|
Welcome your intensity. For more information,
contact: Gary Schouborg, PhD (925) 932-1982 |
Schouborg, "Enlightenment, Depression, and Psychotherapy" (online
exchanges). Enlightenment, Depression, and
Psychotherapy (online exchanges) Jonathan Reams quoted Alternate states (to follow James Austin's terminology) may serve
various aims: reduce su The relevance of ordinary, everyday life is the following. First,
it is the perspective from which presumably most of us are operating while
currently reading this posting.
Second, it is from that perspective that we must therefore decide whether or
not to pursue alternate states; therefore, even if the alternate is promoted
as superior to our present state, the promoter must bridge the credulity gap
by explaining how the alternate state is superior to our current, ordinary
one, which explanation must at least partially involve ordinary terms. Third,
di Although There are at least three contributors to depression. The first
is helplessness: I am depressed
because I have failed to achieve some goal and see no way in which I can
succeed; I feel bad and am unmotivated to do anything about it. Self-loathing
may add to my torment: I am not just in a depressing situation, but I
*deserve* to be; I have not just failed, but I *deserve* to fail. The third
contributor puts the final nail in the co ( (2) Concerning self-evaluation. I can reduce my depression the
more I can distance myself from my beliefs of self-worthlessness. Remedies
are similar to those indicated to fight beliefs concerning cause. (3) Concerning duration. I may also reduce my su To identify with my depression is to be unable to think of myself
unrelated to it. Thus, I cannot think of any successes I've enjoyed, of thin Now as I understand it, vipassana is a formal technique designed,
among other thin Thus, insight into the *impermanence* of conscious experience
directly undermines contribution 3, duration. Even if my depression lasts
interminably, mindful attention to it reveals di Insight into *no-self* is often interpreted ontologically, to
infer that there is literally no self there. However, I find it more useful
to do as I believe the Insight into *avoidable su Intellectually, these truths are obvious and believing them only
slightly lifts our depression, if at all. Vipassana is a formal technique for
spending quiet time with ourselves, so that we can directly experience these
three truths within our own consciousness. That is, we directly experience
the impermanence of our inner experiences as well as the intangibility of our
selves; we also experience how our beliefs in permanence and in a
well-defined self causes su Note that there is nothing here that suggests that all forms of
depression can be completely eliminated. For example, if my depression is
organically induced, enlightenment does not provide an organic cure. However,
it can reduce my su Finally, the preceding is set within the framework of the goal of
enlightenment to reduce su ------------ > I would define the vipassana technique as the volitional
practice of > mindfulness (to be clearly distinguished from the occurrence
of spontaneous > mindfulness or vipassana after Enlightenment). Is the only di > Exactly as you have quoted ˆ Dogen's "No > mind, no body." No subject-no object. Therefore, who is
to observe what? > Observation happens. > "Observation happens" has a certain usefulness in
helping overcome clinging, but as a description it is inadequate to the
experience, which is that *I* (and other individuals) am doing the observing.
The issue is what account of that *I* is adequate and thus serves
enlightenment. "Observation happens" is a draconian cure for an understanding of *I* that is
self-absorbed. If one is self-absorbed (clinging), the solution is not to
deny any self at all (e.g., observation happens) -- that would be a reaction
formation -- but to move to an account
of self that is functional (enlightened). We must go beyond a false dichotomy
between self and other to an understanding of self in relation to others. Now in fact, this is what The Theoretical Issue. The homunculus theory says that to account for human agency and
consciousness we must posit a self that is housed in the body. For example,
what accounts for the "I" when I say that I am writing this
sentence is a self (I) housed in the body. Only *I* experience my
consciousness, from within my body; others, on the outside, do not. Since *I*
am conscious, *I* am writing, and *I* am not my body, there is an
understandable tendency to conclude that *I* (self) am a reality (homunculus)
housed in my body. The problem with any homunculus theory is that it is a
pseudo-explanation: it is outside any explanatory web. All explanations fit
into a network; they cannot operate in
isolation. Thus, if I say that my car moves because there is a little man under
the hood who pushes it, the root problem is not that we could look under the
hood and see that no little man is there. In fact, we can never prove a
negative. If we looked under the hood and did not see anyone, I could claim
that there are many little men pushing the pistons. And if you insisted on
the role of gasoline, I could then say there are many little men pushing
molecules around causing fuel explosions that push the pistons. And so forth,
ad infinitum. So the problem with my homunculus theory is not that it can be
decisively refuted. Its problem is that it is purely ad hoc. In contrast, my
referring to the engine, the pistons, the gasoline, etc. refers to a whole
web of realities and explanations that work together. Where I disagree with The Practical Issue of Clinging What Enlightens me is not understanding that the homunculus
theory is wrong and why. What Enlightens me is anicca, anatta, and dukkha --
awakening to the transitory nature of experience (anicca), the fact that no
concept or set of concepts captures all that *I* am (anatta), and seeing
within my own experience how my failing to grasp anicca and anatta leads to
su In my previous email, I showed how this framework helps us see
both the nature of depression and the means of not identifying with it. We
can also apply the framework to > I would put it thus: Identification (or attachment) is being
concerned because > ˆ and simply because ˆ of the feeling of "me" and
"mine." (What you would call > "clinging"). Two initial points. The feeling of me and mine can exist or not
exist independently of whether one supports the homunculus theory or denies
it. What is salient for Enlightenment is the nature of that feeling. Clinging
arises when "me" or "mine" are taken absolutely.
Non-clinging occurs when they are understood within the framework of anicca,
anatta, and dukkha. We cannot operate in practical, daily living without
reference to me, mine, you, yours, they, and theirs. The question is whether
we are going to understand these concepts absolutely and dichotomously, or as
interrelated realities. > For example, being concerned about an unrelated handicapped
or > sick person is not attachment, It might be, if I identify with her in an absolute way. > but when that person is a close relative, the > additional concern is based on attachment (because he is
"my" relative). Not necessarily, if I don't identify with her in an absolute way.
Of course, I agree that the closer the relative, the more I am likely to so
identify. > Similarly, the Enlightened person has no self-image, no
image of himself as > "an Enlightened person" who must conform to
certain predefined criteria or > live up to certain standards. He has no expectations from
himself, like for > example that he should not be depressed. He lives
spontaneously, lightly, like > "a dry leaf in the wind." If he happens to be
depressed, he is not concerned > in the sense that he has no idea that "I should not be
depressed" though other > people may entertain such expectations of him because they
have very di > ideas of how an Enlightened person "should"
behave. Nor do these expectations > of the other people bother the Enlightened one. > Exactly, because the Enlightened one sees that she is not identical
to (anatta) any particular image or expectation. Now to the Psychotherapy Issue > Enlightenment is for the well-balanced, > psychologically mature individual, and if one is not such,
then > psychotherapies may be needed to bring that about. In the
context of > Enlightenment, all techniques, all therapies serve to bring
one to a certain > preliminary stage from which one could perhaps (if one is so
inclined) > conceive of Enlightenment. > What is the nature of that preliminary stage? Why is it a
necessary pre-condition? > Some degree of tranquillity could certainly be said to be a
pre-condition, > though it would be wise not to be too dogmatic about setting
any preconditions > for Enlightenment. If we should not be too dogmatic about it, then the door is
opened for the possibility that, at least in some cases, a highly neurotic
person could benefit from embarking on the path to Enlightenment without
benefit of psychotherapy. What would such a case look like? > > Two of my colleagues both psychiatrists, one also a senior
Vipassana teacher > at the Igatpuri institute, have done research on this. As
far as I know, > vipassana can be a useful adjunct to treatment in minor
neuroses in receptive > patients. It may be used to give the practitioner an insight
into his own > neurosis. It has also been tried in more severe cases. An
experiment was also > conducted in Tihar Jail in > response. > > There was also a report on the practice of mindfulness in
relation to > psychotherapy in the American Journal of Psychiatry, I think
a few years ago > ( > psychotherapist > understanding of Advaita in her sessions with patients to
great advantage. I > have met the lady when she was in > Several books, perhaps most notably Kabat-Zinn's, have spoken of
mindfulness in the service of various kinds of psychological dysfunction. > When I did need deep body-mind work, many opportunities > were given me as a recreation therapist(at > years' paid "in-service" at Esalen. I especially
benefited from Gestalt > therapy where important "unfinished" situations
would emerge and be dealt > with. The therapy would make my conflicts obvious(some from
childhood > traumas) and facilitate some process of completion. I was
asked to act out, > move, emote, be aware of bodily reactions, to express feelin > to touch and be touched, thus releasing those "buried
parts of me" that took > up so much psychic energy. The basis was that the truth will
make one free, > so that I'd say to the therapist what I might say to my
mother, my lover, if > only I could speak the truth of my feelin > benefited from body therapies such as rolfing and
Feldenkrais movement where > I experienced kinesthetic feedback and deeper experiential
understanding of > my particular patterns so I could, in a sense, let go and
re-organize my > nervous system in its orchestration of body mechanics. From
the > institutional setting of > enjoying the hot tubs and massages by the ocean's breeze as
well as > participating in therapy groups. What were the
benefits/results? I didn't > feel so controlled by my need to please and the resentments
underneath. I > could say no as well as yes to projects without agonizing. I
could more > comfortably be a lover and an enjoyer as well as an
activist. As > therapy changed my neurotic su > How compare with vipassana? If that's even possible, being
only a novice > student who just happens to have the bug to do inner work in
meditation. For > me there's no competition between therapy and meditation.
One may or may not > require either. Further what is often called
"meditation" seems to be more > of a therapy, especially as meditation is often advertised:
"Learn to > concentrate," "Be relaxed," "lose
Stress," "Be fully alive,".... > Contrast this with a Buddhist thangka with the meditator
having her/his head > cut o > It seems to me meditation goes beyond therapy and has more
universal, > > particular orientation of therapy. Meditation is
experiencing totally in all > areas of life, being present. Its purpose, if it can even be
stated, is to > completely release us from su > understanding reality and finally a state of mind that is
free of "ignorance > about the nature of the self." Therapy addresses unique
forms of su > by revealing underlying emotional-organic patterns. I don't
think my human > development ever ends and so I don't see a total resolution
of all my > psychological influences. Yet, at least as a possibility
(exemplified in the > rare lives of "enlightened ones"), in vipassana
there may be a final > resolution of all separation from "ourselves" and
the "world." > Well, > Take good care, This is wonderful, First, I don't see why highly neurotic individuals couldn't be
Enlightened. They just wouldn't identify with their neurosis. True,
obsessive-compulsives couldn't do
concentrative meditation, because they couldn't free themselves of their
preoccupations. But why couldn't they see their obsessive-compulsive impulses
for what they are -- passing experiences -- with which they refuse to
identify? We've all (?) agreed with If Enlightenment and neurosis can coexist, at least in principle,
then vipassana has di In this framework, vipassana and psychotherapy are interactive
and complimentary. We distinguish the two for historical reasons as well as
emphasis. However, the two should be in the tool bag of both gurus and
therapists. To help clients eliminate or cope with their thoughts and feelin Since this is an age of specialization, it will usually not be
desirable that the same guide address both the spiritual and the
psychological needs of the individual. There are usually advantages to
focusing on one area or the other. Still, in the individual, the two needs
are constantly interacting. Thanks to Nitin and |
