Bill Murray on mindfulness (sort of)

I recently ran across a nice article about Bill Murray that relates to Buddhism, or at least I'm seeing a clear connection.  A quote of the passage, following the link and title:


http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/7-steps-to-living-a-bill-murray-life.html   He says:


You think, Dammit, someone else is trying to be me. ... I don’t have to armor myself against that idea if I can really just relax and feel content ... If I can just feel, just think now: How much do you weigh? This is a thing I like to do with myself when I get lost and I get feeling funny. ... try to feel that weight in your seat right now, in your bottom right now. ... if you can come back into the most personal identification ... which is: I am. This is me now. ... There’s just a wonderful sense of well-being that begins to circulate up and down, from your top to your bottom.


Actually the advice just before that, step 6 of 7 on how to live a Bill Murray life in the article, provided some context:

You have to remind yourself that you can do the very best you can when you’re very, very relaxed. No matter what it is, no matter what your job is, the more relaxed you are, the better you are.


Both of these points relate to ideas from Buddhism, although to some extent Buddhism also relates to ordinary life, so everyday perspective, wisdom, and Buddhism need not be different.  In fact to me to the extent these are separate things, and Buddhism is more about an abstract set of ideas, then in that case it's really not Buddhism at all.

Interpretation section

The context is being relaxed in everyday life, and the second more specific point (step 7) relates to being present in the present moment to help achieve this.  I won't get too far into Buddhist terminology and concepts for this since it really does defeat the points being made, which are probably about as clear without explanation as with one. 

I will reference a couple related concepts but bear in mind these are interpretations of interpretations of individual ideas within a large framework of concepts in Buddhism.  Building the individual ideas up as a system of related ideas helps describe them to some extent, and also drifts off the point in another sense, related to tying them back to actual experience.  In the end it has to be about a simple change to everyday perspective, taking something problematic away, removing conceptual structure, rather than adding a lot of ideas.

not exactly the same but related

What Bill Murray is saying works well as real Buddhism because the context is there, about being relaxed, and also "when I get lost and I get feeling funny." There's no way to really describe getting caught up in ideas and attachments well so that works. About "trying to be me," I'm not so sure, but the general idea of rejecting self and attachments is that unnecessary connections cause problems for people.  This could involve trying to force the past or the future to be a certain way, even though both are out of reach in different ways since we act only in the present, or getting hung up on ties to expectations or self-image.


The part about weight is nice; an easy to grasp and use tie to the present moment.



The apparent connection to self is not as much a problem as it would seem to people without a grasp of what it means to reject self in Buddhism.   As I've been going on and on about in other posts it's a limited form of rejection. It could be interpreted related to people saying absurd things, in effect rejecting the continuity that being a person must involve, or some could see even that approach as a useful tool.

My take is that stating absurdities completely misses the point, except perhaps as a limited thought model (perhaps not the best framing since "thought model" invokes lots of what is being rejected in the first place). Gaining a more developed relation to a continuity of self is the point, not imagining or creating a world where some internal consistent person doesn't exist at all. A relatively continuous perspective is no problem, per Buddhism; interpreting that as what it's not and stressing over what really isn't real is a real problem, and a very common one, part of a conventional worldview.

More interpretation, closer to Buddhist concepts

The cited passage is talking about being in the moment.  Dragging in concepts and relations between them, like non-attachment, doesn't help much, but I will a little anyway.  A rejection of self could be tied in even though this seems to be saying the opposite, the "I am" part, but again that's more about shaking concepts than adding them.

Relaxing is about non-attachment, dropping ideas of self and other imaginary connections that aren't useful, that invoke stress of different kinds.  One useful tool for doing this is mindfulness practice, being aware of the present moment, including one's own mental state and perspective.

Talks on Buddhism regularly provide examples of ways to practice better momentary awareness.  For me spending a few moments watching breathing and relaxing the breathing process works, naturally drifting into more stomach breathing than chest breathing.  Others are a bit simpler yet.  One technique (trick?) a monk described in a dharma talk once as "doorknob zen:"  you can take a single second to check on momentary awareness before opening a doorknob, losing essentially no time out of your day to trigger better momentary awareness.

bumps!  photo credit linked

When I used to snowboard a lot different types of centering and focus techniques really did help me set aside my "self" and get on with the boarding.  It was actually necessary because I loved to ride bumps (moguls, if you rather), and hitting large obstacles and making extreme turns more rapidly than once a second isn't something one can consciously do.


Think about it and you can't keep up, and fall.

this was my house, Beaver Creek; credit Dave Park

I experimented with lots of methods.  One was to focus on my hands briefly on the ski-lift ride up.  Why my hands?  Lots of nerves there, a familiar body part, easy to keep a focus point on them.  On the actual runs sometimes I would "play" music in my head.  To improve the focus before going out I would do some yoga.

In the end I could keep up a very long run of very extreme boarding, indefinite, not really by establishing a rhythm since the rhythm was coming from the terrain, not from me.  Riding in trees was another way to reinforce consistent, effective turns since the alternative--crashing into a tree--would serve as immediate negative reinforcement.

The Razor's Edge

To me this is Bill Murray's best work related to Buddhism, although there is more on the internet comparing Groundhog Day to Buddhist themes (related to cycle of rebirth, of course; more on both here).  There are different references about this movie but nothing seems to really capture what works and what doesn't related to Buddhism (to me), so maybe the Wikipedia summary is as good a stand-in for actually seeing the film as there is.  But it's quite worth seeing.

The movie is interesting for directly engaging Buddhist concepts; his character went to India to find himself, after war experiences led to a personal crisis and reading and introspection didn't suffice.  His character is not exactly portrayed as enlightened, or anything of the sort, but there are explicit references to spiritual insight.  The movie doesn't work as a story about where such insight actually leads, since his character is involved with more difficulties that show the limits of transcending normal perspective.

So why do I bring it up, if the deep insight isn't really there, in the form of a how-to?  It's about as good as story-based movie fragments of Buddhism get, and worth watching, and Bill Murray is the lead.  To me any criticism of the movie is about someone just not getting it, which is fine, no reason why most viewers would have much background knowledge of Buddhism.

The third movie of Murray's referencing Buddhism is Caddyshack, related to his character Carl Spackler, the greenskeeper, who says a little about Buddhism (see some quotes here, or movie background here).  Chevy Chase's character Ty Webb was even more Zen-like and cryptic.  To me it's one of the best comedies ever made but I'm not sure how much Buddhism one could pick up from it.

Rejection of self related to different interpretations of Buddhism

A friend made some good comments about the no-self post related to how this concept relates to both religion and common sense.  I started the last post about context with the short versions, but now I want to rejoin the connection after the last post described how Buddhism can be interpreted in different ways.

Her comments, no-self, selflessness, suffering and common sense

Somehow, these concepts made me believe that the core of Buddhism is to encourage people/us to become “Selfless”.  Of course, being selfless is better than being SELF-FULL – selfish.

This concept is good, but it still depends on how we interpret it, doesn’t it?  Should we all become monks and nuns and leave society for the jungle?

Probably not; we still have to live our lives the way we always do among other people who are generally ill-minded, corrupted and selfish in what’s so called society. So, as we’re trying to survive and live peacefully the best we can, what do we fight with? Or what do we fight for?

If you’re to give a radical answer (non-neutral) what exactly does your heart truly believe: NO-SELF or YOURSELF?

There have already been people who believe in “no-self” being, but I don’t know what they do with that belief. I wonder how they see the world, how they live with their spouses, and how they teach their children. No-self is a very simple concept but not so easy to explain -- it’s nothing simple that will make other people easily agree on.

To be honest, to me it sounds like “emptiness”.  No pain – it’s plain; no suffering -- It’s NOTHING.
Since I’m one who cherishes all that defines LIFE -- blessed or struggling -- I still consider it a gift (a chance to live), and not a burden.

So what do you think?  Is it possible that the concept No-self was to help us ease and numb sufferings and pain?

Response starting point

Great input, right?  She is taking no-self to mean something someone would personally apply to their own life and everyday experience, which to me is a great start.  If Buddhism is taken just as philosophy, as metaphysics, then the connection may not be necessary.  But to me that means Buddhism is only applicable to the general realm of philosophers, to scholars, but as I take it that's not at all the original intention (but of course that's just my take).

Also certain religious interpretations limit the applicability to most people.  As she commented "Should we all become monks and nuns and leave society for the jungle?" One interpretation might say that only very few people should do this, and that this teaching really applies mostly to them in a way others couldn't possibly relate to.  This relates to levels of spiritual attainment, meditative states and so on.  Of course it's also possible to accept that all that is valid but a different application to everyday life is also possible.


At first it seems contrasting no-self and selfishness might make too much of a similar term used in a broad set of ways but there's really something to this; it works.  No-self is about not taking the assumptions that relate to a self too seriously, in the end even removing some of them, and selfishness is quite the opposite.  One difference is that no-self isn't exactly a way of being as much as a technique.  Or rather eventually after a process of understanding a general meaning, then practicing it, the concept could become a way of being, but at first not so much.

So as I'm interpreting here, no-self really needs to mean two separate things; relating to the initial understanding and development process, then the final form of actualization.  When she asks "I wonder how they see the world" it's a question about the end point perspective, not about the usefulness for someone starting to make use of the idea.  As I've framed this it would help if I were completely enlightened to answer that question.  Of course that particular concept already brings in a number of assumptions about the end point of Buddhism.  Before I get to those I should move on to how different contexts give different answers.

Buddhism as philosophy

Buddhism can be taken as an abstract philosophy, not as a guide for living.  If it is about everyday life it would probably apply somewhat broadly, even if not to everyone, but as an explanation for how things really are it might possibly be accessible to only a select few, to philosophers.  Of course the "average person"  with an interest in either Buddhism or philosophy and a fair number of philosophers would take issue with this as a flawed divide, and rightfully so.

But given this as an assumed context, that philosophy and everyday life are separate--which is a common way modern American philosophy is interpreted, just not the only way--Buddhism is a description of how things really are.  In reality there is no real self, on this take.  

But what could be the point of even saying that?  One likely meaning is that "self" is being interpreted within the context of common sense as a flawed concept, as a real, abstract entity that doesn't exist.  Instead that "self" is really only an experienced history and set of assumptions, something that must seem to go along with the physical body a person possesses, but which refers to nothing.

Of course a self is already embedded in the use of ordinary language.   "Person possesses" assumes it; or actually just "person" does.  Taken one way--not really the way I would accept in the end--this interpretation of Buddhism and metaphysics and view of self is just a more accurate model of how things are.  "Self" is assumed, but there is nothing to assign it to, so it doesn't exist.  

To give examples of how this might work, today I work at a job, and like tea more than coffee, and define myself as a parent.  All those things will be true tomorrow, but still they sort of hang together as a big set of conditions that don't really need a self as a center. All of those connections could change,  and in fact there isn't one central entity.

Taken this way it almost doesn't matter if someone believes if there is a self or not; there really isn't.  It's even possible that what is being described is a model that is so abstract that when the Buddhist philosopher goes home they had really best get back to assuming that self, even if not real.  It bends the mind a bit, doesn't it?  But it works better than at first glance.  

I could get fired and switch to hot chocolate and any number of other seemingly real ties could change.  History couldn't, right.  In the past whatever happened happened, and we can interpret it or remember it differently quite a bit but not change it.  But now we're drifting away from discussion of an objective self, and not really towards rescuing or rejecting it.

Buddhism as religion

This will take some narrowing down to address in anything less than a series of books, just as with philosophy where I've just let common experience drop at the outset.

Zen would be the natural choice for discussing what no-self means, of course.  I love Zen, although I've not given it much thought for awhile.  I was never a Zen monk, and I'm certainly not going to claim any level of attainment.  So given I've just read some books (many) and took a few classes, and of course meditated just a little, I'll not do Zen justice, but still I'll start there.

Zen is all about rejecting self, in a very pragmatic way.  It's the opposite of an abstract set of ideas that one leaves behind when the theorizing is done.  Zen is really zen precisely to the extent it informs immediate perception, and the ideas that inform the practice of it tend to talk about experience or even intentionally defy logic to point past it.  So how do you "do" this, no self?  It's such a long story that saying anything would be wrong, but saying a long story would be even more wrong.

The idea is to jump past the concepts and get to the immediate experience of not embracing the ordinary assumptions of a self, to just not do it.  Meditation is typically accepted as one practical method, or maybe even the only one, depending on presentation.  But then ordinary life and meditation are said to not be differentiated, so it's not an ordinary case of a practice affecting a worldview.  Maybe that's a good place to change to a different religion.

indoctrinated at a young age

It seems clear enough that similar ideas come up in the contemplative aspects of the Thai Buddhist tradition (an example of Theravada Buddhist practice versus that one Japanese branch of Mahayana).  For the ordinary person or even the ordinary monk in a sense they don't.  Some of the same general context is there but the radical rejection of a self takes a different form.  For a lay-person it's about becoming less selfish, either changing habits or spiritual development, if one prefers.  For a monk it's about embodying the normal and correct practice and perspective of a monk.

The rules and restrictions (precepts) serve to guide appropriate conduct, which radically removes the types of connections that would normally define a self.  Of course how well that works in practice in general or in specific cases is another matter, but that seems to be the general direction.

Buddhism as psychology (self-help, New Age theory beyond yoga, etc.)

Taken as a guide to how to change individual experience, in any number of different forms, Buddhism is a different thing.  Of course this could be exactly how Buddhism is taken as philosophy and religion as well, and in many cases it would be, so the separation I've describe is quite artificial, intended to highlight conceptual differences but not necessary divisions.  I would like to think the average philosopher refers back to real life, and is influenced by their theories, and that most religious people certainly do the same.

meditation face, looking "centered"

How could it start, though?  Self seems so apparent, so necessary in a normal world-view.  How could one stop being a self, stop assuming it?  Maybe it would depend on people, and maybe bit by bit.  Someone inclined to conceptual analysis might try to wrap their mind around the whole set of related ideas and then jump into doing it.  Someone else might try to dilute their own experience of self through use of prayer or other ritual.  

For me a great starting point is the words of the Buddha, much as we have them available to us now.  Or modern interpretations would be an alternate resource, I guess like this blog, but that's not really what I meant.  But there's so much nonsense in the world, isn't there?  Half of what I've ever ran across labelled as Buddhism seems way out there to me.  To look at it more positively, half the rest has seemed to really relate to some parts of it, and a small subset of that has seemed like a great resource.  This blog entry; maybe so-so, nowhere near as clear as what the Buddha is taken to have said.  So read that.

I had an unusual experience when meditating once (which would make for a separate blog entry) after which I experienced changes in myself.  My inner voice went quiet, for weeks.  Maybe I never did go back to normal, or given some perspective I remember from my childhood maybe I wasn't starting from normal anyway (which is not going to be a blog entry).  I'm not claiming that was the point of Buddhism, or of what no-self means, just citing this as one possible unusual related element.  It worked out better than one might think; I was much clearer for dropping the chatter, although other side-effects were a bit odd.

Return to no-self

From the initial set of questions and observations:  

it sounds like “emptiness”.  No pain – it’s plain; no suffering -- It’s NOTHING.  Since I’m one who cherishes all that defines LIFE -- blessed or struggling -- I still consider it a gift ... and not a burden.

... Is it possible that the concept No-self was to help us ease and numb sufferings and pain?


So I'm agreeing, but not with no-self as any sort of nihilism, a rejection of life or almost any aspects of it.  These concepts resolve in an interesting way.  We cause the suffering, by assuming a self, by attaching to certain ideas, not recognizing impermanence for what it is, etc.

I don't mean when it's cold a different perspective will change that we're not at a normal temperature, although I think the way we relate to external factors is much more subjective than it seems.  Of course people can train to endure the cold, but that's also something else entirely.

How I'm taking the concept is that the struggle itself is mostly internal, and dropping almost all of it wouldn't entail dropping what we actually do that's effective.  The opposite would be true; we could endure more of external factors, and make light of it, taking it only for what it's worth.  A lot of ideas add to our burdens that don't need to, at least to the extent they ordinarily do:  the past, the future, self-image, desires, public opinion, expectations, etc.  If you completely drop all that there isn't much left to work with, so the idea is to selectively adjust perspective, with ample access to memory, planning, goals, consideration of external factors, and all the rest.

How to do it--tricky.  Really "attachment" seems to be the more active concept here, not the rejection of self, and attachment isn't being used in any conventional way.  More on that is best left for another blog entry.