--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > 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?! >
Yes. > > ________________________________ > 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?" > > > Â > --- 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.ÃÂ 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. > > >
