lotusinthemud

The Secular and the Psychological ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

October 4th:

I have just come back from the conference of Buddhist teachers in Europe. While I was there I heard much discussion about secularisation and how it is necessary to secularise the Dharma in order to make it palatable to modern people. Personally, I am resistant to this idea. The Dharma is, in essence, a faith that lodges deeply in people’s hearts and that means that it is a religion. If you take the religion out what you are left with is a variety of techniques and protocols that can be intrinsically useful but is far short of real Dharma.

Furthermore, technique Buddhism takes up a lot of space in people’s already over full lives. A busy person who is hoping to get something from Buddhism does not really need telling that he should do an hour of medtation in addition to all the other things he has to do in a day. He is likely to try it for a short while and then find that it just gets squeezed out by all the other things that are on his agenda, whereas if he were to develop a sense of faith and gratitude for the Dharma, he can carry this with him wherever he goes. He can say a mantra or nembutsu while stopped at the traffic lights. He can gesture towards his heart anytime and this will help him to stay in touch with the wonderful sense of refuge that is the core of Buddhist faith. A less secular and more religious attitude is far more practical, apart from being the real thing.

However, some people say that I am in self-contradiction because I am in favour of a psychological perspective. Thus, for instance, I understand the life of Sidhartha Gotama in personal terms. His mother died giving birth to him. If you read the diary of the great 20th century Chan master Tzu Yun who had a similar beginning to life, you can see clearly how such a circumstance creates a deep personal and existential dilemma for a person and how one of the ways of dealing with this is to try to attone, which Siddhartha did by throwing himself into penitential practices, starving himself, going without sleep and trying all the extremes of yogic discipline. It then happened, when he was at an extremity, that Sujata showed kindness to him and I reason that this touched his heart and must have been a significant element in triggering his “one good night” of enlightenment.

Some Buddhists do not see the Buddha this way. They imagine that he was as he was as a result of many lifetimes of preparation and that he arrived in this life direct from the Tushita Heaven already equipped with all the knowledge that a Buddha needs; that he only went through the motions of being a human being in order to demonstrate the Dharma to us lesser beings. They do not, therefore, see the enlightenment as a result of a personal history or struggle. They think that if you psychologise the Buddha story in the way that I do, then you are effectively secularising the Dharma. I do not agree.

I do not agree because being religious does not imply that one has to be super human. Even if one does come into this life direct from Tushita, one comes as a human. To talk about Jesus’ passion on the cross does not make Christianity any less religious. Jesus and Sidhartha were human, but because they dealt with their humanity in a particular way they became channels for what is more than human to become manifest in the world. They became, as it were, mirrors for the light of the Dharma. In this way they are both fully human and fully divine. They are fully divine in that the ultimate truth shines through them. They are fully human in having the same instincts, the same human equipment, the same struggles that everybody has. They, however, took things further than most people do and, by doing so, revealed the highest truth.

Literally, "psychology" means the study of the soul and we shall not get far with religion if we do not study the soul’s perilous journey, both in the cases of the great exemplars and in our own lives. Furthermore, all psychological problems and obstacles are essentially spiritual and vice versa. To live a life of great compassion the Buddha had to understand the people who came to see him. He had to understand the mentality of Angulimala, the murderer. He had to understand that of Kisagotami who could not believe that her child was dead. He could only help by understanding and tailoring his response to that comprehension. Spiritual work is psychological and psychological work is spiritual. If it is not, it is not the real thing.

So I find a psychological understanding immensely useful and Buddhism provides me with a mass of psychological tools, but this does not mean that I am secularising the Dharma nor that the idea of doing so has any great appeal to me. For me the Dharma answers to my spiritual experience, search and struggle and the fact that the Dharma is full of wonderful psychological insights helps greatly. It all gives shape and expression to my faith and shows how unconditional grace operates in the midst of this conditioned existence.

:: link

Oneness and Difference in Psychotherapy

Dharmavidya:

SHARING: SOME INITIAL POINTS

Recently I was involved in a discussion about “oneness”. Clearly, to some people in the Buddhist world, oneness is a big number. However, it is not always that clear what people mean by this idea and it may be that different people take it to have different implications. Nonetheless, this particular discussion helped me to think about the issue in some interesting ways.

After some teasing out, it became apparent that, in practice, what my colleague had in mind was what I would call “sharing”. When one person shares something from their life experience, the listeners may well find that experiences of their own get triggered. If the listeners then share a little of their own experience this can be reassuring for the original protagonist in that he no longer feels alone. It can also lead to a loosening of discussion in the group as a whole since everybody has now shared something and so may be more willing to share more. This might aid the “forming” of the group which some might see as a valuable step toward unity whereas others might understand it more in terms of freedom from inhibition.

Again, there are interesting questions whether such sharing is itself therapeutic or not and whether the effect that it has upon the therapist tends to make her into more or less of a therapeutic agent. On the one hand, if, in sharing, the therapist becomes strongly warmed up to her own material, this could detract from the attention she can now give to the client. On the other hand, to really understand a client, or any other person, one does have to draw upon one's own experience in one way or another.

Then again, there is the question of the role of reassurance. Reassurance, in itself, is not really therapeutic, though it might in some circumstances, lower tensions that could otherwise inhibit therapy. Nonetheless, there are circumstances in which a client is likely to make more progress by not being reassured, but staying with their own material in its full force.

IN AND OUT OF THE ONENESS

My colleague saw sharing as being a manifestation of oneness because it brought out the commonality between people. I, on the other hand, was inclined to put the emphasis upon seeing sharing as a manifestation of plurality and diversity. I think that the implication of what she was saying would have been that when we recognise that we all have something in common we feel connected and safer, whereas the implication of my way of thinking was, rather, that when we see that a variety of people can share their diverse life experiences and nothing disastrous ensues, this frees us to explore an even greater diversity. It is fairly easy to see that there is some merit in both these perspectives, but I wonder if holding to a particular philosophy has practical consequences for what actions we might take in particular circumstances, especially when in our role as psychotherapist.

Somewhat later in the proceedings I gave a short demonstration of working with a client. In the feedback, my colleague gave some very useful and precise observations that I valued and finally commented that she could see that I had not been “in the oneness” and that, rather, the session had been precisely centred upon the client. Our discussion did not go so far as for me to discover whether she thought this enhanced or detracted, but my impression was that it was an acknowledgement that there could be many different ways of working and that being “in the oneness” might be one way and my way might be another.

Shunyata as Aloneness ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya writes:

EMPTINESS

Buddhism talks a good deal about shunyata, emptiness. What is this emptiness? The earliest Buddhist texts provide a psychology of what we could call the point mind - a mind without content. Our modern (and later Buddhist) psychologies speak a lot about the content of the mind and much therapy and education is devoted to filling the mind up with supposedly good things. So is the mind full or empty?

The Japanese psychologist Tomoda who translated the works of Carl Rogers into Japanese and then went on to develop a system of psychology closely related to Buddhist and Taoist thought was particularly struck by the way that Rogers’ method (if not his theory) provided the client with a safe space in which he could be entirely alone, even though in the presence of the therapist.

ALONENESS

To my way of understanding, the idea of shunyata can well be approached through this matter of aloneness. When one dies one is alone. One is alone facing a complete unknown. Whatever your belief about the afterlife, now what is happening for real and you know that something very powerful is taking place that you actually have no knowledge about. You can enter it in fear or in faith, but either way you do so alone. This is emptiness. Whatever connections, relations, loves, achievements or projects you have accomplished in your earthly life, all are left. You are alone. This is shunyata.

Buddhist enlightenment - spiritual awakening - is like this: to die before you die, to find that utter aloneness while still hale and fit for action here in this world. That is also faith, for you dare not enter such a state without great faith. It is a kind of fearlessness, which is not really to say that one never experiences the feeling of dread as a sensation, but rather that one has access to something that carries one through all difficulties. This something may be called the bodaishin or bodhichitta. It is not something that one can possess, but it is never unavailable.

IN PRACTICE

Buddhism has a multitude of methods for helping people to approach such a state, but the final step - that in which one is seized by an other power - one must, as at death, take utterly alone, and, as at death, it is not something one can contrive nor be in control of.

Zen Therapy Abilities ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

I could have called this ZT Skills, but I don’t like the idea of reducing therapy to a set of skills, as though you could build it up like a set of lego bricks. Rather it is an art. To play music you might need certain abilities with a keyboard or set of strings, but good music is not primarily technical in that way. It requires a feel for the whole, an acumen that is difficult to teach and cannot be broken down into component parts. Nonetheless, we can list some things that a good therapist using a ZT approach will do.

1. Notice what comes first
This is a principle of wide application that fits into several others that I shall mention. Thus, notice the very first thing the client says. If you are busy making the client feel comfortable or dealing with preliminary administrative matters you may miss it. Often clients give away a key to the whole matter in their first utterance. The personal koan seems to press forward and take precedence.
2. Note rupas
As the client tells his story, there is likely to be embedded a parade of rupas. Notice them all, but particularly, again, notice what comes first. If the client starts by saying, “I have three daughters and I’m having a lot of problems with the youngest, Emily…” then some time will now likely be spent talking about Emily, but when that ebbs, the therapist will say, “You said you had three daughters…” Even if the client dismisses this with “Yes, but the others are no trouble,” the therapist can persist a little, “That’s nice, tell me about them, what are their names?” “Charlotte and Jane.” “So tell me about Charlotte.” again picking the first. We’ll come back to Jane later.
3. Notice when the rupa has power
Sometimes it seems as if Emily is actually present in the room standing before the client. You can tell this from the client’s eye movements and general animation and orientation. The client, talking of the rupa, is in a samjna trance. During these periods the client will experience all the thoughts and feelings he has in relation to the real Emily. However, he is not yet seeing Emily as she actually is, only seeing the rupa, not yet the dharma.

Some Thoughts About Zen Therapy ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

Buddhist Psychology has what we in the West might call behavioural, cognitive, humanistic and analytical aspects all together in a single system. In other words, it deals with all aspects of the process of internalising experience and turning it into future action. This is called the skandha cycle about which I have written elsewhere.

This makes it difficult, in some ways, to define Buddhist psychotherapy (Zen Therapy). Intervention in one case might be very different from in another. The client meets the therapist and something happens. The adept meets the Zen master and something happens. It is, perhaps wrong even to use the word “intervention” since the master does not really have an intention to change the adept, merely to do Zen with him. He anticipate that the adept will change, but not in an easily predictable fashion. Who knows what the destiny of this or that person is to be?

This can, therefore, look different from many Western ideas of therapy, where goal setting and protocols dominate, but it is justified to call it therapy since it is a human interaction from which the adept may well emerge reformed in significant ways. I will here try to bring out some of the distinctive characteristics of a ZT approach.

RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL

People are not particularly rational. The kind of issues that they bring to a therapist are often not the kind that can be sorted out in a rational manner. Nor is it a goal that the person necessarily become more rational. Rational and irrational elements harmonise, each playing different parts in human nature. Nonetheless, many therapies purport to try to do so. Thus, it is, for instance, a principle of many therapeutic approaches to do either or both of the following:

1. to establish as a "ground rule" that everything shall be open and honest and to discuss openly the nature of the client's "problem" and assemble information that may throw light upon it, clarifying the client's habits and tendencies that may be contributing; and/or
   2. make a therapeutic contract with the client specifying goals and even how these are to be achieved.

I have a number of reservations about this kind of approach. One of the difficulties is that whatever is said is thereby made open to doubt. If I need to say to you that I am going to be open and honest, you wonder if this is really the case. If we make a contract, at least one part of your mind is already thinking of ways to get round it. Furthermore, while the therapist is establishing ground rules and thus telling the client how it is going to be, she is very likely missing communications that the client would be making whereby he sets out his sense of things. These first communications are often vital to the whole process and it is important that the therapist attend and listen rather than impose, since what happens at the beginning sets the tone and provides vital clues.

On Not Being In Control ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya writes:

BUDDHIST PSYCHOLOGY

On the one hand, Buddhism is a broad church or umbrella under which many diverse ideas and methods can cluster. Currently there are many popular methods that have some Buddhist connection. Thus we have mindfulness, qi gong, and reiki, and there are a range of derivatives such as mindfulness-based stress reduction or other supposedly mindfulness-based approaches. Also Buddhist centres are often hosts to yoga, martial arts, Tai Chi and other groups. We have now also reached the point where almost anything can be included under the mindfulness rubric - after all, minds are always involved - mindful gardening, mindful eating, whatever. This is not very different from how, some years ago, just about anything was being labelled person-centred since, similarly, persons were always in there somewhere.

When we reflect upon this scene, we can see that some things are closer to actual Buddhism than others. So whereas it is true that Buddhism is broad and welcoming, it is also possible to discern that there is a rigorous core Buddhist teaching that is absent from most of the methods mentioned in the first paragraph. If one wants genuine Buddhist psychology it must be based on Buddhism, which is to say that its theory and aims must be Buddhist, and Buddhism is a different paradigm from popular Western psychology. Many of the people operating in this field are completely unaware of this.

A CONVERSATION

The other day I was in a conversation with a person that I respect who has many years of experience in Western psychology. We were talking about a medical problem that I have. He was telling me how to keep exact records of what happens - when there is pain, when other symptoms occur, what I eat, when I rest, and so on. All these things can certainly be interesting. Then he said, so if you do this you can get to be in control, so that, in relation to the illness, you control it rather than it controlling you. This was said with some passion and obvious conviction and with a sense that this was the reason for all that had gone before. I thought about this for a moment and asked, “Why would I want to be in control? I have never wanted to be in control.” The conversation continued but this small interaction stood out as the pivot that revealed our difference of thinking. If I collect all the data, it will possibly enable me to see the nature of the natural phenomenon that currently has a grip on my body, and doing so might be very interesting, but in Buddhism body and mind fall away. In Buddhism we learn, "This is not me, this is not mine, this is not myself." This or that process is passing through. I cannot be in control of birth and death, loss or fortune. Furthermore, if I am always striving to be in control, then when inevitable things happen I am likely to experience them as a frightening and as defeat, rather than meeting them with peace in my heart.

THE BIG OBSTACLE

Buddhism is not about self and its power or enhancement. It is not about making the self stronger. It is not about developing a self before you let it go. It is not about self-esteem, self-love, self-anything. The Buddha regarded the conceit of self as the biggest obstacle to spiritual emancipation. It is very difficult for a Western educated person to take this teaching in. We Westerners have been, in the past half century especially, saturated by the idea that wellbeing is all about looking after oneself and one's own wellbeing is all important. We need time for oneself. We need to love ourselves. We even feel guilty when we do not love ourselves enough. Many forms of malaise are nowadays attributed to failure to love oneself sufficiently or in the right way. From a Buddhist perspective, this is all nonsense.

Catalyst as a way of being ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

Sometimes the healer is a catalyst. A catalyst is a substance that makes a reaction between other substances possible, yet emerges from the chemical process unchanged, while the other participants have been changed in a way that would not have been possible without the presence of the catalyst. Thus, sometimes one is present when other people are in interaction and one’s presence makes a difference to how the others interact even though one either does not get involved at all or merely has a facilitive role that keeps one clean of the issues at stake.

In the theory of business management there is an idea of a catalyst person as one who listens but then chalenges, who generates many ideas without attachment to a particular outcome and provokes others to think outside the box. This can certainly be one aspect of being a catalyst some times, but I have in mind here something that is more a matter of a way of being than a way of acting. The person who has inner peace may be even more effective that the person who seeks deliberately to be a change agent.

I remember being present at public demonstrations protesting about the international arms trade. I was a Buddhist in my robes. I simply stood there ringing my bell from time to time. I am sure that my presence defused a number of tense situations that could easily have led to violence between the protestors and the police. The presence of myself and other monks as symbols of peace brought a modicum of sanity to the situation.

The role of a spiritual person may often be of this kind, and not even always deliberately. Everybody is affected by envitonment. If you go to a beautiful or powerful place, you are naturally induced into a sense of awe. The spiritual person, just by being as he or she is, exercises an influence on those around. I remember that my Roshi was often quite matter of fact and undistinguished in run of the mill situations, but whenever there was tension or conflict in the air she became noticeably more peaceful - the opposite of what was happening to everbody else in the room.

We see from this that being a catalyst involves a significant degree of independence. It is not just go with the flow, but actually, often, going in diametrically the opposite direction. This requires one to have a deep keel. Such a keel is provided by a faith that makes one identify with the beyond rather than with the flux of the here and now.

This may help us to realise that Amida and all the Buddhas are catalysts. Their presence changes how we are when we turn our heart toward them. When we are seized by them, we are in the grip of something much more powerful and important than the viscissitudes of social interaction. This will set one aside in a certain way. A spiritual wayfarer has a different eye and ear, sees and hears things in a different way from the worldy person.

Thus we know that even if in some ways and at certain  times we function in this facilitative or transformative way, it is not really our own doing. It is because one is grounded in the limitless protection of the Buddhas that one’s life is without obstacle. This is something to be grateful for.

:: link

Torment ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

Buddha said, “There are people who torment themselves. There are people who torment others. There are people who torment both themselves and others. There are people who torment neither themselves nor others.”

In our modern world there are two particular applications of this teaching that we should pay special attention to. One is that nowadays much of this tormenting is psychological, in addition to the vast amount of physical brutality that still goes on. The other is that in our modern social system many roles and occupations institutionalise torment and the people who take such a role thereby fail to practise right livelihood.

If one’s day to day activity involves cruelty, oppression, harm or restriction of others, there are likely to be unforeseen psychological consequences. Furthermore, psychological consequences tend to work out in practical ways in the real world.

Often it is difficult to see exactly where is the line. Many occupations - immigration officer, policeman, politician, tax inspector, etc - have a perfectly legitimate function, but can easily slide over into oppression, prejudice and cruelty.

The institutionalisation of torment spreads the karma thereof. We all feel sullied by what our country does. We feel out of tune with our fellow citizens and our leaders.

Yet, we are advised to “live spreading thoughts joined to goodwill, to compassion, to joy, and to equanimity in all directions, everywhere, in every way, in the entire world, abundantly, boundlessly, unrestrictedly, peaceably, benevolently”.

One might well ask, how is this possible? The answer must lie in recognition of universal ignorance - forgive them for they know not what they do - which can only come about as we begin to recognise similar limitations in ourselves. As we come to see our own deficiency, we more and more rely upon faith, upon mindfulness of the Dharma that we have learnt and that works upon us, both consciously and unconsciously, so that ultimately life becomes a life of refuge rather than of self-assertion.

We torment ourselves to try to free ourselves from our tormenting of others, but the tormenting of others is mostly projection of our tormenting of ourselves, so, as Buddhist psychology demonstrates, we are caught on a wheel. A fault-finding mind is hard on self and hard on others, and brings much misery. When we see the folly of this, we can, perhaps, cease the perfection project and relax into the arms of the Dharma.

The Buddha torments neither self nor others. He long ago saw the uselessness of self-harm and his compassionate heart radiates joy in all directions.

:: link to original post

Two Types of Individuality

Dharmavidya writes:

SELF-SUFFICIENCY WITHOUT EGO

In Buddhism one can be confused at seemingly opposite teachings on individuality and self-reliance. On the one hand, it teaches us to let go of ego. On the other hand, it teaches ekagata, which is spiritual self-sufficiency. How is this best understood?

Let’s consider ekagata first. What is it to be spiritually self-sufficient? It means that even if everybody else is panicking, one need not panic; one may stay calm because one’s refuge in the Dharma is stronger than the panic provoking stimulus.

This is particularly the case when the stimulus is something that could seem threatening to one’s person, reputation or interests. There are several sutras where the Buddha talks about or demonstrates how to not respond in kind when insulted.

When we consider instances of the kind just mentioned, I think we should be able to see how spiritual self-sufficiency equates to non-ego. The person who is not spiritually self-sufficient is triggered by insult because his or her ego is involved. We call this taking something personally.

The person of ekagata lays aside ego so that when a person says something to him or her he can consider objectively if it is so or not. If it is so, he can admit it. If it is not, he can let it pass.

INDIVIDUALITY AS A POSE

Our contemporary society is much concerned with image and style. The modern idea of individuality is about developing a personal image and style. This is an attempt to control how others see one in order to optimise one’s access to social approval. Because one is seeking approval of others, one cannot actually afford to step outside rather narrow parameters. From a Buddhist perspective this type of strategy is not genuine, but only a pose.

Such a project has obvious pitfalls. If one believes in one’s image, then one is at the mercy of changing fashion and of modes of opinion. One will have to be a kind of chameleon in order to stay popular. One sees this in certain politicians.

Of course, this can lead to a second level phenomenon in which a person puts on a show for public consumption without believing in it him or herself. This leads to a lot of hypocrisy.

Then again, even more complicated, one has the phenomenon of skilful means. Sometimes it is necessary to dissemble in order to bring about a well-intentioned change. This is a very tricky area. One thinks of certain guru figures who are skilled at taking photo opportunities. It is difficult to tell from outside whether the person is really sincere or not.

TATHAGATAS DO NOT SPEAK FALSELY

What we do know is that in the Pari-Nirvana Sutra, King Ajatashatru send his adisor to ask questions of the Buddha because “Tathagatas do not speak falsely.” It is true that in the conversation that follows the Buddha only says what is true, but it is also apparent that he chooses which things to say judiciously and does not say everything.

So what can we draw from all this? On the one hand, it is not always possible to perceive whether another person is sincere, nor to assess accurately their true motive or character. On the other hand, insofar as we can set ego aside, we ourselves become more spiritually self-sufficient and liberated. This makes it much easier to be both truthful and judicious. We might have to occupy certain roles from time to time, but it is best not to get too invested in them. On the other hand, simply putting on a show for the sake of social approval is only rarely part of a genuinely wise and compassionate intention.

To the outside observer, the bodhisattva might seem saintly or simply eccentric, but this is not something that the person herself worries about over-much. She simply does what has to be done. The observer will try to put her into a characterisation, but she herself is not playing that game.

In Western psychology, the aim is ego strength and positive self-regard. This is quite different to the Buddhist approach in which the aim is to diminish and abandon ego investment. In the Western model the person combats threats through inner strength. It is, however, impossible to be so thick skinned that nothing gets through. In the Buddhist approach insult simply passes by or remains with the perpetrator because the bodhisattva is not touched by it. The Western approach is really a conflict model whereas the Buddhist approach is based on the principle of emptiness. This difference of philosophy runs very deep. The Buddha has an open hand, not a clenched fist.

:: link

Karma 2: Bija and Alaya ~ Dharmavidya

Dharmavidya:

A common way of explaining karma is by using the idea of bija. A bija is a “karmic seed”. We can think of karmic seeds as planted in the ground of the mind. A seed can stay in the ground for a long time before the conditions arrive that enable it to sprout. In the same way, karmic seeds can lodge in the mind waiting for the provocation or stimulation that will make them spring into action.

Thus, one might have a seed of anger. At some point in time the trigger for this seed occurs. Perhaps somebody insults one. The anger seed germinates and one feels the upsurge of anger. Now at this point, momentarily, there is a choice. One can go with the rising feelings or one can avert the sequence. This moment of freedom usually is brief. If one does not take the option to avert, then the usual sequence of events will unfold, one will become angry and conflict with ensue. One will come away from the interaction seething with negative affect.

Now there are two important points here. One is that even though karma is inexorable, there is, within it, always a window of freedom. The other is that, in this analogy, the old seed is exhausted. It has ceased (vipaka), but because one became angry again new seeds have been sown. So one emerges from the situation with the same kind of seed - perhaps more of the same - in one’s alaya. The alaya is the accumulation of seeds, or, by extension, the part of the mind where all these seeds are stored (just as the word "store" can mean the things kept or the place where they are kept).

If, on the other hand, one had interrupted the sequence, the seed from the past would have still sprung up but no new seeds would be planted. Thus, one would still feel the anger, but by not acting upon it one would diminish the propensity to become angry in the future by reducing the quantity of anger seed in the alaya.

Now, of course, we have innumerable seeds already in the alaya so one cannot really know what might pop up next, but the theory does give quite a good picture of how restraint works. If one restrain an impulse, one still feels the force of that impulse at the time. If one restrain it repeatedly, the occasions upon which it comes forth become fewer and further between. Restraint does not bring instant results but it does gradually lead to a stronger character and a more peaceful mind.

In a more profound way, the experience of such arising (samudaya) can be a basis for useful insight and wisdom. If I am prone to it, then I can gain a sense of how it is for everybody else, including those who have very different outlook on life from myself. We are all human and all have a karmic history. From a certain point of view we are nothing but our karmic history. If I can profit by learning from my experiences of losing self-control in this way, I can gain a much deeper understanding of human nature and this can be the foundation of real compassion in the form of fellow feeling. We are all in the same boat, all subject to the same plight as being children of our karma.

Even more profoundly, the moment of freedom is a glimpse of nirvana. It is a quantum of bliss. It is past in an instant, but that instant is like a miracle. In that moment one is completely alone, detached from the provocative stimulus. The sense of "I don't have to," is freedom. Tolstoy once commented on Lao Tzu saying "Every disaster distressing to human beings arises not from neglecting to do something necessary but from doing something unnecessary." There is much truth in the notion that most of our difficulties are self-inflicted. When our lives are simple, we complicate them. When things are going along smoothly we get bored. We have an incorrigible tendency to stir things up. The old pattern returns and returns and we fail to see the disadvantage.

Buddha emphasised restraint because he realised it is an important element in breaking free from the effects of recurring karma and also because noticing our own freedom is a step toward the bliss of awakening.