Note from the Webmaster: This is the spot where I always post some interesting email thread that's floated across my desk in connection with SKS. Some past entries have included Bob Cergol's essay from the Templeton Power of Purpose contest (the same contest that Augie Turak won with his Brother John essay), a remarkable set of emails we received from a total stranger, and a variety of just philosophical email arguments we've had over the years.

This one falls more into the latter category. The conversation was kicked off by the New York Times article "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right." The article discusses a remarkable conclusion that psychological experiments are pointing to: sitting around and thinking about your problems, "processing" them, and even talking about them, doesn't seem to solve anything. It may even make things worse. Before you read our email conversation, you should definitely read that article here.

As always, I have done a bit of minor reformatting, but the words are all just as they came through the email.

From today (December 29, 2005)'s New York Times:

http://www.selfknowledge.org/resources/press/nyt_wilson.htm

Right now I am sending this around to a large group of people, in order to hopefully start a discussion. So I encourage a "Reply All" if you have something interesting to say.

I also intend to use this in my classes at school, and possibly at SKS meetings. The bonus toss-up question for the students is: why does this article, which might at first appear to contradict SKS ideas, actually support them very strongly?

-k

I haven't thought about this in great depth yet, but my first reaction is that it's way too oversimplified, in the sense that there are forms of introspection that have value and forms that amount to simply wallowing, and the author does little to distinguish the two. Thoughts?

-Larry

I find it interesting that all the discussion of the article is dedicated to thinking about feeling. That is, does it make you feel better to think about feeling? It seems the author has already given primacy to feeling over thinking, as if feeling good is the only measure of validity and value, and that one's feelings are the only thing worth introspecting about. There isn't even a glimmer of the suggestion that maybe you should think about doing good deeds because it's the right thing to do...good works are evaluated strictly in terms of whether they make you feel good. It's a very common bias in modern American thinking, and deadly to the soul. What could be worse than being enslaved to your feelings?

We don't need the New York Times to tell us that people who are less reflective are happier. Sure, ignorance is bliss. The more interesting point of the article is the one that surely caught Kenny's attention: action, rather than reflection, is more useful for changing one's being (and, incidently, one's feelings).

--Georg

God bless you for that one, Georg. Those are *exactly* the two points I wanted to bring out, and that I was hoping someone other than me would say. First, that the assumption in the article is that the "metric" of introspection is not whether it helps us change into better people, but whether it helps us feel happier by 3:00 Tuesday. Second, that the Aristotle quote gets at the heart of the matter, which is that you have to *do* and not just think.

Those are the two points I will be desperately hoping students pick up on when I use this in SKS. And the reason I want to use it in SKS is because, no matter how much we talk about action, I'm afraid a lot of the students come away thinking of SKS as the naval-gazing club.

Of course, the implication for modern therapy is pretty staggering. Can you imagine a world in which it is *assumed* that therapists are not doing their job unless they get you off the couch and actually doing something? I'm sure some therapists feel that way today, but I know first-hand that some don't.

-k

Well, action is fantastic unless we don't understand how our own mind works.

What the article got absolutely correct is that the wrong kind of analysis simply increases our self-absorption, and the more self-absorbed we are, the worse we feel.

However, merely extending ourselves outward—whether through action alone or through failing to understand what's happening in our mind (Georg's "ignorance is bliss")—is no permanent solution to our problems and no spiritual path. I understand what you are driving at with avoiding "paralysis of analysis" and I agree with the article that self-centered introspection leads to more problems, but action without a clear, non-superficial understanding of our motivations or intentions is a recipe for disaster. Even doing "good deeds" alone often leads us back into self-centeredness, because the intention behind the action is frequently still selfish. Then we find ourselves performing many "good deeds" without improving our mind, without making spiritual progress, and ironically feeling more hollow in the end.

The problems we experience arise from actions as do the good fortunes we experience—true. And spiritual progress requires action—also true. Yet action does not arise independently of the mind. Action arises in dependence upon intention, and intention comes from the mind. Therefore if we wish to perfect our actions, we cannot do so if we do not perfect the mind. If we wish to perfect the mind, we must first understand the nature and function of the mind. That does require a kind of analysis or introspection—just not the kind that they're talking about in the Times article. I'd say we must be wary of both the extreme of action and that of analysis.

..By the way, Georg, what's wrong with wishing for happiness? Isn't happiness the primary wish of every living being? Isn't even the pursuit of enlightenment the pursuit of a supreme and permanent happiness? Maybe you meant that most people just go about finding their happiness in a misguided way?

Anyway, those are my 2.5 cents. :-)

Happy New Year,
K. Nyema

Nyema, you are amazing. Actually you have always been amazing and you are just getting more so. Georg articulated perfectly what I had been thinking, and you took it a step beyond.

I guess I should admit that I don't agree with your closing remark about happiness, unless you are defining happiness in some radically different way from how I define it. But your point about action arising from the mind, and a clear understanding of the mind, is so right on target.

At the same time, I would say that in my experience, people rarely get a clearer understanding of the mind through analysis and meditation *alone*. It is analysis and meditation, *coupled with* action, that leads to clearer understanding. And yes, there is a paradox here, because the actions are necessarily *not* springing from a clear understanding, and they may be misguided on every level. But somehow, actually doing those misguided actions, and then thinking about them, and then doing more, and then thinking about them, gets you somewhere that just thinking doesn't.

-k

Yes, Nyema, all beings wish to be happy. But I'm not sure that happiness is what they want the most...there is plenty of evidence to suggest that people will gladly hold onto all kinds of things that clearly bring them unhappiness. In fact, C. S. Lewis wrote a whole book (The Great Divorce) crammed with people who, when offered eternal salvation and happiness, refused it because they would not surrender their attachments to their works, or the pride, or their attachment to their children, etc. People literally create their own hell by choosing the things that will not make them happy.

Nor, I think, should you want happiness the most. Augie has a thought experiment which he often poses to students: I have in my hand a pill that is a most amazing drug, one that will produce in you an ineffable state of happiness...but will leave you a permanent drooling vegetable, completely oblivious to your surroundings, utterly dependant on the ministrations of your family. Do you take the pill? Almost everybody, even those who claim to want happiness the most, will not take the pill. We desire something more than mere personal happiness, because deep down I believe that we instinctively know that we are more than merely our "personal" selves. What we crave even more is the TRUTH. I always loved the fact that Rose, when asked whether he was happy, would usually reply, "I am BEYOND happiness."

I think Kenny has the right idea about introspection...introspection needs to be about what you DO, not what you FEEL. And experience has shown that it is much, much easier to act your way into introspection than to introspect your way into action. If you run an experiment (that is, ACT, then introspect on the results of the action) you will learn much more than if you introspect in a vacuum and then try to guess what to do. Kierkegaard wrote several books trying to convey why no amount of introspection can generate perfect action—only a "leap of faith" will get you there. And Nyema is correct that the leap can only come, ultimately, from purity of intention. More than anything, you just have to want it more than anything else. And where does that purity of intention come from? Nyema (I think) would maintain that it comes from understanding the mind...but I think it comes from Somewhere Else altogether, before mind and before action.

--Georg

Agreed and agreed!!

Kenny: You're right that meditation alone is simply not enough, and in fact meditation without a component of action can lead dangerously into an escapism that does not actually solve our problems, nor anyone else's. It's not enough to get into meditation and bliss out and then be a jerk the rest of the day, our actions not in accordance with our state of mind. This also indicates that our meditation isn't actually working: meditation is designed to change the mind, and if the mind changes then the actions naturally change as well—it is not an additional or separate effort.

We frequently find ourselves kind of like "willing" positive actions from the head. For example, we might take on one of the famous SKS "commitments" for a semester and find ourselves utterly failing. Why is that? There's not a real wish going on—and a wish is a mental intention. Why can't people stick with a meditation practice or even just going to the gym four days per week? Because they are much more interested in other things... television, food, sex, novels, etc... or other problems in the mind come up—usually one or more of the lazinesses of attachment, distraction, discouragement. We find that our good intentions were fairly weak to start with. But this is not an "action" problem. This is a problem originating within the mind.

But you're totally right, Kenny, we need to be improving both simultaneously. We make a determination in meditation and put it into practice: this in turn strengthens the meditation, which strengthens the action, which strengthens the meditation, and so forth—all the way to the perfection of both the action and the mind. But to try to do one without the other—action without improving the mind or improving the mind without improving action—always flunks the test.

Georg: You're right, I think I'm defining happiness in a radically different way...sort of. I'm defining happiness simply as pleasant feelings—which I think you would agree is, roughly, happiness. But the problem that you're alluding to is that most of the time the way we pursue happiness leads to disaster. I think you would agree that we're trying to squeeze a permanent happiness out of things (people, places, things, concepts) that are impermanent at best—in reality just an illusion. Of course trying to get permanent happiness out of impermanent, illusory things is never going to work, and so you're right—people spiral down into hells. Sometimes literally.

But I would say the spiritual path itself is also a path leading to happiness—just a much bigger happiness. A happiness that transcends a superficial, grinning happiness. Is not the search for a meaningful life on one level a search for happiness? Can we be truly happy if our life is not meaningful? Likewise, does not the realization of Ultimate Truth lead to a supreme happiness—perhaps the word "happiness" is too small to encompass that feeling, but certainly you wouldn't say that realizing Ultimate Truth would make us UN-happy? A mind realizing Ultimate Truth would be completely beyond the attachments and aversions that lead us into hells; being beyond both attachment and aversion means that we would abide in a state beyond mental agitation—would you agree? If we are beyond mental agitation, then it follows our mind is peaceful. If our mind is peaceful, it would follow that we are not experiencing unpleasant feelings. If we are not experiencing unpleasant feelings, then it follows that we feel happy.

Sorry to spend so much time going through that: It might sound like just semantics and splitting hairs, but I think it's actually quite important. The words we use define our reality, as our reality is no more than mere name. It's important that we feel our spiritual path is a joyful one leading to increasing happiness, because at the moment we are desire realm beings—as you say, Georg—and as such we will NOT DO SOMETHING WE DO NOT ENJOY. Not forever, anyway—we can grit our teeth and get through something for a while, but we can only sustain that for so long (if you're Augie, or Rose, you can do it for a lifetime, but how many of us are genuinely that strong?). It is greater wisdom to find enjoyment—pleasant feelings, happiness—within our path itself, as this leads to smooth and continuous spiritual progress. We need smooth and continuous progress if we wish to really build the momentum—Rose's "spiritual vector"—that we need to reach enlightenment.

Lots of love and thanks for putting up with my lengthy Buddhist meanderings.

Yours,
Nyema

1. Yes, thoughts and actions both lead to each other, and will go up or down together. But what Augie has always maintained, and I have come to believe, is that the "lever point" is at the level of action: that is to say, it is a lot easier to change your actions (thus causing your thoughts to come in line) than to change your thoughts (thus causing your actions to come in line). The article, I believe, supports this idea. On the other hand, I do think this idea runs directly contrary to Socrates. But it doesn't seem to me to contradict the Buddha's life or teaching. In becoming a nun, you took a huge, huge *action*: contrast with someone who lives her life just as she did before, but tries very hard to think Nun-ly thoughts.

2. I get into this argument with Marty all the time. Perhaps ultimate truth leads to bliss and happiness. Perhaps it sucks. I think what attracted me to Augie's path originally, as much as any other idea, was when he said: don't assume that truth will make you happy, and pursue it for that reason. Pursue it because it is the truth. Determine to find and accept the truth whatever it brings you, and then, when you have it, if it does make you happy, so much the better. I don't know why that is so important to me, but it is.

And no, I don't think this is hair-splitting. Sure, it's intellectual think-talk stuff, but it's really *good* intellectual think-talk stuff :-)

-k

A lot of the "sweet spot" between thinking & acting seems to have a lot to w/ what Dave Gold calls making a move before the checkerboard shifts. You can talk and talk and think and think, but like Kenny (and of course Augie) say, without making the action it's a lot harder to have your thoughts change much in reality. So there are moments where the truth seems very clear, or at least you feel like you are seeing something closer to the truth, but it's very easy, a few minutes later, like Lewis says to get distracted by thinking about lunch. But (sks 101) once you make a commitment (and especially if you keep it!) it becomes a lot more likely that you're going to in some way hold onto or live a little closer to the world you viewed in those moments of clarity. I don't really feel like there's a huge dychotemy between thinking / acting, then, if you keep feeding that back into itself—you have the thought (the checkerboard shifts), you commit (you move into the world of the last checkerboard shift, then the checkerboard shifts), you take the action (the checkerboard shifts), then like Kenny/Aug say that changes your thoughts (the checkerboard shifts), then hopefully you commit (the checkerboard shifts), you take action (the checkerboard shifts),....The hard part is staying in that process, because it's much more comfortable to just let things happen. In which case, the checkerboard continues to shift, but doesn't usually get a lot closer to the truth, and you never move into any of the shifted worlds.

There are two big reasons trouble comes when you get stuck just thinking but then not doing anything about it, or doing something but not reflecting, because A) you're likely to forget the way the checkerboard looked whenever you had that moment of clarity, and B) the checkerboard isn't as likely to make a new (hopefully closer to The Truth) shift from that first checkerboard layout moment of clarity, because you're already to some degree lost the first moment (the checkerboard shifted w/out you moving into it), and you've not taken the action or had the reflection to cause the new shift to be into one that's a more true layout.

I know a lot of this stuff is pretty fundamental sks stuff, but for some reason I feld like I needed to articulate it....

Kenny—your email reminds me of something you said last new year's that struck me—that you don't really wish for your children to be happy so much as you wish them to seek the truth, or to be good...I remember a lot of your guests really disagreed w/ you on that one, actually one of them seemed kinda shocked and disguested by that pov....

~leila

Dear guys,

I think at a basic level we're not actually in disagreement: I think that what we're both saying is that ultimately, if we wish to progress along the spiritual path, we have to CHANGE, and change deeply. It's not enough just to "talk and talk and think and think" as Leila points out—our actions themselves have to change. This is true.

My point is simply that it is impossible to change actions without changing the mind first. Every action we perform arises first from intention, and intention is a mental state. If we go to the grocery store, for example, we first develop the wish to go, and from the wish we develop a definite intention to go. Then we actually go. The same process occurs with every action we perform, spiritual or mundane.

I think the process is one that the SKS is already skilled at in some ways: SKS meetings are designed to change minds, which in turn manifest outwardly as changed actions.

Which shows that changing our minds is pre-requisite to changing our actions. We're so result-oriented in our normal mode of thinking that we completely lose sight of the causes we have to create to achieve the result. The substantial cause of action is mental intention.

The reason understanding this process is important is this: When we are ONLY result oriented, we get discouraged easily in our spiritual life, because results don't usually come quickly in spiritual-growth-land, and that discouragement leads to us giving up our noble spiritual intentions. Discouragement is a spiritual killer. We decide the path is "too hard" and we just go back to sleep-walking because (we think) it's easier.

But when we are cause-oriented, we don't have to get obsessive about the results, because we will have confidence that in continuing to create causes, the results will have to come sooner or later. We can encourage ourselves by understanding that we are maintaining the intention come hell or high water, no matter how many times we fall off the horse.

YES, we have to put our intention into action. But my point is we can change our actions by changing our intentions alone. In fact we can ONLY change actions by changing intention—there is no other way. It is only the strength of our wish that determines whether or not we follow-through with an action—any action. If we're repeatedly failing to do some action, then the place to look for the root of the problem isn't in the action, it's in the mind. Change the problem in the mind and the problem in the outward action solves itself automatically.

(I guess I'll have to save that whole "happiness" thing for another day, huh? :-))

With love,
Nyema