The Ultimate culture.

Some time ago I wrote a post where I explored Plato’s PNC

—Principle of non-contradiction and suggested how it seems to make sense that no two things can exist in the same place at the same time. The outgrowth of this principle has unarguably created the view that mutual discretion is a fact of life. You are you and I am me and neither of us can be in the same place at the same time. Consequently, the logical outgrowth of the PNC turns out to be alienation and self-service at the expense of others and this basic notion manifests in various ways across the spectrum of culture.

The alternative to the PNC is that two dissimilar things always exist in the same place at the same time. How can such an obvious conundrum be true? To answer this question we must understand a principle of truth established by The Buddha and later articulated by Nagarjuna who lived roughly 500 years after the death of The Buddha. He is credited with many elaborations of The Buddha’s teachings, especially the Prajñāpāramitā Sutra (Perfection of Transcendent Wisdom).  Importantly he is also credited with establishing the Two Truth Doctrine. Both of these say that indeed two dissimilar things do exist in the same place at the same time. In point of fact were it not so then nothing whatsoever could exist.

The primary message of both of these teachings is dependent origination: Form (everything perceptible and conditional) is equal to śūnyatā (emptiness or the realm of unconditionality): the direct opposite of conditional life. They must exist together since emptiness is the eternal wellspring of everything. Said in other terms, everything is united in this unconditional realm. Since it is unconditional there can’t be any discrimination, judgment, or duality of any kind.

This realm is called by many names: Buddha-Nature, Unity, God, etc. The name is not important since any and all names are abstractions of something transcendent to articulation. And furthermore, even though it is imperceptible, this realm is pervasive and ubiquitous—it inhabits all of creation. When Jesus said “the Father is in me,and I in the Father” he was stating the highest truth. What we fail to consider is that this unification is true for all of us. Just preceding this statement Jesus also said, “…“Is it not written in your Law ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he (God) called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside…”

We are going through the throws of cultural death because we doubt this message of unconditional divine incarnation. Dependent origination demands that nothing can exist without the fusion of opposites to create wholeness. The opposite of conditional discrimination is unconditional nondiscrimination and these two inhabit all life (one part of which is us) so the notion of the PNC is not only untrue, it is impossible.

A philosophy is a mental fabrication designed to come close to truth but this is truth itself and when anyone stands against truth the cosmos gets really mad and produces what none of us wants—suffering. And it makes no difference whether we are talking about a single individual, a culture or the entire universe. Everything is only one unconditional, indescribable non-thing. You and I are One. We are united and to damage you is the same thing as damaging myself, and the opposite. Unconditional love is the fundamental truth of the universe and that is a much better plan than the PNC for all cultures. 

Mindfull—Mindless

“Too much mind”—The advice given to Captain Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise) in the movie The Last Samurai. Algren fled to Japan, thinking he could leave his distress behind. In the early days of his stay, he is trying to drown his misery in booze. His despair resulted from his participation in the mass slaughter in the American Indian wars. And during this time of anguish, he becomes captured by a band of Samurai warriors where he has no choice but to come to terms with his demons. In the process, he learns the Samurai way and gets beaten repeatedly before he can let go. Slowly he begins to understand: “Too much mind.”

The way of the Samurai arose in direct response to the rise of Zen in Japan. And the practice of Japanese Zen arose from the teachings of Bodhidharma in China. There’s a famous story of a conversation that occurred between Bodhidharma and his student Huike. One day Huike came to Bodhidharma and said: “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.” Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.” Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.” Bodhidharma replied, “There, I have pacified your mind.” On hearing this, Huike became enlightened.

When we hear that story, our rational mind becomes confused. How, we think, can we have too much mind yet somehow pacification happens by not finding it? That requires some non-thought to comprehend, yet when we really understand, we also might become enlightened.

The problem is we think. The solution is not thinking. I know that sounds puzzling, but here is the Rosetta Stone answer: Our real mind is always at peace and enlightened, and our thinking mind is perpetually restless and unenlightened. What we believe is our mind is not our mind because our real mind is the source of thinking and not thinking but is itself neither. Our true mind is transcendent and can’t possibly be one or the other since it is the source of both. There is no discrimination in our true mind, so it can’t be one thing vs. another. And our true mind contains nothing, yet everything comes from there. It is an “everything nothing mind.” On the one hand, empty yet full at the same time.

When Captain Algren finally gets it, he is no longer roped in by his thinking, but instead, he is just there, at which point he stops losing and becomes a true warrior. In the Japanese form of Zen, there is a saying: Mushin, Shin. “Mu” means nothing (emptiness), and “shin” means thinking mind, so putting this together means that when we lose our thinking (rational) mind we find our true (transcendent) mind (Shin). Of course, the mind that is being lost is not really our mind but rather is our thoughts and emotions, which obscure and hide our true mind: The source of all thought. It is neither thought nor non-thought. Do you get it? If you really do understand, then you too might be enlightened, unless you start thinking about it. Then you must lose that as well. So just go crazy and lose your mind.

The illusion of you and me.

The shadow of self or the reality casting the shadow?

The tenet of “no self” has been a fundamental, defining loadstone of Buddhism since the very beginning. The term originally used for self/ego was “anatman” and the contention surrounding this matter was divided between those who argued for self vs. those who argued the opposite anatman (self vs. no-self). It boiled down to the issue of any phenomenal thing possessing an independent nature. Closely aligned with this argument was the understanding that all things were empty (of independent essence). In other words, everything could only exist dependently, thus the principle of dependent origination.

This argument stood for a long time until Nagarjuna came along with his Two Truth Doctrine in which he laid out his understanding of what the Buddha had taught, culminating with the Middle Way which expressed the Buddha’s conclusion of, “Not this (atman). Not that (anatman). Neither not (atman). Neither not (anatman).” 

The importance of this conclusion is significant and profound but unfortunately seems to be a broadly unresolved matter. What Nagarjuna said in his Two Truth Doctrine was that there is a difference between the conventional, discriminate view (the common-sense view) and the sublime, indiscriminate view (ultimate truth) and that no one could be set free unless they experienced the sublime.

In the 8th-century an Indian Buddhist philosopher by the name of Śāntideva said that in order to be able to deny something, we first have to know what it is we’re denying. The logic of that is peerless. He went on to say: 

“Without contacting the entity that is imputed. You will not apprehend the absence of that entity.” In a similar manner the Lankavatara Sutra (a Mahayana favorite of Bodhidharma) addressed the issue of one vs. another with this: 

“In this world whose nature is like a dream, there is place for praise and blame, but in the ultimate Reality of Dharmakāya (our true transcendent mind of wisdom) which is far beyond the senses and the discriminating mind, what is there to praise?”

The wisdom of emptiness and dependent origination ultimately reduces down to there being no difference between form and emptiness. They are one and the same thing: two sides of the same coin. One side perceptible (phenomena); the other side beyond perception (noumena). There have been numerous terms used as alternates for noumena ranging from Buddha-Nature, Dharmakāya, the Void, Ground of being and the preference by Zen and Yogācāra was Mind—primordial mind (not the illusion of mind nor the illusion of self vs. no self). In this state of mind there is no discrimination—all is unified, whole and complete, so there can be no difference between one thing and another thing.

Huang Po (Japanese—Obaku; 9th century China) was particularly lucid in his teaching about these terms. In the Chün Chou Record he said this:

“To say that the real Dharmakāya (the Absolute) of the Buddha resembles the Void is another way of saying that the Dharmakāya is the Void and that the Void is the Dharmakāya...they are one and the same thing...When all forms are abandoned, there is the Buddha...the void is not really void, but the realm of the real Dharma. This spiritually enlightening nature is without beginning...this great Nirvanic nature is Mind; Mind is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the Dharma.”

The Yogācārians took this to the logical conclusion and stated that everything was mind. You are mind. I am mind. The entire universe is nothing but mind. This, however, did not resolve the matter, and 2,500 years later the issue of atman vs. anatman remains unresolved. The Middle Way remains a matter of contention. Consequently there exist today three kinds of Buddhist practice: The kind that dogmatically clings to self, a second that dogmatically clings to no self and a third that says, “Not atman. Not anatman. Neither not atman. Neither not anatman.” 

In the end you will only know when you experience the sublime. Then the argument will come to an end and you’ll never be able to convey your answer. That is the ultimate test, “…far beyond the senses and the discriminating mind, what is there to praise (or blame)?”

Infinite us.

We have a vision problem. We can see some things and not others. And naturally, we assume that what we see is the true you and me. 

That detectible is the objective part of us. We can touch, feel, see, and perceive it in every way our sensory faculties allow. That part is finite. It is born, it grows, and ultimately dies. That objective aspect has an imaginary identity, and we define and clothe it in a nearly unlimited set of configurations. We cherish such configurations and use them to represent us. We group these configurations into common frameworks in order to feel comfortable with others who choose similar arrangements, and we call this grouping, “flocking together with birds of a feather.” These birds love to fight other birds that don’t look the same.

This is the ordinary way of understanding ourselves in relation to others, and there is an unseen problem here because nothing objective possesses sentient qualities. A stone is a pure object. So is a blade of grass. Neither of these (and many other examples) has sentient qualities of consciousness, at least as far as we know, but we do. All animate beings have both sentient qualities and consciousness. These are the faculties that differentiate us from pure objects, and these are what make us human. But neither consciousness nor sentient dimensions can be seen because this is what is doing the seeing.

There are two parts of us, which are completely integrated into a single human being. One part is seen. One part is seeing. One part is infinitely different and seen, and the other part is infinitely the same and unseen. One part is finite, and one part is infinite. The true you and the true me is never born and never dies, but the other part does both. We’re told we now share the earth with 7 billion very different objective human bodies, and yet on another level, there is only a single, just-like-everyone-else infinite us. It’s a profound mystery.

Where is it?

For reasons I may never understand, I’ve been fascinated by how things fit together and the effect they have on each other. Until well into adult life, I didn’t realize this fascination had names or related names. 

Most times, we are poorly equipped to know how we know what we know or even if anyone else is looking at life in similar ways. My awareness of such terms as ontology, epistemology, and cybernetics came slowly. But I found a particular interest in the latter. 

Cybernetics is basically the examination of systems and is most applicable when a system being analyzed is involved in a closed signaling loop; that is, where action by the system generates some change in its environment and that change is reflected in the system in some manner (feedback) that triggers a system change, initially referred to as a circular causal relationship.

As I considered this discipline, I began to wonder about that requirement (e.g., a closed signaling loop). What if, instead of a closed-loop, it was an open-loop without beginning or ending? What if it had no defining limits? How might the system work then? Would that be a meta-system—a network of systems? The matter, from an intellectual perspective, intrigued me, but I set the issue aside for many years until I hit the wall emotionally about 35 years ago. 

In the 17^th century, Japanese Zen Master Hakuin Ekaku wrote his famous poem, The Song of Zazen, within which he said, “How near the truth, yet how far we seek. Like one in water crying, ‘I thirst!’ Like the son of a rich man wandering poor on this earth we endlessly circle the six worlds. The cause of our sorrow is ego delusion.” 

I realize, given conventional wisdom, this view is unorthodox but so what? In truth, it isn’t even a singularly Buddhist perspective. Jesus, when referring to the kingdom of God, said pretty much the same thing in the Gnostic Gospels.

To fathom my dilemma, I plunged then into the ocean of Zen and finally came to a critical realization: there was no real closed-loop, except the one I imagined. And how was it possible to imagine something unimaginable? Without some concrete, objective measurement, such a state of mind is fantastic. In fact, it couldn’t be imagined at all, just experienced, which is essentially what “awakening” really entails—to experience your fantastical self—the real one beyond imagination.

But initially, this awakening was like finding myself in a vast cosmic ocean with no compass or identifying properties. And frankly, it was both scary and fascinating at the same time. I struggled to find ways to adequately articulate the experience but never came close. Nevertheless, I started reading and found some resonance in what the Buddha had said. He asserted that external reality is an illusion that looks very real, like a closed system with feedback loops.

Furthermore, we found ourselves in this objective box, unaware that it was our true selves that were creating and watching from beyond the box. The external illusion had objective properties that kept changing, and not aware of anything beyond the illusion; we defined ourselves by clinging to these “unreal” objects. According to The Buddha, that clinging (and inevitable loss) was at the heart of suffering.

This simultaneous in and out sense of being, came to be known as dependent origination: one side arising and disappearing with the other side. It took both the in and the out, but Buddhist doctrine said that it was the out, indefinable yet real, unconditional consciousness. It was sort of like potential and kinetic energy. Potential consciousness had no limits (nor could it be identified), but consciousness became objective and kinetic through a sensory application. Thus our sense of self arose, and we “became” by thought and deed. Until then, we were pure consciousness, absolute emptiness itself. In Buddhist terms: the void/The Buddha.

The Buddha said the mind can’t exist without external phenomena, nor could external phenomena exist outside of the mind. Everything was enclosed within the unlimited province of the true mind. The Buddha stated, “Within this fathom long body is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the path leading to the cessation of the world.” We keep trying to find our minds and never succeed. And why is that? We can’t find it since wherever we look, there is mind. Eternity, in infinite configuration, is mind. It is impossible to be outside since all is mind, which is another name for sentience.

If we can set aside our religious conditioning, we will realize just how similar this is to the Parable of the Prodigal Son. And the point? We suffer because we don’t know we are already where we desire to be, but the truth is hidden by our illusory sense of self. When we lose that delusion, at the same time, we awaken to our true self: unconditional consciousness—the same knowing that Jesus spoke of, and we suddenly realize where we are: in the Kingdom of God.

Crystal ball gazing.

Everyone agrees that seeing the future is speculative at best, but we lull ourselves with the fruit of the exercise anyway. Economists, politicians, poets, and regular people all play the game of crystal ball gazing and many fall prey to actually believing their wishful projections. 

Once we have persuaded our self of a perspective it is inordinately hard to undo our vested positions. Then the whole world needs to reinforce positions taken. Do you want to know why this doesn’t work very well? It’s for two reasons: (1) lack of internal research and (2) the lack of being aware of unintended consequences. Let’s look at these two in tandem.

Internal research: For this we need to equip ourselves with a rear-view mirror and take a hard look at where we’ve been. It isn’t hard, but it does require losing the blinders and look dispassionately at the choices we’ve made and the ensuing benefits and consequences. There’s a path back there that is unavoidably clear if we can let go of justifying our past actions and playing the tired canard game of blame. 

When all of those fabrications are thrown aside, and we can stop the desire to be right at all cost, we can learn something of value about how to avoid repeating the same mistakes that created havoc. If we can’t do that then we’ll keep on doing the same thing and get the same dissatisfying outcome (our futures).

There’s a reason why we can’t see our future. The reason is because we haven’t yet made choices. When we make choices the outcome follows suit. Make different choices and we get a different outcomes. Sometimes we seem to be slow learners. Cause and effect are peerless. Push this button, you get this result. Why is that so hard to fathom? Apparently it is because collectively we seem doomed to repeated patterns of egotistical stupidity, unable to see that common choices lead to common outcomes. If we want a better future it will only happen when we make better choices now.

Unintended consequences: In spite of our best internal research and dispassionate assessment, life is complicated and stuff happens beyond our control. Not only do we make choices that affect others, so likewise do others make choices that affect us. We are in process and will know better tomorrow, things we can only learn by making mistakes today. That’s the way everyone learns. Nobody gets a rain check to put off today what life brings our way from choices we have already made. Come back tomorrow and the opportunities for learning yesterday’s lessons have passed us by.

If we miss that boat, stuff happens anyway. Now consequences of non-action sweep over us. This idea of not choosing, is a death trap. A choice to not choose is still a choice. There is no such thing as sitting on the sidelines, uninvolved while we wait for the world to emerge. We are the world and the world answers our beckon call. 

People may say, “I’m praying. That’s enough.” No it isn’t enough. The unenfleshed manifestations of thought or divine infusion, left in the brain cells means nothing. Thought and prayer, as good as they may be, are just water priming the pump. Good thoughts or good prayers are worthless unless we do something. Praying while the world burns around us is an excuse that results in a disintegrating life and a disintegrating world. 

If we don’t act each moment of today there are new challenges to deal with the next moment. In each and every passing moment, we have an amazing opportunity to create. The challenge is that the ingredients we have to work with are always new and fresh. The recipes of the past no longer apply because the ingredients keep changing.

We do make errors and consequences flow from them. We don’t have the luxury of do-overs. All that we can do is forgive ourselves and others, learn from what we did wrong (if anything) and make better choices. That’s enough.

Crystal ball gazing is either a productive or a destructive endeavor. If we are wise we’ll learn from our mistakes (everyone makes them). If we don’t learn we’ll have new opportunities, and the ones that emerge will be precisely the ones we ourselves have created either by choosing wisely for the benefit of all or ones we choose for selfish reasons. The latter will come back to bite us in the future that we ourselves have created.

Going and Coming

Growing up, life was simpler and didn’t require thinking too much about my place, or my country’s place in the world. 

That was a long time ago and much has changed. Now life is not so simple and requires much thinking about both matters. Nothing should be assumed anymore, not even the nature of our existence.

I tend to see things through a philosophical lens and want to understand how disparate pieces fit together. What I’m about to write now follows that tendency and starts very, very small and simple but gets quite big, and important (at least to me). I’ll wax on, seemingly to nowhere important, and then state some obvious and important matters to consider.

When I look out upon the universe (very big) I, and everyone else, can perceive and understand things due to a simple construction, which we call discrimination—the ability to discern differences. We can only know and understand anything because of this. Up and down define one another. Same thing for In and Out, Light and Dark, one person compared to another person; a piece of steak vs. a hamburger. If there were no differences (say just a void and endless space) nobody could discern or understand anything at all, first of all, because we wouldn’t exist and secondly because we must have contrast and difference to make sense of anything and everything.

If you wanted to sum up this matter you could do so with two very simple concepts: context and contents and then this principle called dependent origination. The first of these demands that everything (contents) exists within a context. Both can, and do, change all the time. As you travel in your car from point A to point B you are moving through space/time. Mr. Einstein helped us to see that space and time are locked together as a single thing, rather than two separate things: space/time. 

As we move toward point A the scenery is changing and so is the car. Maybe you don’t notice the car changing at the moment but I assure you if you compared your now car to your same, yet future car 20 years from now, you’d see the changes clearly. All of us experience the same thing. If you have any doubts about that, try going to your 50^th High School Reunion. Everything (all contents) is changing constantly but we presume that nothing is different. So that spells out the matters of contents and context.

The second of these: dependent origination, points out how things relate to one another and this happens in two distinct ways. The first is not so obvious but nevertheless important because it underscores connections. The very moment that we introduce the notion of “up”, “down” automatically comes into existence. Same thing for chickens/eggs, good/evil, or anything else. These, apparent opposites come and go as pairs. The second dimension of dependent origination concerns sequential feedback loops, which are everywhere without limit. For example consider the water cycle. Heat from the sun warms bodies of water, which vaporize and rise, becoming clouds, containing water vapor. When the water vapor is sufficiently cooled it condenses and falls back to earth as rain or snow, which then melts and the cycles keeps on repeating endlessly. 

Apply more heat and the situation changes, radically. Then water is baked out of every material thing, rises into the atmosphere (leaving dry stuff below, prone to burn readily) and redistributed to other places where floods devastate wherever it comes down. 

This principle is everywhere in our world, from an interior level to interpersonal relationships to international ones and we talk about this as “What goes around comes around.” Doing good, comes back good (And the opposite).

So much for the waxing. Now let’s get practical. The implication of combining of these two, has profound meaning for how we live together. So far we’ve chosen to pit ourselves against our fellow human beings apparently persuaded that we are superior to others and they are incidental to our prosperity. But wait: how is it possible to logically claim self-sufficient independence? 

We may indeed work harder, be more intelligent, manage our money better, but how could we have done that without the support of others? Did we build our own bridges? Construct our own roads? Establish necessary infrastructures? Teach our own children? Create our own healthcare systems? Mine our own raw materials? Establish and maintain a viable political system (which is looking less viable daily) that supports stability and economic prosperity? Such things are not possible. And to pretend that we can deny these contributions without appropriate compensation is just plain ignorant, and ultimately the same as shooting ourselves in the foot.

How about the bubble we all live in together (otherwise called The Environment)—The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat? What kind of insanity leads us to believe that we can pollute it all with GMOs, pesticides, herbicides (and whatever other kind of “cides” imaginable, which of course means to kill something, us included), airborne toxins that poison our environment and assume that our children and we will not only survive but also prosper? All in the name of earning more financial profit? This is madness and if not changed will surely kill us all regardless of socio-economic conditions. What goes around comes around. Small beginnings lead to big, yet quiet endings. 

Many years ago T.S. Elliot, in his poem The Hollow Men suggested that: “...This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” And it ends that way because of apathy. It takes work and continuous vigilance to keep abreast of changes in our world that affect our collective wellbeing. No longer can we go about our business as I did as a child. Our human culture has passed the age of innocence, never to return. And when we become aware of changes that are detrimental it won’t do to remain silent for fear we might upset someone’s bliss of ignorance. “...That is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.” 

The dream of me and you.

“The traveler has to knock at every alien door to come to his own, and one has to wander through all the outer worlds to reach the innermost shrine at the end.”[i]

Buddha is not a personal name. Instead it is a designation that means Awakened. Before awakening we all live in a deluded state of mind seeing ourselves in a very restricted way, separate and apart, not only from one another but from our source as well. We are imprisoned in a nightmare, thinking all the while that the dream is real. Only the nightmare doesn’t seem bad at times. So long as we possess what we desire, and believe in bright tomorrows, the dream seems acceptable and becomes normal.

But life has a way of disrupting our status quo of acceptable norms. One moment we are sailing along under an azure sky, the wind in our sails and warmed by the sun of happiness. In a heartbeat the sky darkens, clouds of despair cover the sun, darkness turns the seas into waves of chaos and our happiness is lost. Thus our normal becomes vacillations between highs and lows as what we desire comes and goes. This pattern repeats time and again and we react with the seemingly realistic expectation that this is life and it could be worse. The sun will come out tomorrow and behind every dark cloud there is a silver lining. After all, there are many in our world who have it much worse and if we are wise (so we reason) we will save during the good times for the bad times that will surely come. But life is tough and we find it difficult to store away needed reserves AND look to the needs of others. We have our hands full of taking care of ourselves and loved ones. There simply isn’t enough to do both and we rationalize that the lives of others would be better if only they would be more industrious. And without even noticing, justified greed and alienation set in and our heart becomes hard. Denial and defensiveness emerge, only to be followed by anger and hostility. There is me and mine versus others and theirs. This is our normal world, governed and dominated by an image we hold of extended family and ourselves.

For most, this is an acceptable norm, but for others the pattern leads to a quest to find a better way and this compels us to journey far and wide, to the bookstore and beyond. Perhaps we can read how others discovered the better way. Perhaps we can find that better way in exotic lands among the gurus who possess secrets. So we leave home and travel to wellsprings of expected wisdom.

I say all of this without judgment but rather with a deep sense of compassion. I’ve been to all of these places and gone through the same losing dreams, not knowing I was in a dream. I know of the frustration, the heartache, the disappointment and despair. I’ve tried, and failed, to hold the changing sea of happiness in my tight, possessive fist. So I know. That journey failed me and it will fail all who travel that pathway. And the reason why it fails is because the solutions are nowhere other than within our own hearts and minds. The solution is to awaken from that dream and discover the truth of our unity with others and our source. Wherever we go, there we are. It is as Tagore says, we go far and wide only to discover the answers within.

We are, as Hakuin Zenji[ii] said, like a child of a wealthy home wandering among the poor, or, as Jesus taught in his parable of the prodigal son, eating from the trough of pigs while a banquet awaits us,[iii]or worried for our survival even though God cares for the lilies of the field.[iv] The log in our eye that clouds our vision is our own dream of egotism. Remove the log and we’ll be able to see what is always present, has always been present, and will never stop being present. Then we will see suchness—things as they are. Then we will see that, in spite of the nightmare of poverty, there is abundance. It is everywhere evident, because everything conceivable resides within our own mind. There is no separation between the outside and the inside. The gate is wide open, and there is no gatekeeper other than the one we imagine within our dream of untruth.

---

[i] Rabindranath Tagore
[ii] From The Song of Zazen by Hakuin Zenji, one of the most influential figures in Japanese Zen Buddhism. Born in 1686 in the small village of Hara, at the foot of Mount Fuji.
[iii] Matthew 6:27-30
[iv] Matthew 7:25-27

Truth, half-truths and the power of delusion.

“You can’t handle the truth.”

Over the years, due to personal experience, I have learned quite a bit about truth-telling and delusion. I knew it first hand, beginning as a child, and in adult life working as an advertising executive on Madison Avenue. The lessons I learned have been an essential education about the motive of driving these matters. It’s a good thing that people employed in the advertising business are not required to answer in the positive the oath required in every court of law in our nation: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” If advertising people were so required, we’d need to build many more prisons to house those who knowingly perjure themselves daily.

The reason I say this with certainty is that the advertising business is designed to deceive others by telling half-truths. The positive is singled out, and the downside is always left out. After working for many years in the business, I reached the point when I could no longer persuade myself that it was okay to deceive people, all for earning a very good living. By then, I had learned that for reasons justified by my parents, I had been lied to as a child. The result was holding some very bad beliefs about myself.

Since that moment of truth (pun intended), I have noticed that people tell lies and half-truths routinely, justified on several flawed notions. One of these notions concerns a lack of confidence in those hearing the truth. The inherent belief is that if they hear the truth, somehow, they will be destroyed or think harshly of the person choosing to withhold the truth. In the movie A Few Good Men, the commanding officer of the Marine Corps base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (Colonel Jessep) is being questioned in court by Navy lawyer Lieutenant Kaffee, concerning the death of one of the men under the Colonel’s charge. Jessep is lying because he doesn’t think anyone can handle the truth. The dialogue goes:

“Col. Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I think I’m entitled to them.

Col. Jessep: You want answers?

Kaffee: I want the truth!

Col. Jessep: You can’t handle the truth!”

In the end, Jessep is arrested and charged with perjury. This movie is, of course, a fictional portrait of behavior that happens, with seeming justification, on a vast basis, but this is not a limited fiction. 

I am personally aware of a situation where an entire family participated in a fraud, feeding the family head with half-truths. All concerned knew that the head chose to live with the fantasy that the family was perfect and without flaw. None of the family members ever told the truth to the head but instead affirmed the fantasy in order to preserve the desires of the matriarch, and thus receive her blessing. Consequently, the family head refused to listen to anything that undermined her wishes, and other family members chose to endure lives of shame, guilt, and feelings of inadequacy to support her desires.

Often times the motive of feeding another half-truths or lies appears to be well intentioned: to either preserve a belief that isn’t considered to be beneficial (to either the teller or the hearer), but what is the result? The one being protected or lied to is not made stronger but instead made weaker by not being challenged to deal with adversity. And the one telling distortions is forced to try to remember the details of the lie, to tell other supporting lies (or be exposed) and thus endure self-condemnation and shame. 

Knowing whom to trust has always been a dilemma. As far back in recorded history as the time of the Buddha, people have been perplexed by this conundrum. In one particular sutra the people of Kesariya, India asked the Buddha how to ascertain the truth. His famous answer was:

“Now, Kalamas (a clan in Kesariya), don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness’—then you should enter and remain in them.”

That’s a tall order in a world dominated by deceit and misdirection. We find ourselves in a predicament of degrading confidence, falling trust and loss of regard for just about everyone, from those close to us as well as public officials of all sorts. However, perhaps this loss might be a good thing since for far too long we have placed our trust in others and lost trust in ourselves.

Monkey see, monkey do.

For a long time, the message that loving our neighbors and turning the other cheek has caused some to digest that message and put it into action while others have responded with disbelief and rejection. 

It turns out that we do indeed have a profound effect amongst our fellow humans both by what we say, either through words, body language, or action. We’ve captured this admonishment with a catchphrase: “What goes around comes around.”

When my daughter was a child, I read a story called “Pig will and Pig won’t.” The story is what you’d imagine: One little piggy had a positive attitude, and the other didn’t. She loved having that story read to her, and I loved reading it. It wasn’t a Pollyanna story but a practical one. As she grew, she retained that message and became a first-class doer of good deeds affecting many with her “we can do it together” spirit.

She is now an adult and has continued with her positive attitude and affected the attitudes and perspectives of thousands with her Can Do spirit. You can taste a sample of what she puts out by going to her blog, The Intensional Life. 

The way we rear our children—either for the bad or good—is carried throughout life, and our legacy is passed on. Not only is there a meaningful social, political, and spiritual impact of this Can Do attitude, there is also a scientific basis for the ability to affect others. 

There is a part of our brain that perceives and reflects the mood, words, and deeds. That ability is based on a unique set of neurons called “mirror neurons” With such a prevailing state of fear and despair, it is good to know that even one smile in the dark can light your world and mine. Monkey see monkey do.

Gun Control

For the past several months, I’ve been engaged in significant research for a book I’m writing with the simple title of “Trauma.” 

My reason for this project is to inform potential readers of the scope and magnitude of this serious condition. Because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the public, like never before, has begun to become aware of the acronym called PTSD with little genuine grasp of what this matter means. The common understanding is that it is a mental disorder caused by engaging in wars and the traumatic result. Fleshed out, the acronym, in simple terms, means “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” 

While descriptive, most people still equate PTSD only with wars. The restriction to wars is a vastly simplistic distortion. The distortion is undergirding a severe social issue that is presently a hot topic: Mental health-related to gun control.

Because of ongoing horrific slaughters that seems to be unstoppable, such as what occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the village of Newtown, Connecticut, there has been an appropriate public outcry for gun control and a related discussion regarding the mental health system. There is little dissent that these two social issues are interconnected and will ultimately be governed by politics.

It should come as no surprise that economic hard times are also traumatic. Due to a global pandemic, millions of ordinary citizens have lost all means of supporting themselves, their families and are losing their dwellings. It is also evident that such times have not been experienced since the Great Depression. 

The difference now is that gun sales are at record levels (and increasing daily) when we are facing an economic Armageddon. The result is vast cuts to programs that could detect and be of service to millions of traumatized citizens. Public funding for both mental health and the justice system (e.g., police, facilities of incarceration, courts, etc.) is being slashed to reign in Federal and State debts.

One significant problem is the lack of an adequate understanding of the scope and depth of trauma that has not been digested, combined with shrinking resources to address and treat it. Presently mental health statistics result from measuring how companies provide insurance for their workers and/or information coming from health care facilities (hospitals, psych wards, health care workers). What is not being measured is the mental health of the millions off the chart because they are no longer employed (and are thus not measured).

Unaddressed trauma creates an interconnected matrix that is ugly and devastating. Some of the classic symptoms are flashbacks or reliving the traumatic event for minutes or even years at a time; upsetting dreams about the traumatic event; feeling emotionally numb; avoiding activities you once enjoyed; hopelessness about the future; memory problems; trouble concentrating; difficulty maintaining close relationships; irritability or anger; overwhelming guilt or shame; self-destructive behavior, such as drinking too much or abusing drugs; difficulty sleeping, being easily startled or frightened, and hearing or seeing things that aren’t there. 

Also are hyperarousal symptoms that are usually constant, instead of being triggered by things that remind one of the traumatic events. They can make the person feel stressed and/or angry. These symptoms may make it hard to do daily tasks, such as sleeping, eating, or concentrating and manifest as anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. 

And nearly every one of these conditions can result in catastrophe, including lashing out in unpredictable ways to harm those traumatized and others who a traumatized person deems responsible for their situation. An accurate prescription for disaster is a mixture of these conditions, together with unrestricted gun availability.

Trauma is trauma regardless of source. It can result from domestic abuse, rape, witnessing horrifying situations, and many other factors that are currently increasing. Trauma is not just the result of war. It is that and much more. In the discussions, which will indeed occur concerning gun control, the related issue of mental health must be factored in. It makes very little sense to regulate an instrument of violence (guns) without considering the conditions leading to violence. 

The common mantra voiced by those who resist tampering with The Second Amendment is, “Guns don’t kill people; People do” is a dangerously overly simplified glossing that must be recognized for what it is. Until we as a nation, address the health care system that treats people at risk, this problem will just go on, and we will continue to wring our hands and remain perplexed.  

For the love or money.

Choosing money or love has been a perpetual theme throughout human history. The presumption of the former choice is that if you have money, love will follow. 

A rare few ever realize the fallacy of that presumption. I’m thankful that I am one of those. I can say that only because I have lived through both times of abundant wealth and grinding poverty, and have been fortunate enough to also experience true love.

In 1964 Paul McCartney captured that truth when he wrote, and the Beatles recorded, “Can’tBuy Me Love.”  That year the recording hit #1 on the top 100, and stayed there for five consecutive weeks. It was exceeded only by “I Want To Hold Your Hand” (at seven weeks) and “Hey Jude” at nine weeks. To date, according to Rolling Stone Magazine “Can’t Buy Me Love” ranks #289 on their list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. When interviewed McCartney said: “The idea behind it was that all these material possessions are all very well, but they won’t buy me what I really want.”

The significance of that popularity is a reflection of what I and everyone else wants: To truly love and be truly loved—the rarest of all treasures that no amount of money can ever buy. Before you go to sleep at night when you lie in bed next to someone you love deeply, and who feels the same toward you, then only do you know what counts and it isn’t money.

In our world today that truth seems to get lost beneath the rush to make and hold onto money. Might that choice be due to the thought that nobody really believes that true love is within their realm of possibility? I don’t know but I do know that when true love comes your way you’ll do virtually anything to cherish it and hold on. Money will come and go, as everything else does but when love comes your way, if it is true, it will last forever and warm your soul in ways that nothing else does. And then you’ll learn something else extraordinarily important: Love coming your way is the result of love going out of you to another.

It’s the greatest of all feedback loops—What goes out comes around: a truth of the Buddha as well as Jesus. If you want to boil the essence of the New Testament down to a single statement, it would be this: Agape love—an unconditional love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance. To the ancient Greeks, this form of love could only come from God since it is pure, eternal and the secret to all happiness. “Agape Love” occurs only in the New Testament and in essence means love beyond conditions, of any kind—No strings attached and the proof of this kind of love is that it lasts. Money blows away with the wind but true love is eternal.