Equanimity in Every Bite

Aik TC SG

Equanimity in Every Bite

Shaila Catherine Fall 2008 tricycle

Shaila Catherine on how a balanced attitude can afford true happiness.

Neither the coarse feeling of unpleasantness nor the agitated feeling of pleasure, equanimity, the Buddha said, is one of the highest kinds of happiness, beyond compare with mere pleasant feelings. Superior to delight and joy, true equanimity remains undisturbed as events change from hot to cold, from bitter to sweet, from easy to difficult. This neutral feeling is so subtle that it can be difficult to discern.

Equanimity is steady through vicissitudes, equally close to the things you may like and the things you do not like. Observe when the tendency to move away from what you do not like ends and the tendency to hold on to what you like is also absent. Personal preference no longer dictates the direction of attention. Equanimity contains the complete willingness to behold the pleasant and the painful events of life equally. It points to a deep balance in which you are not pushed and pulled between the coercive energies of desire and aversion. Equanimity has the capacity to embrace extremes without getting thrown off balance. Equanimity takes interest in whatever is occurring simply because it is occurring. Equanimity does not include the aversive states of indifference, boredom, coldness, or hesitation. It is an expression of calm, radiant balance that takes whatever comes in stride.

The taste of a favorite meal, perhaps eggplant Parmesan, may be exquisitely clear: the sweetness of cooked tomatoes, the aroma of basil, the soft texture of the eggplant that melts on the tongue, the saltiness of the Parmesan cheese. Each taste may be discerned with acute precision and clarity. They are also enjoyed as a unique blend and appreciated for their combined qualities. When equanimity is dominant, the experience of craving another morsel is absent. The eggplant Parmesan will instead be fully experienced with equanimity rather than delight. For many people such balance around taste would be a unique moment.

Some of my beginning students have told me, “But I don’t want that kind of happiness. I enjoy the gusto of delight. I relish a passionate involvement with my life. I love the excitement of experience.” I understand. As a concept, equanimity may appear unappealing, but students nonetheless discover, quite to their surprise, that the exquisite peace of balanced states has a taste of happiness beyond pleasure and beyond pain. Every experience of liking something has as its counterpart disliking something else. The fickleness of personal preference agitates consciousness. The deeply balanced state of equanimity makes a sustained investigation of things possible. Out of this combination of concentrated stability, penetrative investigation, and mindful awareness, consciousness may awaken the unshakable nature of happiness.

Spiritual practitioners thrive in unpredictable conditions, testing and refining the inner qualities of heart and mind. Every situation becomes an opportunity to abandon judgment and opinions and to simply give complete attention to what is. Situations of inconvenience are terrific areas to discover, test, or develop your equanimity. How gracefully can you compromise in a negotiation? Does your mind remain balanced when you have to drive around the block three times to find a parking space? Are you at ease waiting for a flight that is six hours delayed? These inconveniences are opportunities to develop equanimity. Rather than shift the blame onto an institution, system, or person, one can develop the capacity to opt to rest within the experience of inconvenience.

Jayden99 SG

The above experience is quite generic. Probably revisit the below argument for much breakdown details

The Buddha said, "You say it is in the middle. That middle must not be haphazard or without a fixed location. Where is this middle that you propose? Is it in an external place, or is it in the body? If it were in the body, the surface of the body cannot be counted as being the middle. If it were in the middle of the body, that would be the same as being inside. If it were in an external place, would there be some evidence of it, or not? If there would not be any evidence of it, that amounts to it not existing at all. If there were some evidence of it, then it would have no fixed location. Why not? Suppose that middle were indicated by a marker. When seen from the east, it would be to the west, and when seen from the south, it would be to the north. Just as such a tangible marker would be unclear, so too the location of the mind would be chaotic."

Ananda said, "The middle I speak of is neither one of those. As Bhagavan has said, the eyes and forms are the conditions which create the eye-consciousness. The eyes make discriminations; forms have no perception, but a consciousness is created between them: that is where my mind is."

The Buddha said, "If your mind were between the eyes and their object, would such a mind's substance combine with the two or not? If it did combine with the two, then objects and the mind-substance would form a chaotic mixture. Since objects have no perception, while the substance has perception, the two would stand in opposition. Where could the middle be? If it did not combine with the two, it would then be neither the perceiver nor the perceived. Since it would lack both substance and nature, what would such a middle be like? Therefore you should know that declaring the mind to be in the middle is an impossible statement."

Ananda said to the Buddha, "Bhagavan, when I have seen the Buddha turn the Dharma Wheel in the past with Mahamaudgalyayana, Subhuti, Purna, and Shariputra, four of the great disciples, he often said that the nature of the mind which is aware, perceives, and makes discriminations is located neither within nor outside nor in the middle; it is not located anywhere at all. That very non-attachment to everything is what is called the mind. Therefore, is my non-attachment my mind?"

The Buddha said to Ananda, "You say that the mind with its aware nature that perceives and makes discriminations is not located anywhere at all. Everything existing in the world consists of space, the waters, and the land, the creatures that fly and walk, and all external objects. Would your non-attachment also exist? If it did not exist, it would be the same as fur on a tortoise or horns on a rabbit. Just what would that non-attachment be? If non-attachment did exist, it couldn't be described as a negation. The absence of attributes indicates negation. Anything not negated has attributes. Anything with attributes exists. How could that define non-attachment? Therefore you should know that to declare that the aware, knowing mind is non-attachment to anything is an impossible statement."

Weychin SG

I think you missed the point by referring to the context of mind as in object and sense consciousness. This(your reply) is a good subject for contemplation, no doubt. However, you have missed the context which poster is trying to convey.

Interestingly,I am surprised that you do not recognise the mind state and what of the experience.

Weychin SG

Allow me my opinion:-

To attain a jhanic state in Buddhism simply means in a concentrated state of mind which leads to " which lead to "state of perfect equanimity and awareness (upekkhii-sati-piirisuddhl)."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyāna_in_Buddhism

Ones must also be free of the five hindrances " namely:-

1.Sensory desire (kāmacchanda): the particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and physical feeling.

2.Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda): all kinds of thought related to wanting to reject, feelings of hostility, resentment, hatred and bitterness.

3.Sloth-torpor (thīna-middha): heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.

4.Restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the mind.

5.Doubt (vicikicchā): lack of conviction or trust.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances

Most of the time we assume jhanas are attained within the context of sitting meditation in solitary cultivation. There also a tendency to separate shamantha(concentration) and vipasanna(awareness or insight) training as if they are two different things.

They are simply two aspects attainable by our mind, with one common denominator, focus. Difference is the degree of focus of our consciousness. Focus of mindfulness deepens also means concentration deepens.

Difference lies in the situations in which we apply our focus.

We engage our sense consciousness, in the instance the of this article, we refer sense of taste, not solely true as when we eat, eg. put in the morsel in our mouth, as the bottom process will show.

Before eating we see the food first before we pick it up(with fork, for example). We engage our eye consciousness.

Then put it through our lips into our mouths and chew, sense that touch is engaged. We sense the texture within our mouths.

As the the aroma is released as we chew, sense taste and smell come to us.

Back to the article:-

Very often we crave the emotional and mental craving of our experiences and tend to relate to gross or stronger and coarser sensations. We have expectations in our cravings of our sense, including and especially our mind consciousness.

That's why we swing between attraction and aversion, we are not happy nor content.

What this article is telling us fundamentally about the Four Noble Truths, our unsatisfactory state of being.

It encourages us by being mindful of our mind, ever vigilant.

Please share yours, thank you!