The Dream of Constant Okayness (Pema Chödrön)

Sile

"It’s not impermanence per se, or even knowing we’re going to die, that is the cause of our suffering, the Buddha taught. Rather, it’s our resistance to the fundamental uncertainty of our situation. Our discomfort arises from all of our efforts to put ground under our feet, to realize our dream of constant okayness. When we resist change, it’s called suffering. But when we can completely let go and not struggle against it, when we can embrace the groundlessness of our situation and relax into its dynamic quality, that’s called enlightenment, or awakening to our true nature, to our fundamental goodness. Another word for that is freedom—freedom from struggling against the fundamental ambiguity of being human."

(From Pema Chödrön's Living Beautifully with Uncertainty and Change - and thanks to our friends at Shambhala Pubs for the always insightful Heart Advice of the Week!)

Songhill

To be frank, I have always found Pema Chördön's interpretation of Buddhism too psychological for my blood. Her views stray into the 'neutral zone' (Star Trek) which means that her ideas need a serious challenge. According to the Buddha, what is suffering is the psycho-physical body (the five aggregates). Clinging to it is the cause of suffering. Finally, transcending the psycho-physical body is enlightenment which means awakening to our true, luminous nature.

PrairieGhost

But couldn't attachment to the psycho-physical body be connected with resistance to groundlessness?

RebeccaS

She seems happy and wise. I like her. I don't know much about her except for the things people have posted here and a cursory google, but she seems like she knows her stuff. Trust the people who seem genuinely happy and content, they're obviously doing something right. Plenty of people talk the talk (and sometimes they talk a lot) but few actually walk the walk. She seems like she's walking to me

Songhill

PrairieGhost:

But couldn't attachment to the psycho-physical body be connected with resistance to groundlessness?

For the sake of argument, let's say that our inner sense of attachment to our psycho-physical body could be construed as a resistance to groundlessness (she gives no clues as to what groundlessness means in a Buddhist context). But reversing it, we could never get resistance to the groundless equals attachment to the five aggregates/psycho-physical body which is duhkha.

Jeffrey

I think she is teaching for a western audience. Groundlessness means nothing to grasp.

It's not only the five aggregates, but all dharmas are impossible to grasp. The buddhanature is also impossible to grasp. In fact the Buddha nature is what we are left with when we stop grasping.

jessie70

@Jefferey - I have taken her groundlessness to mean impermanence?

Songhill

Jeffrey:

I think she is teaching for a western audience. Groundlessness means nothing to grasp.

It's not only the five aggregates, but all dharmas are impossible to grasp. The buddhanature is also impossible to grasp. In fact the Buddha nature is what we are left with when we stop grasping.

According to her teacher, Chogyam Trungpa, "Buddha-nature brings the realization that there is no ground." By implication, one has to first see the Buddha-nature before they realize that there is no ground.

Our Buddha-nature cannot be realized by the practice of not grasping at sensory things and mental constructs. The effort of non-grasping is, itself, a subtle form of grasping.

We come to realize our Buddha-nature as something positive which requires of us spiritual 'seeing' which is why, in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Buddha speaks of "seeing" the Buddha-Nature by which one attains unsurpassed Enlightenment.

The Buddha also says: "The so-called Buddha-Nature is profound to know; it is hard to see and attain."

Jeffrey

I didn't say there was non-grasping. I said that nothing could be grasped. There are different views on emptiness. Some are just the five skhandas.

Sile

I think it's approaching the liberation from both ends, though - in order to take steps along the way to see our Buddha nature, we have to let go, even just in small ways, taking small steps toward the concept. In order to let go ultimately and permanently, we have to see our Buddha nature--or rather, realize it. But our chances of seeing our Buddha nature are practically nil if we don't learn to let go in the first place. She does say, "when we completely let go," that's enlightenment. I think, then, that her advice is about steps along that path.

Jeffrey

Jessie, I think it's more than impermanence. It's not just realizing that there is ups and downs, but rather it is seeing that there is no 'okay' to achieve that would satisfy us. We already have the mind we need to be satisfied, but we are deluded into thinking that we need to control. Pema talks about shenpa which is how outside phenomena 'hook' us into craving and neurosis. That's some more steps than just impermanence. But yeah probably if someone really realized impermanence they would bump into all the rest of the Buddhist path.

Sile

Also just have to add that, it seems to me anyway, each bit of advice in Buddhism contains within it the seed of "The Big One." In other words, even if one is taking only a tiny step towards compassion, or a tiny step towards letting go, in that step is the entire concept of enlightenment--enlightenment is after all ultimate compassion, ultimate letting go. So I don't think it's false to suggest a relationship between "small" ways of letting go, and the ultimate Letting Go. This seems to make sense, in the context of Buddhism being called a path.

PrairieGhost

Groundlessness, true self, not-self, Buddha nature... It's like we know that they're all figures of speech but we won't accept that they're all figures of speech.

And make no mistake, wars are being fought over this, over the fear of letting go, of weightlessness, of floating away like a bubble to whatever fresh hell we anticipate. That's what doctrinal disputes are really about. Fear of emptiness. But emptiness is empty too.

Do you see what that means? That emptiness is empty? I can't say it in words. But I can feel it burst my heart like rain.

I'm sorry for the overblown poetry, it's just this convoluted brain translating. I'll get better at this.

OneLifeForm

PrairieGhost said:

Groundlessness, true self, not-self, Buddha nature... It's like we know that they're all figures of speech but we won't accept that they're all figures of speech.

And make no mistake, wars are being fought over this, over the fear of letting go, of weightlessness, of floating away like a bubble to whatever fresh hell we anticipate. That's what doctrinal disputes are really about. Fear of emptiness. But emptiness is empty too.

Do you see what that means? That emptiness is empty? I can't say it in words. But I can feel it burst my heart like rain.

I'm sorry for the overblown poetry, it's just this convoluted brain translating. I'll get better at this.

Quote of the month!

andyrobyn

I agree PrairieGhost ... and if we understand anything from the written teachings of Buddhism, including the Pali Canon, it must begin with understanding they're all figures of speech.
Mostly when people write they are writing to an audience. As a friend of mine who writes and gets paid for it says ... " if it spoke to you then I am glad, please tell my boss as he is the one paying me " . Writers such as Pema are not motivated by $$$.

DairyLama

Jeffrey said:

I think she is teaching for a western audience.

Yes, but aren't they all?

DairyLama

Songhill said:

According to the Buddha, what is suffering is the psycho-physical body (the five aggregates). Clinging to it is the cause of suffering.

But according to the second Noble Truth and dependent origination it's the clinging that leads to suffering, not the aggregates themselves. That's why in the suttas the aggregates are often described as the "aggregates subject to clinging".

andyrobyn

PedanticPorpoise said:

Jeffrey said:

I think she is teaching for a western audience.

Yes, but aren't they all?




May I ask what you mean by all ? All teachers today?

Songhill

PedanticPorpoise:

But according to the second Noble Truth and dependent origination it's the clinging that leads to suffering, not the aggregates themselves. That's why in the suttas the aggregates are often described as the "aggregates subject to clinging".

The aggregates ARE suffering (S. v. 425). That is the first noble/ariya truth.

"And what , bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering? it should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging."

Clinging to the aggregates (i.e., suffering) is the etiology of suffering, the second ariya truth.

"The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origination of suffering” (M. i. 191).

The canon is very clear on the matter that the five aggregates which consist of material form, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies, and consciousness are suffering. As long as we cling to our psycho-physical body (i.e., the five aggregates) we suffer because it is always suffering. (I admit that the term duhkha rendered "suffering" is not the best translation.)

Looking at the 12 fetters (nidâna), given the fact that the fetter of consciousness (the transmigrant) is before nâmarûpa (the five aggregates), which is laden with karmic formations (sankhârâ), which arise through ignorance (avijjâ)—voila!—we have the recipe for rebirth and more rebirth followed by still more rebirth.

To recap: Our consciousness, due to karmic formations and spiritual ignorance, takes up an embryo (nâmarûpa). This embryo is the five aggregates of suffering. By continuously clinging to them, we (as consciousness) suffer. On the other hand, if we transcend the five aggregates (which are conditioned) by seeing the unconditioned (nirvana) suffering comes to an end.

Sile

I think it's clarified in her opening sentence: "It’s not impermanence per se, or even knowing we’re going to die, that is the cause of our suffering, the Buddha taught."

While it's true that the aggregates are suffering, the specific cause of our (individual) suffering is our (individual) clinging to them.

Those who cease clinging cease suffering, even though the possibility of suffering still exists for those who continue to cling.

I.e. @songhill, she says exactly what you say--that clinging to the aggregates is the cause of our suffering. If we didn't cling to them, we wouldn't suffer, despite the fact that the aggregates themselves remain a basis for suffering.

I think you could say it's similar to poison; poison is still poison, but if you don't cling to the poison, you won't suffer from the poison.

DairyLama

Songhill said:

On the other hand, if we transcend the five aggregates (which are conditioned) by seeing the unconditioned (nirvana) suffering comes to an end.

Yes, and we transcend them when clinging ( to them ) comes to an end.

DairyLama

andyrobyn said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

Jeffrey said:

I think she is teaching for a western audience.

Yes, but aren't they all?

May I ask what you mean by all ? All teachers today?

Generally people teaching in the west tailor their message for a western audience.

upekka

we talk about five aggregates, clinging to five aggregates

could U please explain the difference between form and the perception?

Songhill

PedanticPorpoise:

Yes, and we transcend them when clinging ( to them ) comes to an end.

The cessation of suffering (dukkha-nirodha) is accomplished by the ariya atthangika magga (ariyan eightfold path). This path is supermundane which means that it is only for those who are at least sotâpanna (current enterers). It begins with supermundane right view, which leads the way, in which one has attained the dhamma-eye and insight into dhamma. Also, it means to have arrived at true dhamma standing at the door of the deathless (nirvana). Right view is basically to see nirvana (nibbanadassanam) (M. i. 510f).

This all suggests that by following the ariya eightfold path we, as sotapanna, get weaned off the five aggregates booze. It is a gradual process, in other words. By seeing nirvana more and more, less and less do we glom onto the the aggregates.

upekka

upekka said:

we talk about five aggregates, clinging to five aggregates

could U please explain the difference between form and the perception?

this question is not just for the curiosity

instead of searching through written works or given talks, if U investigate the above question with your own capacity of understanding, surely 'a window' will open

find the door and walk out is the next step to be taken