Contamination and Compassion
Forgive me for any misspellings in this post. I'm still a little tipsy from red wine.
-
People in first world countries suffer from anxiety and depression in numbers greater than people in third world countries, and while I don't claim to know the theoretical reasons for why that's true, I do want to share a way of looking at things that might help alleviate said anxiety or depression. I hope to do this in such a way that, if one reconsiders the percentages, he or she can understand why depression and anxiety might be higher in first world countries than elsewhere.
A friend shared with me tonight a little test she had read about that is supposed to determine whether you, as a woman, have strong boundaries. The test goes as follows: Say you are on the subway, and a man is sitting with his laptop case in the seat beside him. If you are a woman with strong boundaries, you will ask the man if he will move his laptop case so you can sit down. If you are a woman with weak boundaries, you will continue standing without saying anything to the man about moving said laptop case.
My friend admitted she is the type of person who would never ask the man to move his laptop case, so she wouldn't inconvenience him. I myself used to be that type of person.
But one of the things I asked her was, "Have there ever been days when you are more confident than usual, and you would ask him to move his laptop case?"
She said yes, that it was the days she was angry.
And my response was, "Perhaps the days you are angry are days that are already fucked, and so you feel a sense of permission to ask for things you want, because it's no longer the case that /you/ are the one fucking up the day."
She admitted that was possibly true.
I then made two points, and these are points that I think are important to keep in mind, even if you can't live by them, even if you fall back into the habit of being nervous about inconveniencing other people. They are the following:
1. Even if not asking that man to move his laptop case would make him happy, that's not a good or healthy thing. Even if he said to you, "Wow, you have really fulfilled me by not inconveniencing me to move my laptop case," that's not the type of person you want to be around. You are responsible for fulfilling your own life, and he is responsible for fulfilling his. In no way is it a good thing if you have pleased him, or fulfilled him, or made him happy by not inconveniencing him.
In other words, in social situations, the most you can get is respect.
There is no fantastic sublime moment that has been lost if you inconvenience another. There is no wonderful, perfect fulfillment that has been lost. The most that has been lost is respect. So, if worse comes to worst, and he yells at you, it's not as though you've missed out on Disney Land. You've only missed out on neutral-ness.
In no way should you gain a sense of delight in the idea of fulfilling others more than they can fulfill themselves. That's a dangerous and horrible path.
And if the most you have to lose is respect, if he's rude to you, well... it's not as though the moment could have been amazing. Again, it's not as though you've lost a trip to Oz.
2. The second point I made had to do with a point I had actually made before in my thesis over trauma and its resolutions in television series. The point is that, in order to not see one moment as a contaminating moment, you must understand that every part of the world is already contaminated.
In other words: It's all contaminated.
This idea of mine I derived from Kenneth Burke's discussion of God as a common denominator. His point was that it is pointless to talk about the sky being blue because God made it so, or that the ocean is deep because God made it so, because, in this sense, God made everything. He is in everything. He is a common denominator, and so He can be divided out. You can see Him as the item outside of the set that defines the set.
You can see contamination being similar to this, and you can understand that to see contamination as a common denominator is to accept that it's not /this/ moment that can be contaminating. (It's not that you have ruined the day by inconveniencing a man to move his bag). It's rather that /all/ moments are contaminated. It's just that you attempt to fill your day with pleasures and fantasies that distract you from this fact. Once you understand all is contaminated, then the bag on the subway is just a bag on a subway. It doesn't mean the improvement of a day. It doesn't mean the ruin of a day. Or a moment. Or whatever. It's just a fucking bag.
Because it's all contaminated. The most you can get is neutral-ness. Nothing beautiful or wonderful or fulfilling has been lost. Because it's all lost.
-
The book that I have been reading - Happiness - by the Buddhist monk Mathieu Ricard is very helpful in terms of the idea of compassion. That is, Ricard's point again and again is that outside items in the world cannot fulfill you (they can please you temporarily, but nothing beyond this). The only thing that you can do to find fulfillment is to attach yourself to that underlying sense of self you have, rather than the ups and downs of every day, as well as the idea of compassion. What is compassion? The idea that everyone suffers. Everywhere. And that we all deserve alleviation of that suffering.
All is contaminated. Everywhere. And we all deserve decontamination.
It's a beautiful book, and I suggest everyone read it. And this essentially concludes my post. I just think it's useful to keep in mind that no conversation, no grade, no person, no success, no amount of money, no anything will fulfill you. And when you can finally understand that, then when the shit hits the fan, you realize that the only thing you might have lost was a very temporary kind of pleasure, but a pleasure that could never have lasted forever, distracted you forever, from the fact that the only persistent happiness you can gain is from yourself, from your own meditation on compassion.
-
People in first world countries suffer from anxiety and depression in numbers greater than people in third world countries, and while I don't claim to know the theoretical reasons for why that's true, I do want to share a way of looking at things that might help alleviate said anxiety or depression. I hope to do this in such a way that, if one reconsiders the percentages, he or she can understand why depression and anxiety might be higher in first world countries than elsewhere.
A friend shared with me tonight a little test she had read about that is supposed to determine whether you, as a woman, have strong boundaries. The test goes as follows: Say you are on the subway, and a man is sitting with his laptop case in the seat beside him. If you are a woman with strong boundaries, you will ask the man if he will move his laptop case so you can sit down. If you are a woman with weak boundaries, you will continue standing without saying anything to the man about moving said laptop case.
My friend admitted she is the type of person who would never ask the man to move his laptop case, so she wouldn't inconvenience him. I myself used to be that type of person.
But one of the things I asked her was, "Have there ever been days when you are more confident than usual, and you would ask him to move his laptop case?"
She said yes, that it was the days she was angry.
And my response was, "Perhaps the days you are angry are days that are already fucked, and so you feel a sense of permission to ask for things you want, because it's no longer the case that /you/ are the one fucking up the day."
She admitted that was possibly true.
I then made two points, and these are points that I think are important to keep in mind, even if you can't live by them, even if you fall back into the habit of being nervous about inconveniencing other people. They are the following:
1. Even if not asking that man to move his laptop case would make him happy, that's not a good or healthy thing. Even if he said to you, "Wow, you have really fulfilled me by not inconveniencing me to move my laptop case," that's not the type of person you want to be around. You are responsible for fulfilling your own life, and he is responsible for fulfilling his. In no way is it a good thing if you have pleased him, or fulfilled him, or made him happy by not inconveniencing him.
In other words, in social situations, the most you can get is respect.
There is no fantastic sublime moment that has been lost if you inconvenience another. There is no wonderful, perfect fulfillment that has been lost. The most that has been lost is respect. So, if worse comes to worst, and he yells at you, it's not as though you've missed out on Disney Land. You've only missed out on neutral-ness.
In no way should you gain a sense of delight in the idea of fulfilling others more than they can fulfill themselves. That's a dangerous and horrible path.
And if the most you have to lose is respect, if he's rude to you, well... it's not as though the moment could have been amazing. Again, it's not as though you've lost a trip to Oz.
2. The second point I made had to do with a point I had actually made before in my thesis over trauma and its resolutions in television series. The point is that, in order to not see one moment as a contaminating moment, you must understand that every part of the world is already contaminated.
In other words: It's all contaminated.
This idea of mine I derived from Kenneth Burke's discussion of God as a common denominator. His point was that it is pointless to talk about the sky being blue because God made it so, or that the ocean is deep because God made it so, because, in this sense, God made everything. He is in everything. He is a common denominator, and so He can be divided out. You can see Him as the item outside of the set that defines the set.
You can see contamination being similar to this, and you can understand that to see contamination as a common denominator is to accept that it's not /this/ moment that can be contaminating. (It's not that you have ruined the day by inconveniencing a man to move his bag). It's rather that /all/ moments are contaminated. It's just that you attempt to fill your day with pleasures and fantasies that distract you from this fact. Once you understand all is contaminated, then the bag on the subway is just a bag on a subway. It doesn't mean the improvement of a day. It doesn't mean the ruin of a day. Or a moment. Or whatever. It's just a fucking bag.
Because it's all contaminated. The most you can get is neutral-ness. Nothing beautiful or wonderful or fulfilling has been lost. Because it's all lost.
-
The book that I have been reading - Happiness - by the Buddhist monk Mathieu Ricard is very helpful in terms of the idea of compassion. That is, Ricard's point again and again is that outside items in the world cannot fulfill you (they can please you temporarily, but nothing beyond this). The only thing that you can do to find fulfillment is to attach yourself to that underlying sense of self you have, rather than the ups and downs of every day, as well as the idea of compassion. What is compassion? The idea that everyone suffers. Everywhere. And that we all deserve alleviation of that suffering.
All is contaminated. Everywhere. And we all deserve decontamination.
It's a beautiful book, and I suggest everyone read it. And this essentially concludes my post. I just think it's useful to keep in mind that no conversation, no grade, no person, no success, no amount of money, no anything will fulfill you. And when you can finally understand that, then when the shit hits the fan, you realize that the only thing you might have lost was a very temporary kind of pleasure, but a pleasure that could never have lasted forever, distracted you forever, from the fact that the only persistent happiness you can gain is from yourself, from your own meditation on compassion.
No comments have been added yet.
