glorious practice

I just wanted to share a bit how my interest in Psychology/Spirituality is going. I often reflect on my own habits of mental, emotional, physical, and energetic/consciousness/affect and use my reading/knowledge in Psychology/Spirituality and social dynamics, really whatever ideas I can get my hands on including random bits from economics, homeopathy and Chinese medicine, and see how the two (experience and idea) fit. In other words, I study Applied Humanity. Which I'd say is to look deeply at your own experience, and with the help of an open skeptical mind, experiment with the application of various mental/emotional/spiritual frameworks. I do so, and I've been writing about it, and more importantly living it. The fantastic thing is that everything I learn is extremely applicable--because that's the basis of the work. I'm trying things out to see what helps me be happy and function effectively.

I've been writing down what I learn, recently off of facebook. A lot of the ideas are in a sort of fuzzy--not quite fully incubated--form, even if I know it for myself, each needs more experimentation and refinement before unleashing them out to the world. Yet, often I do it anyway, in writing, and most certainly if you get on the topic with me in person. Just because it's not quite ready for publishing doesn't mean it can't be useful to others...So, for the past month or so while I've been looking at the way I'm interacting with others and myself (my own views affecting behavior and life outlook), I haven't been writing publicly, but I wanted to publicly say that I've been making notes :). I'M DISCOVERING REALLY AWESOME AND INTERESTING STUFF. And just like anyone's discoveries, I might be retracing old ground, incredibly likely in this situation, but I still feel I'm doing really useful work, even if I were to read some of the things I realize, the ideas aren't quite it, discovering them is learning them deeply, and practicing them all in one.

Now, I can't leave this whole mess without giving at least one example, which is, I recently watched a beautiful mind, in which John Nash explains (in the bar with the Blonde) that each person acting for their own benefit won't be as happy as each acting for the whole and themselves. One gets less of what he wants by going straight for it. Also, (my addition) it is not the case that the one becomes happy by thinking only of the whole--communism, herd mentality--a simple fact is that you're running up hill, to think only about others is to grit your teeth in the face of who you are, the face of evolution itself and God for that matter if I may be so bold to just throw that out there for the hell of it. Honestly, to want the best for the whole is only helpful WITH a desire to get the best for one's self, otherwise you get the martyr mentality, everyone owes you something, all of these selfish people and you're taking their pain and giving them happiness, you become bitter and question what the fuck for, why am I supposed to do this again?--God sure does want a lot from me, too bad I can never live up to it--more on this later.

The highest accomplishment of selfish and selfless goals comes in realizing their synergy. So often in my life I find that going straight for what I want smashes it, and I've also felt the sting of attempting selflessness which inevitably leads to guilt and excessive self-inflicted pain among other things--possibly enough pain and guilt to make you incapable of serving others. Jumping back, pure selfishness feeds hunger instantly, the Buddhist realization is that it is a sort of drinking salt water--the more you drink, the thirstier you get--on the other side I throw out the analogy of someone working the well and not drinking any water themselves, thus not being able to help the others. There is a subtle poverty mentality in needing to take the pain to give happiness, like it is all numbers, yes some things are numbers and in that frame there are limits, this is very real, but so is a certain unlimitedness, especially in human nature, in love and wisdom (and surely various other things) giving is receiving. I'm happy to have rediscovered this, it is a fantastic reality, and just to make it clear (after throwing my jumbled thought process on a page), the idea is as such: Selfish and selfless goals/pleasures are best found simultaneously. When we can align these two forces there is a synergy which creates a more profound, pure, and beautiful happiness than is created via attempts at either one alone.

Another beautiful part of this theory, it rocks the boat for lovers of Ghandhi and the Buddha, whoever made up Tonglen practice, and surely many others that I'm just not well read enough to make note of--anyone advocating (or interpreted as advocating) for selflessness alone. Simultaneously, it corrects Harry Brown--who wrote How I found freedom in an unfree world--at least my reading of it, in which the author seemed to misunderstand how to really get the most of life--which is not by focusing your life on how to get the most out of life--even if you learn to do that very well. In the latter correction, the idea corrects anyone who has ever wanted something and made plans to get it. This may sound silly, but that model (going for what you want) only (debatably) works on inanimate objects. Especially when you're working with humans, you'd do best to try and get what you want only while honestly trying (not just pretending to try) to get for others what others want. Along with basic pleasure, if you try out the experiment, you might notice another form of happiness coming from helping others and a freedom from fear because you don't lose if others, at another point in time, win.

For some, it's an old idea, even a simple, "no duh" idea for many, but today I've discovered it anew, and while I've been trying to live it for a long time, I have never quite found it as solidly as today. Even just a week ago I was trying out Tonglen again thinking it might be good for me and now I'm not thinking so. Maybe I need a better explanation of Tonglen, but until someone tells me I've completely misunderstood it, I'm considering abandonment of it to be an accomplishment. With it I abandon previous ideals of approaching a misguided version of ethical purity which leads to needing to give constantly and literally forgetting the needs and wants of your own organism--where is the compassion in that? Instead, I shall love others AS myself, not in spite of myself. I hope to practice this often.

Finally, after editing, this ending bit, "loving others as myself", sparks a little conspiracy theory. To go along with an atheist/reductionist view that Religion is to keep people in line, MAYBE Christ and Buddha did not advocate for selflessness. MAYBE we only think of them as selfless and advocating selflessness because of an encouraged mistranslation that leads to people trying to forget their needs for the needs of others--sounds great for a dictator or a selfish person in general, get everyone else to forget their needs for the needs of others (you). Easy to control, easy to manipulate. However, if the Buddha and Christ truly reflected on life, and surrendered to Spirit, their power came in compassion for others informed by the actual experience of being a person with needs and wants and not trying to force out human desires but embracing those desires as they embrace others and help them be happy too. They did not deny themselves for the sake of others but had compassion for both self and other. It is obvious, is it not?--the middle path, love others as thyself--what an odd mistaken view of spiritual purity that I've acquired, to think I saw Christ/Buddha/the goal of spiritual practice as selflessness rather than the middle way, as loving others in spite of one's self. These drives are to find harmony and if it's a question of me or them/us, you're just doing/thinking/viewing it wrong. With a radically true view of reality, we might find that actually all situations are of Win/Win or Lose/Lose nature. Even in competition we only need to look at a different level to see how this relationship benefits both parties. This is not to lie to oneself when one is being selfish, there must be integrity within one's self in the application of the idea, BUT if you really practice it, boy it is a glorious practice.

Hehe, editing ^this, I've got one little critique or maybe just a clarification, in an actual life or death situation of defending myself with my own hands, I might be able to theoretically fit this into Win/Win situation sort of picture, but honestly at this point I can't see it, if I'm fighting for my life, with love and respect for my adversary I'll fight for my life. Funny enough though, the answer already came, the synergy is desire for my life (obvious) and a view that I'm worth more to the world than anything that would try and kill me. Another possibly fun/interesting debate, but that's the way I see it, and it fits. Maybe something doesn't fit, but honestly it seems that the amount of situations which have this 'best for one and all' reality are so many that I don't much care if there seems to be a theoretical exception here or there.