Emotions are the path

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

At the top of the page Gyatso says:

"Drikungpa Jigten Gonpo, the founder of the Drikung Kagyu tradition, elaborating on the intentions of Drogon Rinpoche"

 

 

Thanks for that.

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

 

 

 

I understand that - me either. I've never been a "joiner" and have traditionally been uncomfortable with anything "religious". Meeting ngakapas (wandering teachers) set me up for a lifetime of thinking realization could happen anywhere, and so most often I have spent my core time with teachers who have this characteristic. Realization shifted my feeling about this. Being part of the dharma "team" and having recourse to the support of other transmitted teachers and deeper teaching has shifted so much about my life and practice.
 

Bravo.
 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

The commitment, however is not to them or yourself - it is to others. My current teacher is the primary driving force for the outreach program from SF Zen center to get brown-robe teachers out to smaller rural Zen centers that might not have a senior teacher. That might be a future role for me too. You can be anywhere and be of benefit, "actualizing enlightenment" where you are NOW. 

 

 

Let me give you an example of what I mean, when I say that I think you should use first person pronouns:
 

The commitment, however is not to them or me - it is to others. My current teacher is the primary driving force for the outreach program from SF Zen center to get brown-robe teachers out to smaller rural Zen centers that might not have a senior teacher. That might be a future role for me too. I can be anywhere and be of benefit, "actualizing enlightenment" where I am NOW. 

 

I personally would not have written that last sentence that way.  I'm guessing you will feel the same, reading it with the first person pronouns.  Using second and third person pronouns somehow removes me from the immediacy of what I'm saying.  The planchette does not go to the same places, the places I need to hear, when I use the second person pronouns.  

Rule of thumb, if I don't need to hear it, likely nobody does.

I have to say, you are the person I have doubts about, you and the teacher at the Zen Center who is setting you up for such a role in a rural community.  I like Zen groups best when they are informal, without a teacher in the front of the room.  Sort of like Dao Bums, a place to exchange ideas among folks who actually do have some kind of practice.

I have had several teachers from Japan that I felt were helpful to me, and some Americans, but always they were in the role of fellow journeyers.  Don't go anywhere you wouldn't go anyway, that would be my advice!
 

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

BTW, Green Gulch is a fantastic place to sit and stay if you are amenable. Reb Anderson is there - one of the most amazing Zen teachers alive today. 

 

 

Thanks!

The last time I was at Green Gulch was for a one-day sesshin, led by Reb.  There was a forced dokusan, included at no extra charge!  Strange to see the people with clip boards keeping track of attendance, all the young folks wanting to find their Zen but also having a hard time keeping the schedule required of them to be in residence at Green Gulch.

The question Reb asked everybody in dokusan was something like, what is your highest aspiration?  I know, not supposed to reveal the details of dokusan, but when it's forced and everybody is answering the same question, I think it's fair game.

I answered "the cessation of volition, in the actions of body and mind."  Something like that.  I won't tell you what Reb said, but when he left the zendo that night, he turned and said, "goodnight, Zen buddies."  Of course, I took it personally! 

But I'm still working on my posture, not all that pretty when I sit, and at that time my knees were starting to make 45 minutes very difficult (they want everyone in their seat 5 minutes prior to the start of zazen, at Green Gulch).

Reb has great posture.  Last time I heard him lecture, he told a story about how someone complimented him on a gesture he had made at the gym.  So Reb.
 

[Mark Foote]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I just read a 'biography' of the great Maitripa - 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Maitripa-Indias-Nondual-Bliss-Masters/dp/1611806704/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2VXY6SDY2Z62Q&keywords=Maitripa+mathes&qid=1682791971&sprefix=maitripa+mathes%2Caps%2C423&sr=8-1

 

if you are interested and it goes into detail about the different 'seals' or mudras.  The book is a masterful piece of scholarship (IMO).

 

Thanks for the recommendation.  "Nondual Bliss", I like that!  
 

Reading about Maitipada (Wikipedia):

Supposedly, he was expelled from the monastery after the abbot, Atiśa, discovered liquor in his dorms.

 

His student days, before he went to south India and hit his prime.  

Edited April 29, 2023 by Mark Foote

[stirling]

On 4/29/2023 at 11:38 AM, Mark Foote said:

Let me give you an example of what I mean, when I say that I think you should use first person pronouns:

 

I understand your feelings,  honestly. You are heard. 

 

Quote

I have to say, you are the person I have doubts about, you and the teacher at the Zen Center who is setting you up for such a role in a rural community.  I like Zen groups best when they are informal, without a teacher in the front of the room.  Sort of like Dao Bums, a place to exchange ideas among folks who actually do have some kind of practice.

 

I think there is some agreement that the days of barging in and taking over Zen centers by force is over.   Teachers in this system are  INVITED these days. As to whether you have doubts about me or my teacher, I'd say hang in there and let's get to know each other a bit better before you condemn?

 

I understand your idea about liking informal groups, and I'd agree that generally they are FINE for beginning meditation instruction, etc. until people begin to have experiences that are frightening, emotionally difficult or supernatural. Meditation teachers are often out of their depth in such circumstances. This is where the rubber meets the road of the path, and where I find most of my students.

 

Quote

The last time I was at Green Gulch was for a one-day sesshin, led by Reb.  There was a forced dokusan, included at no extra charge!  Strange to see the people with clip boards keeping track of attendance, all the young folks wanting to find their Zen but also having a hard time keeping the schedule required of them to be in residence at Green Gulch.

The question Reb asked everybody in dokusan was something like, what is your highest aspiration?  I know, not supposed to reveal the details of dokusan, but when it's forced and everybody is answering the same question, I think it's fair game.

I answered "the cessation of volition, in the actions of body and mind."  Something like that.  I won't tell you what Reb said, but when he left the zendo that night, he turned and said, "goodnight, Zen buddies."  Of course, I took it personally!

 

Glad you got to make his acquaintance. Occasionally just meeting someone like that can shift things. 

 

Quote

But I'm still working on my posture, not all that pretty when I sit, and at that time my knees were starting to make 45 minutes very difficult (they want everyone in their seat 5 minutes prior to the start of zazen, at Green Gulch).

 

I usually ditch the cushion in the second sit of the day at a Zazenkai or Sesshin, and use a bench for the rest of them. Old guy knees suck... luckily Zazen doesn't mind. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by stirling

[stirling]

On 4/29/2023 at 11:16 AM, Apech said:

This is very true, although the Tibetans always emphasise the Indian origin (not sure but there might be something political about this) but there are even tankas and so on with the trigrams of the I Ching on them.

 

I'm sure there IS something political, yes, but it's really obvious in so many ways that there was fertile cross-pollination. I have a love for all of these traditions that met so long ago and influenced each other. 

 

On 4/29/2023 at 11:16 AM, Apech said:

I just read a 'biography' of the great Maitripa - 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Maitripa-Indias-Nondual-Bliss-Masters/dp/1611806704/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2VXY6SDY2Z62Q&keywords=Maitripa+mathes&qid=1682791971&sprefix=maitripa+mathes%2Caps%2C423&sr=8-1

 

if you are interested and it goes into detail about the different 'seals' or mudras.  The book is a masterful piece of scholarship (IMO).

 

Sound great, just reading the description - I'll have to check it out.

 

On 4/29/2023 at 11:16 AM, Apech said:

Salutations to all the lone mystics ... you are not alone! ... well you are but you know what I mean

 

Hurray!  I wish there was more open fellowship and less sectarian infighting. Here's to a future where those with insight work to help deepen it everywhere, even supporting our "brothers and sisters". 

 

Bows to you, sir.

[Bindi]

If you’re lucky, 

 

cos it means your still human and feeling

[stirling]

On 5/7/2023 at 5:45 AM, Bindi said:

If you’re lucky, 

 

cos it means your still human and feeling

What are the other options?

[Bindi]

7 hours ago, stirling said:

What are the other options?

“It was the late psychologist John Welwood who coined the term spiritual bypassing to describe what he saw in a Buddhist community. He describes it as the “tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks.” In the practice of non-attachment, many Buddhists deny what they truly feel.”

I’ve always thought the Buddha had a particularly intellectual solution to the problem of suffering that isn’t actually emotionally healthy.  Same with nondual philosophy. I have come to believe that emotional health is the basis of a subtle energy circuit that is vital to clear for true spiritual growth. To me, a very good emotional therapy is a better start in the spiritual journey than a thousand spiritual practices currently available to seekers. 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

“It was the late psychologist John Welwood who coined the term spiritual bypassing to describe what he saw in a Buddhist community. He describes it as the “tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks.” In the practice of non-attachment, many Buddhists deny what they truly feel.”

I’ve always thought the Buddha had a particularly intellectual solution to the problem of suffering that isn’t actually emotionally healthy.  Same with nondual philosophy. I have come to believe that emotional health is the basis of a subtle energy circuit that is vital to clear for true spiritual growth. To me, a very good emotional therapy is a better start in the spiritual journey than a thousand spiritual practices currently available to seekers. 

 

I think we are still counting those practicing spiritual bypassing as humans with feelings.

 

It's actually a poignant trap worthy of compassion: those things that get denied rather than dealt with tend to explode rather impressively in the personal lives of practitioners. This is where the role of a competent teachers comes in. No teacher worth their salt would allow any student to get very far with such things. For most Mahayana teachers the path is THROUGH taking apart these attachments and recognizing where denial is happening, not in letting them fester.

 

The Buddha's solution isn't intellectual - that would be a misunderstanding. The understanding of "no-self" or "emptiness" is a non-conceptual realization, not something you read in a book and "get". It CAN actually be pointed out experientially in a relatively simple way for most people.

 

Emotional health is learning to let go of attachment or aversion to experiences that have happened in the past, just like psychology. In Buddhism it is processed in meditation so that the attachment or aversion is reduced... something like exposure therapy. Most good Buddhist teachers who recognize deep unprocessed trauma will suggest that a student work with a psychologist in parallel. 

 

Buddhism and psychology have a long history together in the 20th century:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology

 

We agree that therapy can be key for letting go of attachment and aversion. In Buddhism we call these "obscurations". Fixed ideas caused by misunderstanding reality (delusion) in our attachment and aversion is a primary cause for not seeing things as they are, that causes depression and anxiety, amongst other difficulties.

[Bindi]

6 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I think we are still counting those practicing spiritual bypassing as humans with feelings.
 

 

Humans denying feelings yes, but not feeling them. 

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

 

It's actually a poignant trap worthy of compassion: those things that get denied rather than dealt with tend to explode rather impressively in the personal lives of practitioners. This is where the role of a competent teachers comes in. No teacher worth their salt would allow any student to get very far with such things. For most Mahayana teachers the path is THROUGH taking apart these attachments and recognizing where denial is happening, not in letting them fester.

 

The Buddha's solution isn't intellectual - that would be a misunderstanding. The understanding of "no-self" or "emptiness" is a non-conceptual realization, not something you read in a book and "get". It CAN actually be pointed out experientially in a relatively simple way for most people.

 

Emotional health is learning to let go of attachment or aversion to experiences that have happened in the past, just like psychology.
 

 

To go with a fairly drastic example, let me insert “raped by a pedophile” in your emotional health scenario. ‘Let go of your aversion to being raped by a pedophile when you were young, it’s just an experience that happened in the past that you chose to have an aversion to, but remove the aversion and the rape becomes neutral.’ This is what nondual teachers are throwing at their followers, and it is extremely damaging to the psyche of those that have been abused. The theory fails in the face of actual abuse, but is peddled just the same. 

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

 

In Buddhism it is processed in meditation so that the attachment or aversion is reduced... something like exposure therapy.

 

In genuine abuse scenarios, reducing aversion is inappropriate. Only good psychology is appropriate. 

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

Most good Buddhist teachers who recognize deep unprocessed trauma will suggest that a student work with a psychologist in parallel. 

 

Buddhism and psychology have a long history together in the 20th century:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology

 

We agree that therapy can be key for letting go of attachment and aversion.
 

 

We do not agree on this. Good psychology allows an emotional/mental complex to be processed and dissolved, freeing the person to feel a little more in the moment instead of stuck replaying the past, it has nothing to do with attachment or aversion. 

 

6 hours ago, stirling said:

In Buddhism we call these "obscurations". Fixed ideas caused by misunderstanding reality (delusion) in our attachment and aversion is a primary cause for not seeing things as they are, that causes depression and anxiety, amongst other difficulties.

Reality is a very interesting topic. I would bet you have no idea of actual reality, yet you believe you understand reality in terms of the buddhas conclusions about it, just as people at one time believed the sun revolved around the earth. They would have sworn blind they understood reality, but that didn’t make their belief reality. Your faith in the buddhas intellectual take on reality is the basis of your own fixed idea of reality. Actual reality is still to be discerned. 

[Invisible Acropolis]

3 hours ago, Bindi said:

Reality is a very interesting topic. I would bet you have no idea of actual reality, yet you believe you understand reality in terms of the buddhas conclusions about it, just as people at one time believed the sun revolved around the earth. They would have sworn blind they understood reality, but that didn’t make their belief reality. Your faith in the buddhas intellectual take on reality is the basis of your own fixed idea of reality. Actual reality is still to be discerned. 

 

Your thoughts and views on buddhism indicate a lack of understanding and familiarity with the actual teachings themselves as they were originally presented and recorded in the ancient texts (preceding the mahayana reformation after Siddhartha 's death) but rather you seem to have much more familiarity with the various commercial industries which have grown around it in order to capitalize on various profit opportunities of different sorts (not always cash money).  Your concerns lead me to wonder how much interest you have in such profits yourself, rather than leading me to any sort of "new information" which you seem to believe you are presenting here. 

 

I wont disagree that from a modern civilized perspective, many of the ancient buddhist thoughts and traditions are seen as "uncivilized" and strange and even harmful (for example the focus on being homeless as well as the misogyny and so forth) and that should be thoroughly understood from the perspective that most modern civilized people are not living even remotely the same lives as people living in a feudal society in asia 2500 years ago.  When you cannot account for this most basic and fundamental reality of human thought, it is much more revealing of your own issues and problems rather than these ancient teachings which were written down long before things like "democracy" was approaching the global normality, or even invented in the first place in such localities. 

[Apech]

Heck!  Just to make some comments on the last three or four posts without making specific replies.

 

Western Buddhism especially that which aligns itself to scientific enquiry (psychology and neuroscience) should in my opinion be either entirely dismissed or just subsumed under the sciences involved and loose the name of Dharma entirely.  Shockingly many prominent Buddhists promote this kind of thing either in the case of say the DL because he is clueless as to the nature of science, or alternatively in the case of secular Buddhists because they are not Buddhists at all.  Clinical psychology and psychotherapy can be helpful is intelligently applied to people in distress but 99% of it is geared to making the subject person 'well adjusted'.  That is able to fit back into consensual 'reality' post trauma.

 

Buddha's first noble truth - there is suffering or existence is suffering - is actually key.  Through this he was advising his audience, those who attended his first teaching to notice that suffering was existing as the point of focus.  In other words don't turn away or distract yourself with diversionary tactics such as wish-fulfillment, escapism, pretence, bypassing or anything else.  He was saying emotion is there, look at it, accept it is there.  And from there - work with it - 'emotion is the path'.  Reason is not the path.  Reason is cold  and mostly is a form of coping mechanism - which is why if you take a strictly rational man and scratch the surface - he will scratch back because he is defending an island of peace and purity which he has built within himself using concepts which reassure his own peace of mind.

 

Attachment or perhaps attraction and aversion are key I think.  Because we are shaped by them - especially on a subtle body level because the energy involved has a positive / negative component.  It is like a perfect recording mechanism which replays stored experience - which has been captured according to emotional stress, charged  and active even though often buried deep within.  What it is we are to do with all this stuff is the question.  Non-attachment is not the final answer but merely a mental 'trick' to move the memories out of a fixed position and give a chance at some release.

 

PS.  The mahayana was not a 'reformation'   

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

6 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

To go with a fairly drastic example, let me insert “raped by a pedophile” in your emotional health scenario. ‘Let go of your aversion to being raped by a pedophile when you were young, it’s just an experience that happened in the past that you chose to have an aversion to, but remove the aversion and the rape becomes neutral.’ This is what nondual teachers are throwing at their followers, and it is extremely damaging to the psyche of those that have been abused. The theory fails in the face of actual abuse, but is peddled just the same. 

 

 

You have a talent for drastic examples, Bindi.  

 

I can imagine a situation where a practitioner lets go of their aversion to having been raped as a youngster.  A person might come to recognize how this experience is part of their overall story, how it's informed how they see the world.  It might be that a rape victim comes to have great compassion for other victims of rape; some rape victims even come to have great compassion for perpetrators of rape.  Many people come through trauma stronger than they came in. Traumatic growth happens. Lots of folks lose their aversion to even the most objectively terrible things that have happened to them.  

 

That said, this outcome is just one possibility out of many and not necessarily the most common.  It's something people have to come to on their own, over the course of years.  Not something that's given as any kind of a prescription by a teacher.  IMO, a good teacher would never tell a student to "lose their aversion to being raped."  What a teacher might tell a student is to sit down and be with whatever sensation, thoughts, or feeling arise.  In this circumstance a student might come to lose all sorts of aversions -- or not.  

Edited May 9, 2023 by liminal_luke

[stirling]

7 hours ago, Bindi said:

To go with a fairly drastic example, let me insert “raped by a pedophile” in your emotional health scenario. ‘Let go of your aversion to being raped by a pedophile when you were young, it’s just an experience that happened in the past that you chose to have an aversion to, but remove the aversion and the rape becomes neutral.’ This is what nondual teachers are throwing at their followers, and it is extremely damaging to the psyche of those that have been abused. The theory fails in the face of actual abuse, but is peddled just the same. 

 

Your example is a mischaracterization of the intent. I doubt there is anyone who wouldn't have aversion to being raped, whether it actually happens or not. The work is for undoing the shift in how such a fear or experience might impact the way the world is viewed. I imagine that someone who has been raped might never feel safe anywhere, or might see the world as a potentially dangerous place in all situations, carrying around anxiety and fear. That anxiety and fear likely would impact a variety of relationships. The work is to dissolve or soften the fixed world-views around these things. 

 

7 hours ago, Bindi said:

In genuine abuse scenarios, reducing aversion is inappropriate. Only good psychology is appropriate.

 

If we used Western terminology I am sure it would make more sense to you, if you are open to seeing it. Reducing aversion (or fear/anxiety) is used in Anxiety Ladder Therapy and Exposure Therapy, amongst others. 

 

7 hours ago, Bindi said:

We do not agree on this. Good psychology allows an emotional/mental complex to be processed and dissolved, freeing the person to feel a little more in the moment instead of stuck replaying the past, it has nothing to do with attachment or aversion. 

 

This is a nice re-statement of what I am attempting to say, with different terminology. I am sorry I failed so miserably in getting it across to you. 

 

7 hours ago, Bindi said:

Reality is a very interesting topic. I would bet you have no idea of actual reality, yet you believe you understand reality in terms of the buddhas conclusions about it, just as people at one time believed the sun revolved around the earth. They would have sworn blind they understood reality, but that didn’t make their belief reality. Your faith in the buddhas intellectual take on reality is the basis of your own fixed idea of reality. Actual reality is still to be discerned. 

 

Even the Buddhas descriptions of reality are incomplete, though that is through no fault of his. All descriptions are. The reason for this is in the nature of reality itself. The dharma is just conceptual ideas - the map, not the territory. Adopting the teachings as a belief system gets you nowhere. The Buddha himself said that the "raft" of the dharma should be dropped when the river is crossed, because it is no longer needed. 

 

Quote

 

“The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom.” - Hui Hai, Zen Patriarch

 

 

I am against faith, and relying on intellectual understanding. I am disinteresting in adopting other people's (including the Buddhas) views as a "truth". My understanding is based on direct experience. Reality, in my experience, is not capable of being a fixed idea, it is no idea at all. Sadly, ideas are the only way we have of conveying these things besides helping others to have their own direct experience. 

 

You come across as having some anger about this topic. If you don't mind sharing, what is that about? Buddhism? My posts? Or?

[old3bob]

concentrating on doing away with suffering can be a type of suffering in itself... and along that line egotism will not be able to do away with egotism.

 

anyway when I look at the Tibetan Wheel of Life I see freedom in any and all of the realms (and beyond realms) as being a key point,  with there being a depiction of the Buddha in each;  thus it is not exactly being a free from  per a disconnect but a transforming freedom in,  thus those realms and the beings depicted don't need the destruction or denial of realms they need freedom in them and to be able to move among them as needed,  just as I think the showing of the Buddha in each realm means.

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by old3bob

[Lairg]

24 minutes ago, old3bob said:

concentrating on doing away with suffering can be a type of suffering in itself

 

Better to love the part that is suffering

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

You have a talent for drastic examples, Bindi.  

 

I can imagine a situation where a practitioner lets go of their aversion to having been raped as a youngster.  A person might come to recognize how this experience is part of their overall story, how it's informed how they see the world.  It might be that a rape victim comes to have great compassion for other victims of rape; some rape victims even come to have great compassion for perpetrators of rape.  Many people come through trauma stronger than they came in. Traumatic growth happens. Lots of folks lose their aversion to even the most objectively terrible things that have happened to them.  

 

That said, this outcome is just one possibility out of many and not necessarily the most common.  It's something people have to come to on their own, over the course of years.  Not something that's given as any kind of a prescription by a teacher.  IMO, a good teacher would never tell a student to "lose their aversion to being raped."  What a teacher might tell a student is to sit down and be with whatever sensation, thoughts, or feeling arise.  In this circumstance a student might come to lose all sorts of aversions -- or not.  

 

A good observation Luke . I noticed , in the past when working with refugees  and some of them where ex-torture victims , there was a variety of 'recovery modes' , effects and different responses .  One even felt sorry for her torturer ;  " You can see what that man did to me ( the scars ) and I have to live with that and the memory of that pain . But I would rather live with this , than knowing I had done these things  to  other people myself . "

 

On a much lesser scale , I have a friend who went through a catholic school and had similar experiences to me . He is sort of broken and effected by it , he  fears oppression and conforms to it  and suffers depression . I rebelled against it  , broke out of it, challenge oppression and  enjoy  euthymia .

 

The same things can weaken and break some, or make others stronger , so what's with that ? The individual 'constitution'  ?

 

On another level ,  some people seem to 'need to suffer'  .... I have said this a few times ; I live in one of the BEST places , clean, pristine, space , wonderful nature, beaches , certainly no lack of modern activities , yet the amount of anti-depressant and pain relief meds out there is phenomenal ... very high per population density .  Same for Sydney , anti -depressants detected in Sydney Harbor ( due human elimination via sewer pipe leaks ) .  Some people around here have it sooooo good , yet complain about the trivial .

[steve]

One thing that may be worth mentioning here is that in working with attachment and aversion, I don't look at them as emotions in and of themselves but more as actions related to emotional content. Attachment is my tendency to hold onto or chase after things that generate positive emotion. Aversion is my tendency to deny, ignore, push away, repress, or suppress things that generate negative emotion.

 

Reducing aversion does not mean eliminating the negative emotional content or invalidating powerful experiences, it means to reduce the tendency to avoid, suppress or repress the experience and associated emotion. Reducing aversion allows me to get closer to the negative emotions which is necessary for processing and ultimately reducing how these things can control my life, very often without conscious knowledge of what is happening. The same can be said for dealing with attachment. It's not about avoiding the feelings, if anything it is about experiencing those feeling as fully as possible and for as long as necessary until they have served their (important and valuable) purpose and are able to move and possibly release. 

 

As I've developed experience and skill in my meditation practice I've noticed a few changes. I seem to feel things far more deeply, both on the positive and negative ends of the spectrum. It can be overwhelming at times. Prior to getting involved in my current practice, I would have described myself as an emotional imbecile; repressing and suppressing things unaware, not recognizing or appropriately responding to my own or others' emotional needs, reacting or acting in a conditioned pattern, often coming from a place of distortion and negative emotion. Currently, even as I feel things more fully and powerfully, I find myself being less reactive and less predictable. Rather than conditioned patterns and emotional reactivity guiding my actions, there is more space and openness, more patience and clarity. I find myself doing and saying things that sometimes surprise me and others, in a good way. 

 

In my opinion, it is inaccurate to propose that Buddhist practices remove emotions or invalidate powerful life experiences, be they traumatic or thrilling. What has happened is that emotional reactivity is seen in context, with less personal identification, and has far less control over my choices and patterns of behavior. This leads to more sensible choices and fewer regrets. This is what freedom from aversion and attachment have meant for me and the only way to discover this is through working with the emotions directly and consistently. Emotions are an extremely important part of my path and will be until my end. 

[steve]

55 minutes ago, Nungali said:

A good observation Luke . I noticed , in the past when working with refugees  and some of them where ex-torture victims , there was a variety of 'recovery modes' , effects and different responses .  One even felt sorry for her torturer ;  " You can see what that man did to me ( the scars ) and I have to live with that and the memory of that pain . But I would rather live with this , than knowing I had done these things  to  other people myself . "

 

This reminds me of an amazing and powerful film called Rubaru Roshni, a documentary about victims of horrific crimes and the power of forgiveness.

[Bindi]

18 hours ago, Apech said:

Heck!  Just to make some comments on the last three or four posts without making specific replies.

 

Western Buddhism especially that which aligns itself to scientific enquiry (psychology and neuroscience) should in my opinion be either entirely dismissed or just subsumed under the sciences involved and loose the name of Dharma entirely.  Shockingly many prominent Buddhists promote this kind of thing either in the case of say the DL because he is clueless as to the nature of science, or alternatively in the case of secular Buddhists because they are not Buddhists at all.  Clinical psychology and psychotherapy can be helpful is intelligently applied to people in distress but 99% of it is geared to making the subject person 'well adjusted'.  That is able to fit back into consensual 'reality' post trauma.

 

Buddha's first noble truth - there is suffering or existence is suffering - is actually key.  Through this he was advising his audience, those who attended his first teaching to notice that suffering was existing as the point of focus.  In other words don't turn away or distract yourself with diversionary tactics such as wish-fulfillment, escapism, pretence, bypassing or anything else.  He was saying emotion is there, look at it, accept it is there.  And from there - work with it - 'emotion is the path'. 
 

 

I thought he was saying there is suffering, so don’t get too attached to things in the first place because the attachment causes the suffering to happen, not the actual event. 

 

Quote

Reason is not the path.  Reason is cold  and mostly is a form of coping mechanism

 

Absolutely, a mentally constructed coping mechanism is like a ship precariously balanced on a dry dock, feeling past trauma is the same ship falling into the water and sinking.  Agreed this is what we are averse to, having to deal emotionally and intellectually with the sunken ship. I’ve been practicing not being averse to this sort of process for decades, and I still have resistance to allowing the feeling/thoughts. 

 

Quote

- which is why if you take a strictly rational man and scratch the surface - he will scratch back because he is defending an island of peace and purity which he has built within himself using concepts which reassure his own peace of mind.

 

Attachment or perhaps attraction and aversion are key I think.  Because we are shaped by them - especially on a subtle body level because the energy involved has a positive / negative component.  It is like a perfect recording mechanism which replays stored experience - which has been captured according to emotional stress, charged  and active even though often buried deep within.  What it is we are to do with all this stuff is the question.  Non-attachment is not the final answer but merely a mental 'trick' to move the memories out of a fixed position and give a chance at some release.
 

 

If this is indeed the basis of Buddhism I wouldn’t be against it, it sounds thoroughly sane to me. 

 

Quote

 

PS.  The mahayana was not a 'reformation'   

 

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Bindi

[Bindi]

7 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Your example is a mischaracterization of the intent. I doubt there is anyone who wouldn't have aversion to being raped, whether it actually happens or not. The work is for undoing the shift in how such a fear or experience might impact the way the world is viewed. I imagine that someone who has been raped might never feel safe anywhere, or might see the world as a potentially dangerous place in all situations, carrying around anxiety and fear. That anxiety and fear likely would impact a variety of relationships. The work is to dissolve or soften the fixed world-views around these things. 

 

 

Dissolving or softening the fixed world views around trauma would be the natural result of effective emotional/mental work with the trauma itself. If you’re saying the work that needs to be done is on the fixed world view itself I would disagree. 

 

7 hours ago, stirling said:

 

If we used Western terminology I am sure it would make more sense to you, if you are open to seeing it. Reducing aversion (or fear/anxiety) is used in Anxiety Ladder Therapy and Exposure Therapy, amongst others. 

 

 

Someone I know was threatened with a knife, and it took him weeks to get over the initial fear, and years to start coming to terms with the emotional damage. Exposure therapy would have been inappropriate. Same with rape scenarios, exposure to anything to do with rape would be inappropriate. Exposure therapy is good for various phobias, but it would be silly to call someone knifephobic or rapephobic. 

 

7 hours ago, stirling said:

 

 

This is a nice re-statement of what I am attempting to say, with different terminology. I am sorry I failed so miserably in getting it across to you. 

 

 

Even the Buddhas descriptions of reality are incomplete, though that is through no fault of his. All descriptions are. The reason for this is in the nature of reality itself. The dharma is just conceptual ideas - the map, not the territory. Adopting the teachings as a belief system gets you nowhere. The Buddha himself said that the "raft" of the dharma should be dropped when the river is crossed, because it is no longer needed. 

 

 

I am against faith, and relying on intellectual understanding. I am disinteresting in adopting other people's (including the Buddhas) views as a "truth". My understanding is based on direct experience. Reality, in my experience, is not capable of being a fixed idea, it is no idea at all. Sadly, ideas are the only way we have of conveying these things besides helping others to have their own direct experience. 

 

You come across as having some anger about this topic. If you don't mind sharing, what is that about? Buddhism? My posts? Or?

I do get annoyed about ungrounded spiritual platitudes, people’s beliefs that they have found some sort of spiritual space beyond the mind, ultimate truth assertions etc. 

 

Emotional work is the rightful coalface to be working on IMO, any philosophy that doesn’t make that clear does tend to annoy me, and I see these philosophies and methods that are at cross purposes with emotional work being trotted out endlessly on this site. 

[Bindi]

I currently see the subtle energy body as a circuit made of 3 separate substances, the first section (Ida) appears in us as emotion, the second section (Pingala) as mentation, and the third part (Sushumna) is the undeveloped part that still needs to be developed to complete the circuit, it’s nature doesn’t appear in us at all until it is worked with. For energy to flow in this circuit our emotional nature first needs to be flowing freely, so to me it is the absolute beginning of the spiritual path even though it isn’t spiritual as such. It’s the way to get to the spiritual though (Sushumna), and remains integral to the energy circuit. 
 

 

[liminal_luke]

59 minutes ago, Bindi said:

I do get annoyed about ungrounded spiritual platitudes, people’s beliefs that they have found some sort of spiritual space beyond the mind, ultimate truth assertions etc. 

 

 

Many years ago I attended a three month vipassana retreat at the Insight Meditation Center in Barre, Massachusetts.  Much of that three months I spent crying.  I discovered layers of emotion I didn't know I had in me and by the end of the glorious ordeal I was still unenlightened but my blood pressure was normal.  Meditation is not therapy, my teachers were clear about that, but it can be a good way of getting to know oneself better.

 

The experience of that Buddhist retreat stands in sharp contrast to my experience reading Buddhist threads on the forum.  People throw out a lot of lingo online, a lot of very high-sounding talk.  Good thing these conversations aren't happening on Zoom because I wouldn't want my fellow Bums to see me roll my eyes.  I think the Buddhist Bums are a varied lot.  There's probably some armchair philosophers who spend more time reading that sitting.  But there are also, I know, some very dedicated and grounded longtime meditators.  And the thing is that when people start talking nondual this, karma that, it can be hard to tell one group from the other, at least for me.  I think there's something about the medium of online communication, especially in a public forum like ours, that doesn't show Buddhism in the most flattering light. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by liminal_luke

[steve]

2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

I think there's something about the medium of online communication, especially in a public forum like ours, that doesn't show Buddhism in the most flattering light. 

 

Thank goodness that’s not the case for our Daoist sisters and brothers!

😎

 

[Bindi]

This seemed to me to be a fairly classic Buddhist view regarding emotions from one of our well respected Buddhist contributors:

 

“Rather than analysing the feelings, which, btw, is such a limitless loop, would it not be better to investigate the 'who' behind the feelings? Like, for example, what is this entity that 'feels' all these things? Is this 'who' a substantial, self-existing 'thing'? Questions like these. I mean, you do know the ephemeral nature of feelings, and yet you seem to invest so much interest and attention to something that is so. Not saying you should not... im just wondering.”

 

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/39206-emotions-and-spirituality/?do=findComment&comment=644899

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

As a young, would-be Daoist I was lured in by the promise of multiple orgasms, superhuman fighting skills, and immortality.  How did Buddhism stack up?  Lets just say it takes a special kind of person to read about the amazing Daoist wizards of old and say "nah, I'd rather go for dependent origination and impermanence."

Edited May 10, 2023 by liminal_luke