What Equanimity (Peace of Mind) Is and Isn't
Many teachers spend copious amounts of time harping on the notion that one needs to develop equanimity. So many seem to indicate (or overtly state) that if you have negative reactions (or, even worse, that if you enjoy positive reactions), then this is an indicator that you are deluded, unrealized, unenlightened, etc. This is a gross pedagogical error. Further, such misunderstandings greatly obscure the truth of equanimity, which will be perfectly understood in full awakening. This is another instance of the teacher/guru hang-up test1.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the only way for a person to eliminate (i.e. 100.0% of) so-called negative reactions is to eliminate (100.0%) caring about anything and everything. If a person cares about just one thing — and even if that care is ever-so-slight — that caring will provide the potential for a negative reaction (anger, fear, or sadness) if that “thing” comes under threat. Further, if someone could accomplish this, the result would be that they could never have any positive reactions (joy, happiness, laughter, relief, etc.) either.
If comprehensive elimination of caring were even possible (and I highly doubt that it is), a person that adopted such a positions would, for all intents and purposes, stop being “human.” I would hope any reasonable teacher who was pressed on this point would admit that the 100.0% elimination of caring is not possible.
If we can admit that we must allow for some caring to remain in human life after awakening, then we should realize that no one has the authority to dictate what should be cared about by another. Further, we have no authority to say in what degrees things should be cared about. These are matters that individual people must decide for themselves.
Hopefully the above reasonably demonstrations that perfect “equanimity” (in the sense of perfectly eliminating all reactivity) is 1.) impossible and 2.) even if it were possible, highly undesirable. If those points are agreed with, then one stands in a good position to understand the truth of equanimity that is both contained in many traditions, but also obscured by them.
We can use a term other than “equanimity” to drive a conceptual wedge between the obscuration and the truth found in the traditions. Roger Castillo often uses the phrase “the Perfect Peace of nothing wrong.” I think that hits the nail on the head. This perfect peace of mind can also be called the End of Suffering. In my essays on suffering and contraction I tried to articulate how there can be appearances of so-called “negative” emotions/feelings/experience and yet there is no “suffering” concomitant with them. Let’s try to put a finer point on that.
The “truth of Equanimity” is exactly the same thing as “perfect peace of mind” is exactly the same thing as “the End of Suffering.” Hopefully it’s obvious one can’t “practice” or “develop” the “End of Suffering.” It’s either fully realized, or it isn’t. It’s not something one “achieves” or “accomplishes.” It comes to fruition only by recognizing the Fundamental Nature for what it is, and that you are that. When this happens, perfect peace, the end of suffering follow; it’s a foregone conclusion to full realization/awakening. How does this happen?
In his recorded conversations with Charlie Hayes, John Wheeler summarized this beautifully: “The suffering is very real, but the cause of suffering doesn’t exist!2”
He was discussing the root cause of suffering, which is believing yourself to be something other than what you are. Nominally, we believe ourselves to be our self-conception. However, your self-conception is exactly that: merely a concept. What-you-really-are is not a concept! That erroneous belief that you are your self-conception is the source of all suffering, full stop. If you come to realize you are the Fundamental Nature, you’ll naturally see that the self-conception doesn’t exist as a person/entity/agent. It’s nothing more than a collection of diaphanous thoughts. At that point dropping belief in the self-conception is as easy as disbelieving the statement “I am Cleopatra.” It’s self-evident such a belief is false, so one doesn’t even need to “drop” it — it’s impossible to muster the effort required to believe the falsity in the first place.
As soon as you realize this error (provided you don’t make a new error by shifting that belief to a more rarefied/exotic/sanctified conception, as I discuss in “stage three” of identification with thoughts), you are in the perfect position to recognize the Fundamental Nature for what it is.
While the Fundamental Nature is truly ineffable, that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to talk about it at all. Ineffable means that it’s impossible to adequately conceive of/describe it. But it is real, so we can attempt partial, limited descriptions of it. There are dozens of fascinating aspects/facets/attributes to it!3 But, for our purposes in this essay, let’s just look at one: “Perfect Equanimity.”
This equanimity is not something to be practiced or cultivated.4 It is a description of a pre-existing aspect/facet/attribute of the Fundamental Nature. This must be investigated and confirmed or denied in one’s direct experience. The Fundamental Nature is perfectly equanimous with any and all appearances within it. To illustrate: if something appears and feelings of pleasantness arise as a result, such arisings are welcomed. When the initial appearance and the pleasant feelings subside, their cessation is likewise welcomed. If something appears and feelings of unpleasantness arise as a result, such arisings are welcomed. When the initial appearance and the unpleasant feelings subside, their cessation is likewise welcomed.
Going further: if you have a troubled mind, the troubled mind is recognized and welcomed exactly as it is. If you have a negative reaction, the negative reaction is recognized and welcomed exactly as it is. When troubled mind and negative reactions subside, their cessations are welcomed. All that is manifest comes-and-goes within the Fundamental Nature. It knows and welcomes all comings-and-goings. All without any effort!
Returning to arguments above, if we grant that the sage is allowed to still care about some things (again, I think we must — the sage is not “inert” like a chunk of rock), then the sage, at times, will have reactions. Sometimes those will be classifiable as “classically negative” experiences. In other words, the sage is allowed to have a troubled mind. The “Perfect Peace of nothing wrong” means even when one has a troubled mind, that does not constitute a problem. Having a troubled mind is, then, just a part of what’s going on, no more, no less. The sage knows the Fundamental Nature is perfectly at peace with the troubled mind; and the sage knows the Fundamental Nature is who/what they really are. So the sage allows the troubled mind to be as it is; to run its natural course. There is no resentment, no resistance, to the troubled mind. Perhaps the appearance of the troubled mind prompts the sage to take action. Or perhaps not. For example, when grieving the death of a loved one, a formerly-reciprocal connection of love has been forever severed. This severing of love is naturally painful. So there’s nothing to be done about grieving. It simply follows its own course and is transient like all phenomena.5
In all of this there is no suffering; there is no problem. There is fundamental, eternal peace of mind that admits of a troubled mind when one does arise. The troubled mind does not disturb the fundamental peace of mind. Likewise, it does not mar the pristene awareness of the Fundamental Nature.
This is the truth of equanimity: you are free to have negative reactions in exactly the same way you are free to have positive reactions. Again, humans aren’t inert! Reaction is part-and-parcel to a living system. The so-called “equanimity” of non-reaction will be perfectly and effortlessly achieved at death. To obsess about cultivating it on this side of the grave makes no sense to me at all. Get clear on the Fundamental Nature first, then it will be easier to assess, prioritize, and carry out self-improvement projects later.
That is to say, a fully-realized teacher (of which there are vanishingly few in the greater public eye today) can be easily identified by their lack of hang-ups. If a teacher/guru has hang-ups (like insisting that you need to develop equanimity — and there are countless others), then that teacher has not fully gotten the point yet.
Apologies, I can’t remember where in the 8-part conversation series that comment happens. So that may not be (i.e. probably isn’t) an exact quote. I’ll update this next time I come across it.
These include omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, timelessness/eternity, and the manifestations of awareness/experience/consciousness, being/existence, and presence, among others. Perhaps a topic for a future essay?
The kind of equanimity that can be practiced or cultivated (i.e. not pushing away the unpleasant, not clinging to the pleasant) has nothing to do with awakening, nor the reality of the Perfect Equanimity of the Fundamental Nature. This cultivable equanimity is a mere self-improvement project. There’s nothing wrong with self-improvement projects, of course! But they are completely unnecessary where awakening to the Fundamental Nature is concerned. Improvement projects are something that every person must “season to taste” in their own lives.
The only way to eliminate the possibility of grieving altogether, is to eliminate loving people altogether. That’s fine if the life of an extreme ascetic and hermit appeals to a person. But such a life is of zero interest to me and, I suspect, to most people.