Ask A Dharma Question

Arthur is also available for private consultations, either in person or on the phone.

For quickest replies email me to ask a question, and check back here for answers.

Dearest Arthur,

I've got a satsang type question that has been rolling around in my head for a little while and I was wondering if you could shed some light on it.

I've been thinking a lot about life style choices and what it means to "choose" a way of life that is conducive to wakefulness. At times I've latched on to certain ways of "tuning in" to various wakeful type experiences. For instance, there was a brief stint during which I was paying close attention to my body and physical sensations and tuning in on that level. Before that, I was making a point to take time to do nothing, just to sit in quietness, not fixating on any thoughts, just noticing quite, the sound of the room, etc. Lately, I'll notice a sense of impersonal spaciousness. Each of these shifts come with a bit of mental activity concerning noticing a particular aspect of something in my awareness that I do not ordinarily pay attention to, and each eventually tends to become a kind of practice that I ultimately feel confined by. So I gladly drop them and move on. . .

But all the while life is going on about me, I'm going to work, being a boyfriend, hanging out with friends and all the rest. And somehow it seems that quietness tends to go out the window with the busyness of just living. What is worse, and actually this is the crux of my question, is that I seem to notice that I am really addicted to doing. If I'm not working then I'm out doing something, or at home on the internet surfing the web, or cleaning, or paying bills, or in some way finding something to do.

So my question is, if living wakefully, showing up for life, and being available and loving to the people around me is really a priority for me, and I know in my heart that that is it for me, that that is really the ultimate adventure and journey, and if that is so, then what really makes sense as a way to live ones life? It is a hard question because "tuning in" to a particular awareness ultimately seems to become yet another practice, another way of delaying, yet with no focus on wakefulness, I find that I'm just always "doing" something in a very semi-conscious sort of way. So I'm wondering if it really takes some sort of pro-active stance to live wakefully? Is it a matter of leaving enough space, peace and quite in ones life so that the quite has time to be noticed? It is really a meaningful question to me because on the one hand I'm not interested in getting caught up in some kind of practice, but on the other hand I'm noticing this addiction to keep the mind entertained somehow. I'd love to hear your perspective.

Thanks you so much for being available for these "big questions".

Love, Aaron

Arthur's Response:

Dear Aaron,

This is an interesting question and gets to the heart of what I feel to be a lot of the confusion around "defining" wakefulness. My experience is that being awake has nothing to do with doing versus not doing, with sound versus silence, with activity versus rest, with solitude versus being surrounded by people. All these point to an inherent duality, as in "that's wakeful and that's not."

Well... not really---it is all a part of realization. The point is that all the activity and inactivity is supported by, infused by, and dancing as a manifestation of consciousness. It's there when you surf the web, it's there when you meditate, it's there when you're in a noisy, crowded dance club.

We are all leading busy lives. You do not need to go into retreat to experience the realization that happens after dropping the identification with the 'small self. It's possible to experience the deeper connected reality at any time and no matter what is happening.

All this gets more and more simple and less and less precious. Just be---whether driving, talking to your girlfriend or staring at the wall. Simply notice how the mind wants to categorize things into "spiritual" versus "not spiritual" and thus create separation even about spirituality!! Ha! The mind is hilarious. As for being "addicted" to doing, don't worry about it. You can be asleep doing nothing and wide awake doing anything. Simply relax your awareness and recognize your true nature, the ocean upon which the choppy waves of thought and activity bounce. (or for that matter the lulls and troughs of inactivity).

Just watch the thoughts that one is more spiritual than the other. It's all just the mind's machinations. Being awake simply means seeing through the mind's constant striving to rob you of the richness of the present moment; rob you by dragging you into the future, the past, or into a story about your separation from all that is.

Impossible!

Much Love,

Arthur

Hi Charlie,

I'm getting ready to jump on a plane, but I wanted to answer you before I go.

First of all, thanks for reading my book!

Let me just go through your email bit by bit, so I don't miss anything:
In a message dated 9/21/2004 7:57:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, charlesfeldman@hotmail.com writes:
Arthur,

I am most of the way through "City Dharma". In the book, you mention people with mental illness mostly as causing problems. Yet, with treatment and support (which society often is not willing to provide), people with mental illness can recover. For example, I recently met a retired CEO and a psychologist, both of whom achieved these positions while they have paranoid schizophrenia.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this and in fact have a friend who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. When she's on her medication, she's fine. When she's not, it's a different story. In my book, I was primarily looking at our reaction to the mentally ill, not really blaming them for causing problems. It is through compassion that we can feel connected to them and be most helpful. They are our brothers and sisters and shouldn't be ignored, de-institutionalized and ultimately abandoned.
I have two lives. One is as an aspiring mystic. The other is as a mental health and social justice advocate. So I have two questions. One is how to do advocacy and at the same time not have an agenda. I think you might respond not to be attached to the fruits of advocacy. My advocacy seems artificial, since I know that in the long run everything is cyclical. I do it out of habit, but it does not seem authentic in a way. It does, though, seem to coincide with my vested interests and the vested interests of people around me.

This is a good question. Yes, it is important to not be attached to the fruits of one's work. As far as feeling detached, it's hard to know whether this is a positive or a negative. The "habit of compassion," where you can do nothing else, is fine. But if you are doing it because you "should," well, I would try to free yourself of that belief. I don't advocate doing anything by rote, even the right thing. You'll slowly stifle yourself and die inside. Follow your passion and joy!
The other question is whether you know of any Advaita Vedanta teachers or groups in New England. I seem to be doing most of this spiritual reading and thinking alone. Like you, I am not willing to give up my intellectual beliefs to join a spiritual group. I belong to a Unitarian Universalist Church, which provides me with a generic religion, but I would like to also do something more along the lines of what you are into, without moving to California.

You know, I don't know any groups in New England. I'm sorry. You might try to google "dharma" and "New England."
Thanks for your consideration,

Charlie

P.S. You mention examples of corporate crime in your book, and then go on to say that crime is correlated with poverty. Huh?

Corporate crime is in a different category than street crime. The former seems motivated by greed, the latter by desperation. Whenever the unemployment statistics go up, so does street crime. Corporate crime seems connected more to status and materialism. I mean how many millions does a Ken Lay need?

Thanks for your letter,

Kindest Regards,

Arthur

In a message dated 12/13/2004 12:38:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, kbrown@BreadFortheCity.org writes: Arthur, I picked up a copy of your book at MLK library in Washington, DC. I have been reading it for a day or two. Hi Kip, Thank you for your note. I address most of what you are asking in City Dharma, but will specifically answer your questions here as well. Let me go through it bit by bit so I can address each point (in italics). I am a mainline Protestant Christian who just read Turning the Mind Into an Ally by Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche and am in a counseling relationship with one of his students. I have found much of it helpful, especially "peaceful abiding" and being more conscious and detached from the untamed horse that is our mind. I also have a very strong commitment to social justice and am planning on pursuing a Ph.D. in social work/sociology -- thus it is very hard for me to be "detached" to the work I am doing and not think about the macro/policy implications of the work I do. Do you think this is wrong? If it is, why should we desire to help anyone or at least make our place a better place to live. My experience is that in waking up, you get more in touch with your true nature, which is very tender indeed. You can see other's suffering and you can act on it in a way that comes out natural compassion rather than the strictures of "should" or "have to" or any other dogma. Detachment is misinterpreted; it doesn't mean a lack of passion, but more of a passionate engagement with the world. You can be passionate about your work, but detached from the results of what you think should happen. Reality can be obdurate--you may pour a lot of energy into a situation and it doesn't change at the speed or degree you think it should. This doesn't mean that it was a waste of time. You were acting in your dharma, who you really are and you could do nothing else. For example, I think it is incredible important to us to live in well-planned cities that make sense economically and psychologically as opposed to the suburban hell most of our country has devolved into. Are my choices to be detached and accept the "way things are" or to fight this horrible state of affairs....or is there a balance between these two perspectives? In order to effect change, you first must accept the reality that exists. You must radically accept it. It is only in radically accepting it that you can see it clearly enough to change it. So there is a balance between the two. Try not to label anything as horrible, it just is. Work to make the change, but also, every step of the way, accept things as they are. This will make you more peaceful and thus more effective. You will also not be making anybody wrong. I have found that "peaceful abiding" and concepts that are very similar to it...noticing our thoughts and then letting them go...is a useful tool...but is it a viable "way of living" if you have ethical commitments that extend beyond yourself? It is the only viable way of living. If you are on the stormy sea of mind, it becomes impossible to live up to any commitments, to ourselves or others. Wakefulness is the best guarantee of living an ethical life, because it removes the apparent separation from the rest of reality. It also removes the filters and projections, so that reality can be seen clearly. It is from this stable ground that you can carefully and gently act in the world. Or is it that until we can sufficiently train our minds to be peaceful...we will never know what the right thing to do is? I know that I am speaking in extremes...but I was wondering if you have any insight? Kip Brown I would continue in your conversations with your counselor. Many activists end up bitter or drained from the experience. The ones that don't aren't operating out of a "should" paradigm; they are simply following their heart because they can't do anything else. Kindest Regards, Arthur