The Still Center
This evening I went running at dusk, through quiet
neighborhoods that smelled crisp like winter and rich like the decay of autumn.
For a moment, as I moved, I think I understood something, in a full-being way
of ‘understanding,’ like pañña. It might
have been equanimity, but I’m not sure. The hush of falling night slanted with
the falling season, and emotions barreled through me as I ran: poignant
nostalgia, inspiration, longing, bliss. I watched feelings and images storm
through my mind and my belly. It was like cinema—I didn’t own them and they
were beautiful, and then they left. I kept running. I felt the rhythm of my
feet falling, and my breath. Winter’s bite, leaves rotting in gutters,
incandescent clouds.
This
week I have playing with the ideas of equanimity and intimacy. For a long time
I’ve had an instinctual aversion to the Buddhist idea of equanimity (upekkha). Like many Westerners exposed to Buddhism, the
concept of equanimity often strikes me as dry and disengaged. I love the ups
and downs of my experience; vividness and feeling are so real. The tranquility of upekkha seems like a dangerously uninspired flat-line.
According to the description of equanimity in the Anguttara, for example, a person who has experienced a sense
impression from the world or formulated a mind-object should be “neither
glad-minded or sad-minded,” and should “[abide] with equanimity, mindful and
clearly conscious.” How can I move through the absurdity of my human life and
not feel glad or sad? Isn’t the meaning in all of these passing moments to be
found precisely in my corresponding internal states of exaltation or poignant
sorrow?
If
I shift my understanding of ‘emotion’ and ‘attachment,’ however, I am much more
willing to nurture upekkha in my
everyday life. In my instinctive interpretation I tend to think that
equanimity, in its extinguishment of desire and aversion, somehow lessens my
engagement with the events of my human experience—it previously has seemed to
me that the abode of equanimity is a cool internal sanctuary, separate from the
texture of life that I love. This week in the still fall evening, however, I
was able to refashion my understanding of equanimity. Instead of seeing the
state of upekkha as one of
disengagement from reality, I felt it as surrender and an acceptance of the way
that the world truly is. When I
identify with a feeling of sorrow, for example, or cling to a passing wave of
euphoria, I am distorting the fabric of the moment with desire and delusion.
Maybe the abode of equanimity, instead of implying an abandonment of my
emotional engagement with a moment, denotes a sort of surrender to reality.
Maybe it means that I should simply recognize the complexity of my experience
of each moment and then let it flow through me like water. In this way, I can
let go of my need for control and engage with the events in my life with more
presence and intimacy. It’s like standing at the eye of the hurricane, with the
space to truly appreciate the strength and grandeur of its gyre, and with the
presence to be plied by wind and keep moving.
I’m
not entirely sure what the Buddha himself would say about this interpretation
of upekkha—I am still deeply committed
to my emotional responses as spicy and integral to the roller coaster that I
love. But maybe a certain quality of observation will allow the ups and downs
to flower more organically, and for me to see them and love them and release
them, moving forward with poise and compassion.