Thanks, this is helpful too. I just googled mindfulness but wiki wasn't much help about the technique. I'll search some more after I reply.
I think a lot of teachers now talk about and teach techniques for getting out of the tub. In my experience some are better than others in that they get one out of the tub most quickly. And without slipping (-: My favorite from Release Technique and Sedona Method is to simply say yes to whatever negativity I notice, whether it be a thought, emotion, physical sensation, something in environment, etc. Heck,, I don't even have to know exactly what negative emotion it is. Saying yes automatically steps me out of the toxic tub because yes carries such a positive energy. Oh, oh, did I just teach a technique?! ________________________________ From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 11:09 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Relationships: "master-disciple" or "guru-groupie?" --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > Thanks for feedback. However laughing at the idea that I > have a lack of curiosity. My friends know that I have > investigated many processes over the years in my quest for > emotional healing. Cool. Below I will explain further my understanding of mindfulness, the way I was taught it. I do this because the idea strikes me as fun -- I will learn a lot by trying to put it into words. I do *not* do this in any attempt to "convert" you or entice you to explore mindfulness, or any of that stuff. I really couldn't give a shit what you believe or what you do. > My theory is that a lot of non investigating TMers either > don't need emotional healing and or are happy with their > results from TM. And they're busy living their lives so > they don't take precious time investigating other systems > for which they have no need. This is possible. For me, the whole idea of "emotional healing" is so *not* in my way of thinking that I can't even go there. It just does not compute. It's so retro. :-) > In my original request to Tea for info on mindfulness I > mention Release Technique and Sedona Method. I'd still > appreciate any comparison of these to mindfulness. Don't know anything about them, and thus cannot comment. > I'm attempting to ascertain if mindfulness is what I call > a verbal technique, the most famous of which is The Work > of Byron Katie. Not at all. See below. > Sometimes I find verbal techniques too mental. That's why > I like energy work like EFT tapping which uses the meridian > points of acupuncture. > > I think both energy work and verbal techniques are different > than feeling the body. However, in my experience, all have > their value at different times. I'm sure mindfulness does too. Perhaps, but I would characterize mindfulness -- as I understand it -- as being radically and fundamentally different to ANY technique that seeks to "understand," "process," or "work through" one's emotions. I don't think that any such techniques -- including psychoanalysis -- actually work, for reasons I'll explain below. To me these are all ways to *indulge* the afflictive emotions, to "stay in the tub." More on this tub thang later. :-) > From your description it sounds like it's a technique of > directing the attention from negative to positive contents > of attention. Am I understanding accurately? Replace the word "contents" above with "states," and I think you're starting to get it. > I agree that it's healthiest to not dwell on negative > emotions but rather deal with them as quickly and > thoroughly as possible. Here's where I stop replying to your comments and start on the explanation. I can agree with "deal with them quickly," but disagree completely with "deal with them as thoroughly as possible." The reason lies in my understanding of what emotions are, and aren't. First, they're not "your" emotions. They're states of attention, which you have chosen to "put on" and "wear" in reaction to everyday events. What emotional "outfit" you choose to put on depends on your own samskaras, and tendencies -- from this life and, if you believe in them, past lives. Each emotion "comes with" a set of *attributes*, which distinguish that emotion (and that state of attention) from all others. The positive emotions -- joy, love, giving, compassion, kindness, etc. -- all have positive attributes. "Wear" those emotions, and you feel better. "Wear" them often, and your health is better, and your overall life is better. The negative or afflictive emotions also have a known set of attributes. Choose to "wear" anger, hatred, envy, jealousy, depression, or the desire for vengeance or retribution, and you "put on" the attributes that go with those emotions, and those states of attention. The thing is, when I described them in my previous post as "toxic," I was being literal. Try to imagine each of these afflictive emotions as bathtubs, full of the attributes of each of the emotions. Hate is a bathtub full of cyanide. Anger is a bathtub full of arsenic. Depression is a bathtub full of belladonna. Vengeance is a bathtub full of toxic waste. Why don't I think highly of techniques that want you to "explore" or "understand" or "work through" these nega- tive emotions? Because in my view they're asking you to STAY IN THE FUCKIN' TUB. And the longer you stay in the tub, the more that partic- ular poison seeps into your system. It doesn't *matter* whether you think you're "processing" the afflictive emotion or "understanding" it or "working through" it. All that matters is how long you spend in the tub. You can't ever "work through" that emotion because the tub is constantly refilling itself with more of that emotion's toxins. Mindfulness is about GETTING OUT OF THE FUCKIN' TUB. Once you become aware that you're sitting in a bathtub full of toxic waste or poison, you have the choice to GET OUT. It may take a little doing at first, because one of the attributes *of* the afflictive emotions is that they are addictive, like heroin. Once you're caught in one of them, part of you wants to *wallow in it*, to perpetuate it, to keep it going. That's the poison talking. Don't listen. Mindfulness -- as I understand it, with regard to the affictive emotions -- is a twofold process. The first part is becoming more aware of one's ever-changing states of attention during the day, and at (as Iranitea said well) "labeling" them or nailing them as what they are. "Aha! I'm angry." The moment you can have that realization, you can GET OUT OF THE TUB. You don't have to stay there and indulge in it, and allow the poison of anger to seep into your system. The second part -- the actual mechanics of getting out of the tub -- vary among the various teachers of mindful- ness techniques. I won't get into them, just as I won' t recommend any. If you're actually curious, you'll discover these things yourself. If you're not, no problemo. But you really CAN get out of the tub. As effortlessly as you come back to the mantra when you realize that you're off of it in TM, you can step out of the ugly tub and jump into a more pleasant tub, one full of joy and fresh water. > What is it that one comes back to in mindfulness? Could > be you answered this before but it would help to > hear it again in this context. That's one of those details I won't go into, because I don't want anyone here to accuse me of "pushing" some technique. Anyway, that's my explanation of mindfulness as I see it, typed off the top of my head, no pauses, no edits, just typing what came to me. You are now free to do with it whatever you want. :-) > ________________________________ > From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2012 2:16 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Relationships: "master-disciple" or > "guru-groupie?" > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > Reading your words I realize I don't have a clear > > understanding of mindfulness. I've never thought it > > was a threat to TM. I simply thought it was allowing > > the attention to easily rest with whatever contents > > are present. That seems to develop naturally as a > > by product of TM. > > > > Anyway, it'd be great to hear more about mindfulness. > > You asked. > > Your misconception about mindfulness says a great > deal about the lack of curiosity about other tech- > niques of self discovery that has been promoted > among its students by Maharishi and the TMO. And > it is NOT just me noticing this and commenting on > it; "blissfully ignorant" is how TMers are referred > to by *most* practitioners of other forms of meditation > and self discovery. TMers have a tendency to either 1) > not be curious enough about other techniques to even > *want* to find out about them, or 2) settle for the > description of these techniques they've been given > by Maharishi. > > The problem with #1 is that it tends to reveal a kind > of laziness about the greater spiritual world and how > it works that one associates with a cult, not with a > real tradition of gaining knowledge. The problem with > #2 is that quite often Maharishi was WRONG about the > short, derogatory descriptions he spoon-fed TMers > about other techniques. *He* was clearly suffering > from the disability of #1, and wasn't curious enough > to either learn or learn about the techniques he put > down so often. And, knowing nothing about them but > feeling a need *to* put them down because in his mind > they presented a competitor to his only product, TM, > *he* often settled for the first negative description > anyone gave him of these techniques that he'd never > either learned about or learned personally. > > I saw this happen dozens of times over the years I > was around him. He'd come up with some short, put-down > description of a technique other than TM, and I, who > had actually studied that technique, could not help but > notice that MMY's description was completely, totally, > 100% WRONG. Total ignorance. Often the *opposite* of > what the technique he was trying to put down was really > like. He was mouthing something someone had told him, > *without caring* whether what was told to him was true > or not. > > The result, IMO, is a generation of chronically incurious > TMers who, convinced that they know everything worth > knowing already, are completely close-minded about learn- > ing anything more. *Especially* if it isn't taught by > the TMO. Sad, really...a form of not only ignorance, > but *pride of ignorance*. > > Anyway, mindfulness has nothing to do with "feeling the > body," which is what you seem to have confused it with. > Yes, *part* of mindfulness is paying attention to the > fluctuating feelings and sensations in the body, and > allowing them to happen without judgement, and without > becoming either attached or repulsed by them. > > But mindfulness as I see it is more about becoming aware > of the equally-fluctuating *states of attention* that go > through our minds and emotional bodies every day. In this > respect, Maharishi's simplistic "seven states of consciousness" > model really serves his students badly, because it lures > them into thinking that "waking state" describes just one > state of attention. It doesn't. Humans go through *hundreds* > of different variants of waking state every day. Learning > to recognize them is the basis of the type of mindfulness > I'm referring to. > > Mainly, what I'm referring to are techniques for how to > deal gracefully with fleeting emotions that come up during > each day. Some of these emotions are positive, and some are > negative. The basic theory is that *indulging in* the neg- > ative emotions is *destructive*. The afflictive emotions > are seen as TOXIC. Anger, greed, jealousy, hatred, envy, > etc. all have easily-recognizable physiological symptoms, > they all have easily-recognizable psychological symptoms, > and they're all poisonous as hell. They trash your overall > mindstate and bring it down to lower levels. The longer > you indulge in one of these afflictive emotions, the > more damage you do to your body and your mind. > > So the idea is to learn to recognize them more quickly. > Once you do, and have *recognized* that you're in the midst > of one of the afflictive emotions, by practicing the simple > techniques of mindfulness you can move your attention to > another place, and put the afflictive emotion behind you. > You "trade it in" for another, more productive emotional > and mental state. And all of this requires no more effort > than "gently coming back to the mantra" in TM. > > I think it has value. So do a lot of people, judging from > the fact that it has FAR outstripped TM in acceptance in > therapeutic situations. This has happened 1) because mind- > fulness works, and can be proven to work, and 2) because > it can be taught with no "baggage" carried over from any > set of proprietary or religious teachings. > > If you're actually curious enough to find out about mind- > fulness, I applaud that, and suggest you look into it more. > If not, that's fine, too. You just asked, so I gave you a > little more background information. > > Some people are attracted to the idea of no longer being > slaves to the emotions that flit through their lives and > through their waking states. Others are not, and have > grown so accustomed to living in the states of mind caused > by indulging in the afflictive emotions that they think > such things are normal, or even desirable. Just look around > at FFL, and you'll see several of the latter. > > How else would you describe people who spend *every week* > on FFL, and have for years, trying to perpetuate or restart > the same old arguments, based on the same old anger or envy > or jealousy or hatred? They're acting out an *addiction* to > lower states of attention caused by indulging in the afflictive > emotions that cause anger, envy, jealousy and hatred. They've > come to feel that such feelings are NORMAL. > > I think that's sad, and I tend to ignore such people, and > allow them to live in their toxic mindstates by themselves, > or with others they manage to lure into those mindstates. > After all these years of indulging in the toxic, they really > MAY have no choice about which states of attention they > live in, but I do. And I make that choice as easily as > coming back to the mantra in TM. > > So could anyone else. >
