It will seduce us with visions of personal gain that may appear selfless. No doubt there are wandering Indian mendicants clothed in rags, owning nothing and thin as rails, who believe themselves superior to others precisely because they have renounced comfort. They remain nearly as entangled in egotism as the billionaire industrialist flying overhead in his personal Gulfstream.

The more desire aims to improve the condition of self, whether by material, social, or transcendent measures, the more base its motives and destructive its effects.

The true saint cares little for his or her own welfare, but weeps when confronted by the pain of others. The tears may flow even amidst the understanding that life is ever ebbing and flowing, misery and ecstasy alternating in an endless dance, in a cosmic field devoid of lasting impact on the eternal and incorruptible soul. The saint understands that grief and joy are both optional, but chooses to weep and laugh anyway, in sympathy with the swirling ocean of life.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





Desire and Grace

The denial of desire that I mentioned in the last post might sound inhuman if looked at incorrectly. What about passion? What about beauty? What about love? Should we seek none of these and live instead in a bland state of emptiness?

More troubling still is social injustice. Should we not insist on equality and fairness? Should we not fight for the rights of the disadvantaged? Should we cease working toward peace?

Such concerns have caused many to see Eastern philosophies as overly detached and even heartless. How can we build a better world if we don’t desire wars to end, environmental destruction to be reversed, and inhuman conditions to be improved?

Part of the problem is semantic. To plan for a better world is different from wanting a newer car. The word desire can be used in ways that emphasize ethical standards rather than greed and materialism.

But this isn’t the whole answer. In fact, the spiritual path can lead to states of mind where happy and tragic times are seen as equal and necessary counterparts. Ease and hardship are recognized as two sides of the same coin. Going further, the entire drama of human life can appear empty of substance. It can look like an artifice to be observed without emotional distress.

These deeply resonant mind states are educational, and they calm the troubled spirit. But life should still be engaged. It seems wrong to refuse to participate simply because strife is built into the cosmos and material existence is empty. Yes, such understanding helps us release desire, but most people still feel the pain of life’s drama, and most of us need help. The sage who abandons the world to its own confusion may be wise, but he is not compassionate. True saintliness requires both understanding and concern.

So we return to the problem: how do we participate without desire? How do we engage the world when we know that sorrow and joy carry equal weight and are ultimately empty? How do we motivate our actions once we’ve learned to live without preference?

I can’t claim absolute clarity here, but I have a few ideas. First, it is poisonous to desire personal sensual gratification, but it can be edifying to help others feel better. Second, we can work toward a beneficial outcome but remain at peace whether we succeed or not. Third, we can recognize that preventing cruelty and injustice aids the disadvantaged but also helps the souls of those who would perpetrate harm; there may be a vast neutrality in the cosmos, but there are karmic consequences on the human scale. Finally, the universe may be inherently empty, but it is all we have; we should question whether abandoning it reflects ultimate wisdom or mere avoidance. We may not care about winning anymore, but we can still play the game.

This post grapples with deep questions that have been pondered by realized beings for ages. My amateurish thoughts won’t settle the debate, but I hope they show that one can reject desire without rejecting life.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





The Road to Hell Is Paved with Desire

At long last I’m reading the Bhagavad Gita. This classic Hindu text has been suggested to me many times, but I’ve never picked it up before. Although I’ve long felt familiar with its themes through various lectures and reviews, there’s nothing like actually working with the book itself.

For one thing, it shows me how much of Buddhist philosophy was built on Hindu principles. “Krishna” teaches about human afflictions and their mastery with meditative practice in language that sounds quite similar to the Buddha’s. For some reason, reading the Gita is helping me absorb some important truths that I’ve resisted before now, despite having heard them in Buddhist contexts for years.

The Buddha spoke of desire, anger, and ignorance as the major obstacles to realization. The Gita brings up the same three afflictions and identifies their close relationship. It explicitly points out that anger is the natural outcome of desire, which after all gets thwarted more often than satisfied. Psychologists studying infants have found that at the earliest ages of human life a baby will display what looks like anger if you keep him or her from reaching an enticing toy. And so it goes throughout life: we become angry, even enraged, when the world prevents us from enjoying what we want.

We want respect and the world ignores us; we get mad. We want love and our partner seems distracted; we get mad. We want money and financial institutions drain the system dry; we get mad.

If we never wanted the respect, love, and money in the first place, we’d sidestep a lot of frustration.

The connection between anger and desire seems clear, but the ultimate source of misery is ignorance. We mistakenly believe we can create happiness by getting everything to work out the way we want. Once we find a satisfying relationship, a spacious home, an exciting job, financial security, a happy family, good friends, and worldly recognition, we’ll finally settle down and enjoy living. Problem is, we can seldom get all those planets to line up and stay in place. One or another of our precious spheres will inevitably wobble, gyrate, or escape us completely.

So a life driven by desires is doomed to feel unsatisfying. The world simply does not feed our every whim. And even when a hunger gets sated, the nagging feeling of want returns before long. Seeking happiness by following desires leads to frustration, not happiness.

We should remember that desire can make us ache for many things, material, interpersonal, and philosophical: for possessions, for food, for sex, for love, for power, for conformity, for freedom, for politeness, for justice, for equality, for safety, for health, etc., etc. Some of these hungers are more ethically defensible than others, but the world cannot be expected to consistently satisfy any of them. The failure to recognize this inescapable truth is the base ignorance that underlies most of the world’s problems.

This is all spelled out clearly and poetically in the Gita. It especially resonates with me right now because of my recent inner conflict about writing a book. The main motivation for that project was a need for recognition, not a calling to help others. Both aspects were at work in my psyche, but the egoistic hunger for accomplishment was dominant. I was being driven by desire.

This wish for approval runs very deep in me. As a schoolchild I was often complimented on my intelligence. In college and graduate school, professors continued the flattery. Even though I had few friends, I could always use my supposed intelligence to bolster my self-esteem. But the accolades placed expectations on me that I internalized over time. I began to desire greatness.

One world-renowned surgeon signed a personal note in a copy of his book predicting that my accomplishments would eventually eclipse his career. Very heady praise that now sounds rather poignant, seeing how my climb toward success first stalled and then became a tailspin.

I wanted very much to be a recognized authority, to be acclaimed as brilliant. It was a desire that drove me into fields that promised status but not satisfaction. It kept me from following my truer calling, from finding my essential bliss. It was not my friend.

Desire never is a friend of the soul. It is an outgrowth of animal hunger and the shiny bauble of human ego. It leads to endless cycles of craving, transient fulfillment, and recrudescent craving. It is the engine of addiction and the wellspring of hell.

Of course, recognizing desire’s toxicity doesn’t make it go away. That requires lots of meditative work and deep introspection. It takes time and commitment. I have a long way to go down that road but today, with the words of the Bhagavad Gita ringing in my mind, it seems like I might just find true freedom someday.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





Step Out of Your Shell

It’s funny how life confirms your beliefs, and as attitudes change, so do the people you meet. Five years ago it seemed obvious that the mood instability and chronic melancholy I suffered directly resulted from the trauma of my past. Over and over I met others from devastating childhoods who seemed to grapple with the same emotional issues: high sensitivity, easy sadness, chaotic relationships, erratic performance, and so on. Every time I heard of another disastrous upbringing from someone who seemed to struggle just like me, it confirmed my belief that childhood trauma had wrecked me.

These days, I’m less sure. Several times recently I’ve spoken with others who suffer from similar mood issues and sadness, but whose childhoods were not as glaringly awful as mine. Intact families, superficially normal parents, and safe homes seem to be no guarantee against adult angst. Of course, the underlying theme in these cases betrays a more subtle dysfunction: the lack of genuine trust and selfless love. Overbearing mothers, stern fathers, resentful parents, capricious decisions, and chronic stress can all feed into later problems.

Adult emotional dysfunction doesn’t require the equivalent of nocturnal strangulation. Because that was my story, I had assumed the same true for everyone who struggled with the same severe distress I used to endure. For a long time everyone I met who seemed to suffer as much as me had experienced major childhood trauma. But now that I am less sure that the trauma was to blame for my ‘issues,’ and instead suspect it was simply the lack of consistent love, I’m coming across people whose stories justify my new perspective.

No doubt this is mainly a question of selective attention. Perhaps I previously discounted the angst of those who didn’t share a traumatic story; maybe I assumed they suffered less. Narcissistic, I admit, but at least my horizons are now broadening.

There are two points to walk away from here: First, subtle forms of rejection and neglect can damage a person. Mental distress doesn’t require overt torment and contempt. Second, we will always see what we expect to see.

The second observation leads to a behavioral corollary: our patterns tend to self-perpetuate. If we believe we are uniquely damaged, we will look at the world through that filter and recognize only the most traumatized individuals as like us. If we believe our angst to be more ordinary, we will realize that we are not that different from the average person.

This is a genuine problem that explains a lot of discord. Each person is continually finding confirmations for his or her prejudice, and so becoming more and more entrenched in established beliefs. Breaking into new ways of viewing the human situation will only happen if we open our eyes to the unexpected and even to the undesired. Otherwise, our opinions will ossify and conflicts will escalate. Or, on a more personal level, failing to open to the possibility of being mistaken will thwart our growth into higher levels of maturity.

I admit to error and narrow views. Wanting to feel justified in my distress, and wanting to ease my shame, I emphasized the unique aspects of my upbringing as causative in my unhappiness. Now that I’d rather join the human condition than separate myself from it, I’m more able to see how my suffering is universal.

And isn’t that a basic Buddhist teaching? The principle is easier to understand now that I’m less invested in my old story. That’s the advantage of trying to open to new perspectives: you become more receptive to the greatest truths.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





The Yin and Yang of Growth

Human maturation happens. Whether we pursue growth or not, we gain wisdom. But by actively trying to grow up, we can speed the process. This benefits our loved ones, who get to experience us as more giving, tranquil people. And it benefits the world, by increasing humanity’s stock of enlightened beings. I would add it benefits ourselves, but by the time we reach the state of Open Heart, that no longer seems so important. On the other hand, it is usually the self’s suffering that spurs the quest for transcendence.

So let’s say we’re looking to grow. How do we facilitate development? There is no shortage of sage advice along these lines. I’m continually amazed by the number of books that offer terrific insight and suggestions that can guide us to awakening. Most cities have meditation centers, and many spiritually potent teachers travel the world leading retreats. So resources abound.

But this is a blog post, which to my mind means it should offer a pithy simplification of how to effect the grand blossoming of awareness. Last night I participated in a meditation group and as the post-sitting discussion roamed, a nice way of framing growth occurred to me. It centers around the two main poles of Eastern meditation: concentration and mindfulness.

In Hindu and Buddhist meditative practice, one hears of samadhi, which can be loosely translated as concentration. It means using mental effort to develop the power to control the activities of mind. One trains to focus on breath, or various bodily sensations, or anything one choices. The point is that one can learn to direct the mind rather than letting it run riot. Rather than hopping from thought to thought, we focus, and choose mental content. This ability to steer the mind extends to an ability to choose our behavior rather than acting impulsively. We are enabled to bring our actions more in line with our deepest moral principles.

Satipatthana is a Buddhist (Pali) term for the other aspect of meditation: mindfulness. Similar concepts run through Hinduism, but I am less familiar with how they are framed in that system. Mindfulness in pure form means simply observing the flow of thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations that form the substance of experience. By practicing mindfulness, we identify ever more closely with the ‘observer‘ part of ourselves. We step back from entanglement in the experience of human life, and by so doing we connect with a deeper awareness, one less buffeted by the drama of day-to-day turmoil. The more we connect with this equanimous consciousness, the more we become freed from the ego’s concerns for its own safety. We feel more infused by the currents of intimacy that intertwine all life and all creation.

The two meditative poles can be seen as the Yin and Yang of mental development (to add Chinese philosophy into the mix). Mindfulness is the Yin, receptive aspect of mind. It is awareness without action. It leads to serene clarity, and the ability to embrace everything that happens, both interior and exterior to the self. Concentration is the Yang, active principle that helps us build proper thought and behavior. It transforms us from impulsive reactors to thoughtful agents of life.

Both are necessary to human maturation. We can’t choose our actions properly if we don’t learn to unflinchingly observe ourselves. We can’t learn the skill of profound observation unless we develop an ability to steer the mind away from useless and distracting chatter. We use mindfulness to observe our behavior, and concentration to improve it.

I’ve invoked Eastern philosophies so far, but it seems to me that many spiritual traditions can be broken down into a similar dyad. In Christianity we are taught to use our human free will to avoid harmful (“sinful”) thoughts and behavior. This is roughly similar to samadhi/concentration. At the same time, we are encouraged to pray in order to open our minds to the presence of God/Christ. This is parallel to satipatthana/mindfulness, as we are awakening to a deeper conscious principle, and learning to see the world as God sees it.

There are doubtless neurophysiological correlates for concentration and mindfulness, but despite my attempts to read and understand neuroscience, I can’t authoritatively identify distinct brain regions as mediators of these two instruments of mental/spiritual progress. My guess is that even if one could safely name the prefrontal cortex, for example, as the site of concentration, one would not be advancing the discussion in any meaningful way. Besides, it seems likely that large swaths of cortical and subcortical brain tissue must get involved. Likewise, Andrew Newberg has shown that the left parietal lobe reduces its activity as meditators enter what sound like deeply mindful states. Perhaps this information could be used if we bought neurofeedback devices to assist our meditative practice, but otherwise it offers little practical guidance to those hoping to grow.

Obviously, there are many other types of meditation, but in simplistic terms they can usually be identified as either Yin (mindfulness) or Yang (concentration) practice. In Buddhism, one often pursues ‘lovingkindness’ or metta meditation, which projects compassion to sentient beings everywhere. To my mind, this is a subtype of concentration practice, and a highly beneficial one. Christian contemplative prayer, whereby one focuses on the deep meaning of Christ’s love, can also be seen as concentration, though if practiced with a focus on opening to that love, it might be more akin to mindfulness. There are meditations wherein one ponders the nature of the universe using cognitive skills. Here again concentration seems like the dominant principle, but if insights arise via spontaneous inspiration, there may also be mindful features at play.

The point is that by discerning the roles of these two poles of meditative effort, we can begin to develop greater maturity, more tranquility, and more beneficial agency in the world. We observe. We change. We grow.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





A Symmetry of Darkness and Light

The Buddha recognized long ago the universality of suffering. His study of human discontent highlighted the types and causes of distress. The Pali word dukkha, which is usually translated to ‘suffering,’ is said to be more properly rendered as ‘unsatisfactoriness.’ This refers to the fundamental angst of being alive, where nothing ever quite feels right, or at least not for very long. One does not need to be deeply depressed or explosively agitated to suffer; one can just look around, see a disappointing world, and feel that fundamental lack of contentment we all know too well.

The Buddha’s prescription is to meditate, observe the mind’s turbulence, and release desire. But most fundamentally, the solution to suffering seems to be acceptance. One heals by adopting a spirit of neutrality toward events in both the outer and inner world. Most spiritual disciplines, not just Buddhism, recognize the necessity for embracing life in all its misery, ecstasy, and boredom.

I used to find such concepts difficult to believe. They sounded good in theory, but seemed impossible in practice. I could not imagine actually attaining a place of sufficient equanimity that suffering would seem as valuable, even magnificent, as joy. I might have seen disappointment and despair as things I could learn to endure if doing so would lead to happiness, but embracing sorrow and heartache for their own sake sounded like a dangerous step.

Funny how the mind can change. The idea that suffering is the necessary partner to joy now strikes me as obvious. I feel it. I know it. I have experienced the intricate, mysterious interplay between the two on many occasions.

Not only is suffering necessary and important to accept, I can even see how cruelty is forgivable. The truth is, every act that injures another is an act that injures the self. If you see a person cutting their own flesh with a razor, the natural response is compassion, not outrage (although a parent or loved one might feel fury along with concern). You must try to divert a person from harming themselves, but you don’t approach them with the righteous anger we feel when the strong attack the weak.

Every act of cruelty is exactly like this. If you believe, as I do, that we are all One, then harming another is harming the self. As a result of this perspective, I now can see how even the most sadistic people are deserving of love; they may need to be locked away from society so others aren’t injured, but they should not be hated. One reason for this is a close corollary to the above: if we hate others, we hate ourselves.

My apologies for this poorly organized post. Much of this is still evolving in my mind, so my thinking about it is still a bit inchoate. The encouraging thing is that I know there are many who are catching onto these deep truths these days. We may be on the verge of a true phase shift in consciousness. I hope so, because the world desperately needs it.

>> Share on Facebook
>>





Archives