A Year of Metta

I have been pondering the metta sutta recently. For those of you not familiar with the teachings of the Buddha, metta can be translated in several different ways, but most commonly as lovingkindness. And a sutta is simply a teaching. So, the metta sutta is a teaching on lovingkindness delivered by the Buddha.

One of the things that led me to consider this sutta is that quirk of human character which makes all of us more or less selfish. I know this sounds like a criticism, but what I mean is that we are hardwired for survival of ourselves as organisms, and that while essentially no effort is required to think in this way, quite a bit of effort is required to think altruistically.

This fact is not a problem, really, at least not for the most part. Of course, taken to an extreme, this overarching philosophy is the source of all war and the degradation of the environment, since we tend to think rather narrowly about personal or tribal survival at the expense of more (literally and figuratively) global concern. But on a day to day basis, thinking in this way does not really create much havoc.

But it doesn't create much harmony, either, and I have been wondering if my own life and the lives of those around me might not be made considerably more harmonious if I focused my attention on ways of serving others as my first consideration. It's not that I'm some insensitive bastard in my accustomed mode, mind you, but I do find myself rather narrowly focused on what is going to get me through the day, rather than how I can make your life simpler or easier.

Thus the metta sutta. It seems to me that this simple teaching provides the guidance I need to make this shift in thinking and acting in the world.

One quick word on the name of this sutta. Metta can apparently be translated in several ways. I don't speak Pali, of course, but a teacher I trust (Christina Feldman) has chosen the term unconditional friendliness as the translation she prefers. She has said that the term love can be quite a loaded term for many of us, and kindness a bit vague. On the other hand, unconditional friendliness seems to her (and to me) very specific and describes a way of being in the world to which we can all aspire. Thus, from here on out, when I speak of metta, it is this translation I will use. You probably won't see me write the word lovingkindness in this blog for quite some time.

Not that I dislike the word itself, but I do feel it has become code for some sort of vague, warm, fuzzy feeling toward the whole world and all the creatures in it. I'm not sure that's what the Buddha had in mind. We can all generate happy thoughts about bunnies. What metta asks of us is much more stringent. Can you, it asks, feel unconditional friendliness toward everyone and everything? Toward nuclear reactors and ISIS? Toward those who practice hatred, greed, and violence? Toward people who have done the deepest damage to you in your life? Rather than the casual generation of good vibes, metta may well be among the hardest work any of us will ever do.

What I am proposing is to make metta the heart of my practice for a full year. I have taken such vows before (not metta vows, but others) and find that a year is a good test of my discipline. Also, after doing just about anything for a year, it usually becomes an integral part of who I am. That is the hope. Because I distrust the whole idea of New Year's resolutions (too often bogus, too often broken by January 15), I propose to begin this on Decmeber 1st, which is, of course, in a few days.

I'll keep you posted. In future posts, I will also write a bit more about the sutta itself so that you (and I along with you) can figure out a bit of what this vow means. What have I gotten myself into? I guess we'll see.

Observations IV

Yes, it's that time once again, time for me to put down in pixels the observations I have been collecting all year to share with my small but extraordinarily erudite audience. This is, as you no doubt astutely observed, the fourth iteration of this compendium. If you really have nothing better to do, follows the links to the first one, here's the second one, and here the third. Enjoy!

? I really hate it when I think I might be having an epiphany or an emotional breakthrough of some sort and it turns out that the barista gave me caffeinated shots instead of decaf. And...here comes the crash!

? It's a fun kind of strange to listen to the Yeah Yeah Yeahs while reading a Marilynne Robinson novel.

? Somewhat against my better judgment, I think Amazon Prime is pretty damn cool.

? I can't be the only one who thinks we need to declare it internationally illegal to refer to any and all scandals as "Something-gate". Watergate was over 40 years ago, folks. Time to find a new metaphor, already.

? It is also time to declare a moratorium on geese in poetry. A lovely metaphor the first couple hundred times, but no more, please, no more. I'm beggin' here.

? I know it's hardly an original observation, but the rudeness on all forms of transit (even my work shuttle) really is amazing. The young woman sitting next to me has her bag sitting next to her, so she and the bag take up 2/3 of the seat. Always makes me wonder what exactly people are thinking (if they are).

? If I change the spelling of cacophony to cacaphony does it mean confusedly talking shit?

? What's so magical about 10000 feet that I can do stuff in a plane there that I couldn't do at 9999?

? Why do airlines leave me alone from boarding to landing and then turn on the bad music?

? Why is it called "losing" your virginity?. I didn't lose mine. I know precisely where it got to.

? I have come to loathe all preference based on aggression, including seating on Amtrak and Southwest Airlines. And whether you sit or stand on the bus. Makes me feel like a shit if I participate and I often suffer if I don't.

? I find it very odd that some people are now routinely carrying their tablets to take photos.

? Your Fit Bit is lying to you. I know this will annoy the approximately four gazillion users of this gadget, but what you tell me it tells you does not align with reality, at least not in this universe.

? Why do so many of those pull down paper towels in public bathrooms only work well when your hands are dry?

? Why do fans so often have the high setting next to the off switch? Doesn't it make more sense to have the order be Off-Low-Medium-High?

? What are the ethical and traffic flow implications of merging into a lane as soon as you know you need to versus continuing on in the lane that is ending as long as you can? There seems to be an ongoing disagreement about this among drivers. I am one of the former, and used to think that the latter were just jerks, but now I wonder if they have a point and we are just wasting perfectly drive-able road by getting over so soon. Discuss.

? Two questions for baseball fans: if we can make a radical change like the infield defensive shift, why can't we abandon having the first baseman hold the runner on if that runner is of absolutely no risk to successfully steal a base? This practice leaves the whole right side of the infield vulnerable, and for what? Second question: maybe I am just doing the math wrong, but isn't making a diving catch almost always foolish? Is a single out really worth the risk of a bad injury that might take you out of the lineup for weeks or months? Yes, yes, if it's the last out of the World Series or will preserve a perfect game, dive away. But a routine inning with no one on base? Let that sucker drop, my friend. O.K., the rest of you can tune back in now.

? When did it become socially acceptable to play your loud music wherever and whenever you wish? This seems to be a recent phenomenon and from the few people I have asked to turn it down, it seems to be more than just a selfish whim. It feels more like some sort of deeply personal empowerment project. Did I miss the memo?

? I propose the formation of an organization, Seeking Civility In Social Media, S.C.I.S.M., pronounced "schism". Oh, don't worry, I know it's a lost cause. But wouldn't it be nice if there was a group of us serving as a soft voice reminding people that one may disagree without being disagreeable? That debate that seeks to exclude by invective all those who disagree is no debate at all, but leads only to back-patting, narrowly focused, self-reinforcing, delusional groups like the Tea Party and anti-vaccine zealots?

? Isn't it odd how heating water becomes silent just before it boils?

? Really? The brilliant founders of Google couldn't come up with a better name for their new parent company than Alphabet? Seriously?

? How do people who drive ice cream trucks keep from that music driving them crazy?

? I don't know about your town, but in mine, if you want to give something away, you leave it on the curb. Public service announcement: NO ONE wants any T.V. or monitor that's not a flat screen and most certainly do not want your potentially lice- or bedbug-ridden couch or mattress. No one. Take my word for it. Just get rid of them.

? I could not be more supportive of those who wish to leave their genders undefined, but it is, in my opinion, a linguistic crime for a person of this description to ask to be referred to by the plural pronouns they and them. It just doesn't work. Are we not clever enough to come up with something better?

OK, that's it for another year! Now the collection begins again for another episode in the long-running serial, Reid's Somewhat Interesting Observations. I'll bet you can hardly wait 'til next year! Thanks for reading.

Aspiration

I read an interesting article in the New York Times the other day, titled Can We End The Meditation Madness?. What the author objects to is that some people attribute to meditation things it cannot deliver and load it up with expectations of outcomes, while pushing others to join in the crusade. This can be a serious disservice to both meditation and the practitioner. I couldn't agree more.

On the other hand, it certainly isn't up to me or anyone else how one chooses to use meditation. It might even be useful, I suppose, in becoming a better thief or murderer. Meditation is a tool. I can use a crowbar to help build a house, to break into a house or to kill the householder. It is not the crowbar's fault if I choose to use it unskillfully.

This gets to the heart of something that is integral to Buddhist practice, but easily misunderstood: the characteristic of aspiration. This article addresses the difference skillfully. Aspiration, in the Buddhist sense (the translation of the Pali word sankappa), does not mean desiring, or focusing on a particular outcome. This last point is of great importance.

The problem with aspiring to an outcome in meditation is that we then feel we can determine whether or not our practice is successful or unsuccessful. We have criteria by which we can judge the experience. And, of course, this is fine if you choose to use this tool to do these things; reduce stress, for instance, or become more mindful. But one must realize that these are extremely short-term aspirations and have the potential to sell short the benefits of meditation. There is also a good chance that if the practice does not fulfill your expectations in a fairly brief period of time or (heaven forbid!) actually exacerbates the problem, you will abandon meditation altogether as a failure. To do so is to risk missing the view from the top of the mountain because there are a few rocks on the trail leading up to it.

Actually, it is quite common for meditation, when done correctly, to add to your stress and struggle. This happens because you are systematically removing the blinders from your experience. As such, it's not that difficulties increase but that your awareness of them is greater. Which is actually a gift, because it is only to those things of which you are aware you can apply the principles that will give you freedom from them.

Once again, though, I must say that it is not for anyone to determine how you use these tools. Jon Kabat-Zinn, for one, has made a career of teaching mindfulness-based stress reduction and has helped many people to come to a place of peace with what is going on in their lives. I wish him and his acolytes all the best, and hope for them that this leads to joy. But this would not be enough for me. I am in this thing for the long haul (in the Buddhist cosmology it may even take several lifetimes). That's OK with me. I understand that true stress reduction comes with the wisdom derived from long-term practice of these ways of being in the world. I know that peace of mind is not the outcome of 15 minutes on a cushion, but of a lifetime of practice and study and aspiration to becoming one among the many Bodhisattvas who seek enlightenment in the hope that we can bring joy and harmony to all sentient beings and the entire universe. I know, this seems like something beyond the possible, and so it is if thought of as something achievable by one person in a single lifetime, not to mention in just a few days, weeks, or months. But even to merely point our hearts and minds in that direction is to move toward peace and well-being for all. Surely, that is something worthy to which we can aspire.

Follow me on Twitter

Just a quick note that you can now follow this blog on Twitter, should you choose to do so. It is @buddhawasntfat. Do it today! Tell your friends!

Did I Mention That The Buddha Wasn't A Fat Guy?

This is the last post in a three-part series about the food choices I am making and how that all fits in with everything else in my life (big topic!). The first part is here and the second here. You might want to read those to make more sense of what I am writing about in this post.

I am not suffering, I hope that is evident. I remember before I gave up other of my addictions (alcohol and tobacco in particular), one of the primary reasons I gave myself for not wanting to stop was that I would no longer have any fun, that these things were what gave me pleasure and without them my life would be dull and featureless. I felt much the same way about my food indulgences.

I was just speaking with someone yesterday who was curious about what I ate and I began to list off the things which I no longer consume: alcohol, drugs, tobacco, caffeine, sugar and all sweeteners, almost any processed food, nearly all fried food, meat, gluten, and most oils other than olive oil. I eat dairy sparingly. What a  bore my eating life must be!

But it isn't. Just as with alcohol and tobacco, I was kidding myself that these foods gave me pleasure. I should also point out that I did not give these things up all at once. I have been a vegetarian for nearly 20 years. I quit smoking 25 years ago, drinking 16. I haven't indulged in any drugs for even longer. And every choice I made regarding these things was made from a desire to avoid suffering. I have no impulse to be a purist, I really don't. But each of these had in some way or another caused me pain or difficulty.

As mentioned in an earlier post, one of the magical moments in following the elimination part of this dietary plan is the discovery, when foods are added back, how much they have been causing difficulties. My sister-in-law, who is also following this plan, went through a particularly stressful event not long ago and decided to treat herself to some ice cream. A lot of ice cream. Though previously she would not have attributed the consequences to the sugar therein, she had given it up entirely prior to this and knew that the body aches and pains and other bodily struggles had to be because of it. It was for her a revelatory moment.

But here is the most important thing: I am enjoying eating more than I ever have. In the absence of sweeteners, fresh fruits and vegetables taste more flavorful than ever. Grain salads (gluten-free, of course) are delicious to me. A dish full of (sugar-free) yogurt is a treat. A slice of good cheese is a delight. I made an eggplant Parmesan the other day that was to die for. I don't miss chips or ice cream (well, not much, anyway), chai tea lattes, donuts, cakes, pies, or cookies. I don't miss the digestive issues, the body aches, the tiredness, the malaise, the hangovers of indulgence. I feel better than I have in years. And I am no longer a fat guy.

And isn't this the very nature of what the Buddha meant when he talked about the end of suffering? At one point he said (I am paraphrasing) that what we believe gives us pleasure is precisely what causes suffering and what we believe causes suffering is what leads to freedom, which is the ultimate pleasure. While we pursue the short-term satisfaction of desire, we remove from our lives all possibility of Nirvana, which is not a place but a state of being that can only be found through concerted effort. But this effort is not that of conforming to a certain ideal. Rather, it is an internal investigation to find what is true for each of us. What Dharma means, after all, is Truth. And the only way we can find this Truth is to look closely at what causes us to suffer and what causes those around us to suffer.

I know this all doesn't sound like much fun. I wish I could convey to you more clearly that it is, in fact, the ultimate joy. It is as if we are surrounded by beauty and looking down at the dirt wishing for beauty. All we need to do is look up. Look up.

The Buddha Still Wasn't A Fat Guy

I promised last time I wrote that I would return to the subject of the Precepts and how they apply to my (at this point successful) effort to lose weight and get to a healthier place in my relationship to food. If you have not done so yet, you might want to go back and read that previous post, because this one will make a whole lot more sense if you do.

The last of the Precepts the Buddha taught was that of avoiding intoxicants. We don't usually think of foods as intoxicants, that is, as things that create a literal state of intoxication. A few words about definitions, then:

• In the Buddhist sense, intoxication might not even be the right word. I can't read Pali, so I have no idea how the original word or words might be translated. But I interpret an intoxicant to be anything that diverts you from the ability to pursue your ultimate fulfillment (whatever that may be). This can also be something that does not affect you physically at all, such as intoxicating scents or music. And many foods—even healthy ones—can be used to mask our emotional states, which is another form of intoxication.
  
• As mentioned in the last post, the root word for intoxicant also means poison. In the broadest sense, then, an intoxicant could be anything that treats your body badly or causes you to abuse or not fully support it.
• Intoxication is not necessarily an event. Intoxication can occur over a long period of time and, as such, you may not even be aware of its effects until it stops.
• However, intoxication is a state, at least in the way I am thinking of it. The Precept says that we avoid intoxicants, but I think it is more accurate to say that we avoid intoxication. Though monks and nuns entirely eschew alcohol and all drugs, this is not necessarily the standard by which modern, Western lay practitioners (and their teachers) would judge intoxication. In other words, that occasional glass of wine is not generally seen as an intoxicant under those circumstances.

But, what does this have to do with food? Well, here's the thing. About that third point above: I think we have become entirely inured to the effects of certain food choices and have taken for granted that the harm they do is incidental to the pleasure we get from them. But this is actually far from being the case. Everything we put into our bodies has an effect, some of it desirable, but with many of them not. Especially in this world of highly processed, sugary foods, we are ingesting unimaginable amounts of stuff and much of it is doing us harm, whether subtle or more serious we can't always know.

Now, here's where we get into really touchy territory, and I want to proceed carefully. While talking about these issues, I have found that most people are very protective of their right to eat whatever they choose. Please hear me loud and clear: it is not now nor has it ever been my intent to judge or change anyone else's behavior around food. God knows, I have had to free myself from a huge number of intoxicants over the years, including alcohol, drugs, and nicotine, and I never once benefited from someone telling me that I was a bad person or was doing a bad thing. So, please don't think that what I am about to say is a judgment on what you choose to eat. It's all just information I have gleaned from my experience with this.

One of the primary tools of the Abascal Way and of any plan that aims to help you make wise choices about what you eat is the elimination diet, wherein you eliminate all those foods that might cause you to have a harmful reaction. The problem with the day-to-day ingestion of these foods is that the inflammation and other ill effects are often happening at such a low level they are not immediately noticeable. Or, they have been happening for so long that we simply consider them to be a normal part of our lives (joint and back pain being a prime example for those of us over 40). An elimination diet takes these out of our consumption for long enough for these effects to go away. You then add them back in one at a time to see which might cause you to react negatively. In this way, for example, my wife and I both discovered that we don't do all that well with gluten. We love our bread, but gluten was causing problems we never realized.

Another example (and here I move with trepidation) is sugar. I know, I know, every single person to whom I have ever mentioned this food plan has gone along with me right up until I say, "Oh, and by the way, sugar is simply gone forever. No more sugar", at which point they want nothing more to do with me. But, as much as I never wanted to admit it to myself, after eliminating it and then trying a little bit again, I am entirely convinced that sugar is an intoxicant. Our bodies are not designed to process sugar in such a refined form, and our bodily reactions are both predictable and negative. It creates inflammation and kicks you into a biochemical state from which your body has difficulty recovering. It also creates a craving for more of the same, so if you are not meticulous (and more highly disciplined than I am) you will continue consuming it, which will exacerbate the ill effects and set up a cycle of ever-increasing harm.

These effects are no joke. Sugar is a major player in the epidemics of both obesity and diabetes around the world, and these two conditions also predispose one to heart disease and stroke, not to mention many other inflammatory-induced harmful states such as arthritis and other body pain. All that from a doughnut? Sadly, yes. At least, that's how I read the evidence that is accumulating around the consumption of sugar. Don't believe me? Eliminate sugar (by which I mean ALL sweeteners of any sort—yep, no stevia, either. Nope, no honey, sorry) for three weeks and then eat some again. To make this a fair trial, you should eat a substantial amount of it when you add it back or else the effects might be too subtle to notice and you will assume they are not present. Believe me, you will feel the pain.

And the damn stuff is everywhere, have you noticed? Have you tried to buy a salad dressing without sugar lately? Good luck. It's even in most commercially produced soups, though God knows why, and nearly all microwaveable foods.

But all is not lost! When I write again, let me tell you about the joys we have found in consuming foods that do not cause all of these reactions. Because, even though I have a long list of foods (and other substances) I am no longer consuming, I enjoy eating more than ever. It turns out we don't even know what we're missing when we turn to intoxicants to feed us both physically and emotionally.

The Buddha Wasn't A Fat Guy

This blog began as a meditation on being overweight and what it means (if anything) in relation to my belief in the Dharma, which is the collected teachings of the Buddha and his followers.

And then, last week, I reached my goal weight. My path to that point both was and was not the one I anticipated, but I have, somehow, arrived there. Even I am a bit surprised by this, especially that in the end it seemed to happen almost without my accord, as a desirable side effect to a completely different effort regarding food.

Let me explain: the proximal reason I have been able to lose the weight I have been seeking for years to lose is The Abascal Way (which I wrote about here and also here). Rather than a dietary plan, this really is a philosophical rethinking of one's relationship to food. This accords well with what I have been writing about here for years. But Kathy Abascal has coalesced a way of regarding our issues around food into a practical, down-to-earth guide.

But here's the thing: it is one thing to know that one ought to eat a certain way in order to feel better and quite another to pull it off. I hasten to say that this is not a way of bragging that I have succeeded where others have failed or that I am stronger or more disciplined than anyone else (you only have to read any randomly chosen half dozen of my entries here to see that I clearly am not). So, what made the difference and continues to make the difference for me?

Upfront, I want to say that a primary driver is the fact that I simply feel much better: fewer aches and pains. Abascal's primary focus is not weight or even food, per se—rather, her emphasis is on bringing the inflammation in our bodies under control, which leads to more comfort (less joint pain and the internal results of inflammation). Because part of this is regulating your body's insulin and other hormonal cycles more effectively, weight loss is a (nearly) inevitable consequence.

But why else have I been able to resist the urge to stray from this dietary plan when so many plans and hopes and schemes before have failed me? I am convinced that a large part of my willingness to stick to it stems from my study of the Dharma and from other spiritual disciplines that, in the end, are only tangentially about food or body weight. I find that one of the most potent forms of spiritual guidance I have are the Five Precepts (which I wrote about more extensively here). For the purposes of this post, let me just say that each of the Precepts—to avoid killing, stealing, sexual harm, harmful speech, and intoxication—is a training in the morality of purpose that points not just to being a Good Person, a status to which most of us aspire, but which can infiltrate our lives in ways that are unexpected and unexpectedly rich. This occurs because each opens us up to a broader understanding of our place in the world and our ability to influence that world for the better. In particular, the Precepts each correspond to a quality we can actively cultivate—in order, those of compassion, generosity, responsibility, kindness, and clarity. These are not simple things, and an aspiration is entirely inadequate to their cultivation. Rather, what is required is a long and sustained devotion coupled with a willingness to repeatedly fail and begin again.

In particular, I find the Precept to avoid intoxicants a cogent one. To begin with, I am an alcoholic, so this has a deeper meaning than it may for others. (On the other hand, it's also a great deal simpler for me, since I am obligated to refrain from all intoxicants—that little glass of wine or puff of marijuana are not for me, whereas for others these might not lead to true intoxication).

But this Precept has (as they all do) layers upon layers of meaning. I like to reflect on the fact that the Latin root of the word intoxication simply means "poison" (in Spanish, one of the word for poisoning is intoxicado). Of course, most of us have the wisdom not to knowingly swallow strychnine, but we take into our bodies many things that we know to be harmful to us, that we believe will give us pleasure, peace, and an surcease of pain.

I think I have gone on long enough for today, though. I will expand upon this a bit further the next time I write.