Permanence and Suffering

There has been a bit of brew ha ha recently about leaked videos and documents and such.  I must admit that mentally it would be nice if I could have the confidence of knowing people would accept me as I am, and understand that my experience differs from theirs.   The illusion of security in permanence can create suffering especially when we have expectations of others being fastened in permanence just the way we would like them.  We liked someone before they were gay but would feel like they were "really" happy if they would just discover they weren't and be like us.  The same goes for people who may not believe anymore.  Are you saying I am not happy because of legitimate observation,  or are you saying it because someone who you respect in authority told you that I wasn't happy?  Why do I need to conform to your expectations to be truly happy?

Impermanence means the unknown, and in many the unknown is a great fear.  Fear leads to a desire for control,  and desire,  well,  we all know what desire brings.   I can't change what others desire for me.  So, how do I bring this home and stop desiring that they won't desire?  I guess it is just letting the chips fall.  Acknowledging that nothings is permanent, all compound things break down.  People will desire no matter what I do,  if it is not one thing it is another and by even hoping for acceptance, am I not caught up in the same desire?  It's time to let go again.

Seems like letting go is a continual process.  That makes sense though because impermanence is a continuous condition,  permanent in it's impermanence ironically.  Change is the only constant.

Percieved Injuries

I have been feeling attacked lately.  I am one of these things that is not like the other when it comes to the belief's of everyone around me at home.  People wield  the term "Wickedness never was happiness" like a sword and pound it in.  The issue of course is what you define as wickedness.
Is the person enjoying a Sunday coffee at the local coffee house wicked?  Some would say yes, a large amount of the people around me would, I think.   There is a huge push on how to spend Sunday's recently and I can't help but think of Jesus's comment about the Sabbath being made for man, not the other way around.  If we are classified as wicked for doing what leaves us refreshed and ready to face the week ahead of us what then?  What of the person who doesn't find constant meetings, writing letters, and mixing with people who have very different opinions and are quite vocal about it refreshing?  What of the person who works on Sunday willingly because they need the income and don't share our beliefs?  Is boycotting them righteousness?
So my quandary.  What is this suffering born of?  My desire for people not to insinuate I am wicked?  My desire for people to acknowledge I can have happiness and be different from them?  I suppose so.  Yet,  when the people who are closest to you feel this way, and your children are getting these teachings from multiple sources, what of that?  I suppose that is a desire like anything else,  just one that hits close to home.  Perhaps this is why monks feel the need to sequester themselves.
To be clear, I do not believe personally in sequestering myself.  I often do with my feelings and I shouldn't do that.  Perhaps my desire to not make waves is not a good thing. Perhaps I should be more vocal and share that I am feeling attacked and leave it up to the receivers to think in their heart that I only feel that way because I am wicked, or misguided.  I can't control the opinions or thoughts of others, but I can make them aware that their actions have consequences that might not be as positive as they think.  I suppose informing someone who desires to love one another and be kind as Jesus taught that their words are interpreted as unkind would be right thought, or even loving kindness.  I suppose I should speak up.  Well,  here I go!

Without a Doubt

To Know Without a Doubt

Often we hear people talk of knowing something, then they say without a doubt.  In many schools of thought, knowledge is acquired when doubts have come to a resolution as they are investigated to the point they become the most likely explanation over the previous assumption or knowledge.  Then there is the other school of thought which selects something that is desired to be true and then continues by denying all doubt that could interfere with that knowledge.    The latter often finds similar believing people banding together to strengthen each other in the face of difficult to explain knowledge they have chosen to defend.  The first school band together, too  but have a practice of constantly questioning, although it is not unheard of to have the same sort of groupthink occur at times but it is not the standard mo.  As everything and everyone is natural I won't say which one is better,  I can only say which one has led to less suffering for me.

I can't justify something as true without fully analyzing both sides and determining a most likely cause according to my observations.  I am one of the people in this world who should not let his feelings go unquestioned and so I can't claim knowledge by a feeling. Of course many would argue no one should do anything of great importance solely on a feeling but that is not the point of this post.  The fact is I am left with observation as the most reliable means of acquiring knowledge.  To tell me to refrain from doubt is a line used by many,  some of the most dangerous of which are swindlers and salesmen. 

Is it possible to say one knows something if one refuses to examine the contrary points objectively?  To realize the same arguments used for propping up one's own belief should be applied to other belief systems and see if they also legitimize something we don't believe in?  This would mean we would question our own methods of course, because if your method is flawed,  then there is a high likelyhood of a flawed result.  If someone in almost every culture has near death experiences that reflect their cultural/religious view then what can we draw from that?  If people from several religions testify they know without a doubt theirs is true, how do you choose between them if you can't trust feelings?  Could it be investigating doubts until you have determined one of them matches the observable universe without relying on subjective information?

Belief in something is a pretty universal trait in our species.  We can't get around it, so personally I don't believe in judging those who do.  Do they create more suffering for themselves from that course?  Well,  that is for them to investigate and decide.  Personally, I have reduced a lot for myself by looking for the root causes of things as pertains to me.  Of course this more often than not leads back to me and expectations I have that are not rooted in anything factual, but rather deceptive feelings.  Once a feeling is recognized as deceptive though, it can be processed.  I can analyze it, try to find the root of it, and realize there is no monster in the room after all when I finally turn the light on.