Not My Circus, Not My Monkeys: Is Mindfulness And Nonattachment An Emotional Bypass?

in #steempress5 years ago (edited)

Sometimes our emotions may control our lives and choices. When this happens we often struggle to find ways to manage them. In recent years, mindfulness and nonattachment have become popular in the modern West, drawing on the wisdom from the East. But can it be a way to avoid what we're really feeling?


An old Polish saying... image source

The other day I was contemplating the topic of mindfulness and nonattachment, and I remembered this old Polish saying. I remember hearing it years ago, and it was very helpful at the time when I was dealing with some trolls. At the time, I noticed I was getting very, very upset at the behaviour of some people, and I wasn't even the target of the trolling; but it was affecting me nonetheless.

The saying is reminding us that if something is not our problem, then we don't need to deal with it, and shouldn't let the consequences affect our emotional states. This is useful advice when we find that we are getting drawn in to other peoples' drama. It is a helpful mantra to detach oneself from the (usually highly) emotionally-charged situation, remain calm, centred, grounded, and rational.

This is certainly not a new concept, the idea of nonattachment to emotions is a cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy and practice. While early Taoist thought saw emotionality as pathological (meaning it led to loss of wellbeing and could even lead to functional, physiological disease and illness).

Research into mindfulness and nonattachment

With the rise of the popularity of 'mindfulness' in the modern West, there are now people adopting scientific methodology to understand and explain its usefulness. One piece of research I found was the development of a Nonattachment To Self Scale to be used as a measure for future research. Psychological researchers seem intent to define measurable outcomes for these practices, such as equanimity (upekṣā), the conscious realisation of reality's transience.

There is an irony to all this research: nonattachment would also lead one would to become non-attached to attaining an outcome; scientific research is inherently outcome-driven! Regardless of what was found, a true sage with equanimity would shrug their shoulders at the results and say, "so what?!"

The other problem with some of the types of research done in this field is that it examines the efficacy of such practices (and therefore beliefs) in terms of the experience of 'positive' and 'negative' emotions. This one, for example, studied how nonattachment in Buddhist affected their experience of positive and negative emotions. Their study found that:

Nonattachment and religious commitment could, therefore, influence greatly positive emotions in Buddhists. This result suggested a discussion about applying nonattachment to prevent emotional problems and improve psychological well-being.

Nguyen, Hang & Nguyen, Hoang. (2018). Positive and Negative Emotions and Nonattachment in Vietnamese Buddhists.

Our focus seems to be on finding sure-fire ways to experience 'positive' emotions, and eliminate 'negative' emotions. We want to feel joy, happiness, and bliss but don't want to feel anger, sadness, jealousy, or fear. The mindfulness problem remains because we are still attached to emotions, and being selective and judgemental about it.

Perhaps that's not a bad thing; until we find ourselves unable to feel happiness and joy — then we become anxious that we aren't experiencing 'positive' emotions. We are attached to the desire for happiness, which we feel we don't have, which leads to the suffering (duḥkha) we are trying to transcend from in the first place.

However, there is the shadow side to mindfulness and nonattachment.

Some people are confined and constrained by their fear of the intensity of such emotions as inadequacy, sadness, hurt, and rejection. For these people, emotions are like land mines; they tiptoe through life trying to avoid dangerous feelings. At the first hint that a strong emotional response is underfoot, they withdraw. They avoid situations that appear to be emotionally highly-charged, such as a heated argument with a loved one ... In the process, they are usually successful at keeping themselves from experiencing much of what is worthwhile in life.

Leslie Cameron-Bandler and Michael Lebeau, The Emotional Hostage

Many of us think mindfulness and nonattachment is not feeling an emotion; and so we find mechanisms for not experiencing emotions we find unpleasant. There's good old fashioned suppression, there is avoidance, or there is distraction. Many of us use food, drugs (prescribed or otherwise), or alcohol; others use social media, and games. However from my clinical experience I would even say that things like work, business, fitness, and learning are also ways some people avoid feeling their emotions altogether.

This is not nonattachment, not that I can tell anyway.


Photo by Mark Daynes on Unsplash

A Taoist perspective

My own practices have been highly influenced by the work of the Quánzhēn Dào, the Complete Reality School of Taoism. This sect (with several branches) were particularly focussed on internal alchemy as a methodology to attaining what Buddhists refer to as 'enlightenment'. The Taoist goal was a little more pragmatic however, which was living the best life possible in the present moment. Having an 'outcome' was fine, as long as you weren't attached to it. Seeking 'enlightenment' was fine, but also recognising that it's a state you already have, and it's also OK to not be enlightened.

Their approach to emotions was also influenced by both Buddhist and Confucian thinking in this field. Given all phenomena in the universe has a yīnyáng nature, emotions were seen as having either a life-giving quality (yáng) or a restraining quality (yīn), both as mechanisms of emotional homeostasis.

Emotions were seen merely as a description of how was flowing through the human body as a description or measure of change. can either rise, sink, spread, contract, or hold. None of the movements are inherently good or bad, they are just movements. There would be moments where one motion would be more appropriate, and times where they would not. This is always happening.

What happens is that we assign a thought-form (or an idea) to a movement, and label it as an emotion: anger, fear, delight, grief, or worry. The problem was not so much the way moves, as it was the label we slapped on it. Inevitably, when we label something we are presupposing a judgement on it. It was recognised that mostly our judgements were due to our conditioning, a false state based on the beliefs of others that we have become indoctrinated with.

Thus, we have a belief that some emotions are 'good' and others are 'bad'; so we welcome the 'good' ones, and shut down the 'bad' ones and thus also shut down the mechanism of homeostasis and self-regulation. If we are always allowing to spread, at some point we are going to 'run out', as it leaves the system. By allowing it to contract before it leaves the system, we preserve the Qì so it can be used elsewhere.

In this framework, all the emotions are welcome. The emphasis is on discerning whether the thought-form attached to the motion of is a conditioned response, or a genuine expression of your true nature. With this discernment comes the ability to simply experience how is moving through you in any given moment; and because it is moving it is inevitably also changing. What rises, will also eventually sink; what contracts will inevitably spread out.

Nonattachment becomes the ability to experience an emotion and then experience it changing and disappearing, without trying to control it, suppress it, or force it. It isn't the lack of emotion, or the lack of experiencing the emotion — that is simply bypassing experiencing life itself. It involves becoming a witness to what is being internally experienced.

This is something I've been practicing for a number of years now, and I also had great success with clients with this approach. Its a little different to the approach to mindfulness and nonattachment that one usually finds in modern Western sources.

For example, if I notice that I'm feeling envious, I stop trying to rationalise it, or justify it, or even push it away. I literally will stop, sit, and feel it. I don't generate thoughts with it — that just creates stories and illusions of what it 'means'. I simply allow the experience of the feeling; eventually it disappears without having to do anything.


Photo by @plqml | @feliperizo.co on Unsplash

Not my circus, not my monkeys

Here's the great thing about this mantra: inevitably, a lot of my emotions are due to what Cameron-Bandler & Lebeau call 'comparison'. I feel envious because someone else has something I don't; or I feel angry because someone else got recognised for something that I haven't been recognised for; or I feel fear because someone says or acts a certain way that I have linked with a past experience of trauma.

In this instance, the experience of the emotion is triggered by something outside of us, and paradoxically is not actually our experience. It is simply a response to an external factor based on what we are perceiving; and yet the perception of that is also tainted by the filters we have constructed over time (conditioned responses).

If I can separate the perception of someone's behaviour, recognise it as 'theirs' — their circus, their monkeys — then chances are I'm not going to have that emotion arise. Even if it does, it will dissipate on its own, because there is no possible benefit to 'owning' someone else's problems; that's for them to deal with themselves. We don't want to completely not care about other peoples' situations though, as a thriving community is comprised of people caring for one another; we do need to care a little bit.

In typical, metamethean fashion I'm going to say that nonattachment can certainly sometimes be a bypass from dealing with emotions; and sometimes it may certainly not. Nonattachment is the capacity to be immersed in an emotional state, and then leave it effortlessly with grace and ease.

Mindfulness and nonattachment is not avoiding our emotions, it simply doesn't depend on their presence — or their absence.


Research cited

  • Desbordes, G., Gard, T., Hoge, E.A. et al. Mindfulness (2015) 6: 356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0269-8
  • Nguyen, Hang & Nguyen, Hoang. (2018). Positive and Negative Emotions and Nonattachment in Vietnamese Buddhists. Asian Journal of Social Science Studies. 3. 32. 10.20849/ajsss.v3i1.324.
  • Whitehead, Richard & Bates, Glen & Elphinstone, Brad & Yang, Yan & Murray, Greg. (2018). Letting Go of Self: The Creation of the Nonattachment to Self Scale. Frontiers in Psychology. 9. 2544. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02544.






QmWrCa35MtogfAgCgwUnLaytGwkMKqocr6BCbtYSmZnCqT.png


Posted from my blog PANDORA'S LOST GIFT with SteemPress : http://metametheus.net/mindfulness-and-nonattachment-as-emotional-bypass/
Sort:  

i've always felt a great ambivalence about Buddhist philosophy. perhaps it makes sense in India, where the caste system defines social position. but it a capitalist system, I feel its dangerous.

define the case in which other peoples issues do not affect you.

for instance, if you see trolls harassing a person, and you are a witness and they know it, your choice of not becoming involved is complicit or passive acceptance of their actions. how does this affect you? perhaps the next person they attack is your friend. is it still not your problem?

when does a problem cease to be of consequence to us? only when we have no power to change it. many people will take the stance that global warming isn't their problem. my opinion is that kind of detachment is a form of avoidance. the refusal of social responsibility. does detachment teach us a lack of ethics?

sure detachment is an effective way of not allowing ourselves to be hampered with emotions which could interfere with day to day life. but to what end? a businessman will say that being caught up in emotional issues distracts you from work. whose work?

if its work that you do for yourself, fair enough. work for your company? that's someone else's self interest talking. businesses want workers to become detached so they won't complain or object, instead of allowing us to matter as people. it's easier to fire someone if you dont need to care about their well being. its also useful to be a detached citizen, because then you dont need to care about the outcome of elections, the war in the middle east, or the economy. if you are detached from the outcome, will you bother to take action when its' needed? .

there is a fine line between feeling your emotions and letting them go as if they did not matter, and allowing them to tell you something. thus fear is often a sign that something is unsafe. anger is your emotions telling you that a boundary has been crossed or something is threatening your sense of what is right.

the problem we have in western society is that we have been taught to suppress or discount negative emotions when they are inconvenient to others rather than express them. wouldn't it be better to be aware of emotions, and let them direct our actions and fuel out passions? if we are constantly letting our emotions go as if they dont matter, that becomes a message to ourselves that our boundaries don't matter, that our values don't matter.

i see the detachment as useful and an effective method of dealing with emotions short term so we can do what we need to do. however we shouldn't have to become detached at the convenience of others, because they dont wish to deal with problems that will interfere with their agenda.

the trick to detachment is knowing when emotions are constructive vs inhibiting, and allowing ourselves the liberty of choosing what is important to us.

I like that mantra. I will remember that one. I agree. There is a lot of focus on "love and light" these days, which is fine, but denying the shadow self leads to all kinds of problems. Letting those emotions out without the thought attachment is a much better way to go. Assuming you can not attach thoughts to them. That is the bit we all need to work on.

Good post! I really should work on this more.
Sometimes I find that this happens...
My monkeys.png

Amazing! Great visual response and so true.

Posted using Partiko Android

Yep, see my response to Riverflows above.... 👆🏽... or below👇🏽… where ever it appears on your feed…

Posted using Partiko iOS

I do think if we arent letting it flow through us, we are doing it 'wrong' ... ah damn judgey labels again.. meaning, we have not got the true teachings. We shouldn't (ugh, should) be wanting it to be one thing or another, just what is. So getting wrapped up in.the experience of another and their 'circus' is getting attached to their 'what is'.

On the same hand, how much do we enter into a responsibility to recognise and acknowledge what the other might feel through their conditioned responses? Because it seems uncaring to ignore it (there is my empathy as a condition of neurological response to stressors again) .. but kinda wiser to let them figure it out and not water their angst? Knotty circles.

I know as soon as a guru (aka wise friends, myself) alerts me Im getting caught up (attaching) its an immediate warning to pull back to what is and my reactions. Sometimes that IS concerted self analysis... why is it I respond this way? To me, that pulls me back to the self, having time to recognise all those layers.. neural, social, biological... that gave rise to this response to that circus or that monkey, and thus sit with what truly is, rising sensation not a constructed, subjective response to thought forms arising.

Im not even gonna read back on this response ... whatever.

Posted using Partiko Android

Yah. Nice stream of consciousness there....

The dynamic complexity of the ‘Other’ is another dimension to all of this.... which I wanted to include... but that would’ve made the post a lot longer. Because we don’t live in bubbles, we live in communities.

I guess... if I’m getting ‘affected’ by something then my ‘affect’ (emotions) are moving. Hence, sit and experience it, let it go where it wants, let it do what it needs to do, not attaching thoughts/beliefs/stories to any of it, watch it transform and eventually dissipate ...

We still need to ‘deal with’ the ‘Other’ though... but now we aren’t driven by reactive temperaments which are mostly going to be conditioned responses.

This is just my hypothesis, mind.... by allowing emotions to flow and eventually dissipate, they leave a vacuum; and nature being what it is (abhorring a vacuum) the space is created for the true nature of the Self to emerge, which can only be humane and compassionate.

Thus approaches the ‘Other’ with this, rather than the conditioned temperament.

In any case.... if it were my monkeys, then I’ve dealt with them without hurting the ‘Other’.

And then approach the ‘Other’ and their monkeys with humaneness and compassion, and hopefully be able to aid them with their monkeys without getting hurt and hopefully modelling a different way of being.

Critiquing this stuff... I think we do have a lot of expectations of how we should experience something, I think it’s a case of letting it all simply be what it is.... which might also not have the fairy-tale ending we want it to have.... because the ‘Other’ may well decide they like the circus, they like the monkeys and set them loose on you regardless!!

In which case... again, the Self has allowed emotion to flow, it transforms, and we remain in state of 仁 rén...

Crikey. Talk about a stream of consciousness...

Posted using Partiko iOS

I LOVE a stream, me xx

Posted using Partiko Android

This is a Marvelous Post! I absolutely agree that some of the translations in our Western Culture of the practice of Non-Attachment are indeed a bypass. Not that it is even intentionally a result. I was lucky enough when I delved deeply into the practice of Buddhism to meet a friend who grew up in a Temple on the East Coast of the United States. He was very patient with my questions, and probably spent hours typing out responses to assist me with my understanding. The misinterpretation that is most popular in our community is exactly what you are writing about, the need to get to a point where they feel no emotion.

I had the opportunity (and blessing) to volunteer and prepare a meal for a Rinpoche who was touring the West Coast, USA. I was so nervous that I would do something "wrong." I just knew he would be able to see through whatever it was I imagined was wrong with me. :-) When it came time to serve him, I was astounded by the childlike Joy and Happiness he radiated. It literally was like a drug just being in his presence. I relaxed and found myself completely present as he almost licked the bowl of the Forbidden Rice dish I prepared for him. We sat by the Lake and breathed and just took in the surroundings. It was one of the most peaceful moments of my life. I later learned that he was not allowed to ask for more, but he had tried to signal me in subtle ways that he "desired" another serving. The profound lack of attachment to not being heard, or not getting what he wished did not change his energy or experience in any noticeable way. That beautiful Man is my posterboard for non-attachment.

😆 because your expectation was that why would a Rinpoche have a desire for more ‘forbidden rice’… I reckon they feel everything as we all do, they’re probs more aware and honest about it.

Love it!

Posted using Partiko iOS

'There is an irony to all this research: nonattachment would also lead one would to become non-attached to attaining an outcome; scientific research is inherently outcome-driven! Regardless of what was found, a true sage with equanimity would shrug their shoulders at the results and say, "so what?!"'

Evidently, this article confuses nonattachment with indifference in places like the above quoted. An enlightened person would not say, "So what?" They might say, "This is interesting. I will read about it, learn about it, and although I do not need to attach to it, I am attracted to it and will enjoy it, which is perfectly fine."