In antiquity they were called Antimonies that is unresolvable contradictions. The latest is the battle waging between those who say that SARS2 is safe based upon the low mortality and the predictable way that it affects the elderly and those with underlying conditions while being virtually irrelevant to the rest of the population, and those who actually do suffer and die from it. This is the classic problem for politicians wielding power over a group of people but needing never-the-less to be sensitive to individuals. When Individuals and Group come into conflict what do you do? This is the essence of politics, and corrupt governments are seen as those who place too much importance on certain individuals at the expense of the group.
So what do you do with Antimony? The existence of such things and the answer is the key to freedom and non-suffering.
How does an antimony become a problem and how does conflict arise from it?
Buddha says "avoid extremes" and "follow the middle path." This is not a literally statement of crude moderation. For example if 8000 calories a day is a lot and 0 is the lowest then eat exactly 4000 calories. You would die unless living a life of extreme hard work. It's a subtle philosophical statement.
It means use extremes like lighthouses to navigate the good water in between. The better we get at navigating the good water the less we need the light houses. Indeed for the wise they never need the light houses, they know good water as they sail it. But that takes a very subtle attention to detail.
The point about the middle way, the good water, is that it is featureless. There are no big waves to struggle against, their are no tricky currents, it is good and good means we have nothing to pick out and attach to. Peace is very bewildering to those who are fixated on lighthouses and extremes.
The world is like a circle with points placed on opposite sides of the circumference. We like to sit in that circle and hold on to one or the other of these opposite. We fight hard over the side we have got stuck to. Sometimes we move into the middle to sit between opposites, but we are still trapped within the circle. But what is outside the circle? We can just let go and not accept these opposites and just take up a position outside the circle. Soon as we move away the circle of opposites becomes just a point itself. The whole world of conflict and extremes becomes just a single point of suffering far far away. But it is very hard to do this.
They call it groundlessness. Being at peace means there is nothing to grasp onto, it can feel like floating in space and can at times be confusing and unsettling as we learn not to hold on to things. As we sail perfect waters, losing sight of the lighthouses upon the rocks, may give us a sense of fear as we no longer know where we are, but not seeing light houses is a sign we are in good waters. Not having familiar things to hold on to is a sign of freedom and goodness.
At the root here is this need to grasp. We actually like suffering and big waves cos then we know where we are. We like our lives full of ups and down, and turmoil, and having lighthouses and navigating the rocky shores gives us a sense of achievement and control. We always have a story to tell, we are interesting, we are somebody. We can hold tight to all these things and know for sure where we are. But this is not peace or freedom. and eventually we will be drawn onto the rocks where our suffering will only magnify. Its hard to sail out into the ocean and the peaceful waters; peace is actually the hardest thing. Not struggling searching and grasping is the hardest thing. So why is this?
What lies at the root of all this struggle is the Self. This sits inside that circle bouncing around like a ball bearing in a Pin Ball machine. It pings from this side to that side, joining groups, taking up opinions and ideas struggling against a world that is both wonderful at times and beastly and oppressive at other times. On minute we are in love with someone who makes the whole world make sense, and the next we hate them and want to be as far away as possible. Or vice versa. Constant swinging between extremes. Why do we do this?
Well the real question is how do we come to be here or there? Who actually decides that someone is lovable or hateful? How do we side with one side of an argument or perspective. A reader may say of what is written here, "what a load of nonsense" or they make say "yes I've read this before its sounds right, I agree" or they may just get bored and head off, or they may get excited and want to read more. Rare will be the reader who brings their own freedom to this text and walks away clearer without taking this text with them. This text is really for the bin. Its just words on a page. But some readers may use it to become further away from themselves. And that is another antimony. But why will most readers either take or reject this, or get bored or excited? What "thing" is moving towards or away from this text? That thing is the centre of the whole problem.
When we take sides in an antimony something is moving imperceptibly from one place to another. I said in the summer that this is like a ship casting its anchor into the sea bed. The real point of that was to move attention from the ship to the anchor. When we take sides in an argument it can get very emotional and heated because in reality what has happened is that "I" have taken sides and we defend that side like its a house with us inside. If the house falls then we fall. Its that imperceptible movement of ourselves to one side that causes the problem. But the anchor analogy points to the key point, we are not IN the house we have only cast our anchor into the house. we have not actually take sides, we have only cast an anchor into one side or the other. Like any ship we can uncast and sail off. We are actually free, it is just the anchor that binds us. That anchor is called "attachment" in Buddhism.
If we rewrite the circle analogy above with anchors we see the solution to antimonies much better. Whether we are inside the circle or outside the circle is not the point (reminds me of the film Meet the Fockers and the de Niro's Circle of Trust). The point is not whether we are inside or outside, the point is where we place our anchor. It is the anchor that sticks us to one side of an antimony or the other. It is good enough just to see this because by focusing on the anchor we let go of the ship: who knows where the ship is, its the anchor that decides which port we are in.
So middle path is like this, we do not actually know where we are, we are always at peace, we do not take side, we are not stuck this way or that way. All this conflict and opposites, confusion, difficulty and suffering, all the light houses and rocks all come from where we cast our anchor. If we keep our mind on the anchor we have achieved already the hardest thing which is to realise that we are always free. If its just the anchor that makes an antimony double sides then just up anchor.
So going back to Covid. It is true there are 2 sides to this. Globally its of no real problem, there are plenty of diseases which cause far more harm, but for those in hospital and their families it is a time of great difficulty. Both are true. We can cast our anchor one way or the other, or neither! There is no objective way to solve this, there is no fixed guide book, but if the politician makes sure not to set his anchor in either side they will make the best possible decisions. Problems occur when the Politicians stops being free and casts their anchor into one side o the other. This is not the job of politicians, its the job of lobbyists. But really we all benefit from being able to cast our anchors freely or not at all.
This incidentally answers probably my longest held childhood question. If Adults know everything then why have they not written the definitive guide to life. Why is there no book I can read to tell me what to do with life? If there is no book then doesn't it mean I can do anything? But obviously some people are happier with their life than others, and we criticise many people for how they live - especially criminals. So we have an antimony again: while we are free, there are nevertheless better way and worse ways to live life. The point is to live a good life we much learn to cast our anchors very freely, or not at all and not be stuck in port by an anchor we can't pull up. That was the book I was looking for as a child, that the skill to life was not to look for definitive answers but to remain free and judge every moment of my life without prejudice or from a fixed harbour. Be free to sail the oceans far away from lighthouses and the troubles of extremes. In a world abide in the Peace you already have, Always.
Examples of fixed anchors are people stuck with views like "I have the best partner", "I have the worst partner", "I am amazing", "I am rotten", "I exist", "I wish I did not exist"... etc we all probably have some strong fixed ideas about our life. These light houses are just where we have placed our anchors. Our lives are not really fixed like this, any one can up anchor at any time and cast in a different port. So the person who thinks their life sucks just needs to get bored with that port and up anchor. Simply by casting the anchor again they will find that same life suddenly seems different, the possibilities are different, the whole meaning and shape of their life changes simply by moving anchor. Its as easy as that, or as hard. Being free is very bewildering at first.
No comments:
Post a Comment