I can remember back when I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, “Hyper Nonsense” with Shawno and Jen.  It was a weekly (approximately) podcast that’s was just plain fun.  Anyway.  Shawno said something that just wowed me in an episode.  “I denounce your reality and replace it with my own.”  I completely broke down laughing at this.   It was so hilariously self centered and aggressive, that I thought I have to use it.

As soon as I got to a computer, I typed the phrase into Twitter, giving Shawno full credit of course,  but claiming the phrase as mine now.   Shawno tweeted (twitter term) back that he actually stole the phrase from the TV series “Mythbusters” and wasn’t quite sure he got it right.  Either way, I still think it’s hilarious, I subjected my coworkers to it rather liberally.

In general, the more we repeat something, be it verbally, or physically, or whatever, the more familiar we get with it.  So I thought about this phrase quite a bit as I searched for places where I could throw it in when dealing with co-workers.  I discovered that, even though it was meant completely in jest, there is actually some real truth in this little phrase if we look deep down.

Our days are filled with incidents and people who either re-enforce our ego or push and pull at it in an effort to change it.  OK…OK…work with me here, folks.  Any thought or idea that you have that you verbalize, most people will either agree with you (support your ego) or disagree with you (diminish your ego).  For instance, if you say I think Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate for President, someone will either support you (“Yea…me too…I like his approach to education”) or not (“Are you nuts?  Kucinich is waaay too liberal.  There’s no way he can be a leader on the world stage!”).  OK…maybe that one was too controversial.  Let’s try another one.  “Whoa!  This jambalaya is WAAAY to spicy! (If you’re living in Louisiana, this may be more controversial than politics) Someone may agree with you or disagree with you.

So in our reality, the food is too spicy, but someone else is negating our reality and replacing it with their own.  “Stop being such a wuss.  It’s not that hot!”  In their reality, the food isn’t spicy at all.  So which one is right?  Once again we have come back to our ego painting our perceptions of true reality.  It’s those damn adjectives again.  And when we look close, we can see that at the root, they are trying to negate our reality and replace it with their own.  So what do we do in return?  We try to do the same thing.  They are wrong, we are right.  “It is, in fact, too spicy.  Your taste buds are just dead.”  Now we are negating their reality.

So I can hear you now.  “Lans, you’re kinda making a mountain out of a mole hill here.  It’s just different taste, not some philosophical negating of reality junk.”  Well, is it?  Remember that from our, un-enlightened point of view, our perceptions are what we believe to be true reality.  But to our friend Joe, his perceptions are true reality.  As long as our perceptions mesh, all is well for both our egos, but when our perceptions differ, egos have to defend themselves.  Sometimes it’s not really worth our effort, we just subconsciously tell ourselves that our reality is correct, the other party’s reality is a misperception, and let it drop.  But sometimes, our egos step into the cage for the no holds barred slug fest.  We can’t let it drop.  We must force someone else’s ego to bend to ours.  Our perception must be accepted as correct.  We have to use every trick in the book to force our opponent concede defeat.

“So what you’re saying is that people disagree?  Big news flash there, Buddha Boy. “  Ok…Ok…I may be taking too long getting to the point.  But in almost every situation, nobody’s PERCEPTION of reality is TRUE reality.  We’ve talked many times on this podcast about what enlightenment is.  It’s seeing things as they truly are.  Well, since most of us aren’t enlightened, we AREN’T seeing things as they truly are.  Looking at the simple food example before, one ego says something is too hot, while another says that it’s not.  But the food is the food.  It’s not too hot or not hot enough or whatever.  It’s just the food.  Everything else is ego assigning those perceptions again.

This came in my email today.  I get a daily email from lojongmindtraining.com with commentaries on the  Lojong sayings by several great teachers.  This one from the great Pema Chodron I thought was particularly good.

Don’t Misinterpret

Ok..Ok.. Before you start screaming at me about ‘not believing in karma’, let me explain. I’ve talked about karma on the podcast before, but it’s one of those subjects that has so many levels that we can explore.

I’ve heard a lot of people recently talking about karma, but I think they have some misunderstandings about it.  I’ve heard comments such as “He’s gonna get some bad karma for that.” or “Karma says he’s gonna suffer three fold for that one.” or “Something good should come to her, with all that good karma.” or “Wow!  She won!  She must have some really good karma.” First let me address the ‘three fold’ issue and put that one too rest. This is crossing from another religion/philosophy. This is from the Three Fold Law in Wicca. Now, first, I am no Wicca expert, but the law says “Ever mind the rule of three. What ye send out comes back to thee,” which basically means whatever you do, you will get back times three. Again, this is part of the wiccan belief system, not the Buddhist.

This brings us to something that can be confusing about the concept of karma. There is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma. I have heard many advanced students and even llamas talk about “good” karma and “bad” karma and it’s just incorrect, plain and simple. Karma is like gravity. It just “is.” Good or Bad are adjectives we assign depending on how we perceive the situation that either generated the karma or the situation where the karma comes to it’s fruition.

“But Lans, I thought if I do something bad, karma will do something bad to me. And by the same token, if I do something good, I will get something good.”

Yes, yes. This is the common assumption. But good and bad are relative to your personal situation and the set of circumstances laid out before you. Let’s look at a simple example. A man throws a brick through a window. Is this good or bad? If he is breaking into a place to rob it, we would say it’s bad. If he were breaking in to rescue a child from a burning house, then we would say good. But the karmic act we’re discussing is breaking the window with the brick. It’s an action, that will generate other actions and situations. You can label them good or bad as you like, but in reality, they are just effects with no adjectives assigned.   It’s that simple.

More complicated is the karma generated by the intent. Yes, intent creates karma too. But once again, motivation, and the goodness or badness of it is still something that is something that is relative to how we perceive it. We are not perceiving things as they truly are. We are perceiving them colored with our own thoughts and opinions.

The underlying concept of karma, is very simple. It’s cause and effect. That’s it. But where karma get’s confusing to some is when we have to factor in all karma into the equation. Karma is not personal. Thinking that karma is personal reinforces ego and flies in the face of the teachings on emptiness which tell us that no one thing exists independently. This is not to say that karma you generate will not effect you. It most certainly will. But what I am saying is that karma you generate will have an effect on tons of other situations, many not directly related to you.  By the same token, karma generated by other beings will have an effect on you too.  Here is the mystery of karma.  In order to figure it all out, you have to be able to comprehend the intertwining of all the karma being generated by all beings and how it effects the specific situation you are being confronted with at the present time.  We can pretty much all agree this is impossible.  So the point to remember is that karma “is what it is”, nothing more, nothing less.

I was able to catch a great show for the second time the other night and it got me thinking I should gin up a post, since it’s been awhile. The show I’m talking about is Bill Moyers interview with Pema Chodron on PBS. As is usual with these types of situations, Pema touched lightly on a number of topics and covered nothing too in depth, but it was a pleasure to see an interviewer take a real interest in understanding what she had to say instead of the usual ‘I have to interview another Buddhist kook’ that pervades so much of regular TV. Also as usual, listening to Pema sparked me to talk a little bit about something she touched. Today, that’s groundlessness.

So let’s talk a little bit about groundlessness. We often hear the term used in Buddhist texts, especially from modern Buddhist authors, like Pema, but what exactly is it? From a Buddhist perspective, groundlessness is the state you enter when something that you hold to be true, basic or solid, turns out not to be. This may be a slightly ‘stiff definition and I’m sure as we go along, we will loosen it up a bit, but it seems like a pretty good place to start.

Lets start with what we might consider the ‘negative’ aspects of groundlessness. These can be seen in our insecurity or embarrassment. The death of a loved one can leave us feeling groundless. I’ve lost both parents, and several close friends in the past few years and each time, learning of their deaths left me groundless, at least for a few moments. Likewise, learning we have a grave, possibly fatal illness can send us reeling into groundlessness. These two are fairly strong, but groundlessness doesn’t have to be. Let’s say that there is coffee shop we have gone to every morning for the past 10 years. One morning we show up only to discover that they have suddenly gone out of business. In all of these situations there is that moment when our breath is taken away and time seems to stand still for a moment because that which we ‘knew to be true and solid’ suddenly isn’t. One of the four reminders (see another entry) tells us that change is inevitable. All things will change yet we still lean on things as if they are solid and unwavering.

As with all phenomena, groundlessness not only manifests itself in what we foolishly classify as ‘negative’, but also what we can foolishly classify as positive. Becoming a parent for the first time. This is a wonderful thing, but still, all you know to be true solid and normal has just been ripped away. The rug has been pulled out from under you. Your safety net is gone. Groundlessness can be seen in our awe and wonder. You may even take it down to gazing at a beautiful piece of art for the first time that seems to freeze you for just a moment. We may be viewing the northern lights for the first time, or hearing a Mozart symphony or the gazing at the first snow of the season. These could also be a moment of groundlessness.

I say we ‘foolishly’ classify these as positive and negative because we must understand that this classification, if accurate at all, is only accurate from a particular perspective at a particular time. Examination by others may yield a different opinion. Even an examination of our own at a later time will completely change the outlook. For instance, your mate announces that they are breaking up with you. At the time, we are obviously going to feel groundlessness and are probably going to classify it negative. But a year later, we may look back and say that ‘it was the best thing that ever happened’ to us. It’s the same event, just a different perspective. Hence, I try to avoid classifying groundlessness, as positive or negative. (I feel the same with karma, but that’s for another discussion.) Like everything else, our classification will change. Now lets get back to the meat of the matter, groundlessness itself. Being grounded is a pure reflection of ego. Being grounded keeps ego safe, or better yet, feeling safe. Being grounded is ego’s connection to reality. When we experience groundlessness, our ego’s connection is momentarily broken. Now if we think about it, the definition of ego has to do with our dualistic separation of ‘me and other’. Ego’s frame of reference has to sit there. There can be no concept of ego or ‘me’ without a concept of other.

So when we experience groundlessness, we are actually having ego drop away momentarily. We say that ‘the rug has been pulled out from under us’, but what we really mean is, that which we think defines us (or partially defines us) fails or disappears. We have temporarily lost our definition of ourselves because this definition is based on a perceived relationship to external phenomena. What we have to realize is this is part of the goal! Our comfort with groundlessness, our ability to remain comfortably in a state of groundlessness is, in essence, the whole point of what we are after. Ego cannot be comfortable in a state of groundlessness because is loses what defines it. Therefore, maintaining comfort in a state of groundlessness essentially destroys ego. What goes hand and hand with the destruction of ego? A realization of emptiness, which I have talked about ad nauseum in this forum.

So what does all this mean? I would just say that, when you are confronted with groundlessness, whether you perceive it to be positive or negative, simply be like a cork on the ocean, or a kite in the wind and ride with it. In this state, you are likely closer to realization than any other time.

This week we continue our ‘Numerical Series’ with part 2 of  The Four Immeasurables:   Love, Compassion, Joy and Equinimity.

May all beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness.
May they be free from suffering and the root of suffering.
May they not be separated from the great happiness devoid of suffering.
May they dwell in the great equanimity free from passion, aggression and prejudice.

This is a subject often talked about by Pema Chodron and has showed up in a number of her books such as The Places That Scare You, A Noble Heart and From Fear To Fearlessness.

This week we take the Four Immeasurables to the cushion and learn a practice.

This week we continue our ‘Numerical Series’ by talking about The Four Immeasurables:   Love, Compassion, Joy and Equinimity.  I talk about a little card I keep in top of my wallet that has the words from The Four Immeasurables Practice which says:

May all beings enjoy happiness and the root of happiness.
May they be free from suffering and the root of suffering.
May they not be separated from the great happiness devoid of suffering.
May they dwell in the great equanimity free from passion, aggression and prejudice.

This is a subject often talked about by Pema Chodron and has showed up in a number of her books such as The Places That Scare You, A Noble Heart and From Fear To Fearlessness.

Next this week we talk about the meaning of The Four Immeasurables and next week we’ll learn a meditation practice to go with it.

It’s my last podcast for 2008 and we’re closing it out with a talk about the five skandhas.  The five skandhas help us understand how a thought forms by really breaking it down.  We break down thinking of a table, a Christmas tree and a slice of pizza.  Can you have more fun than that on New Years Eve?

This week was very interesting.  On the site poll, I asked folks to tell me topics that they would like me to discuss on the podcast.  One listener posted the following:

Perhaps a boring subject, but being fairly new to the Buddhism, I am continually asked by well-meaning family and friends a seemingly endless array of questions concerning my dietary changes. I’ve adopted an almost vegan lifestyle and sometimes struggle with – what can I really eat that truly does not harm animals. So being a vegetarian and to what extent it is necessary to adopt the vegan lifestyle.

“Vegetarianism” I thought.  “What a great subject!”  So I decided to cover that when low and behold a post from Daily Buddhism covered the exact same subject.  So, this podcast is a little late basically because I didn’t want to appear to be stealing anything from Daily Buddhism.  By the way, Daily Buddhism is a great daily Q&A blog that sums each week up in a podcast.  Be sure to check them out!

So on this podcast we address Vegetarianism/Veganism and Buddhism.  Do you have to be a Vegetarian/Vegan to be a Buddhist?  We talked in Episode 40 about what Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse says in his book ‘What Makes You NOT A Buddhist” actually makes you a Buddhist.  Is Vegetarianism one?

We talk about why some sects seem to put more emphasis on vegetarianism than others.  In addition, I try to dive deeper into why a Buddhist might want to be a vegetarian and expand on those issues to see where else they come into play.

I’m back after taking the month of November off!  Where have I been?  I took on the challenge of National Novel Writing Month and National Podcast Post Month, and successfully completed both.

But that’s not why we’re here!  This week on the Enlighten Up Podcast we take a look at the concept of Ambition.  The spark for this podcast sprang up from a comment Gwen and Patrick made on the Zen Is Stupid podcast that I was listening to this past weekend.

Also, I’m taking a little survery to learn a) a little bit more about the meditation habits of the folks who read the blog or listen to the podcast b) to give you guys an opportunity to tell me what topics you would like me to talk about on the show.  So if you got about a minute (it probably won’t even take that long) click here and let me know a little bit about your practice and ideas for the show.

A guy from one of the forums I frequent, named Scix,  made a really cool monologue video called ‘On Love’ that he put on youtube.com.  When I watched it, I thought what he had to say hit on a lot of Buddhist thought, whether he intended it that way or not, so I decided to use some of what he said as the basis for this weeks podcast.

This week we are talking about being in the moment, what that means, what it doesn’t mean and how it becomes very intertwined with the concept of attachment.