The Lie

Here is the lie:

If you make yourself, or if life makes you, prettier, smarter, richer, more clever, more charismatic or gifted than others in any way (preferably in as many ways as possible), you will be attractive. And, to the degree that you are more attractive than others, you will be loved.

There are all manner of means to accomplish this. You can be born “better,” you can earn it, or you can attach yourself to someone or something that will include you in a circle of “better than.” Presumably, the more “better” you are, the happier you’ll be, so any progress on this front is preferable to none.

Why do we care about being “better” than others? So they will recognize our superiority and love us, in one way or another. They will admire us, respect us, befriend us, be proud of us, write about us, hire us, or ask for our hand in marriage. They will notice how we have risen above others, how we are different, and in how many ways. And they will appreciate us. And their appreciation, especially their public appreciation, will be the reward for our superiority.

That’s the lie.

The math is simple. The more special we are, the more different we are from others, the more we will be loved.

Once we learn this formula, we set in motion every gift we have to accomplish our own benefit. We use our intellect, our beauty, our energy and every trick we know to raise our self above average, and if we are able, above all.

We’ll even resort to a sort of reverse application if all else fails. We’ll be meaner, more angry, more ugly, more diabolic. But at all costs, we will strive to accomplish the loudest possible announcement of our individuality.

We will employ every scheme imaginable. We will use the blunt hammer of brute force. We will use the small, well-sharpened dagger of nuance and subtlety. We will use our spirituality, our creative energy, our sexuality.

When our strategies appear not to work, we will move to every form of Plan B imaginable. We will exhaust plan Z and move to the infinite combinations of strategy and tactic.

The smarter we are, the longer the possible list will be. The better our math, the more tactics we will have at our disposal. Our brains will work full time on this endeavor, collecting continuous data about what works and what needs work.

We will use our best resourcefulness to accomplish the goal of being loved, because we know, at our core, that we are lovely and worthy of adoration. On that point, we are not mistaken.

Why is it, then, that at some point, the smartest, the most lovely, those who have succeeded at high levels of being better in more ways, will wake up to disappointment?

Why, when we have carried out the most sophisticated strategies, with the most success–when we are indeed more beautiful, smarter, more acclaimed than others–do we not feel loved?

The mechanical simplicity of the answer is astonishing. We have spent our life proving how much more special we are than others. We have pushed, pulled and lifted ourselves into a place of profound individuality, where our differences have proved our worth.

No one near us matches our “betterness,” because we have systematically moved away from those who do. We have gradually disowned our place as ordinary, and one of the many. And now we are surrounded by the lonely and costly space of “better.”

From this lofty vantage point, what we have abandoned is painfully clear.

The path back to integration, even if seen, is treacherous. Even if one has the tools, to have the energy and the determination in the face of such disappointment is improbable. To successfully move against the force of the habit of separating one’s self from others as a means to happiness requires a stability of attention and a mindfulness that few can muster.

Even an unstable recognition of this condition can cause catastrophic suffering. Like a flash of light in a room where every part of the image seen is one of danger, the recognition of having been caught in this lie can turn conventional success into poison.

The means of every genuine tradition of human development are a movement away from this lie. The best are founded on the gradual disintegration of the beliefs that cause us to be susceptible to the lie in the first place.

Most traditions rely on the paradoxical need to both abdicate full responsibility for extracating oneself from allegiance to the lie to a master or a method, while concurrently acceptaning full responsibility for one’s own progress, And most depend, finally, on the realization that one is, in fact, both the master and the means.

The undoing of the lie, in the end, is the stable and direct experience of the improbability of the accuracy of the concepts of both “better” and “other,” which clears the way for the experience of real love, which, poignantly, was there all along.

Comments

[lekshe]

hello, tonio. wondeful missive there.

i might be right, i actually think i am, but mostly i am talking through my hat.. but not without looking, at least. *grins

[tony]

As usual, a day late and a dollar under.

I think you've very accurately described a fundamental aspect of the human condition. As much as we are all a collection of "selfish genes," we all operate under a biological imperative to replicate them, and like other living creatures we advertise our attractive features by fluffing our brightest feathers, so to speak. The call to "Mate with ME! because I am better than the other" (whether it takes the form of sexual striving or its more complex manifestation in the drive for social belonging and love) is integral to our existence, and I see little point denying this.

The essential question is at what point this drive becomes pathological, either for an individual or for a culture.

It's imaginable to me that cultures other than our very individualistic one can offer a person a more diverse way to experience this drive. The degree to which one is more integrated with family or with the tribe (as opposed to the emphasis upon the single individual) seems likely to attenuate the more obsessive need to replicate one's own genes, as it were (or to do so symbolically via relationships and social acceptance) by allowing one to satisfy the drive by working primarily for the group.

Not everyone can be the alpha male/female. However, our culture seems hellbent on suggesting that we can, at least within certain venues, achieve exactly that, and very little value is assigned to those who do not or cannot walk this path.

The myths abound: "There's someone for everyone," etc. And failure to achieve satisfaction of the drive to propagate one's genes (either actually or symbolically) is surely, according to the myth, due to a deficit in the individual. One need only become more attractive, richer, prettier, healthier, better. It's a matter of willpower and technique. And there are few outlets by which to satisfy our needs outside of the over-glorified exclusive and reciprocated loving relationship. A man who dedicated his life exclusively to the welfare of his brother's (or his tribe's) children would be considered odd indeed. And while we might admire this level of "selflessness," we do not -- outside of the ascetism of religious orders -- teach it as a very real option, equal in validity and possibility of satisfaction to the mainstream choice, to our children, or value its expression.

I can imagine other cultures in which this is less the case.

Yet, narcissistic as our culture is, it does not appear to breed a huge proportion of pathological narcissists. Most people cope. That's not to say that there aren't those who become obsessed by the brightness of their own feathers, and more importantly by a dysfunctional sense of entitlement as a result of their perceived self-image.

When that happens, suffering is intense. Unfortunately, because it is more of an exaggeration of a normal drive than an expression of an abnormal one, recognition of pathology in onself is very difficult. Easier to grasp intellectually, but very hard to *believe*.

Psychologists seem to agree that *belief*, the visceral sort of understanding, comes only at the price of an experience of disintegration. Your pathological narcissist is too well armoured by a highly effective series of defense mechanisms, and won't fully grasp the severity of his problem until his life falls completely apart and the illusion (or rather, the delusion) is shattered.

I can see where intense practice of the sort you describe might produce this effect. One must experience first hand the total fragmentation and disintegration of the self before he can know its falseness and know it long enough not to fall back into the old habits of denial and rationalisation. It's a tall order indeed. Lekshe is no doubt right about what is required to experience a change in insight of this magnitude.

[lekshe]

Well the comments are interesting and invited. I read them and I have affirmation of the feeling that we really *are* all in the same boat. Melinda, I think others are our mirrors. We give our children permission to show us our own face by virtue of the openness of our heart in their direction, so it happens. It's humbling. Our parents, our friends, and certainly our enemies can do the same if we can bear the insight.

I am reminded of the "view" in the vajrayana that all those who surround us are our Teacher, in disguise, constantly maniftesting in form and activity, to lead us forward to our own highest potential. Later in the path, one is said (what do I know about later in the path!) to come to see that one was that potential all along.

But without such grand speculation, let's just celebrate the wonder that we are surrounded by the constant generosity of life. So much to learn, so much to be be.

[Melinda]

It is wrenchingly painful if the separation that results from one's over-investment in one's own supposed individuality is mainly experienced between oneself and one's own infant son. We are born wise. Truly. And then we forget. My son is the greatest teacher I have ever had. There's no lying to an infant: his spontaneous sufferings and instantaneous joys are eloquent comments on my practice. My mindfulness (or lack of it). Moment by moment. And I'm not referring to the natural awareness of separation that should develop in infants to become fully functional adults.

[Dave]

"I do think it's beyond culture, actually, but if you or anyone can find me a culture where it doesn't play out, let me know. my passport is up-to-date and last time i checked i had enough in checking to relocate." I've been pondering whether/how to respond to this. The challenge wouldn't be your willingness to relocate, I think, but your willingness to completely immerse yourself in a radically different language/culture - as you have evidently done in the past, with Tibetan and Nepali Buddhist cultures. I mean, translation is so unreliable. And if the experience of missionaries among disparate indigenous peoples tells us anything, it is that, simply to get to the point where they can have meaningful exchanges about individualistic soteriology, they have to basically invent a new language, a literary version of the vernacular, full of new, jerry-rigged terminology. Culture contact is way more than a matter of contact, and if we are to engage in it honestly, both parties must accept the possibility that they and their mental constructs will be fundamentally transformed in the process.

The fact is, there aren't too many universal semantic categories. (As I've argued at various points in my blog, the view of the human mind as essentially unitary seems to be a distinctly minority view, for example.) More than that, as I'm sure you realize, ultimate concerns vary widely from one belief-system to the next. I hope to write shortly about religious/medical practice among the Kung, where community healing is the central focus.

But I am not sure we really disagree on this (or any) point, because I do have the sense based on my reading and travels (much more limited than yours) that human psychology is, if not exactly constant, basically the same from one society to the next. Certain psychological ailments do seem peculiar to specific societies, but I can't help thinking that meditation on "emptiness" would be a useful tool for healing almost anywhere.

Sorry for abusing your hospitality/patience with all of this! I feel much better now.

[Dave]

Good answer!

I should hesitate more before commenting on stuff that I don't know much about and that isn't necessarily intended for me, i spose, but my feeling is that a public blog with unrestricted comments is inviting a response! In my own warped way I'm trying to follow the Golden Rule, actually, but Dale's about the only one willing to tell me when I'm full of shit (well, i guess it's reciprocal).

[beth]

Lekshe, thank you. All I know is that when I am caught in the traps of my ego, sitting is what helps; in fact it is the only thing that helps. These days, I am sitting again, and it is there that the little chinks appear and let in some light. I'm also helped by remembering Joko Beck's question to herself in the midst of a time of ego-entanglement and suffering: "What do I really want for myself and for anyone else?" and then, she said, "I began to settle down."

[dale]

You've succeeded in talking me into long retreat, you know, Leks. Now it's just a matter of arranging times and lining up planets. It may not happen this year, but it will within eighteen months. (But if you think it'll stop me from bitching and moaning, you're not the hard-bitten veteran practitioner I took you for :->)

[lekshe]

hey, dave. nice to see you.

i don't know crap about the vajrayana and don't mean to imply that i do. if i ever do, feel free to shoot me on the spot, because endless misery will be forthcoming.

I only know my own experience in regards to my own suffering (and joy) and my practice in the last 11 years.

on the other hand, i challenge you (beg you) to find me one person who does not see suffering from their own beliefs and actions in this regard (the stuff of the poste). I want to meet them for coffee. i'll pay and will be uncharateristically delighted to be wrong.

I do think it's beyond culture, actually, but if you or anyone can find me a culture where it doesn't play out, let me know. my passport is up-to-date and last time i checked i had enough in checking to relocate. : ) again, i would be blissed out to find out I was off the mark.

but let me be clear...i don't mean to imply that I think that the vajrayana is essential to anything beyond saving my own ass. i don't think you can find that in the *intent* of my writing. i am, however, of the opinion or view that no-path is just another path, so you'll have to read my writing through that lens to get my intention.

what i do mean to say is that to me, based on my own experience, proclivities and what i would loosely call "karma," there isn't another viable option *for me*. and that for me to focus on finding reliable relief anywhere else is like looking for fresh air under water.

*and* i mean, in the friendliest way i know how, to rattle my pal's cage to trade some of his eloquent agonizing for some long retreat. I would not be so arrogant to suggest that to him even, if he were not pulling me into the story line in such a public way.

i am a heartless, "no crybabies allowed in here" if the potato is hot, dammit, drop it, kind of girl. at least today i am. shoulda had breakfast. geeze--shoulda had lunch. *chuckles.

fortunately dale's local teacher is a much kinder, compassionate person, who seems to run on high-octaine patience. i have only seen him spank in public once or twice in 11 years, and when he's thrown things, mostly they have missed. he's a fountain of support.

but then, he doesn't read blogs. he sits.

yes, lunch. time for lunch.

[susurra]

I'd like to feel as good as. Forget better.

[Dave]

Well put. You are one of the two best vajrayan bloggers I know!

However, I do have some questions. Who is this "we"? The implication is that you have described universal trajectories that operate independent of social/cultural considerations. They strike me rather as worst-case scenarios influenced strongly by your desire to depict vajrayana practice (or something similar) as essential to human progress. I feel the way I do after reading one of the great Socratic dialogues: impressed, but vaguely suspicious. Have we really been shown all the evidence? Just now you admitted that "the first real move is humility. to accept that we are not special, not superior, not even different in any way that matters, in this regard. that our foibles are predictable and obvious and workable." I know a ton of working class folks who have made that move a long time ago (sometimes I wish they would be rather more assertive of their rights, but never mind). Are they better for it? To the extent that they know how to kick back and have a good time, I'd say Hell yeah!

(Just, know, playing the advocate for my buddy Old Scratch.)

[dale]

Oh, I'm not waiting. You've never seen such a surly practitioner. I haven't quite been sticking my tongue out at the objects of refuge, but I've been coming close :-)

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

[lekshe]

waiting til we believe, i think, might a serious mistake. you know the old story...the fellow who wants to know who shot the arrow before he'll take it out.

open the tool box. nobody can tell you what's in your own collection.

devotion to the teacher? use that. discipline? use that. anger? use that. this was the meaning of the Rumi poem I posted a few days ago. it can all be used.

you might be able to use the desire itself. high risk, high gain. the potential for arrogance is so high. for me, my small practice, i can't do something so risky. i am willing to accept the obvious.. i can't do this myself. i don't dare. i know my tricks and the strength of my own deviousness too well.

and i know it's not going to happen if i work at it a half hour a day if i am deveoting the other 18 to the lie.

we don't do it til we're desperate.

the greatest sadness? to have the tools, to have the chance. to trade it for the lie. this is agonizing.

but we love the failure. the drama. it's part of the effectiveness, the strength of the lie itself. our suffering means we ARE different..

tricky business, the vajrayana, or any serious path. anyone who thinks bowing to a genuine spiritual master or path is submission, has not seen their own submission, and to what, and at what cost.

the first real move is humility. to accept that we are not special, not superior, not even different in any way that matters, in this regard. that our foibles are predictable and obvious and workable.

the only way i know to make this happen is to practice. there might be other ways, but i have not found even one. a little practice will bring a little relief, a small distraction from the lie. space to breathe. a blink of freedom. a crack in the continuum of deceit. days in retreat will bring more progress, more relief, more insight. more air.

to prostrate to the path is to prostrate to this insight, and to determine that we will not settle for less than real love. and to believe that we are capable, and worthy and that it can only be achieved with others at our side, but not alone. not ever. it has never happened. not once.

our brilliance shines in the place we put the match.

[dale]

Yes. This, exactly.

I know this is true. I wonder how many years, lifetimes, kalpas before I believe it?