| | re Max (9/30/14 10:00 PM) "I observed that I try to stop myself from experiencing too much pleasure … And I fear becoming too "unconditionally happy" can lead to my becoming a sociopathic, moral monster. I imagine I'd always have some empathy, but there are enough people I don't like and I've had enough experiences of anger/rage/disgust that I know I need something like anticipated unhappiness and shame and guilt to constrain me. ..."
Bear with me as I cite some mainline Theravadan teaching here, but I think it can relate here in practice.
Richard Zen (9/30/14 10:38 PM as a reply to Max. ) "…Insight meditation reduces addictiveness and that in turn reduces stress…"
Many traditional teachers hold that G.Buddha's teachings tend towards a balancing of insight/ vipassana and concentration / samatha practices, to help smooth out the rough edges (dukkha) of everyday personal experience. Practically speaking, deep concentration, i.e. Jhanas, provides an experience of pleasure, of happiness that is termed "blameless," that is, it doesn't incline to unskillful, damaging actions, thoughts, etc. It doesn't depend on anyone or anything else, and in fact can provide satisfaction that outshines (with practice) the fleeting pleasures, happiness we tend to seek in external sensual things, or from other people. When strongly developed (inner pleasure/happiness), the alure of the latter (external, dependent pleasure/happiness) begins to fade. Trading candy for gold, it is said. This works (in my experience).
BUT, developing strong concentrative ability can trigger dangerous psychological side-effects in people beset with excessive "stuff" (to use an MCTB term, and as abundantly documented in MCTB ). With or without such risk, concentration is best worked on with the help of good teaching. If one is reasonably balanced, psychologically, such help can be gleaned from books or dharma talks. If threatening stuff comes up too quickly, too strongly when approaching concentration, then skilled personal guidance is essential. And, contrary to much popular 'dharma', jhana is accessible to the vast majority of people (as, I recall, is also a point made clear in MCTB ).
As to the complementary interplay of insight and concentration practices, the former can be strenuous, exhausting, and the latter can provide a refreshing break, honing the mind to enhance insight, and bringing forth new bodily energies to facilitate plunging back into the hard work of insight investigation.This traditional combination of insight and concentration and helps build a sustainable, as well as progress-making practice.
That's also not to say that some stages of serious practice don't get into places that can't be so readily smoothed out (A&P, Dark Night,…); the balanced practice skills sketched above are of benefit in many stages of path.
"…Strong metta practice can help you with hatred if you do it for a solid year or more..."
Max (9/30/14 11:09 PM as a reply to Richard Zen) "…I avoided metta/loving-kindness books, I thought they would make my caretaking and boundary issues worse."
Metta practice could actually be a great tool for dealing with "caretaking and boundary issues."
It is popularly called "loving-kindness," but some teachers caution that "goodwill" (Than-Geof) or "benevolence" (Ven. Analayo) are perhaps better translations to work with, as "loving" is too close to, has strong associations with infatuation or affection ("pema"in Pali) and its all-to-common tendency towards personal craving and clinging.
The standard practice, as we know, is taught as stages of imaging and projecting warm feelings toward oneself, then benefactors, friends, neutral people, enemies, etc. And this practice is developmentally useful. The core teachings of G. Buddha, however, frame metta (and all the brahmaviharas: including compassion, appreciation, equanimity) as "immeasurable", or "unbounded" qualities of mind/heart. That is to say, after doing the standard practices a while (as Richard Zen points out above), one forms in the mind/heart a solid presence of goodwill that stands by itself – that isn't bound by an agent "me" that's being loving, compassionate, etc. and is not bound by the image of another, recipient person that it's felt or projected towards. This is what I meant, above, as to helping with "caretaking and boundary issues" – self-less, unbounded goodwill simply radiates, doesn't have to caretake in any specific way, and boundaries disappear. ("Radiates" not as something mystical or electromagnetic, but that others sense it, it feels safe -- in this sense it's "contagious," if you will.)
When the mind/heart is immersed in such a state, it will naturally respond to whatever it encounters – other people, animals,… 'all sentient beings' – and act in skillful ways embodying goodwill, compassion, etc. And, it's a peaceful, pleasurable state to be in.
In fact metta (and the other brahmaviharas) are listed among the traditional objects of one-pointed focus in the practice of deep concentration / Jhana, and in this context it is precisely this "immeasurable","unbounded" presence (nimitta) that the mind/heart absorbs into, free of any sense of "I" as giver or "other" as recipient. This also works (as above, meaning in my experience).
Richard Zen (10/1/14 12:02 AM as a reply to Max. ) "…Try to be The Man with No Name…"
I can't say whether Richard intended this sense, but "Man with No Name" can be seen as similar to the impersonal quality implied by that sense of immeasurable or unbounded depicted above. My impression of that film-persona used by Clint Eastwood is that that role perceived and acted in ways that could be seen as "impersonal;" fearless, clear-headed, resilient, because he clung to no particular agenda, and could discern and leverage on such weakness (tanha) in others.
Not Tao (10/1/14 1:17 AM as a reply to Max.) "Cultivating unconditional happiness (as in, happiness for no reason) is a great way to cultivate both morality and responsibility. If you are happy for no reason, then no one can do anything to challenge this happiness."
Again, not to speak for 'Not Tao', but happiness "for no reason", "unconditional" can be compared to the internally self-sufficient, not externally dependent bliss of the Jhanas. Whether the Clint Eastwood persona upheld the precept of "non-harming" might be questonable, but part of the allure of that persona (why one can't help but like him a bit) relates to some sense of "morality and responsibility" that he imbodied on another level.
(Thanx, Richard, for the impressive graphic. As I recall, that’s a the scene where he makes that other guy dig-up the money/treasure buried in the graveyard.) |