I had a dangerous experience on the way to work today. Part of doing meditation is having old emotions released, I personally have found that it doesn’t always happen during the sitting though. This happened to me today while driving, a blast of anger and impatience that almost caused an accident.
So I took a look round Blackle and found something very interesting. Most talk of meditation and emotions is in terms that I personally consider to be less than ideal, the words ‘control’ and ‘cure’ are used and I personally think that this isn’t the way to approach this.
I feel that the word ‘control’ can lead to repression, something I have been guilty of in the past, that’s not the way to go. I have similar feelings about the idea of “cure”, as if emotion is a disease of some sort, something to get rid of.
Emotions are a part of our being and while we may not like or feel proud of some of them, they are not an enemy to be controlled or a malady to be removed, they’re an integral part of who we are. I’ve found that the best method is to allow them to arise, then try to observe them, nothing more, just observe. The act of observing moves you a little more in the third party and allows you to let go of the emotion when appropriate. This sounds a heck of a lot easier than it is, mind you, but I’ve found that a regular meditation practice stands you in good stead.
That, for me is the ticket, that releasing. Think about it, if you’re trying to control or cure or dominate your emotions, then you’re not letting them go when they’re no longer appropriate; that sounds like a sure way to cause emotional problems to me.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I’m with you on this; it’s something that put me off meditation in my earliest days, because the whole concept of “curing” emotions seemed twisted to me. It still does. Finding a balance point seems more sane and right, whether in meditation or in daily life. People who scream and curse and rage and people who shove everything down inside are both candidates for heart attacks; the healthy way is somewhere in between.
I’m reading a book that has largely left me scratching my head and thinking “If that’s what being a sage is, you can have it.” I think it’s a problem of wording, but it seems to dismiss both positive emotions and the impulse to help others as not in accordance with the Tao. If that’s the case, I’m pretty sure the author and I are engaged with two entirely different Taos *laugh*
August 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Hi Metta,
I can’t quite get the idea of taking a whole part of our nature and saying it’s not in accordance with the Tao. I agree with you, I don’t know what Tao the author of that book is talking about but it’s not the one I follow either. What’s the book called?
Rich
August 15th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
The book is Daoism Explained: From the Dream of the Butterfly to the Fishnet Allegory by Hans-Georg Moeller. For the most part it’s very good; he does a pretty amazing job of taking the two allegories in the title and stripping them of the Western influences that have haunted them since their earliest translations into Western languages, and of addressing other issues like the value of language. But when he branches off into Taoist ethics, he loses me entirely.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Yep, being aware of your thoughts and emotions has got to be the a better path for sure. The idea of “controlling” and “curing” those emotions - to me - is along the same line as the “positive thought” theories.
I much prefer the idea of “conscious thinking”. As you say the act of observing totally changes things. I wrote about this fairly extensively here: http://www.thethoughts.co.uk/thoughts/the-conscious-thinking-series/