If you ask me, it takes a lot more work to stay the same than it does to change.
Think back ten or twenty years from now, you were probably a different person then. Your body was different, your thoughts were different, and your actions were different. Did you consciously make that change? Maybe for some things, but overall you probably weren’t even aware of how much you were changing. Only in retrospect do we fully realize how different we’ve become.
People don’t usually need to read about “personal development” to make a change in their life. It just happens – like a cicada leaving its shell or a butterfly leaving its cocoon. We all go through our own process of metamorphosis. Change is the natural state of affairs and the only thing that is truly certain. As Heraclitus once said, “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” (Tweet this quote). This quote perfectly illustrates our world as in a constant state of flux.
The fact that everything is always changing is actually somewhat of a double-edged sword. On one hand, when we feel depressed or angry or frustrated, we know it’s not going to last. On the other hand, when we feel happy or blissful or secure, we also know that it too is not going to last.
It is just like the story of King Solomon’s ring, a ring which has the “magical” ability to make a sad person happy or a happy person sad. What is so special about the ring? Nothing, except that it has the words “This too shall pass” engraved in it. Why would these words make a sad person happy or a happy person sad? Because it tells us that nothing is permanent.
Humans, as intelligent as we think we are, believe that we can resist this change or even transcend it. We like to think of ourselves as everlasting, and we often find ourselves reinforcing this belief whenever we say things like “This is just who I am” or “This is how I have always been.”
Of course, any amount of inquiry into these statements tells us that they just aren’t so. How can you possible compare you, as a fetus still in the womb, to you, now with a family and a 40-hour-a-week job? They aren’t the same you!
A world of constant change doesn’t need to cause chaos or displeasure in one’s life. It is only when we cling to a particular mental state or belief (or even a physical possession) that we fight tooth-and-nail not to lose it. But by letting go of our need to cling, we can embrace change and maximize our personal evolution.
Here are a few suggestions:
- Stop thinking of yourself as a fixed entity.
- Accept that you are a different person today than you once were.
- Accept that you will be a different person in the future than you are today.
With these ideas in mind you no longer have to fight change, and it begins to come more effortlessly. Sure, you will still have values, beliefs, intentions and goals, but they too will always be changing – and that is okay!
We exhaust so much effort in trying to maintain our identity or ego without understanding that its nature is to change, grow, and expand. The tighter we hold on to our identity, the more we restrict it from reaching its potential.
Exercise: Watch The Weather Change
Take 20-30 minutes out of your day, go outside, and watch how the weather changes. Notice clouds passing by, changes in sunlight, an oncoming storm, the sky changing color, stars shifting, or whatever happens to be changing in that particular moment. Make a mental note of all the things you witness.
The point of this exercise is to be more mindful of just how dynamic our world really is (and in return how dynamic we really are). Even something as simple as the weather (which we commonly think of as in the “background” of our world) is in a constant state of flux. At the very least, this is a great metaphor for the unconscious changes that take place in our own personal development. At best, it is a real-life example of just how dynamic the cosmic order is.
For a bigger effect, do this during sunrise or sunset.
Join my newsletter for more!
“Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image.”
- Alan Watts
The Theory of Interconnectedness
Interconnectedness is a critical concept in many Eastern philosophies and spiritual practices. The purpose is to illustrate that nothing is separate and everything arises co-dependently. In Buddhism, this phenomena is often referred to as “interdependent origination.” It is often used to describe the nature of existence.
Alan Watt’s spider web is a great analogy for interconnectedness. If every individual is a dew drop on a spider web filled with other dew drops, and every dew drop contains a reflection of all other dew drops, than we can say that each individual is a reflection of all other individuals. This helps describe the non-duality between “self” and “others.” We are all reflections of other personalities. Last year I tried to describe this using another analogy, “consciousness is a house of mirrors.”
Perhaps the most famous analogy for interconnectedness is Indra’s Net:
-
“Far away in the heavenly abode of the great God Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out indefinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel at the net’s every node, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that the process of reflection is infinite.”
The Practice of Interconnectedness: Empathy
Empathy is a logical, existential and practical extension of the truth of interconnectedness. It is our “capacity to experience the same feelings or emotions that someone else is feeling.” When empathizing we are literally treating another living being as if it is a part of ourselves. Like the way our hand is attached to our body. In a moment of empathy, we are one.
Consider the implications that empathy has when we are trying to achieve happiness. If our feelings are interdependent on the feelings of others, then part of making ourselves happy is making others happy too, and vice-versa.
Interconnectedness is the metaphysical reasoning behind Buddhist morality. It tells us to show compassion and loving-kindness toward everyone, because they are no different than ourselves, and our sense of separation is an illusion.
We are all connected by virtue of being sentient beings, beings that suffer, and beings that seek happiness, meaning, and fulfilling relationships.
I think we all empathize in varying degrees. The Dalai Lama is on one side of the spectrum and sociopaths are on the other side. However, I think we can also exercise our empathy and build it up like a muscle. So even if we don’t have any experience being really good at empathy, we can train our minds to be more empathetic.
Here are some actions we can take to increase our capacity for empathy:
- Listen to others more and try to adopt their perspective.
- Do something kind for a family member, friend, or stranger.
- Donate to a charity you believe in.
- Dedicate a song or poem to someone.
- Do a metta meditation. Metta means “a strong wish for the happiness of others.”
These are all ways we can exercise our empathy right now. With practice, we may find ourselves feeling more connected with our world, more attuned to the emotions and thoughts of others, and feeling a greater sense of belonging and satisfaction. To me, these are simple practices, but they can make us much happier.
Positive psychologists identify “kindness” as one of the key Character Strengths and Virtues (CSV) that lead to happiness. According to researcher Ben Sahar, doing small acts of kindness leads to good feelings lasting much longer throughout the day than when we only act with our ego in mind. This is more proof that others happiness and well-being plays an intimate role with our own happiness and well-being – a product of empathy.
—
Join my newsletter for more!
More and more I am wondering how accurate the Buddhist notion of annata, or “no self,” really is in the context of Buddhist philosophy and ethics. Metaphysically, it can make sense to attribute some beings as not a part of our conventional understanding of a self; after all, the self/other dichotomy in all its forms is our most common and prevalent view of reality. However, if the notion of “no self” in Buddhist literature is supposed to act as a guide toward understanding interconnectedness between all beings, than might it make more sense to consider this new self a rich and “expansive” self, rather than an empty one? And if this “expansive self” is a more accurate description than “no self,” perhaps anatta should be appreciated more as a stepping stone to truth (or even a thought experiment), rather than an accurate explanation of reality [1].
If it is metaphysically true that no self exists, then Buddhist ethics, free will, and karma seem to evaporate. To act selflessly would be to act without a mind and without intention. Yet, Buddhists often attribute the accumulation of karma to “right understanding” and “skillful volition” [2] – neither one possible without some self to process it’s environment and consciously act on it.
If I can truly act selflessly, then who or what accumulates karma for this deed? It can’t be me, since I don’t exist – so is it someone else? What if we had a Buddhist utopia and everyone acted selflessly – would any of us be conscious at all, or just cogs in a machine? In what other form can selflessness take besides self-annihilation – a rejection of consciousness itself – which, taken to its logical extreme, sounds principally anti-Buddhist.
Buddha never specified whether or not a self does or doesn’t exist. He refused to answer the question, presumably because it gave power to the self/other dichotomy, which he consider illusory and the source of all suffering.
I admit by contemplating these things I am to some degree falling for this dichotomy myself, but I thought this was worth philosophizing about; I so often see people preach “no self” as the ultimate ideal, end-goal, or enlightenment of Buddhist practice, yet I find it to be misleading, nihilistic, and potentially self-destructive. At best “selflessness” is a concept that serves as a means to a goal – a technique, a strategy, a stage, or a stepping stone – not an end to be achieved. I think the idea of “selfless” is intended to break apart our conventional understandings of a self, not to be a claim of something that is true.
The problem with the self is that we often think of it too narrowly. It becomes a prison, instead of something expansive, creative, and resourceful. Helping others should be viewed first and foremost as not something self-less but something self-evolving. In this light, Buddhist morality – the drive to be compassionate and kind to others – becomes strengthened rather than diminished. Interconnectedness is the nature of the self, not selflessness.
Sources
[1] “Not self” as a strategy in Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s “No self or Not-self”
[2] The Theory of Karma by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw
Lately I have been noticing some common patterns between my life and the lives of others. The two themes that keep popping up are the desire to “control” something while simultaneously being at “peace” with it. While these goals seem reasonable on the surface, they can often be paradoxical in practice, sometimes even perpetuating the same conflict we initially intend to extinguish.
There is of course a balance that needs to be made. The question is: where should we make the distinction and where do we draw the lines that guide our thoughts and behavior? In other words, when it is appropriate to intervene – to seek change – and when is it better to just let things be – and accept what is.
From my understanding, people are more prone to discontent over content, which means they have a greater desire to change than to accept. It may even be in our evolutionary make-up – our desire to improve, to move forward, to have more, to gain power, to indulge; and thus we find ourselves constantly seeking higher levels of satisfaction – new plateaus – instead of being content with how things are.
This is a reflection not only of the current state of affairs in Western consumerist culture, but a facet implicit in human action as shown throughout history. It is the struggle of obtaining “happiness” – by always wanting to get to Moment B, even though we are looking for peace in Moment A.
Look around. Even the most physically and financially protected of individuals, those who live in a world of luxury, whom have no need to stress over survival nor reproduction, instead, create their own stress internally. They continue to find themselves unhappy, disconnected, always separate from what they sought. They have fallen for the paradox of control, they want to find complete satisfaction in a world of infinite desires. To do this they must seek more control of their surroundings, and to seek more control means to have more possessions, more worries, more things to hold onto and force. Yet the more we try to hold on to, the harder it is to maintain a firm grip. We all face the challenge of finding that balance.
Real peace can be thought of as a relinquishment of this desire to control. It is a state of mind that comes in many differing degrees and shades: from mere tolerance, to acceptance, to content, and even bliss.
But consciousness as we tend to experience it is it odds with this peace. Instead, we live in a world of needs and wants. We must identify, discriminate, think, value, and act to fulfill. Even the most “enlightened” of monks must attend to his or her earthly and bodily desires if he or she wishes to continue to survive. These are not avoidable realities for anyone, but understanding them can lead to a sense of maturity about the coming and going of pleasure and pain.
We can’t live life and simultaneously avoid its burdens. There is a point where peace too comes with diminishing returns. At worst, a constant seeking of more peace – more relaxation, more content, less stress – may be one of the most deceitful temptations there is. After all, to be at peace is to accept what is, but to desire more of it is to not to accept what is. Peace then becomes an addictive drug, and the search for neverending satisfaction is ultimately an illusion. This is the paradox of peace.
While we may dream of someday achieving absolute control and absolute peace over our lives, it is this dream which contributes to our own unhappiness. Neither one is reconcilable. There is a fulcrum point that needs to be practiced, a so-called middle way, a path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and the extremes of self-mortification, a balance between action and inaction, speech and silence, stress and content, peace and control.
Violence Breeds Violence
More and more through science we are confirming the Buddha’s teachings on karma. In an article last month at Wired.com, kindness was shown to breed further acts of kindness.
Experimenters created a game where “selfishness made more sense than cooperation,” however, “acts of giving were tripled over the course of the experiment by other subjects who were directly or indirectly influenced to contribute more.” Here is a visual representation of those effects:
Understanding karma, I believe this multiplying effect should also hold true for acts of violence, coercion, or threat. If we treat people poorly, they are likely to treat us poorly in return. Therefore, evidence seems to show that we should follow the good ol’ golden rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.
The Non-Aggression Principle
As I understand it, the Buddhist moral notion of karma is congruent with libertarian-anarchist ethic of the non-aggression principle – which states that all initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons is inherently illegitimate.
Although Buddha obviously cannot comment on the political theories past his time, I think if he understood our current understanding of government he would see that it is in strict violation of this principle.
Libertarian anarchists consider non-voluntary taxes (a process used to fund almost any government that has ever existed) to be a form of initiated aggression. Therefore, no matter the well-intentioned goals of politicians, the very means of government is seen as immoral. In Ayn Rands words, “Force and mind are opposite; morality ends where a gun begins.”
I think Buddha too would agree that you cannot create a moral society through the immorality of government coercion. Only free choice builds moral fiber. Even when people are forced to pay for others health care, housing, or food, they are in the process of becoming slaves, not saints. Not only is this a morally illegitimate way of building the society we want, it is impossible. In Buddhism the means don’t justify the ends: the means determine the ends.
Lead By Example, Not By Force
Karma teaches reciprocity. Only by being the change we wish to see in the world can we make a positive difference. We don’t create society by stepping into a voting booth once a year, we create society through our day-to-day actions and how we treat others. We lead by example; and when we do this, we inspire people’s hearts and minds to do the same.
An individual’s freedom is a prerequisite for all moral behavior. You cannot force or threat others to be good, you can only guide them through example and reason. People too can be guided the wrong way through example and reason. Morality is always and everywhere a battle of ideas. It starts in our minds and it spreads through our actions.
Government: Old Idea, Bad Idea, or Both?
The need to govern others is an ancient idea: master and servant, leader and follower, boss and worker are all distinctions buried in our unconscious. It is not just an old idea, but an idea we often take for granted. Modern America condemns it’s history with slavery but doesn’t yet see the the shapes and forms it takes through the veil of democratic government; in which, even Thomas Jefferson considered “mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Today this is sometimes referred to as tyranny of the majority. To learn more I recommend Hans Hermann Hoppe’s great book, “Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order.”
Schools somewhat condition us to accept government; democracy being the glorified system of “fairness.” Many people I know find it hard to even imagine a peaceful society without any form of government. Instead they hear “anarchy” and imagine Molotov cocktails being thrown through windows – complete chaos and rebellion. But the truth is humans self-organize all of the time without the help of government bureaucracy. Even children can put together community baseball games without authoritarian oversight. The Austrian economist Friedrich A. Hayek would probably draw a parallel between this kind of social behavior and the “spontaneous order” of a laissez-faire economy.
My point is that the absence of government is not equal to a state of disorder. Humans organize voluntarily (out of their own free will) all of the time; of all people, Buddhists should recognize this inherent interconnectedness between individuals. So we shouldn’t need government to command our actions like some sort of ant colony – our ability to get along with others is a built into our humanity.
Am I suggesting that anarchy is a utopia? It may sound like it, but I assure you that I am not. How can you expect a perfect society from imperfect individuals? You can’t. It’s not realistic. But it is realistic to believe that humans can coexist peacefully without big brother government. Sure, there will still be crime and evils in the world and we will have to deal with those accordingly. But government may not be the answer to poverty, drug abuse, or even murder. Perhaps before looking to our paternal state for all the solutions to society we should take a deep gaze into ourselves; and see how we as individuals are personally responsible for the world around us.