Conventional vs. Existential
Buddhism says 'to want is to suffer' but what it doesn't (clearly) distinguish the two domains of reality being conventional and existential.
In very short, conventional means to measure or compare - a convention being a standards of assessment.
"I should be happier."
"He's an underrated outfielder."
These are all conventions ... color, personality, skills, etc., qualities we deem good or bad.
By contrast, existential means what 'exists without judgement'.
"I feel good."
"The sky is blue."
In other words, whatever color the sky happens to be is ok ... it is what it is and it doesn't need to be anything else.
That means, existential, everything is 'perfect' ... after all, if something is fine just as it is, then it's also perfect as it is.
So, for example, conventionally... diamonds are worth more than common pebbles ... the convention being that of the value of precious gems and such.
But existentially the diamond and pebble have equal value - each is exactly what it is and as such are equally 'perfect'. (Maybe 'value' isn't the right word because 'value' means conventional but it's useful for the example to show that the diamond and the pebble are 'perfect'.)
Since states of being can't be measured we're never truly certain about our situation in any given moment, and desperately wanting certainty in anything and everything, we suffer.
Examples of conventional suffering:
"I don't know what she'll say when I ask her out."
"I'm not sure this work is good enough."
"I am not good enough."
But existentially everyone is good enough (perfect) and therefore believe (or rather know, existentially axiomatically) they're worthy of love and belonging.
Here's a quick exercise to demonstrate how to switch between conventional and existential and remove suffering.
Pick something you're uncertain about - something that causes stress, angst, frustration, whatever you like.
Exs:
"I'm not sure I'm ready for the test."
"I'm not sure he/she loves me."
"I don't know which to buy."
"I don't know what to do to get what I want."
Ask yourself how stressful it is on a scale of 1 to 10 . Lets say it's a five.
Now ask yourself how certain you are that you are suffering (regardless of whether it's a value of 1 or 10).
In other words, we're asking ourselves, and getting clear about, 'how certain am I that I am uncertain?'
(Take 1-3 minutes to do this…)
On a scale of one to ten how certain are you about being uncertain?
Hopefully you'll find it's a ten because everyone, always, is 100% certain about their uncertainty.
Focus on that particular thought… the certainty … you're sure that you're certain that you're suffering … like you're preparing to convince someone that you're sure about it.
How does that feel? … to focus on the certainty?
On a scale of 1 to 10 what is your level of suffering?
When I re-focus on the certainty (of my uncertainty) I find the suffering is gone.
Rinse and repeat.
I think 'self-actualization', practically speaking, the skill of being able to switch from participant (conventional-suffering) to observer (existential-freedom). ((If you're a computer programmer you may analogize this to pointer/handle.))
If you are suffering - feeling 'not good enough' then you're measuring something - a convention. To be good enough you have to give up the desire to be good enough.
It seems very much like falling asleep - you can't watch yourself fall asleep - you have to essentially 'give up being awake'. At the moment you fall asleep you're completely vulnerable and is proof you can be vulnerable at other times.
Buddhism says 'to want is to suffer' but what it doesn't (clearly) distinguish the two domains of reality being conventional and existential.
In very short, conventional means to measure or compare - a convention being a standards of assessment.
"I should be happier."
"He's an underrated outfielder."
These are all conventions ... color, personality, skills, etc., qualities we deem good or bad.
By contrast, existential means what 'exists without judgement'.
"I feel good."
"The sky is blue."
In other words, whatever color the sky happens to be is ok ... it is what it is and it doesn't need to be anything else.
That means, existential, everything is 'perfect' ... after all, if something is fine just as it is, then it's also perfect as it is.
So, for example, conventionally... diamonds are worth more than common pebbles ... the convention being that of the value of precious gems and such.
But existentially the diamond and pebble have equal value - each is exactly what it is and as such are equally 'perfect'. (Maybe 'value' isn't the right word because 'value' means conventional but it's useful for the example to show that the diamond and the pebble are 'perfect'.)
Since states of being can't be measured we're never truly certain about our situation in any given moment, and desperately wanting certainty in anything and everything, we suffer.
Examples of conventional suffering:
"I don't know what she'll say when I ask her out."
"I'm not sure this work is good enough."
"I am not good enough."
But existentially everyone is good enough (perfect) and therefore believe (or rather know, existentially axiomatically) they're worthy of love and belonging.
Here's a quick exercise to demonstrate how to switch between conventional and existential and remove suffering.
Pick something you're uncertain about - something that causes stress, angst, frustration, whatever you like.
Exs:
"I'm not sure I'm ready for the test."
"I'm not sure he/she loves me."
"I don't know which to buy."
"I don't know what to do to get what I want."
Ask yourself how stressful it is on a scale of 1 to 10 . Lets say it's a five.
Now ask yourself how certain you are that you are suffering (regardless of whether it's a value of 1 or 10).
In other words, we're asking ourselves, and getting clear about, 'how certain am I that I am uncertain?'
(Take 1-3 minutes to do this…)
On a scale of one to ten how certain are you about being uncertain?
Hopefully you'll find it's a ten because everyone, always, is 100% certain about their uncertainty.
Focus on that particular thought… the certainty … you're sure that you're certain that you're suffering … like you're preparing to convince someone that you're sure about it.
How does that feel? … to focus on the certainty?
On a scale of 1 to 10 what is your level of suffering?
When I re-focus on the certainty (of my uncertainty) I find the suffering is gone.
Rinse and repeat.
I think 'self-actualization', practically speaking, the skill of being able to switch from participant (conventional-suffering) to observer (existential-freedom). ((If you're a computer programmer you may analogize this to pointer/handle.))
If you are suffering - feeling 'not good enough' then you're measuring something - a convention. To be good enough you have to give up the desire to be good enough.
It seems very much like falling asleep - you can't watch yourself fall asleep - you have to essentially 'give up being awake'. At the moment you fall asleep you're completely vulnerable and is proof you can be vulnerable at other times.
