.jpg)
Please Log in to Vote.
3 out of 3 members found this useful.
Testing: not-one, not-two
Posted December 22nd, 2008 by Michael McAlister
There is a brief piece over at Tricycle
talking about Martin Seligman’s test for Authentic Happiness at UPenn.
I think this is all well and good, except for the fact that happiness is a state that ebbs and flows in time and because of this it is by nature temporary. So an “authentic” state, be it happiness or something else, appears to be merely a feeling to which the mind attaches.
Instead of looking to be perpetually and “authentically” happy, wouldn’t it make more sense for us to focus attention on our ability to stay present with whatever our state is, thus increasing an authentic awareness of what we might be experiencing at any given moment? This way we evolve and grow in ways that go beyond states. Additionally, our increased awareness can also include any state we might be in as our awareness becomes more acute, thus generating an ever-deepening presence. Presence isn’t a state, and therefore can’t be bound by time. Put simply, this means that the more aware we become, the more present we can be. The more present we can be, the more that freedom can spontaneously inform whatever state we might find ourselves to be in. From this presence practitioners can see that the most basic and ordinary of all states isn’t the temporary state of happiness, but the the timeless spaciousness of complete joy.
And there is a test for this that doesn’t require a registration of your email: simply look for resistance in your experience. If you’re feeling any kind of resistance, the mind is inhibiting joy.
- Please Login to Add Comments
- show all sub-comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
The Bus
Posted December 22nd, 2008 by Michael McAlister in response to on joy and resistanceJerry,
Thanks for the comment.
I like your addition to the test, and yet I would counter that if joy isn't at the core of experience, the mind is still at the wheel driving the "Bus of Consciousness."
As a teacher I keep seeing an interesting situation: indifference, not hate, shows up as the opposite of love. Paradoxically, indifference, not love, shows up as the opposite of hate. Like you say, indifference is a very subtle (most of the time) hold out for clinging. And yet, this subtlety is still a form of attachment to non-attachment; one that the mind sees as a commitment to non-commitment.
Bows,
Michael
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
not three, just one
Posted December 23rd, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to The BusHello Michael,
I agree with what you say about indifference showing up sometimes as a subtle attachment to non-attachment. It is the biggest pitfall for teachings on non-attachment, renunciation, and Equanimity. It is easy for mind to substitute this imposter.
I also agree that attachment, repulsion (the true opposite of attachment) and indifference are each only manifestations of one type of resistance. It can be very helpful to realize this as it uncovers the driving force behind them all. Where we differ is that I usually point to them as being varying modes of repulsion, rather than attachment. (I know you did not directly say this in your response, but it seemed to be implied in your blog post “Unhooked” which you linked to in the initial post here) I can see the value and truth of this approach also but, for the sake of discussion, I will explain my viewpoint further.
Repulsion is pretty straightforward and can easily be seen as a form of resistance. The image that automatically arises for most of us is to be moving away from something or pushing something away.
Attachment, or clinging, is more difficult to see as resistance because we often rationalize it as intimacy, closeness or acceptance and so the image that arises for most of us is one of holding rather than clutching. But, ask someone what happens with their “hold” when faced with forces that would take away that which they hold dear and they will easily visualize their tightening grip and even a vicious struggle against those forces. They can really see the resistance of attachment and feel their repulsion (hatred) towards those forces.
Indifference is the most difficult to see as resistance. The primary reason for this is that we are, for the most part, oblivious (indifferent) to it. Secondly, when it’s pointed out we interpret indifference as being a neutral stance. The image we see is one of moving effortlessly by something. But, ask someone to visualize the times they have passed “effortlessly” by a homeless person and indifference begins to show its true colors. Ask them to see what happens when they recall a time when a homeless person intentionally or aggressively made it impossible for them to be ignored and the move towards repulsion becomes obvious.
What is the “driving force” behind each of these forms of resistance? I would suggest it is fear. We avoid something or fight it off because we are afraid of it. We become attached to something because we fear losing it. And we become indifferent to things because we are afraid to feel. This is the reason that indifference shows up in your students as the opposite of both love and hate. Teachings on the hazards of attachment (love) and repulsion (hate) reinforces this fear of feeling and so they are only left the middle ground when they are forced to retreat from one or the other poles.
It is for this reason that it seems prudent to point out that attachment, indifference and repulsion are each aberrations of very natural and appropriate responses to life experience. And, it is the misunderstanding of the true nature of fear that creates the illusion that supports these distorted reactions.
It is instinctual and therefore natural for us to “feel” attraction and aversion. In fact research on how our brain functions reveals that every “event” is initially encoded or tagged according to where it lands on the scale of attraction/aversion by virtue of very broad and generalized distinctions. For humans it is the responsibility of the intellect to gather more details to better assess the situation and, if appropriate, formulate a plan of action. Whether this precedes or follows an immediate instinctual reaction depends on the intensity of the encoded feeling – the more intense the more immediate our instinctual reaction.
The problem is the reflective capacity of the intellect allows for it to reflect back on its own functioning and in this fashion it forms an image of itself as the “controller”. As the “controller” the intellect expands beyond its prime directive and imposes its “ideas” on events in ways that distort the facts and confuse the instincts. The latter occurs because the instincts cannot distinguish between the actual and the imagined.
To make what is becoming a very long story short I will cut to the chase. The intellect can no longer see that aversion, like attraction, is actually Love in action. (If there were no “feelings” of attraction and aversion there would be no life forms as we know them.) Rather, the intellect has come to see the feeling of aversion as something in itself that is to be avoided. It is this aversion (fear) of feeling aversion (fear) that informs the strategies of the intellect as the “controller” and creates a new intellectual scale of attachment/repulsion which it reflects back to the instincts with its "assessment" of an event. It is in this fashion that an intellectual model of reality based on false assumptions now informs our instincts.
It is also in this fashion that the subtle neutral feeling of our instinctual nature has been perverted by the intellect from Joy to indifference.
At least, that is how it looks from where I sit. I write more extensively about all of this in a series of blogs on security.
Namaste
Jerry--
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
separation
Posted December 23rd, 2008 by Michael McAlister in response to not three, just oneJerry,
Well done. Great points.
How is it, in your view, that both clinging and resistance are not the same move? In other words, one either goes after a given mind object in order to avoid fear, or one goes after something other than a given mind object in order to avoid fear. Either way the impulse is to go after something. Moving toward or away from anything still helps the "avoid-dance" along. Indifference, in the same way, is merely another style of this pattern of movement. But each move, regardless of style, is still part of the same dance that starts with the development of our sense of separation.
To continue, how is it that fear is anything other than simply the desire to avoid loss? At the core of fear is the sense that we are somehow not enough, not whole, not Spirit. Fear itself can only arise if a felt sense of separation exists. We can call this felt sense of separation the ego, the mind, the small self, or whatever else we might choose. But the job of this ego is to make sure that this sense of separation is maintained; that the avoid-dance continues. Breaking through this barrier means we stop avoiding everything and this can only occur when there is stillness. Seeing that we are neither separate from the whole, nor are we not separate from the whole diminishes fear which, in turn, uproots the compulsion to attach either to what is presented (clinging), or to something other than what is presented (avoidance).
Your thoughts?
Bows,
Michael
Please Log in to Vote.
0 out of 0 members found this useful.
the nature of fear
Posted December 23rd, 2008 by Jerry Sherwood in response to separationMichael,
You ask, “How is it, in your view, that both clinging and resistance are not the same move?” The simple answer is, that is not my in my view at all. My apologies if I did not make that point perfectly clear. So, let me quote from above, but this time with added emphasis. “I also agree that attachment, repulsion (the true opposite of attachment) and indifference are each only manifestations of one type of resistance.”
What I saw as the difference between our views was that rather than seeing them all as forms of “clinging” (as you seemed to imply in “Hooked”) I tend to see them as different forms of avoidance. But, from your response here I see that you can just as easily imply that clinging (attachment, love) and avoidance (repulsion, hate) are both forms of avoidance so the point is moot. It appears we are in total agreement; both views have validity and can be useful.
However, now you have made some statements about fear that bear closer examination.
In questioning you make the point that “fear is … simply the desire to avoid loss” and I agree, to a point. Fear is a feeling generated by our animal instincts and is designed by nature to prevent loss of life; the life of an individual member of a species and the life of the species as a collective. But, as such, it is free of “desire” as this implies will and intention, traits that are peculiar to humanity. (as far as we know)
Next you say, “At the core of fear is the sense that we are somehow not enough, not whole, not Spirit.” In light of my observation above I take a slight exception here. At the core of fear is a naturally arising instinct that is not attached to any notions whatsoever. But, I give you the benefit of the doubt and will agree that because of intellectual distortions, like the ones you note here, most human fears that are generated through our instincts are fueled by our deluded thoughts.
Your observation that, “Fear itself can only arise if a felt sense of separation exists” I find insightful and have a sense that you are spot on with this. And, since aversion (fear) is universal in the animal kingdom and probably has its prototype in other life forms as well I find this fascinating. It implies that there is a “felt sense” of boundaries in all animal forms and perhaps all life forms. (and perhaps beyond?)
But when you attribute this felt sense of separation to “… the ego, the mind, the small self, or whatever …” you lost me. Fear is clearly not limited to humanity; so if your former statement is true (and I suspect it is) then this statement would have to be false.
So, why am I nit picking so much on how you describe fear? Because, as I said before “… it is the misunderstanding of the true nature of fear that creates the illusion that supports [our] distorted reactions.” And, what is this illusion? That fear itself can somehow be avoided, as if it was something separate from us. And what are these distorted reactions? The activity of the ego as it carries out its self appointed task “… to make sure that this sense of separation is maintained” and strengthened.
As for the remainder of your response I have a couple of questions to ask, for the sake of clarification.
When you say, “Breaking through this barrier means we stop avoiding everything and this can only occur when there is stillness” do you mean that breaking through the barrier puts an end to avoidance? Or, do you mean that to stop avoiding is to break through the barrier?
And when you say, “Seeing that we are neither separate from the whole, nor are we not separate from the whole diminishes fear which, in turn, uproots the compulsion to attach either to what is presented (clinging), or to something other than what is presented (avoidance)” are you saying this happens in one fell swoop and we are then totally free? Or, is it only when we see clearly that we are free and that we can still experience times when we do not clearly see?
Thanks once again for joining me in this conversation. I trust you understand that I am in no way impugning you or your work. In fact I have a great deal of respect for you. I am looking forward to reading your book; it arrived by UPS as I was writing this.
Namaste,
Jerry
-----------------------
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.
Please Log in to Vote.
1 out of 1 members found this useful.
Not whole, not incomplete
Posted December 23rd, 2008 by Michael McAlister in response to the nature of fearJerry,
Thanks for the dialog, the challenge and the great questions... oh yeah, and for getting my book. Consider it signed.
Apologies in advance for the brevity, I'm on baby duty and she's due for a feeding.
You say: At the core of fear is a naturally arising instinct that is not attached to any notions whatsoever. But this is where consciousness gets in the mix. Of course we're animals and we avoid instinctively the prospect of disaster. The fear I'm addressing, however, has to do with an extrapolation of this instinct brought about by what appears to be the workings of our pre-frontal cortices. At least this is what I'm told. Sentient beings have an added component to this instinctive reactivity that accounts for a great deal of our suffering. Getting out of the way of an oncoming train, for example, requires nothing other than instinctively moving in order to preserve our lives. We're not thinking about it when we jump. There is no time for fear. We're just responding fully to what is arising in the moment, in this case an oncoming train.
Fear is built around the loss of something specific, at some future moment. Anxiety, we could say, is built around the sense that something not-so-specific might be taken away. Instinct can have a field day in either situation. But unlike animalistic avoidance, the actual emotional response of fear requires time in order to exist. For that matter so does the mind. Time is the key to all of this since without it, there can be, as we say in Zen, no mind. So when you say, … it is the misunderstanding of the true nature of fear that creates the illusion that supports [our] distorted reactions. I couldn't agree more. Our misunderstanding of the true nature of fear is that we don't see that it is bound by time. As this realization unfolds, we see that fear, time, and the mind can all become objects of our Awareness. As such they have no hold on our Awareness. From here there is only freedom.
In relation to this you ask: are you saying this happens in one fell swoop and we are then totally free? Or, is it only when we see clearly that we are free and that we can still experience times when we do not clearly see? When we clearly see that we are not clear, then Deep Clarity has a chance to inform our choices. This may sound goofy but what we're talking about here is shifting from the constraints of a very convincing play on the Stage of Mind into the expanse of being an Audience member in a limitless theater. As a member of the Audience there is only freedom.
If I go on much further I'll spoil the book. Enjoy.
Bows,
Michael
- Please Login to Add Comments
- Report Abuse
Please Log in to Vote.
2 out of 2 members found this useful.
on joy and resistance
Posted December 22nd, 2008 by Jerry SherwoodJerry--
It is in the clarity of Conscious Awareness that Truth is revealed.