“Yes-and-ness”
Radical Acceptance and Efficacious Will (The Serenity Prayer in one word!)
Tara Brach’s Buddhism-inspired practice of Radical Acceptance involves resolutely accepting reality as it is, without wishing it were different, regardless of the situation. It’s a fantastic philosophy for about 95% of human experience. Pain is inevitable, but accepting pain has the potential to get you skipping suffering caused by resistance or attachment. In a lecture, Brach quotes a Buddhist Nun who has one mantra for every circumstance: “Thank you for this experience, I have no complaints.” But is it really right to say that in every circumstance? That 5% or more of edge-cases calls for something else: it calls for Yes-and-ness.
A Possibly Flawed Translation of Eastern “Acceptance”
Radical Acceptance is tricky. Like many newcomers to the Buddhist slash New Age scenes, I balk a bit at my understanding of the assertion that every moment is perfect as is.
So often, Western Buddhist advocates like podcaster, Duncan Trussell, feel the need to caveat this New Age maxim for situations like rape and robbery. Where do you draw the line? Clearly you shouldn’t surrender to the situation if you’re stuck in a violent abusive relationship. What about a boss that yells at you? Or even simpler: what about a refused raise?
I’m starting to gather that this is just confusion over what it means to “accept” something, though. I’m starting to intuit that the English connotation of “putting up with” a situation, might not be intended to be universally attached to “acceptance.”
Brach and others might actually be advising that we simply acknowledge a moment’s existence.
As RamDev Dale Borglum says in a different podcast with Trussell, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s assertion that “this is hopeless,” doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no hope that a situation might change or improve over time. It might not even mean that enlightenment is impossible or that Nirvana is unattainable.
It just means that right here, right now, there is no hope for this moment to be any less painful.
Language shares some of the blame for this confusion. Radical acceptance is often mentioned in the same breath as “surrender” and to many, it connotes “consent.” Maybe thanks to software Terms and Conditions, “accept” feels almost interchangeable with “submit.” Tech giants covertly reinforce our submissive relationship to them with that word; it makes sense that we’d have difficulty with acceptance if we relate it to submitting to things that happen to us.
Where is the agency? The control?
It might be a mistranslation. It might also be a willful reimagining of Buddha’s teachings that was intended to justify oppressive systems of class structure. It can be argued that Eastern philosophy is tainted by its historical use to urge acceptance of one’s place in society, no matter how low and degrading. Should the poor and oppressed really accept their fate and not strive for social change? Hard to argue in favor of passive acceptance of injustice and inequality.
Despite these criticisms, a nuanced understanding of radical acceptance bears fruit.
Like any working model of how to act, it has limitations, but when it comes to accepting inclement weather or traffic, you’ll certainly reduce stress and boost resilience. Plus, accepting your emotions, thoughts, and feelings—as opposed to futilely attempting to suppress or control them—is an important step towards personal growth and well-being.
Still, there obviously seems to be a need for a better word to describe the concept of Radical Acceptance. One that indicates recognition of reality without either pretending that something isn’t happening or wishing that it were different, but also without consenting to or “putting up with” the situation.
Flawed New Age Radical Responsibility
Swing too far in the other direction and you get in trouble too, though. There is a recurrent thread in New Age philosophy that consent is the ultimate arbiter of experience. Although obviously problematic to suggest to someone grieving, many find solace in these theories. They feel empowered hearing about causative mental attitudes or soul contracts concerning karma-burning, pre-agreed to trauma.
Quintessential New Age medium and Liminal Trickster Mystic, Paul Selig channels Guides who propose consent is fundamental to human experience. According to the Guides, everything that happens in our lives is a result of our consent, whether conscious or unconscious. The Guides argue that when we give our consent to negative experiences or circumstances or even institutions like banks or war, we empower them and make them a part of our reality.
The Guides would say that “nothing operates without your consent,” which, to me, is madness. They use an example frequently: you consent to know a bank as a bank and so the bank exists. Granted, banks are a social construct. If enough people agreed to stop recognizing the authority of fiat currency, banks would just be buildings with people in them. But my solo mental rebellion is unlikely to change objective reality.
This is a radical interpretation of mind causality—the theory that we create the universe with our thoughts. I wonder whether it might be another example of a misinterpretation of mysticism.
We might not configure matter or drive events with our minds. Most psychologists will grant, however, that we only interact with our projections:
I don’t know fellow Node, JT; I know my idea of JT
But that doesn’t mean I create JT
I just create my idea of JT
It’s sometimes fun to play with how much you can get away with private definitions of publicly agreed on concepts.
If I believe student loan debt that involves never having to pay it back, at what point does consensus reality clash with and punish me for that delusion? If the winds continue to blow toward debt forgiveness, maybe never? That’s the fun.
The Guides say, “The only power that anyone has over you is the power you give away.” They suggest we can choose to allow agents and events to impact us and shape our reality, and that the key to creating a positive life is to be intentional and mindful about what we give our consent to.
Although they has the Western Occultism filter of the power of Will, the Guides assert something familiar. The Buddhist arguments above are recalled by them. We experience of reality a direct reflection of our state of our mind. There’s something familiar about the suggestion that the mind is the primary cause of our experiences. That our external circumstances can be reduced to manifestation of our inner reality.
In his Yoga Sutra’s, Patanjali says “Complete mastery over the modifications of the mind is called yoga.” Mental modifications, which might also be translated to “projections of the internal state onto external circumstances,” must be stilled for the bliss of samadhi.
Dean Spade offers the critique that colonized peoples can’t have consented to their exploitation on a Soul level. No one is crazy enough to say that to a grieving mother. Even if it’s true. Even if swallowing it is helpful, it’s violence to force that pill to someone suffering at the wrong moment.
Selig says you can always change it. Brach seems to say, “Give up. It is what it is.”
There’s a marriage of these two ideas that is more moderate and it’s born simply by choosing a different phrase for “accept.”
Yes-and-ness, a Middle Way
Grant me the courage to change the things I can.
The serenity to accept the things I can’t.
And the wisdom to know the difference.
I think that’s what we’re looking for: the single word that summarizes the serenity prayer.
You may have gathered that my pitch is for “Yes-and-ness.”
A key improv principle, the phrase “yes, and” encourages performers to build off each other’s ideas. This allows them to take their scenes in new and unexpected directions.
When you stumble blindly onto the stage and your comic troop partner says, “Why did Godzilla have to attack on the day before I retire?” you don’t respond, “No no no, I’ve got a better idea: you’re my highschool classmate and we’re nervous about PE later today.”
You can’t build something together when you start off fundamentally denying the reality you’ve just walked into. You’re better off saying, “Yeah, and that vacation is going to have to wait; he’s coming this way!” Yes, you’re retiring and yes, Godzilla is attacking, and he’s coming this way.
Actually, sometimes improv isn’t that straight forward. Confronted by the same scene you could also roll your eyes and say, “Yeah, Murphy, I’m sure a giant, irradiated lizard is the only thing stopping you from retiring at 65 with no savings and no pension in this economy.” Most importantly, you’ve still agreed to the fundamental reality, yes. And, you also challenge an aspect of what your partner said, leaving room for an attempt at humor.
Similarly, “yes-and-ness”, encourages action on the knowledge that we’re meant to work with our experiences, rather than against them, while also asserting my agency in my framing and reaction.
When faced with crappy situations that bum me out, rather than trying to suppress or ignore my challenging emotions, I’ve been leading with “yes, and.”
Yes, it’s a grim fact of reality that the circumstances of this moment can’t be improved from inside it. I accept reality as it is without grasping or aversion.
Yes, it’s “hopeless” to try to willfully change my emotional reaction. I accept my feelings without judgment or recrimination.
Yes, I may even have pre-agreed to this experience in order to learn a vital lesson during this incarnation. This trauma may be the exact thing that allows my soul to matriculate from reincarnating into chrysalis after chrysalis of mere matter and take flight into the infinite oneness of pure being.
AND none of that fucking matters to me right now because I have to do something to improve my situation. I will fight with every fiber. I will claw reality’s eyes out. I will flip over a cop car. Something has to change.
“You have a right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, nor be attached to inaction.” (Emphasis mine.)
As Krishna says to Arjuna, you may not end up influencing your situation, but you have a right and responsibility to try. Can you accept a moment can’t be any other way while simultaneously showing you know your worth, standing up for yourself, upholding healthy boundaries, and generally ensuring the base layers of your Maslow pyramid are adequately met?
What changes when you approach a challenge with “Yes-and-ness?”