Expanding the Defninition of Teacher

Recently I have had the feeling that I was at a new stage in my life. I felt I was ready to move on and explore life from a hands-on perspective. I felt certain that I was finally ready for a teacher to guide me on this path. This last week I had an interesting experience that led me to realize that my definition of teacher was limited. First off, I thought a teacher was someone who specifically took me on as a student with the purpose to enlighten me on particular concepts. Second, I thought a teacher was supposed to purposely inspire me and help me question my attachments. I suppose it is obvious at this point that I am taking about a special type of teacher although these definitions could fit any teacher to various degrees. The teacher I was waiting for was a spiritual teacher.

My experience this past week, culminating today, helped me realize this definition was too narrow. I realized that all human interactions have the potential to help one learn about oneself; especially when strong feelings arise. I also realized that a teacher does not have to know they are teaching. Even if a person does not think he or she has something to pass along it does not mean that what he or she does know will not benefit someone else. I also realized that how we interact with people can be a better teacher than forced or on-purpose teaching. The experience I speak of was an encounter with another person and emotions were intense. While things did not turn out as I secretly hoped they would, I did learn a tremendous amount from this experience even though this person emphatically posited that he was not a teacher. He was a teacher because I was willing to listen to the lesson born from our interaction.

This brings me to the idea I have struggled with for so long. I fully realize that as a parent I am onstage. My daughter will or can pick up anything and everything I do and mimic it with beautiful accuracy. I tell you, if you want to know what your dark side looks like watch your children; if something they do makes you mad then most likely it is something about yourself that you do not want to admit. Because my daughter mirrors me I get instant feedback. Isn't that what a teacher does is provide feedback.

However, these teacher/student relationships are quite ambiguous. The teacher is not trying to teach and the lessons are up to what the student observes and processes. In the case of children they are not necessarily teaching but showing and it is up to the individual to assimilate this information. I can only learn lessons from my daughter because I am open to observing and integrating them. It is the same thing with this experience I had.  He was not teaching; we were interacting and I was observing myself. The lessons I gained were not from lesson plans that he prepared; I had to find the lessons.

I realized that at any moment the individual has the potential to be a teacher and a student; it all depends upon our agreed upon interaction with the other individual(s) and what we truly need. A verse from the Bible keeps wondering through my head that said something like, "Blessed is he who can see without seeing and hear without hearing". I always thought a proper teacher would cross paths with me and our roles would be well defined. In other words,  I would see and hear in the very physical sense. If, however, teacher/student roles are more subtle then that means one must be astute enough to realize what is going on without the sensory seeing and hearing. Thus the question is can I learn without seeing and hearing meaning can I learn from the ambiguity of life?

I am thankful for the lessons I learned today and the potential for more freedom from self-bondage.

Self-Compassion

My daughter is my inspiration to be a better person; I have completely changed my thoughts regarding parenting so I can help her achieve her "potential". I work hard at practicing non-violent communication and practicing cooperation rather than coercion. But it seems that no matter how hard I try my daughter and I often butt heads. My daughter's personality is almost exactly like mine so we but heads frequently. As our wills collide I often find my desires of cooperation and communication flying out the window as I engage in my programming of yelling and coercion. I hate it when I do this and I feel like it isn't even me. I get so angry at myself for acting in this way; so opposite of good communication. As I chided myself I came up with plans on what I would do next time. Then next time came and those plans were not there; my programming was. I realized that to end this cycle, something had to change. As I took steps to remember my small successes I embraced self-compassion. Through this I was able to begin the process toward recognizing small potentials.  



Awhile back I realized the need for self-compassion. What this means is that I give myself permission to be me and I remove the yardstick of comparison. I attempt to look at my life within a larger scope and remember all the progress I have made; even if it isn't the same area. Remembering this progress helps me realize that every day I get better and better at leading a more in tune life. Self-compassion gives me permission to make mistakes and helps me look at mistakes in a different light; reframing them to a positive way. When I act compassionately toward myself, then I can give compassion toward others. Thus when I feel myself getting angry I let myself express that, but I also remember that I need to cool off before continuing. I walk away, I count, or I ask my husband to take over. Either way, I am interrupting my normal response. Then, when I have a chance to think over it I tell myself my response was ok, that I am ok, and that I am learning. I searched for what I do that was positive and I focused on that even if the only positive thing was my pattern interrupt. Focusing on the positive enables me to remove myself from the negative rumination.



Another trick I discovered in self-compassion is to pick my battles. For example, I used to yell and get angry at my daughter for failing to clean up the room. We live in tight quarters and her play room is also our sleeping room where I lay out our bedding on the floor each evening therefore the room must be completely picked up. One day I realized that the yelling was ridiculous and it made me feel icky to get so angry. Therefore I made the decision that if I wanted the toys a particular way then I would assist her clean up. I would set the example of what I wanted rather than expecting her to respect what I had already established. Even if she did not help me but continued to play, I knew my example was important so I continued. Yes there are many times where I cleaned up the whole room by myself. I picked my battle, decided that the relationship with my daughter and a tidy room were both important to me so I took actions to preserve both. Many months later, I am finally seeing my efforts paying off. My daughter and her cousin who often plays with her are both more contentious about their mess and both take efforts to clean up and put things away where they belong. Many nights of yelling and anger to get them to do it correctly did not work. However, many nights of setting the example and choosing peace did. I could list many other areas where I choose my battles but the most important thing is to decide what I wanted and take actions to model what I wanted. I am not suggesting that I have it all figured out, but I have made significant progress.

Potential

Human potential. My potential. Living up to potential. Thoughts and actions that harm my potential. Am I moving toward my potential? Should I do something to move quicker? Should I do something specific to get there? Should I specifically decide what my potential is and what activities or thoughts are conducive to getting there? Hmmm...

What is potential? This question rings as a constant companion in my thoughts as I obsess in getting there. I believe that I can be like Jesus; to do the things he did. I also believe that I can be more than he was like he suggested. I believe that my current life is not living up to my potential. I believe I am wasting my potential. I believe I should whip myself into shape and force myself to toe the line of an upstanding and empowered individual. But is this line of thinking correct?

If I believe my potential is somewhere out there and all my actions cause me to fall miserably short, then will I ever reach potential? What if potential is not some big thing to aspire to someday? What if I looked at the present? If I were to look at the present moment and say, "this is what I am right now", then how would that change this concept of potential?

Right now I sit at my desk typing away on my laptop. I worked on homework for awhile, checked my email, attended to Facebook, played a game, worked on homework some more, changed my kefir grains to new sugar water, bla, bla, bla. Right now I am involved in a typical routine; a routine I work toward to better myself. Sure there are things I could do better in this routine. I could exercise in the morning, I could stop looking at my email and Facebook hoping for a distraction, I could stop playing games, etc. If I were to look at my day I can give a dissertation about all thing things I should be doing; things that are "keeping" me from my potential. Things that show I am lazy and hold me back; habits that I struggle to change. But that is all in the future. What about right now? Honestly, I am tired of this concept of potential and how it has become a yardstick to gauge myself by. Big surprise, or perhaps not, I often measure myself as lacking :(.

Maybe I am looking at this whole potential thing wrong. Not only should I look at what I am doing in the present, but I should also look at what I am doing well. What have I achieved that I was unable to before? Where am I better? Where have I grown? What is my overall trend? Am I growing? Am I stagnant? What time frame am I looking at for comparison? Am I being fair or am I somehow skewing and misinterpreting the results so that I look bad?

I am going to try something. For the next month or so I promise to monitor my thinking in regard to potential. Instead of looking at potential as something out there, I promise to look at potential as something in here; something that is right here, right now, with me at all moments. If something happens that I feel "keeps" me from my potential, then I promise to address my thinking and refocus it. I have done this on a limited scale when I practice self-compassion by picking my battles, but I want to apply it to all my thinking; particularly the rumination that states I am doing something wrong. I promise to find what I did do “right” and focus on those wins rather than ruminating on the losses. I promise to tell myself that I did the best I could and at that moment I lived up to my potential. I promise to recognize that potential is always about what is possible at the moment rather than something out there. Everything is a part of everything else and everything is always a part of something bigger. Sure there is the big potential of an event in some far off future. There are also the smaller potentials that stack up to create the larger potential. I promise to recognize the smaller potentials, the small wins, the small acceptances, and the small events that lead to the larger event. I am who I am today because of all that I was before.

Remember before when I spoke of the windfall effect? This idea of an unreachable potential yardstick of comparison is an example of a windfall. It states that potential is only some far off event and that currently you are not living up to it. It expects you to act well and appropriately as if to live your potential now. It fails to account for the accumulation of potentials, for the accumulation of energy, for the accumulation of stuff, or for the parts and pieces that make up the whole. It expects everything at once and will always judge as lacking because everything is not manifest. It is a lie we tell ourselves so that we can hide from our true selves. The fact is, I and you are more powerful than we give ourselves credit for. Therefore, it is my assumption that if I learn to recognize the smaller potentials then a day will come when I will see the project they contributed to building; the project of me. Until then I can still see the whole in the pieces and be thankful for each of them because without them then I would be incomplete. I, for one, am tired of feeling incomplete therefore I want to gather all my minute potentials and recognize them as complete in and of themselves. 

 Update

Well I am not sure if I have adequately addressed my poisonous thought process; that is a process and will take time to undo 31 years of conditioning. I can say that today I happier than I was six months ago. My life is  flowing, I am becoming more social, I am comfortable waiting, and I recognize the achievements I have. I came across and article today, June 12, 2012 on potential. I believe I wrote before about my beliefs with the potential of the human brain. I now know I want to partner with that amazing mass between my ears so that we can co-create wonders. I always wondered if humans could teach themselves to achieve feats like those seen on Phenomenon; for the first time someone has confirmed my suspicion. Here is the link to the article http://rethinkingeverythingtheblog.com/2012/06/12/mind-power/.

Being a Blessing

A month or so ago, I made an important decision. I decided that mourning the state of my life and circumstances was illogical and stupid; it only made me feel sad, despondent, depressed, angry, and sorry for myself. It gave me permission to hide and pretend that I was not a powerful being with great potential; something I have stated about people for quite some time now, but I guess I never really believed it. I finally decided that I was blessed. My life and circumstances are completely different from everyone else and yet I have the means to help others. I decided that rather than mourning about my circumstances, I would recognize the blessing and then pass those blessings onto others. In short, I decided that I would be a blessing too.

Resolving Fears

Today I will have a chance to resolve key fears in my life. It is not just about today; this process has been happening for some time now. Today, I feel ready to face them. These fears center around following my intuition and what feels best for me. Society is bent upon telling you what is best for you; if you do not follow then you are considered worthy of ostracization. For the first time in my life, I am making decisions based upon what is best for me and my family.

Strangely or perhaps appropriately enough this falls during a time I consider a resolution phase for me. June has been a wonderful time of resolving old energy in preparation for beginning new projects with new energy. Problems that I felt were stuck are becoming unstuck as inspired solutions reign. I am graduating in more than one sense. Graduation does not mean I have arrived; to the contrary it gives me permission to ascend to the next level.

For the first time in my life, I am getting off of the fence. I am committing to certain courses of action rather than remaining wishy-washy. I am making deliberate choices; I finally own my life. These choices are empowering and allow me to move on. These choices give me a reason to exist. They open up the door for continued growth. They allow me to accurately assess the damage with a heart toward harmonious resolution that set the stage for the next step. I am free.  

I own my path going forward. I have made deliberate decisions. I am committed. I am doing what is best for me even if this means being at odds with everyone else. I am finally reaching a point where I don't need other's approval just my own.

Thankfulness

Hello all.




I want to share one of my personal struggles with you to highlight the power of a very simple principle. I am sure most of us equate money with happiness. Sure we have all heard the notion, "money does not buy happiness", but let us be honest: being broke sucks and it is so hard to be happy when you feel like you are drowning in a sea of bills. I have been working to create healthy financial circumstances in my life; but it has not happened. I keep hoping that a large sum of money will magically appear to help me rise above the water... that a magical fairy will appear and wave a magic wand and make the bills disappear... that I will win the lottery... that I will suddenly have a house of my own... that my business attempts would work... etc. etc. etc.



The point is I am looking for a windfall to solve my problems; the reason being that my problems are so huge that only a windfall, in the form of a tidal wave could clean it up. I honestly think that this one concept is the source of all unhappiness. We have a problem and we look for windfall solutions. Before I go on a tangent, I will commit to the windfall being the topic of another conversation.



When I first began creating my new life circumstances a small, seemingly insignificant concept kept whispering in my ear. I encountered this concept in various places... it popped up constantly... I could not ignore it. But I did ignore it, or at least I tried. I used it when things were really bad, but when things would go well I would forget it. I did not realize the power of continued use. I finally got it today. I read somewhere that the key to happiness was thankfulness. We will never find happiness if we constantly focus on what we do not have. We will find that we are so blessed in abundance if we will just focus on what we do have rather than what we don't.



Where you put your attention you will gravitate toward. If you focus on what you do not have, then you will never have enough. If you focus on what you do have, then you will always have exactly what you need. I remember my driver's ed teacher telling the class that if we ever found ourselves in a spin out, a tire blow out, hydroplaning, or something like that, then we needed to focus on the road and not the closeness of the guard rail. He said that if we focused on the guard rail then we would inevitably head toward it because we stear toward the direction our eyes are focused.



I am giving myself a challenge. Every night before I go to bed I will recite what I am thankful for. I will do this in both the good and bad times. I will keep it up. I am tempted to say that I will try it for a period of time like 30 days, but then I am using it for my own gain. That would mean that I am not truly thankful just greedy. I will work to create a new habit for myself, one where I will be in the habit of giving thanks every night for all my blessings of the day.

Re-Creating Myself Through Eavesdropping

I am a sneak. I have my ear up to the door. A private conversation is going on; they do not know I am listening. They thought I was busy elsewhere...putting out some fires, pursuing flights of fancy, worrying about things I cannot change, worrying about what others think about me...and on and on and on. It turns out I got suspicious about their conversation when I was notified that my life did not have to be the way it was...it could be better.

"But," I said, "they told me that this was as good as it gets. They fed me all kinds of stories about how I was a victim. They told me to stop trying because I kept getting hurt."

"You can change your circumstances," the voice said, "all you have to do is eavesdrop on the conversation of those creating the circumstances and take back control of your life."
"You mean I don't control my life?" I asked incredulously.

"It is not control, to put out fires or succumb to worry; it means you are a puppet. You will only have control when you give up trying to control by responding to things in fear. When you come from a position of love then you can create. When you focus on yourself then you can create. When you focus on how you react to the world then you can create. You cannot create when you react out of fear and loathing."

I did not understand this, but I understood the admonishment to listen. And so I did... I realized the conversations in my head were negative, loathing, fear-based, irrational, and left me feeling wanting. I want acceptance. I want love. I want understanding. I want to teach. I want to know. I want to experience. I want to accept. I want to know God. I want to "be all this and more".

"You will never reach your potential as long as you hang onto the strings of manipulation, the crutch of longing, the feeling of lack, the feeling of being harmed... The string of connection is not the same as the strings of manipulation; one is love and the other is loathing. Just start by changing those stories you hear; they are only true to the extend you make them true. You can create the life you want if you change your advising council."

This conversation seems silly, but it is the conversations, somewhat, that I had with my higher-self, intuition, God-self, inner-guidance, whatever name you give it. As humans we cannot conceptualize circularity, we only grasp singularity. I am many parts, but I cannot understand that. For my human conscious and limited understanding, I see me as different parts. The parts I was eavesdropping on were also me. This was the part that listened to and believed all the lies I was ever told. This is the part that believed I deserved lack and was nothing special. This was the part that my inner-guidance always contended with. They are the figurative figures on the shoulder; one good and one bad. I realize I have been taking orders from that part of myself that is out of alignment, without love, and that embraced pity and loathing.

I have decided to listen to my inner guidance, or that oh-so-little voice that quietly offers up advice. I suppose now that it has my attention, and I am listening, the voice will become stronger as my ears adjust to that wavelength of conversation. I notice that when I do listen to that little voice, things seem to go ok; when I do not listen and get overconfident, then things go wrong. If the little voice tells me to bring a change of shoes for my daughter, and I do not listen, then my daughter ends up getting her shoes wet. If I had listened to that little voice, I would have had fresh socks and shoes for her; instead I had to buy a new pair. This failure to listen is happening less and less, and my ability to listen is happening more and more. When I listen to this little voice, my life seems easier, things are better, I have more light, I have more peace, and I feel happy.

I also realize that listening is not about subservience. Afterall, I am not a puppet. Acting is done out of my free will, therefore if it is done in accordance with listening, then I am co-creating. Because I find happiness in this process, then I am creating abundance. All this is because if eavesdropped on myself and changed my council of advisers. It will be interesting to see what my life becomes now.

Complaint, Worry, and Wishing

Yesterday, in line with my fixing broken commitments, I was sorting out a small box of my jewelery making supplies. I haven't made a piece of jewelery in over six years, but I have pillaged the box for one tool or bit of wire or something else. In addition to the box being very mixed up and cluttered, all of my work was in a large ball in the center. All of the necklaces and bracelets that I spent countless hours making were in a ball because the first time I moved I was haphazard and just shoved them in the box. My thinking was, "Well it isn't that long of a trip and these will be re-displayed in a few days; they will be ok." Few days, yeah right, try a few years.

As I began to meticulously untangle this ball I complained to my husband about the size, time it was taking, time it would take, and how it interfered with the rest of my desk reorganization. He said quite calmly, "Well if you want to speed it up, cut it apart or just throw the whole thing away." "Are you serious!?" I asked incredulously, "I spent so much time on these pieces, this is my art, my work; I can't just throw it away like garbage." "Well," he replied, "then stop complaining. Either you commit to taking it apart, or you commit to taking it out of your life."

He was right; we have had this conversation many times over other things and for some reason we both need to be constantly reminded. We have come to realize that complaining is akin to fence sitting. When one is sitting on a fence they are not committed. Another way of looking at this is having one foot in each of two worlds, never making a whole-hearted commitment to either. In this case my opposing worlds were the old paradigm of accepting my junk and clutter while the other was doing something about the clutter.

Any form of complaining, wishing, worrying, etc are all passive; they don't involve action just creations of the mind. We can either live in these safe worlds or actually take action to achieve what we want. At this point I feel these passive circumstances will confuse some people. "What is wrong with wishing and worrying?" some might ask. "Afterall, wishing helps you determine what you want and we always worry about the safety of our loved ones."

True, there is nothing wrong with the actions except when they are taken to an extreme. If someone has a dream and they just sit around wishing, then the dream will never happen. If, however, he or she starts to take steps in that direction then the dream becomes a map. At this point the dream takes on substance and becomes a useful tool rather than some fancy painting on the walls of the mind's eye.

The same is true for worry; some use it as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility to live one's life to the fullest. An individual simply cannot live if all they do is worry about how others are living their life. This brings up the phrase sick with worry. This is the individual who does not let others live their life and thinks he or she knows what is best for the other. This individual will not accept normal human limitations, mortality, individual choices, or accept that he or she has an outsider's view. Only an individual can make changes, excessive worry for another will not force that individual to change unless he or she deems it necessary. But even then it will only be because of personal choice not the worries of an outside individual.

Commitments

The word commitment has many different connotations. In one regard it means a marriage or taking the plunge. Another means to attend an event. Still another means to budget one's time. The other day, I was pondering why I felt so stuck in my life when this word came to me. I had just read about commitment in my last Psychology chapter before Christmas break. My last assignment was to describe a goal I have and ways I can increase my commitment. It was just an assignment...or so I thought. This assignment had major ramifications for re-evaluating my commitments.

I realized that commitments are not just big, easily identifiable things like a marriage, an event, or time budgeting. Rather commitments are prolific and infiltrate our entire life. I also realized that most things in our life are commitments. For example, if you buy something you commit to using it. If you have something you commit to using it; if you do not use it you commit to storing it. If you cook something you commit to eating it. If you have a child you commit to rearing it. If you have a garden you commit to tending it.

Simple enough yeah, but my ah-ha moment came when I realized the sheer degree of broken commitments in my life. I have book shelves of unread books. I have many projects started but never finished. I have many supplies to make things but have never made them. I bought kiefer starters recently to clear up my digestive flora but never made it. I bought a dehydrator a few years back and rarely use it. I bought a Vitamix but rarely use it. I could go on, but the point is I have many things or commitments that I do not properly utilize. I use the excuse of "I'll get around to it" or "I am just too busy now, but [fill in date] I'll be finished with [certain thing] and then I will do it" or something along those lines.

My life is filled with broken commitments. Broken commitments are clutter and clutter brings us down. Clutter is accumulated when we have things we do not use. Oh, but we have the best intentions to use them...someday. Someday. I am so committed to my projects and self betterment that I recently filled an entire 24' moving truck, had to leave stuff behind, and had no furniture in there. What was in there...all the stuff I found necessary to better myself, things I thought I needed, toys for my daughter to make up for my childhood, and basically a lot of baggage.

As I am evaluating my commitments I have "committed" to divesting myself of commitments. I moved from a much larger house than where I am now so more than half of my stuff remained in a storage area. I have decided that if my stuff will not fit within the confines of my small space, then I do not need it. Slowly, but surely the Goodwill is benefiting from my divestment. I am beginning to see the light as I now question all my stuff. If I cannot part with it then I commit to doing something with it; if I fail to do something with it by a certain date then off to the Goodwill it goes. I have to be ruthless otherwise I will never unbury myself from broken commitments.

Forest Gardening: Feeding the World through Sustainability

 
Self-Responsibility Given Away

Near the beginning of recorded history Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eaten (Eden) . In Exodus 20:18 the people of Israel said to Moses, who had delivered them out of oppression in Egypt, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.” This set a precedent where people decided that they were unable or unwilling to take self responsibility. In today’s world this is no more evident than the problems of world hunger and the resulting reliance on big business to feed the masses. The production of food requires intervention oriented cultivation which is unsustainable and exploits the environment. This dilemma and solution mimics the ancient Cahokia society as their exploitation of the land to feed their growing population ultimately led to disaster. Is this where present society is heading? Will the earth ultimately retaliate and spew natural disaster to destroy man-made infrastructure? “Climate change and the recent financial crisis clearly show that humans have entered an unprecedented era of fast and possibly dangerous changes” (Lichtfouse, Hamelin, Navarrete, Debaeke, & Henri, 2010). Entry back into the Garden of Eaten requires food production to epitomize the original conditions and for humanity to adopt awareness, responsibility, and motivation to change.

The Cahokia Mirror for Modern Agriculture

It is said that history repeats itself, unless the lesson is learned. In an eerie parallel to modern agriculture, the tale of the Cahokia Indians offers a prediction of doom if attitudes of exploitation do not change. Around 1000 AD The Cahokia Indians populated near what is known as St. Louis. It was the largest tribal settlement in the United States. Their population had grown so expansive that they had nearly eradicated wild animals to hunt. To feed the growing population, an agricultural system was established to grow maize; this system was very similar to modern monoculture. As the population grew and more maize was being grown, the Cahokia quickly overtaxed their stream’s capacities. Their solution was to divert water from a nearby stream into their water supply to create a river. For space to grow they practiced extensive clear cutting of the surrounding forests. This move served to increase maize production and population growth. However, this was not a sustainable enterprise.

“Eventually, disaster struck. Heavy storms which would have been soaked up by forest quickly ran off the agricultural fields, bloating the river, and causing floods and mudslides in the city of Cahokia. A subsequent earthquake was the last straw which broke Cahokia's back. Within a few hundred years of its inception, the city had dissolved back into the earth. The Indians fled the city and developed a more sustainable agricultural system based on small fields of maize surrounded by managed forests of fruit and nuts. ” (Ana & Mark, 2010, Cahokia: a cautionary tale).

Modern Agriculture: History Problems Repeated

It took over 1600 years for human population to reach 1 billion people and it took scantly 400 years for the population to increase 6 fold to 6 billion people. Currently the population has increased by nearly 1 million people in less than 11 years. While the population growth is showing signs of slowing, the rate of growth is so large that current agricultural production cannot keep up with the demand. “Currently, the World Health Organization estimates that more than 3 billion people worldwide – the greatest number in history - are malnourished” (Berg & Hager, 2007, p. 338). To increase food yields farmers have turned to science to create super-producing crops. While this has met much of the population growth, it is also unsustainable, therefore this high intensity food production cannot continue for more than a few decades (Berg & Hager, 2007). What then? How will the growing population be fed?

Modern farming methods involve monoculture, or long rows of one type of food. To feed the growing population science intervened in plant production through genetic manipulation to increase food yield. These crops require massive interventions such as pesticides, high potency fertilizers, herbicides to discourage unwanted weeds, and special machinery to sustain the food through the growing season and onto harvesting. (Berg & Hager, 2007). Pesticides are used in increasing amounts to deal with the out of control pest populations which monoculture encourages. A monoculture is considered a feast to invader bugs, thus their exploding populations require even more pesticides (Agroforestry Research, 2008). All of these things contribute to pollution by poisoning the plants, animals, and people in the environment. “…Agricultural practices are the single largest cause of surface-water pollution…” (Berg & Hager, 2007, p. 346).

The terrestrial resources needed to sustain such large operations are tremendous. Aquifers, rivers and streams are rapidly becoming depleted from the large amounts of water used to irrigate these high yielding crops. Immense tracts of land are needed to meet current and future production demands. However, all the cultivatable land in the world is already taken and that land is giving way to urban development. Wild animal populations are also becoming increasingly isolated as more land is wrest from forest through clear cutting. Clear cutting contributes to soil erosion and floods because there are no longer natural vegetation roots to hold the soil in place or absorb large amounts of water from rain (Berg & Hager, 2007). Soil erosion also occurs when land is tilled. Tilling disturbs the natural ecosystem of the soil killing much of the microbiology and soil structure (Ana & Mark, 2010).

To offer a complete picture, the economics of such large scale farming also need to be accounted for. It takes huge sources of capital to live in such odds with the environment. Nature will eventually reclaim what it loses thus efforts to keep nature away are expensive. “It seems apparent that continued reliance on monocultures is more of a liability than an asset.” (Agroforestry Research, 2008, p. 6). It would also seem that such huge amounts of work and investment for such limited, or unbalanced food return does not make economic sense. Natural disasters must also be taken into account. The old adage about “don’t put all your eggs in one basket” applies to reliance on one huge mono-crop; putting that principle to the test. The Cahokia found their solution in gentle land persuasion, otherwise known as forest gardening. Will modern society embrace their lesson or will history repeat itself?

Forest Gardening: An Ancient Practice

Researcher Charles Mann (2006) delineates an alternative view of the history of American Indian land influence. American History teaches that the, “American Indians had a pure connection with the nearly untouched wilderness they lived in” (Anna & Mark, 2010, What American Indians can teach us about permaculture). Mann’s research has shown otherwise stating that the American Indians had significant influence on the structure of the forests and in created large civilizations sustained by agriculture which covered nearly two thirds of the United States (Mann, 2006).

The tropical rainforests of South and Central America have long been considered virgin forests. The Amazon forest and Mayan forest rank first and second, respectively, for sheer amount of biodiversity present in one place; in other words they have higher species diversity than anywhere else in the world. Scientists have long considered the forests to be an anomaly of nature. Evidence now points to the contrary. Because over 90% of the plants are useful to humans, science concludes that much, “8% to 100%, [of the forest] was anthropogenic” (Ann & Mark, 2010, Anthropogenic forests in the Amazon), or created through carful, human manipulation, see figure 1. To add credence to the argument, forest stewards of the El Piliar Maya Forest Garden Network [El Pilar] (2009) state that “that there is a higher percentage of useful plants in forested areas where the Maya lived than forest where people did not live. This suggests that the Maya manipulated their forest, favoring plants that were useful to them, changing the composition of the forest.”

Clarifying Terms

Forest gardening has become a blanket term for any system which involves the careful manipulation of plants in a forest setting to produce the maximum amount of beneficial plants. That said, there must be a distinction between temperate forest gardening and tropical forest gardening. Technically any gardening which takes place in the tropics is called permaculture. However, these techniques will not work in temperate forests. Robert Hart invented forest gardening as a way to apply the wisdom of permaculturists to the lack of abundant rainfall, less direct sunlight, and seasonal fluctuations of a temperate forest (Ana & Mark, 2010). That said the terms are usually used interchangeably. One thing is certain however, “Once a forest is managed it becomes a garden” (El Piliar, 2009, How a forest garden is different from a plowed field).

The Forest Garden: A Modern Garden of Eaten?

In the Garden of Eaten all was perfect and food was abundant. Adam and Eve had no cares except to be good stewards of the garden eat their fill. They did not have to toil for their food; they only had to pick it. When temptation overtook and they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, the couple forsook the wisdom that partners with knowledge. In so doing they went against nature’s harmony and balance; choosing to follow self-righteousness and abdicating spiritual understanding. They no longer sought direct sustenance rather they chose to eat by the sweat of their brow. They were expelled from the abundant food provision of the Garden to toil away in unfulfilling, meager agriculture that would never cultivate anything resembling that abundance.

Forest gardens, once established, require little human intervention and do not deplete or harm natural resources the way monoculture does. Plants are introduced to take maximum advantage of natural rainfall. Land is not tilled and plants are not removed so soil structures remain intact. Many plants are perennials thus they do not need to be replanted year after year and they contribute to soil health. Even the annuals are encouraged to reseed themselves. Some plants, known as dynamic accumulators and nitrogen fixers, enrich the soil naturally without the use of fertilizers.

Guilds or groups of plants which cohabitate nicely, are created for maximum land efficiency and production. Considerations for finding good cohabitatable plants include: root depth, spread, and type; plant size and spread; mineral, water, and light needs; and growth season. These guilds can then can then provide all their own needs as well as help their neighbors. Pesticides are not used because plants are also grouped so that one plant discourages the pests of another. Herbicides to kill weeds are not used because the plant groupings are so dense that weeds cannot gain a foothold. When the gardener marries vegetation by filling in empty niches with useful plants he or she expands Mother Nature’s plan. Together they co-create a garden of super abundance (Agroforestry Research, 2009; Ana & Mark, 2010).

This guild process creates a system of over yielding which can be further explained by a physicist Eliyahu Goldratt (AGI – Goldratt Institute, 2009). Goldratt applies the principles of physics to management philosophies in a system he called the Theory of Constraints. This, in turn, can be applied to the management of land. A constraint is a limitation. For a farmer, his or her constraint is the land. This constraint limits the production capabilities of the farmer since he or she views the land as having a limited yield. A farmer in this situation accepts this as inevitable and the solution is to find more land or accept their financial cap. More land is not a feasible solution, however, as is discussed earlier. Goldratt would admonish that one has to maximize the potential of the constraint. A forest gardener does just that; growing more in less area; or increasing the land’s efficiency and output.

An example to showcase a guild’s high degree of productivity and beneficial cohabitation is found in the traditional three sisters crop: beans, corn, and squash. Researcher Stephen Gliessman noted that corn production, when grown in the three sister crop nearly doubled under these conditions and the bean and squash yields remained relatively the same as in conventional monoculture. But that is not the whole story. The bean and squash yields may have been the same, however all this was grown in an area less than half the size of the land it would take to grow these same plants as monocultures. He said, “This is known as over yielding. Considering increasing hunger and starvation, this more productive model offers hope for a better future” (Agroforestry Research, 2008, p.5). As far as beneficial cohabitation: the corn stalks provide a vertical surface for the beans to climb upon; the beans gather and share nitrogen because they are known as nitrogen fixers; and the squash grows so thickly as to effectively block out weeds (Agroforestry Research, 2008).

A nitrogen fixer means the plant has a unique root system which can convert otherwise inert nitrogen into beneficial nitrogen. Dynamic accumulators are also used in beneficial groupings because their deep root systems mine minerals from deep soil depths to store in their leaves. Plants are also considered dynamic accumulators if they provide a good home for beneficial bacteria to colonize. The soil benefits of both nitrogen fixers and dynamic accumulators are usually realized as the leaves of these plants are used for compost. (Ana & Mark, 2010).

Forest gardens take agricultural practices to a new level of sustainability while affording high yielding, and highly nutritious food. The sheer diversity of useful plant material grown in such a small area is economical. “A greater diversity in one’s diet leads to better nutrition and health… [M]alnutrition results from…a reliance on a limited number of foods, which generally have lower nutritional value… (Agroforestry Research, 2009, p. 8)” Promoting home gardening in a system of large diversity goes a long way to discouraging malnutrition. Heriberto Cocom, master forest gardener for El Pilar (2009), states that everyone has some land they can garden on; therefore, everyone can plant a forest garden. Plus, if one does not have land, community gardens are always options especially since the large food yields lend themselves well to sharing. Nutritional density also reduces malnutrition. The density is higher in the perennial versions of typical annual plants like spinach and its perennial counterpart good King Henry. Since forest gardens rely on perennials they naturally produce more nutrient density. In addition, the cohabitation and resource sharing of the plants provides higher nutrient density than monocropped plants (Agroforestry Research, 2009).

Forest gardens make more economic sense. A diverse range of plants can be grown in an area a fraction of the size needed for monoculture. This diversity has the added benefit of economic security. Should a natural phenomena like blight attack one crop the others are still intact. Conventional farmers, relying on one crop, would be devastated by the blight (Agroforestry Research, 2009). Polyculture, the cohabitation of many plants, also allows the farmer to grow year round as opposed to just one season. This additional growing time is beneficial for the pocketbook (El Pilar, 2009). A temperate forest example of this is highlighted by Agroforestry Research (2009) when the author discusses harvesting fresh food for his winter dinner party. Finally, a forest garden makes economic sense because of the diversity of cash brining crops. A forest garden, “produc[es] plants to meet a diverse array of human needs, like food, shelter, medicine, and many others” (El Pilar, 2009). Plants like the bamboo plant can also be used for clothing.

The best example of a city sustained on personal forest gardens is found in Kerala, India. Agroforestry Research summarizes forest gardening founder Robert Heart’s book Forest Gardening: Cultivating an Edible Landscape. “Hart’s book cites the 3.5 million home gardens in Kerala, India that provide the majority of food for the 32 million residents in an area the size of Switzerland. Kerala ranks second in The Physical Quality of Living Index for Asia despite being one of the most populous places on Earth and having an average income of less than $400 per year. Only Japan ranks higher. Life expectancy rivals the US, literacy rates are approaching 100%, free hospitals and Ayurvedic clinics are very common, and ninety percent of the Keralese population owns land. Their secret is that they don’t need that much money--practically all of their necessities are growing in the backyard” (2009, p.4)

Forest gardening is a community affair, thus much of the labor is voluntary. A community forest garden would follow the same rules and regulations of a regular community garden. A community garden requires that those community member who wish to benefit from the harvest need to contribute to the upkeep of the garden. A forest garden is self sustained and thus does not involve all the work a regular community monoculture garden requires. It only requires regular pruning and mulching with most of the work occurring at harvest time. It seems reasonable that each community member would harvest their own food. This is the same principle that God set forth in Exodus with the manna. The manna was provided each morning and each member of the community was responsible for acquiring what he or she needed for the day. El Pilar (2009) discusses community involvement is essential for a source of labor and generational knowledge acquisition. This not only keeps money in the community rather than outsourcing for labor, but it allows for greater camaraderie. In addition the garden is, “is almost entirely maintained with local resources, such as household refuse (compost), organic material (dead weeds), ashes from kitchen fires, and manure,” providing all the necessary fertilizer to “enrich the soil” (El Pilar, 2009, What is a forest garden?).

Problems Facing Adoption

People have abdicated their rights to produce their own food to the big business farmer. Forest gardening, despite its benefits, is unlikely to be adopted as a serious alternative by farmers until some biases are dispelled. For one thing forest gardening is a long term proposition not a fix-it-quick scheme; big problems require big solutions. These solutions must be far reaching with true commitment. In a business text book called Wharton on Decision Making (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001, Ch. 6). the authors describe “Maintaining a normal state of mind requires constant practice.” To further describe this idea they quote from a book named The Book of Five Rings by an author named Musashi, “This is something that requires thorough examination, with a thousand days of practice for training and ten thousand days of practice for refinement” (p.114) They further explained that: “To the ancient Chinese, reflection was closely linked to knowledge. Because the Chinese believe all things are interdependent, knowledge was the ability to trace out the connections between things. Once this was accomplished, the decision maker would know what actions to take today to reap the benefits of the future. The idea was summarized in a saying, ‘To know after seeing is not worthy of being called knowing’” (2001, Ch. 6, p.109).

This concept can be applied to the creation of a forest garden. A forest garden can take up to 10 years to reach maturity; therefore it is not a one season solution like a monoculture. It requires patience. Knowledge acquisition of the land, climate, whether patterns, rain fall, plant characteristics, plant interactions, plants needs, plant cohabitation options, etc. all require patience and commitment. In other words, farmers as businesses people are looking for short term profits, not long term gain. The farmer would justify his or her position saying they are concerned with the bottom line, profits. Mechanized crop harvesting is cheaper than the human labor necessary to harvest food in a forest garden. This translates to fewer profits.

This is a fallacy however. The adoption of the forest garden method of cultivation requires a paradigm shift. It also means that the two systems cannot be fairly compared because they are so different. Sure, the farmer may profit more from mechanized harvesting systems, but the farmer is not looking at the other factors involved; this is narrow minded thinking. The farmer automatically saves money because he or she does not need to spend money on pesticides, herbicides, special machinery, fossil fuels, machine upkeep, fertilizers, new batches of seeds, etc. In addition the costs to the environment of monoculture are not taken into account in this statement. That said, many farmers, particularly those in third world countries are not concerned with environmental preservation if it cuts into their profitability (El Pilar, 2009; Ana & Mark, 2010; and Berg & Hager, 2007).

This narrow minded thinking is based out of fear of the unknown. Fear is an interesting concept as an acronym for False Evidence Appearing Real (author unknown). The Bible further explains this concept in Hose 4:6 when it states, “My people are destroyed from a lack of knowledge.” The idea behind this is fear is often illogically justified by strong emotions not logical evidence. The farmer in this case, would base his argument for maintaining modern agricultural methods on the illogical evidence of the strong emotion of fear. The overwhelming benefit of forest gardening would be lost on him or her.

For the sake of logic, the fear of the farmer is also perpetuated by the biases and discrimination from the farmer’s suppliers that exist against sustainable agriculture. For example, insurance agencies often will not insure a sustainably farmed crop because they consider it too high risk (Bailey & Preston, n.d.). Once again this bias is bases upon fear. An example of discrimination against forest gardeners is in Brazil where the government considers an area to be developed if it is monocropped. Forest land is considered undeveloped and therefore subject to economic pressures to “develop it” (El Pilar, 2009).

Gary Yukl (2006), another business textbook author, provides an explanation of modern managers that provides a striking similarity to the farmer whose motivation is profit. Most people have the misconception that managers have inordinate amounts of time to sit in their offices and create elaborate action plans. This is simply untrue. Managers, he says are involved in a flurry of activities all day long as they run from place to place putting out fires; they react not act on their situation. Their processes are fragmented and their activities lack any real cohesion. They only look at the steps involved at this particular moment and lack a view of the bigger picture of the interaction of things. Likewise farmers do not have an overview of the bigger picture and their processes are thus fragmented.

Perhaps the biggest difference between the forest garden and modern agriculture is the forest garden is not really suited to big business per say. To understand this further, two principles that seem unrelated, warrant introduction. Christine Woodrow and Frances Press, university professors, discussed a concept that is similar to the dilemma of the modern farmer even though they were discussing the dilemma of the child in daycare. “At the turn of the 21st century [people] have been witness to an acceleration of privatization and commercialism in many aspects of everyday life” (2007, p. 315). They further discussed “that values such as trust, respect, good will, sincerity and fairness…are likely to be transformed [into] supplier-consumer relationships built upon profit motives” (2007, p. 318

To further explain that dilemma the views of another pair of professors, Genevive Vaughan and Elia Estola, also discussing education, can be applied. They proposed that two paradigms exist that rule all human engagements. The dominate paradigm is the exchange paradigm where recompense is expected for any service given. This is the paradigm that dominates world commerce and relegates those goods which satisfy human needs, like food, water, shelter, education, etc. to vehicles for exchange rather than nature’s free provision. On the other hand, a paradigm that has just as much to offer, but is only recognized as the domain of mothers to their children, it the gift paradigm. In the gift paradigm, goods and services are offered out of love and respect without expectation of a payment in return. This paradigm is long term whereas the exchange paradigm is short term. For example, mothers tirelessly offer their services and never once do they ask their children for payment. The reason is because the mother’s intuitive wisdom knows that the better the rearing in the present, the better adults their children will become (2007). She knows that someday the fruits of her efforts will manifest or the seeds will flourish.

The gift paradigm relates to the forest garden in once it planted and nurtured to maturity, it freely gives what it has without expectation for recompense. A monocrop may give its harvest but that only happens in exchange for tremendous amounts of interventions and constant vigilance from the farmer. As stated before, the return of the crop is disproportionate to the amount of work involved in getting that return. Because a monocrop cannot give, the farmer does not understand the gift paradigm, thus, these two principles adequately explain the dilemma of the farmer. Farmers have to be responsible to big business which overtakes precedence for what is right. The farmer is driven by the exchange paradigm because that is the dominating force of our world. The farmer will never realize the gift paradigm because it does not follow what he or she has always known.

The gift paradigm also describes Eliyahu Goldratt’s (AGI – Goldratt Institute, 2009) Theory of Constraints when he states that one needs to maximize their constraint. The farmer does not believe his constraint can be maximized. However if he or she were to look at the land as providing a free gift, then that gift paradigm would naturally lend itself to the creation of the forest garden to maximize the constraint of the land. The farmer is blinded by ghosts of profits, rather than looking at the entire picture of expenses. Forest gardening will never be a feasible solution when it is viewed completely through the lens of big business, or exchange paradigm, and thus meddling in the realization of the forest garden or gift paradigm.

Despite showing the illogical nature of the farmer’s for profit argument, the farmer would not be compelled to change his or her mind; they have no reason to. They do not see their system as broken or if they do they are too afraid to take action to fix it. A logical way of looking at all sides of the issue and eliminating the fear, described later, would be to examine John Nash’s Theory of Equilibrium (Osborne, 2002). This theory states that in every game there is a win-win situation, not always a win-lose. This theory when applied to the farmer, would state that what is best for the farmer is for maximum land usage and what is best for the people is to have abundance of food. If food production followed forest gardening, it would overcome the World Health Organization’s prediction that agriculture will quickly become inadequate to supply the demands of the people.

Re-entering The Garden of Eaten

The lesson of the Cahokia basically states if one cannot learn from past mistakes or perceive current misdirection, then one cannot progress toward finding a solution. The Bible explains this differently in John 20:29 when it states, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” and in Hosea 4:6, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge”. Exploitation of the land, also known as monoculture, is not a solution for feeding the masses. Exploitation and crop isolation will ultimately lead to a disaster because it does not work with the ecosystem.

Forest Gardening is the art of resisting exploitation as a solution and relying on an intuitive process which draws upon the knowledge of interactions to follow nature’s way. The gift paradigm explains the concept of the forest gardening as the plentiful giving of food without expectation for recompense. Modern agriculture is based on the opposite exchange paradigm. The monocrop does not give freely rather it does so in exchange for the farmer’s intensive interventions.

The Theory of Constraints delineates that the farmer’s land is his or her constraint, meaning that it can only produce so much. The theory also discusses that one must seek to make the constraint achieve maximum profitability. The farmer’s paradigm will not support more yield from the land, however, the polyculturist recognizes the untapped potential land yield through successful plant cohabitation. The Theory of Equilibrium provides the solution stating that the best solution would be something that best provides for the farmer’s and the people’s needs, or win-win. Monoculture, while trying to have the farmer’s best interests in mind, is illogical in nature and is also a win-lose proposition. Forest gardening represents mankind’s journey coming full circle; from original sin to re-entering the Garden of Eaten.

 
References
AGI – Goldratt Institute. (2009). The Theory of Constraints and its thinking processes. Retrieved from http://www.goldratt.com/toctpwhitepaper.pdf.

Agroforestry Research. (2008). Edible forest gardening: a sustainable and productive way to
grow healthy food. Retrieved from http://www.oly-wa.us/terra/forest.pdf

Anna & Mark. (2010). The Walden effect: homesteading year 4. Retrieved from
http://www.waldeneffect.org/.

Bailey, A. & Preston, K. (n.d.) Credit, crop insurance and sustainable agriculture.
http://www.cfra.org/node/71.

Berg, L. R., & Hager, M. C. (2007). Visualizing environmental science. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.

El Pilar Maya Forest Garden Network. (2009). Maya forest garden. Retrieved from
http://www.mayaforestgardeners.org/forestgardening.php.

Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & Gunther, R. E. (Eds.). (2001). Wharton on making decisions
(1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lichtfouse, É., Hamelin, M., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., & Henri, A. (2010). Emerging
agroscience. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(1), 1-10. doi:10.1051/agro/2009055.

Mann, C. (2006). 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus (2nd ed.). New York:
Vintage Books a Division of Random House Inc.

Osborne, M. J. (2002). Introduction to Game Theory (Draft Chapter). Nash Equilibrium Theory.
Retrieved from http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne/igt/nash.pdf.

Vaughan, G., & Estola, E. (2007). The Gift Paradigm in Early Childhood Education. Educational
Philosophy & Theory, 39(3), 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00326.x.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Woodrow, C., & Press, F. (2007). (Re)Positioning the Child in the Policy/Politics of Early
Childhood. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 39(3), 312-325. doi:10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2007.00328.x.

A World of Darkness; A World of Hope

Regardless of questions regarding the existence of a creator, the human has enormous mental potential with or without answering that question. Sadly humans often waste this potential through the creation of false ideologies, looking through jaded lenses, and possessing grossly misconceived or illogical perceptions of reality. Self-absorbed and self-righteous behaviors perpetuate these thoughts of illogical division and classification which, in turn, create strangers of the self and others. Because of this, humans do not pool their talents to create exponential mental achievements; instead they engage in gladiator matches of pitting one illogical or incomplete idea against another. This creates a dark world in which violence, terror, sadness, suffering, and a lack of love are the norm. The solution for this state of affairs will not be found in extrinsic searching for a higher being, rather, the individual must look internally to question illogical thoughts and live authentically. Humanity, then cannot reach species potential as long the self imposed world of violence exists and while the search for a creator serves as a scapegoat to avoid self-responsibility.

Buddha was originally known as Prince Siddhartha Gautama. At the age of 15 the young prince became greatly troubled about the suffering among his people. By the age of 29 he renounced his birthright and left the castle to wander among his people to discover the reason suffering existed. He wandered for six years meditating and practicing under various gurus. Then one day while meditating under a Bohdi tree, he finally reached nirvana, or enlightenment. He discovered that there are four reasons, also known as the Four Noble Truths, which explained suffering: 1) It exists; 2) it has a definable cause; 3) because it exists it possesses finality; and 4) reaching nirvana will end it. Reaching nirvana means one lives an enlightened life by following the Eightfold Path. This philosophy later became known as Buddhism.

The eightfold path, or eight stages of enlighenemnt, is meant to deliver the journeyer from the depths of selfish, self-indulgent, cravings to enlightenment by knowledge acquisition. This requires a true knowledge of self, including abdication of all the ill-conceived concepts of self. These ill-conceived concepts, or ignorance, are what causes suffering. Enlightenment means peace acquisition and security or the antithesis of suffering (Moore & Brudder, 2008).

Stages one and two deal with the “initial mental outlook of the individual” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534). Stage one necessitates that the individual must admit possession of those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors which will hinder his or her progress. When one is thusly limited, then illness of the mind, body, and spirit occur and thus block and abundance. This is about admitting culpability and responsibility for life. And stage two deals with one’s aim in life; one has to want to change and not feel resentment.

Stages three – six “specify appropriate behavior” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534) for the individual on this path. Stage three means that one is mindful of one’s tongue to keep from telling lies, gossiping, or engaging in useless chatter. Stage four describes one’s proper actions as keeping to an unselfish path particularly in regard to helping others. Stage five deals with achieving one’s livelihood through proper, not scrupulous means. And stage six deals with one making the effort to struggle against those actions that cause harm to others.

The last two stages “pertain to higher mental and spiritual qualities involved in a total disattachment from self” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534): Seven deals with the necessity for one to be mindful of all of one’s actions and through that mindfulness to “understand the nature of selfish craving” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 534). And eight deals with purification of the thought and consciousness to be unwavering; therefore, liberating the mind from the fetters of suffering through absolute stillness. In all this, however, a deity, originator, or creator was not present. Because of the highly personal nature of these last two, and they are meant to just polish the work of the other six stages, no further explanation will be offered.

To explain better the first six stages of the Eightfold Path, various other philosophers’ ideas will be advanced. In many ways these will be seen as a tool box to help one progress down Buddha’s path by furthering understanding. These philosophies will not explain Buddha’s process per say; however, they will allow the individual to initiate locomotion.

Stage one means the individual must recognize those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (hereafter referred to as ill behaviors) which will hinder his or her progress. One must first acknowledge that his or her life is one of ill feelings, sickness, and nausea; that the individual is responsible for his or her own life; and just about all of his or her actions are causing the ill feelings. One needs to realize that any action of clinging to something or someone, whether a belief, existence, or a selfish desire also abdicates self responsibility by keeping one away from his or her potential thus relegating one to a mere reactionary animal who happens to be sentient.
According to Buddha, two states of mind are responsible for keeping the individual in suffering and away from reaching enlightened living: ignorance and selfish craving. All ill behaviors that cause illness can be understood by one of these two categories. Likewise these categories find further explanation from a few other external philosophies.

Friedrich Nietzsche (Moore & Brudder, 2008) described people as herd animals, who mindlessly follow orders and never think for themselves. “Sheeple” or sheep-people also adequately describes this mentality. Nietzsche held that “The herd animal…is cowardly, reactionary, fearful, desultory, and vengeful” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 167). Thus the people embrace slavery mentality and are not free to live in happiness and enjoy life to its fullest.

Jurgen Habermas (Moore & Brudder, 2008), a German philosopher, discussed the limitations on knowledge acquisition originating in deeply rooted ideologies, or illogical beliefs one possesses because of tradition. Political heads of state often initiated these ideologies to allow for political control through the inherent subjugation of the people to a slavery mentality. The people decided to buy into, and prepetuate this slavery of the mind.

Immanuel Kant (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discussed how these ideologies so drastically altered one’s state of mind and why people decided to hold onto them in the first place. Knowledge is inherently jaded or colored and is never an accurate representation of experiences and imagery. In many ways this can be likened to looking through lenses which filter sensory input to determine how one sees the world before one even becomes aware of it. For example, if one wears red colored lenses, then everything the individual sees will be in hues of red. This process of pre-filtering information is known as schema creation is psychology (Morris & Maisto, 2002). Schemas are perfectly normal and are absolutely necessary for higher cognitive functioning and automatic decision making. However, if left unchecked these schemas, or ways of thinking, can be “biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced” (2009, Critical Thinking: Where to Begin: Why Critical Thinking?). This excerpt was taken from the Society for Critical Thinking, who went further to explain proper thinking in the sense that, “…the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life.” (2010, Critical Thinking: Where to Begin: Why Critical Thinking?). This definition of faulty thinking gives expanded definition to Kant’s lenses or jaded perceptions. When life is seen through these lenses of faulty sensory input, then the result is a break away from human potential.

Jaded ideologies are also known as dogma. Dogma is a person’s infallible truths, particularly of a spiritual nature. These truths are illogical thought systems which create separation through self-importance. Maintaining a firm embrace on dogmas, jaded ideologies, or illogical thoughts means that one lacks self-love; or put another way, one practices self-loathing. Self-importance then is a facade to hide self-loathing to save face or create a life of “stupid self-confidence” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 174) as Albert Camus put it, or a life of false pretences of happiness and joy to cover the ugliness of internal pain. These concepts come with a price not only for the individual choosing to live in darkness and creating separation from the self but also consequences for humanity in creating isolation from others. In isolation ideas are not shared, let alone built upon. This also occurs because humans have the knack to believe they are correct and infallible. The eternal argument of, “I am right and you are wrong” perpetuates because of this self-importance concept. In keeping to doctrine people do not realize how much they refuse to see someone else’s point. People ignore ideas that contradict their own or do not match their lens’ view. When separation perpetuates then ideas will never see the true fruition, magnificence, and exponential magnification which results from unity and sharing.

Deciding to question such illogical thoughts and deciding to hold no belief as sacred and infallible, means that one has decided to live authentically. According to Jean Paul Satre (Moore & Brudder, 2008), the roll of an individual was to gain knowledge by living authentically. Living authentically means making right choices geared toward individual growth, not choices made of greed. Freedom in life can only be had by making authentic choices free of the fetters of dogma, illogical thoughts, and bias. Thus ideology, or slavery, limits knowledge acquisition.
This brings up two concepts: the idea of responsibility through knowledge acquisition and the limitations on knowledge itself. One must be vigilant to acquire proper knowledge and to drive out ignorance causing events such as self-importance, or selfish desires as Buddha put it. This all seems easy; however, people are lazy and will take the path of least resistance. This path leads to suffering.

Sometimes people create such false ideologies because they desperately desire to escape the horrible world of violence around them. According to Camus (Moore & Brudder, 2008), he could see the reason people would choose suicide. He also affirmed that suicide was the easy way out and one needed to work through the roughness of life to reach potential. John Dewey (Moore & Brudder, 2008) believed similarly when he stated that life was not a spectator event and the “spectator theory of knowledge” (p.224) was just an easy way out. Choosing the easy way out, according to Camus relegated one to an inferior position of unfulfilled potential. The stoics (Moore & Brudder, 2008), discussed in the next section, also believed struggle defined the person and his or her fortitude to do what was right.

Camus also believed the violence of the world should not be met with personal violence, either to self as in suicide or a lack of self-efficacy, or in violence to others as in crime, punishment, and harsh words. Instead, one should choose to rise above that violence and choosing a life of authenticity to solve one’s problems. The problem occurs, however, because people cannot resist calls to violence. Meeting violence with violence was the result one would always achieve when living in the darkness of meaningless chatter and clinging to worldly deceptions as Buddha purposed (Moore & Brudder, 2008).

If something requires WORK then many people will succumb to their laziness and hurt other people. Sigmund Freud (Morris & Maisto, 2002), the father of Psychoanalysis, created the concept of the Super Ego which controls the animalistic desires of the id and the irresponsible ego’s fulfillment of those desires. He did add some explanation about laziness of the average person and the desire to take that path of least resistance; however, he committed Plato’s error in assigning such a fatalistic trap to humanity in saying that the average human had no control over such drives. He failed to take into account the concept of self-efficacy (Morris & Maisto, 2002), or the desire a person has to better him or herself and live up to his or her potential. So while the world is a cauldron of violence and strangers, this is not fate, because the individual can decide to do something about it.

Another problem with inauthentic living is the lack of accountability either personal or intrapersonal. According to the pragmatists (Moore & Brudder, 2008) the world will continue to exist in darkness because of ambiguity and incompleteness. People cannot be accountable as long as the darkness of ambiguity reigns. Increased accountability through clarity is absolutely necessary to escape the darkness. In essence, one needs to turn on the lights of knowledge and wisdom by using the proverbial light switch to banish the darkness; but turning the lights on requires work.

This wraps us stage one which basically simmers down to a single concept: one must acknowledge, own, and conquer the tendrils of self-deception and inauthenticity to reach enlightenment. Stage two discusses the resentment that will hold one back from embarking on the path toward enlightenment. One must acknowledge that the path is not easy and resist harboring any resentment about that path. To keep one’s orientation on the path, and to say on it in the first place, one needs to remember the three d’s of determination, dedication, and destination. First, one must challenge his or her own determination to the change. Second, one must remain dedicated to those changes. And third, one must maintain focus on the destination and avoid getting distracted by shiny or glamorous objects. The reason one must have determination, dedication and destination, is because it is very difficult to live one's life authentically when distraction is easy to come by.

The more one begins to question his or her “known” knowledge, or ideologies, the more these ideas come out as incomplete. This can be a maddening process because one quickly realizes that his or her entire life is a lie. Discomfort, something that people avidly avoid, is also a strong potential when embarking on this path. For these reasons the majority of people will not even attempt authentic living. People are creatures of comfort, habit, and complaint. People want to complain and worry, but few want to take action to fix it. Most of all people do not want to admit that their lives are a lie. People do not know about critical thinking, nor are they interested because it shakes up their comfort zone. In this regard, Plato (Moore & Brudder, 2008) was correct when he said that the prisoners of the cave would not listen to the one who had escaped. The escaped prisoner had seen the true reality and knew of the deception in the cave, but to the remaining prisoners their reality was true despite the evidence. The one who carries the truth also carries the key to freedom and is considered a liar by those who live in the darkness. In other words, people have a need to maintain their lives of “stupid self confidence” (Moore & Brudder, 2008, p. 174) and ideologies.

This mimics Buddha’s concept that one only experiences a life of darkness because he or she is tied up in the illusion of self and the need to cling to comfort no matter how many problems that comfort causes. People cannot look past the initial discomforts to realize that this process can be quite liberating and addicting. The further one progresses upon this path the more one begins to relish the destruction of structurally unsound ideologies. This is not the masochism of self-inflicted pain; rather it is an understanding that the discomfort is temporary and not indicative of greater discomfort. Discomfort is not pain only the reality of life is pain. Discomfort does not equal pain; to say thusly is illogical.

Extrinsic motivation (Morris & Maisto, 2002), or external validation, explains this lack of desire for living an authentic and non-ideological life and the apparent confusion over the nature of pain. When one seeks external validation, then one is constantly looking to external sources for motivation and feelings of rightness and satisfaction. In other words, extrinsic motivation means the individual does not gain satisfaction from the task, which is the definition for intrinsic motivation; rather satisfaction is only found in the reward for the task. The reward is often as simple as comfort. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation means one seeks internal rightness and would, therefore, see the logical error in believing one’s life is painful as opposed to merely uncomfortable. Therefore, when one puts forth the effort to live in authenticity and without ideologies, then one is generally intrinsically motivated (Morris & Maisto, 2002). Intrinsic motivation means one seeks self-efficacy (Morris & Maisto, 2002), or living up to one’s potential.

People seek external validation over self-validation. People look to an external deity, rules, beliefs, or ideas to control their lives and actions. People do not find satisfaction from intense self-examination and self-control; they do not find satisfaction in the process but only in a reward. This all goes back to many people’s need for ideologies or jaded lenses. There is a comfort to be found in knowing one’s position as a slave; it is scary to be the master. An intrinsically motivated person, on the other hand would find the process of self-realization to be invigorating. The intrinsically motivated person is not a masochist rather he or she looks past the temporary discomfort to find relief from the permanent pain of life. He or she finds comfort in the destruction of unsound ideologies and looks forward to what gets built out of the ashes.

To facilitate the act of drawing distinction between pain and discomfort and the move from extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation, one should take awareness of one simple concept. The stoics (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discuss that one needs to harden him or herself against life’s difficulties to aid in that distinction. This hardening would allow the individual to successfully deal with life’s difficulties rather than getting discouraged. Getting discouraged often leads feelings of failure making it easier to succumb to the negative feelings of Buddha’s (Moore & Brudder, 2008) selfishness and Camus’ (Moore & Brudder, 2008) calls to violence. Violence is as anything that robs one of living a life of reasoning in lieu of the compulsion of mere primitive animals. So, if one does not harden him or herself, then one does not have to tools to resist the calls to violence.

This hardening can be understood in the concept of a plant to transplant. Gardeners recommend that when one wants to start plants indoors to get an earlier start on the growing season, then they need to acclimate the new plants to the outdoors before planting them in the ground. This acclimation is to get the plants adjust to temperature and whether variations that are not found inside. Weather includes wind. If the plants have never encountered wind then they never built up strong enough stocks and roots to resist the wind, thus they will easily be blown down. To frame this differently, one can harden him or herself by becoming an expert at coal walking, or ignoring the discomfort and reconditioning one’s perspective about discomfort, to get quickly, and efficiently, to the other side.

To summarize stage two, one needs to realize their determination and desire to change and remain focused on the destination. Authentic living is difficult therefore it is easy to get distracted. People are focused too much on the discomfort and often confuse discomfort as synonymous with pain. In their confusion, people think their lives are merely uncomfortable and living authentically is to live in pain. Life is really the other way around. Pain is suffering, not seeking relief from suffering. This confusion finds explanation in people’s extrinsic motivation and desire for external validation and reward. The intrinsically motivated individual would see the fallacy in the belief that discomfort is synonymous with pain. People would not be so adverse to change or discomfort if they would take the time to harden themselves to resist calls to violence; calls which seem all too easy to submit to. If one cannot resist the calls to violence or the clinging as Buddha would put it, then one will not be able to continue this path without harboring resentment. One must banish resentment through intrinsic motivation if one wishes to continue and find solution for suffering.

To this point, the individual has an understanding of the nature of the problem facing the abdication of suffering. Stages three through six discuss these concepts from a different perspective: to expand one’s perception of where the problems really arise from.

Stage three discusses that one needs to be mindful of the tongue. Buddha believed there were three forms of chatter which needed to be quieted: body, mind, and word. One could only reach enlightenment when all three chatters were quieted. All forms of chatter must be eliminated to bring the individual true freedom and happiness. He also believed that once one found this silence and reached nirvana then he or she was in a position to lead others. Martin Hiddigger (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discussed the incessant chatter which takes place among people as a result of internal chatter. This, he said eliminated meaningful communication. Heiddigger seemed to refer to some external source when he discussed that meaningful communication meant listening to the wisdom of being. Buddha did not discuss allegiance to a deity, doctrine, or set ideology; in fact these things were detrimental. However, the wisdom of being could also be seen as an internal source. This internal source can be seen as that little voice inside one’s head which warns of danger, offers suggestions, and is the intuition, but is rarely listened to. If one is not mindful of the tongue, then he or she will pay allegiance to an external source rather than listening to the wisdom of being. One cannot listen if one is constantly talking.
Stage five deals with one finding their path or their livelihood by not succumbing to scrupulous means or by perverting the laws of justices. This also means that one should not take advantage of another person to gain the upper hand. All interaction should be fair. Another tool of assistance on this path is to look at life from the perspective of a game where all humans and life participate. The game must be fair. According to most, however, there must be a winner and a looser. John Nash (Osborne, 2002), restated Game Theory which necessitates a winner and a looser, to state that the best course for a game was to have everyone win. How is this possible, how can everyone win? This was called the theory of Equilibrium, and basically states that what is best for game progress is to ensure everyone has the best possible outcome. When everyone helps everyone else, then the game is a lot easier. In addition, he further explained that whenever a player looks out for his or her best interests they are relegating themselves to a lesser position.

The necessity to find a win-win solution means that traditional means of income generation must be re-examined. All forms of advertisement are meant to deceive the buyer into taking an action he or she would not normally take. This is all based on an understanding of psychology and what pushes people’s buttons to take action. Because almost all forms of income generation rely on advertising, then all are unscrupulous because they take advantage of a fellow human. All forms of exchange must be done with the best interests of both parties to be beneficial.

Knowledge seeking and application also suffer from scrupulous deception. All subjects across all realms of study, including humanities and science, suffer from a lack of unification. The problem with all forms of knowledge acquisition and human interaction is people are too convinced of their own self-importance. This prohibits any real win-win solution to be found. This self-importance also leads to the lack of unification. When self-importance is clung to, then knowledge could get lost in the skirmish. Knowledge would be further advanced if people would cease to engage in gladiator matches to pit one idea against another.

The Socratic Method (Moore & Brudder, 2008) could be used to facilitate the finding of a win-win solution (Osborne, 2002). This method involves systematically questioning each idea to bring about more clarity, thus finding a win-win solution. Once an idea is clarified, then each listener has a better understanding of the other’s concept or position. This understanding would also allow for the opposite views to be modified to find more alignment between the two concepts or to find that they were not so different after all. This unification among seemingly dissimilar ideas would mean that knowledge acquisition would occur at a much more rapid pace. When similarity is sought, solutions are created to solve bigger problems; when two or more come together to solve a problem, the results will be exponential. The knowledge seekers of today need to eliminate the stance of self-importance and learn to understand and integrate the knowledge of their counterparts to stop the stymieing of knowledge. The great solutions needed to solve the world’s massive problems will never be found if people cannot work together by finding win-win solutions.

Stage six deals with one being on guard against all forms of deceptive behavior and to continue to keep up the fight. These behaviors are like an addiction with a far spreading root system. The addiction, almost as if it has a life of its own, will struggle for survival. When one actively tries to make a change and deny something in his or her life, the denied behavior can, and often does, go underground and later resurfaces at an unexpected moment and in a form which will not alert the path traveler. According to Buddha, it would seem that the only life an addiction has is the clinging one has to that addiction. The addiction will leave when one is ready to cease clinging. Therefore, because one is not ready to cease clinging, but consciously does not want to admit that, then he or she will seek underhanded ways to cling without having to admit to the self the real problem.

Gilles Deleuze (Moore & Brudder, 2008) discusses a similar concept. He said life is often viewed as a tree where all pieces of life are disconnected an alone. However, he believed the idea was incorrect. Life should be viewed as having characteristics more similar to that of a rhizome which spreads underground, horizontally, occasionally sending up shoots, but it is all interconnected. A rhizome will spread and destroy anything blocking its progress, but it never develops a deep root system. To look at an addiction, ill behavior, or something which is desired by the possessor to be removed, then one would see that these things are almost never isolated incidents. Rather they have far reaching and spreading roots which have occasionally sent up shoots elsewhere. This would explain why when a thing goes underground and resurfaces later, the individual thinks it is a different thing. Close examination would show that this new thing has an intricate, underground root system which links back to the original behavior and this behavior is harder to eradicate than originally thought.

In these early stages of detaching from self, one needs constant reassurance that he or she is on the right path. In many ways, a young one on this path is like a child who needs comfort and reassurance from the parent. This is why honest leadership, in service to the individual, and who possesses with unselfish focus on the individual’s forward progression is necessary. This leader could then also be seen as a teacher who offers guidance and encouragement. The child needs the parent’s comfort. In the early stages, if an individual lacks a parent for comfort or a teacher to seek guidance from, then it is appropriate for the individual to look to God or a source for this very necessary reassurance. This is not to decide whether or not a source exists, it is to say the external seeking is not harmful when done only under these conditions. Under these conditions one is not giving up his or her personal power. The woman described above cannot attest to life in the other four stages because she has not experienced it. She does give constant thought, however, as to the processes. She will need to cease chatter (stage three), live unselfishly and practice unconditional love (stage 4), achieve honest livelihood (stage 5), and attack the rhizome addiction (stage 6).

A Story:

Bri is a young woman embarking on this path. She actively works on trying to follow Buddha’s path. Following stage one she identified many things she needs to change. She is more or less in stage two, working on having complete acceptance without resentment. She realizes that these stages are not distinct and separate; rather, she works on each stage as it comes up. She accepts this and is trying to keep the faith that she is making forward progress; this is particularly hard when a habit or mannerism which she thought was gone springs back up. She works to maintain a vision of her goal by constantly reminding herself of her destination, determination, and dedication.


Why is she doing it? What is the purpose? It is for the benefit of her daughter and future generations. Primarily, she does not want her daughter to have to suffer in life. The daughter will encounter various pitfalls and pain. If she has the tools to successfully navigate and evade these challenges, then she will go much further than Bri who has to figure it out. Bri does not have a teacher and, therefore, wants to be the teacher she never had. Bri knows that if her daughter is thusly equipped then she can change the world.

Wisdom directs that the world’s problems can only be solved with a fresh, untainted approach; the approach of a pure, untainted being; in other words a child. Bri often faces discouragement at such a monumental task. She particularly faces discouragement because she is aware of her many faults and inadequacies and therefore feels she is inadvertently tainting her daughter because of her lack of quick progression and clinging to the old habits of a deluded self. In other words, she feels as if she is not making enough progress in a quick enough manor. Further wisdom and understanding is necessary for her to realize that the daughter’s unique witnessing of the transformation of her mother is actually arming her for an even greater perspective than Bri could have otherwise hoped for.

Authentic education for her children is vitally important, even though Bri cannot fathom why in her limited human perspective. She just needs to maintain the faith that she must continue this path to authenticity so her children will be able to do greater things than she, herself, is capable of. This will be the case because they were never encumbered by the burdens of clinging to illogical ideologies. Bri knows that she is giving her children the gift to heal the world and more with their new found potential.
References

Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/starting/index.cfm.

Haselhurst, G. & Howie, K. (2010). Ancient Eastern philosophy: on the ancient wisdom of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Confucianism. Retrieved from http://www.spaceandmotion.com/buddhism-hinduism-taoism-confucianism.htm.

Moore, B. N. & Bruder, K. (2008). Philosophy: The power of ideas (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Morris, C. G., & Maisto, A. A. (2002). Psychology: An introduction (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nevid, J. S. & Rathus, S. A. (2005). Psychology and the challenges of life: Adjustment in the new millennium (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Osborne, M. J. (2002). Introduction to Game Theory (Draft Chapter). Nash Equilibrium Theory. Retrieved from http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/osborne/igt/nash.pdf.