Dear Readers, this blog is a direct continuation of the previous so, if you haven’t read last week’s entry then please do head back there and read it before you continue here.

A Roundabout Way to Discovering I Need to Understand Rupa+Nama

MN: What do you feel about this?

https://youtu.be/bMYGYY-WunE

A: So on the video I feel nothing extreme. But the reason is I don’t, in my heart, view eggs as babies so no fodder to excited my heart. But I have had a pretty big breakthrough on the birds already. Punchline: just because I don’t see a cause it doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

MN: Love this

A: Very briefly, on another note: I really saw quickly I cried about the birds because I see myself in the birds. I have known for a while there is hidden little Alana that feels like a victim of the world whose suffering seems causeless, and so not fair (she is in homeless Alana story too). At least in this life I think it all starts with my some childhood abuse, from a care giver who would be fine one sec and then freak the next, for what seemed like no reason at all. I spent most of my childhood in terror for myself and then trying to protect my brother. Now though I know this person has has been diagnosed with a disease that is at least a factor in this behavior, so it’s not without cause.

Deeper: Take the mammogram story, I saw my picture was incomplete (thought only possible outcomes were macrocalcifications that were worse or stable) because I was bound to imagine (4) outcomes in only the limited way my picture allowed (based on memory, 3s). When another outcome happened, I saw it is not just that anything can happen, but that the reason I don’t understand that fact is because my view of the world is so limited.

Now, though I see I can apply the same lesson to causes (since causes are just past effects) all  my assumptions that abuse/suffering is for ‘no reason’ versus abuse/suffering for being for a reason arise from my limited picture (permanently stuffed with my standards, shoulda and colored by my Alana colored glasses) versus complete picture of the world.

MN: I like this about seeing that your view is limited

A: I am watching for changes since the contemplation (which as a reminder to you readers, was something Neecha asked me to do at the end of the last post so she could help me further) and feeling 100 percent sure on freeing-up my ideas around worthy and good; at the wat this AM I did not think “not worthy” when a friend  anamodannaed with me and I did not think everything LP said in his teaching this morning was a personal commentary on my moral failings.

MN: This is good, can you pinpoint why though?

A: On good, the uproot came from contemplating on my need to be ‘good daughter’ by always making my mom happy: I see that I made-up the standards of being a good daughter someone who always makes mom happy (because I think by making her happy I can be protected from her wrath) and then kept trying to live up to my imagined standard, suffering because Inevitably failed since her happiness is in her heart.

A: Deserve was easy, I didn’t think I deserve a bed at retreat, but I got one so clearly my concept of deserve does not govern the world.

MN: If you see that your mom’s happy is in her heart, do you feel unable to make your mom happy, then?

MN: Inevitably failed, so does that mean you’ll always fail?

MH: So what does govern the world?

A: I Inevitably fail because I can’t always make my mom happy and there is an unspoken always in my belief that a good daughter makes her mom happy.

I sometimes make mom happy, but not because of my standards of good daughter. But because my form + my actions, in certain environment/ circumstances, meets the standard for ‘happy’ that my mom has in her own heart.

This l think is one angle of how my heart world and the real world are connected.

To answer that question more broadly…rupa’ (real world) is like food pellets in a video game. My character (memory and imagination, 3&4) eats them to get bigger and to get powers to win the game. It is like rupa is some conduit material in which signals run 2 ways. I want to make mom happy so she loves me and I feel like a good daughter. So l use rupa to transmit the message. I buy her gifts, I take her on trips, I do shit in the real world. This is food pellets for influencing my video game. Then I read the rupa she ‘gives back’, a smile, a frown, a gift and word and use it to confirm my success making her happy and therefore being a good daughter. This is food pellets making me big. If I feel like either I lack the rupa tools to make  my Mom happy (and thereby convince myself of my goodnes), or that the rupa of her response ( facial expressions for example) don’t signal my success then shit isn’t how it “should be” and I get angry. Something like this is how the heart world and the real one connect. Still need time to clarify a bit more

A: I don’t yet know exactly what governs the world. But I suspect it is something like that video game world where everyone is trying to collect food pellets (rupa’) to get bigger and have powers and then prove just how big they are by testing their powers in interaction with other players.

MN: You’re on the right track with the rupa and nama connection. Rupa is tangible form, nama is the intangibles: feeling, memory, imagination, sensation . Just have to sort it out a bit more.

A: Anyway, all this is part of what governs connection between heart and real. What governs real I know the answer is Karma, cause an effect, arising and ceasing, that was then and this is now, but my heart isn’t fully convinced. I know I need more evidence

A: On the topic of watching for changes since the contemplation:

1) I am less likely to get runaway imagination with Eric and talking about our future. Example, he said our fantasy dog was a bread I don’t care for and I didn’t even bother to argue because I saw so clearly what idiot would argue over a fantasy dog.

2) Seeing other conditions like what to eat where to go lessen but not sure because could be post retreat daze, it happens to me sometimes. I’ll keep you updated I feel like I need to test in the wild not my imaginations.

3) I am seriously less sure what I believe is really true. Not 100 percent yet, but last night we went to a dinner and a flickering neon was hurting my eyes so I asked to change tables. The waiter pointed to one just a foot or so away and said it was the only one so we could move there. My first though was it’s still so close to the light it won’t make any difference. Immediately, before I spoke, I saw it might. So I said we would try it. In truth, it was a little better, but still hurting. But it wasn’t the same…

A: Overnight, I decided to revisit the topic of good because it feels a little murky and I suspect it’s a huge key for me. The thing is, I know it is not in a situation, but in my heart…When LP moved his hand and asked where slow was I saw that if it couldn’t be found in a hand. It arises in my mind based on my own interpretation which is based on context and a multitude  of things that move faster and slower.

Even though I see good lives in my heart, not the situation, I still feel there is some judgement in my heart that is correct. And even if I see that my changing picture of the world (like geese, more info) changes my judgement, I still believe there is a complete picture that exists that if I saw would allow me to judge. And I still feel that judgement could be correct even if it is different from what happens in the actual world. And even if I see the same judgement isn’t appropriate in all circumstances because causes and conditions are different I feel that case by case I can make a correct one in my heart.

I suspect it is because I don’t really understand where the judgment comes from. Or I know it is me but I don’t clearly see the mechanics. Resultantly, I don’t really see the connection between the heart world and the real world.

I have already gotten to the fact that possible is an important condition for my idea of goodness. And my idea of possible comes from memory. It is why before I saw heard a story about a Thai lute maker generously giving free music classes and helping feed and educate kids in his village, I never thought I had to do that to be good, but after I heard about it I felt burdened by ‘one more good I had to be now that I saw that good was possible’. But I can’t seem to get further than this. I can’t quite see exactly how imagination works with this.

MN: Why do you think the lute maker is a good person, or what do you think that what he was doing was good?

MN: And when things exist in your heart, is there any overlap with the real world? Or are your views and reality mutually exclusive?

MN: The more I think about it, the more I think that what is missing is the conclusion.  It is like you’re saying:

I thought qualities like “safe,” “good,” or “worthy” were determined by tangible, worldly cues – but now I realize that those qualities are defined in my mind, they don’t exist in those tangible things in an absolute way.

So if your initial assumption is incorrect, then what is correct? That everything exists in our minds? But if that is absolutely true, how is it that we feel can similar things (disgust over a dirty cafe bathroom, touched by generosity, etc), and how can we feel dissimilar things (you are afraid of A but I am not, I find B useful but you do not)? What is the relationship between reality and view? Is there overlap? Or is it really mutually exclusive, as it seems you’ve found it to be?

A: It is because cold does exist and so does hot. But where on the spectrum I find any particular cup of water is based on my own interpretation of the temp of that water in the moment. Which arises based on my experience and perceived needs. Someone else can think that same cup is cold or hot based on their own relative situation. But in no case will their assessment and mine be exactly the same ( because we are each subject to different factors and conditions from which we make the judgment,). But the sammutti of the words hot and cold has something to do with why it may feel the same or different as mine????? Reaching here

So in sum we can all read rupa’, but our thresholds are what is different. My threshold is what is in my heart and that changes based on circumstances. Or rather it is not that hot exists and cold exists, but that temperature exists and it exists on a graduated scale. This is impermanence.

MN: Keep thinking about this. Because if everything is in each of our individual minds and it doesn’t really exist elsewhere, why can we have consensus on the moment when water turns “hot” or “warm” or “cold”?

And what is “hot” or “cold” or “clean” or “dirty”, really, if it doesn’t exist how you once thought?

A: Because we can have similar enough causes and conditions in a particular moment that for that time our thresholds across individual more or less agree. Hot or cold or clean or dirty is a relative term I suppose…

I’m stuck…

A: It is something that changes. It changes in the world and it changes in my heart. In the world it changes based on the rules of rupa’. So it will freeze at 0 and boil at 100, in my heart it changes based on my personal particulars.

So If I just jump out of the hot spring that is at 102 degrees into water that is 99 degrees the new ware is cold, If I jump from the snow into 99 degrees water it is hot.

MN: Is hot and cold generally the same for humans? For instance, desert temperatures are hot, arctic temperatures are cold.

A: I suppose it is in that we all have a body

MN : And the thresholds for human bodies…?

A:  And like water boiling at a certain temp, there is certainly a temp where we humans will experience hot or cold

MN: Is human hot and cold the same is kangaroo hot and cold? Or penguin hot and cold?

A: But if I am an Inuit I might have a different threshold for cold than a Miami person. Penguin and python definitely have different thresholds, not just for what is comfortable but what is actually livable

MN: Agreed. So what does this tell us? In terms of “hot” and “cold” What is the basis for determining these sammuti conventions?

A: Our experiences, our needs, our form

Try again: our types

No, I’m not yet sure what that means

But types feels right

MN: Is “hot” for humans a mere arbitrary definition, relatively defined? Is “hot” for penguins, monkeys, snakes, turtles, whales, lions a mere arbitrary definition, relatively defined?

Is there really nothing in “hot”? Does it really not exist? Does it only exist in the mind?

If it is indeed only in our minds, then if we don’t think it, then it won’t exist?

A: Fuck thanx. Ok it does exist and our rupa’ as humans defines it somehow

But what exact degree is comfortable or desirable is in my heart?

That degree I would actually call hot arises on my experiences

That somehow is not clear…But I know we are bound by rules of rupa

MN: Focus on rupa, the 4 elements. Rupa versus nama. Dont limit yourself to humans. Look at all living things, like how I asked about different animals. Humans have too many layers to see through in order to get to the raw truth. But with animals it is more factual and straightforward

A: Any other tips on exactly what the Four elements means?? Can I think in terms of atoms and laws of physics and chemistry?

MN: Atoms and molecules are too complicated! They didn’t need that for enlightenment during the Buddha’s time, or in the Thai back country, so we don’t either.

Try to see what role the 4 elements play in defining a thing or a concept. How does it work with the mind? How does it work apart from the mind?

Alternate ways to see the elements

The earth element – solid matter

The water element – liquid

The wind element – movement, pressure

The fire element – warmth

A: Thank you

MN: The more I think of it, the more you’re just lacking a conclusion, and that’s probably because the rupa was sacrificed for the focus on the nama intangibles. But they must go hand in hand. My assessment is that if you can understand rupa’s role in your newfound understanding, it’ll balance out.