[MD] Contentment - the enemy

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marsha,
>
> Happy new Calendar Year,
>Marsha:
> Love to hear  some plains talk on this post.  What is your
>> objection?
>
>John:
> It's hard to conjure up any real objection to contentment, or any real
> longing for suffering, even though I know intellectually that it is the
> suffering that drives the evolving, the irritation that creates the pearl.
>
> My main objection to contentment is my own tendency to attachment.

Dan:
We are all alike in that respect. As I once tried to explain to Ron,
there's nothing wrong with attachment or desire. We all desire good
food, fresh water, fresh air and a safe place to live. Sometimes
desire compells us. Just hold your breath. You'll see. I think the MOQ
gives a clue here... to recognize the difference between a biological
attachment like breathing and a social attachment like a brand new
shiny car is the beginning of wisdom.

>
>
>Marsha:
>>  It seems to me the first step is to understand
>> the nature of all patterns so they are not pulling you this
>> way and that.
>
>John:
> Whew!  The nature of ALL patterns is such a daunting project.  You have to
> start small and work your way outward.
>
> But even understanding patterns doesn't guarantee you're free from them.  A
> sailor understands the winds, but must obey them still, but as you know
> well, she can trim her rudder and sails to use the winds rather than let
> them use her, an art and a science.

Dan:
There are only four sets of static patterns of value in the MOQ. Not
so daunting. And re-reading Marsha's comments I fail to see where she
said a person is set free by understanding patterns. If I've missed
something, which is entirely possible, please point it out.

>
>Marsha:
>  Once understood, it would be easier to
>> determine if when desires are in conflict, the conflict is
>> social/biological, or intellectual/social.  Buddhism offers
>> some great explanations of the transitory/illusory nature
>> of ALL patterns.
>>
>John:
> I agree.  However, pat answers or methodology can get in the way when you
> think you've got it all figured, plain and simple and in the pocket, so to
> speak.  Complacency is the enemy of  sailors everywhere, there's a storm
> coming, the reefs are close and a thousand little adjustments to be made
> along the way.

Dan:
This seems a pretty weak objection. I've read Buddhism: Plain and
Simple. Nowhere does the author state he has figured anything out.
John, have you read the book? Or are you one of those guys who like to
review books without bothering to read them first?

>
>
>
>>Marsha:
>> How well do you know contentment, to recognize it as
>> an enemy?  It sounds like you are for some reason
>> afraid of it.   No one is talking about sloth.
>>
>>
>John:
> Au contraire, mon ami,  I'm talking about sloth.  I'm talking about myself
> and my tendency to slothful contentment.
>
> Contentment is an old friend.  I find it in many strange places and at odd
> times.  I don't hate it, but a little dialectical opposition, now and then,
> is relished by the best and worst of men.
>
> And a good friend that imprisons you is actually the enemy.
>
> And an enemy that stretches and expands you, is actually your friend.

Dan:
I like to call it lateral drift. I cannot recall a time in my life
that I've been content. Not once. But there's been a lot of lateral
drift.

Thanks,

Dan