There is a story about a man approaching the Buddha and asking him:

 

Are you a god?

No, said the Buddha.

Then, what are you?

I am awake. 

We all know what being awake in a normal sense means, but that is clearly not what the Buddha had in mind, which is complete freedom from illusion and attachment, a very important topic already dealt with by many wise and competent thinkers and writers. I want to talk about a particular illusion that interferes with our awakening on a daily basis---the illusion created by self-deception, which has two aspects to it. 

 

Freedom from illusions is a state we all want to achieve, at least those who are aware that they are living a life of illusions---a rare group if my experience is any judge. But getting to that state is very difficult and often takes a lifetime (or more than one). Of our many illusions, perhaps the most damaging is that involving the usually very positive stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, a topic I have addressed a number of times. The problem? Psychologists have shown that many of those stories are partially or even totally false, yet we believe them absolutely. Such a condition practically guarantees we will have trouble awakening from our illusory slumber. 

This condition is neatly put by Pema Chodron, a prolific American Buddhist nun. She says, “By weaving our opinions, prejudices, strategies, and emotions into a solid reality, we try to make a big deal out of ourselves….” Clearly, this attempt is doomed to failure. Try as we might, we cannot make a big deal of ourselves, but we can surely make ourselves emotionally and spiritually smaller in the effort. 

Because most of our stories are lodged firmly in the unconscious, we obviously have no access to them. Thus, when we act out a story element and receive a strange or obstructive response from another person, we can only blame the other person or the circumstances. It can’t be me, the unconscious “loudly” proclaims. One of my stories years ago was that I was objective, a view that I held with absolute certainty. Naturally, I resented it when others either disagreed outright or implied I was less than I thought. I had deluded myself, and others had caught me out, causing me suffering. But I rejected them and their views, blaming them for my suffering, allowing me to wallow a bit longer in my self-deception. I had mirrors all around me, and failed to take advantage of them---my damaging illusion persisted. 

The second big category of illusions deals with views we hold about the nature of the world. We take for real our opinions, beliefs, values, and positions to the point that they HAVE to be true or our world takes a nasty shaking. We have invested great emotion and commitment in this illusion, as we do with all of them. The mere thought that it might be erroneous is terrifying, at least unconsciously, which means that this great anxiety goes unrecognized and unacknowledged. We try to disguise the fear by telling ourselves that our views are absolutely correct, but in the end we will pay the price for this fraud. As economists are wont to say, there is no free lunch. 

As I have said a number of times, our political views are among the worst of these illusions. They are often held with monumental rigidity and gross (used in both senses of the word) levels of self-righteousness. But whether it’s political views, or any others, the prominent characteristic is a desire that insists the world be what we want it to be. We deceive ourselves by imagining that we can force the world to do our bidding---ensuring that our illusory views are perfect. Naturally, when it fails to comply, we are shocked, furious or depressed. We have failed to understand the nature and origin of our self-deceptions, and thus of our suffering. Because of this we likely to export our suffering to others, which will seriously compromise our relations with them. 

Underlying and making worse the challenge of our self-deceptions is that we are firmly attached to them, whatever their form. Most of us seeking personal development recognize that attachment is the bane of a balanced and wholesome existence. But we still expend huge amounts of psychic energy ignoring the evidence of reality and trying to maintain our fictions. We are often encouraged in this futile effort through associations with others who share our illusions, or who, tit for tat, allow us our illusions if we do the same for them---the great dance of “let’s pretend.” In this state, we and they live in a self-referencing, self-congratulatory and self-deceiving world that is the enemy of awakening.  

But let us assume that some intrepid self-examiners see that part of being awake is appreciating that they have stories and opinions which are to some degree false, and that part of their lives are lived as illusions. This is a terrific realization, but more is needed. While vital to the self-discovery process, understanding is of little value if we do nothing with what we have uncovered. This is the often sad truth about attending seminars, reading books, listening to even high quality gurus---they are inputs, not outcomes. As wonderful as those activities can be, without the will to change, to dispossess ourselves of the illusions, we will merely have added yet another illusion to the unfortunate list. We have assumed that the activities are equivalent to the changes we want to see. And why not? It’s a hell of a lot less work than actually engaging ourselves around our challenged existence and practicing every day for years to work through our illusions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Defending

In previous posts I have mentioned a book that I like very much, a very inspiring one. It is The Second Book of the Tao, by Stephen Mitchell. There is a world or two of wisdom in it, and one of my favorite entries relates to the idea of no opposition.

When nothing is left to argue with

and there is nothing to oppose,

you will find yourself at peace

and in harmony with all things.”

These are the last four lines from a longer piece, about which I could easily write two or more posts, but in this one I want to talk only about these lines.

We interact with others constantly, and each of those interactions offers chances for things to go well or poorly. More often than we would like, we find ourselves enmeshed in a difficult, if not hostile, interaction. Serenity, assuming we had any to begin with, is gone in an instant. Harmony? Gone as well. Why? Because we have allowed ourselves to be captured by the trouble of the moment (opposition) and, embodying that trouble, respond in unhealthy ways. Such engagements are unpleasant because they are nearly always characterized by an “I-win, you-lose” posture, and frequently animated by the damaging needs to be right or to be certain (see last post). 

These engagements call to us to defend our own views and oppose the other’s. In our lucid moments, most of us will agree that this seldom produces anything of benefit, with the usual outcome being negative, with anger, resistance, denial, accusations and ad hominem attacks in abundance. Even if the parties are calm and composed, if the need to win or prevail characterizes the engagement, that calmness will go for nothing. 

What should I do with the following statement directed at me? “Your views on government intervention in the economy are crazy.” This person is pitching a hard ball, hoping I will try to hit it out of the park, precipitating an unpleasant free-for-all. He is ready and hoping for a battle royale. In full opposition mode, I try to overwhelm him with data, mis-representations, outright lies, emotional diatribes, anything to win. He, of course, does precisely the same. But what if there is nothing to defend, nothing to oppose. There is no hard ball and there is no hit. But there may be peace and harmony for both of us if I manage the conversation (myself) to mutual benefit. 

But what does “nothing to defend” mean? It means that, no matter how important the view is to me, I invest it with no emotion, nor do I have an exaggerated (or any) commitment to its correctness. I understand that it counts for nothing beyond my own mind. What is important at the moment is the interaction with another person who has different views. My important view does not dictate how I will respond to opposing views. The need to defend arises because I want to have a particular outcome, either to change someone or to punish them for having opposing views, goals which are sure to elicit unpleasant oppositional reactions.  

Can we be in harmony and contest another’s view. Sure, but everything depends on our attitude toward the view and our concern for the well being of the other person. If we are empty of the need to defend our view simply because we think it right or because it is ours, if we are empty of the need to change or punish the other person, our interactions will go well. With that emptiness we can inquire with and engage the other person in ways that do not make them wrong, but which lead to greater clarity, understanding and connection. Further, good friends can debate and argue with no emotional ill-effects when it is clear to both that it is the interaction that matters and not the outcome of the debate.  

With emptiness of the need to defend we interact with “opponents” in ways that are healthy and respectful for both, and which allow us to reach higher levels of harmony---needed more than ever in today’s contentious and unbalanced world.