At each successive stage of personal development, the characteristic feeling or phenomenology of aversion and desire changes. What we can be aware of in equanimity changes as we grow and learn and possibly–if we choose–develop subtlety of awareness. So, there is an important distinction between aversion as a push away from something, desire as a push towards something, and equanimity as a neutral state between one form of pushing and another.
At the level of Purpose, where we learn persistence and consistency, this desire and aversion are really important. At this point in our young lives, we are learning a gross or obvious form of discernment. Shit goes in the toilet but not the diaper, right? But learning the skill to put it there takes effort and can be unpleasant. Both the shit can be unpleasant and the process of learning can be unpleasant. At this level, the child may not be subtle and educated enough to discern the finer distinctions between the English parliamentary system and American congressional representation, but they can certainly learn that shit in the diaper is bad. There is, hopefully, a different degree of subtlety involved when one learns to prefer shit in the toilet versus in the diaper as compared to parliamentary or congressional representation. It would be funny to consider kids carefully and objectively considering the relative merits (granted this happens to some degree)–think of a congress of two year olds heatedly debating the value of potty training–and there is something distinctly inappropriate or unfitting although not morally wrong about bringing revulsion into politics (think of the Arab-Jewish quagmire that both sides insist upon maintaining). Carrying shit around in one’s pants may be disgusting but Jews/Arabs aren’t; an ideology that promotes such application of disgust is misguided. These ideologies do lead to disgusting behavior–like carrying around shit in one’s mind. It is appropriate to reject shit in one’s pants, whereas rejecting people in the same way results in one carrying that rejection, that shit, in one’s mind.
At the level of Purpose, nonduality is experienced most commonly or characteristically as singlemindedness (characteristic of this level). Communion at this level feels like being on the same side. Religions teach at this level that some things are pure or good and others impure.
When we learn persistence, we must then learn the limits of persistence. Those who reject the idea that persistence has its limits tend to try to force almost everything they do and have a hard time relaxing. While there are some people who do this very noticeably, everyone does it some of the time; most of us learn to relax to some degree. Because relaxation and the subtlety we gain at the level of Understanding bring changes in one’s awareness, the feelings of aversion and desire feel different, less forceful, less gross or obvious. We learn to agree to disagree rather than just compete. Well, some of us learn. We learn to prefer rather than feeling an insistent need. Consider how insistent kids are about almost anything they want; aren’t they very good about being singleminded? As we learn a greater degree of objectivity, we more easily separate persons from their actions and characteristics. Pluralistic societies become more likely and it is not necessary to either be in the same limited tribe with everyone else or create war. But, in order to maintain pluralism, it is important for people to learn to mediate their own feelings of idealization (of their own group) and revulsion (around difference). While idealization and revulsion are natural enough reactions, they are not mature responses.
But a distinct problem arises when we do not simply allow ourselves to love, hate, or ignore. Politically, tolerance has been promoted to handle this problem. Psychologically, we speak about tolerating ambiguity. Ambiguity is little understood even when it is spoken of, and this limits out collective understanding, so I would like to begin to shine the light on ambiguity. Ambiguity brings reluctance. Ambiguity is an uncomfortable internal state. In order to tolerate difference and uncertainty, it takes mental effort. Rather than expend this effort, it is easier to simply make a decision about what I desire and what I am averse to. We see this interaction when parents try to get their kids to try new foods. They’re asking the kids to tolerate the uncertainty and be open to eating rather than simply rejecting what they don’t know. Some kids forcefully reject what they aren’t already familiar with as within the category of “foods I like”; they have little tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. Other kids will try the new food, but reluctantly. This means there is some chance they may like the food, but the experience of trying it is already “coated” or flavored by their reluctance. We have all experienced times when we are genuinely open to new experience and others when we may prefer to be open but really do not feel open to something new. In the latter instances, our preference to openness is weaker–more subtle–than our familiar desires and familiar aversions.
So at the level of Purpose, we tend to categorize things as either “cool” or “sucks”. There are also some things we simply don’t know or care about. When we are able to tolerate a greater deal of uncertainty, our repertoire of responses broadens out. At the level of Understanding, then, we become able to distinguish between the more obvious or gross rejection and a more subtle reluctance. With reluctance, while we are leaning away from something, we don’t just reject it out of hand. We are able, and sometimes willing, to consider. This is an important distinction. We are able to reject things we know, but we can only be reluctant towards newness and uncertainty. A kid may know they like hotdogs but, if they have never tried grilled cheese sandwiches, they don’t know which they’d prefer. They have the option of reject anything that is a not-hotdog without actually knowing what grilled cheese sandwiches taste like. In such cases, they aren’t really rejecting grilled cheese sandwiches because they don’t actually know what grilled cheese sandwiches taste like. For all they (are willing to) know, a grilled cheese sandwich tastes like chocolate cake. Now, if they can be encouraged to reluctantly or openly try a grilled cheese sandwich, they might find they like hotdogs and cheese sandwiches. Maybe chocolate cake too. With the things we know, we prefer rather than love/hate. A might prefer a cheese sandwich without needing to hate hotdogs as being on the other side. (Actually, I don’t prefer hotdogs, but I’d prefer hotdogs to starvation–which is an option I pretty strongly reject.)
One way of handling ambiguity, then, is to reject newness and uncertainty. Another way is to try to tolerate it for a while. If we’re going to tolerate something though, besides being able to like or dislike (cool/sucks), we need to be able to relax or hold that instinctual reaction in check. When we hold that instinctual reaction towards judgement in check, it is like being forced to not hit another kid when we want to–that effortful restraint is not relaxed. As it becomes second nature to not just impulsively react, we develop the ability to not react impulsively but, instead, to relax somewhat and respond more considerately. So, at the level of Purpose, concentration overcomes distraction and learn to persist; at the level of Understanding, we learn to consider, to tolerate ambiguity, and the attentional ability that allows us to do this is intentional relaxation. Before learning intentional relaxation, we may be soothed or become exhausted enough to “relax”, but this is an unintentional process before it becomes conscious and intentional. Relaxation as an attentional ability is noticeable especially in people who can’t intentionally relax. We’ve all had moments like this. We know that it does no good to feel the desire to persistently push ourselves faster in the middle of a traffic jam, but we still may not be able to follow through with what we know–that relaxation wouldn’t shorten the wait but it could make the waiting bearable or even pleasant.
Most of us don’t think about the difference between the phenomenology of rejection and that of reluctance, but it becomes important. We’re in the habit of reactively rejecting partially because that energy is active–it drives us to do something. This is helpful when we need to fight or continue to search for food. It just doesn’t serve so well in a traffic jam where it may, in fact, impel us to drive furiously enough to cause a collision which would only exacerbate the traffic jam. In some instances, that pushing effort and its cool/sucks (us/them) distinction is helpful, but in others, it is inefficient or inappropriate. That impulsive energy can exacerbate traffic jams into collisions and tribal differences into extended conflicts. The naturalistic justification for such silliness is not convincing. Hyenas may recognize which others are in their pack and know who to fight against in a struggle between packs, but when Jews castigate Arabs for acting like hyenas and when Arabs do the same with Jews for acting like hyenas, then both can feel satisfied that they are right while the whole situation remains animalistic. In other words, tolerance can be frustrating and the cool/sucks (we’re cool/they suck) response doesn’t allow progress. The religious or cultural justification (God allows us to act like hyenas because we’re God’s hyenas) is not convincing from outside the pack but it does allow animals from both packs to insure that the next generation of their pack members will be able to learn to live like animals (God’s hyenas, us, rather than infidel hyenas, them). This propaganda sounds the same to me coming from everyone, but I sometimes find myself sounding righteous, so what can we do about it?
For one, we can recognize that tribalistic preference is the group expression of personal hubris. The aspects of myth that encourage the “hyenas” part of God’s hyenas can be recognized as being less progressive or right than the aspects of the myths that focus on the “God” part. But besides that, something interesting happens when I notice myself trying to sound better than. A sense of righteous entitlement comes up and I often feel myself acting like a kid who demands one kind of food and rejects another out of hand. I notice I’m reluctant to admit that I’m acting like that. The righteous entitlement goes hand-in-hand with the habitual rejection and eventual reluctance, and instead of just admitting to acting like a jackass, I want to say, “Yes, but I’m acting like God’s Jackass.” Ha, ha, ha! Jackass! The psychological processes are the same even when the justifications change.
Part of all the confusion comes down to misunderstanding ambiguity and how to respond to ambiguity. If I always just respond out of habit, I’ll never learn or grow, I’ll never progress. If I reject familiarity, I’ll get lost in confusion and forget my group connections and preferences. The key is to recognize that rejection, reluctance, and tolerance do not fit with uncertainty. It’s not so much that it is morally right or wrong to go with any of those habits, but it often tends to be stupid. I know a few people who aren’t all that bright, and they’re still good people, but when I can choose between acting smart and acting stupid, I usually prefer to act smart. (Acting stupid is okay for comedy but not so great for political decision-making.) Ambiguity and uncertainty or not-understanding are Understanding level problems and they have an Understanding level solution. The Understanding level solution is observation. Now, it’s possible for us to reject the whole level of Understanding and to act like hyenas or jackasses, but we might as well admit it–carrying a lie is hard work psychologically, creating more ambiguity within ourselves.
Now, if I wanted to keep the external situation the same while living more comfortably with uncertainty, I could just practice intentional relaxation. But if I want to change the external situation as well, then observation is fitting. If I check myself and find I’m acting like a jackass, I can admit it and change my behavior. If I can’t see it or won’t admit it, I’m stuck acting like a jackass and my choices are basically to bray and/or kick. While some people find solace in some sort of justifying consolation (my mom or God still loves me), I’d rather improve the situation. I’d rather find joy than settle for solace or righteousness of “my people” that is paired with denigration of “those other people” (Arabs and Jews). The thing is, I don’t even have to care about Arabs or Jews to choose this–all I have to do is to recognize that carrying denigration around in my mind is the mental equivalent of carrying shit around in my pants. It is one thing to be willing to fight, another thing to pray with the words or the feeling “Fuck them!” in my heart. It makes no more sense to carry shit around in my mind than to carry it into a place of worship and try to share it with God, pretending it is piety.
Muhammed said that the greater jihad is to conquer oneself, and I am impressed with that. Ali was able to fight as he believed was Allah’s will, but he was also able to stop himself in the middle of a heated battle when he felt anger and began obeying his own will rather than that of Allah. Ali did not take shit to God, and I respect that as well. My respect for Muhammed and Ali have nothing to do with how Allah has judged them, nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I respect them as men I can learn from. If the stories about them are myths, I can still learn from them. While this paragraph is a sidebar, it can be helpful to find way to carve out a space for equanimity or balance in observing others, and this is one way I allow that space in my own awareness.
It takes a certain equanimity to observe without just acting impulsively. There is a way to experience this equanimity with or without understanding, uncertainty, or ambiguity. I believe this way is simple, although it becomes increasingly subtle. When we recognize that tolerance alone is not satisfying, we can look for other ways to address ambiguity. Intentional relaxation is a way that pulls one’s attention within oneself. Observation improves one’s ability to recognize what is occurring externally and act. There is also an experience of nonduality characteristic of the level of Understanding which is not primarily external of internal. To experience this, it is necessary to choose to allow a degree of subtlety in one’s awareness that is subtler than the cool/sucks response, easier on oneself than tolerance or ambiguity. While it is not a solution to political or personal problems, it creates the space in which solutions can be found and put into practice.
One of the things scientists have observed is a part of the brain called the amygdala. This is important for activating the fight/flight/freeze/fuck response. When the amygdala is activated, it sets off a cascade of neurochemical affects that provide an intense increase in our sense of energy. This action potential or intensity is usually discharged in the actions of fighting, running, freezing, or sex. Any of these behaviors can also set off this intensity. It is possible to notice how the amygdala can affect us in less intense moments as well. When I breathe in, my amygdala activity increases slightly, increasing my alertness to a minor extent. As I breathe out, my heart rate slows a little and my amygdala calms. This change occurs with every breath but very few people are used to noticing this change. The intensity that can occur when the full-on fight/flight response kicks in is no more surprising–scientifically–than this relatively minor ebb and flow. Both are simply the amygdala (and corresponding brain structures) doing what they do. But something very pleasant and unexpected can occur when we learn to notice this ebb and flow.
The more aware of this I am, the more every moment of my life is evidence that a lot is going on in this world that I tend not to notice. That’s one thing. As these moments, this evidence, piles up, I end up feeling much more curious about what else is going on. Being able to pair mental alertness with subtle changes makes my alertness overall more subtle. It also gives me a greater degree of control and engagement with alertness. Since exhalations calm the amygdala, heart, etc., I can often calm myself (think traffic jams) simply by just extending the length of my exhalations. When I extend the exhalations, I want to inhale more deeply, and this brings a more noticeable sense of vitality as well as probably increasing the amount of oxygen in my bloodstream. But there’s more.
If I allow it, after taking a few deep breaths and calming my alert mind, I usually feel a desire to breath less deeply, to control my breath less. As breathing becomes more natural, more shallow, the changes between the in-breath and out-breath become smaller. My awareness becomes more subtle as the breath becomes more subtle. The difference between inhale and exhale becomes less apparent and I can let that distinction fall away from my attention. At this point, I notice that in and out are not separate–even though I can understand them to be opposites if I choose to. There is originally no separation between any breath and breathing. If I allow my awareness to remain with this subtle feeling of nonseparation, it becomes unnecessary to feel any separation whatsoever.
In this state of oneness, there is no ambiguity because ambiguity needs duality. There is no rejection because rejection needs duality. There is no reluctance.
As I become more familiar with this subtlety and apparent oneness, it becomes unnecessary–not so much wrong as pointless–to carry negative aspects such as rejection and reluctance. Rejection is like an anchor that ties us to something in our past, something gross in our consciousness. Reluctance is recognized as a murky, dualistic state in which I cannot focus my spirit and act with an open heart. When reluctance is a sign of uncertainty, I can encourage my curiosity by simply moving towards this awareness that nondual awareness is always available. Reluctance can also be a sign that I am trying to move forward too fast or that I am expecting too much from myself. This is like trying to force myself to relax and be clear. The force itself takes away the clarity. Being willing and able to attune my awareness with subtlety encourages a lightly alert relaxation. In this equanimity, I can ask, “Is my mind peaceful or alert?” While it is possible to understand peace and alertness as different, it is possible to experience them as not separate. During subtle inhalations I feel peaceful and aware; during subtle exhalations I feel peaceful and aware.
While this state may be more internally focused than some of what I must do in my life, the answers that come out of this state are very different than us/them reactions. Various people attain equanimity in various ways, but equanimity always produces different results than rejection and reluctance.
As one becomes increasingly familiar with subtlety, one’s observation takes on increasing subtlety. The differentiation between peacefulness and alertness or arousal becomes permeable, eventually insignificant, and falls away. Ideas and sensation may drift into this awareness without being disruptive. As this state becomes easier to attain and more stable once attained, it becomes easier to apply to more obviously external changes as well as the ebb and flow of breath. As the difference between “external” and “internal” becomes permeable and begins to diminish, we can speak of this fluidly focused attention as mindfulness–the nonduality of peacefulness and alertness, a single stream of consciousness.
For those who take this peacefulness deeper and it becomes even more subtle and stable, we can include increasingly intense activation in this awareness of nonduality. A certain luminosity, lucidity, and bliss become central. While this can occur in any individual from any culture or tradition, it does not fit with rejection. It is not necessary to reject rejection; as subtlety and equanimity increases, rejection diminishes like a fire with no fuel. As one’s awareness becomes increasingly subtle and lucidly intense, we rely less and less on our impulses to act like hyenas or jackasses. As our fear becomes less powerful in affecting us individually, it becomes less potent in our world. And as we replace intense fear with powerful equanimity, we learn new ways of living. Spirit, in any language, is always new and timeless.
Copyright 2007 Todd Mertz