Change within complex networks

So I'm kind of simultaneously reading two articles I found recommended here, and came across an overlap of ideas that is kind of a key "burning question" for me right now. I thought I'd bring it up and see what other people think.

From this , posted by Mike :

I imagine that if I learned to create a different story for my life, I
might feel differently about things. Maybe. I might even be more
“successful” in the ways ordinary people conceive of success. But I’m
not sure I’m really capable of the level of sustained practice that
would involve. Plus I’m not sure I’d care for the outcome.

Because change like that would hit a lot of other things, y’know? You
can’t just overhaul your way of thinking in such a drastic way and
expect it not to impact every aspect of your life. If I did this, I
think I’d change my basic personality. I’m not sure that’s even
possible, nor do I believe it would be a good thing if it were.

From this , posted by Chris :

But even if a study managed to highlight a genuine health connection to
some nutrient, you’re unlikely to benefit much from taking more of it,
because we consume thousands of nutrients that act together as a sort of
network, and changing intake of just one of them is bound to cause
ripples throughout the network that are far too complex for these
studies to detect, and that may be as likely to harm you as help you.

Which leads my to my question. How is it even possible to significantly change any aspect of "self" when self is really just a vast complex network of arising and passing phenomenon? And what's the point of doing so?

I mean, I know meditation works, having seen the results in both myself and others, but the complexity of what were trying to do, and the impossibility of the changes we are trying to bring about, astounds me at times.

It seems that we often settle for relatively stable platforms, such as the DHO and KFD idea of the impossibility of "limited emotional range" models of enlightenment (not saying that this is a view currently put forth on either site, I'm just using it as an example from what I imagine is a bit of history shared by everyone here). Or the idea that (and I can't remember where I heard it, but it was probably from Kenneth) "if you're a geek before you're enlightened, you'll be a geek after it". Or the idea that enlightenment is simply an acceptance of life exactly as it is. But then, these platforms are also seen through and need to be discarded.

Is this the best way interact with the complex process that is our lived experience? How can one go about making any attempts at following a teaching system, or a map, or anything, when everything's so complex and in such a constant state of flux? At this point, I feel like I should just go sit on a mountaintop somewhere and let the process unfold, but then, it'll never really get to an point where I can say, "OK, I'm done, time to come down the mountain"? Or will it? Because that's what these article's are pointing to, I think. We want to know what we can do to optimize/stabilize our health and happiness, but no one seems to be able to tell us how to do that, nor do we seem to have much success doing it on our own (right? because if we were successful at that, it wouldn't be a problem...would it?)

I guess it all comes down to "trust the unfolding process of our life" but the line between surrendering and taking an active role is such a blurry one. Just wondered what other people's thoughts might be on this...

Hi Ian You wrote:

"How is it even possible to significantly change any aspect of 'self' when self is really just a vast complex network of arising and passing phenomenon? And what's the point of doing so?"

As a counselor in training, I certainly think that it's quite possible, and often very worthwhile, to change a maladaptive pattern/process/trait that causes suffering to an individual or group. Yes, these 'aspects' of 'self' are networks of arising and passing phenomena. Knowing this can be intimidating, in an aggressively reductionistic sort of way. But they tend to arise in patterns that then interact with other patterns, and so on and so forth.

These patterns are often referred to as "mechanisms" in a Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) context, which proposes that these maladaptive patterns are maintained by cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), and behavioral (doing) supports. Learning what these supports are and how they function leads to the discovery of ways to manipulate the "mechanism(s) of change" in order to bring about a desired result. Assuming the validity of modern psychological assessments/inventories used to measure the outcomes of such therapies, the evidence provides support for the theory that we really can change the way we think and behave.

Buddhist practice mixes things up a bit. For, not only do we utilize this kind of method for changing maladaptive thinking and behaving, but also to lead to a going beyond of thinking and behaving. There's a paradox here that is definitely worth paying attention to. In order to go beyond causality, we have to utilize causality. In order to go beyond sensuality, we utilize it in meditation to get us where we need to go. This is where the raft analogy makes sense, showing that effort is needed to transcend effort; a positive sense of self is needed to transcend self; etc. The Buddha was pretty amazing and picking out just which mechanisms to manipulate, and then packaged them all together in what we know to be the eightfold path. The fact that he was teaching this 2,500 years ago speaks to his genius.

Thoughts?

Jackson

First off, on reading the section about CBT, I was surprised to see "thinking", "feeling", and "doing" highlighted, as this is something straight of the the Gurdjieff teaching. The idea that the mind, emotions, and body must all be brought together to act on a problem or to interact with reality is a big thing in that tradition (and while I admit to never having worked within that tradition, only read, I don't anyone would disagree with me on that).

I see parallels with Buddha's 4 Foundations of Mindfulness as well, with body sensations, mindstates(emotions), and thoughts. Particularly as Kenneth teaches it (as this is my main exposure to that technique) the 2nd foundation (positive, negative, or neutral) is more an extension of the first (body sensations) and "mind states" is essentially emotions. Now, people may disagree that this is an accurate representation of the 4 Foundations, and that's fine, its not really the point. The point being that when something can be clearly seen on all 3 or 4 levels, it can be "dropped like a hot coal".

So yeah, there's something important about engaging all levels of the human system when trying to make these changes, and missing one or another of them would explain why so many attempts at change fail.

Now, for the second part of your post, I have to admit, I'm not sure I understand. Basically, I think what you're saying is that being "OK" with our thinking and behavior is a prerequisite for transcending it? If that's what you mean, I totally agree.

This is something I find very interesting, because it points to a large part of western buddhism that has been problematic for me: the idea that the ego must be destroyed or gotten rid of. This seems to bind us further to the ego in a hate/love relationship, rather than doing anything to move us to where we can just let it be without identifying with it. "Going beyond" doesn't mean what we've gone beyond in destroyed, just like how when we "go beyond" high school by graduating, our high school experience and what we learned in it doesn't disappear. We just no longer have to carry those books around, you know? And if you're in high school, much better to finish and graduate than to drop out. Yeah? Am I picking up on what your saying?

Oh, and using the 8 fold path as a diagnostic tool is a neat idea. I've not run across much discussion of the 4th noble truth in my explorations. I think the hugeness of it scares people off. There's too many things there to just think about it, it seems that you have to just live it as best you can and let the theory go... But that was the Buddha's prescription for the disease of dukkha and I think we ignore it at our own peril.

Hi Ian. That's interesting. I really don't know much about Gurdjieff, but yes - thinking, feeling, and behaving both the supporting processes of current circumstances, and the variables that need to be manipulated in order for change to occur.

[Side note: this is why I'm not big on NLP, which is based on the idea that mind can't tell the difference between imagined reality and sensual reality. There are quite a few studies showing that this just isn't true, which is why coming face-to-face with life in a behavioral sort of way is necessary for lasting change.]

As far as the second part of my comment is concerned... what I mean by "going beyond" is tantamount to "letting go" or "release from". Obviously, we don't release and disappear into another realm or anything. But, the clinging/craving stops only when we experience the truth of experience - that no experience is a reliable refuge from suffering. Only non-clinging brings relief, and non-clinging can't happen while believing that any part of our experience is somehow "the truth" as opposed to anything else.

And you're right - the functional, useful aspects of ego should remain in place. It would be terrible if they didn't. Not every aspect of ego is related to clinging, in my opinion. Ego-grasping is what needs to be addressed. And again, my opinion, the way to lessen or dissolve ego-grasping/clinging is through deliberately engaging thought, feeling, and behavior in a way that results in significant change. All three are present in meditation if we're doing it right.

There's a lot of debate as to whether any actual changes need to occur. I'm of the school that thinks that there are changes to be made through practice. But these changes are more about clearing away maladaptive thought and behavior patterns (karma) than they are about trying to become something we're not. Paradoxically, it's more about becoming who you are.

I second you on the NLP thing. It seems like wishful thinking on overdrive, self-hypnosis to the point where one believes the lies. Imagined reality will never trump sensual reality. The only way we can achieve any success at that is to bury ourselves deep enough in imagination that we can ignore sensation.

I like the distinction between "ego aspects" and "ego grasping". And yes, I've been trying to find a way to explain to myself that all this is about clearing away the dross, not making something new. The only way out is in. The end is when we can at last return to the beginning. I like. : )

@ Chris: Yeah, I'm starting to see maps and things as an abbreviated view of the way things are. We can hold them as an sort of 'cliff notes' version of what we're doing, but as soon as we rest in them as if they actually were "what were doing", we lose out.

I like that, the groking of the heart. Just trust the unfolding of the moment. That is something I am working on now, I think. : )