Discussion on "Therapeutic Models for Meditators"

every3rdthought wrote: If I'm doing a complicated technique based on a complicated metaphysic, it's as real and natural as just sitting or just noting. If we say that there's a bare awareness or natural state or however we want to call it which is closer to reality or less manipulative, we're splitting reality and experience into bits and saying some are more desirable and truer (and vice versa) - and I, the agency-holding self in the middle, is able to make these qualitative calls on separated chunks of reality, and induce the ones that I like (that are 'truer,' more 'real,' etc).

So the long and the short is, for me at the moment the question of manipulation is a 'does not apply.'

I understand. I would say that this is a legitimate view of reality.

... but I doubt it IS reality. I see the two impersonal views of reality ("everything is in god's hands" and "everything is cause and effect") as important views, but not any truer that the self-based one ("intention has an effect on outcomes"). They all seem paradoxically real and contradictory, too. This can get into quite a dogmatic discussion, which to me is less interesting than the legitimate function of all three (and the greater pointer of all three being true which is what a mystery reality actually is!).

For the purpose of this thread, it might be interesting to tease out their application to "wounding", because I think this is a very critical issue. I'm going to speak very straight forward about a potentially sensitive subject. Hopefully I do this cautiously and respectfully, but I have no problem dropping it if it gets too hot and non-productive.

One of the things that seems to mark religious approaches to wounding is an identity around being wounded or martyred or having a cross to bear. In a certain sense, that is completely true (and consistent with a Buddhist statement like "life has suffering"), but the shadow side is >potentially< a passivity around healing or transcending the wound. Part of it comes from the mentality that if it came from god it will go away by god, which is of course true, but may overshadow the need to personally work, with god's grace, on the wound itself. The other shadow side is that the modality of approaching woundedness often is limited by a "surrender to" or "be with" approach. But wounds can also benefit from adding the energy of investigation and inquiry to help untangle them, which >potentially< could be overlooked.

Frankly, one of the reasons I was interested in posting these models is that they provide active ways of engaging with woundedness and reactivity, which might not be known to others outside of their tradition or psychological models. Maybe there are even others we can add to the list?

andy wrote: So, how would a meditation teacher know enough to be alert about psychological issues and suggest alternatives to meditation? Would a teacher at a major retreat center typically be trained in this?

The short answer is yes, the major retreat centers do a lot of teacher training before they are allow to lead retreats. If you go to IMS you are in pretty good hands if you don't push yourself and ask for help as needed. If you work yourself ala Ingram, many things disruptive things will happen and they will not support practice like that, but rather advise relaxing and breaking practice. That's the downside of the big retreat centers. In a certain sense, they are better at psychology than "progress" --- but I've come to peace with it given the challenges they face leading a hundred students at a time.

Chris Marti wrote: I was in therapy for a while quite some time ago and it reinforced my tendency to accept the models and concepts in my head as real, as "the way things are." I was never asked to question the deepest parts of my experience and its construction. We were, my therapist and me, working mostly on the surface, talking and dealing in concepts.

I was in therapy briefly after a change of life event and spiritual opening occurred at the same time. My tendency was to really push myself at the time and ultimately, I had the classic problem of reduced ability to sleep, anxiety, mania, and exhaustion. The problem was this seem to be producing insights, but really were closer to "mako" the weird visionary stuff that is meaningless but can co-occur with spiritual openings. The "cure" was as simple as seeing that I needed to take care of this body and mind --- I feel some kinship with the Buddha overdoing asceticism, having body and mind fall apart, and having a turning point when given some ricemilk by maiden Sujata. Maybe this explains why I often advocate for body practice as much as meditation, and honoring them both as important.

every3rdthought wrote: One of the great things about psychotherapy is that it can deal with this interpersonal realm through modelling and practice in a way that doesn't happen through standard meditation. But of course how one does interpersonal stuff will be informed and shaped by a meditative practice.

So if wounding is related to and plays itself out interpersonally, which I tend to think it always does, then it's useful to deal with both through the kinds of models Shargrol outlined (and which, as I said, I personally wouldn't see as 'lesser' than other practices) and also through e.g. psychotherapy.

For what it's worth, I think the Fenner Natural Release Model and Ken McLeods' the two provoking/calming versions of the 6 realms model and 5 elements model are fantastic for interpersonal work.

Just as a funny example, with Ken McLeod's version of 6 realms, you can piss off a "god realm" person (someone who has made it, is respected, is successful) by saying "No, I’m right, that’s just how it is." which is just mirroring what they believe about themselves. Conversely, you can chill out someone in the god realm by saying, "Yes, You are right." It's all funny stuff and also a window into our own foibles and stances we take for ourselves.

If anyone wants to discuss a particular model, please start a thread on it!

Ona Kiser wrote: Are there not also Buddhist practices like Chod, which (from account of a serious practitioner-friend who has done that practice with a traditional teacher) very clearly deal with what Westerners would term repressed unconscious stuff?

I would say the 6 realms model works the best on issues of neurosis. The 5 element model works at the level of (unconscious) reactivity. It seems like Chod is an approach for unearthing residual reactivity, stuff that needs a lot of drama/intensity to trigger.