Attachments: Just Relax

July 6th, 2009

It’s strange how often I hear variations of the question, “If attachment causes suffering, does that mean we’re not supposed to have goals?” I often tell people that there is no Buddhist commandment, “Thou shalt never have any attachments whatsoever.” That’s not why the Buddha taught about attachment’s role in suffering.

Maybe it would help to change the terms we use: rather than saying “end attachment,” say “relax attachment.” It’s your karma to be alive here and now, so maybe your role in this lifetime is not to become a forest monk with no attachments; maybe it’s to be a 21st-century person who is able to relax those attachments.

Of course we still have the same resistance to relaxing attachment. Many of us often don’t like to relax. We think that if we relax for just a moment, we’ll lose everything we worked for. But the truth is that we can’t get everything we desire, and getting desires fulfilled often just leads to more desires. You succeed at getting As in middle school, so you think you’re entitled to As in high school, and then As in a university. There’s no point where you can say, “I’ve succeeded,” and relax. So we live in continual panic, because we never relax our attachments.

We relax our attachments by playing them like a game. It’s fun to win, but it’s not the end of the world if I don’t. I’d like to have success, and I’ll take the logical steps that I predict will lead to success, but if I don’t succeed, it doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the world or wrong with me. And because so much of our success is compared with others–I want good grades so that I can get into a better school than you–when we relax, we can be happy for people who are more successful than we are. I didn’t get that job, but someone else did, and I’m happy, because there’s no way we could both get it.

And maybe it helps to think of the opposing attachment. If you want to lose weight, contemplate the idea of relaxing your attachment to high-calorie foods. If you want to learn well at school, contemplate relaxing your attachment to leisure activities that cut into your study time.

Me and My Big Emotions

July 1st, 2009

In the Dharma talk I heard this weekend when visiting the Jewel Heart Buddhist Learning Center with the Buddhists meetup, the teacher mentioned that we tend to use anger to avoid taking responsibility for our own role in conflicts.  It was an interesting thought, and I hoped she would explore it more.  How is anger avoiding responsibility?

When we talk about emotional transactions, we have a number of ways to do it.  I remember when I took French classes in high school, the verb manquer puzzled me.  It’s used to talk about missing someone, but the way to say “I miss her” is “Elle me manque.”  “She” is the subject, “me” the object.

But then I realized that sometimes we do that in English too.  Some concepts can go both ways–“I like sushi” and “Sushi pleases me” mean more or less the same thing.  But more often, our words for negative emotions but the object as the subject.  “That music annoys me.”  “He pissed me off.”  “You make me sick.”  Even the way we can state those positively is a little bit passive: “I am upset with him” is the passive of “He upsets me.”

This way of thinking holds us back from acknowledging our own role in our interactions.  Buddha taught that our worlds are made by our minds.  Many Zen masters have advised us to meditate on that which causes resentment.  I realized after a meditation a few weeks ago that I spend much of my mental energy trying to justify my reactions.  When I am annoyed with someone, I dwell on those thoughts that run through my head explaining exactly why obviously my way of thinking about it is right and the other is wrong.  When I’m annoyed with the weather, I find myself saying that the weather isn’t supposed to do what it’s doing right now, that I’m justified in feeling annoyed because the weather is wrong.  If I rewrite the language to a more mindful way of thinking about it, I’d probably say something like, “I am resenting the weather.”

This doesn’t mean that we should stop reacting emotionally to things; we do and we will.  But when we do, that’s an opportunity to learn about ourselves, not necessarily about anyone else.  When I look at another person and experience disappointment or irritation or aversion, I examine my own role in that reaction.  Meditate on the resentment in learning about myself, not necessarily fixing someone else.

And it doesn’t mean that we can’t discern, that we can’t choose pleasant situations over unpleasant ones.  One thing we may learn about our emotional states is that they’re normal and healthy.  If I smell a rotten egg and I experience aversion, I am resenting the rotten egg, and what does that say about me?  It says that I have the normal human capacity to tell fresh food from decaying food.  That’s not a bad thing to learn about myself.

Mourning Isn’t Fair

June 26th, 2009

After the busy news day yesterday on the celebrity-death front, my friend commented that it didn’t seem fair that Michael Jackson’s death was getting more attention than Ed McMahon’s or Farrah Fawcett’s.  It brought back memories of the weekend in 1997 when news broke of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana’s death.

I guess I wonder, particularly in the world of Facebook and Twitter, whether short lines of grieving from fans count as elegies–that is, whether we should feel compelled to dedicate them to noble celebrities and eschew them for unworthy ones.  What am I really saying when I tweet about a current obituary?

We use these tweets and status updates to work through our feelings in public, to negotiate a way of feeling about things through our friends.  Of course, my daily life changes very little with the passing of Michael Jackson or Ed McMahon.  I don’t have to worry how I’m going to live without either of them. And both deaths might be seen as trivial in the face of other deaths at war or in fights for civil justice.

But I can’t say that I have complicated questions about Ed McMahon to work through, but I think we all have complicated questions about Michael Jackson.   At one point in the 80s, Jackson was one of three major pop solo artists, along with Madonna and Prince.  Those two, while having complicated relationships with the limelight, both are still making music.  It’s not hard to imagine an alternate path of history where Michael Jackson kept releasing new music and performing well into the 21st century.  As it happens, he didn’t.  His media persona overruled his music.  Who would have thought in 1985 that of those three, Michael Jackson would be the one to go off the deep end?

As I said in my last post about Rachel Getting Married, there are two strategies for getting attention–success and failure.  Ed McMahon was, by all reports, a good man and a good role model.  Michael Jackson left behind a legacy of musical talent, but for the last ten years was much more likely in the news for a court battle than for a song.

Michael’s failures got more attention than McMahon’s successes.  It’s not fair, but feelings aren’t fair.  If people need to talk through their feelings about one death more than another, that’s okay.

A Buddhist Review of Rachel Getting Married

June 24th, 2009

Stories about addiction often interest me as a Buddhist, because addiction is a perfect example of  the kind of suffering Buddha taught about.  We suffer because we can’t control our craving, our thirst.  This applies to all of us; we all have things we’re addicted to.  Our dissatisfaction with life comes from our own habits and mental formations, and this realization is especially pronounced in those people whose addictions have driven them to a breaking point.

The main character in Rachel Getting Married is Kym, and she has passed this breaking point a long time ago.  At the beginning of the movie, she takes a temporary leave from an addiction treatment facility to attend the wedding of her sister, Rachel.  Kym’s leaving rehab, and Rachel’s getting married, and both are big events for the family that require a level of involvement and attention.

I think we all feel a bit of attention deficit from families.  Our families are where we first learn what it means to be a person, and however much we grow up, we still look to them for evidence that we are important, that someone’s looking at us as people.  But a fair share doesn’t seem like enough, or especially if you have siblings, it feels like someone else is always getting more than a fair share.  Kym and Rachel both feel this way at times, like they rightfully deserve a little more attention than they’re getting.

Of course there are two basic strategies that siblings can use to get attention: being a success and being a fuck-up.  Whichever strategy you’re using, you’re bound to feel a little resentful of a sibling who’s using the other strategy.  If you’re successful, you probably feel like it’s unfair that someone else gets attention whenever they mess up.  At one point in the movie, Rachel accuses her father of caring more about Kym’s melodrama–“If anyone wants to get your attention, they just have to ask you about Kym.”  The flip side of this resentment is that the fuck-up feels like the successful sibling is being rewarded beyond their success.  You’re getting married, you have a career, you have a healthy life, and on top of all that, you want everyone to devote a whole weekend to telling you how happy they are for you.

Not to give away any major plot points, but there’s a significant conversation in Rachel Getting Married that is turned around midstream, and Kym’s resentment of this is obvious: it’s as if she’s saying, “You can’t interrupt a conversation about my problems and turn it into a conversation about yet another way your life is going right.”

It’s an interesting, nuanced movie, in part because the whole family is somewhat sympathetic.  Even though Kym has no clue how to do what’s right, she wants to.  Even when in the midst of a crowd of wedding guests, Kym is obviously seeing her own story.  There’s a very long scene of the rehearsal dinner, where guest after guest makes a toast to the happy couple.  Through all the toasts, Kym looks like she’s trying to be part of the easy rapport that Rachel and her fiance Sidney have with a whole cast of friends and relatives.  When she tries to make her own toast, it results in deep discomfort; the guests who had been laughing amiably at all the other toasts seem at a loss from her first line: “Hello, I’m Shiva the destroyer, and I am your harbinger of doom for the evening.”

Her toast, and the other toasts, are contrasted by two scenes at a Narcotics Anonymous meeting.  At the meeting, Kym’s speech fits in.  She knows that she can say what she wants and people will understand.  She wishes she could find that in the rest of her life–and if there’s any more universal longing than that, I don’t know what it is.

I was interested, after seeing the movie, to look at other reviews, and I was surprised to see a lot of negative reviews from discussion boards, but perhaps what surprised me most was a positive review which focused entirely on the diversity of the wedding party.  The reviewer expressed surprise and happiness that a successful movie portrayed an interracial wedding.  It seemed strange to me that the review would make a big deal out of the fact that the movie treats interracial relationships as no big deal.

The flip-side to this is that in the smiling parade of diverse wedding guests, we focus on the drama of the two sisters and their parents, and some people wondered if the African-American family was portrayed as magically cheerful.  But I think it points to a truth about families: on the outside, families often look a lot happier than they are.  And sometimes we need a little reminder of this–if we’re harboring the illusion that other families have the Happiness Handbook that we somehow missed out on.  There could be a companion movie to this, Sidney Getting Married, where we see the hidden drama in Sidney’s family.

There’s another character who is having a homecoming: Sidney’s cousin, who is called Specialist Gonzales.  He is mentioned in some of the toasts as a special guest on leave from the service.  He is shown in a formal uniform, always holding a camera.  His character is a kind of doppelganger to Kym’s; both are home only temporarily, and while they’re central to the film, it’s not really about them.  It’s about the whole family, and when we put the camera down, we see that we’re completely linked to every one of them.

Buddhism, Forgiveness and Punishment

June 22nd, 2009

Someone in an online community asked:

A hypothetical question for all of you:

You’re the Buddhist ruler of an Autocracy. Laws need to be made regarding civil order. Laws are upheld with the threat of punishment.

In your society, is nobody ever to be punished? Does being a Buddhist mean never reprimanding anyone?

Certainly not “never reprimanding.”  I mean, active forgiveness–telling someone that they are forgiven–involves some level of reprimanding, of calling the wrong action wrong.  “You hurt me, but I forgive you.”  It’s not the same as “Don’t worry about it, you never did anything wrong.”

In an ideal Buddhist state, there would be a lot less baggage to the concept of punishment.  Sometimes I think of punishment and I remember when I used to work at a video rental store.  I’d say as nicely as possible, “I see in your record that you kept your last movie an extra day.  There’s a one-dollar charge for that.”  Some people would feel affronted by that, reading into that one-dollar charge the accusation: “You failed to return your video on time.  You’re a bad person, and you’re being punished for it.”  I never found a way to get some people to accept that there’s nothing wrong with keeping a rental another day and paying for it.

I also think we bring baggage to the legal system, like we want an authority figure to say, “You’re right and he’s wrong.”  A Buddhist answer often requires two sides to reach an understanding, that neither side is inherently right or wrong.

So a Buddhist justice system would be a lot more focused on restitution and rehabilitation.  Recognizing that something wrong has happened in the past, we look for ways to encourage more right actions in the future.

Forgiveness, to me, means that I don’t think anyone’s a bad person.  If I caught you stealing money out of my wallet, I’d forgive you, but that doesn’t mean you can keep the money.  If you stole my car and wrecked it, I’d forgive you, but I’d ask you to help me get my car fixed.

Meetups

June 10th, 2009

I somehow became a heavy participant in the Meetup website and network.  I’d become aware of it when they started a local Buddhists meetup, and my first reaction, I’ll admit, was kind of skeptical.  Why do we need a website to set up in-person meetings with Buddhists?  I meet lots of Buddhists on Sunday mornings at the temple.  These things aren’t hidden.

But then the Buddhist Meetup came to Still Point for a visit, and I got to know them a little bit, went to their meetups at a Chinese restaurant in Dearborn, and then one of them invited me to a party.  This young woman is kind of a Meetup maven, and guests at that party had met her through several different groups.  I joined the International Meetup for a few outings after that, and when their organizer had to move on to other things, and was looking for volunteers to organize, no one else stepped up, so–boldly going where others fear to tread–I stepped up.  I get to meet interesting people, and I get to choose where we eat, so it’s a win-win.

There’s an interesting lesson in human psychology in the way a Meetup group runs.  Look at the numbers: Right now the International Meetup has 360 members, individuals who’ve joined the website and get the mailings about new events.  When I announced a meeting at a local Lebanese restaurant, 26 people left a “Yes” RSVP (and didn’t change it before the meeting).  At the actual meeting, there were 13 people total.  I’ve come to expect this kind of ratio, and if I can avoid being frustrated by it, I can learn an interesting lesson.  In any individual, there’s a discrepancy in these three points:

  1. Willingness to click “Yes, I’d like to join this group.”
  2. Willingness to click, “Sure, I’ll be there next Wednesday.”
  3. Actually going.

Of course, people’s lives are complicated and they may have good reasons for missing.  But it’s enough of a trend that I think it shows something deeper about our minds.

I’ve heard that psychological studies show that we have very different kinds of thoughts about events that are near in time than events that are some time in the future or the past.  We tend to think of distant events in abstract terms, and near events in concrete.  If your brother asks you to babysit his kids next month, because it’s a month away, you’ll think about gratitude, family togetherness, learning experiences, childhood.  If he asks you to do it tomorrow, you’ll think about car seats, diapers, Disney DVDs, apple juice.

This could be the reason between the discrepancy between the things we say we want, and what we actually practice.  It’s typical that personal ads will say “I like long walks,” but you don’t see many people taking long walks.  It’s the same principle: when your romantic relationship doesn’t exist yet, it’s far enough away that when you think about the long walks you’ll take with your honey-to-be, you think in abstract terms: intimacy, relaxation, charm.  When it’s an option for tonight, you think in more practical terms: the shoes you’re going to wear, your tired feet, the bad sidewalks in your neighborhood, the TV programs you could be watching instead.

I have a theory that meditation practice allows us the space to remember what we really want from life.  We realize that it’s not that difficult to get out the door.  We remember that, a few weeks ago, we really wanted this, and we’ll make the stand and do it.  It’s just a theory, but I think if you try it, you’ll be glad you did.

Meditation and prayer

June 8th, 2009

Reposted from an email conversation with a Christian friend.

There’s a analogy for thinking about the goal of meditation: imagine that you have a pool of water, and you’re always throwing pebbles in it, or splashing in it, or stirring it, so that the surface is choppy and you can’t see your reflection. The water represents your mind, and the splashing and stirring and pebble-throwing represents all your worrying, wanting, planning, comparing, thinking. To get the pool clear, you need to let it sit for a while, then your reflection becomes clear. I like this analogy because it’s not like stilling the mind is some secret special way to stir it or an exotic type of pebble; and it’s not that your mind isn’t already made of pure, clear water. It’s just that it takes some stillness and silence to get it to settle down. (And, if you’re wondering, sleep doesn’t do the trick. The mind isn’t still in sleep–REM sleep is the time for the mind to try out all kinds of thoughts that hadn’t come up in waking life.)

Another way to think of meditation is as objectless prayer. Katagiri Roshi, one of the first Zen teachers to come to the US, said that zazen is prayer without the expectations that some people might put on the subject and object of prayer. It takes away the parts of prayer that people get hung up on. Now, I know that not all Christians pray for stuff, or pray for specific outcomes, but you can see how it’s a possibility that someone would get hung up on it. The concept of “answers to prayers” suggests a subject and an object, a separation from the divine, a speaker and a listener, I’ll give you this if you give me that. So in that sense, meditation is a kind of unconditional prayer. Praying to listen, not to talk.

The other thing that interests me in this definition is the idea of a consistent meditation practice. The changes in the way I deal with my thoughts didn’t happen overnight. Through setting time aside on a daily basis for silent meditation/prayer, I let the changes happen at their own pace. I know some religious people who pray or meditate only when they feel like they need it, only when they’re troubled–no atheists in foxholes, etc. And in terms of meditation, I say that it doesn’t work well as emergency medicine. If you only meditate when you’re dangerously overwhelmed with emotion, it’s not going to give you instant serenity.  Like all good habits, it works on you over time.

Traveling Zen: Safety and Security

June 5th, 2009

In a couple months, I’ll be making my second trip to India to see the places where Buddhism was started.  And I’m a little geeked about it, because it’s an exciting break from my usual life.  A little scary–okay, sometimes a lot scary–overwhelming, and chaotic, but there’s something compelling about India that makes it a great place for a pilgrimage.  Because India traveling is challenging and often requires some adjustment of thinking, occasionally my thoughts about it seem a little like Dharma talks.  Other times, because India is such a marketplace of practical setbacks, my thoughts are more detail-oriented.  If I talk about it as part of a Zen teaching, it’s hard to tell where the “Dharma talk” ends and where the “travel tips” begin.

Or, if I share advice on a travelers’ website like India Mike, I wonder how much my Dharma training seeps in, and if it makes me kind of a know-it-all on there.  So it goes.  I don’t know everything about India travel, but I do know a thing or two about the lessons we might need to unlearn if we’re going to see India for what it is.

Some people on IM preparing for a trip ask questions looking for reassurance about safety. One person said he didn’t want to take anti-malarial pills, because he heard they didn’t work. I wondered what he meant; did he mean that someone had taken them and got malaria anyway? Or did he mean that someone didn’t take them and didn’t get malaria? Either is entirely possible, because there’s always a risk.  That’s what risk is.

The Buddhist teaching on dukkha could be translated as “life is risky.”  We want to be told with certainty that the future outcome is there. Another traveler asked if she should bring her netbook computer–she wanted to know, will it get stolen?  What if I leave it in my hotel room, locked? Will my hotel room have a safe?  Will the hotel staff be digging through my stuff when I’m gone?

To face risk, we need to keep don’t-know mind.  No one knows.  You could ask your hotels if they have safes–some do, some don’t.

Yet there’s also a benefit to focusing loving-kindness.  The hotel owners are sentient beings who want to be happy.  Whether they steal your belongings or not, they are acting for their own happiness.  Practically speaking, though, they know that they make their living renting rooms to visitors, so in all likelihood, they don’t want to steal from their guests and get a bad reputation.

The other side to this is nonattachment.  I always give this advice to people who travel India on a budget: don’t take anything you can’t afford to lose. If losing it would be an utter disaster and destroy your life, it’s not worth the risk.  If people really get this, they’ll know that no object’s loss can destroy your life. It will be inconvenient and disappointing if your camera doesn’t make it home–especially because of the once-in-a-lifetime photos you’ve taken!  If you are overtaken by fear of losing your possessions, you’ve already lost them.  If you can visualize losing them and keeping your equanimity, then you won’t have to worry too much.

Really, it’s less likely that your possessions will fall to malicious theft than that they’ll get broken when you drop your bag, or will get muddy in the monsoon rains, or you’ll misplace them… or they’ll get taken by a monkey.

Hallo sir?  Monkey?

First World Problems

May 28th, 2009

A few days ago, my friend Curtis started a community on LiveJournal called First World Problems. It’s for daily annoyances and complaints, but the phrase “First World” puts an ironic spin on these complaints–these are the things that only bother us because we’re in a position where we have the affluence to be bothered by them. My portable Nintendo won’t fit in the pocket of my Kenneth Cole jacket. They’re remaking my favorite old TV show, and they’re going to ruin it. My housekeeper forgets to dust off the top of my refrigerator. The singer I like didn’t win American Idol. Some of the posts are exaggerated in their picture of affluence–I can never decide which of my six cars to drive to the beach!–but others are the ordinary complaints that average Americans (and other Westerners) usually post to Twitter or Facebook.

But the “First World” in the title of the community is an interesting reminder that the rest of the world is out there. Our lives now happen in a global context; how do we live them with mindfulness of the world? Of course, it’s easy to use this line of reasoning to be dismissive of everything we do. How can you care about (the dust on your fridge/ the number of calories in a latte/ finding shoes to match your belt) when there are starving children in Africa? If we carry this argument to its logical extreme, it’s hard to argue for any line of action other than abandoning our civilization and moving to a mud hut. But that ain’t gonna happen.

Buddha taught in the First Noble Truth that human experiences are unsatisfactory–the Sanskrit word “dukkha.” This applies to any kind of experience; dukkha follows us anywhere we go. We expect experiences to satisfy us, but they don’t. Once we get that car, a few moments later we notice that other people have nicer cars, and we’re not satisfied. And while sometimes it’s fun to joke about our first-world complaints, how they make us look like the spoiled children of the world, it also doesn’t always help us feel more satisfied. I know I shouldn’t be overly upset that they stopped carrying my favorite cereal, but I am anyway, and telling me that I should close my eyes and think of orphans in Bangladesh doesn’t make things better. The Global Rich List tells me that I’m in the top tier of rich people in the world–the top 8%–but I still have student loans to repay, still have to put gas in my car to get to work, still have obligations to the First World that I need to keep up.

So we have a twofold task in seeing ourselves as first-world whiners: to learn to be content with our place in life, but also to learn to share our good fortune with the rest of the world. Both are important; though we can never entirely overcome dukkha, or overcome poverty, we do what we can to work on both.

And there are social problems to overcome in the first world. Problems with inequality, health care, and economic dysfunction are significant, and should be addressed. But if laughing at ourselves a little bit helps us feel a little more lucky to be on the lucky side of the world, then that’s what we should do.

A Mountain of Cocaine (August 19, 2007)

May 21st, 2009

A Buddhist blogger I read used this term a few weeks ago as a symbol of attachment and craving, two concepts that are very important to Buddhist thought.  “A mountain of cocaine” means that if you are addicted to cocaine, no limited amount of it is ever going to be enough.  You’ll always want more.  If there’s a limited amount, you’ll start to feel unsatisfied even before you run out, because you know that you eventually will run out.

This image works for me because it applies to all sorts of cravings.  A limited amount is never enough.  Even if the thing we’re addicted to is not a drug, the concept still applies.  For instance, the makers of the TV show Battlestar Galactica announced their decision that next season will be the final season.  They’re ready to tell the end of the story.  And on the Sci-Fi fan forums there has been much weeping and wailing over the demise of the show.  And I just want to remind them, there’s still one season left–twenty-two episodes, over sixteen hours of the show that we haven’t even gotten to see yet.  And when it’s over, when the final episode has aired, then we’ll find something else to watch, or we’ll re-watch the whole show on DVD, or we’ll just not watch TV at all.  But that prospect isn’t satisfying.  We want a whole mountain of Battlestar Galactica.

A lot of people resist the Buddhist teaching on attachment and craving because they think about the kinds of attachments that are generally considered positive, like love.  And I won’t argue with that–it is a good thing for you to feel boundless love for your partner, or for your children.  Yet that can become a mountain too.  Not the love itself but the attachments that come with it.  “I love my partner” also encompasses “I love the feeling I get when my partner says he/she loves me.”  “I love my children” might encompass “I love the feeling of pride I get when my children get good grades in school.”  These things can become a mountain as well.  A limited amount of this reinforcement is not enough.

This symbol of the mountain of cocaine led me to realize: I am addicted to the Internet.  Whenever I’ve read articles about “Internet addiction” I’ve always been skeptical; it seems like some people assume a new way of communicating is scary and unnatural.  I don’t think there’s any reason we need to limit the amount we learn from and communicate through this new medium.  And yet, I realize that I have a constant craving for more information and communication.  I am always wondering if someone’s emailed me in the last few minutes.  I have access to an amazingly efficient, fast, widespread source of knowledge, but it’s not enough.  I’m addicted to it.

Kevin Griffin’s book One Breath at a Time: Buddhism and the Twelve Steps uses the Buddhist teachings on craving and attachment and connects them to the steps used in addiction recovery programs.  I wouldn’t say that Buddhism and twelve-step programs are exactly the same thing, and if you want to be part of both there will be some need to reconcile the difference in teaching–but Griffin’s book really points out that, at their core, both sets of teaching are about alleviating the mental problems we create for ourselves based on our cravings.  The first two of the Four Noble Truths are: All life contains suffering (dukkha).   Suffering is caused by desire (tanha).  The first step of a twelve-step program is, “We admitted that we were powerless over our addictions; that our lives had become unmanageable.”

Griffin writes:  Some people rebel against the First Noble Truth.  “Everything’s not suffering!  That’s a negative view of the world.”  And, of course, it’s true that the world is filled with delights.  But the Buddha saw that even in our moments of triumph and job there remains a grasping toward more.  My favorite example of this is the traditional commercial at the end of the Super Bowl, where the newly chosen MVP is asked, “What are you going to do now?”  And this man, who has just reached the pinnacle of his profession turns to the camera and says, “I’m going to Disneyland.”  For me, this sums up dukkha: you’ve got it all but you want more, and since you’ve got everything possible in the real world, the only place left to go is to a fantasy world, a place where dreams are made.

So we can sometimes deal with these addictions by going cold turkey.  As I wrote about in my book, there are different approaches to this in the two traditions of Buddhism, Theravada and Mahayana.  Theravada monks and nuns go cold turkey from almost all of the things that might be addictive.  They never touch money.  They only wear robes, never choosing other clothes.  They never date or marry.  If you follow a Theravada monk or nun as a teacher, you can be confident that your teacher won’t be addicted to these things.  And a Theravada teacher can show followers that it’s possible to live well without indulging in addictions.  When we’re addicted sometimes we say, “I couldn’t survive without it.”  But it certainly is possible–many people survive without coffee, without a car, without air conditioning.

In the Mahayana tradition, on the other hand, teachers sometimes go into these realms to help other beings.  This is the tradition that includes Zen, which is my tradition.  In some way, the choices I make in my life all help me to be a better Dharma teacher.  It certainly may be more helpful to you if you hear from a Buddhist teacher who goes to movies, who lives with a partner, who has a MySpace page.  One who drives a car to the temple, and stops at Dunkin Donuts on the way there.  (I brought some.)  I can use these elements in my life to make myself a better messenger of the Dharma.  A Theravada teacher generally wouldn’t do any of these things.

And yet, you know I’m not doing all of this for saintly reasons.  I stopped at Dunkin Donuts because I like sweets.  I watch movies because I like them.  You could certainly say that I’m addicted to these transient pleasures.

My brother just completed his degree in counseling, and he told me that the current theory about addiction is that there’s no such thing as “an addictive personality,” as many people believe they have.  People might believe that addiction is an abnormality, a faulty personality that most people don’t have.  The fact is, just about everyone does have addictions in some ways, and everyone has resistance to some addictions.  Addiction is what normally happens to people when they have easy access to high amounts of pleasure.  When the human race was made up of primitive hunter-gatherers, we learned to find and celebrate food that is sweet, because it was rare to find.  Now, it’s not that unusual, so many of us are addicted to it.  Still, there are some people who can smoke one cigarette and not feel the urge for another.  There are also people who can watch one episode of Battlestar Galactica and not feel the urge to watch another.  There are also people who can play a slot machine for five minutes, then walk away.  There are also people who can solve one sudoku puzzle then walk away.

Of course, there are addictions that are unwise to quit cold turkey.  Addiction to food is a problem–but stopping eating entirely is not the solution.  And sometimes you want to manage an addiction rather than eradicating it.  I acknowledge that I’m addicted to the Internet, but I also want to keep it in my life.  What can I do?

There’s one solution that I find really unsatisfying, and that’s enforced conditional moderation.  I find that some Buddhists bring up the rhetoric of “The Middle Path” in relation to this.  For instance, someone on the online Buddhists community asks, “Is it okay for a Buddhist to smoke pot?” and someone will reply, “Take the Middle Path, and don’t smoke too much pot, but don’t give it up entirely.”  The rhetoric bothers me because it doesn’t ask the important question, the middle of what?  What’s the middle path between robbing no banks at all and robbing lots of banks?  What’s the middle path between wearing underwear every day and never wearing underwear at all?

We think that we’ll solve the problem of craving and attachment by settling on a reasonable limit and sticking to it.  But conditional moderation just doesn’t work.  It can work conditionally, but it doesn’t address the deeper problem.  Perhaps you’ll eat a little better if you limit yourself to two donuts a week, but if you’re still craving a mountain of donuts, you’ve still got the addiction.

These things are often designed to make you crave more.  The best episodes of Battlestar Galactica are the ones that make me say, “I can’t WAIT to see what happens next week!”  Likewise, casinos are set up so that you want to play more–when you win, you think you might be on a streak, so you keep playing.  When you lose, you want to win back your losses, so you keep playing.  Is there a way to take the simple enjoyment of these things without falling for the unmanageable addiction?

I think there is.  Most world cultures have a ritual of gratitude for food and drink.  People take a moment with each meal to remember that they are lucky to have what they have, and remember not to crave more.  In our current culture, we might forget this, when we’re eating out of a paper bag while driving and listening to the radio.  In that mindset, it’s easy to crave without being satisfied.

So we can practice gratitude for anything.  I’m not sure how many people shut down their computers and think, “You know, I had a great day on the Internet today.  I saw some funny videos, chatted with my friends, got an interesting email from Nigeria and found out the ending to the last Harry Potter book.  I’m glad I got on the computer today.”  When it’s wise to quit cold turkey, of course, we should quit, but when it’s wise to continue in moderation, we can lessen the craving by being grateful for what we get.

At this point in the talk at the temple, I handed out slips of paper with the words, “NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO STOP AND BE GRATEFUL.”  You could keep this note anywhere that you tend to fall into craving.  Put it on your refrigerator.  Stick it in your wallet with your credit card.  Tape it to your TV’s remote.  Hand it to your favorite Starbucks barista and say, “Show me this when you give me my caramel macchiato.”  And then, when you get a little bit of pleasure, say thanks.