"Stuff" as an unfortunate root metaphor

I think it’s interesting that the conventional language used among “Western” folks, when talking about neurosis, is that of “stuff” or “baggage.” This root metaphor of having “stuff” to work through is, I think, the source of much of the tension between various types of dharma practitioners in the West. Daniel’s MCTB is a reaction to a dharma culture suffused with the “baggage” metaphor, which I think is partial responsible for the behavior of persons on retreat; constantly wanting to wade through personal narratives in order to again feel good about one’s life, and to assure themselves that, deep down, they are a “good person.”

The thing about MCTB that fascinates me is that it attacks the “stuff” orientation without doing away with it. It says, “You’ll always have ‘stuff,’ so focus instead on gaining insight into the nature of everything – even your stuff. Then you might deal with it better.” But that still assumes “stuff,” doesn’t it? (I’m grossly generalizing the message of MCTB, here. Daniel's actual views may, and probably do, vary.)

Not that something like “stuff” isn’t found in Buddhist literature. The agricultural metaphor of karmic “seeds” and “fruits” plays a similar role. As far as I know, the Buddha as depicted in the Pali canon didn’t teach people to work through all of their karma in order to be awake. But cutting the root of the cycle, release is possible. But the purification idea remains. The stages of awakening/liberation are tied to what the monk no longer possess in terms of afflicting emotions and harmful tendencies.

I’m finding there are alternatives to my I consider to be an unfortunate root metaphor. The view of Vajrayana Buddhism provides a helpful alternative, describes neurotic energies essentially identical to the liberated energies of nondual wisdom. These energies are distorted by ego-clinging/self-referencing, which is the process of trying to maintain existence as “form” in fear of a grave misapprehension and misunderstanding of “emptiness,” and also “form.” Through becoming better acquainted with the essential spaciousness of our being, we can relax into the security of insecurity. By relaxing into spaciousness, our reactive tendencies self-liberate into wisdom-activity. Instead of something to get rid of or work through, there is a process of realizing wisdom, and of stopping the reactive activities of delusion.

For me, reframing experience away from the “stuff” metaphor is hugely beneficial. From this perspective, there is nothing outside of “me” that hides and waits to pounce on me, causing me to suffer. I don’t have to dig around to find these hidden monsters, in order to destroy with violence, or even kill them with kindness. I can familiarize myself with the enlightened qualities of any neurotic tendency, and practice noticing these qualities as they arise; this allows me the choice to use these energies (i.e. emotions) differently.

No stuff to drudge up and dispel. Nothing lacking in being. No need to acquire qualities of wisdom, because they are already present. Habitual patterns may distort the energies, but patterns are intangible and impermanent. They dismantle themselves when we rest in awareness of them. It may seem like patterns are “stuff,” but they are not. The difference being that reactive patterns are not essential different from the undistorted wisdom display, and distortion is a doing, not a having. (One doesn’t “have” distortions; one acts them out.)

Of course, this isn’t very helpful as a set of ideas. Without familiarizing oneself with emptiness through experiential practice, this approach does not – cannot – work.

I'm still learning about this view, of course. It isn't something I've mastered to the point of living it 24/7. There are some good resources for learning about it. Ken McLeod's Wake Up to Your Life describes this idea in the chapter on dismantling reactive emotions; particularly with regard to the Five Dakinis practice. Spectrum of Ecstasy by Ngakpa Chogyam and Khandro Dechen (which I am currently reading) is also VERY good. A more psychological approach to working with emotions in this way can be found in John Welwood's Toward a Psychology of Awakening; it may prove useful as a bridge for those less familiar with, or inclined toward, Vajrayana as such. All three books provide both explanation of view AND methods for practice, which is essential.

Thoughts?

I think this is a great discussion to have and be open to. I generated a lot of anxiety after reading MCTB about my "stuff". What was my "stuff", what wasn't my "stuff". What was ok to talk about on forums like this without appearing to be after psychological help rather than techniques for "awakening" (or whatever we're calling it today). I've had an experience or two where there was no differentiation between the sounds I was hearing, the feeling of my breath and the "stuff" playing out in my mind and body. They were all equally close and equally distant. So to disregard "stuff", may be a bit extreme, because it's ALL "stuff".

With that said, and as you've touched on here, I think Daniel's point was that many practitioners ignore the instructions and are really looking for a therapist, which in a way is a totally different thing. But I don't think entirely.

My wife and I have had quite a few conversations around this topic. I am a meditation practitioner, loosely "Buddhist", because there seems to be some confusion about what that word means (just like "spirituality", "enlightenment", "god" etc.. ) and she is a Christian in a fairly practical and strict sense of the word (as in, living in a accordance with the words of Christ - without all the crazy;) She has little, if any, interest in meditation but does a lot of work with "feeling her feelings" and being with them (I nudged her a bit toward jack Kornfield:) and this "practice" has been extremely beneficial for her and has "released" a lot of old complexes. This sort of thing works for me as well, integrated into a formal sitting practice.

As far as what to call "stuff", well I just don't know, but it seems to me that (and even Ingram points out something like this), you've got to get your "stuff" together before you can get much "spiritual" work done. I personally feel like it's all the same thing. A process of unfolding which everyone is doing if they like it or not. "Buddhist" just tend to be aware that that's what they're doing (and maybe get it done a bit faster because we've got some maps).

Simply, I see no difference between Kim Kardashian having a breakdown over some dramatic nonsense, and trying to work through that, and me sitting in a dim room "being with myself". One may be more effective than the other, but the only difference is time and awareness.

On impulse I both agree and disagree.

But I agree most with what Duane was getting at.

I don't understand why there's a particular abhorence of people discussing their emotional problems, life difficulties, etc in the context of practice. That's the suffering they're having. What's with the attitude: "meditation goes in this box, and your pathetic life goes in that box, so shut up at my retreat while I bust out some vibrating phenomena" attitude? It's to me the expression of someone who's not comfortable with strong emotions - something that seems to have been at times a particular draw of the pragmatic dharma movement.

I have talked to a few people who really want to wake up so they won't suffer, whatever that means, but they really are quite certain they don't want that to mean they become nice people or care about anyone else or have to talk about love and shit.

That said, I think you are on to something with our using the word "stuff" to place our "stuff" outside ourselves rather than embrace it.

So I'm not disagreeing, just throwing a particular part of the lots of stuff you said back into the ring for further chomping.

(Just got back from qi gong which seems to have turned up my profanity and sharpness? Weird. Love ya!)

Ona Kiser wrote: I don't understand why there's a particular abhorence of people discussing their emotional problems, life difficulties, etc in the context of practice. That's the suffering they're having. What's with the attitude: "meditation goes in this box, and your pathetic life goes in that box, so shut up at my retreat while I bust out some vibrating phenomena" attitude?

This has been something I have been working with a lot. I'm told over and over again that aversion to experience is contradictory to the point of meditation, so to have an aversion to the experience of people bringing up their "stuff" seems, well, hypocritical.

On the other hand, I do feel that one can only be responsible for so much. So if someone is whining all day about how awful their life is, that "stuff" gets old pretty quick:)

For sure there's time management issues in group discussions - if someone's hogging the floor the teacher needs to move things along.There's a real skill to guiding group discussion productively. It's not a super common skill.

I wrote about an example of this at a workshop I attended, if you didn't see it - a really skillful (I thought) addressing of a discussion that went off on a psychological tangent unrelated to the meditation teachings...

alittledeathblog.com/2012/09/06/meeting-people-where-they-are/

Ona Kiser wrote: I don't understand why there's a particular abhorence of people discussing their emotional problems, life difficulties, etc in the context of practice. That's the suffering they're having.

Yes, that is their suffering. There should be room to explore all kinds of suffering in the context of practice, both with a teacher and/or with a larger community. However, depending on one's understanding of what "stuff" is, the entire exercise can be counterproductive. It's never the "what" some much as the principle and function. If people think that talking about their problems and reframing every narrative into a new narrative will complete them and make them feel better, they're not going to be happy with the result. This process is endless by virtue of it's basic premises. That's how I see it, anyway.

Ona Kiser wrote: What's with the attitude: "meditation goes in this box, and your pathetic life goes in that box, so shut up at my retreat while I bust out some vibrating phenomena" attitude? It's to me the expression of someone who's not comfortable with strong emotions - something that seems to have been at times a particular draw of the pragmatic dharma movement.

I couldn't agree more! That's exactly the point: we can't fully separate "life" from "practice." Obsessing over our shit and avoiding our shit are both pitful strategies. But so is the idea that we all have some reservoir of karma/sin that needs to be emptied before we can be okay. That's my specific point to this. Trying to get rid of any aspect of our being is not going to work for long. It simply can't.

Ona Kiser wrote: That said, I think you are on to something with our using the word "stuff" to place our "stuff" outside ourselves rather than embrace it.

We have no choice but be what we are. Embracing stuff is basically allowing awareness to move. We let go and allow being to actualize itself as wisdom and appreciation.

Ona Kiser wrote: So I'm not disagreeing, just throwing a particular part of the lots of stuff you said back into the ring for further chomping.

All in good fun.

Perhaps there is a useful distinction to be made between acknowledging one's capacity to get hooked into fraught emotional reactions-- and the apparent "contents" of those reactions. While it serves nothing to be in denial about the former, the latter is as transient as any other of our excretions, and reifying the contents as if they "exist"-- whether as "stuff", "baggage", or as "shadow", or even "sacred task"-- is the genesis of endless rounds of karmic experience.

Or am I misreading the dharma?

[ETA-- cross-post! One of us owes the other a Coke.]

Kate, that's essentially what I'm getting at. Somehow you can say it in fewer words! I tend to be a bit wordy

It also occurs to me that often when a person is very entangled in their "stuff" there is so much fear around getting close to it, looking at the relationship to it, etc. Perhaps why sometimes externalizing the issues CAN be helpful. It gives the person a sense of coherence and stability from which to gradually and slowly move into the "stuff." A friend who has done Chod practice described interacting with "shadow stuff" in the form of demons/monsters which she then embraced with metta and transformed via the interaction with them, coming to a place of sympathy and then compassion. I had a lot of interactions with "stuff" in the form of visions where I engaged with monsters, angels, and so on, as have other friends who did magickal stuff or dream work. So there are "externalizing" practices which can be productive as part of the process of inclusion. It depends a lot on the person's personality and their relationship to their stuff, no?

Ona Kiser wrote: So there are "externalizing" practices which can be productive as part of the process of inclusion. It depends a lot on the person's personality and their relationship to their stuff, no?

That's a good point, Ona. We can use all kinds of metaphors for the purposes of awakening. It really does depend on where each person is "at" in their level of understanding and skillful engagement with experience. So, it may be a good idea to help someone see their reactive patterns as "stuff" in order to begin a process of relating. That's all well and good, but I think it's helpful to further refine one's view, after a certain point. Staying within the view of "stuff" or "shadow" or whatever keeps one in a tailspin, even if that tailspin is preferable to prior one. I would hate for people to think that liberation was merely a perpetual process of drudging up shadow demons and slaying them (or befriending them, as it were). Nonduality requires a shift in experiential view, which I think is best accompanied by a shift in conceptual view as well. Not everyone is ready to make the leap, I guess. Then again, one may be ready to train in the nondual view, but instead work with "stuff" because that's the dharma they've heard. That's why I like to keep the nondual view at the heart of every explanation and method. I think it might keep things from spinning for longer than necessary.

Ona Kiser wrote: I wrote about an example of this at a workshop I attended, if you didn't see it - a really skillful (I thought) addressing of a discussion that went off on a psychological tangent unrelated to the meditation teachings...

alittledeathblog.com/2012/09/06/meeting-people-where-they-are/

http://embracingsamsara.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/adaptation/

Ona Kiser wrote: I wrote about an example of this at a workshop I attended, if you didn't see it - a really skillful (I thought) addressing of a discussion that went off on a psychological tangent unrelated to the meditation teachings...

alittledeathblog.com/2012/09/06/meeting-people-where-they-are/

I enjoyed this. It's difficult to address these types of situations in a group setting, and it sounds like the teacher did a terrific job, as seen from your perspective as the one recounting the event.

I've also heard stories of times when addressing the tangent has been less than helpful for others at workshops or retreats. The phrase "don't feed the troll" comes to mind. Some people really do suck the life out of what could have been a really beneficial experience for a greater number of participants. I'm glad that the teacher mentioned your post was able to bring some closure to the question and move on. That seems to be the most difficult part.

Jackson, I can see what you are getting at. Calling it stuff suggests it can be ignored... but that's only true if it is ignorable stuff!

It seems like there have been three phases in my life when it comes to dealing with stuff...

At first I wasn't clear about my own reactivity and stuff really needed to be looked out and pulled apart.

Then I had a grasp of how much of my own reactivity was just noise and I could mostly allow it to be burned off like purification.

Now I'm more interested in the subtle arising of reactivity. Stuff doesn't create a mood that last days anymore, but in the moment it can still condition me, still put me in a trance. Ironically, I'm also studying Ken McLeod and Spectrum of Ecstasy right now!

Stuff can be both a hindrance and a catalyst -- just like any other part of samsara. No one rule applies. A really good teacher can use anything as a lever. I saw really great facilitating at the last retreat I was on. One teacher in particular really flipped people's minds around, they were soooo stuck and she just used that stuckness to show what they needed to see. It was beautiful. But, ironically, they had to stuck so they could get free. That's why stuff is important!

Thanks for your input, shargrol. How neat that we’re reading the same material

For me, the “stuff” idea isn’t only problematic because it suggests it can be ignored. Though, that’s a really good point!

I guess what I mean is that some people approach spiritual practice as though there’s a deep reservoir of “stuff” that they have to work through or expel, and that they won’t be “enlightened” or “free” or whatever (basically: okay) until they’ve worked through all of it. There’s a subtle hindrance in this view, I think, in that some folks think it’s possible to one day, through lots of effort, FINALLY get rid of all the crap. Then, and only then, will they remain perpetually pure, spotless, clean, free of suffering and stress.

It’s a problem because the impure/pure dichotomy is an illusion. I cannot purify myself, because there is no self to purify. There is only the nature of being, which expresses itself in ways I can come to know. When I stop rejecting what can’t be done away with, the samsara/nirvana dichotomy goes bye-bye. Nothing gained, nothing lost, nothing eradicated, nothing purified. What stops is the struggle. What we are is then allowed to play of its own accord.

We could say that what we are is “stuff,” but that doesn’t fit the metaphor I’m critiquing. Anytime we separate “me” from “my stuff to work through,” we’re going to come up against serious limitations, and fast!

Hmm... I feel like I'm missing something important.

Seems like you are agreeing with Daniel?

The problem you have is My Stuff vs. stuff?

Not exactly. If something is missing, it could very well be due to my distorted thinking.

I disagree with the idea that awakening and "my stuff" (neurosis or what-not) are truly separate. I also disagree with the idea that in order to wake up, one has to work through all of their "stuff" until there isn't any more stuff. Both ideas arise out of what appears to me as a dualistic point of view.

From a nondual point of view, all beings are beginninglessly enlightened. Most of us don't know this, or experience this truth as lived reality, because we're busy reacting to experience in deluded ways. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with experience, ever. When we busy ourselves with chasing the storm, we tend to miss the moments when the sky clears on its own. Awakening shines through when we rest, because we can become aware of the gaps in deluded thought-activity. The paradox is that even deluded thought-activity is the play of awareness. As the Dzogchen saying goes, "Confusion dawns as wisdom."

We can simply learn to stop getting in our own way, and we can do this without ignoring any aspect of our experience.

**I realize this is difficult to put into words. I seem to be going through quite the shift in the way I relate to experience. For me, it's great! If any of this isn't helpful, though, please disregard it and go with what works for you.

Chris Marti wrote: Take it from someone who is just coming out of a messy cycle of "stuff" -- if you have stuff you better examine it closely, run into it, almost make love to it. That is the only way - to run toward what we fear, what we loathe, what makes us uncomfortable. What the practice does is make it visible and easier to see from any angle.... and bearable, and thus actionable.

Absolutely! Yes, move toward experience at all costs. Open to it. Be present, and let life be the teacher There's no need to go drudging stuff up. We meet enough challenges as it is. Part of the process is learning how to work through whatever is happening. That never stops.

I hope my posts are making me sound like I think practice is unnecessary, or that difficulties are an illusion. Far from it! This was more of an attack on a metaphor that drives the practice of some folks. As in, "If only I could dig up all of my crap and get rid of it, THEN I'll be happy." From my perspective, that isn't possible. I don't believe in the fountain of junk metaphor, but that doesn't mean we don't get confused, and suffer, and need to practice, and need the help of our friend and family and doctors and mental health professionals. Of course we do.

Still, there's a different way to go about it all, and I think it makes things a lot less stressful. I guess I'm still working out how exactly to convey it without sounding like an idiot

Here's an example of what I'm talking about...

Let's say one of the patterns I get caught up in from time to time is getting angry. If I see anger as "my stuff," I have some ways of working with it. I can stuff it, express, feel it as it is until it passes, look into the other feelings involved, etc. These are good ways of working with anger as anger, and that's fine.

From the perspective of Vajrayana, there's another option. Anger is seen as the distorted form of the same energy that expresses itself as clarity. This is related to the water element, which can be both violent and destructive, but also so calm and clear that it reflects everything precisely. We can work with anger in such a ways as to realize the wisdom that is already there. To do this, we need a thorough grounding in emptiness/spaciousness, which one can discover through sitting practice. When we can experience anger in a spacious way, it's wisdom qualities can be realized.

This gives us another option. What was "stuff" to be dealt with becomes the very energy of effective, compassionate action and wise freedom.

I'm just discoving some of this, and I'm no expert. But the possibility is exciting to me. I'm enjoying the process of discovery, without knowing exactly where it will lead.

I think that's how it often is for me - if I post at length about something it's often because it's something I'm trying to figure out how express. Having a chance to read through the posts I like what you are saying, Jackson, and it seems completely valuable.

To take up Shargrol's point, if I look back at my adulthood I can't entirely separate the periods I spent in therapy and the periods I spent in spiritual practice in terms of developing some wisdom about the things in life that I was afraid of, hurt by or confused by. All of those various practices helped me along and interacted with one another. I can't say "oh, I did three years of therapy and that fixed xyz, but not as well as three years of meditation fixed xyz" - my life doesn't feel (in hindsight) compartmentalized. I can say that in hindsight I tend to recognize with much more clarity how I have struggled with certain ideas or beliefs in ways that were unproductive in the short term (but integrated into the long term were simply where I was at the time) so in that sense there is no longer the sense of regret: I can't say "why didn't I just realize xyz sooner, I could have moved on instead of struggling with that problem for so many years" - it seems irrelevant to say such things.

Which is, I suppose, part of including and embracing everything.

And agreed on "I'm enjoying the process of discovery, without knowing exactly where it will lead."

Honestly, for me, this domain is one fractal mobius strip.

Sometimes I watch an emotion flash and see its wisdom. Sometimes I work on picking apart a stale emotion only to find the problem is the picking apart. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching meaning come and go and I feel quite transcendant, and then I realize I'm just avoiding. Sometimes I find a knot and watch it reveal a very primal hurt and defense mechanism. Sometimes I feel content and realize I'm actually content because I'm in the middle of a idealize pattern, which collapses leaving me adrift. Sometimes the distance between emotion and mundane meaning (as Kate was pointing out) seems so separate that they can be easily known as two forms of wisdom. Sometimes I try investigating a pathology deeper and find the pathology is the need to investigate deeper. Sometimes being still is the manulation. On and on, ooh la la!

Hmm-- the problem with being succinct is that the nuances aren't conveyed.

Let me try again: the outstanding feature of emotions is that they MOVE, they shift, they change. They are "appearance" [my preference over "illusion" which implies some sort of mistake, to be disfavored]-- they "exist" only in the moment of experiencing.

"Stuff" implies that they still lurk, like quicksand, when attention is on some other experience; and that there is some perfect resolution to be achieved once and for all, by way of practice or therapy. That sort of conception becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: any moment of "similar" emotional experience becomes proof that the "stuff" still exists as an ongoing problem to be solved. And the more I engage with the problem, the more I reinforce the reality of my problematic stuff.

My personal experience is that the only escape is to notice, as clearly as possible, exactly what the EXPERIENCE is, in its textural details. And let the analysis/ history/ strategy go-- at least for the time being. Doesn't sound like much; until the day I realize I can't remember what I used to obsess over, blow up about, find confusing or terrifying. Or that I haven't seen something in a habitual way: I've seen something new and interesting.

Thanks Kate!

(For what it's worth, this fractal mobius strip that I'm describing isn't due to active analysis of emotions and their meaning. That happened more in the first phase of practicing, in my twenties when I was a knot of unseen reactivity. During that phase, stuff did indeed lurk. Most of what I describe as happening now is the artifact of experiencing emotions more directly, knowing that they arise in a big field of emptiness, that they are flashes of experience. It's still somewhat sticky for me, especially probably compared to folks on this board, but 1000 times less than it would have been just a few years ago. It's doing itself, but it's taking me for a confusing and interesting ride.)