| A bloom in Olbrich Gardens |
In "No Bad Parts," Richard Schwartz praises some aspects of meditation and mindfulness, but criticizes how Buddhist meditation teachers understand strong feelings. For him, strong feelings are "trailheads." Whatever you feel strongly -- whatever makes your blood pressure go up -- is a trailhead to some important "part" of you that needs attention.
But in Buddhist meditation (like in a sounds, thoughts, feelings meditation) the goal is to watch feelings in a detached way, like they are clouds in the sky, like they are cars on a train that "you do not need to get on." The idea is that they are passing, they are not "you." A common phrase is "don't feed your feelings with your thoughts."
That makes sense to me -- when I tend to ruminate, I can feel myself spiraling. I know that I if I'm upset at night, I won't be able to sleep if I don't find a way to not feed the feelings.
But Schwartz's idea makes a lot of sense, too. You might be good at allowing strong feelings to pass and become quietistic (that's always been one issue for me -- when you train yourself to be non-reactive, what makes you decide to do something, to take action?). Schwartz would agree; he'd say that meditation can destress you, but that it doesn't address/confront the "part" of you that's acting out with the strong feeling.
I don't have a solution to this... I just thought I'd record my current observation about the split. It kind of feels like a "Structure of Scientific Revolution" issue: are feelings a "background" thing or "the main event"?
No comments:
Post a Comment