The cause of happiness

Lately because I can't travel so well, I no longer see new meditation students in person in my role as a meditation instructor for the New York Shambhala Center. However, I have volunteered for handling the random email requests that come in from folks with questions or who are themselves unable to get into the Center regularly. Here is one such question and my reply.

Q: Q: Given that one of the basic tenents of the Dharma is that other peoples' happiness is our happiness, how can we be happy knowing that countless millions (billions?) are suffering every day (don't have enough food/clean water, are in physical danger, etc, etc.), with everything we see on television news/read about in the print media?

A: Well, very simply I don't think we CAN be happy when others are suffering, at least not in some lasting way. Not because it's a tenet of the dharma, but because our fundamental nature is compassion,and it's very hard to be at our ease when we see and feel other's suffering. That being said though, I think it's important to take this out of the realm of abstraction and bring it into to the realm of experience. What is the cause of happiness? How do we skillfully address the fact that other's are suffering in a way that does not make things worse? Do we simply try to clean up the world one person at a time? - which often misses the point, because our intention is really to make ourselves feel better, so we end up creating bigger problems.

I think it's important to really look into these questions wholeheartedly and not accept an answer just because it's the party line for Buddhism. If we look closely at our thoughts and experience we notice that 99% of the time we spend our time working on the "me-plan", and we try to protect "me" from any discomfort, justify it, nurture it at the expense of others, etc. all in the name of happiness. The question is, "is that working for us?" Is all that effort bringing us lasting happiness? I think you will admit that on the whole it is not working, that acquiring things and taking care of me at all costs does not bring lasting happiness. On the other hand, what really does bring some lasting peace and happiness is looking after and helping others, whether it be helping our friend move to a new place, nurturing a sick friend, helping our children to become independent and confident, bringing someone in need some food, or surprising our spouse with her favorite coffee from Dunkin' Donuts. It gladdens our heart when we are able to give of ourselves, and feels genuine and connected to a larger perspective than just administering to this pet we call "me" all the time.

However, the "me-plan" is habitual and it's difficult to overcome it all at once, to just suddenly place others' first all the time, even if that's our intention, and even if we understand conceptually that the cause of happiness is dissolving our self-absorption. Therefore what is suggested is to start slowly by dropping the "me-plan" for a small period of time each day, to practice being virtuous for just 10-20 minutes, which is meditation practice. If we are able to do that, we start to see possibilities of moving forward with our lives in a more fundamental way, and helping others in our immediate sphere who are suffering. We needn't go all that far to perceive suffering, we needn't abstract the billions of the world who are suffering, it's all around us every day. (The ironic part of all this is that very often the people who have so little are often happier than the people who have so much, simply because they understand the cause of happiness).

This practice of getting off the me-plan for a short (but consistent) time creates a steppingstone to greater mindfulness and awareness of when we're being selfish and when we're actually sabotaging our own happiness. We start to tap into that underlying but always present compassion in our heart which has been buried under layers of selfishness. We are able to tune into the needs of others because we can more easily put ourselves in their shoes. From there, we can spend more and more time practicing virtue and less and less time being self-absorbed, and it's just possible that we could change the world in not just a superficial way, but in a more fundamental way that brings lasting happiness.

Hope this helps.

Best,

--Jeff

No more excuses

If you're poised to buy a new PC or laptop, you should buy a Mac. Armed with superior technology for years, but priced higher than the Wintel machines, and always plagued with the "compatibility fear," Mac machines are now the choice of even mainstream journalists. Equivalent in price, they have the superior operating system, almost totally immune to viruses (although that will change with popularity), and more seamlessly integrated than a Windows machine can ever hope to be because of the underlying structure. Now Mac machines will even run Windows simultaneously with OS/X if that's your need.

Here's an article from Businessweek's Stephen Wildstrom that accentuates these points.

*****************
JUNE 26, 2006

TECHNOLOGY & YOU

Advice To Students: Pack A Mac

Apple's software has improved, but Windows has been stuck in a rut

TECH & YOU PODCAST

In a few months, nearly 3 million freshmen will head off to college. Included in the gear most of them lug along will be a computer, often brand new. This year I have some advice for the college-bound: Unless you have a compelling reason not to go with a Mac, an Apple (AAPL ) laptop or desktop offers the best combination of features, ease of use, and value.

While I have been a Mac fan for years, I have never felt strongly enough to make the Mac a default recommendation. But things have changed. Mac software, both the OS X operating system and the applications such as iPhoto and GarageBand bundled with it, have gotten steadily better, while Windows seems stuck in a rut. Meanwhile, new Mac hardware based on Intel (INTC ) processors has erased the performance gap between Macs and products from Hewlett-Packard (HPQ ), Dell (DELL ), and others in the Windows camp. The move to Intel also lets Macs run most Windows programs, either by rebooting using Apple's Boot Camp software, or right on the Mac desktop using Parallels Workstation, a program I described in my May 1 column.

Students who know about Windows Vista, the first major improvement in Windows in five years, might be inclined to stick with PCs. But Vista, which won't be out until next year, may not do much more than catch up to OS X. And before Vista ships, Apple plans to release a new version of OS X called Leopard that will likely raise the bar even higher.

Apple, of course, offers a much more limited range of hardware than Windows vendors do. It has just three laptop and two desktop lines, excluding the professionally oriented Power Mac workstations. In laptops, which most students probably prefer, there's the 13-in. widescreen MacBook starting at $1,099, and the 15.4-in. and 17-in. widescreen MacBook Pros, starting at $1,999 and $2,799, respectively. In each case, even the base models are pretty well loaded; the one step I recommend, if you are looking at a model with just 512 megabytes of memory, is to increase that to 1 gigabyte.

Slide Show >>

APPLE OFFERS TWO UNIQUE DESKTOP designs, either of which is better suited to the cramped confines of a dorm room than a Windows desktop. At the low end is the very compact Mac mini, which comes without a keyboard or a screen and is available for either $599 or $799. The extra $200 buys you the Intel Core Duo processor, which is well worth the money. The other design option is the elegant all-in-one iMac with a 17-in. ($1,299) or 20-in. ($1,699) flat-panel display.

I realize that there are a lot of people who prefer Windows -- it does claim more than 95% of the market. And there are two classes of buyers for whom it is a better choice. If the budget is really tight, you can buy a serviceable Windows laptop or desktop for less than the cheapest Apple products. And serious gamers will want the power of a high-end Windows desktop.

Windows laptops come in various shapes and sizes. While portability is important, you will probably be happiest with at least a 14-in. display -- nearly all are now widescreens -- unless you plan to use an external desktop monitor. Base your choice on features and price, not brand. And find out if your school has a deal with a manufacturer. Going with that may get you a better price, and more important, better service. For example, some schools are set up to provide on-site service for the brand they support.

Windows desktops offer lots of choices in processors, graphics cards, and other features, but they almost all come in one of two mini-tower alternatives: big and slightly smaller. You'll probably want a 17-in. flat-panel monitor, for $200 and up.

Whether you go with Mac or Windows, today you will get a lot more computer for your money than ever before. And if you can avoid the cheapest systems, you'll be buying a laptop or desktop that will serve until the last tuition payment is made.

For past columns and online-only reviews, go to Tech Maven at www.businessweek.com/technology/wildstrom.htm


By Stephen H. Wildstrom

On Fear

It's not so much that fear is a strength or a weakness.......it's more of a reaction whenever circumstances or some anticipated event get close to exposing us and our softspot, our tenderness, our sadness. We are afraid of exposing our hearts to the world, and when we get close to doing so, we find fear. So why does this happen when we're exploring a change? Well, we normally cover our hearts with habitual ways of operating in the world, to protect ourselves and make our experience predictable and safe.

When we're anticipating going against a habitual pattern, it is scary and we experience fear. From the point of viewof our self image (which is simply a way of defining that which we think secures us and makes us solid, and that which doesn't), fear is bad and something to be avoided at all costs. From the point of view of wanting to go beyond the constraints of a solid self because we find it suffocating and constraining, fear is good and something to be worked with, because it signifies we're on to something genuine and open.We're willing to open the windows and let in some fresh air if you will.

Very often fear is the vanguard of tenderness and softness. By thatI mean we notice the fear first, and then if we're willing to dive in or lean into it, we notice the sadness or tenderness underneath the fear. Lke a small green shoot in the garden under all that mulch. This willingness to acknowledge fear fully is the beginning of bravery,whether our knees are shaking, tears are streaming down our cheeks, itdoesn't matter. It's a willingness to be ourselves in spite of fear, to expose ourselves and let the sunlight into our dark corners. Without the willingness to face fear, there is no fearlessness possible and weare stuck in our self-created cocoon. That is why I said that fear is ultimately good news because it serves as a steppingstone or doorway to a new way of being.

_____________
© 2005 Jeff Rubin

On Discipline

One theme that keeps recurring is the notion of discipline - what it means, how to achieve it, etc. There is a lot of confusion and Puritanism in our society associated with this concept, so I thought it would be valuable to discuss this from another viewpoint, a more experiential one.

Discipline is normally thought of as being externally imposed by one entity upon another. Either someone imposes discipline upon another person, like parent to child, or we impose discipline upon our self by ourselves. Imposing discipline upon another person is easy to understand, but imposing discipline on oneself is murkier. Does the “good” me impose some behavior on the “mischievous” or “bad” me? There seems to be a sense of meting out something “for one’s own good”, which often creates a painful split between multiple “me’s”. This is typically how discipline is conceived, something imposed to correct a wrong behavior, with a strong sense of duality, but the roots of the word belie that.

In the western tradition, the root of discipline is the old French “descepline” which means “instruction given to a disciple”. So originally there was a notion of wisdom passed down from teacher to student in some type of personal exchange, which implies that there was openness on the student’s part and some desire to broaden horizons. There was never a notion of imposing something on a recalcitrant “sinner”, at least until the Protestants got involved in 17th century England. Then the definition started shifting.

In the eastern tradition, the root of “discipline” is even more revealing and one which I personally have found to be much more helpful and inspiring. The term for discipline in Sanskrit (an ancient Asian language) is “sila” (pronounced Sheila) and it has to do with “virtuous conduct and morality”. The idea of virtue here is not the Boy Scout kind of being a “goody two shoes”, but acting in the light of one’s true nature. Virtuous conduct assumes that at heart we are decent, trustworthy and our fundamental nature is basically good. Therefore our behavior should (but often doesn’t) reflect this more fundamental sense of ourselves, that we are worthy to receive good things and enjoy our lives. Instead, we often secretly (or not so secretly) carry around a sense of not being comfortable with ourselves, not being good enough, that we are unworthy in some way, and that people will eventually discover our secret. This perception gets to the heart of self-esteem, and everyone shares this little secret to one extent or another.

Our approach to discipline begins from this dynamic. To use the example of attempting to lose weight, (but we could use any discipline-oriented behavior), we often begin with a feeling of unworthiness or just feeling bad about ourselves. This is often accompanied by self-destructive actions, and then we impose discipline on that part of ourselves to get rid of this bad feeling and replace it with better actions. We’d like to excise the bad behavior, and create a new way of behaving, without really acknowledging what is going on under the surface, to wit, that we’re not comfortable with ourselves.
We then add to the mix a very rigid concept of good and bad, and discipline often begins from this point of a clear schism between our so-called good self and bad self.

Genuine discipline on the other hand means accepting all parts of ourselves, even the yechy parts that we’re ashamed of and that bring up fear, and acting with gentleness and sympathy towards ourselves altogether. So eating well becomes an act of kindness to ourselves rather than something imposed on us to right a wrong. The behavior is the same in both cases, but they each come from a different place, a different attitude.

One of the reasons that diets only work temporarily is because the fundamental sense of who we are is often not addressed, so the same habitual patterns of feeling unworthy and anxious return again and again. In essence, the attempt to get rid of this pattern through brute force merely strengthens and reinforces it, in the same way that we strengthen a child’s tantrums by going loggerheads or giving into his or her demands. The pattern is finally broken when we acknowledge it and allow it plenty of space. Fundamentally, there is no problem with us that has to be “fixed”. We’re not broken, but we are fearful about who we are, about being ourselves.

Now it doesn’t really matter here whether we use Jenny Craig to help us lose weight or do it ourselves, the important point is to really tune into to how good and sane and synchronized we feel when our behavior reflects who we really are, namely decent, good and worthy human beings. Discipline is ultimately about synchronizing body and mind, whatever the behavior, whether it’s dieting, working out, doing laundry, parenting or putting together a huge business deal. When we do things wholeheartedly, for their own sake, and not simply to get rid of something that we dislike about ourselves, or to reach a specific goal, (although there’s nothing inherently wrong with goals), that is the essence of virtuous conduct, of discipline. When approached in this way, discipline feels delightful, and satisfying, because it is based on being gentle and genuine to ourselves, and being true to our inherent nature.

The opposite of this holistic approach to discipline is the example of someone working out on a treadmill while watching TV or reading the paper. The exercise is simply something to get through so we can get to the so-called good stuff, - body and mind are at odds, and the body is seen as a burden, almost like an unruly pet. Typically this type of discipline has meager results or falls apart completely. It might achieve the goal but leaves us feeling dissatisfied, because the real goal is how we relate to ourselves altogether. In reality, running feels good when done wholeheartedly, because synchronizing body and mind in the present moment brings a sense of feeling alive, vibrant and grounded. The ironic part of all this is that genuine discipline is the real source of freedom, because we’re free of the constant struggle to achieve some ideal future state where we’ll finally get to be happy.

____________
© 2005 Jeff Rubin