Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"

Expand Messages
  • walto
    Hi, folks. I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their thoughts on whether they think there s any conflict between the Right
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 23 7:16 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, folks.

      I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right Speech.)

      Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter without accepting all of the former?

      Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!

      Best,

      W
    • medit8ionsociety
      ... be willing to provide their thoughts on whether they think there s any conflict between the Right Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech portions of the
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 23 7:36 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi, folks.
        >
        > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would
        be willing to provide their thoughts on whether
        they think there's any conflict between the "Right
        Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the
        Eightfold Path and conventional views according to
        which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts (even
        angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness
        and perhaps even expressed. If some anger is being
        repressed, can it be conducive to well-being to "keep
        it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't
        Right Speech.)
        >
        > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think,
        so that the best way of answering it is to see what
        works (or what has been shown to work in properly
        designed studies), or do you take it rather to be
        something that is deducible from one's view of the
        mind? For example, do you think that the benefits
        of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible
        from the concept of dependent origination? That is,
        can one agree with the latter without accepting all
        of the former?
        >
        > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
        >
        > Best,
        >
        > W
        >
        Great question! I think that there is a meditative
        tactic that "solves" this by making "Right" action,
        speech, thinking,... everything ... automatic.
        It is found in this technique that the Dalai Lama
        has been said to do every day, and involves witnessing
        your life and reversing inappropriate actions into
        "right" ones when you see them. I hope this is
        beneficial. Similarly, on the post following W's, there
        is another "solution" that comes from the Toltec Path
        as shared by don Juan. Enjoy!

        The Dalai Lama Meditation
        ( http://www.meditationsociety.com/week6.html )

        The Dalai Lama has been acknowledged by Tibetan
        Buddhists to be a reincarnation of the God of
        Compassion and by the world in general to be a
        Nobel Peace Prize winner but few know him to be
        a practicing meditator. All his life, he has been
        surrounded by masters of meditation and has been
        initiated into many different techniques. It is
        therefore appropriate that we pay attention when
        he points out one method so valuable that he does it everyday:

        Remember when you were a kid and they often had
        cartoons where someone had a devil on one shoulder
        and an angel on the other and they were whispering
        into an ear -- one encouraging doing "bad" and
        one doing "good". In a way, that's the basis of
        the Dalai Lama Meditation technique.

        Sit quietly, calmly with eyes closed, as relaxed yet
        aware as you can be. Visualize yourself on the left
        side of your minds eye as you would appear to yourself
        and others in a moment of impatience. Really see
        this inner vision. Watch your face, observe your
        body language. What does your impatient self look
        like? On the right side of your minds eye, see yourself
        when you are very patient. What do you look like when
        you have a lifetime of time. As tense as you appeared
        on the left as your impatient self, see yourself as
        relaxed in your patience on the right. Now on the
        left side, see yourself as you appear when you're
        depressed. Look carefully. How does that make you
        feel? Can you be aware of the aura of doom and gloom
        you're radiating? And then, on the right side of your
        minds eye, see yourself as you are when you're joyous.
        Merge with that happiness. Know how others would see you.

        Continue seeing all the seemingly negative feelings
        and behaviors on the inner left-hand side of your
        minds eye and the opposite on the right. On the left,
        see yourself as jealous and on the right as how you
        appear when you are truly glad for someone else's
        sucess or happiness. On the left, see the bigoted
        you and on the right, the all-embracing. On the left
        the mean, on the right the sweet. See the stupid you
        and the brilliant. See the clumsy and the graceful.
        On the left, see the unsatisfied and on the right,
        the contented.

        Go on and on, becoming familiar with the "you" on
        the left and the opposite "you" on the right. Then
        see the total "you" who would be there on the left
        if none of the characteristics of the right side
        were present. Now see the "you" who would be the
        totality of yourself with the right side only if
        none of the behaviors and feelings of the left side
        "you" had ever appeared.

        The Dalai Lama tells us that there is nothing else
        necessary because just by seeing your negative
        left-side self, you will become so disgusted with
        yourself when you witness yourself acting in any
        of the left side ways that you will automatically
        cease any of those actions and start doing and
        feeling the right-side actions. Eventually, you
        will become the right-side you exclusively. Eventually,
        you will have peace, compassion, wisdom, good health,
        patience, and all the other glorious aspects of life.

        This technique has the potential to change your
        life profoundly for the better. It is one of the
        best antidotes for negativity. It is consistent
        with his unlimited compassion that the Dalai Lama
        has shared it with us.
      • walto
        Thanks, Bob. W
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 23 10:22 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Bob.

          W

          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Hi, folks.
          > >
          > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would
          > be willing to provide their thoughts on whether
          > they think there's any conflict between the "Right
          > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the
          > Eightfold Path and conventional views according to
          > which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts (even
          > angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness
          > and perhaps even expressed. If some anger is being
          > repressed, can it be conducive to well-being to "keep
          > it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't
          > Right Speech.)
          > >
          > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think,
          > so that the best way of answering it is to see what
          > works (or what has been shown to work in properly
          > designed studies), or do you take it rather to be
          > something that is deducible from one's view of the
          > mind? For example, do you think that the benefits
          > of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible
          > from the concept of dependent origination? That is,
          > can one agree with the latter without accepting all
          > of the former?
          > >
          > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
          > >
          > > Best,
          > >
          > > W
          > >
          > Great question! I think that there is a meditative
          > tactic that "solves" this by making "Right" action,
          > speech, thinking,... everything ... automatic.
          > It is found in this technique that the Dalai Lama
          > has been said to do every day, and involves witnessing
          > your life and reversing inappropriate actions into
          > "right" ones when you see them. I hope this is
          > beneficial. Similarly, on the post following W's, there
          > is another "solution" that comes from the Toltec Path
          > as shared by don Juan. Enjoy!
          >
          > The Dalai Lama Meditation
          > ( http://www.meditationsociety.com/week6.html )
          >
          > The Dalai Lama has been acknowledged by Tibetan
          > Buddhists to be a reincarnation of the God of
          > Compassion and by the world in general to be a
          > Nobel Peace Prize winner but few know him to be
          > a practicing meditator. All his life, he has been
          > surrounded by masters of meditation and has been
          > initiated into many different techniques. It is
          > therefore appropriate that we pay attention when
          > he points out one method so valuable that he does it everyday:
          >
          > Remember when you were a kid and they often had
          > cartoons where someone had a devil on one shoulder
          > and an angel on the other and they were whispering
          > into an ear -- one encouraging doing "bad" and
          > one doing "good". In a way, that's the basis of
          > the Dalai Lama Meditation technique.
          >
          > Sit quietly, calmly with eyes closed, as relaxed yet
          > aware as you can be. Visualize yourself on the left
          > side of your minds eye as you would appear to yourself
          > and others in a moment of impatience. Really see
          > this inner vision. Watch your face, observe your
          > body language. What does your impatient self look
          > like? On the right side of your minds eye, see yourself
          > when you are very patient. What do you look like when
          > you have a lifetime of time. As tense as you appeared
          > on the left as your impatient self, see yourself as
          > relaxed in your patience on the right. Now on the
          > left side, see yourself as you appear when you're
          > depressed. Look carefully. How does that make you
          > feel? Can you be aware of the aura of doom and gloom
          > you're radiating? And then, on the right side of your
          > minds eye, see yourself as you are when you're joyous.
          > Merge with that happiness. Know how others would see you.
          >
          > Continue seeing all the seemingly negative feelings
          > and behaviors on the inner left-hand side of your
          > minds eye and the opposite on the right. On the left,
          > see yourself as jealous and on the right as how you
          > appear when you are truly glad for someone else's
          > sucess or happiness. On the left, see the bigoted
          > you and on the right, the all-embracing. On the left
          > the mean, on the right the sweet. See the stupid you
          > and the brilliant. See the clumsy and the graceful.
          > On the left, see the unsatisfied and on the right,
          > the contented.
          >
          > Go on and on, becoming familiar with the "you" on
          > the left and the opposite "you" on the right. Then
          > see the total "you" who would be there on the left
          > if none of the characteristics of the right side
          > were present. Now see the "you" who would be the
          > totality of yourself with the right side only if
          > none of the behaviors and feelings of the left side
          > "you" had ever appeared.
          >
          > The Dalai Lama tells us that there is nothing else
          > necessary because just by seeing your negative
          > left-side self, you will become so disgusted with
          > yourself when you witness yourself acting in any
          > of the left side ways that you will automatically
          > cease any of those actions and start doing and
          > feeling the right-side actions. Eventually, you
          > will become the right-side you exclusively. Eventually,
          > you will have peace, compassion, wisdom, good health,
          > patience, and all the other glorious aspects of life.
          >
          > This technique has the potential to change your
          > life profoundly for the better. It is one of the
          > best antidotes for negativity. It is consistent
          > with his unlimited compassion that the Dalai Lama
          > has shared it with us.
          >
        • Aideen Mckenna
          The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion deeper into the
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 23 12:30 PM
          • 0 Attachment

            The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression.  The Buddha understood how the human mind worked.  Driving an unwelcome emotion deeper into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more strength.  When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes the thought, giving it “bare attention”(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as a bubble on the observed thought), then moving on.  There’s never any pushing away – that only empowers the thought.  Bhante Henepola Gunaratana’s classic Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here. 

            As for the concept of dependent origination – can one agree with it without accepting all of the Eightfold Path?  I don’t think so – at least not from the point of view of Theravada Buddhism.  If I were asking that question, I’d go to the excellent Barbara O’Brien – she can be contacted here:

             

            http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm

             

            With metta,

            Aideen

             

             

             

            From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
            Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
            To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"

             

             

            Hi, folks.

            I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right Speech.)

            Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter without accepting all of the former?

            Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!

            Best,

            W

          • walto
            Thanks, Aideen. One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf between giving something bare attention and really living/working
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 23 6:52 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Aideen.

              One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a Buddhist notion of catharsis?

              W

              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@...> wrote:
              >
              > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
              > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion deeper
              > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
              > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes the
              > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as a
              > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any pushing
              > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's classic
              > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
              >
              > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it without
              > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not from
              > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
              > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
              >
              >
              >
              > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
              >
              >
              >
              > With metta,
              >
              > Aideen
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
              > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
              > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path
              > and "catharsis"
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Hi, folks.
              >
              > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their
              > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
              > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
              > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts
              > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even
              > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
              > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right
              > Speech.)
              >
              > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of
              > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
              > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is
              > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the
              > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
              > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
              > without accepting all of the former?
              >
              > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
              >
              > Best,
              >
              > W
              >
            • sean tremblay
              I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to pass though
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 24 6:28 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to pass though you.


                From: walto <calhorn@...>
                To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"

                 
                Thanks, Aideen.

                One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a Buddhist notion of catharsis?

                W

                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@...> wrote:
                >
                > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion deeper
                > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes the
                > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as a
                > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any pushing
                > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's classic
                > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                >
                > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it without
                > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not from
                > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                >
                >
                >
                > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                >
                >
                >
                > With metta,
                >
                > Aideen
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path
                > and "catharsis"
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Hi, folks.
                >
                > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their
                > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts
                > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even
                > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right
                > Speech.)
                >
                > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of
                > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is
                > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the
                > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                > without accepting all of the former?
                >
                > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                >
                > Best,
                >
                > W
                >



              • walto
                Thanks, Sean! W
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 24 10:25 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks, Sean!

                  W

                  --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to pass though you.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: walto <calhorn@...>
                  > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  > Thanks, Aideen.
                  >
                  > One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a Buddhist notion of catharsis?
                  >
                  > W
                  >
                  > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                  > > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion deeper
                  > > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                  > > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes the
                  > > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as a
                  > > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any pushing
                  > > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's classic
                  > > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                  > >
                  > > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it without
                  > > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not from
                  > > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                  > > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > With metta,
                  > >
                  > > Aideen
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                  > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                  > > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                  > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path
                  > > and "catharsis"
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Hi, folks.
                  > >
                  > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their
                  > > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                  > > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                  > > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts
                  > > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even
                  > > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                  > > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right
                  > > Speech.)
                  > >
                  > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of
                  > > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                  > > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is
                  > > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the
                  > > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                  > > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                  > > without accepting all of the former?
                  > >
                  > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                  > >
                  > > Best,
                  > >
                  > > W
                  > >
                  >
                • Aideen Mckenna
                  One acknowledges the feeling but does not act on it. On one occasion, the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh was giving a lecture in the US during the Viet Nam
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 24 3:26 PM
                  • 0 Attachment

                    One acknowledges the feeling but does not act on it.  On one occasion, the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh was giving a lecture in the US during the Viet Nam war.  The spiritual leader had gone through extremely difficult years during the war in Viet Nam, where he founded a relief organization.  With that group, he rebuilt bombed villages, resettled the families made homeless by the bombings, set up schools & medical centres, etc.  Then he went to the US where he met with Dr. Martin Luther King & urged him to ask the American people to influence their government to stop the destruction & carnage.  During the lecture’s question period, someone spoke very angrily, saying, in effect: “If you care so much about your country, what are you doing here in the safety of the US while your people are suffering & dying?”  Apparently the monk was silent for a few moments, after which he answered calmly, without anger.  When asked later about whether the question hadn’t angered him, he said it had enraged him.  During the brief silence, he had had to do  the hardest work he’d ever done in his life calming himself with a breathing exercise.  He said he had nearly passed out during that pause.  He hadn’t suppressed it, he confronted the feeling & dealt with it, leaving no residue, no impulse to scream at the questioner.

                    According to Buddhism, the “kleshas” (negative afflictions) cannot be overcome by acting them out.  Although they are never displayed, they are patiently rooted out by painstakingly thorough mental observation as they arise from the unconscious.  It requires great discipline to completely purify the mind, but it can be done.  The internal work involves a deep understanding of “anatta” (no-self) & “anicca” (impermanence).  I guess one can say there is a catharsis, but it’s a gradual one, & it’s final.  Or that there are many catharses, as layer after layer of the poisons (another translation of kleshas) arises from deeper & deeper levels of the unconscious & are removed entirely. 

                    That’s my understanding, at any rate. 

                    Aideen

                    From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                    Sent: February-24-12 10:25 AM
                    To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"

                     

                     

                    Thanks, Sean!

                    W

                    --- Ints, sean tremblay <bethjams9@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to pass though you.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: walto <calhorn@...>
                    > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"
                    >
                    >
                    >  
                    > Thanks, Aideen.
                    >
                    > One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a Buddhist notion of catharsis?
                    >
                    > W
                    >
                    > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                    > > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion deeper
                    > > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                    > > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes the
                    > > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as a
                    > > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any pushing
                    > > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's classic
                    > > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                    > >
                    > > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it without
                    > > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not from
                    > > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                    > > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > With metta,
                    > >
                    > > Aideen
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                    > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                    > > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                    > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path
                    > > and "catharsis"
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Hi, folks.
                    > >
                    > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their
                    > > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                    > > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                    > > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts
                    > > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even
                    > > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                    > > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right
                    > > Speech.)
                    > >
                    > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of
                    > > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                    > > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is
                    > > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the
                    > > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                    > > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                    > > without accepting all of the former?
                    > >
                    > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                    > >
                    > > Best,
                    > >
                    > > W
                    > >
                    >

                  • walto
                    Thanks again, Aideen. That s really interesting--if you could suggest some literature on Buddhist takes regarding the unconscious, I d be interested. The two
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 24 4:25 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks again, Aideen. That's really interesting--if you could suggest some literature on Buddhist takes regarding the unconscious, I'd be interested. The two things I've come across are a book by de Silva on Buddhism and Freudianism and _Contexts and Dialogue_, by Tao Jiang.

                      Best,

                      W

                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > One acknowledges the feeling but does not act on it. On one occasion, the
                      > Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh was giving a lecture in the US during the
                      > Viet Nam war. The spiritual leader had gone through extremely difficult
                      > years during the war in Viet Nam, where he founded a relief organization.
                      > With that group, he rebuilt bombed villages, resettled the families made
                      > homeless by the bombings, set up schools & medical centres, etc. Then he
                      > went to the US where he met with Dr. Martin Luther King & urged him to ask
                      > the American people to influence their government to stop the destruction &
                      > carnage. During the lecture's question period, someone spoke very angrily,
                      > saying, in effect: "If you care so much about your country, what are you
                      > doing here in the safety of the US while your people are suffering & dying?"
                      > Apparently the monk was silent for a few moments, after which he answered
                      > calmly, without anger. When asked later about whether the question hadn't
                      > angered him, he said it had enraged him. During the brief silence, he had
                      > had to do the hardest work he'd ever done in his life calming himself with
                      > a breathing exercise. He said he had nearly passed out during that pause.
                      > He hadn't suppressed it, he confronted the feeling & dealt with it, leaving
                      > no residue, no impulse to scream at the questioner.
                      >
                      > According to Buddhism, the "kleshas" (negative afflictions) cannot be
                      > overcome by acting them out. Although they are never displayed, they are
                      > patiently rooted out by painstakingly thorough mental observation as they
                      > arise from the unconscious. It requires great discipline to completely
                      > purify the mind, but it can be done. The internal work involves a deep
                      > understanding of "anatta" (no-self) & "anicca" (impermanence). I guess one
                      > can say there is a catharsis, but it's a gradual one, & it's final. Or that
                      > there are many catharses, as layer after layer of the poisons (another
                      > translation of kleshas) arises from deeper & deeper levels of the
                      > unconscious & are removed entirely.
                      >
                      > That's my understanding, at any rate.
                      >
                      > Aideen
                      >
                      > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                      > Sent: February-24-12 10:25 AM
                      > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                      > Path and "catharsis"
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Thanks, Sean!
                      >
                      > W
                      >
                      > --- Ints, sean tremblay <bethjams9@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to
                      > supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to
                      > pass though you.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ________________________________
                      > > From: walto <calhorn@>
                      > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                      > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                      > Path and "catharsis"
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Â
                      > > Thanks, Aideen.
                      > >
                      > > One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf
                      > between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through
                      > it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a
                      > Buddhist notion of catharsis?
                      > >
                      > > W
                      > >
                      > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> , "Aideen Mckenna"
                      > <aideenmck@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                      > > > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion
                      > deeper
                      > > > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                      > > > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes
                      > the
                      > > > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as
                      > a
                      > > > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any
                      > pushing
                      > > > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's
                      > classic
                      > > > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                      > > >
                      > > > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it
                      > without
                      > > > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not
                      > from
                      > > > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                      > > > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > With metta,
                      > > >
                      > > > Aideen
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of walto
                      > > > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                      > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                      > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                      > Path
                      > > > and "catharsis"
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Hi, folks.
                      > > >
                      > > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide
                      > their
                      > > > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                      > > > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                      > > > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious
                      > thoughts
                      > > > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps
                      > even
                      > > > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                      > > > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't
                      > Right
                      > > > Speech.)
                      > > >
                      > > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way
                      > of
                      > > > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                      > > > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something
                      > that is
                      > > > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that
                      > the
                      > > > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                      > > > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                      > > > without accepting all of the former?
                      > > >
                      > > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                      > > >
                      > > > Best,
                      > > >
                      > > > W
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • meditationsource
                      W, why don t you try abreaction or sublimation and do it as mindfully as possible to see what benefits it might bring? Then you can know what approach is most
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 24 6:14 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        W, why don't you try abreaction or sublimation and do it as mindfully as possible to see what benefits it might bring? Then you can know what approach is most suitable based on your own experience. Observing negative thoughts without acting on them is the purist approach, but if it's not leading to their subsiding, maybe there's some bad karma associated with acting them out that needs to be addressed. Good luck.


                        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Thanks again, Aideen. That's really interesting--if you could suggest some literature on Buddhist takes regarding the unconscious, I'd be interested. The two things I've come across are a book by de Silva on Buddhism and Freudianism and _Contexts and Dialogue_, by Tao Jiang.
                        >
                        > Best,
                        >
                        > W
                        >
                        > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > One acknowledges the feeling but does not act on it. On one occasion, the
                        > > Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh was giving a lecture in the US during the
                        > > Viet Nam war. The spiritual leader had gone through extremely difficult
                        > > years during the war in Viet Nam, where he founded a relief organization.
                        > > With that group, he rebuilt bombed villages, resettled the families made
                        > > homeless by the bombings, set up schools & medical centres, etc. Then he
                        > > went to the US where he met with Dr. Martin Luther King & urged him to ask
                        > > the American people to influence their government to stop the destruction &
                        > > carnage. During the lecture's question period, someone spoke very angrily,
                        > > saying, in effect: "If you care so much about your country, what are you
                        > > doing here in the safety of the US while your people are suffering & dying?"
                        > > Apparently the monk was silent for a few moments, after which he answered
                        > > calmly, without anger. When asked later about whether the question hadn't
                        > > angered him, he said it had enraged him. During the brief silence, he had
                        > > had to do the hardest work he'd ever done in his life calming himself with
                        > > a breathing exercise. He said he had nearly passed out during that pause.
                        > > He hadn't suppressed it, he confronted the feeling & dealt with it, leaving
                        > > no residue, no impulse to scream at the questioner.
                        > >
                        > > According to Buddhism, the "kleshas" (negative afflictions) cannot be
                        > > overcome by acting them out. Although they are never displayed, they are
                        > > patiently rooted out by painstakingly thorough mental observation as they
                        > > arise from the unconscious. It requires great discipline to completely
                        > > purify the mind, but it can be done. The internal work involves a deep
                        > > understanding of "anatta" (no-self) & "anicca" (impermanence). I guess one
                        > > can say there is a catharsis, but it's a gradual one, & it's final. Or that
                        > > there are many catharses, as layer after layer of the poisons (another
                        > > translation of kleshas) arises from deeper & deeper levels of the
                        > > unconscious & are removed entirely.
                        > >
                        > > That's my understanding, at any rate.
                        > >
                        > > Aideen
                        > >
                        > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                        > > Sent: February-24-12 10:25 AM
                        > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                        > > Path and "catharsis"
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Thanks, Sean!
                        > >
                        > > W
                        > >
                        > > --- Ints, sean tremblay <bethjams9@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to
                        > > supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to
                        > > pass though you.
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > ________________________________
                        > > > From: walto <calhorn@>
                        > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                        > > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                        > > Path and "catharsis"
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Â
                        > > > Thanks, Aideen.
                        > > >
                        > > > One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf
                        > > between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through
                        > > it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a
                        > > Buddhist notion of catharsis?
                        > > >
                        > > > W
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> , "Aideen Mckenna"
                        > > <aideenmck@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                        > > > > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion
                        > > deeper
                        > > > > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                        > > > > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes
                        > > the
                        > > > > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as
                        > > a
                        > > > > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any
                        > > pushing
                        > > > > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's
                        > > classic
                        > > > > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it
                        > > without
                        > > > > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not
                        > > from
                        > > > > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                        > > > > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > With metta,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Aideen
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > > > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of walto
                        > > > > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                        > > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                        > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > > > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                        > > Path
                        > > > > and "catharsis"
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Hi, folks.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide
                        > > their
                        > > > > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                        > > > > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                        > > > > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious
                        > > thoughts
                        > > > > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps
                        > > even
                        > > > > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                        > > > > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't
                        > > Right
                        > > > > Speech.)
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way
                        > > of
                        > > > > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                        > > > > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something
                        > > that is
                        > > > > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that
                        > > the
                        > > > > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                        > > > > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                        > > > > without accepting all of the former?
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Best,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > W
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Aideen Mckenna
                        I’m certainly no “maven” in this (or any other) field, but I think you’d be interested in An Introduction to Buddhist Psychology (2005). It’s by
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 24 6:54 PM
                        • 0 Attachment

                          I’m certainly no “maven” in this (or any other) field, but I think you’d be interested in An Introduction to Buddhist Psychology (2005).  It’s by Padmasiri de Silva as well.  I’ve only dipped into it lightly.

                          A.

                           

                          From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                          Sent: February-24-12 4:25 PM
                          To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"

                           

                           

                          Thanks again, Aideen. That's really interesting--if you could suggest some literature on Buddhist takes regarding the unconscious, I'd be interested. The two things I've come across are a book by de Silva on Buddhism and Freudianism and _Contexts and Dialogue_, by Tao Jiang.

                          Best,

                          W

                          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > One acknowledges the feeling but does not act on it. On one occasion, the
                          > Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh was giving a lecture in the US during the
                          > Viet Nam war. The spiritual leader had gone through extremely difficult
                          > years during the war in Viet Nam, where he founded a relief organization.
                          > With that group, he rebuilt bombed villages, resettled the families made
                          > homeless by the bombings, set up schools & medical centres, etc. Then he
                          > went to the US where he met with Dr. Martin Luther King & urged him to ask
                          > the American people to influence their government to stop the destruction &
                          > carnage. During the lecture's question period, someone spoke very angrily,
                          > saying, in effect: "If you care so much about your country, what are you
                          > doing here in the safety of the US while your people are suffering & dying?"
                          > Apparently the monk was silent for a few moments, after which he answered
                          > calmly, without anger. When asked later about whether the question hadn't
                          > angered him, he said it had enraged him. During the brief silence, he had
                          > had to do the hardest work he'd ever done in his life calming himself with
                          > a breathing exercise. He said he had nearly passed out during that pause.
                          > He hadn't suppressed it, he confronted the feeling & dealt with it, leaving
                          > no residue, no impulse to scream at the questioner.
                          >
                          > According to Buddhism, the "kleshas" (negative afflictions) cannot be
                          > overcome by acting them out. Although they are never displayed, they are
                          > patiently rooted out by painstakingly thorough mental observation as they
                          > arise from the unconscious. It requires great discipline to completely
                          > purify the mind, but it can be done. The internal work involves a deep
                          > understanding of "anatta" (no-self) & "anicca" (impermanence). I guess one
                          > can say there is a catharsis, but it's a gradual one, & it's final. Or that
                          > there are many catharses, as layer after layer of the poisons (another
                          > translation of kleshas) arises from deeper & deeper levels of the
                          > unconscious & are removed entirely.
                          >
                          > That's my understanding, at any rate.
                          >
                          > Aideen
                          >
                          > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                          > Sent: February-24-12 10:25 AM
                          > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                          > Path and "catharsis"
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Thanks, Sean!
                          >
                          > W
                          >
                          > --- Ints, sean tremblay <bethjams9@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to
                          > supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to
                          > pass though you.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ________________________________
                          > > From: walto <calhorn@>
                          > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                          > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                          > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                          > Path and "catharsis"
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Â
                          > > Thanks, Aideen.
                          > >
                          > > One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf
                          > between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through
                          > it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a
                          > Buddhist notion of catharsis?
                          > >
                          > > W
                          > >
                          > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> , "Aideen Mckenna"
                          > <aideenmck@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                          > > > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion
                          > deeper
                          > > > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                          > > > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes
                          > the
                          > > > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as
                          > a
                          > > > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any
                          > pushing
                          > > > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's
                          > classic
                          > > > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                          > > >
                          > > > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it
                          > without
                          > > > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not
                          > from
                          > > > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                          > > > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > With metta,
                          > > >
                          > > > Aideen
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                          > > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of walto
                          > > > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                          > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                          > > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                          > Path
                          > > > and "catharsis"
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Hi, folks.
                          > > >
                          > > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide
                          > their
                          > > > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                          > > > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                          > > > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious
                          > thoughts
                          > > > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps
                          > even
                          > > > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                          > > > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't
                          > Right
                          > > > Speech.)
                          > > >
                          > > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way
                          > of
                          > > > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                          > > > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something
                          > that is
                          > > > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that
                          > the
                          > > > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                          > > > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                          > > > without accepting all of the former?
                          > > >
                          > > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                          > > >
                          > > > Best,
                          > > >
                          > > > W
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >

                        • walto
                          Thanks again, guys! But...Bob--I m curious. What has made you guess that these angry/negative thoughts that need releasing are...my own?? ; } W
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 25 6:22 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks again, guys!

                            But...Bob--I'm curious. What has made you guess that these angry/negative thoughts that need releasing are...my own??

                            ;>}

                            W

                            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "meditationsource" <cameron@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > W, why don't you try abreaction or sublimation and do it as mindfully as possible to see what benefits it might bring? Then you can know what approach is most suitable based on your own experience. Observing negative thoughts without acting on them is the purist approach, but if it's not leading to their subsiding, maybe there's some bad karma associated with acting them out that needs to be addressed. Good luck.
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Thanks again, Aideen. That's really interesting--if you could suggest some literature on Buddhist takes regarding the unconscious, I'd be interested. The two things I've come across are a book by de Silva on Buddhism and Freudianism and _Contexts and Dialogue_, by Tao Jiang.
                            > >
                            > > Best,
                            > >
                            > > W
                            > >
                            > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > One acknowledges the feeling but does not act on it. On one occasion, the
                            > > > Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh was giving a lecture in the US during the
                            > > > Viet Nam war. The spiritual leader had gone through extremely difficult
                            > > > years during the war in Viet Nam, where he founded a relief organization.
                            > > > With that group, he rebuilt bombed villages, resettled the families made
                            > > > homeless by the bombings, set up schools & medical centres, etc. Then he
                            > > > went to the US where he met with Dr. Martin Luther King & urged him to ask
                            > > > the American people to influence their government to stop the destruction &
                            > > > carnage. During the lecture's question period, someone spoke very angrily,
                            > > > saying, in effect: "If you care so much about your country, what are you
                            > > > doing here in the safety of the US while your people are suffering & dying?"
                            > > > Apparently the monk was silent for a few moments, after which he answered
                            > > > calmly, without anger. When asked later about whether the question hadn't
                            > > > angered him, he said it had enraged him. During the brief silence, he had
                            > > > had to do the hardest work he'd ever done in his life calming himself with
                            > > > a breathing exercise. He said he had nearly passed out during that pause.
                            > > > He hadn't suppressed it, he confronted the feeling & dealt with it, leaving
                            > > > no residue, no impulse to scream at the questioner.
                            > > >
                            > > > According to Buddhism, the "kleshas" (negative afflictions) cannot be
                            > > > overcome by acting them out. Although they are never displayed, they are
                            > > > patiently rooted out by painstakingly thorough mental observation as they
                            > > > arise from the unconscious. It requires great discipline to completely
                            > > > purify the mind, but it can be done. The internal work involves a deep
                            > > > understanding of "anatta" (no-self) & "anicca" (impermanence). I guess one
                            > > > can say there is a catharsis, but it's a gradual one, & it's final. Or that
                            > > > there are many catharses, as layer after layer of the poisons (another
                            > > > translation of kleshas) arises from deeper & deeper levels of the
                            > > > unconscious & are removed entirely.
                            > > >
                            > > > That's my understanding, at any rate.
                            > > >
                            > > > Aideen
                            > > >
                            > > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                            > > > Sent: February-24-12 10:25 AM
                            > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                            > > > Path and "catharsis"
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Thanks, Sean!
                            > > >
                            > > > W
                            > > >
                            > > > --- Ints, sean tremblay <bethjams9@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to
                            > > > supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to
                            > > > pass though you.
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > ________________________________
                            > > > > From: walto <calhorn@>
                            > > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                            > > > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                            > > > Path and "catharsis"
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Â
                            > > > > Thanks, Aideen.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf
                            > > > between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through
                            > > > it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a
                            > > > Buddhist notion of catharsis?
                            > > > >
                            > > > > W
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> , "Aideen Mckenna"
                            > > > <aideenmck@> wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                            > > > > > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion
                            > > > deeper
                            > > > > > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                            > > > > > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes
                            > > > the
                            > > > > > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as
                            > > > a
                            > > > > > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any
                            > > > pushing
                            > > > > > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's
                            > > > classic
                            > > > > > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it
                            > > > without
                            > > > > > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not
                            > > > from
                            > > > > > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                            > > > > > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > With metta,
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Aideen
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > > > > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of walto
                            > > > > > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                            > > > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > > > > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                            > > > Path
                            > > > > > and "catharsis"
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Hi, folks.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide
                            > > > their
                            > > > > > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                            > > > > > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                            > > > > > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious
                            > > > thoughts
                            > > > > > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps
                            > > > even
                            > > > > > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                            > > > > > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't
                            > > > Right
                            > > > > > Speech.)
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way
                            > > > of
                            > > > > > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                            > > > > > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something
                            > > > that is
                            > > > > > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that
                            > > > the
                            > > > > > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                            > > > > > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                            > > > > > without accepting all of the former?
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Best,
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > W
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • medit8ionsociety
                            ... Yo W, The ancient teachings of the Kabbalah has a sort of answer found in Sefer Yetsirah that goes: If your mind races, return to the place, IE: return
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 25 7:06 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Thanks again, guys!
                              >
                              > But...Bob--I'm curious. What has made you guess that these angry/negative thoughts that need releasing are...my own??
                              >
                              > ;>}
                              >
                              > W
                              >
                              Yo W,

                              The ancient teachings of the Kabbalah has a sort of
                              "answer" found in Sefer Yetsirah that goes:

                              "If your mind races, return to the place," IE: return
                              to where you were before the thought. Return to the
                              site of oneness.

                              And the Kabbalah teaching of the concept of Aloneness
                              points to you, me, everyone,...everything... as Alone,
                              One, not two, just as all Religions/Realizations do.
                              So....if my mind has "...these angry/negative thoughts
                              that need releasing"...so does yours....as we are truly
                              Alone.
                              Peace and blessings,
                              Bob
                              PS: That's why the Rasta's never say "you and me", but
                              rather "I and I", and usually "I and I and I", with the
                              I in the middle being Jah.
                              > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "meditationsource" <cameron@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > W, why don't you try abreaction or sublimation and do it as mindfully as possible to see what benefits it might bring? Then you can know what approach is most suitable based on your own experience. Observing negative thoughts without acting on them is the purist approach, but if it's not leading to their subsiding, maybe there's some bad karma associated with acting them out that needs to be addressed. Good luck.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > Thanks again, Aideen. That's really interesting--if you could suggest some literature on Buddhist takes regarding the unconscious, I'd be interested. The two things I've come across are a book by de Silva on Buddhism and Freudianism and _Contexts and Dialogue_, by Tao Jiang.
                              > > >
                              > > > Best,
                              > > >
                              > > > W
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Aideen Mckenna" <aideenmck@> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > > One acknowledges the feeling but does not act on it. On one occasion, the
                              > > > > Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh was giving a lecture in the US during the
                              > > > > Viet Nam war. The spiritual leader had gone through extremely difficult
                              > > > > years during the war in Viet Nam, where he founded a relief organization.
                              > > > > With that group, he rebuilt bombed villages, resettled the families made
                              > > > > homeless by the bombings, set up schools & medical centres, etc. Then he
                              > > > > went to the US where he met with Dr. Martin Luther King & urged him to ask
                              > > > > the American people to influence their government to stop the destruction &
                              > > > > carnage. During the lecture's question period, someone spoke very angrily,
                              > > > > saying, in effect: "If you care so much about your country, what are you
                              > > > > doing here in the safety of the US while your people are suffering & dying?"
                              > > > > Apparently the monk was silent for a few moments, after which he answered
                              > > > > calmly, without anger. When asked later about whether the question hadn't
                              > > > > angered him, he said it had enraged him. During the brief silence, he had
                              > > > > had to do the hardest work he'd ever done in his life calming himself with
                              > > > > a breathing exercise. He said he had nearly passed out during that pause.
                              > > > > He hadn't suppressed it, he confronted the feeling & dealt with it, leaving
                              > > > > no residue, no impulse to scream at the questioner.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > According to Buddhism, the "kleshas" (negative afflictions) cannot be
                              > > > > overcome by acting them out. Although they are never displayed, they are
                              > > > > patiently rooted out by painstakingly thorough mental observation as they
                              > > > > arise from the unconscious. It requires great discipline to completely
                              > > > > purify the mind, but it can be done. The internal work involves a deep
                              > > > > understanding of "anatta" (no-self) & "anicca" (impermanence). I guess one
                              > > > > can say there is a catharsis, but it's a gradual one, & it's final. Or that
                              > > > > there are many catharses, as layer after layer of the poisons (another
                              > > > > translation of kleshas) arises from deeper & deeper levels of the
                              > > > > unconscious & are removed entirely.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > That's my understanding, at any rate.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Aideen
                              > > > >
                              > > > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walto
                              > > > > Sent: February-24-12 10:25 AM
                              > > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                              > > > > Path and "catharsis"
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Thanks, Sean!
                              > > > >
                              > > > > W
                              > > > >
                              > > > > --- Ints, sean tremblay <bethjams9@> wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > I am reminded of some of the teachings of Islam, when they mention not to
                              > > > > supress your feelings, but simply do not act on them, just allow them to
                              > > > > pass though you.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > ________________________________
                              > > > > > From: walto <calhorn@>
                              > > > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                              > > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:52 PM
                              > > > > > Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                              > > > > Path and "catharsis"
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Â
                              > > > > > Thanks, Aideen.
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > One of the things I was wondering about was the apparently very large gulf
                              > > > > between giving something "bare attention" and really living/working through
                              > > > > it (perhaps for purposes 'abreaction' or 'sublimation'). I mean, is there a
                              > > > > Buddhist notion of catharsis?
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > W
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> , "Aideen Mckenna"
                              > > > > <aideenmck@> wrote:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > The way I understand Buddhism, there is never repression. The Buddha
                              > > > > > > understood how the human mind worked. Driving an unwelcome emotion
                              > > > > deeper
                              > > > > > > into the unconscious only results in giving the troublesome thing more
                              > > > > > > strength. When practicing Vipassana (insight meditation), one observes
                              > > > > the
                              > > > > > > thought, giving it "bare attention"(i.e. touching the mind as lightly as
                              > > > > a
                              > > > > > > bubble on the observed thought), then moving on. There's never any
                              > > > > pushing
                              > > > > > > away - that only empowers the thought. Bhante Henepola Gunaratana's
                              > > > > classic
                              > > > > > > Mindfulness in Plain English is helpful here.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > As for the concept of dependent origination - can one agree with it
                              > > > > without
                              > > > > > > accepting all of the Eightfold Path? I don't think so - at least not
                              > > > > from
                              > > > > > > the point of view of Theravada Buddhism. If I were asking that question,
                              > > > > > > I'd go to the excellent Barbara O'Brien - she can be contacted here:
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > http://buddhism.about.com/bio/Barbara-O-Brien-38125.htm
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > With metta,
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Aideen
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                              > > > > > > [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of walto
                              > > > > > > Sent: February-23-12 7:17 AM
                              > > > > > > To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > > <mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica%40yahoogroups.com>
                              > > > > > > Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Question about the Eightfold
                              > > > > Path
                              > > > > > > and "catharsis"
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Hi, folks.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide
                              > > > > their
                              > > > > > > thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right
                              > > > > > > Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and
                              > > > > > > conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious
                              > > > > thoughts
                              > > > > > > (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps
                              > > > > even
                              > > > > > > expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to
                              > > > > > > well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't
                              > > > > Right
                              > > > > > > Speech.)
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way
                              > > > > of
                              > > > > > > answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in
                              > > > > > > properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something
                              > > > > that is
                              > > > > > > deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that
                              > > > > the
                              > > > > > > benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the
                              > > > > > > concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter
                              > > > > > > without accepting all of the former?
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Best,
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > W
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • Arya
                              Big question arises What is right thinking/right action/right speech ! Can we look into whether right thinking/action/speech to be dependent on logical
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 25 9:08 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Big question arises What is right thinking/right action/right speech !
                                Can we look into whether right thinking/action/speech to be dependent on logical thinking/religious/scientific etc

                                --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hi, folks.
                                >
                                > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right Speech.)
                                >
                                > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter without accepting all of the former?
                                >
                                > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                                >
                                > Best,
                                >
                                > W
                                >
                              • medit8ionsociety
                                ... Yo Arya, Perhaps right thinking/action/speech could be thought about logically, religiously, scientifically, etc. But IT comes perfectly well
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 26 10:19 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Arya" <ranand61@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Big question arises What is right thinking/right action/right speech !
                                  > Can we look into whether right thinking/action/speech to be dependent on logical thinking/religious/scientific etc
                                  >
                                  Yo Arya,
                                  Perhaps right thinking/action/speech could be thought
                                  about logically, religiously, scientifically, etc.
                                  But "IT" comes perfectly well spontaneously in Silence.
                                  Peace and blessings,
                                  Bob

                                  > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi, folks.
                                  > >
                                  > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right Speech.)
                                  > >
                                  > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter without accepting all of the former?
                                  > >
                                  > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                                  > >
                                  > > Best,
                                  > >
                                  > > W
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • Aideen Mckenna
                                  For Right Speech: http://buddhism.about.com/od/theeightfoldpath/a/rightspeech.htm For the rest of the eightfold path, see links within the one above. And of
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 27 8:02 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    For Right Speech:

                                    http://buddhism.about.com/od/theeightfoldpath/a/rightspeech.htm

                                     

                                    For the rest of the eightfold path, see links within the one above.  And of course, it all hinges on meditation.

                                     

                                    A.

                                     

                                    From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of medit8ionsociety
                                    Sent: February-26-12 10:20 PM
                                    To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Question about the Eightfold Path and "catharsis"

                                     

                                     

                                    In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Arya" <ranand61@...> wrote:

                                    >
                                    > Big question arises What is right thinking/right action/right speech !
                                    > Can we look into whether right thinking/action/speech to be dependent on logical thinking/religious/scientific etc
                                    >
                                    Yo Arya,
                                    Perhaps right thinking/action/speech could be thought
                                    about logically, religiously, scientifically, etc.
                                    But "IT" comes perfectly well spontaneously in Silence.
                                    Peace and blessings,
                                    Bob

                                    > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > Hi, folks.
                                    > >
                                    > > I was wondering if any of the mavens here would be willing to provide their thoughts on whether they think there's any conflict between the "Right Thinking/Right Action/Right Speech" portions of the Eightfold Path and conventional views according to which it is healthy for unconscious thoughts (even angry or mean ones) to be brought to consciousness and perhaps even expressed. If some anger is being repressed, can it be conducive to well-being to "keep it bottled up"? (I take it a Primal Scream isn't Right Speech.)
                                    > >
                                    > > Also, is this an empirical question, do you think, so that the best way of answering it is to see what works (or what has been shown to work in properly designed studies), or do you take it rather to be something that is deducible from one's view of the mind? For example, do you think that the benefits of following the Eightfold Path are simply deducible from the concept of dependent origination? That is, can one agree with the latter without accepting all of the former?
                                    > >
                                    > > Any thoughts on these matters are welcome. Thanks!
                                    > >
                                    > > Best,
                                    > >
                                    > > W
                                    > >
                                    >

                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.