It's OK to feel alright. Yes, I know, the world is a mess. I am aware that I have not always been the best person in the world. The question isn't whether or not I deserve to feel alright, whether I deserve to feel joy and happiness. The question really is, what end does it serve for me to feel anything other than perfectly fine? It really is entirely justified for us to feel at peace with life; in fact, it is the only way it is constructive to be. Our anger, our frustration, our self-blame, our doubt, our despair—these are not useful. They feel useful, I will grant you. They feel as if they are the only way to be in the face of everything that is going on in the world and many of the things that have gone on in our lives.
What does the Buddha have to say? One of his primary responses was teachings on the brahma viharas. Now, let me say something first about this term, brahma vihara. This is usually translated as "divine abode". Both the Pali term and the translation, though, make these seem as if they are something remote and esoteric. But we must never forget that the Buddha was above all a pragmatic teacher, so let's delve a bit further.
Brahmas were, indeed, divine beings. Vihara simply means a dwelling or a secluded place to walk. So, the term means "where the brahmas hang out". But the Buddha was using the term to try to evoke a particular understanding in his listeners. In that era, he could safely assume that those he was teaching would like nothing better than to live where the brahmas lived. In our era, a somewhat successful analogy might be "heaven", if to you that means a particularly desirable place. In any case, I believe the best translation of brahma vihara is "a really great place to live your life." The Buddha was hoping his students would want to spend as much time as they could with these states of being.
The brahma viharas are compassion, sympathetic joy, openheartedness, and equanimity. (Let me leap right in and admit that I have used the term "openheartedness" in place of the usual "lovingkindness". Two of my teachers have pointed out that love is a very loaded word and this was not really the intent of the original term, metta. Rather, the Buddha hoped that we would be able to extend our hearts to as many of our fellow creatures as we can manage, thus the term "openheartedness").
Compassion is the "quivering of the heart" felt in response to another's pain. Sympathetic joy is the flip side of this emotion, a quivering of the heart in response to the joy or success another feels. Openheartedness is the ability to keep all beings in your heart, no matter what. Equanimity is the quality which keeps all these in balance without letting them overcome you.
I bring all this up because last weekend it came to me as something of an insight while on a non-residential retreat with Sharon Salzberg that I often act as if there was some virtue in feeling bad. There isn't. It may sometimes be inevitable (grief, pain, sadness) and even useful in leading us into ways of deepening compassion, empathy and openheartedness. But don't we all tend to think (at least sometimes) that because we have from time to time been unskillful we deserve to feel ashamed or that it is only through this shame we shall become purified? Don't we all sometimes believe that we have no right to joy when people are living with war, starvation, lack of clean water, disease, and institutional abuse? Yet these are not only utterly untrue but destructive. We cannot increase the well-being of others through increasing our own suffering. Let me be very clear about this: you will not help yourself, the world, or other beings by feeling negative toward yourself.
Of course, we must also aver that it is also alright to not feel OK. It is not that there is any problem with feeling badly, but our tendency to believe that this is somehow inherently meritorious. It is interesting, isn't it, how self-pity, self-doubt, self-hatred, self-blame and self-examination all begin with Self. How can we act in the best interest of others if we are so thoroughly engaged in such selfish pursuits?
What does the Buddha have to say? One of his primary responses was teachings on the brahma viharas. Now, let me say something first about this term, brahma vihara. This is usually translated as "divine abode". Both the Pali term and the translation, though, make these seem as if they are something remote and esoteric. But we must never forget that the Buddha was above all a pragmatic teacher, so let's delve a bit further.
Brahmas were, indeed, divine beings. Vihara simply means a dwelling or a secluded place to walk. So, the term means "where the brahmas hang out". But the Buddha was using the term to try to evoke a particular understanding in his listeners. In that era, he could safely assume that those he was teaching would like nothing better than to live where the brahmas lived. In our era, a somewhat successful analogy might be "heaven", if to you that means a particularly desirable place. In any case, I believe the best translation of brahma vihara is "a really great place to live your life." The Buddha was hoping his students would want to spend as much time as they could with these states of being.
The brahma viharas are compassion, sympathetic joy, openheartedness, and equanimity. (Let me leap right in and admit that I have used the term "openheartedness" in place of the usual "lovingkindness". Two of my teachers have pointed out that love is a very loaded word and this was not really the intent of the original term, metta. Rather, the Buddha hoped that we would be able to extend our hearts to as many of our fellow creatures as we can manage, thus the term "openheartedness").
Compassion is the "quivering of the heart" felt in response to another's pain. Sympathetic joy is the flip side of this emotion, a quivering of the heart in response to the joy or success another feels. Openheartedness is the ability to keep all beings in your heart, no matter what. Equanimity is the quality which keeps all these in balance without letting them overcome you.
I bring all this up because last weekend it came to me as something of an insight while on a non-residential retreat with Sharon Salzberg that I often act as if there was some virtue in feeling bad. There isn't. It may sometimes be inevitable (grief, pain, sadness) and even useful in leading us into ways of deepening compassion, empathy and openheartedness. But don't we all tend to think (at least sometimes) that because we have from time to time been unskillful we deserve to feel ashamed or that it is only through this shame we shall become purified? Don't we all sometimes believe that we have no right to joy when people are living with war, starvation, lack of clean water, disease, and institutional abuse? Yet these are not only utterly untrue but destructive. We cannot increase the well-being of others through increasing our own suffering. Let me be very clear about this: you will not help yourself, the world, or other beings by feeling negative toward yourself.
Of course, we must also aver that it is also alright to not feel OK. It is not that there is any problem with feeling badly, but our tendency to believe that this is somehow inherently meritorious. It is interesting, isn't it, how self-pity, self-doubt, self-hatred, self-blame and self-examination all begin with Self. How can we act in the best interest of others if we are so thoroughly engaged in such selfish pursuits?
No comments:
Post a Comment