The Serendipity Practice (the “missing” and “long-lost” Sunday post for 1/28) March 11, 2024

May we all be safe and protected / May we all be peaceful and happy / May we all be healthy and strong / May we all appreciate the “accidental goodness” in our lives.

This is the “missing” post for Sunday, January 28^th. It includes some previously posted content. In the final notes section, there is a reference to a tragic event. You can request an audio recording of a related practice via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.

In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.

Check out the “Class Schedules” calendar for upcoming classes.

“The causality principle asserts that the connection between cause and effect is a necessary one. The synchronicity principle asserts that the terms of a meaningful coincidence are connected by simultaneity and meaning…. Although meaning is an anthropomorphic interpretation it nevertheless forms the indispensable criterion of synchronicity. What that factor which appears to us as ‘meaning’ may be in itself we have no possibility of knowing. As an hypothesis, however, it is not quite so impossible as may appear at first sight. We must remember that the rationalistic attitude of the West is not the only possible one and is not all-embracing, but is in many ways a prejudice and a bias that ought perhaps to be corrected.”

— quoted from “3. Forerunners of the Idea of Synchronicity” in Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle by C. G. Jung

Causality, the principles of cause and effect, is a big aspect of the Yoga Philosophy — and I am, without a doubt, a big fan. I am quick to go down the proverbial rabbit hole to see how things are connected. Of course, everything is connected: we just don’t always see/make/understand the connections. As indicated in Yoga Sūtra 2.20, “The Seer is the pure power of seeing, yet its understanding is through the mind/intellect.” This doesn’t mean that someone who sees/understands something that others don’t is smarter than those others; it simply means that they see things in a different way… a special way.

For much of my life, I have seen things in special ways. My tendency to seek out connections has resulted in me seeing and making connections that other people don’t initially see/make. At some points in my life, others have viewed the way I think as interesting, weird, cute, and/or a sign of being “smart” (or of “thinking too much”). More than one university professor commented that my logic was sound, but that “no one else” — meaning no one with credentials in the Western canon — had come to such a conclusion and therefore….

Perhaps, you have heard the same thing about something that has occurred to you. Suffice it to say, I heard that something I did was “a bit of a stretch” long before I started teaching yoga.

Thankfully, I received some halfway decent marks despite the fact that my content was unexpected. More importantly, I was never forced to conform and, therefore, never got completely stuck in the trap Carl Jung warned us about: the trap created by believing that there is one way (the Western way) to see things. I eventually understood that the workings of our mind/intellect are based on more than brain chemistry. The way we think is also based on all the different things we have experienced; all the different perspectives to which we have been exposed; how open we are to possibilities other than the ones we are seeking; and how aware we are that we are the ones creating the meaning.

“This discovery, indeed, is almost of that kind which I call Serendipity, a very expressive word, which, as I have nothing better to tell you, I shall endeavor to explain to you: you will understand it better by the derivation than the definition. I once read a silly fairy tale, called ‘The Three Princes of Serendip:’ as their Highnesses travelled, they were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things which they were not in quest of: for instance, one of the them discovered that a mule blind of the right eye had travelled the same road lately, because the grass was eaten only on the left side, where it was worse than on the right….”

— quoted from a letter addressed to Sir Horace Mann, dated January 28, 1754, by Horace Walpole (The Right Honorable The (4^th) Earl of Orford, Horatio Walpole)

When Horace Walpole, the Right Honorable Earl of Orford, shared the word and meaning of serendipity, in a letter dated January 28, 1754, he cited the English version of a Persian story (from at least 1302) that had come into the English canon by way of French and Italian translations. Each version of the story is slightly different, but the common elements are (1) a king who sends his sons out into the world to give them the best possible education and (2) the three princes who already have been educated by the best teachers* and tutors in their homeland. As the three princes travelled, they paid attention to all the details around them and — using their knowledge, skills of deduction, and insight (based on “[seeing] things in a special way”) — came to conclusions that were obvious to them but not so obvious to others.

Perhaps the most famous of their adventures is the one cited by the earl, in which the princes described and located a missing camel (or mule). To be clear, the princes were not looking for the animal in question; but, others were looking and those others believed the princes had the animal (or knew where to find it) because the princes knew so much about the animal. They knew it was slightly lame, blind in one eye, missing a tooth and carrying a pregnant woman while bearing honey on one side and butter on the other. They knew all this despite the fact that, at the point in the story when they are accused of stealing the animal, the princes had never seen it! They had only seen evidence of it and made connections that led to certain logical conclusions. While Horace Walpole called the story “a silly fairytale,” others — including Voltaire (in 1747) — recognized the story as containing the cornerstones of deductive reasoning (both psychologically and logically) and of the scientific method.

“Those who are interested in learning more of the fateful history of Zadig must turn to the original; we are dealing with him only as a philosopher, and this brief excerpt suffices for the exemplification of the nature of his conclusions and of the methods by which he arrived at them.”

“[Zadig’s] defence was worse than his offence. It showed that his mode of divination was fraught with danger to magianism in general. Swollen with the pride of human reason, he had ignored the established canons of magian lore; and, trusting to what after all was mere carnal common sense, he professed to lead men to a deeper insight into nature than magian wisdom, with all its lofty antagonism to everything common, had ever reached. What, in fact, lay at the foundation of all Zadig’s argument but the coarse commonplace assumption, upon which every act of our daily lives is based, that we may conclude from an effect to the pre-existence of a cause competent to produce that effect?”

— quoted from the essay “On the Method of Zadig: Retrospective Prophecy as a Function of Science” (1880) in Collected Essays, Volume 4. Science and Hebrew Tradition by T. H. Huxley

Serendipity, like chaos theory, often gets twisted in books, movies, and music. For instance, in the 2001 romantic comedy with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale, the couple are actually looking for each other and looking for clues that will lead each to the other. Sure, there are all kinds of coincidences (or cowinkydinks) and near-misses that are described (in the movie) as fate. And, I could see how the situation could be serendipitous.** However, the couple in the movie are more like the villagers looking for the camel (or mule) and less like the the princes. What they experience is more synchronicity (i.e., things happening at the same time) than serendipity.

Just as I am a big fan of causality, I am also a big fan of synchronicity and serendipity. As much as I pay attention to cause-and-effect, I often delight in things that just seem to “randomly” fall into place and things (or people) that show up when I “need” them, but wasn’t looking for them.  Granted, there are times when I consider chaos theory and see if I can trace everything back to some little thing that started the domino effect; however, I’m also just open to being pleasantly surprised by “accidental goodness.”

Do you know what I mean? Has that happened to you?

Have you ever read a horoscope or had someone tell you your future and it seemed right on? Have you gone into a practice (or any situation) and been surprised that you got exactly what “wanted” and/or “needed,” sometimes in an unexpected way?

We could say, as Thomas Henry Huxley pointed out in 1880, “In all these cases, it is only the relation to time which alters — the process of divination beyond the limits of possible direct knowledge remains the same.“ However, sometimes there is direct knowledge. Sometimes someone is taking known information and putting it together so that you see/make a connection. Then this becomes similar to the way you can understand what a child makes with their LEGO bricks (the patent for which was filed January 28, 1958, presumably at 1:58 PM). You know what the child makes because they tell you what they are making and your brain fills in the gaps based on the shape. Sometimes, the shape is really obvious — and maybe you have the picture from the LEGO packaging. Other times, your brain really has to work hard to see what the child is seeing.

“If you already understand what I am getting at, you may skip this next paragraph. But just in case, I will clarify: You have a box of Legos [sic] and you build a Lego horse. You then take it apart and put the blocks back in the box. You cannot expect to make a new horse just by shaking the box. How could Lego blocks of their own accord find each other and become a new horse again? No, you have to rebuild the hose, Sophie, And the reason you can do it is that you have a picture in your mind of what the horse looked like. The Lego horse is made from a model which remains unchanged from horse to horse.”

— quoted from the lesson “PLATO’S ACADEMY: The World of Ideas” in the chapter “Plato… a longing to return to the realm of the soul…” of Sophie’s World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy by Jostein Gaarder

Whether we realize it or not, our lives are put together the way our practice is put together — which is the same way we are instructed to build something with LEGO bricks: from the ground up. Aha! moments, lightbulb moments, epiphanies, and even “happy accidents” are all built on a foundation. We have to be prepared to see the things we see, even when we are not expecting to see them. We have to have the picture — i.e., the possibility — in our minds. We also have to be open to the way the bricks are connected. Ultimately, that’s what I’m really asking:

How open are you to these kinds of things?

My guess — and it’s not much of a stretch — is that your open-ness, or lack thereof, is based on past experiences. I mean, on a certain level, everything is based on past experiences. We do something new and a new neural pathway is created, a new thin veil of saṃskāra (“mental impression”) is lowered over us. We do that same thing again and we start to hardwire that new neural pathway, the veil becomes more opaque. Over time, our behaviors and reactions become so hardwired, that our saṃskāra become vāsanā (“dwelling” place for our habits) and we believe that our habits are innate or instinctive — when, in fact, they are conditioned.

This is true when things seem to randomly and luckily fall into place, as well as when a fortune cookie seems to be spot on. This is also true when we are not so fortunate or blessed; when things don’t seem to easily fall into place or when we don’t “randomly” get what we didn’t know we needed. Furthermore, our physical-mental-emotional response to the so-called “happy accidents” is just as conditioned as our physical-mental-emotional response to things not going our way. We are as much like Pavlov’s dogs as we are like the one-eyed mule (or camel) observed by the Princes of Serendip. To do something other than salivate at the appearance of certain objects and/or to eat on the side of the road we can’t easily “see” is “impossible.”

“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion.  Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary.

Impossible is nothing.”

— quoted from a 2004 Adidas ad campaign written by Aimee Lehto (with final tag line credited to Boyd Croyner), often attributed to Muhammad Ali

Per chaos theory, little changes in conditioning can change the outcome. Those little changes in conditioning can also change our understanding of a situation and its outcome. They change our “space of possibility.” We start to notice causality and, in the process, start to add to the story — which essentially changes the story. At other times, little changes in conditioning can change our understanding of what is possible and, therefore, what is probable.

All that can change our actions. For instance, consider the comedian Jackie Gleason and how he reacted to Elvis Presley’s first national television*** appearance, on January 28, 1956. No one had seen anything like Elvis before and no one knew how far he would go. So, not surprisingly, Mr. Gleason initially missed certain signs (like how the audience reacted to Elvis) and said, “He can’t last, I tell you flatly, he can’t last.”

To be fair (to Jackie Gleason), there were several reasons why the comedian and producer initially missed the signs. First, “Heartbreak Hotel” had just been released as a single (the day before). Second, Elvis was still relatively unknown on a national level and not many people showed up to see Elvis when he first performed on the weekly program Stage Show. Despite his initially reaction, Jackie Gleason and the other producers of Stage Show scheduled Elvis to perform two shows in January and two shows in February. The future “King of Rock and Roll” performed “Shake Rattle And Roll,” “Flip Flop and Fly,” and “I Got A Woman.” By the time Elvis finished the first show, his schedule was extended to include two more appearances on the Stage Show — thanks, in part, to Jackie Gleason observing the situation, making connections, and coming to certain conclusions.

Ultimately, those are the secrets to serendipity and to practicing serendipity:

• Observing causes and conditions, in order to have as much information as possible;
• Being open to possibilities (and possible connections);
• Letting go of what was; and
• Being right here, right now, with present-moment awareness.

“In no very distant future, the method of Zadig, applied to a greater body of facts than the present generation is fortunate enough to handle, will enable the biologist to reconstruct the scheme of life from its beginning, and to speak as confidently of the character of long extinct beings, no trace of which has been preserved, as Zadig did of the queen’s spaniel and the king’s horse.”

— quoted from the essay “On the Method of Zadig: Retrospective Prophecy as a Function of Science” (1880) in Collected Essays, Volume 4. Science and Hebrew Tradition by T. H. Huxley

Sunday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify.

*NOTE: While most of this practice focused on “happy accidents,” I do reference one tragic accident: the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion. On January 28, 1986, all seven crew members were killed, including Christa McAuliffe, who was selected to be the first schoolteacher in space. In the past, when I offered more direct suggestions for personal dedications, I would include a passing reference to family, friends, co-workers, students, and others who remember and were inspired by F. Richard Scobee (Commander), Michael J. Smith (Pilot), Ronald McNair (Mission Specialist), Ellison Onizuka (Mission Specialist), Judith Resnik (Mission Specialist), Gregory Jarvis (Payload Specialist), and Christa McAuliffe (Payload Specialist / teacher). This year, I ended the practice with the words of S. Christa McAullife who said, “If you’re offered a seat on a rocket ship, don’t ask what seat. JUST GET ON!” and “Reach for the stars. Reach for it! Push yourself as far as you can.”

**Spoiler Alert (that’s not really spoiling the movie): Theoretically and hypothetically (because this doesn’t happen in the movie), if the couple in Serendipity were seeking something that ended up getting torn apart, and the pieces were used to make a painting/collage that was placed in a museum — without anyone knowing the source of the material for the collage, then them discovering the information they sought could be considered serendipitous because they weren’t looking for a painting/collage.

*** CORRECTION: I sometimes refer to Elvis’s appearance on Stage Show as his first television appearance; however, it was his first time on a nationally broadcasted show. He had previously appeared on a local broadcast, Louisiana Hayride, that aired on KSLA-TV (in Shreveport, La) on March 5, 1955.

### “I’m gonna pick up the pieces” ~ Ed Sheeran ###