What is going on here?

I just finished giving a presentation at work that seemed to go really well. We accomplished what we hoped to accomplish and received greater support than we expected. However, in reflecting on my performance, I don't see anything that I did well, despite that my supervisor commended me. If I try to look more objectively at my performance and say that, for example, my speaking was clear and concise, I immediately discount that. This is accompanied by a feeling of being "bad" or "horrible."

I was wondering how something like this might resolve itself in practice. Do you have any insight as to what is going on here? Is there a story here I need to disconnect myself from?

Thanks

It tends not to matter much what people say to us unless we believe it, eh? If I feel ugly and someone says I'm pretty, they're lying. If they say I'm ugly I agree and cry. If I feel pretty, and someone says I'm ugly, they're lying. If they say I'm pretty, I agree and smile.

Your believing you are horrible probably has very little to do with the presentation - if you feel horrible, you can give an amazing presentation and still only see it as crap. If you feel like a good, competent person, you can give a horrible presentation and think "oh, well, that could have been a bit better, but I did my best, I'm still a great person".

What a mess our minds create! Point being, it's really rarely about the "stuff" - what other people say, how well we did, the job we have, etc. It's almost always about our own inner identity, who we think we are. And then we project that onto everything we do and everything people say, etc.

I recall at one time when I used to be very self-critical that one day I recognized that I was repeating stuff my rather short-tempered (though well-meaning) father used to say. It was just like a habitual repetition of the criticism I'd gotten so much of. And he was just saying it because his parents said it to him: a kind of harsh, impatient pessimistic criticism, nothing ever good enough, being so ashamed of myself. It wasn't about me. It wasn't mine. It was just a habit, like a rat pushing the blue button to get a sugar cube. Recognizing that over and over really helped a lot in letting go of it.

Sometimes we are actually afraid to let go of familiar unhelpful habits like that. Because what else is there? It seems impossible to imagine reacting any other way. So we cling to the pattern, feeling a weird safety in our misery.

Just some ponders...

I don't know that anyone can truly facilitate a thorough dismantling of this reaction through message board communication.



The only thing I can recommend is a simple process of allowing all of these thoughts and feelings to co-exist, even when some of those thoughts and feelings suggest this can't be so. It's like saying aloued, "I can't stand up," while standing up. Or, "I can't walk," while walking. When facing the truth that you communicated in a clear and concise manner, thoughts that discount this may arise, as well as feelings you don't like. Say to yourself (silently aloud), "I recognize that I did a good job, AND I'm having the thought that this doesn't mean anything, AND I'm feeling bad and horrible."



The "and" is very important, because our minds usually revert to using "but". Such as, "I did a good jot, BUT I'm thinking that it doesn't mean anything." The "but" is what discounts the experience, and sets the two truths in opposition.



The goal isn't to change the thoughts or feelings directly. Although, they may change indirectly as the process breaks down. It takes time, and practice. It's not an instant fix, because language is acquired over many years. You can't chop down a huge tree with one swing of an ax.



Also, and more importantly, good experiential therapy helps.

"I recall at one time when I used to be very self-critical that one day I recognized that I was repeating stuff my rather short-tempered (though well-meaning) father used to say. It was just like a habitual repetition of the criticism I'd gotten so much of. And he was just saying it because his parents said it to him: a kind of harsh, impatient pessimistic criticism, nothing ever good enough, being so ashamed of myself. It wasn't about me. It wasn't mine. It was just a habit, like a rat pushing the blue button to get a sugar cube. Recognizing that over and over really helped a lot in letting go of it." -Ona

That's a good point. Sometimes it's good to ask, "Where have I heard this before?" or even, "How old is this thought? How long have I used it?" or, "Who's voice is that?"

Your point about saying "AND" instead of "BUT" is a very good one Jackson. Really, really astute. Thanks.

I was thinking of this the other day when spending time with a very anxious and pessimistic person. There we were on a sunny day in a pretty location, and he was talking about the litter on the street and very angry about it. Yes, there was litter on the street. AND it was a pretty sunny day. He would have said, it may be a pretty day, BUT it's ruined by the litter. As you point out, a fresh way of looking at the situation is: it is a pretty sunny day AND there is litter. I am enjoying being with my friends AND I am angry.

"Yes, there was litter on the street. AND it was a pretty sunny day. He would have said, it may be a pretty day, BUT it's ruined by the litter. As you point out, a fresh way of looking at the situation is: it is a pretty sunny day AND there is litter. I am enjoying being with my friends AND I am angry." -Ona

Isn't it amazing? Being able to hold both together in an "and" relationship (which is both more accurate AND more helpful) doesn't just free us up to act. It also seems to push awareness past some kind of barrier. A capacity of consciousness, which was previously unknown in experience, becomes available.

"Sometimes we are actually afraid to let go of familiar unhelpful habits like that. Because what else is there? It seems impossible to imagine reacting any other way. So we cling to the pattern, feeling a weird safety in our misery." - ona

I think this is certainly an issue with me. This "bad person" is an integral part of my identity. Like you said, if I let go, "what else is there?" I think this is how it relates to awakening and the spiritual process. It's being thrown into the unknown and being comfortable with that.

I love the idea of cradling these thought processes with AND. Thanks Jackson for the tip.

"The goal isn't to change the thoughts or feelings directly. Although, they may change indirectly as the process breaks down." - Jackson

I have seen this happen subtly in areas of my life wherein I see more objectively or think more positively without the "bad Jake" filter. Although there are still places where the "bad Jake" likes to hang out.

I'm jumping in here without having read the previous replies (so apologies in advance if I'm duplicating something). I get excited by this question because I had the same question for YEARS and never found a good reply until I heard this podcast:

http://www.soundstrue.com/weeklywisdom/?source=podcast&p=1027&category=IATE&version=full

"The Mind-Body Code: How the Mind Wounds and Heals the Body."

...

Tami Simon: And that these wounds are functioning often at an unconscious level and our intention is often something that is happening just with the conscious part of our mind? So the unconscious is sabotaging whatever is intentional.

Mario Martinez: Yes, people that win the lottery keep it on the average of 18 months in the US. They can't handle it. Joy is a very dangerous emotion. You have to be real careful with joy.

Tami Simon: What do you mean by that?

Mario Martinez: Well, because we have boundaries with abundance, and if it comes, it shakes you up and if you're not ready to handle it—if your worthiness is not ready to handle it, it turns into a stress reaction.

Tami Simon: So that idea that there's a boundary to our joy, I've heard it referred to as the threshold of our happiness. You can't really go beyond your threshold of happiness. Now I want to bust that open. I want to increase my threshold of happiness. What is your recommendation?

Mario Martinez: Oh, no, you can. First is to know that joy is dangerous. But you have joy as a very powerful fluid or fuel and then the worthiness is that gate to it. If worthiness is very good, it opens up, and if worthiness is bad it shuts it down. So what do you do, again you embody it. The theory is very consistent. You could do an experiment. You could say, "I make this amount of money, a year. I'm going to do some imagery that I make 50 times what I'm making." But then you do the imagery--all the money you could give to people, all the wonderful things you could do. And you do that imagery for five minutes—check your body--and the killjoy will be there. You're body's getting tense because it's a new boundary and it causes turbulence. So you breathe into it, allow it to happen and go back and forth, back and forth.

Tami Simon: Back and forth between?

Mario Martinez: Between doing the imagery of how much you want to make, and how the body's responding to it negatively. Your breathing will change. And then secondarily, you then look at the wound that stops you from moving faster. And then things start happening. Then intention works because it's followed by joyful action.

So my thinking is that your wishes work at the speed of your beliefs and at the strength of your joyful action. That's the key. So a lot of these ideas that intention alone will do it are fairly naïve because they don't look at the wounds, and they don't look at how the brain processes things. That the brain has limits and we have to teach it to expand those limits--to accept it without creating stress for you.

Tami Simon: So you're saying joy is dangerous because if this joy enters my system I might just collapse underneath it. What's the danger?

Mario Martinez: The danger is that it's identified biochemically as a stress reaction. So you have cortisol and all kinds of things coming out. The brain, when you do functional MRIs, the brain shifts the attention.

Tami Simon: I know what you're talking about--some wonderful things have been happening for me in the past year and I've been more stressed out than ever. And it's been hard to explain. I don't get it. It should be the year of my life and I'm hysterical.

Mario Martinez: What I do, is whenever anything good happens to me I do an expansion of the boundaries of abundance. I do a meditation and allow my worthiness to catch up.

Tami Simon: How do you allow your worthiness to catch up? That's wonderful image—do I deserve this great person, this flow of success, but how do you address that core worthiness issue?

Mario Martinez: Not intellectually but by the actual mind-body processing. Say something really good happens. You're all excited and you're getting nervous. The central nervous system's going on; cortisol's going on, adrenalin now you sit and allow that to happen. You embody. You say what's going on in my body? And once it begins to subside a little bit, allow yourself to ask yourself: "What wounds do I have that stop me from this worthiness." And you get to a point where you say, "No wounds." And you expand the boundaries. But in the work we all have to do it. I certainly have to do it quite a bit on mine.

Tami Simon: You believe people can do this on their own—not working directly with a therapist, psychologist, witness of some kind? This is deep work.

Mario Martinez: It is deep work, and I think it's best done with a professional because it enhances. But if the professional doesn't understand this then it's very difficult to do. So I suggest that it's done with a spiritual director, a psychologist, a shaman, a physician or whatever you consider to be [appropriate], but that person has to have some knowledge of mind- body in order to be enhanced.

@shargrol - can you talk more about how that teaching helped you, and what you found most clarifying about it?

Fair enough.

I too was very confused about why bad feelings often followed good feelings. I could see lots of ways that would happen and I could see that I seemed to be doing that to myself, but I couldn't see that clearly.

A happy thing would happen and I would counterbalance it by fabricating an idea of a future negative event and that would oddly seem to stabilize my mind.

I would be praised and not say "thank you" I would grow hot and say "you're wrong, I'm unworthy" and feel less vunerable.

I would be attracted to someone and I would feel ashamed for even having those sensations and then that previously attractive person would be a neutral or even negative signal.

I could see it in other's too.

A guy would won a lot of money at the roulette table, looked pained, very pained, then made a flurry of stupid bets until he lost all of his money, then he was smiling and laughing.

A friend that would become mean and defensive whenever someone showed him genuine love.

If happiness in life was possible, this kind of pattern would seem to always prevent it. Simply keep you at a droning mid-tone. So I was really interested in it.

Frankly, I had done so much "sitting" with this pattern, really exploring it, that I kind of had an intuitive sense for how it worked. My model was entirely psychological (for lack of a better term) -- only based on the story that one told about oneself (how good, how worthy, etc.). But the thing was, the mechanism wasn't just about stories, it seemed to be associated with story making around automatic sensations.

In otherwords, macroscopically I might say I was praised and I didn't want to have a big ego, so I denied my value by saying I sucked. But looking really closely, I could see that I would be praised and then I would feel hot and aweful until I finally did something like say I sucked. If I tried to just not say anything, that sensation would persist and even build. Usually it was subtle, sometimes it would build enormously.

And so many examples that I saw seemed so horribly counter-productive, and so unconscious, and so hard wired, that "story telling" just seemed so inadequate to explain it.

What Mario Martinez brought in was the biological component of the shame, betrayal, and abandonment emotions. A ha! Now there was something that explained the physiological aspects of this kind of counter-balancing action.

At a certain point in development, even in a good life, our natural openess is wounded. Paradoxically, you can only be wounded by people you love (typically parents and family). Basically, out of normal life, rewards, praises, confidences will be used to manipulate a child. After that point, we naturally guard against positive sensations of those actions (reward, praise, being confided in) by generating inflamation like counter sensations . Our mind quickly interprets these, makes a story out of them, and counter reaction behaviors. And interestingly, this wounding compensation gets applied to >whenever< these positive sensations appear, not just in the context of their original creation. Whoever rewards, praises, confides, etc. will get a taste of the wound, even oneself, not just the original parent or family member.

edit: Of course additional wounding is possible, etc. etc. But eventually, you get someone that is pretty well armored-up and doesn't really feel anymore, and certainly doesn't/can't embody unrestrained happiness!

*** The important point for me was the mechanics of embodyment are consistent, the stories can change radically over time. So chasing story-type causes for a solution wasn't going to work.***

Trying to fine tune my story was where I was spending most of my effort. Focusing on the embodyment was part of the answer. It's simple to say this, but depersonalizing and watching the reaction sensations shows them as the maladjustments they are. Interestingly, it took the presentation of a scientific model to really hit home this idea of depersonalization --- that what I was watching was biochemistry/cognition not "me".

Hope that helps explain it!

(and I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu, as if I've written this up before???)

edit p.s. His model also explains a lot of degernative disease, why some people live a long life, and how developing a personal sense of honor, commitment, loyalty can minimize previous wound-reaction patterns. It's good stuff. Ironically, I don't think I "like" him, but I like the model.

another p.s. -- Aro has another interesting "neurosis" model where addiction to duality comes fom splitting expereinces into knowing and not knowing (form, emptiness) and then having adversion to emptiness and grasping at form. This kind of realization strikes me as the next stage of psychological/existential fine tuning.

"Trying to fine tune my story was where I was spending most of my effort.
Focusing on the embodyment was part of the answer. It's simple to say
this, but depersonalizing and watching the reaction sensations shows
them as the maladjustments they are. Interestingly, it took the
presentation of a scientific model to really hit home this idea of
depersonalization --- that what I was watching was
biochemistry/cognition not "me"."

(If you wrote it before, I don't recall... so thanks for rewriting.)

I think this is useful. The body tends to react before the stories arise, and dealing with the stories can just spin one in circles. Looking at the body helps to see and embrace the reactions without the layer of distraction the stories can produce. That is, working on the stories can sometimes be helpful, but sometimes it just keeps everything in thinking/conceptual territory. There's an honesty in the body that can be obscured by stories. The body doesn't get into complicated stories. It just reacts at a root level.

"Mario Martinez: Yes, people that win the lottery keep
it on the average of 18 months in the US. They can't handle it. Joy is a
very dangerous emotion. You have to be real careful with joy."

This is an interesting dynamic to contemplate; for me, two things come to mind-- first, that in the Chinese Medicine 5 Elements theory, each element corresponds to different organ systems, functions, colors, times of day, seasons... and primary emotions, understood to have both harmonious and disharmonious potentials. "Joy" is associated with the heart, with fire, with summer, with the south-- and is recognized to be capable of causing disease if out-of-balance.

The other association I have with this story is the Zen warning about preferences setting heaven and earth far apart [poetically enough, this sutra is called 'Faith in Mind']

The Great Way is not difficult

for those who have no preferences.

When love and hate are both absent

everything becomes clear and undisguised.

Make the smallest distinction however

and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

-- along with other Zen stories, there seems the implication that labelling something 'good' has a kind of automatic recoil/kickback to its polarity 'bad.' That on a very fundamental level we recognize this, but feel that we must be optimistic, or masterful, or in charge, or beat the system in some way-- and so go along with the conventional pretense.

Observing my own life, I have to hypothesize that effective practice speeds up the feedback loop-- so that the disfavored polarity comes hard on the heels of the preferred one: the loss after the gain, the infamy after the fame, the blame after the praise, the pain after the pleasure. Like some kind of bizarre self-test.

I think that it can be misunderstood, from Shargrol's and Kate's examples, that joy or love is something to be avoided. I think it's worth distinguishing joy or love for success, achievement, material gain or other things that are really about trying to hold onto or cling to conditional stuff as a source of happiness. In that regard, such clinging cannot satisfy, and is always at odds with its opposite, which is loss, fear of loss, aversion to loss, dislike, and so on. Indeed it does set "heaven and earth infinitely apart" and create this turmoil.

But in the release of those preferences, in the clarity and balance and freedom from grasping and aversion, there is profound contentment, joy and love. Just not about getting something or having something or being a certain kind of person, etc. In other words, not dependent upon conditions.

"Looking at the body helps to see and embrace the reactions without the layer of distraction the stories can produce." - ona

What happens after the reactions are seen and embraced?

What happens after the reactions are seen and embraced?

-sunyata

Freedom to experience fully.

edit: freedom to experience fully, from onset to disappearance, without suffering, without a trace.

Kate, that’s good stuff. The interesting thing to me is that any emotion is seen by contrast. Positive emotions (like joy) are wildly different than depression, which means in many people the experience sets heaven and earth wide apart. If one’s baseline condition is one of (true, unexcited, primordial) happiness, then joy is just a “spice”, not a wildly different flavor. All of the positive emotions (and I don’t know the names, but metta, mudita, etc.) are expressions of basic happiness. These same emotions to others that are unhappy are wildly extreme events and sets the pendulum of opposite reaction into motion.

Another way to say it, is to the extent that we overlook the three characteristics of the experience (not completely satisfying, not the same as us, and temporary) it will be seen with a solidity that just isn’t there. We’ll lean against it to help create our sense of self (or to counteract our past sense of self) and it will fall away leaving us in despair. To the extent that we see the three characteristics, the event can be enjoyed as an expression of the universe, like weather (regardless of whether it’s good/bad/confused weather), something to be experienced for its own sake.

As in, “Oh you’re complimenting me? Thank you.” And without setting up a self around it to where if 1) I’m not complimented the next time, I feel bad, or 2) If I am complimented the next time, I feel like I’m really getting my act together and the future will hold awesome things for me. Etc.

For what it’s worth, a lot of thinking about this came up for me when I was starting to have mild, pleasurable meditation jhanas. Since they are sort of without worldly cause (at least compared to conventional life) they provided an opportunity to see just the physical/biological push-pull of sensations when baseline experience stood out in contrast against these episodic positive experiences. It’s clearer now that (in the jhanas I have access to) there are the same qualifiers (three characteristics) so they don’t set off the same push-pull situation.

(p.s. Another ramble, thanks folks for letting me indulge!)

"In otherwords, macroscopically I might say I was praised and I didn't want to have a big ego, so I denied my value by saying I sucked." - shargrol

The key here for me personally is the idea of not wanting to have a big ego. If I feel good about myself a little bit, I squish it. Feeling good about oneself, being proud is not good! A big ego is antithetical to spiritual living. At least that's the belief I drag about.

[cross-posted]

The big ego isn't the good feeling or the bad feeling, it's in the trying to control the experience at all. It's the manipulator, regardless of the manipulation. Plus, it ain't really "the big ego", as in a "self". It's old habits, or as MM would sorta characterize them it's wounds causing reactions.

"Freedom to experience fully.

edit: freedom to experience fully, from onset to disappearance, without suffering, without a trace." - shargrol

So seeing and embracing the bodily sensations associated with automatic responses doesn't unhook them? They just keep going and going, but we are now experiencing them fully, instead of trying to change them? Or maybe it's the automatic responses that keep us from experiencing fully and this is what you are getting at.

"Freedom to experience fully.
edit: freedom to experience fully, from onset to disappearance, without suffering, without a trace." - shargrol
So seeing and embracing the bodily sensations associated with automatic responses doesn't unhook them? They just keep going and going, but we are now experiencing them fully, instead of trying to change them? Or maybe it's the automatic responses that keep us from experiencing fully and this is what you are getting at.


-sunyata

The paradox is that by allowing them, experiencing them fully, we realize they aren't the same anymore.

In other words, to take an example of someone with a panic response to being startled:

Loud noise-->body jumps-->mind says "oh shit danger" -->person breaks out in sweat, fear-->person starts remembering all the danger from some past experiences or imagining possible danger-->person gets mad at themselves for being prone to panic, gets depressed--->person spends rest of day thinking about how stupid they are to have this response, and wishing they could change it.

vs.

Loud noise-->body jumps-->flicker of fear, look around for danger-->embraced, accepted-->oh, that was that panic response where my heart pounds and I start breathing fast and have a bunch of memories, there they go-->move on to next moment, eating toast or walking the dog rather than stewing all day

which eventually leads to: loud noise-->flinch, look--->move on to next activity, not even dwelling on it at all

See what I mean?

I definitely do. Being aware of and embracing the bodily sensations seems to keep the snowball from growing. Thanks. This makes the process very clear.

"It's not just about body sensations. I hate to disagree but it's also, if not more so, about seeing the 3 characteristics of experience in a very, very profound way." -Chris

True, there's more to it than just body sensations. However - and I think you would agree with me, so this is just for emphasis - bringing awareness to the body, and thoughts, and everything else in experience is the most essential prerequisite for transformation. The 3-Cs are useful only when applied to actual experience. They are almost useless as something to just think about.

Again, I think you were implying this, but I wanted it to be insanely clear

Yes, and I think body sensations are a very helpful starting point for people not yet well into their practice, because it is simple and it does help cut through the content/story spin. Sometimes it's useful to be pragmatic about practice advise, even if that means leaving aside details.