It’s Not Easy

As any Rolling Stones fan will know, that was the title of a song in the late sixties - early seventies. It was more specifically about living on ones own after ones relationship with a woman (partner) had broken up, and implying that it is better or easier living together with somebody else, and certainly not about living within any sort of community environment. But who knows, I neither wrote it, nor was I old enough then to be part of that experience. None the less I was old enough to follow their hits and songs in general, so it kind of stuck in my mind somewhere among the cobwebs of reminiscences.

What I have had the experience of during my lifetime is to live both with a partner, as well as in various ‘communal’ environments. It goes without saying that while on, or in, retreat, you are automatically part of a small community, and the same goes probably for any situation where you are involved in voluntary or charity work. The very nature of this work is that it is, or should be, of benefit to somebody else, and personally I have always felt that this should ideally also happen without being at the expense of anybody or anything else. Thus in the course of doing such work it would probably entail some inconvenience, some ‘sacrifice’, but ultimately it would be for the greater good of living beings – hopefully even of all beings. It more and more seems to me as if I may be deluding myself with this approach. Not everybody who does, or is involved in, charity or voluntary service necessarily does it primarily to benefit others. I have discovered that often that is a secondary aspect, and that the looking after one self comes first and foremost.

It has always been an accepted and understandable, or even wise, approach that you can not provide for, or assist others, as long as you yourself are in need. That is also among one of the reasons why a monastic in Buddhism has to take vows of celibacy, to ensure that they are not in any way emotionally tied down to feel obliged to have to provide for somebody else, other than the community at large. There should ideally not be one single individual who is more important than all the others, individually or collectively. But what if one is still stuck in the belief that one self is more important and significant than anybody else? What if the ‘service’ is dependant on being able to first and foremost meet ones own needs? And what if the collective good is not acknowledged, as it is overlooked, due to a variety of possibilities? Be they lack of mindfulness, selfishness, greediness, or whatever the reason, then what?

To get back to a norm I raised in a previous blog, namely to leave everything the way you find it, unless to leave it differently would improve on it. Now this seems, at least to me, to be a sensible and also practical approach to any communal living situation. Regardless of whether it is a two person partnership ‘household’, or a larger community, or a retreat environment, as long as everybody endeavours to do things in such a way that they will not in any way disadvantage anybody else, then there should be no problem. And if one can do something which will improve matters for all concerned, then so much the better. Obviously this is, especially these days, and even more where people from diverse backgrounds are brought together, an ideal which is unlikely to happen in a hurry. It is even less likely to happen where most people have a very shallow level of mindfulness; if they have any degree of mindfulness at all. Perhaps I should say a bit more about mindfulness in a blog in time to come. Often it consists of no more than what the Beatles have in a song entitled “I, Me, Mine”. And though when discussing the concept or phenomena there may be agreement that one needs to behave in the interest of the greater good, in practise, or when push comes to shove, that invariably does not happen.

More often than not it is not because the person intentionally sabotages things, but it is because their mind is caught up in other thought activities, and hence they do not focus on doing what is of maximum benefit to all. It is a matter of ensuring that ones own immediate needs are met, that one does or gets done what one would like to do for one self and everything else kind of falls by the wayside. It is not a malicious intent of sabotage, but it is none the less no less an inconvenience or less diabolical than if it were done intentionally. So is lack of mindfulness an adequate excuse or justification for not doing what one knows one should be doing? Provided, or accepting, of course, that one does know what one should ideally be doing! And following on from that is then the entire aspect of all others continuing to do what they know should ideally be done, in spite of some not doing what should be done. It is very easy to say “well, s/he is not doing what they should be doing, so why should I do it?” And indeed, why should you?

Perhaps one of the most difficult practices is to continue doing what you know is the right thing to do, or what should ideally be done, even when you also know that very few others are doing it. If you take the scenario of travelling on a road where the speed limit is say 80km/h, and everybody else is doing 100km/h. Are you going to continue travelling at the prescribed maximum permissible speed limit, or are you going to run with the pack? Not only are you likely to be ostracised for driving slower than everybody else, even though you are the only one who is not breaking the law, but you are also going to create an inconvenience to everybody else. Or are you going to do what the rest of the traffic is doing, in order to not stand out, to be accepted, to not be an inconvenience? Taking the easy way out is the most prevalent method of practise. Whether it be in terms of tidying up a place, of putting things back where you took them from, of making sure you do your prostrations or offerings, or prayers, as correctly as possible, or doing what is easiest and most convenient to do. Especially in all spiritual practise, and Buddhist teachings are now exception, one is generally advised to take the least trodden path. To not only not take the easy way out, but to even actively seek the path which least have taken, unless to take such a path would be foolhardy or a waste of time.

It then also means to go the extra mile, and to willingly accept that one will encounter many obstacles and unpleasantnesses along the way. This is by no means a pleasant or easy route to choose, but the rewards are ultimately said to be so much greater. Some may feel that this ties in well with the customary saying of “no pain, no gain”, though personally I take even that as a bit of a generalisation. There need not be pain in order for there to be gain, though there will invariably be inconvenience. Perhaps the distinction is in whether that inconvenience is pain? Surely that then again comes down to personal choice, as one can decide whether one wants to evaluate and see it as pain, or merely as part of the path one is on. And just as surely the moment you accept and embrace it, it can not be or be seen as a pain, or can it?

It certainly is by no means easy to just accept it as part of the path, as the natural tendency is to push it away, and to not want to accept and tolerate it. It has to be a conscious decision to allow that conduct to exist, and to be willing and able to accept and embrace it. Whether that is the wise choice long-term, only time will tell. My personal take on it is that as long as you are willing to accept anything, and to allow others to get away with everything, then you are permitting them to treat you like a doormat, and you may develop some qualities of acceptance and tolerance, but not only will you continue to be treated like that, but others them self will also never change. And why should they?

Change invariably, by its very nature, is not easy. To suddenly do what you have not done before, more so when having to do it unwillingly, is not easy. But change is also the only constant. Everything is constantly changing, but ultimately let us not forget that with it we always have choices. We can choose whether we want to accept the change, or resist it. Each individual can choose right now to do anything and everything in their lives differently without necessarily having to be pushed into doing so, or they may continue to carry on with the old known routine. Commonly or generally most people will resist change, as it’s not easy. Even when such change may not only produce beneficial results, but even be necessary, still the initial tendency is to balk and resist. Why? Because we are comfortable with the known, with the familiar? Because even though it is not what we want or need, it is usually just so much easier to just carry on, then to change. Because change involves a lot of effort and invariably what we perceive as unpleasantness. Because we can find and/or invent a hundred more reasons why we do not want to have to change!

Just as living in close proximity with other living beings is invariably not easy, so changing is not easy. Whether they are human beings, or the dreaded midges, or ants and flies, it is never easy having them around. You may have various choices as to how you are going to react to their presence, but by far the most beneficial is to choose to try and accept them, and to try and tolerate them. It’s sure not easy living on your own, but often it is easier than living together with others, especially when they are messy, undisciplined, and less inclined to want to contribute to the general communal wellbeing, rather than first and foremost tending to their own needs. After all, that is how they are used to doing it at home, or when on their own, so why should they now have to be inconvenienced by having to indulge, accommodate, and tolerate others?

!O-3|-W;-