What if it REALLY IS the other person's fault? Posted by John on November 21, 1999 at 22:42:36:
In Reply to: Projection or insanity? posted by Michael on November 15, 1999 at 11:31:33:
"What if it REALLY IS the other person's fault?" asks Michael.
My answer to that is that it really doesn't matter. If one is learning
to be a mindful warrior (or any of many names for this kind of
practice), one has a few clearly understood aims. In your case,
conceivably, these might be to be divorced, have the children be
protected and cared for throughout this process, etc., etc., whatever.
But a student in mastery has a few clear aims, and is studying
everything that happens in the light of these clear aims.
Having judgments about your wife, or, sadly, ex-wife, perhaps, isn't
going to do you or your aims any good at all. It doesn't matter if
she's to blame. What matters is getting it handled.
First of all, it's simply the fate of both of you to find your selves
together in a failing or failed marriage. Each of you came to it with
your respective egos and personalities, and you thought you were getting
what you wanted at that time. In your case, for instance, you strongly
valued certain things about her—as you pointed out, her beauty, for
instance. And perhaps you didn't see the way it was going to be when
you were living together, after how ever many years it's been. That
happens to an awful lot of us, by the way.
Eventually, your respective make-ups have begun rubbing each other the
wrong way (we call that "the personality wars" around here). And so it
has gone.
>I was struct by how obvious it is outside the context of my marriage that something is very wrong.
Yes, interesting that others can sometimes see this while we remain
blind.
>It was as if a bright light had illuminated a very dark place. Of course I knew something was very wrong. I've known it in my gut for a long, long time.
You "knew" it, intellectually, logically, reasonably, but you didn't *
see* it. It sounds like you describe an "aha!" here. The "true self"
that we describe in these classes is shown in these "gut feelings." Yet
people, in general don't really pay attention to them. They "know" it,
but they don't really experience it is so. Once they do so, it's
"obvious and apparent." It's "an insight."
Getting back to that REALLY being at fault, whenever you think about a
harsh judgment like that about her, the first thing that happens is that
it makes your own body uncomfortable. The significance of that is
probably incomprehensible to people who aren't beginning to become
mindful. It doesn't make any sense. Yet it's so.
When you get angry (at her, or at anything) at any time, the muscles in
your face get uptight, and that tension is what makes you go on and on
thinking these kinds of judgments, or "stewing," as they sometimes call
it. If you express these judgments to her out loud—in the present
situation—you will only get knee-jerk reactions attacking you back in
one way or another. For after all, being human, she has her own
judgments about you. A good strategy on your part (in my humble
opinion) would be to avoid provoking her, as much as you can have the
presence of mind to prevent that. Hurting her, provoking her isn't
going to do you any good . . . if you have any aims such as those above.
What may do good are such things as helping her not to be afraid of you,
helping her not to feel judged by you. You don't have to justify
getting divorced by proving that the other person is bad, or "at fault."
(I'm speaking personally here, and not about that language in a Court of
Law.) You have enough justification already in not loving to be
together with her any more, and wishing to be apart, free on your own to
give yourself a new deal of the cards. I would say that in "a spiritual
sense," *that's allowed*! In fact, when the circumstances warrant, it
is a good thing to do.
Making the other person "bad," or "wrong" doesn't have to have anything
to do with that. And doing so only gets in the way.
You deserve to be happy. And she deserves to be happy. You didn't find
that you could be happy together. And so, quite equally, you *stand in
each other's way*. Apparently, from the way you describe it, it would
seem that neither one of you has a fair chance at happiness the way
things are. And it's my opinion that it's not a good thing for people
to have to dwell in this kind of space for a very prolonged time. And I
don't think it's good for children, either, to have to be around this.
It gives them the wrong impression of how groovy love is really supposed
to be. [The most valid reason for a couple to be together is to be
sweet to each other.] Better for the children—this is my bias, at
least—for unhappy parents to split and both become able to be happy
again by each finding someone new that they are happy with. Of course,
countless families are going through this all the time . . . and, with
greater or lesser "personality war," everyone does finally get through
it. Why not make it as easy and as painless as possible?—that's the
question that I ask.
>If all aspects of personality are brought on by conditioning, and if we are aware of the phenomenon of projection in dealing with personal conflict, at what point do we make a bold move and say to someone, "I can no longer allow you to abuse me this way"?
In the present moment, every time it happens. "Ow!" "That hurts." "It
hurts me when you say (do) that." "Please don't hurt me that way. We
are all hurting as we are going through this." "I wish we could solve
this dilemma in a way that didn't have us hurting each other." "I'm
sorry if I've been hurting you." "Let's both swear off of hurting each
other at random the way we've been doing." "I will work with you to
find a way to get through all this without hurting either one of us or
the children any more than it is impossible to avoid."
>First of all, if I understand it correctly, there really is no "me" to be abused.
This is an awfully tricky subject and you don't seem to understand it
correctly. No fault that you don't! And when you do understand it, it
won't be with your reason and logic, but by pure experience that it is,
as the Zen masters say, so. May I ask you to wait awhile on this one?
Although Buddhism teaches this from the very beginning, I'd say that in
practical terms, this is one of the last things that serious students
eventually catch on to. "Shunyatta" or "no self" is not an intellectual
understanding. It is "a meditation," "an awareness practice," "a
mindfulness exercise," and most of all it is only pure experience,
unmitigated by cognitive or conceptual intellectual understanding.
(Doug, you've asked about this in several ways, and I've been putting
you off about it, too, for now.)
>So if I feel abused, I must be off the path somehow.
If you are feeling *pain*, you are ON the path. If you are feeling
"abused," that's not a feeling. That's a concept, a product of your
thinking mind, your judgment. And you are {wide grin} off the path.
Don't be so hard on your selves. We all do it. We all need to wake up
more and see what *we* are doing, as well as what the other is doing.
And, always remember, all of you Kiddees, if you can, that it takes two
to tangle. If you are engaged with another person in personality war,
your ego and personality types are putting your parts into it, too, just
as much as they are. That is why it is such an important strategy in
the awareness game to *disengage* from this unaware, automatic,
unconscious, wounding of each other back and forth. Sometimes your
mindful disengagement will catch the other person so much by surprise
that they will fall over into their bowl of soup on the table, and come
up smiling.
>That's just personality talking. It's my conditioning getting it's way.
That's right. That's what it is.
>During group discussion at my Zen retreat, I blurted out, "But what if it REALLY IS the other person's fault?" Everyone laughed
First of all, Michael, I'll bet you that they weren't laughing *at you*!
I'll be they were all laughing because they could identify so closely
from their own experience with this very human predicament that you
described.
>and the guide joked, "Then we'll have to kill them."
Or else, wake up and *catch on*, and realize the sheer futility of
judging and punishing as a way of dealing with the situation. :-)
>I got no explanation about that remark, and the discussion immediately took a turn in another direction. As is typical, we all were left with this little koan to figure out. I should have known I wouldn't get a direct answer to such a question.
A master always gives a direct answer to a student's question. That's
traditional. (It's the "charlatan" that doesn't give direct answers.)
Even silence can be a direct answer. You got more than that here! The
trouble is, the student doesn't know what the direct answer is, in the
beginning, and has to sit with it, like a brick in their lap, and ponder
and contemplate until—aha!—it comes to them. Zen is a lot more subtle
than I am in these matters. I hope your Zen master isn't offended by my
remarks. Perhaps I "give too much away," from his or her point of view.
Especially in the Zen style there is always a pregnant space left, where
the student is left baffled, and in this space they can come to a
realization of reality . . . if they do.
>What we're looking for cannot be grasped in words or concepts.
Yes. However, words and concepts can be used in describing exercises
and insights in such a way that students are much more likely to stumble
onto "what they are looking for" than without them. Let's not bad mouth
words and concepts, therefor, I say. They have their place in this kind
of teaching. It's just necessary to understand from the direct
experience of it that words and concepts are not the same thing as
experiencing reality in awareness. Words and concepts are only *about
reality*, and not reality, itself. They are second-hand. To see
reality directly one has only to perceive reality mindfully.
Well, enough for tonight. I came home exhausted from work in the
country. But I've been "busting" to have a few words about your
questions, Michael. Sorry it's taken so long (since your post of
November 15th). I do think I'm going to get better about keeping up in
a couple of weeks.
I've been busy these days with things I've got to finish up to be "on
the other side" of my former "predicament." It's arduous but going
well. And, speaking of "time constraints," I'm going to have to work at
the ranch four days in a row, from Thursday, Thanksgiving Day through
that Sunday. So I guess, if you Kiddees don't mind, I'm going to
declare a "Thanksgiving break" for those days. You all can go ahead an
post if you feel like it, but I probably won't be able to until the
following week. Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Doug . . . ah, Doug. As a more senior class member now, I guess I'm
counting on you to go on being patient, as I go ahead and handle these
responses to a newer participant tonight. I've written three unfinished
pieces to you, Doug, that I may be able to finally get up over the next
few days. (Promises, promises.). I think your gonna like 'em.
And by the way, interesting recent conversation between you two, Doug
and Suz! No fight on the playground, huh??? {wide grin} I trust you
both can see what I mean at this point. Different personality types can
rub each other the wrong way, even in the midst of trying to make
friends. Isn't it interesting? It's the human condition, Folks. We'll
take more of a look at this along the way.
Warmest regards to all of you. I'm gonna hit the hay! Tired,
Coach
Continue with Winter 1999/2000 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived February 13, 2000