Equanimity

      The following is an excerpt from an ongoing email dialogue with a friend in Asheville, North Carolina, 2009.

********

Question: What's the complementary opposite of equanimity?
       First let me explain the terms as I understand them.
      Equanimity is a term denoting a posture, perspective, or relationship. For instance, it could be described as the still point between two dichotomous thought/feelings embodied in the happiness/sadness duality.
      Equanimity is not “a state of counter-balance to a negative.” I don’t see it as a state at all, except in the process of objectifying it in order to talk about it. Rather, it is better understood as a center point of no value between positive and negative values; the dualities which we cling to, or recoil from, in our daily lives.
      Equanimity does not have a material counterpart. It is a relationship that we attain - a posture, an attitude, an understanding, and/or acceptance of - with regard to the dualities that are present to our senses.
      The term complementary opposite, to me refers to an opposite in the world of dualities which creates a “0” (so to speak) - as if I said, “the complementary opposite of -5 is +5,” and therefore we have “0.”
      A “complementary” opposite is one that leaves no trace of either. It compliments one part of a duality so exactly that there is no longer either pole.
      Now to answer the question “what is the complementary opposite of equanimity?” My response is, “Grasping" or "Attachment." Let me elaborate.
      Equanimity is a “letting go” of preference, judgment, or we might say “letting go of the attachment to” these attitudes.
      Grasping (or Aversion) refers to the action that comprises the attachment to these attitudes. Both letting go and grasping, or equanimity and attachment, are relationships not specific entities or things. They all require an object in order to refer to a specific thing.
      Thus, if we suggest that a person is attached to “X” (or some particular result), that attachment will be eliminated by acquiring a posture of equanimity, or a releasing of our attachment to that particular “X.” It’s not as though the person will let go of “X” and then have something called “not-X” - “X” is merely negated. Our language makes it seem reasonable to say “the more equanimity we have, the less attachment we will suffer from,” but that is misleading.
      Equanimity is not a thing that can be added or subtracted as apples in a basket. Equanimity is the relationship of having let go, or having dropped (a [-] minus) the object of attachment (a [+] positive) to which one clings. It correlates to the letting go of, or releasing, the dissecting process of dualism and thereby nullifying that duality.
      Perhaps it would be helpful to see equanimity as an act of dropping (-) that object someone has grasped onto, and therein has become attached (+) to. For instance, if a person is standing in the yard empty-handed (0) and someone throws a ball and the person catches (grasps onto) it, the ball has been added (+). If the person subsequently drops the ball (-) however, he returns to the original state (0). The process of dropping (equanimity) refers to the act of “letting go of.”
      Another picture with the same general analogy; a boy stands in the yard and his friend throws five apples to him. That would be 5 apples added to his person. He can maintain a posture whereby these five apples are attached to his person or he may choose to get rid of them. It will be a complementary opposite of the acquisition of these 5 apples, if he chooses to drop or throw the 5 apples away. On the other hand if he decides to take one apple home with him, he will remain attached (+) to one apple and the action is no longer complementary.
      Perhaps what I’m suggesting has to be imagined metaphorically. If so, I hope the situation described as follows will be helpful.
     We’re driving along a country road and we see the carcass of a newly killed fawn laying in the weeds next the road. We have some sort of emotional reaction. Let’s say we feel sad or perhaps angry with God or in some other way, we suffer as a result of what we see. This would be a negative reaction and noted above as an attachment or grasping (+), which arises out of our learning or experiences, having to do with baby deer or animals in general. Our history then becomes the condition for the arising of our suffering, in this case negative thoughts/feelings. We might even imagine acts of terrorism against the driver who ran it over.
      In terms of my + and – discussion above, the negative emotional reaction, or thinking, is a +, or an addition to the simple registering of data. There is instead, the forming of a judgment or preference beyond, or more (+) than, just an observation.
      However if we realize that the fawn’s death is just a natural part of the cycle of life and death, and that the carcass will decompose and become the food for, or condition, assisting many other arising forms in our world; the grass, flowers, food for scavenging birds and other animals, etc., our posture changes. At some point in this process, perhaps our teaching on Dependent-Arising comes back to us and we reach that moment where suffering disappears (-). Letting go arises and an acceptance is achieved which might be called “equanimity in the face of what is.”
      Leading a life of equanimity is not a matter of going from anger to happiness, where the emotional pendulum swings in the opposite direction past zero. Nor is it about becoming an unfeeling automaton.
      Equanimity is a posture wherein we are able to be with “what is” without attaching to either pole of a duality; pleasant/unpleasant or happy/sad etc. And it is a goal to aspire to - not a place where we can expect to arrive and set up housekeeping forever. When the preference (emotion, or attitude, etc.) is let go of, we will experience the balance or acceptance of what is (as-it-is). Equanimity arises as an attitude or relationship to our humanity without becoming attached to its extremes, and in this example, balances suffering and non-suffering in the Buddhist sense.

One Coin - Two Faces

      Several years into my meditation practice, I found myself having to adapt to new partner at work. A friendly fellow to be sure and an undeniably good worker, but as far as personalities go we couldn’t have been more different. Suffice it to say, a major flaw in my character continually had its button pushed. Historically my favorite epithet in these circumstances was a seven letter expletive for a body aperture. And in the past, once I sunk my cogitating teeth into the soft flesh of his various ineptitudes, I would find myself in a whirlpool of complaints that would draw me ever deeper into a mire of irascibility. In no time at all, I would find myself unable to accept anything he said or did and I would be nailed to the cross of my own judgments. It’s exhausting now….just thinking about it.
      However, as a result of meditation and the study of Zen concepts, and Buddhist teachings, I began to see improvement, not in others, but in myself. More and more I began to recognize when I was being judgmental or sarcastic earlier in the process, and today I find that I am often able to counter these learned reactions before I begin to act on them. There are even times when I realize that I’ve just experienced the perfect trigger for one of these old behaviors or attitudes. For me it was usually judgmental patterns of thinking. But, over time, I started to notice the habitual urge to go there, without so much as a behavioral twitch in their direction.
      I can’t say exactly how this has happened - there is nothing I can point to directly and say, “There it is! The reason I have changed is….” However, I can trace the path of this change from the beginning of my study and mindfulness meditation, and it continues to this day. In my life there are no other factors which I can point to, in order to explain this metamorphosis. I opened my mind and my heart through study and I sat in silent meditation.
      When I look at the process today it’s clear. Without reading and a desire for the willingness to be open; to come to a meaningful understanding of those originally elusive terms like Emptiness and Impermanence; without struggling to understand the commentaries of many teachers; I would not have had a foundation upon which to bring forth my original posture toward the world. My practice is the currency, a metaphoric coin perhaps, by which I renew my dedication to improving a posture of equanimity in my life. Study and meditation represent the two faces of that coin.

The Middle Way

"The middle way avoids extremes, and threads its way between the opposites so lightly and so reasonably that no act is followed by reaction, and hence there is no need for a Self to suffer the consequences of the act. The perfect act has no result." – Christmas Humphreys, Karma & Rebirth, ISBN (US) 0 8356 0306 7
       The way I understand this, the way it makes personal sense to me, is that "extremes" are the result of our living from an ego-center in which we read life in terms of our dualistic apprehension of likes/dislikes, right/wrong, and good/bad etc. This means our choices and actions are ego-driven and are not the result of a posture of equanimity. As a result, there are always consequences arising out of the opposite pole no matter which one we choose. Like a constant burr under one's saddle one might say.
      On the other hand the "middle way" finds us acting only in response to what the universe presents us in each moment; the burr is removed. Following the middle way allows for actions that are so in line with "what is" that they yield no re-action to them. And this is the notion of "no result" as I interpret this statement.
      So, this is why it is important for me to struggle to attain an equanimous posture in life. It leaves no footprint in the sand. Action responding to "what is" versus ego-preference creates no disturbance. With no disturbance in the flow of life, no action is detectable. I am "one with the flow."
      A worthy intention shrouded in human difficulty.

Self or real-Self

      During what I suspect has been my fourth reading of Sekkei Harada’s book The Essence of Zen, I came to realize how to overcome the trouble I was having in understanding the difference between the “self” and “real-Self” in Zen literature. Key to this new insight was an expanded understanding of the term Dharma. One use of the term Dharma is reality as-it-is. This is the essence of Zen; the Dharma, the Way - and it is everywhere at any time.

      Let's start in this moment. The present moment as-it-is, denotes a condition where there is no separation between yourself and “other.” No judgments; no better than, or worse than. One of the main purposes for my meditation practice is to bring an end to the “seeking mind” and to live accepting the present moment, just as-it-is.
      Dropping the ego-self, immersing one’s attention wholeheartedly in the work of this moment, and making an effort to let go of attachment to preferences is the practice of Zen. When the ego-self intervenes, it inserts opinions, interpretations, judgments, and preferences. It requires that you see “this” by comparison to “that.” This is not seeing things as-they-are.
      By the term ego-self, I am referring the process whereby each person relates to the world from the standpoint of “I” and “other.” We experience life dualistically. There’s a deeply imbedded sense of “me,” which is juxtaposed to, and separate from, “you” and all “other”.
      In expressing proof of its existence, the human organism perceives or experiences the sense of a self (ego or “me”) and proclaims that since “I” can see, and hear, and feel, and think – an “I” therefore exists. We accept this as an argument for there being a permanent entity: the “self.” My world of perception and cognition however, arises out of, and is expressed in, the notion of ego-self. The ego-self is the sum, or result, of the functions of the aggregate of the mind/body. This aggregate of processes is in continual flux and therefore impermanent.
      To say that things are Impermanent, is to say that there is no condition that is fixed or determined for any length of time, just as the term No-self speaks to the fact that there is no permanent, single entity that corresponds to a “self.” All things come into existence through conditions and they disappear because of conditions. Results unavoidably issue forth from causes; that’s the way it is.
      All conditions are contingent upon the presence, or absence, of causes. Seeking is a condition for the arising of clinging, just as desire is a condition for the arising of disappointment. And desire is contingent upon labeling something as necessary or pleasurable. This is the Dharma; the way-it-is for us as human beings in this material world of form. And the idea of a “self” is the result of the conditions that have arisen out of the nature of human existence, also referred to as skandhas, or the Aggregates of Attachment, in Buddhist cosmology.
      So if you are like me, and you are finally able to wrap your mind around it all up to this point, you will likely experience some consternation when you read in the literature about something called the real-Self (or sometimes referred to as the true-Self). It seems to fly in the face of what you have struggled so hard to understand thus far. What follows is how I have escaped the grasp of my confusion.
      I came to recognize the term Dharma to be representing existence. Cosmic life “as-it-is” (often referred to as the “One” or Oneness). In other words, "what is" before our dualistic mind categorically apprehends and then processes those aspects of Oneness which it is able to register. Only then was I able to slowly allow myself to soften around a new understanding. Two seemingy juxtaposed ideas, yet recognized as one idea from two perspectives; No-self and real-Self.
      The “real-Self” is the Dharma. This is an existential fact embodied in “the way it is” - “isness” – the essence of all things constantly cycling through eternal change. In this case each passing moment - time - is simply the arising of new causes and conditions. However, the key or operative idea here is change. We are not composed of a concrete entity called “me” going through a process of change. We are change; change is what we are. And our real-Self, is that eternal changing; the Dharma. In other words, we are this changing as it represents itself to our senses at any given instant….and then it (we) change, over and over and over. Our senses cannot process this Dharma. We are not constructed in such a way as to be able to process this truth of each moment. Sentience is our sentence.
      Life is the continual flux or flow of arising conditions (or causes depending upon what term you are most comfortable with). Dharma is the term I'm using to represent this flow of life, including the human organism, as it is happening, or unfolding. Therefore, I offer the term Dharma as a representation of the real-Self as opposed to the ego-self that I colloquially identify as “me.”
      The “real-Self” is this unfolding. It’s not a discreet entity that has longevity amid an otherwise changing world. It is the change itself and is essentially all things; the Dharma, the Way, and even that misunderstood notion of a separate, abiding self to which we are so attached.
      Our real-Self can be undestood as part of the “Oneness” which cannot be named or perceived because it is empty of divisions or separation into parts that the human mind requires for understanding. This Unity or Oneness is an undifferentiated whole-ness out of which our mind identifies limited parameters of sensory experience.
      What we refer to as discreet entities (named things) are actually contingencies: processes of change through the arising of causes, or aggregates of causes (called conditions), acting upon other conditions.
       It is not possible for any single thing to exist on its own, or by itself alone. In our universe of forms, Emptiness refers to an emptiness of discreet units that correspond to the object named, as well as the illusion of the divisions my mind constructs in order to perceive what is referred to as “me.”
      Even in our world of material forms, if I think something is true or real, it means I have added a characteristic (say, reality or truth) to the object or thing perceived. Perception offers only “is-ness,” so there remains a gap between that thing, as-it-is, and that which constitutes the name I have given it as in “real” or “true.”
      My mind has deconstructed the wholeness –that thing as-it-is - into parts or discreet dualistic units; the “real” or “true” juxtaposed with the unreal or false. In order for there to be a reality, or a truth, there must be a non-reality or untruth; a dualistic “other.” Such is the fact of life in the world of ten-thousand things.
      On the other hand, the life of one who has realized the true-Self, is one in which dualities are noted but not clung to as ultimate truth. In other words, this manner of being in the world is to dwell peacefully in this moment…now.
      Practically speaking, whether one does something for another, or for oneself, the life of Zen is to forget all that comes before and after, and really do each deed for the purpose of the deed itself: here, now. This is to be your “real-Self.”
Namaste

Why Mindful Awareness?

       For me, the wonder of meditation is that it is not an intellectual process, nor is it about ‘white knuckle’ attempts at behavior modification. It is about the change which can arise out of a mindful awareness. Today I meditate in order to accept the pain, frustration, and anxiety of everyday living; to better function as a healthy, helpful human being.
       Initially it was an attempt to stop incessant fantasies associated with extreme anger in order to avoid the heart attack or stroke which I feared was inevitable. Over time however, I have come to believe in the transformative power of Zazen. Not from reading a book or sacred text, or listening to a teacher. Rather it was from actually doing Zazen, sometimes referred to as Insight or Mindfulness Meditation, that I was able to experience subtle, unexplained changes in my attitudes which led me to have faith in the process.
      The reading and listening to teachers that I cautioned against a moment ago are also valuable tools however. They constitute resources for an understanding of the particular path I choose in life. They offer guidance in my daily affairs like the proverbial carrot dangled just ahead of the plow horse. And like that old horse I need to have my general course plotted: who do I wish to be? How do want to act…to live my life? However these ideas are tools for the world of action and form. It is in the process of meditation that they become connected to my life at a deeper, unspoken level. Meditation is the yeast that allows the desired change to rise, and to fill my life with a calm abiding.
     The process is quite simple in theory but less so in execution. I often hear people say, “If I’m not supposed to think while I’m sitting I can’t solve any problems, so why meditate – what’s the purpose of this kind of meditation?”
    We all have reasons that bring us to meditation in the first place. I have told you what brought me to this practice initially. There is nothing wrong with this or any other goal one might have for beginning a meditation practice. But the actual process of “sitting” requires that we let go of this initial reason once the actual practice begins. We must release ourselves from reasons, goals, hopes, dreams, and all intellectualizations if we wish to learn to have mindfulness in daily living……and more.
     The idea is to learn to be present with what is; to open oneself to the present moment as it presents itself; to experience being fully engaged in the “now moment” without judgment, analysis, or preference. Attempting to meet a purpose during our meditation is a block to achieving this kind of openness. It masks our ability to be receptive to what the present moment offers us. When we get carried away by thoughts, emotions, or fantasy scenarios they divert, or separate us from what the present moment offers.
    To have a judgment about, or a preference for or against, whatever is happening in this moment creates an emotional posture which becomes, over time, a habitual attitude toward things, people, or situations that arise in daily living. These postures symbiotically glue us to the fears, obsessions, anger and depression that make this life a ‘suffering affair’. They cut us off from any hope of achieving the equanimity and compassion which is the cornerstone of becoming that healthy, helpful human being to which I aspire.
     From the many variations, I have chosen Awareness Meditation because it requires me to practice being present without judgment, comparison, or naming; without focusing on a discrimination in terms good and bad, or right and wrong. Through practicing this method of being present to the moment, I am able to slowly transpose equanimity and compassion from the cushion into my everyday affairs.
    If you are not interested in an Awareness of the way things are versus the way you would like them to be, then this style of meditation is not for you. If you are looking for answers that are neatly contained within the philosophical perspective you already hold, some other meditative process will better fit your needs. Awareness meditation is not for those who are interested in simply reinforcing their “truth”; it is for those who want to free their vision of themselves and the world, so as to see it ‘as it is’.