EQUANIMITY

What is equanimity?

Websters Dictionary (2004) - "the quality of remaining calm and undisturbed; evenness of mind or temper; composure"

Here we distinguish equanimity as "ACCEPTANCE" of the actual way things are (what is) and in that acceptance a balanced (calmness) as to the mental and emotional attachment we attribute to others (IMPARTIALITY)".

Equanimity, as accepting what is as "what is" doesn't mean we should just roll over. Equanimity is not passivity. On the contrary, it creates a firm foundation for us to take action. For when we accept what is, we are not clinging to what used to be or wishing what might be, and we can step into doing what we can for ourselves and others.

Cognising "what is" requires that our existing "Listening" be distinguished. This provides access to a “certain kind of listening” this "listening" leaves the speaker “complete” it is a listening that leaves the speaker with the experience that he or she has actually been “gotten”, not just listened to, or even understood.

That is, a listening that leaves the speaker with the experience that where you the listener are, there is an exact duplication of what exists where the speaker is.

A listening which hears and cognises "what is" enables access to "Being Where Another Is" or "Exchanging self with other".

Our existing listening is an Already-Always-Listening "listening" and acts as a persistant constraint (complaint, fetter).

Your already-always-listening of what you hear limits in your listening what registers for you of what was said, and shapes in your listening what does register to be consistent with your already-always-listening.

For example, if your already-always-listening for classical music is “I don’t like classical music”, when you hear a piece of classical music, you will actually miss some of the passages (for example, when your attention is on your evaluation). And, your already-always-listening will shape what you do hear in a way that leaves you once again not liking what you hear.

With the person about whom you have a judgment, evaluation, opinion, anything said by them that is inconsistent with your judgment, evaluation, or opinion will not register for you or will be dismissed in some way. In other words, your already-always-listening constrains what registers for you.

For example, if you have an opinion about conservative politicians, such as “they don’t empathize with people’s suffering”, and a conservative politician says something consistent with empathy for a group’s suffering, while you will hear what is said, it is unlikely to register for you as empathy.

In addition to constraining your listening, your already-always-listening of the person about whom you have a judgment, evaluation, or opinion will shape (distort) your listening of what does register for you to be consistent with your judgment, evaluation, or opinion of them.

For example, again if you have an opinion about conservative politicians such as “they don’t empathize with people’s suffering”, and a conservative politician says that there is a need to do something about a group’s suffering, you are likely to interpret what they say consistent with your opinion. For example, that they are “playing politics” and have no real commitment to actually doing anything about it.

Each nationality and culture has an identifiable already-always-listening shared by most people of that nationality or culture. While some of us are able to identify the already-always-listening of various other nationalities and cultures, most of us are unaware of the already-always-listening of our own nationality or culture. When we are listening, we do not listen keeping present for ourselves the bias of our own national or cultural already-always-listening.

Consider that who you “wound up being” is shaped by your listening – by your listening as for example an American or European or Asian, by your listening as either a male or a female, by the listening developed as part of your family as contrasted with other families, by the individual idiosyncratic listening you developed, and so on.

Because your already-always-listening is already there in your listening and always there in your listening, it is like air to the bird, and water to the fish. We do not notice, and therefore do not take into account, what is omnipresent (already-always there for us). And therefore, your various already-always-listenings are difficult for you to discern for yourself. They are so to speak hidden from you.

And, what you don’t distinguish (that about which you are unaware) runs you.

When your already-always-listening remains undistinguished, what you hear is distorted (constrained and shaped by your listening), but you go on unaware of the distortion.

For each of us, our way of being and our actions are correlated with the way in which what we are dealing with occurs for us. Consequently, when your undistinguished already-always-listening imposes distortions in your listening, your way of being and your actions are correlated with those distortions, rather than being correlated with what was actually said. Your way of being and your actions are so to speak manipulated by those distortions. But you are unaware that your being and actions are correlated with a distortion.

You are left trying to be effective with a distortion of what was said in the conversation you are dealing with, and being unaware of the distortion imposed by your already-always-listening you will ascribe “reasons” (false cause) for any difficulty you encounter in being effective in dealing with that conversation.

To develop equaminity effectively, you must distinguish your already-always-listening, or when you are leading, it will run you.

Distinguishing two primary selfs.

1. Conception of a self of persons, the observation of which generates the thought "I" (human beings and other creatures)
2. Conception of a self of phenomena, the observation of which generates the thought not "I". (rocks, plants, space, cars, etc.)

Already-Always-Listening Self or Self as the persistant constraint (complaint, fetter).

Having distinguished your already-always-listening provides enables you to reflect now upon the difference between self and others.

In considering the difference between "self" and "other" we inquire into "HAPPINESS"

[EQUAMINITY - Listening the way it is and developing impartiality, Starts with the inquiry into equaminity, self and others.

"NO ONE WANTS TO BE UNHAPPY"

"EVERYONE WANTS TO BE HAPPY BUT LACKS IT".

"EVERYONE LACKS HAPPINESS AND NO ONE WANTS TO BE UNHAPPY"

Already-Always-Listening discussion leading to the 'GETTING' of others in respect of the common desire to be happy and desire not to be unhappy.




Acceptance of the "Getting" of others in their desire to be happy and desire not to be unhappy as being the same as self.

Discuss "IMPARTIALITY" different relateness to a loved one, friend persons of nuetrality and enemies.

Loved One

Visualize a loved one, preferably someone you live with or see on a regular basis. Get the visualization very clear. Start with the outline of the person and then fill in his or her features. When you get good at this, you feel you are really in the same room as the person you are visualizing.

Think about what you know about this person – his or her likes and dislikes, the
things that upset and please him or her, all of his or her little idiosyncracies, etc.

Now exchange yourself with the loved one. Just trade places. “You” are now
“him” or “her.” Try seeing the world as they see it. Really inhabit their body, their very being. Be him or her (who is now “you”). Practice being this person for a while and see how things look and feel from this perspective.

Next, turn your attention to the old “you.” Look at the old “you” with the eyes of
the new “you.” What do you (the new “you”) want, expect, hope for from (the old )
“you”? What sorts of things about (the old) “you” bother (the new) “you”? What sorts
of things could (the old) “you” do that would really make (the new) “you” happy?

Conclude this effort by switching back to your old “you” and reflecting on
what you’ve realized about how you could make your loved one’s life easier and happier.

A friend
...
A Person of Neutrality
...
An Enemy
..

Given the fact that both myself
And others are exactly the same
In wanting happiness,
What difference could there ever be
Between us, what reason that I work
Only for happiness for myself?

Given the facct that both myself
And others are exactly the same
In not wanting pain,
What difference could there ever be
Between us, what reason that I protect
Myself and not all others?

"THE DISTINGUISHING OF AN ENEMY OR FREIND OR A PERSON OF NEUTRALITY IS MISTAKEN"

"ENEMY AND FREIND ARE POSITED IN DEPENDANCE ON EACH OTHER".

The word friend comes from the Latin amicus and enemy from in amicus meaning not friend. In general when we refer to enemy we mean a person who seeks to harm us and the oposite of friend.