I was just reading a chapter from Ed Podvoll's brilliant book The Seduction of Madness. I specifically read the chapter called "Recovery from Medication." I had this response:
I have deleted this post, in order to contemplate the topic further. I wasn't satisfied with the original post.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Three Selves
This blog entry is about an idea I call the Three Selves. In the constant conflict of the psyche, Carl Jung said that we must make the conflict conscious, otherwise it will be forced to impress itself upon us through our external world. It seems also that he believed that this conflict will not disappear when one illuminates the conflict within but will be seen as the conflict within. A conflict that I see clearly is between three ideas of what we view as our self.
The first self, is the self as we want it to be. This is the self that plagues us, it is the self that we have pieced together through our projections on other people. It is the idealized self, the self constructed both through our parental internalized messages, through the societal messages that are sometimes universal archetypes, and sometimes culturally specific, and through our personal social cues regarding our specific circumstances of growing up. This is our source of striving, of self criticism, and is the sense that our very experience is in some way deficient, inadequate, and uncompleted.
The second self, is the self we fear we are. This an aspect of what Jung called the Shadow, though what I refer to here is not just the unconscious negativity, but the things we have learned to abhor, the things we fear. In essence, the opposite of the idealized self.
The third self, is the self as it is. In this natural self, there is a lack of substance which could be mistaken for simple lack, as the self as it is, is in constant motion and lacks at times the coherence that we associate with the idealized self. As Jung pointed out, every person is looking for a sense of value intrinsic to their nature, and not derived from the outside. Without it, they will continue to project their sense of lack onto the other. In the natural self, is the only experience possible, the only numinous experience, the only experience of value. And yet the conflict between the three selves must be brought to light. The creation of the three selves as a conflict can only be the individual's search for value within their intrinsic existence, and the mistaken belief that this value will come from an external source.
No person is exempt from the trappings of the idealized self. This is the self which our parents and society, for the various reasons that exist, was attempted to be created within us. An interesting point, though not the subject of this post, is each individual's interpretation of that idealized self. Each is of course different, and so creates the conflict between individuals.
Much of the idealized self is unconscious for most people, as they will not be confronted with the loss of it. For instance, an aspect of the idealized self is a functional self, which in society maintains consistency and blends prettily with the others. For those of us who were confronted with the lack of this, such as myself who had a mother with mental illness, we became slightly if at all more conscious of this as an aspect of conflict.
For myself, I was very affected as a child by the media, and the idealized self images that were a part of the message of this media. For instance, I found the image of the seductress to be a part of my idealized self, in a very strong way. This was a result most likely of the combination of messages I received as a child growing up. My value I believed (and still tend to believe) was inextricably linked to my ability to seduce and hold the attention of the people around me. Without this, I became invisible, even to myself.
Interestingly, much of my experience of growing up was feeling invisible to a family that was perhaps too preoccupied with their own issues to look and see someone outside of themselves. This, and seeing the same tendency in others to magnify that which was missing in their childhood and possibly adult experience, leads me to believe that the pattern is somewhat like this: The individual seeks to understand success in personhood through their own sense of lack or failure. The achieving of success of personhood would then be illusioned to come from the attainment of characteristics which matched the idealized self. But this is an impossible goal, for an idealized self requires an experience of self from the outside. Which is not an experience of self at all. This could be said to be the origin of the conflict of the three selves. For then, the idealized self is constantly met with the self as it is.
And what of the self we fear we are? The self we fear to see? The truth of the three selves, is that they are all who we are. The self we fear we are, is the self that we see that opposes the idealized self. Within this view then there is no reason to fear the idealized self or its opposite, as they are like two children tumbling on the playground. They will fight each other until the end of time. And behind them lies the actual self, which includes both our fears and accomplishments. Interestingly, from this point of view, accomplishments are equally unimportant, but what is important, is the intrinsic value we place on ourselves as we are, and the way that our conflict displays itself to our consciousness.
The first self, is the self as we want it to be. This is the self that plagues us, it is the self that we have pieced together through our projections on other people. It is the idealized self, the self constructed both through our parental internalized messages, through the societal messages that are sometimes universal archetypes, and sometimes culturally specific, and through our personal social cues regarding our specific circumstances of growing up. This is our source of striving, of self criticism, and is the sense that our very experience is in some way deficient, inadequate, and uncompleted.
The second self, is the self we fear we are. This an aspect of what Jung called the Shadow, though what I refer to here is not just the unconscious negativity, but the things we have learned to abhor, the things we fear. In essence, the opposite of the idealized self.
The third self, is the self as it is. In this natural self, there is a lack of substance which could be mistaken for simple lack, as the self as it is, is in constant motion and lacks at times the coherence that we associate with the idealized self. As Jung pointed out, every person is looking for a sense of value intrinsic to their nature, and not derived from the outside. Without it, they will continue to project their sense of lack onto the other. In the natural self, is the only experience possible, the only numinous experience, the only experience of value. And yet the conflict between the three selves must be brought to light. The creation of the three selves as a conflict can only be the individual's search for value within their intrinsic existence, and the mistaken belief that this value will come from an external source.
No person is exempt from the trappings of the idealized self. This is the self which our parents and society, for the various reasons that exist, was attempted to be created within us. An interesting point, though not the subject of this post, is each individual's interpretation of that idealized self. Each is of course different, and so creates the conflict between individuals.
Much of the idealized self is unconscious for most people, as they will not be confronted with the loss of it. For instance, an aspect of the idealized self is a functional self, which in society maintains consistency and blends prettily with the others. For those of us who were confronted with the lack of this, such as myself who had a mother with mental illness, we became slightly if at all more conscious of this as an aspect of conflict.
For myself, I was very affected as a child by the media, and the idealized self images that were a part of the message of this media. For instance, I found the image of the seductress to be a part of my idealized self, in a very strong way. This was a result most likely of the combination of messages I received as a child growing up. My value I believed (and still tend to believe) was inextricably linked to my ability to seduce and hold the attention of the people around me. Without this, I became invisible, even to myself.
Interestingly, much of my experience of growing up was feeling invisible to a family that was perhaps too preoccupied with their own issues to look and see someone outside of themselves. This, and seeing the same tendency in others to magnify that which was missing in their childhood and possibly adult experience, leads me to believe that the pattern is somewhat like this: The individual seeks to understand success in personhood through their own sense of lack or failure. The achieving of success of personhood would then be illusioned to come from the attainment of characteristics which matched the idealized self. But this is an impossible goal, for an idealized self requires an experience of self from the outside. Which is not an experience of self at all. This could be said to be the origin of the conflict of the three selves. For then, the idealized self is constantly met with the self as it is.
And what of the self we fear we are? The self we fear to see? The truth of the three selves, is that they are all who we are. The self we fear we are, is the self that we see that opposes the idealized self. Within this view then there is no reason to fear the idealized self or its opposite, as they are like two children tumbling on the playground. They will fight each other until the end of time. And behind them lies the actual self, which includes both our fears and accomplishments. Interestingly, from this point of view, accomplishments are equally unimportant, but what is important, is the intrinsic value we place on ourselves as we are, and the way that our conflict displays itself to our consciousness.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
We Have a Self, Whether We Need One or Not
I am in therapy, and I have reached an interesting point with my therapist. I am feeling as though I must disagree with him on a basic philosophical point. He has told me many times a quote from a meditation teacher which says, "You need to have a healthy self in order to lose it." I can appreciate this sentiment in as much as it points to the unfortunate reality of spiritual bypassing, when we attempt to skip over the issues of our "self" and attempt to realize non-existence without realizing the full manifestation of our existence, which is, of course, disasterous.
But is this whole thing actually as linear as this quote implies? I doubt it.
I have been contemplating this as of late, and wondering if in fact the process of developing a healthy self cannot exclude an understanding of no-self. Let's start with why one has an unhealthy self to begin with.
We can agree - hopefully - that no one has a completely healthy self, as long as they are completely indentified with their individuality. Because, if we are contemplatives, we know that the self is based to some degree on a basic anxiety which is the fear of death. Beyond that, most people have basic styles of neuroses for dealing with this anxiety. Like being too controlling, being too much of a push-over, tending toward anger, tending toward smoothing over things with fake happiness, whatever, you name it, humans do it.
Beyond that, there are much more serious problems. I think these problems are more along the lines that the statement "you need a healthy self in order to forget it," are referring to.
Many of us, due to a variety of circumstances, did not develop a healthy, separate , and distinct sense of self. Perhaps we experienced trauma, abuse, or enmeshment. Perhaps we did not attach properly to our primary care-givers. There are many causes which can lead to a sense of self which is fragmented. Where the person may not understand where they begin and end, where the person may not be able to track their own emotional states, where a person may not feel connected to themselves in a wholesome fashion. There are many forms of this, and as I said, many causes, and it is rather common. So the implication of the statement in question is that one must solve this fragmented self, heal it, fix it. And then that person can go about learning the "true nature" of the self as empty, without inherent existence.
There is a fallacy in this theory, and perhaps more than one.
The first is that from a contemplative perspective, the reason that the sense of self can get fucked up, fragmented, etc. is that it does not exist in the first place. Most people who experience fragmentation of their self, are simultaneously experiencing non-existence.
Non-existence is tricky. It is not like a disappearing act, where the self is gone. No it is not that simple. It is seeing through the self. Seeing that the self is in fact a sort of dance, a play if you will, a set of actors wearing costumes, and when the costumes are taken off, they fall to the ground, with nothing to hold them up.
When a person experiences trauma, they experience and unexpected break in the self. Our survival mechanism is strong, and so this causes extreme fear.
In order to heal this fear, the person must begin to understand that what they are experiencing in terms of fragmentation and fear is not abnormal. It is in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable.
Perhaps though, a contemplative person on a path of meditation in this situation, could also be helped to understand that their experience of no-self, is also in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable. This would seem to ease the tendency of the self to hide from its own reality. To hide from its own fear of death by hiding from death itself. By normalizing non-existence, the fear of it could be partially quelled. By thinking that we can by-pass non-existence for the self, must also be wrong. They both happen simultaneously.
We cannot build walls between ourselves and death. The reality of non-existence surrounds us. Many practitioners with an "unhealthy" sense of self actually know this better than those practitioners with a "healthy" sense of self. To ask a practitioner in this situation to not pay attention to non-existence seems like more of the same, more smoke and mirrors leading in a sense to a greater potential for re-experiencing trauma.
Now, lets look at another aspect of this discussion: The "healthy" self.
What is a healthy self? If you google "healthy sense of self" (most DEFINITELY not the best source for psychological info - but it is late and I am lazy) you will get a lot of pages talking about self-esteem. Thinking highly of yourself. I would take this to a somewhat deeper level and say that a healthy sense of self includes a sense of intrinsic self-worth.
In addition, the healthy self includes the ability to move through emotional states and situations without getting deeply stuck or caught in fear and doubt, allowing the human exchange to be fluid, largely positive, and imbued with some degree of clarity about ones own experience.*
(*This is most obviously my definition. I promise to do more citing in my next post).
Where does this type of self come from? Ideally, It comes from great brain chemistry, excellent endocrine function, and kick-ass healthy loving parents with great boundaries. But, if we did not or do not have these things, then what then? Obviously, relearning relational things is important, re-organizing thinking patterns, repatterning relationships, healing old trauma in the body, these are all important, vital things.
I would add however, that a healthy self is an evolving self. In order to truly be a healthy self, the self must not be in fear of itself. It must know that it can look at all aspects of its own experience, without hiding from itself. This is where fragmentation comes from.
To not hide, is to evolve. Evolution of the self, comes from deeper and deeper seeing of things as they are, not just as we want them or think we need them to be. Things as they are, are inherently paradoxical, and through paradox, we become larger, and more complex. Simultaneously, evolution of the self allows us to become more simple, as we develop a greater trust in basic reality. Evolution is vital to the healthy self. Without it, the self must actually create false walls in order to hide from reality.
But where does evolution lead? Why, funny you should ask, evolution leads to non-existence! Evolution inherently points directly at the universal identity that has no preference. There is a road to get there, obviously, but each point of evolution identified by the self, includes a greater understanding, a nearer understanding of this ultimate point. This ultimate point is of course glimped along the way, but each glimpse is colored by the degree to which the self has evolved. The self itself must understand both its existence and its non-existence, healthy or not, in order to become whole. Wholeness in the psychological sense may not actually be the ultimate no-preference of non-existence. But even psychological wholeness specifically could not hide from non-existence, as that would be fragmentation. No, wholeness must point to non-existence as a possibility, as non-existence also points to the self, "healthy" or not.
So the statement "you have to have a healthy self in order to lose it," may in fact not be completely true. It depends on ones view of enlightenment. But regardless, I don't think any path to healing and wholeness could possible preclude reality itself. This would be a further step into madness.
Singning off-
Jenna
But is this whole thing actually as linear as this quote implies? I doubt it.
I have been contemplating this as of late, and wondering if in fact the process of developing a healthy self cannot exclude an understanding of no-self. Let's start with why one has an unhealthy self to begin with.
We can agree - hopefully - that no one has a completely healthy self, as long as they are completely indentified with their individuality. Because, if we are contemplatives, we know that the self is based to some degree on a basic anxiety which is the fear of death. Beyond that, most people have basic styles of neuroses for dealing with this anxiety. Like being too controlling, being too much of a push-over, tending toward anger, tending toward smoothing over things with fake happiness, whatever, you name it, humans do it.
Beyond that, there are much more serious problems. I think these problems are more along the lines that the statement "you need a healthy self in order to forget it," are referring to.
Many of us, due to a variety of circumstances, did not develop a healthy, separate , and distinct sense of self. Perhaps we experienced trauma, abuse, or enmeshment. Perhaps we did not attach properly to our primary care-givers. There are many causes which can lead to a sense of self which is fragmented. Where the person may not understand where they begin and end, where the person may not be able to track their own emotional states, where a person may not feel connected to themselves in a wholesome fashion. There are many forms of this, and as I said, many causes, and it is rather common. So the implication of the statement in question is that one must solve this fragmented self, heal it, fix it. And then that person can go about learning the "true nature" of the self as empty, without inherent existence.
There is a fallacy in this theory, and perhaps more than one.
The first is that from a contemplative perspective, the reason that the sense of self can get fucked up, fragmented, etc. is that it does not exist in the first place. Most people who experience fragmentation of their self, are simultaneously experiencing non-existence.
Non-existence is tricky. It is not like a disappearing act, where the self is gone. No it is not that simple. It is seeing through the self. Seeing that the self is in fact a sort of dance, a play if you will, a set of actors wearing costumes, and when the costumes are taken off, they fall to the ground, with nothing to hold them up.
When a person experiences trauma, they experience and unexpected break in the self. Our survival mechanism is strong, and so this causes extreme fear.
In order to heal this fear, the person must begin to understand that what they are experiencing in terms of fragmentation and fear is not abnormal. It is in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable.
Perhaps though, a contemplative person on a path of meditation in this situation, could also be helped to understand that their experience of no-self, is also in fact, completely normal, predictable, understandable. This would seem to ease the tendency of the self to hide from its own reality. To hide from its own fear of death by hiding from death itself. By normalizing non-existence, the fear of it could be partially quelled. By thinking that we can by-pass non-existence for the self, must also be wrong. They both happen simultaneously.
We cannot build walls between ourselves and death. The reality of non-existence surrounds us. Many practitioners with an "unhealthy" sense of self actually know this better than those practitioners with a "healthy" sense of self. To ask a practitioner in this situation to not pay attention to non-existence seems like more of the same, more smoke and mirrors leading in a sense to a greater potential for re-experiencing trauma.
Now, lets look at another aspect of this discussion: The "healthy" self.
What is a healthy self? If you google "healthy sense of self" (most DEFINITELY not the best source for psychological info - but it is late and I am lazy) you will get a lot of pages talking about self-esteem. Thinking highly of yourself. I would take this to a somewhat deeper level and say that a healthy sense of self includes a sense of intrinsic self-worth.
In addition, the healthy self includes the ability to move through emotional states and situations without getting deeply stuck or caught in fear and doubt, allowing the human exchange to be fluid, largely positive, and imbued with some degree of clarity about ones own experience.*
(*This is most obviously my definition. I promise to do more citing in my next post).
Where does this type of self come from? Ideally, It comes from great brain chemistry, excellent endocrine function, and kick-ass healthy loving parents with great boundaries. But, if we did not or do not have these things, then what then? Obviously, relearning relational things is important, re-organizing thinking patterns, repatterning relationships, healing old trauma in the body, these are all important, vital things.
I would add however, that a healthy self is an evolving self. In order to truly be a healthy self, the self must not be in fear of itself. It must know that it can look at all aspects of its own experience, without hiding from itself. This is where fragmentation comes from.
To not hide, is to evolve. Evolution of the self, comes from deeper and deeper seeing of things as they are, not just as we want them or think we need them to be. Things as they are, are inherently paradoxical, and through paradox, we become larger, and more complex. Simultaneously, evolution of the self allows us to become more simple, as we develop a greater trust in basic reality. Evolution is vital to the healthy self. Without it, the self must actually create false walls in order to hide from reality.
But where does evolution lead? Why, funny you should ask, evolution leads to non-existence! Evolution inherently points directly at the universal identity that has no preference. There is a road to get there, obviously, but each point of evolution identified by the self, includes a greater understanding, a nearer understanding of this ultimate point. This ultimate point is of course glimped along the way, but each glimpse is colored by the degree to which the self has evolved. The self itself must understand both its existence and its non-existence, healthy or not, in order to become whole. Wholeness in the psychological sense may not actually be the ultimate no-preference of non-existence. But even psychological wholeness specifically could not hide from non-existence, as that would be fragmentation. No, wholeness must point to non-existence as a possibility, as non-existence also points to the self, "healthy" or not.
So the statement "you have to have a healthy self in order to lose it," may in fact not be completely true. It depends on ones view of enlightenment. But regardless, I don't think any path to healing and wholeness could possible preclude reality itself. This would be a further step into madness.
Singning off-
Jenna
Monday, September 17, 2007
Priveledge, Development, and the Fall from Arrogance
Hi! Long time since I posted. Latest essay:
Our embarrassment is key to our development. Arrogance, or hiding our vulnerability, is our way of abandoning our self. We abandon our self in this way for a variety of reasons. Throughout our lives we are told that being wrong, being incorrect, making mistakes, are all bad things that will cause us to fail in our lives. We are told that if we are suffering, it is because we have made a mistake, and if we ceased to make mistakes, we would cease to suffer. The truth is, we cannot help but make mistakes. Because, in fact, there are no rules at all in life, things are constantly changing and who we are is always in some way inherently at odds with things in our environment, and ourselves for that matter. This is nature, it is the chaotic element, it is the element that demands of us relaxation, of surrender to what is. But we try to accommodate what we see as the “right” way to be. And ironically, the more privilege we have, the more we have to cover over. Privilege is in essence a covering-over. To have wealth is to cover over the basic anxieties of life. To have health is the same. To be attractive, can also at times offer protection from basic fears of aloneness and security. To be educated, etc, offers us a way to cover over the fact that we are in a precarious situation as humans, subject to illness and death at any time. Arrogance is nothing more than the belief that this privilege is inherent to life. It is, of course, not. Privilege is super-imposed over the basic structure of nature. It is not in itself wrong or bad, but when it is used to avoid reality, it becomes like a prison, hiding our basic human-ness and cutting off the possibility of connecting with the human race in a joyful way.
When we are privileged in one way, and in the presence of someone who is not, we feel the awkwardness, the ingenuineness of our situation. As a person born into privilege, I have experienced this a lot in my life. Being around a person in poverty or in extremely poor health I felt stupid, embarrassed. This is an appropriate reaction, not because I should feel that way, but because I had the wrong belief that my privilege was who I was, it was inherent to my life, to life itself, and so its absence could only be explained by blaming the person for whom it was absent. In the face of suffering, this blame becomes ridiculous, and so there is a natural feeling of embarrassment in recognizing ones own arrogance.
This state of ignorance, or arrogant privilege is an alienation from our true self, our genuine state of being. In this state of arrogance, we do not realize our own helplessness, our own ineptitude in the face of the forces of nature. By becoming intimate with this sense of basic pain, suffering, and helplessness, ironically, we become empowered. We become empowered for the basic fact that we have connected with our ground, with our actual situation. Our arrogance about ourselves and our lives was false, and we knew it. Knowing we are fundamentally stupid, makes us intelligent. In seeing that we are fundamentally not able to control life, we relax. In knowing that we are fundamentally helpless, we become empowered.
Why is this? Because in connecting with the ground of all human beings, we feel in connection with nature itself. We lose our fear of our own falseness. We see that there is nothing left to be embarrassed about, nothing left to hide, and that is freedom, of a type. This freedom actually releases our true human connection, our ability to see other people without guilt, without fear, and without hatred. We feel that at any point we can recognize our own faults, our own mistakes, our own ignorance when it arises, and in this way do not have to fear ourselves or others. We can, in essence, be ourselves.
It this “coming home” interestingly enough, is our connection to the entire human race, our humanity, our love, our selflessness. And so the paradox is born: In stupidity, intelligence; in ignorance, wisdom; in humility, self-love; in self-love, selflessness.
Our embarrassment is key to our development. Arrogance, or hiding our vulnerability, is our way of abandoning our self. We abandon our self in this way for a variety of reasons. Throughout our lives we are told that being wrong, being incorrect, making mistakes, are all bad things that will cause us to fail in our lives. We are told that if we are suffering, it is because we have made a mistake, and if we ceased to make mistakes, we would cease to suffer. The truth is, we cannot help but make mistakes. Because, in fact, there are no rules at all in life, things are constantly changing and who we are is always in some way inherently at odds with things in our environment, and ourselves for that matter. This is nature, it is the chaotic element, it is the element that demands of us relaxation, of surrender to what is. But we try to accommodate what we see as the “right” way to be. And ironically, the more privilege we have, the more we have to cover over. Privilege is in essence a covering-over. To have wealth is to cover over the basic anxieties of life. To have health is the same. To be attractive, can also at times offer protection from basic fears of aloneness and security. To be educated, etc, offers us a way to cover over the fact that we are in a precarious situation as humans, subject to illness and death at any time. Arrogance is nothing more than the belief that this privilege is inherent to life. It is, of course, not. Privilege is super-imposed over the basic structure of nature. It is not in itself wrong or bad, but when it is used to avoid reality, it becomes like a prison, hiding our basic human-ness and cutting off the possibility of connecting with the human race in a joyful way.
When we are privileged in one way, and in the presence of someone who is not, we feel the awkwardness, the ingenuineness of our situation. As a person born into privilege, I have experienced this a lot in my life. Being around a person in poverty or in extremely poor health I felt stupid, embarrassed. This is an appropriate reaction, not because I should feel that way, but because I had the wrong belief that my privilege was who I was, it was inherent to my life, to life itself, and so its absence could only be explained by blaming the person for whom it was absent. In the face of suffering, this blame becomes ridiculous, and so there is a natural feeling of embarrassment in recognizing ones own arrogance.
This state of ignorance, or arrogant privilege is an alienation from our true self, our genuine state of being. In this state of arrogance, we do not realize our own helplessness, our own ineptitude in the face of the forces of nature. By becoming intimate with this sense of basic pain, suffering, and helplessness, ironically, we become empowered. We become empowered for the basic fact that we have connected with our ground, with our actual situation. Our arrogance about ourselves and our lives was false, and we knew it. Knowing we are fundamentally stupid, makes us intelligent. In seeing that we are fundamentally not able to control life, we relax. In knowing that we are fundamentally helpless, we become empowered.
Why is this? Because in connecting with the ground of all human beings, we feel in connection with nature itself. We lose our fear of our own falseness. We see that there is nothing left to be embarrassed about, nothing left to hide, and that is freedom, of a type. This freedom actually releases our true human connection, our ability to see other people without guilt, without fear, and without hatred. We feel that at any point we can recognize our own faults, our own mistakes, our own ignorance when it arises, and in this way do not have to fear ourselves or others. We can, in essence, be ourselves.
It this “coming home” interestingly enough, is our connection to the entire human race, our humanity, our love, our selflessness. And so the paradox is born: In stupidity, intelligence; in ignorance, wisdom; in humility, self-love; in self-love, selflessness.
Monday, September 04, 2006
A Distant Look at Poverty
Hi to all those who read this blog! (Not many I presume). It has been a while. Not that I haven't been boiling over with ideas but not an inspiration to write them. I just read Catherine Ingram's introduction to her book In the Footsteps of Gandhi for the second time, and though I think the book is stupendous, I suddenly felt that if I read another white rich person give their resume of Eastern contemplation and meditation, and then brag about how their well-fed low-cholesterol heart has been ripped open by the poverty of the third world I might puke.
Okay, I know that is truly ridiculous because of course their hearts are ripped open, especially if they have been meditating for 12.5 years, or even if they have never meditated, because it is truly a shocking thing to witness extreme poverty. And furthermore, of course they are writing about it because they are the ones with the education and means for attaining publication. My nausea was actually personal and has more to do with my own confusion and inertia than anything else.
I am now a TA for a class called "Spiritual Models of Social Action." In this class we study Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Desmond Tutu, among others (-even women!) all of whom have explored and expressed social action birthed from contemplation of the spiritual. This is a primary interest of mine.
What is truly helpful in this world? It is true that it often appears hopeless when there are people fasting to the point of illness in protest of the war and President Bush smiles into the camera utterly unnaffected. Do we give up attempting to reach politicians? Do we throw away our modern lives to travel to places where we can work more directly with governments more porous than our own? Do we live in the inner-cities of our own country in an attempt to reach those most affected by the imbalance of the modern ways?
Do we sit in our houses writing blogs and waiting for inspiration to seize us into booking a decisive flight on travelocity?
I do not know.
The other question is: Whose pain do we want to mitigate? Is Catherine Ingram trying to save the world, or attempting to quiet the questions in her own heart? It seems to me that it is the latter for most of us, and perhaps along the way we find a selfless heart amidst our own journey.
I have of late been contemplating vocation, as I just graduated from a Masters program. As of late I have been craving an emancipation from the "disease of American prolongued adolecense." This disease seems to manifest for most, myself included, in an inability and disinterest in the intellectual pursuit of selfless integration into the working world. I am not talking about becoming Mother Theresa and opening an orphanage/hospice/contemplative halfway house. I am referring to the ability to realize vocation fully through the human means available to us. That is, if in fact we are modern people, which I assume anyone reading this blog most likely is, and we have access to education, etc., than we have the means to bring ourselves into the circles of conversation which have throughout history documented the opening and expansion of human thought and human consciousness. Some would argue that intellectualism is unneccessary as really we must move beyond thought into the realm of the Ultimate. But this is truly short-sighted. In actuality it is only thought itself which can lead us to the Ultimate (thus all the world wisdom traditions and contemplative philisophical pursuits). And through education we can bring ourselves into conversation with those who contemplate the spreading of peaceful ways and the opening of the modern human mind.
What is limiting our access to this conversation? This is a huge question, as it has to do with oppression in many arenas and in many levels. Obviously education will not serve alone to bring one into this larger converstation. For education cannot overcome histories of oppression as many people of color have suffered, for instance. This affects language, the ability to be heard by the larger community, and all sorts of other aspects of communication. How, then, can we help the oppressed to enter this conversation? We must ourselves first be a part of it. So, here I will explore briefly my own self-imposed limitations in this area.
I must first realize what I have to contribute. This has to do with my personal life experience, my race, my education, my gender, etc. To narrow things even further, it has to do with my areas of interest. Through understanding these things I can more easily contribute. Furthermore I must not limit the arenas in which I contribute. The more ways I attempt to make contact with the larger conversation, the more likely I am going to reach someone who has an interest in responding, thus creating movement in the direction of greater understanding, which is always the goal of conversation.
So I don't really mean to pick on Catherine Ingram who has written a truly beautiful expression of her vocation, however, I do want to pick on the modern spiritual tendency to stick with emotions and meditation and avoid intellectualization. Let's not be afraid to think!
Okay I will stop there and head off to bed.
Good night!
Okay, I know that is truly ridiculous because of course their hearts are ripped open, especially if they have been meditating for 12.5 years, or even if they have never meditated, because it is truly a shocking thing to witness extreme poverty. And furthermore, of course they are writing about it because they are the ones with the education and means for attaining publication. My nausea was actually personal and has more to do with my own confusion and inertia than anything else.
I am now a TA for a class called "Spiritual Models of Social Action." In this class we study Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Desmond Tutu, among others (-even women!) all of whom have explored and expressed social action birthed from contemplation of the spiritual. This is a primary interest of mine.
What is truly helpful in this world? It is true that it often appears hopeless when there are people fasting to the point of illness in protest of the war and President Bush smiles into the camera utterly unnaffected. Do we give up attempting to reach politicians? Do we throw away our modern lives to travel to places where we can work more directly with governments more porous than our own? Do we live in the inner-cities of our own country in an attempt to reach those most affected by the imbalance of the modern ways?
Do we sit in our houses writing blogs and waiting for inspiration to seize us into booking a decisive flight on travelocity?
I do not know.
The other question is: Whose pain do we want to mitigate? Is Catherine Ingram trying to save the world, or attempting to quiet the questions in her own heart? It seems to me that it is the latter for most of us, and perhaps along the way we find a selfless heart amidst our own journey.
I have of late been contemplating vocation, as I just graduated from a Masters program. As of late I have been craving an emancipation from the "disease of American prolongued adolecense." This disease seems to manifest for most, myself included, in an inability and disinterest in the intellectual pursuit of selfless integration into the working world. I am not talking about becoming Mother Theresa and opening an orphanage/hospice/contemplative halfway house. I am referring to the ability to realize vocation fully through the human means available to us. That is, if in fact we are modern people, which I assume anyone reading this blog most likely is, and we have access to education, etc., than we have the means to bring ourselves into the circles of conversation which have throughout history documented the opening and expansion of human thought and human consciousness. Some would argue that intellectualism is unneccessary as really we must move beyond thought into the realm of the Ultimate. But this is truly short-sighted. In actuality it is only thought itself which can lead us to the Ultimate (thus all the world wisdom traditions and contemplative philisophical pursuits). And through education we can bring ourselves into conversation with those who contemplate the spreading of peaceful ways and the opening of the modern human mind.
What is limiting our access to this conversation? This is a huge question, as it has to do with oppression in many arenas and in many levels. Obviously education will not serve alone to bring one into this larger converstation. For education cannot overcome histories of oppression as many people of color have suffered, for instance. This affects language, the ability to be heard by the larger community, and all sorts of other aspects of communication. How, then, can we help the oppressed to enter this conversation? We must ourselves first be a part of it. So, here I will explore briefly my own self-imposed limitations in this area.
I must first realize what I have to contribute. This has to do with my personal life experience, my race, my education, my gender, etc. To narrow things even further, it has to do with my areas of interest. Through understanding these things I can more easily contribute. Furthermore I must not limit the arenas in which I contribute. The more ways I attempt to make contact with the larger conversation, the more likely I am going to reach someone who has an interest in responding, thus creating movement in the direction of greater understanding, which is always the goal of conversation.
So I don't really mean to pick on Catherine Ingram who has written a truly beautiful expression of her vocation, however, I do want to pick on the modern spiritual tendency to stick with emotions and meditation and avoid intellectualization. Let's not be afraid to think!
Okay I will stop there and head off to bed.
Good night!
Monday, June 19, 2006
Meditation Corner
Okay boys and girls, here we are in my newly designated "meditation corner." I am no dharma teacher (that would be bad karma!) however, after meditating for 12 years I have noticed a few things. First of all, through the process of meditation, we tend to peel off layers of the constructed self. This is well discussed by many real dharma teachers all over the world, and yet even very advanced dharma practitioners seem to miss it. It reminds me of that scene in Star Wars III where the governor (or whoever that guy is who brings Darth Vader over to the dark side) morphs into his true self. Now actually, in terms of the path of meditation, that is not actually his true self. His face changes and he becomes incrediby deformed. (I totally love that scene). This happens often to meditators who begin genuine seeking. After a time, they may become sick or strange or not recognize themselves in the mirror. Often times this is misunderstood, as I myself did, as a discovery of who we "really are." More accurately, this would be described as "who we really think we are." Sometimes, under a layer of personality, lies a hidden (to our conscious psyhes) self-loathing, a belief that we are useless or undeserving. When this emerges as the only accessible layer, we mistake it for our real and hidden identity, which is simply a part of the layer. On the flip side, some find a layer of arrogance. Some meditate for years, something falls away, and suddenly the meditator thinks they are Jesus Christ. Again, it would be a mistake to think that this was a discovery of the true self. It is simply a layer of identity. Most of us have all of these layers which we must peel away at an excruciating rate. Unfortunately, people can get stuck at certain layers. What happens if a meditator has an experience of a state which is blissful, perhaps buddha-like? Their particular layer of unconscious material might say, "I knew I could get enlightened, and it's happening right now." What then? Where in these traditions is there a checks and balance system for this type of experience? It is important to remember that all of these experiences are relative experiences. From the perspective of the self, the ultimate does not even exist, only more layers of self. From the perspective of the ultimate, the self doesn't exist. Reliance on the guru these days does not insure, unfortunately, a proper reflection.
Just some things to chew on.
Just some things to chew on.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Satin or Satan?
Well I got the first comment on my blog which was an accusation that I am in fact really Satan. Or actually, the person wrote "Satin" and though I was flattered, I knew what they really meant. It is actually perfect because my good friend Annie Mcquade at Integral just gave me a sticker that says, "Even the Devil is God," and I just put it on my car. Don't get to leave anything out, do we? Too bad! (Or too satanic), (Or not satanic enough-which is it?)
So, I wanted to clarify something about "chosen form." This term in no way refers to the kind of new age interpretation of picking and choosing pieces of spirituality and mashing them together into a sort of "everything is truth that has been done in the name of spirituality" pile of goop. Chosen form is spirituality which comes from a definite depth of practice, where the imposed super-ego of religion which says, "if you don't do this you are not getting any dessert" or whatever it is, is gone. In fact, it comes with the realization that there is in fact no dessert, only dinner, which we are already eating. In this sense, chosen form could be absolutely anything in terms of tradition and practice, as there is no longer the pointed finger wagging at the book of right and wrong, which doesn't exist anyway.
For many indigenous people, there is seemingly a different process, as the form was never imposed to begin with, but rather integrated into their cultural living in such a way that they actually identified positively with it. This is not always true, however, but perhaps appraoches explaining why this process of moving from imposed to chosen is more of a modern issue.
[I am only explaining this in order to clarify the point of view of the blog.]
So let's say for instance that your first imposed form was Christianity. After which, you realized it was imposed and moved to a supposedly chosen form of Buddhism. After years of practicing Buddhism as a religion, you realize that you are practicing Buddhism in almost the same way as you practiced Christianity only now the voice is inside your head instead of outside, so it was MUCH harder to hear. The forms assisted you in hearing this however (as they were created by someone practicing authentically chosen forms), and now you must transition to authentic chosen form, letting go of whatever outcome the super-ego has set for you.
So, I wanted to clarify something about "chosen form." This term in no way refers to the kind of new age interpretation of picking and choosing pieces of spirituality and mashing them together into a sort of "everything is truth that has been done in the name of spirituality" pile of goop. Chosen form is spirituality which comes from a definite depth of practice, where the imposed super-ego of religion which says, "if you don't do this you are not getting any dessert" or whatever it is, is gone. In fact, it comes with the realization that there is in fact no dessert, only dinner, which we are already eating. In this sense, chosen form could be absolutely anything in terms of tradition and practice, as there is no longer the pointed finger wagging at the book of right and wrong, which doesn't exist anyway.
For many indigenous people, there is seemingly a different process, as the form was never imposed to begin with, but rather integrated into their cultural living in such a way that they actually identified positively with it. This is not always true, however, but perhaps appraoches explaining why this process of moving from imposed to chosen is more of a modern issue.
[I am only explaining this in order to clarify the point of view of the blog.]
So let's say for instance that your first imposed form was Christianity. After which, you realized it was imposed and moved to a supposedly chosen form of Buddhism. After years of practicing Buddhism as a religion, you realize that you are practicing Buddhism in almost the same way as you practiced Christianity only now the voice is inside your head instead of outside, so it was MUCH harder to hear. The forms assisted you in hearing this however (as they were created by someone practicing authentically chosen forms), and now you must transition to authentic chosen form, letting go of whatever outcome the super-ego has set for you.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Child Prostitution and Expensive Dharma
Okay, I said that was it for today but I was wrong. I just saw the movie Water which was truly an astounding representation of widows in India in the late 30's at the time of Gandhi's influence. I will not ruin it for you but suffice to say it is a shocking account of the suffering and oppression of women, recommended for all but very young audiences.
I began to think again of my irritation at spiritual teachers who claim that prayer and meditation are what we need to reconcile the pain of this world. This, in my opinion, is utter bullshit, and serves to reveal the low level of psychological development that most spiritual teachers have, in that they cannot accept the fact that the pain of this world is unreconcilable but that does NOT mean that we as a species reach our highest evolution when we cease to involve ourselves with those who cannot free themselves from it. In fact, if we deny our human connection to those with "negative karma" we are denying the most basic and fundamental and simple potential of human life, which is compassion and love. How will we find out how human we are without feeling helpless and stupid? I believe it is surely impossible, and furthermore realizing our humanness is our only hope for any type of realization. For what humans became other than human when they realized the Truth??
A particular source of irritation for me (and I have many as you will see as this blog progresses) are "spiritual" teachers who charge exorbitant rates for their teachings, like upwards of $3000 - $4000 for a retreat that they claim is the only way their students can receive the REAL spiritual truth. This is simply not true and never will be: No one individual has the corner on the truth, or anyone's individual path of the unfolding of their wisdom. Luckily this unfolding comes in as many forms as there are sentient beings. When a teacher says, 'But you must come to this retreat. This is where it's happening. Don't think about the money. The money will come." What about lowering the cost of the retreat? Evo Morales, Bolivia's president who calls himself an "Amerindian President," immediately cut his salary by 57% in the old way of teaching by example. But also there was a razor sharp practical edge to Morales's salary cut. In order to accomplish his aim's, the people needed more money. In the Buddhist world, I think there is a major slip up by teachers who have accumulated fame through their albeit genuinely helpful teachings: They seem to feel that fame, and the current rate of inflation, justifies giving teachings that are only accessible to a certain socio-economic group. This group not only has lots of disposable income, but they also have the ability to leave their job at a whim and spend weeks or months even on a retreat. Or conversely, they are willing to risk being homeless and jobless to spend all their savings, and leave their job for too long. This is a select group of people, many of whom have family who will help them, or nest eggs set aside in the 80's, or are self employed. Interestingly, many jobs that bring people closer to society and it's needs and ills, those who work in the trenches (yes I am in this group working at a homeless shelter) who are spiritual in their desire to serve, are the very ones' stuck in a working class category that looks at this other socioeconomic world through a bit of glass. Sure I would like to go on a retreat for a month that costs $3000, but I am a bit concerned with losing my health insurance. And since I only make $35,000 and have large student loans from my Master's in Buddhism, I have no real savings to speak of, so hopefully I won't lose my job.
I began to think again of my irritation at spiritual teachers who claim that prayer and meditation are what we need to reconcile the pain of this world. This, in my opinion, is utter bullshit, and serves to reveal the low level of psychological development that most spiritual teachers have, in that they cannot accept the fact that the pain of this world is unreconcilable but that does NOT mean that we as a species reach our highest evolution when we cease to involve ourselves with those who cannot free themselves from it. In fact, if we deny our human connection to those with "negative karma" we are denying the most basic and fundamental and simple potential of human life, which is compassion and love. How will we find out how human we are without feeling helpless and stupid? I believe it is surely impossible, and furthermore realizing our humanness is our only hope for any type of realization. For what humans became other than human when they realized the Truth??
A particular source of irritation for me (and I have many as you will see as this blog progresses) are "spiritual" teachers who charge exorbitant rates for their teachings, like upwards of $3000 - $4000 for a retreat that they claim is the only way their students can receive the REAL spiritual truth. This is simply not true and never will be: No one individual has the corner on the truth, or anyone's individual path of the unfolding of their wisdom. Luckily this unfolding comes in as many forms as there are sentient beings. When a teacher says, 'But you must come to this retreat. This is where it's happening. Don't think about the money. The money will come." What about lowering the cost of the retreat? Evo Morales, Bolivia's president who calls himself an "Amerindian President," immediately cut his salary by 57% in the old way of teaching by example. But also there was a razor sharp practical edge to Morales's salary cut. In order to accomplish his aim's, the people needed more money. In the Buddhist world, I think there is a major slip up by teachers who have accumulated fame through their albeit genuinely helpful teachings: They seem to feel that fame, and the current rate of inflation, justifies giving teachings that are only accessible to a certain socio-economic group. This group not only has lots of disposable income, but they also have the ability to leave their job at a whim and spend weeks or months even on a retreat. Or conversely, they are willing to risk being homeless and jobless to spend all their savings, and leave their job for too long. This is a select group of people, many of whom have family who will help them, or nest eggs set aside in the 80's, or are self employed. Interestingly, many jobs that bring people closer to society and it's needs and ills, those who work in the trenches (yes I am in this group working at a homeless shelter) who are spiritual in their desire to serve, are the very ones' stuck in a working class category that looks at this other socioeconomic world through a bit of glass. Sure I would like to go on a retreat for a month that costs $3000, but I am a bit concerned with losing my health insurance. And since I only make $35,000 and have large student loans from my Master's in Buddhism, I have no real savings to speak of, so hopefully I won't lose my job.
But here is the kicker: part of these teachings are about facing fear, losing ground, stopping being controlled by a consensus society that fabricated rules and boundaries which keep you imprisoned in a non-existent self which is the root of all suffering. Tie that with a message of "don't fall into a poverty mentality around money, don't be afraid to take risks" and I might just be singing up on my credit card for a $4000 month long retreat, with my deep longing for inner and outer peace, and my connection to the teacher who leads the retreat.
It is not the retreat itself that is the problem, or the teacher, or the teachings. It is simply the cost of the whole thing and the lack of recognition of most people's actual financial situations. It reminds me a bit of private schools, GRE prep courses, and all the other ways we self select in this country who gets to be educated. It has become the same with some spiritual "journeys." All I am saying is, let's look at cutting costs. Let's cut the teacher's salary in half, like Evo Morales! Maybe the teacher should live in an apartment, instead of a house, until he gets enough students at a reasonable rate to fund his savings account, and he can have enough for a down payment. Sounds more normal, more integrated. Don't these teachers want to understand their students? And if not, why not?
It was hard for me, when the beloved Jack Kornfield came to Mount Madonna Center where I lived at the time, gave beautiful teachings to largely middle to upper class people, and young people willing to risk homelessness to see him, for exorbitant rates, and then I laid a check for thousands of dollars, his payment for 3 days of teaching, next to him expensive leather shoes.
Not that he shouldn't have nice shoes! He should. But like his students, he could save for them. Perhaps, as well as setting a spiritual example, he could set a financial example. This is how you charge for your services so whomever wants to receive teachings and meditate with me can do so. This is how you live, so you are not using money from spiritual teachings to live far above the living standard of most human beings in the world. This is how you live. What a teaching that would be, to me.
Part of the problem is these large conglomerate organizations that form around Buddhist and other spiritual teachings, and then have to be maintained with lots of money. They have to be cleaned, the mortgage and taxes paid, they need an accountant, a web designer, they need office staff, etc. Part of the work gets done by volunteers who are on retreat at the center, but it's not enough, because they simply have to keep up with the salaries of their staff, including the teachers. It is honorable to provide a good salary for a job well done. However, again, there could be another way. Buying land in the most beautiful and expensive parts of the country are an aspect of most retreat centers. What about lowering expectations with the idea of serving more different kinds of people? Isn't access to the teachings more important than peaceful serenity of nature?
Yes, I am ranting, but I just saw Water and child prostitution makes me SERIOUSLY pissed off. We need more hands. More encouragement for us all to come together about spiritual answers, spiritual answers that nourish people, and meet them where they are.
Signing off.
Signing off.
Fuck Fear
Perhaps the title of this post is a tad immature but really we are all just talking to ourselves right? The purpose of this blog is not necessarily to offend (though that is an honest by-product of any good critical writing), but to thoroughly explore spirituality for the true seeker, those wishing to evolve to their greatest potential. Our evolution could be measured by how easily our authentic self is offered to the world. Right now I am calling this exploration "beyond spirituality," as it is my experience that we get on the train of seeking through imposed form, only to be dropped off eventually in a no-man's land called "our life." One could also call this "our self." For me, religions such as buddhism, taoism, and hinduism allowed me an opportunity to aquire tools for looking deeply, and transforming states of mind. I still use these tools regularly, namely meditation and various forms of prayer, but the questions have changed from "What religion am I?" and "Who is my Lama?" to "What do I enjoy?" and "What other way can I say fuck you to fear?" In truth, I thought I was beginning my quest with these questions, as a nineteen year old girl really into drug abuse and for some reason dying to learn meditation. However, as a thirty-one year old, I realize now that these new questions are being asked with a much deeper level of authenticity. This is the type of authenticity that can only be reached through having gone through many states of consciousness, none of which have conceptual frameworks or explanations, but which elucidate simply how much the human mind cannot grasp. In addition I have the benefit (ha!) of having to deal and have dealt with various formations of trauma and difficult psychological states as many of us had, plus three wonderful years of therapy. So in other words, the simplicity of "beyond spirituality," which perhaps should read "beyond spirituality: life as it is," has been reached not through a morning whim but through a hard won occasional emergence from undying complexity.
That said, onward:
"Beyond spirituality" has an underlying question: once we have emerged from imposed form, into chosen form, do we then create framework again? I suspect this is choiceless, as framework is simply a part of the mind, so then how do we create a framework based on chosen form in spirituality? I suspect that this is precisely what Ken Wilber is doing and I seriously need to do my homework and read more of his Integral Theory. However, not having done that, I still enjoy speculating about a theory of seeking truth which has eliminated imposed form and instead integrates chosen form. I believe this is what many artists have been doing since the beginning of human thought. Art for me is a particularly exciting chosen form as it is by nature limitless.
I am curious also about the need for my extreme irritation toward buddhist communities and yoga communities (not all of them I am sure, just the ones I have encountered so far!) If we are all truly needed exactly as we are as a perfect compliment to the universe as it is (and I do believe this is true even though we are un-pin-downable, and ever-changing) then surely my irritation is welcomed as well! That is also a part of this blog: a channeling of irritation with spiritual community that cannot entertain chosen form, or at least in an evolved sense. I do not say this lightly, as I myself have been harmed by the imposed form view (that is, those who will tell you you are going to buddhist hell for telling an enlightenened being that they are, simply, wrong), and so this blog is also an important opportunity for me to become less insecure with the self authority of chosen form.
I will stop there for today.
That said, onward:
"Beyond spirituality" has an underlying question: once we have emerged from imposed form, into chosen form, do we then create framework again? I suspect this is choiceless, as framework is simply a part of the mind, so then how do we create a framework based on chosen form in spirituality? I suspect that this is precisely what Ken Wilber is doing and I seriously need to do my homework and read more of his Integral Theory. However, not having done that, I still enjoy speculating about a theory of seeking truth which has eliminated imposed form and instead integrates chosen form. I believe this is what many artists have been doing since the beginning of human thought. Art for me is a particularly exciting chosen form as it is by nature limitless.
I am curious also about the need for my extreme irritation toward buddhist communities and yoga communities (not all of them I am sure, just the ones I have encountered so far!) If we are all truly needed exactly as we are as a perfect compliment to the universe as it is (and I do believe this is true even though we are un-pin-downable, and ever-changing) then surely my irritation is welcomed as well! That is also a part of this blog: a channeling of irritation with spiritual community that cannot entertain chosen form, or at least in an evolved sense. I do not say this lightly, as I myself have been harmed by the imposed form view (that is, those who will tell you you are going to buddhist hell for telling an enlightenened being that they are, simply, wrong), and so this blog is also an important opportunity for me to become less insecure with the self authority of chosen form.
I will stop there for today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)