— the laid.back buddhist —

If Life were like Windows Mail

This is for the answers I search for but will never find. For the words I think but will never say.

This morning I was writing an email but couldn’t get past one sentence. It’s a sentence I want to say and feel like needs to be said, but I felt utterly ridiculous sending someone an unnecessary and unexplained one-liner. So, I click the “X” in the upper right corner to close the untitled, unfinished, and unaddressed (you know, just in case I accidentally hit “SEND”…hey, it’s happened before!) email.

“Do you want to save changes to this message?”

I stared at my screen, wondering at the subtle irony of the prompt: did I want to save changes? Ha! There are a lot of changes I can think of that I wouldn’t mind saving. A lot of changes I wouldn’t mind discarding, too, now that I’m thinking about it.

My mouse pointer jumped to click “No,” but hovered back over between “Yes” and “Cancel” before settling on the neutral “X” in the upper right corner.

As if changes in Life could be as easily saved or canceled with such clear-cut options like that.

But this is Life, and not my Inbox.

There are no pop-up warning messages with preset and familiar options including a universal red “X” simply because I’m not ready to make the decision (I mean, as useful as that would be).

And this isn’t just any Life, it’s my life. In which options include forgoing the probably wiser decision to let it marinate overnight…to swallow my fear and send the damn message.

Good to know that my Impatience trumps my Abulia.

Oh, and to set the record straight (before I am once again reminded that Buddhists are supposed to be the epitome of patience ): laid-back Buddhists do worry, are indecisive, think of impatience as impulsiveness (despite evidence of the contrary), and include “tendency to poke fun at ourselves/laugh at self-ironies” in our definition of “laid-back.”

Proof I over-analyze the most random things

“I’m a bleeding-heart humanist.” That’s what she called herself.

It’s been over a year since I read it and I’m not exactly sure why, but I’ve continued to remember that turn of phrase in this girl’s Facebook profile.

Maybe because I doubt that a person who is truly a so-called bleeding-heart humanist would go around proclaiming herself as such to everyone. Like how a person can’t legitimately proclaim to be a philosopher just because he or she philosophizes—it’s other people who recognize that person as a philosopher, otherwise it’s like you’re just posing. You see what I mean?

Or maybe, I just inherently doubt all people who claim to be something when there is rarely a term that can fully accommodate all interpretations and nuances…especially when our perception of things change as we continually add layers of knowledge to our experience.

You can even take “Laid-back Buddhist,” for example. Since, you know, I do “claim” to be one myself.

I chose it because it’s so open to interpretation and can be self-defined. Am I really Buddhist? Yes, in a lot more ways than people initially expect. But am I Buddhist in the traditional sense? Heck no. And what in the world is “laid-back” Buddhism even supposed to mean? That I have an easy-going nature which likes to question traditional thought or that I’m just plain lazy???

Ha! Damned if I know.

To be honest, I probably choose to poke fun at myself because I’m still in the midst of figuring things out. In gaining self-awareness, there’s this other method that I also like to use: defining myself by first figuring out what I’m not…

And for one thing, I don’t think I’d ever call myself a bleeding-heart humanist.

1. It can be such a superficial label, sounding too close to something that’s just the politically correct thing to say. In which case, a person isn’t actually a humanist but simply being one for others, by their definitions. Doesn’t that go against the whole humanistic ideal of self-concept and reaching full self-potential? Labeling yourself can sometimes be a constriction. I think that’s why I often anti-label myself (i.e. by what I’m sure I’m definitely not).
2. I see no point in adding “bleeding-heart.” If humanism were solely based on empathy, you might as well be honest and call it pity. Using a different adjective like “active humanist” or “proactive humanist” would make more sense to my mind.
3. If a person were a true humanist (granted, there are many different interpretations possible), he or she would actually be existentialist. Basically humanism, existentialism is just less optimistic and in many ways, more altruistic. At least, in my opinion. Very Jean-Paul Sartre? Yeah, a bit.

Hm, I ought to consider converting to “Laid-back Buddhist Existentialism.” Ooh, or how’s “The Buddhist Existentialist”? Uhh, “The Existentially Laid-back Buddhist”?!

Gah, all manage to sound absurdly pretentious! And rather confusing, even to me. So, I’ll stay true to my roots and opt for the most laid-back choice: keep the original. Proof that going in circles somehow always brings me back to square one.

I don’t know if I should feel relieved or just throw my hands up in the ironic absurdity of it all.