Transforming delusion into wisdom

I learned some things from my meditation practice this morning that I thought share with you guys.

I've known for a while that different contemplative teachings give different instructions for dealing with unhelpful mental processes. The metaphor that is sometimes used is that of finding a poisonous tree near one's village. There are a few different ways one can attempt to address the problem. First, one can try to uproot the tree and destroy it. This resembles some practices of the "Hinayana" vehicles (cultivate the wise, uproot the unwise).

Second, one can build a fence around the tree, and maybe put some signs up that say, "Do not touch! Do not eat the fruit! Danger!" This puts some space around the tree, allowing it to remain in its place and seen for what it is, while reducing the likelihood of harm. This is like "Witnessing" or other kinds of choiceless awareness practices, whereby one rests as awareness and allows the contents/objects to flow by without interference. In my opinion, this approach is more helpful than the first in many - if not most - situations.

There is a third option available, which is to find a way to use unique characteristics of the poisonous tree in order to benefit others. One may find a way to extract the poison from the tree and make it into a kind of medicine, and thus use it for healing the ailments of the townsfolk, including one's self if necessary. This step, I think, starts with the second approach (allowing it to be), but goes a step further in investigating the ways in which the tree may actually be worth keeping around for beneficial use. This approach is very Vajrayana, and also has quite a Taoist alchemy flavor to it.

Now, for the personal example (Mike, I know you like these)...

During meditation, a lot of difficult emotions began to surface. I was re-experiencing what was initially feelings of anger toward some people in my past who abandoned me when I was going through some difficult transitions in my life. As I looked into this feeling of anger and allowed it to be just as it was, it pretty quickly unfolded into sadness and grief. I was really, really hurt when these things happened.

While the difficult feelings were arising, thoughts about the situation began to arise. It was as if my mind was telling a story: "I'm so mad at him. How could he do this? What's wrong with him?" Then, thoughts about these thoughts arose, saying, "No, thinking like this isn't good. It's bad. This will hurt you more." That, of course, what judging mind. What became clear in that moment was that this judging mind that was saying things were "good" or "bad" was not very helpful to me at the time. And in recognizing that processes can either be helpful or unhelpful, I realized that this discernment between helpful and unhelpful was very much like - if not the same general process as - the process of discerning good and bad. BUT, in this moment, the good/bad distinction resulted in a splitting of experience, while discerning the helpful/unhelpful distinction allowed both ways of thinking to remain in awareness. Intention, then, was allowed to act on the helpful processes without disowning the unhelpful ones.

What I'm getting at is that discernment can be used in a way that is helpful (leading toward awakening) or unhelpful (splitting experience, preventing further realization or personal growth). So then, there's no reason to cut judgment/discernment out of experience completely. Nor is it necessary to always simply watch judgments arise and vanish within awareness (although this can be VERY helpful in myriad situations). We can also tap into the innate wisdom of these mental processes and transform them from unhelpful to helpful; from delusion to wisdom.

I'm not necessarily saying that the third way is always better than the second way. In fact, I think that the second way is a necessary factor for the third way to function properly. But that doesn't mean the third way has to be done all the time. The first way... well, I'm not a fan. But I'm not willing to say that it should never be done.

What do you guys think about this? If someone is more knowledgeable on the topic of transformation/transmutation of appearances, I'd love an expansion on the topic.

-Jackson

Jackson, that was helpful to read. I hadn't considered the "three options" idea before. I think that's insightful.

I can't expand on the topic philosophically, but I can offer an example of reintegrating past crap, if it's any use.

Last fall I had to confront my past spiritual practice, which I had shut myself off from for over ten years. It was not something I wanted to do at all. I dug my heels in pretty hard. But it needed to happen.

When I left that practice, I was a mess. I was just shredded emotionally, and very angry and hurt. I wanted support and guidance from certain people, and some of them couldn't provide it and others I didn't know how to talk to about what I wanted from them. I felt taken advantage of by some people. I reached a point of being a weeping mess most of every day, and I literally walked away from everything and slammed the door on any spiritual practice whatsoever. It took me about three years to get my feet under me again and feel like a normal person. I didn't do anything remotely "spiritual" until I started meditating a couple years ago after a spate of deaths among friends and family.

Last fall a friend requested I write up an outline of a ritual invocation as it is done in Santeria for a magickal project we were working on together. The last thing I wanted to do was even think about that, but I realized I needed to do it, and so I dredged up the memories of how to do the invocation, and then, because it had to be done to be sure my recollections were accurate, I did the invocation of my patron goddess. I was uncomfortable, unhappy, and utterly daunted by her presence, which felt particularly dark, heavy and intense.

I talked to my mentor about how uncomfortable I had been with the goddess' presence, and he suggested I do the invocation again, and then just sit with all the feelings and sensations and so on as they arose. I really didn't want to. But a few weeks later I had a dream that gave me the courage to try.

I invoked the goddess again, and just allowed everything to be as best I could. And indeed she was intensely dark and heavy, but I saw then how she was also so massively part of me, and with me always, and powerfully protective. It was just the first step, but it opened a door for me to begin reintegrating that whole blocked-out past. Over the next year I did further work, finding ways to mix the practices and skills I'd learned before into my current practice.

Moreover, I eventually phoned my two closest teachers from back then, and eventually met with them in person for the first time in over ten years. I realized how much shit I'd brought to the relationships, expecting way too much from teachers who were just human beings with all their own shit to deal with. I had had utterly unrealistic expectations of them, and for the most part they were just people doing their best, while dealing with their own complicated lives. [That said, in one case, with a person I did not reconnect with, his inability to live up to expectations crossed ethical lines, and I made the fair judgment that I did not care to speak to him again.]

Anyway, after all that I ended up feeling like the long years I spent in Santeria were not a mistake of any kind, but simply one of many strange adventures that led me to where I am today.

That said, there are other relationships and memories in my life that need some of the same kind of attention, but that's an example of one really difficult situation where I felt like I really reintegrated something that had been devastatingly painful for a long time. Your post is a good reminder to bring some of this other stuff to the surface and sit with it.

jackson, what follows may not work in whatever dharma/spiritual context you are in right now, and, if so, let me know.

I have so many thoughts about all of this i don't know where to start. So, I'll just go random with a couple of things:

-- I think that however you surrender, however you let go -- it is that process, PLUS listening and looking for some intuitive sign for what to do -- that is how you can learn how to decide among the three. This is a practice, a learning -- and I think it is an integral part of living a spiritual/intimate life -- getting better and better at tapping into whatever wise insight/intuition you can find. You can't figure it out intellectually.

-- That alchemy you talk about to me is something that I've seen happen in what I think of as "walking fruitions" (even if they happen while sitting) because here is what happens
-base line okay state;
-difficult, unpleasant unacceptable things come up -- thoughts, feelings, challenging people, etc.;
-resistence arises with a strong desire to turn away, avoid, spin stories, become resentful, indulgent in self pity;
-however, instead, one opens up to it all and stay with everything no matter how uncomfortable as it arises with a disembedded non identifying detailed awarenss of bare sensations (even if those sensations are thoughts/images);
- "surrender" is the closest description of this I can think of but it still seems inadequate
- this opening bare awarenss continues and grows and sometimes in order to keep it going one has to almost die to oneself and it can feel completely wrong;
- there is a brief and profound lack of self feeling, a blip of nothing for an instant;
- then, on the other side of the blip, the problems are now over, transformed, disappeared. At times what had just seemed so difficult know can be seen as completely harmless and there is a feeling of joy, or even laughter at oneself for ever taking the entire thing so seriously.

I guess that is all I have now, maybe more later.

Edit: I just read this again and I want to make sure that this didn't sound like "advice" or an answer to an question from you. I don't think I wrote here anything you don't already know all about by direct experience. I'm just furthering the discussion, hopefully.

Ona:
Who or what is this goddess?
Is she a projection of your mind or an actual separate entity?
Where does she live when she hasn't been invoked?
What is the point of invoking and/or having a relationship with a goddess?
Are such practices within the realm or "shamanism" or is it something else entirely?

I think Santeria is quite different from Tibetan Buddhism . Maybe not.

Mike - Santeria is not an "enlightenment tradition" - so they don't explain stuff in terms that would make sense in a dharma/buddhism etc context. ie in that tradition people believe the gods and such are real beings, just like your Aunt Matilda. It's a sort of ancient African shamanism, really.

That said, for me personally, I see these beings as manifestations of the Absolute, in the same way a tree or table or your friend Bob is. For me (and this would not be true for most practitioners), I see working with the spirits as a kind of play or art, like music or painting. An expression of aspects of the manifest world, for pleasure, for wisdom or for practical results.

So to add, when I began working in the Western Magickal tradition, which is an enlightenment tradition (though some people overlook that part), I worked specifically with the Holy Guardian Angel, which is very much like Tibetan type practices. At first the Angel appears as a being separate from oneself, who guides and protects one, and is a sort of inner guru. Then gradually the angel becomes more abstract, not different from oneself, part of oneself. Then eventually the angel vanishes completely, because not only is it the same as "you", it is the same as all things - there is no longer any distinction between "me" "everything" "the angel" etc. So it is a way of structuring the process of awakening around a ritual representation and ritual practice. It's giving life and meaning to a metaphor that serves as a teaching tool, I suppose. I think the Tibetan deity practices work very similarly, as I understand them.

Mike, I'm think I'm familiar with some version of what you describe about. I think you're right when you say these situations cannot be figured out intellectually, if what you mean is "JUST intellectually." I think that's what you meant.

I didn't take your post as advice, and I appreciate your attempt to clear up any potential misunderstanding.

"Surrender" can be a useful word for describing the willingness to experience whatever arises without resistance. A therapist I know and trust told me once that he thinks a lot of the symptoms of mental illness (but not all) arise as a byproduct of when an individual does not fully allow themselves to "have their experience." I think he's right. It may seem silly, or even self-indulgent; but, working through deep emotional issues often requires that one fully allow themselves to be the emotion. In fact, in cases where the experience was not previously allowed to happen, it may even be helpful to identify with the "I/me" who is having the emotion, but only long enough to for it to be processed within awareness. Once it is held close, allowed to process itself, and seen for what it really is, it can then be (as Ken Wilber puts it) transcended and included. He also says that unconscious-subjects (the un-had experience lurking in the background as a fragmented "I") can then become a conscious-object (brought into awareness, and thus allowed to be shed of its "I-ness").

This process is an interesting blend of personal and spiritual practice, and is a lot like what John Welwood writes about. Separating the two components (emotional processing and spiritual realization) can be done, but the two can really complement each other and provide a much less fragmented practice than what is often otherwise presented.

I read a really interesting paragraph in a Mahamudra book the other day which relates to this discussion I think.

"The fundamental aim of Buddhist practice is to achieve enlightenment, to emulate the Buddha, who became known as "the awakened one," or "the enlightened one." Through our spiritual practice we aim to become more aware, conscious, and integrated. By doing so we are able to eradicate ignorance and replace it with wisdom. Buddhist practice is about learning how to perceive ourselves in a genuine and authentic fashion so that we are no longer in conflict, with dark subconscious corners of the mind constantly acting on our conscious awareness and disturbing its peace. Everything that is going on in the mind has the potential to become conscious, so that nothing is hidden anymore. Overcoming ignrorance, then, is being able to perceive ourselves in a completely authentic fashion by removing the conflicting emotions of the mind." (Mind at Ease by Traleg Kyabgon)

Thoughts?

Ooh, I like that passage, Ona

"Buddhist practice is about learning how to perceive ourselves in a genuine and authentic fashion so that we are no longer in conflict, with dark subconscious corners of the mind constantly acting on our conscious awareness and disturbing its peace. Everything that is going on in the mind has the potential to become conscious, so that nothing is hidden anymore. Overcoming ignrorance, then, is being able to perceive ourselves in a completely authentic fashion by removing the conflicting emotions of the mind."

Now, to me, if one is really practicing, then what is described in this quote has to be happening -- sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but always in process.

Is it possible that some practitioners would disagree? Maybe because this seems to be focued on the "relative self" or something like that?

Is it possible that some practitioners would disagree? Maybe because this seems to be focued on the "relative self" or something like that?

-michaelmonson

I think that's exactly right, Mike. There are those who take the "no-self" thing to mean that there's a whole lot of stuff in the universe, and that the self-sense arises out of this stuff, but that the self-sense is illusory, while the stuff is not.

The view of Mahayana and Vajrayana (in a nutshell) is that the self-sense is relative and provisional, but so are all of the other "objects" cognized by awareness. Relative states of consciousness depend upon a relative frame of reference (i.e. a relative "self"). To deny one is to deny the other. Reality, than, is seen not in terms of "self" or "no-self", but rather the Emptiness of both, which is ungraspable by the intellect alone.

The latter is a much more inclusive view, and relates to my experience more than the former. This is why I have always taken issue with all of the Actual Freedom stuff, or any practice/view that aims to somehow end the process of self-referencing. Being frozen to a particular frame of reference is where the trouble lies, not so much in its arising.

Thanks, Jackson, that response was completely satisfying

Isn't the most obvious problem with AF and ending self-referencing the fact that it clearly can't be done, that it is just a fantasy of the same self that doesn't want itself to be referenced?

While I think that what I said yesterday is true -- that I am irrelevent to the real universe and just an echo in the imagination of my small brain -- there is still a body here with a brain and DNA and transmitters and memories and traumas and wants and desires with all kinds of things happening all the time. If I want to be a bodhisattva and become more and more useful to myself, others and the world, then I need to be very careful with how this Mike Monson entity handles his shit. (as usual in dharma, two things are true at once)

And, it doesn't matter if I care or not or if I "self reference"or not, my thoughts and behaviors are going to have effects on myself, the world -- traumas will leave marks, memories will leave marks, sorrows will leave marks -- and desire WILL continue on and on and on. So, care must be taken.

Mike, your comment reminds me of something I wanted to return to that Zach said a few days ago. Without looking to find his exact post, what he was saying if I recall was that it was very important to him in his practice to include the moral and ethical practices of Buddhism, not just meditation by itself without that context.

I think there is a lot of validity to ones practice including deliberate cultivation of compassion, kindness, fair and just behavior, and so on. Of course there are some rules of behavior that arise more from a specific cultural context such as monastic life, like rules about wearing certain kinds of clothing or getting married or not married, or eating this kind of food or that kind of food.

But in general I think practices like metta meditations or contemplation of patience, wisdom, kindness, generosity, and so on, are ways of helping to point the practitioner towards things that tend to arise naturally as awakening unfolds more deeply. It seems this is linked to both the full awareness of ones own emotions, without the hidden crap, as mentioned in that quote, and also to the sense of being profoundly interconnected/the same as everything.

Just a ponder... further thoughts?

It's all got to work together.

How could someone sincerely practicing dharma or any spiritual practice NOT begin to change their behaviors to be more moral, helpful, less destructive, more creative, more contributory, less selfish/self centered, etc?

And, how could someone make any real progress without also taking great care with their mental, emotional, and social/interpersonal behaviors?

It's just not possible.





I think in other realms of "self improvement" one can practice things that will make them more effective in some ways and be better able to get stuff -- but that's not awakening work.

Harmful behaviors cause suffering, upset.

Helpful, kind behaviors create calm.

Calm leads to awakening.

I keep hearing this purported Buddha quote: "The bliss of blamelessness"

All this said, I don't claim to understand all of the seeming evil behaviors done by so-called enlightened dharma teachers. I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about it, of course

I recently posted a Norman Fischer talk here (on "Blink"). At the end of the talk Fischer talked about the recently dead Joko Beck and the discussion turned into a sort of free for all almost gossipy discussion of Maezumi Roshi and his various dharma heirs. Fischer apparently spent some time with Maezumi after Maezumi got into all kinds of trouble for drunkeness and adultery with his students. Fischer talked about how Maezumi didn't seem able to stop the behaviors even after admonishment, rehab stays, confession/repentence and that Maezumi seemed kind of lost and confused as a result, like he just could figure out "who he was."

Chris, yes.

I often wonder if very many people can really do "non identified awareness of bare sensations."

I think that is the place one has to be -- over and over and over again -- to really start to see what is going on with our ... shit.

It really does take a huge leap and I wonder if sometimes those of us who have taken that leap realize how unlikely it is that we were lucky enough to figure out that we had no choice but to really try?

Another factor that leads to my position (your paraphrase of which is substantially accurate) is that I think it helps to reorient what might be a default or assumed Western position on awakening. So much of what we talk about when we talk about awakening and enlightenment has to do with understanding and even knowledge. But I think that because we are technocratic westerners, who come from a world where knowledge and understanding has been more or less the primary jewel of any somewhat modern-leaning person since the Enlightenment itself, I think we can tend towards attachment and becoming around this understanding itself. The understanding, even the understanding of dhamma, is another finger pointing towards the moon. It's another tool that brings us to unbinding and freedom—the real ultimate goal of my practice. Indeed, as I progress along this path, I find myself detaching from more and more understanding, from more and more knowledge. Freedom and peace are the thing. They come from knowledge, but knowledge—even wisdom—are not goods unto themselves. They're more means to the end of freedom.

So I return repeatedly to the basic practice of ethics and precepts, not only because it increases my wisdom and helps me make 'progress', but also because it helps to cut the gordian knot of intellectuality and wisdom practice. Fuck wisdom, if it'll help me be a better person!

Of course once you get to the precepts of the vinaya and renunciation things get trickier. It would be insane for me to argue that not eating after noon is an essential component of the path to awakening. BUT I do think that anyone who believes that they don't need to practice any renunciation on their path should at the very least strongly examine their own assumptions. That was what I was going on about, way back when. My position on a lot of the extra-meditative aspects of the practice is not, ultimately, that they are truly necessary for all beings—but that every practitioner should personally spend a lot of energy and time and discernment, investigating the ways in which they might be allowing their personal opinions about what is or isn't necessary to be informed by the basically unskillful, worldly and totally unexamined assumptions that they hold. I personally find renunciation to be very useful. But more fundamentally than that, I know there's a part of me that finds dharmic excuses to bypass renunciation because I still carry a deep attachment to many pleasures.

Zach, to basically agree with you, I am pretty sure that a life that sincerely followed the entire eight fold path (which includes the precepts) and that which included only a moderate sitting meditation program -- would be just as likely if not more likely to create a very awakened life as one that was heavy on sitting while lighter on the rest of the path.



(was that sentence long enough? )

It's this recurring temptation towards what I'll probably end up calling 'cheesecake buddhism' if I keep talking about it: this ability we have to co-opt the practice. It starts off as doing something essentially skillful, like all those people introducing meditation techniques into secular life that I was drubbing before . If those meditation techniques help people, then it's a good thing. But at the same time, it creates a willingness in a practitioner or teacher, when somebody says, 'why should I practice?', to say, 'Because Buddhism makes you a better worker!' or 'More productive!' or 'Because Buddhism helps you fully enjoy every piece of cheesecake and strawberry that you eat!'

And I'm not gonna say those people are wrong or bad or anything, lest I start a brawl—but let's just say, that is a position I really hope that I don't fall into and I'm aware of myself being capable of falling into.

Desire, for me, is like one of those viruses that people get from cat poop, or those wasps that lay their eggs in other animals' brains—it's something that I can observe warping my own will, as close as you like to the classic devil on the shoulder. And it's not just me. Studies demonstrate over and over again, the cognitive biases and irrational thinking that people slip into when they make contact with alluring objects. Hence casinos and lotteries. That mechanism is exactly what happened when I almost took that job a couple months ago. I am full well aware of the ability that the mechanism of desire has to cause me to work against my own interests. So I'm fully aware of the ability I have to provide dharmic justifications for unskillful behavior; to start engaging in the addictions of my past, and come up with all kinds of reasons—not-self, impermanence, non-duality, you name it—that that addictive behavior is actually totally in line with dhamma and with a strong sitting practice. That's why I have to remain mindful of the precepts, too. And of sila. And why I have to continue on problematizing the nature of pleasure and joy, long after everybody else in the room decides that I'm a fundamentalist fussbudget who's hung up on rules and denial and sin.

So making a whole, holistic practice, and being forced to evaluate every element of my life and conduct and behavior—that is the way that I keep myself moving forward. That I maintain right view, right effort, chanda, samvega—all that good stuff.

I bought a "Shambhala Sun" the other day and was disapointed to find that it was an entire issue devoted to the "mindfulness movement."

That stuff is sooooo boring to me and I haven't taken the time and energy yet to figure out why.

And I still drink too damn much.