--- In [email protected], "Jeff Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Alex Stanley" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know if there is supposed to be any intention with > > respect to internal crap. It's been my experience that with > > this increasing awareness of that part of me that is not > > involved, there is less of > > me that gets overwhelmed. The crap is still there, but my > > relationship to it has changed. For the time being, I've given up > > trying to fix things. Instead, I simply remain present to however I > > show up at any given moment. > > Cool. Ultimately, I believe you need to handle the internal "crap" > and get rid of it.
As hopefully a rare intellectualism from me, and not to argue but to present another POV, I once heard an interesting talk from a Tibetan teacher on this idea of "working through stuff." His view was that the "crap" has no existence; to focus on it in an attempt to "work through it" tends to give it existence, and activate something that is otherwise inactive. In his very traditional view, the "crap" is related to states of attention. A certain level of "internal crap" is just how one sees things *from* a certain state of attention. His view was that it's impossible to "work through" the crap of that state of attention because there is an infinite amount of it. Focusing on the crap is like turning on a faucet that is fed by an infinite lake of that particular brand of crap. No matter how much of it you "work through" as it flows through the faucet, there is always more. In other words, you could convince yourself that you've "worked through" all the anger that you've got inside you, and be free from it for some time. But the minute you allow your mind to shift back into state of attention in which anger is an attribute, bing! there is anger again. So his approach was very Tibetan traditional. Become more aware of your ever-fluctuating states of attention, and use your free will and intention to not dwell in the ones that have "lower" attributes (like anger or jealousy), prefering the states of attention that have "higher" attributes (like love and compassion). Sounds a little like mood-making, but I can assure you that with the proper training in identifying one's fluctuating relative states of attention and then shifting from one to another easily, it isn't the same thing at all. It's more like, "Oh, there's that anger sucker again. I know how I feel whenever I indulge in it, and don't particularly want to feel that way again. Therefore I will shift my state of attention to one that is shinier and more productive." I'm not saying that this approach is "better," I'm just presenting it as another POV on the subject. This approach, when you analyze it, is a lot like "When you become aware that you are not thinking the dharma, easily think the dharma." :-) Unc To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
