The answer is in the asking

@Chris - I think it's useful, though, for some people at certain points in their development. A person who is coming from a lot of emotional damage or trauma, for instance, would benefit from developing a more stable, coherent, flexible, positive self-concept just to function better in life and cope with daily stuff. Not everyone is called to, wants to, or has any interest in deeper transformative stuff. And if they do, I would put money on it being safer, healthier and less painful for them if they have first worked on their shattered, mangled ego and got themselves in some kind of functional working order. If someone is not very stable, stability is a nice place to get to before heading into what can be some rather scary and strange territory.


-ona

Yes, I think this is a developmental thing. AND I think you are pointing to something profound, Chris, in that the act of "filling" openness with a self-representation is basically an expression of insecurity, the need to have a solid ground, in a reality that's actually completely fluid and wide open.

And it seems that even beyond the need for fixing a self-sense that was damaged during development, there are therapeutic possibilities for developing a self-sense that as you put it Jackson is flexibly stable, which is the kind of development often spoken of as "post-conventional". I think of this transition from conventional to authentically post-conventional identity as shifting from an adapted personality structure to an adaptive one. Different types of inner work relate to this: for example, Freud was interested in helping dysfunctional people become adapted, adjusted. Jung was interested in that, but beyond that, in "individuation", which means becoming whole and wholesome in a way of dynamic integrity that is able to deploy different ways of experiencing and relating in response to situations rather than developing a fixed and stable way of being that is plugged into a fixed and stable conventional situation.

And there is that openness of not-knowing, of just being, in and as which phenomena arise and play and dissolve, which peeks through during transitions of all kinds-- between developmental stages, between sleeping and waking, between relationships, in meditation, in the experience of a loved one's death or birth or of falling in love-- that sense of openness and magic and mystery shine through, and then through habit we just evolve a new set of patterns seeking stable ground. I think it would be cool to develop a culture that has better appreciation for this "bardo" quality, higher tolerance for ambiguity, greater openness to the unknown, and greater flexibility that can come from appreciating this space, even as we "come back" to some relatively stable structure. Because while we need to honor the developmental need for structure we can't really honor that need for form without also honoring emptiness. Without emptiness, form becomes rigid and inflexible.

And at some point in development, another possibility seems to become apparent to me: that of really living in and as that open dimension, and letting go of all need to fill that with something "stable" but to learn to let it play in spontaneity. That's something I look forward to going into in greater and greater depth for the rest of my life!

(Also, Jackson, it makes me happy that there are more and more therapists who are gaining an understanding of these different dimensions of experience and of how to work skillfully with clients with all kinds of developmental and situational needs. I think it's great, don't you? )

It would be cool. But think about a culture like Hindu culture, which has centuries of tradition in which the exploration of consciousness and awakening plays an open and normal role. That is, running off to be a dreadlocked sadhu might freak out your upper-class parents, but going to hear teachings from a guru about awakening is not considered foreign, weird or outside of the norm of what people do who are interested in such things. In other words, teachings about awakening are freely and readily available in a wide variety of styles to suite your personality, and do not require you to step radically outside the culture in which you were raised. And yet... there is a pretty darn typical society, with thieves and gangsters, intellectuals and philosophers, artists and assholes - every kind of person, just like anywhere. Given the readily available opportunities, wouldn't it be some kind of utopia of enlightened people by now, if that were even possible?

Sorry, I'm a perpetual pessimist on the utopian world stuff. I would love to be convinced otherwise, but the only positive examples I see tend to be when people live in very small groups with plentiful resources and no major outside stresses (such as being invaded by neighboring tribes, starving, etc), and/or when the small group can be self-editing (ie they throw people out or don't let people in who would be disruptive, such as in some intentional communities.)

"Jackson, can you elaborate? My take is that flexibility is great but at some point we need to 'get' that it's all just made up to either protect or promote a sense that is, at its core, extraneous. Freedom came, at least for me, in knowing the extraneousness deeply enough to completely discount the sense of being a separate, somehow permanent or even flexible self, through time." -Chris

I like the responses Ona and Jake provided.

Drawing from relational frame theory (RFT), as I often do, I hold that there are at least three recognizable, general ways of identifying as a self: self-as-concept, self-as-process, and self-as-context (ordered in terms of increasing flexibility).

Self-as-concept is fixed and frozen. It picks out socially derrived verbal attributes and fuses them to one's sense of who they are. "I am shy," or, "I am outgoing," are examples of this. If one is fused to the idea that they are shy, then behaving in a way that shows otherwise would be invalidating, and perhaps even threatening to their sense of who they are.

Self-as-process is a bit more fluid. It recognizes, "Sometimes I'm shy, but sometimes I'm more outgoing," or, "I might be fat right now, but I can also be thin. Either way, I'm me, and I can grow and change." There is still identification with a concept, but it's more abstracted and individuated. It doesn't lose itself as easily when confronted. It's more like "I have a body/thoughts/feelings," instead of, "I am my body/thoughts/feelings."

Self-as-process is still somewhat problematic. It can foster a sense of always needing to improve, to get better and better and better. It can also lend itself to thinking things happen to me. Perceived roadblocks to personal growth can take on much more aversive functions than helpful, as one feels best when the process is allowed to flow. That, and it can be frustrating when in the company of self-as-concept folks, who socially challenge this flow by seeing it as inconsistent, confusing, or irresponsible.

Self-as-context is the most like pure awareness or presence. Self is viewed as the place where experience happens. Thoughts and feelings are seen for what they are, rather than what they say they are. Paradoxically, this doesn't negate one's ability to choose. One can hold the entire context, whether pleasant or unpleasant, or both, or somewhere in-between; and, they can choose to persist in a valued direction. This is the most Bodhisattva-like, really. It's not waiting until things are perfect before taking action. It's not sharpening the ax forever, instead of using it to chop down trees and building a cabin.

Though self-as-context is stated conceptually, it is not experienced as such. It's like Emptiness in that way; we can talk about it, but that doesn't mean it's a separate thing. It's a positive way of saying "self-not-as-concept-or-process". As many of us know, there's no separate "I" necessarily fused with awareness. It's quite the opposite, actually, since the "I" is an "I-thought". Seeing the I-thought as a thought, rather than as a literal "I", is what allows self-as-context to be experienced.

The tricky thing, in my opinion, is that in order to move from self-as-concept to self-as-context, it's hard not to first past through self-as-process. This is even the case for the Progress of Insight stages. Awareness works like a solvent to dissolve the rigid conceptual self, and things start to flow as process. As we continue, we disentangle ourselves from the process as well. Not everybody gets to this latter development, but it's not for lack of capacity in some cases. It has more to do with lack of guidance from those who know the territory.

(And yes, Jake, I think it's wonderful that many more therapists are learning this stuff!)

To quote Jack Engler, "You have to be somebody, before you can be nobody."

Slightly altered... "You have to be somebody, before you can be a more flexible someboday, before you can be nobody."

Chris, I was thinking of pointing that out, actually. Your normal sense of stability prior to further development is actually something "hard won" by many. For some of us, it just happens more or less effortlessly. For others, it takes a lot more work.

I know. I guess I came at the question from a more or less typical practitioner's POV - an already fairly healthy ego/self structure.


-cmarti

I'm not sure that's typical... some number of practitioners I've run into at workshops, on forums or in passing acquaintance have a fairly big shit-load of psychological difficulties that I would not call "fairly healthy ego/self structure". Not a majority, in my personal experience, but enough that I think it would probably be beneficial if teachers had some coping strategies (ie were familiar with best strategies for directing such a person into supportive mental health care, etc.)

I wonder if there are any stats on that (mental health and spiritual seeking).

I had a chat with two traditional Buddhist priests once. One was said his big-city vajrayana sangha saw more "wreckage" come through than you could possibly imagine. People with the worst levels of addiction, shattered lives, dysfunctional issues, etc. He said if they could stick with the practices they usually got their shit together in the end, but it was brutal to watch. The other said he did not accept people into his sangha that had such problems, directing them to mental health care instead. His policy was "I'm not a psychologist."

"He said if they could stick with the practices they usually got their shit together in the end, but it was brutal to watch." - ona

And sometimes brutal to go through! It's a slow process and there are many opportunities to slip off course or just give up. Meditation is transformative though, regardless of the amount of baggage one brings to the airport.

You just have to pay extra if you have more than two bags.

Hahaha Spiritual teachers as airlines... I like that Ona!

Yeah guys, this is fascinating to me because increasingly, if I'm honest, I see the spiritual "openness" and the personal "who I am" as so intertwined, and I'm really fascinated to see how these dovetail and weave together. For me right now this is connecting with an exploration of the "three trainings" of peaceful abiding meditation training, ethically sensitive daily life, and insights which cut through duality (my rendering of shamatha, sila, prajna, the traditional "three trainings" of Buddhism which encompass the eightfold path).

I don't know quite what to say about this except that right now it seems that "waking up" and "growing up" need to be distinguished at certain points in order to clarify which training one is focusing on at a specific time-- i.e., sitting practice is for shamatha and prajna, and everything else is distraction unless incorporated within the scope of those trainings-- while I am sitting!!! But sitting itself is a part of my whole life, in which I am this particular person with this history and these relationships and this style and these choices... hence, the importance of ethical training as well. The way these three trainings relate, and how this connects to the balance between "waking up" and "growing up", are just gelling for me so I don't want to trample on this inchoate understanding by blah blah blah-ing about it

Oh, and Ona, GREAT point about India. This is a huge huge issue for Sri Aurobindo and his Integral Yoga. To summarize (extremely summarize...) he says that the traditional culture of India has spiritual freedom incorporated within fixed mental (and hence social) structures. He advocates for a balance of mind, body and spirit, individual and social, and appreciates the West's emphasis on dynamism, exploration, and rationality on the mental plane. (Mind for Aurobindo includes three capacities: feeling, willing and knowing, which are part of our human nature along with material embodiment, vitality, and timeless Spirit, according to him).

---Hey Wilber fans--- see a resemblance? My own modification of both their views gives more significance to body and vitality, and sees these as intrinsically spiritual in their natural state--- I guess that's the difference between a more Central Asian, Taoist/Dzogchen orientation and a more Indian one!

"I don't know quite what to say about this except that right now it seems that 'waking up' and 'growing up' need to be distinguished at certain points in order to clarify which training one is focusing on at a specific time [...] The way these three trainings relate, and how this connects to the balance between 'waking up' and 'growing up', are just gelling for me so I don't want to trample on this inchoate understanding by blah blah blah-ing about it " -Jake

I think I can sense what you're pointing to. For me, the processes of "waking up" and "growing up" can be distinguished functionally, when helpful. One's practice - and thus, one's life - can become unbalanced when one or both of these processes are neglected in the service of some other end. But really, they are not fundamentally (or, ontologically) distinct.

In truth, I cannot honestly conceive of a context where neglecting "growing up" for the sake of speeding up the process of "waking up" could ever produce the implied result. Sure, one can have lots of really neat expeirences; but, these states will be ultimately be unstable. I imagine it works similarly for neglecting "waking up" in service of "growing up," but perhaps the effects would not be as socially or culturally significant, and thus, seem like less of a big deal to most people.

Yes Jackson, exactly!

Oh God, we're all agreeing again.

Ona, that is very true!

No it's not.

Wait, you are right. I agree...

You are absolutely right, Chris. I couldn't agree more.



(lol OK, I'll stop...)

I could pretend to be a troll and post something rude and obnoxious I guess.

I think that it is less a matter of agreeing or disagreeing than of putting out so little of oneself-- opinions, perceptions, experience-- that there's nothing to engage with. So you could say I 'disagree;' I think I've seen some periods of vehement, enthusiastic, and voluble AGREEMENT here.

Or, I could come at this statement from the meta- viewpoint and find it curious that the issue of agreement/disagreement dualistic view could be so influential in a discussion of nondual realization. It IS something to ponder, for sure.

For myself, I am prone to wandering down obscure byways and having the sense that there's no way to convey how things-- so wispy and transitory!-- look there, and what seems-- so briefly, if fiercely!-- implied. To send messages back to all the good folks 'back home.' Without getting into the tar pit of agreement/disagreement; I'm really averse to both sides of that divide as an irritating waste of time.

So-- from me: ping back.

'kidding around' means 'contains no content of interest'? means 'not provoked by noticing something'?

I got the joking, and enjoyed. I also 'got' the falling into silence, and was interested in it. I started poking into my own silence, and what process had produced it. First attempt is above.

It is interesting, actually.

Miss your more frequent postings here. Shall I self-analyze?