Q & A with Robina

QUESTION

My dear Venerable Robina,

Sometimes, if I think about emptiness in relation to a concrete situation, I feel like a psychopath. 

For example, in a situation where I am socially expected to suffer, if I think about emptiness, at least in its flip side of dependent arising, I do not suffer. This is because I realize suffering for anything is a waste of time. 

I am clear, I am making my best decisions, yet I hit this brick wall of guilt: not suffering for what anyone else would expect me to be suffering for. I’ve had people being shocked or offended by my lack of suffering. And this is getting me confused to some extent as to how applying dependent origination makes me devoid of empathy or “humanness” to some extent.

What are your thoughts on this? 

ANSWER

Dear N,

I think it’s easy to confuse not suffering for not feeling compassion or appearing indifferent — is that what you’re conveying?

Anyway, in order to be precise, please give me an example.

Love,

Robina

QUESTION

For example, when my grandfather died, I rationalized everything and stayed productive with organizing the funeral, staying with him and reciting the mantras, giving away his belongings etc. He was like a father to me, but I did not suffer when he died, I did not have feelings of sadness or grief or overwhelm. My mum, for instance, went into a deep depression at that point.

Another example: now with my cat, I am keeping him alive. He is suffering, but I am not suffering. I do care about him and try to give him the best life and death he can have, but I don’t have those sad feelings. I wish he did not suffer, but it’s like I am not fazed by his suffering either.

Another example is my ability to very easily walk away from any situation or person if I believe it is no longer beneficial to be in that dynamic. I’ve done it with kindness, yet decisiveness, even to people I’ve known for years, with no remorse or guilt.

ANSWER

Well, dear N, this is good. 

It’s a sign that you don’t have so much attachment, I’d say.

Well done!

Rxx

QUESTION

But where do you draw the line between lack of attachment and lack of empathy or carelessness? Is not suffering when someone else is suffering, or being able to be fully invested one day and not invested at all with no remorse the next not problematic? 

ANSWER

Dear N,

The thing to understand here is the distinction between delusions and virtues: a fundamental in Buddhist psychology. 

Of course, you know this well, but it takes time to really see the difference moment by moment. They’re literally mixed in a big soup in our mind.

So, when you have less attachment for people — and I’d say that’s monastic or renunciate karma from the past — you would be, more or less, as you say.

But if along with having less attachment you also have less compassion, less empathy — that’s not cool at all. And that’s often what happens; we throw the baby out with the bathwater because we’re not clear enough about what a delusion is and what a virtue is. So we have to be very careful.

The reality is, if you’re properly practicing, you’ll be less attached to people but you will have more compassion, more empathy, more love.

This is why samatha and special insight come at the end of the path as the last of the six perfections of the bodhisattva. By definition they are both Hinayana (well, samatha is initially Hindu), but they’re there at the end because the danger in going off to the mountains and getting single-pointed concentration — just that: forget about emptiness — before you get bodhichitta is that you’ll forget all about sentient beings. It’s so wise.

Of course, compassion can manifest in some people as very emotional, tears and things, but in others, not so.

The key thing to remember is that just because someone cries, is emotional, doesn’t mean it’s coming from attachment and the rest, or that they’re suffering. And just because someone doesn’t cry, doesn’t mean they’re not compassionate.

His Holiness was in tears one time when he talked about his mother. But that’s not because he’s suffering; that’s because when he remembers his mother he remembers her kindness, etc., etc., so shows emotion. 

So: being emotional doesn’t mean that it’s coming from delusions; and not being emotional doesn’t mean we don’t have compassion.

We have to know our minds well, N: as all our lamas say: what is to be practiced and what is to be abandoned.

So check up!

Love,

Robina

QUESTION

I guess I’m not sure if I’m getting it right. To me compassion and love do not feel sad or mushy at all. It’s basically staying grounded and giving my best – whatever that may be, even if it’s not the best, but at I’m least trying – in every situation. It’s like waking up, doing my duty to be a decent human being, and then ending the day with that. 

Even if shit things happen, or things that my attachment doesn’t want, like that old married person pursuing me, or making a terrible business deal, or my cat suffering. I just try to be decent and be okay with whatever effort I’m putting into my waking time, even if it’s not the best or brightest. 

I strive to offer to others and to make use of whatever limited discernment I have. But it’s not emotional at all. It’s purely rational. Coldly rational. I strive to offer the world my best and live by my vows, but sometimes I feel people have this expectation of me to wallow or reminisce or be all emotional, and that the fact that I’m not is somehow wrong, inappropriate or offensive to others. 

This is why I am confused as to where to draw the line or decide for myself if what I’m doing and my mindset is aligned with the Buddha’s intention or not.

ANSWER

N! Your answer implies you didn’t read my email, or, at least, you didn’t understand it.

That’s okay. Just keep moving —

We have to know our minds well, N: as all our lamas say: what is to be practiced and what is to be abandoned.

QUESTION

I did read your email.

But I am still having a difficult time deciding for myself whether or not what I’m doing is virtuous.

But I guess your point is that I do need to decide for myself, right?

ANSWER

Dear N,

You don’t “decide for yourself” whether you’re playing the right notes of the Bach piece of music without consulting Bach’s clear instructions.

What is right or wrong music is not self-existent: it depends upon the instructions.

So, consult the marvelous, sophisticated, clear, precise presentation of the mind according to the direct experiences of the holy beings over the centuries.

What is virtuous or non-virtuous is also not self-existent. You can’t just look into your mind and “decide for yourself”; you first study the mind, then look into your mind and then decide whether it fits the definitions of virtue or non-virtue.

This is what being a Buddhist means. This is how you get enlightened.

QUESTION

I understand what you’re saying, Venerable Robina.

But looking at the lorig, and then looking at my mind doesn’t give me a complete insight. Because virtue is mixed with non-virtue. And even if I do my best to purify the non-virtue, I have not accomplished wisdom. I do not have a direct insight into emptiness, I am trying to work with it at a conceptual level.

So even if I say: okay, I am making this decision out of the conscious, active motivation to do what’s most beneficial, I still cannot validate myself fully. I wish I could, I am aiming at that.

ANSWER

Keep moving, dearest N!