Something to ponder

[cherydactyl]

This [practice] is not an improvement plan; it is not a situation in which you try to be better than you are now. If you have a bad temper and you feel that you harm yourself and others, you might think that sitting for a week or a month will make your bad temper go away--you will be that sweet person you always wanted to be. Never again will a harsh word leave your lily-white lips. The problem is that the desire to change is fundamentally a form of aggression toward yourself. The other problem is that our hang-ups, unfortunately or fortunately, contain our wealth. Our neurosis and wisdom are made out of the same material. If you throw out your neurosis, you also throw out your wisdom. Someone who is is very angry also has a lot of energy; that energy is what's so juicy about him or her. That's the reason people love that person. The idea isn't to get rid of your anger, but to make friends with it, to see it clearly with precision and honesty, and also with gentleness. That means not judging yourself as a bad person, but also not bolstering yourself up by saying, "It's good that I'm this way; it's right that I'm this way. Other people are terrible, and I'm right to be so angry all the time."

-Pema Chödrön, "Precision, Gentleness, and Letting Go" in The Wisdom of No Escape
(the emphasis is entirely mine)

Comments

[sorcycat.livejournal.com]

I can't argue it well, but I fundamentally disagree with the bolded statement. I think learning is a great example. If you have been accomplishing some task in one way for a long time and one day you learn a faster/simpler/cheaper/easier way you can change. Life is about trade-offs and balances, and always staying the same must be balanced with change, and learning and experience can shift the balance.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

I don't think it means that you are supposed to be static to love yourself. I think it means that wishing to change a fundamental reaction you have to things...whether it is to get angry at everything or retreat from strong emotions displayed by others or be so afraid you never leave your apartment, or whatever...cannot help but *disrespect* that reaction. The passage goes on to say that we need to make friends with our anger (or withdrawl or fear or...). Change happens whether we wish it to or not, but by saying "I am bad, and that badness has the quality of " you can't learn from it, figure out what that reaction has to say.

So, I guess what I take from this passage is that making friends with your anger (or whatever) so you can understand what it's related to and whether it has lessons you can apply is a more helpful and useful way to be than to wish you weren't that way.

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

I have to concur with sorcycat. Equating change with self-aggression implies that you're hostile to your current state. This isn't necessarily true...it may just be that you see a possibly better one, and wish to journey there. To turn the statement in upon itself, I would say that the quality that we most need to accept about ourselves is that we are changing beings, and that defining any set of qualities as our "true" nature is going to be artificially limiting. By embracing change as part of our nature, we can attempt to guide these changes in a desired direction. Usually, this happens over time and with considerable effort, but sometimes it can happen in a sudden epiphany.

I also don't see much evidence that our desirable and undesirable traits are inexorably linked. However, channeling an undesired trait into a related but more benign one may well be an easier way to change than trying to excise it completely. That, I think, is the nugget of wisdom here.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

Equating change with self-aggression implies that you're hostile to your current state.

I read the bolded sentance to mean that desiring to chnage your fundamental reactions is self-aggression. It's not change itself but the DESIRE to change (in a specific way, that dishonors your reactions) that she is equating with self aggression.

About the desireable and undesirable being linked...only the person who gets angry about a law will bother to sue or be an activist to change it. It's what you *do* with your reaction that makes it 'positive' or 'negative,' IMO.

[nicegeek.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that if we do not manifest a desire to control the direction of our changing self-identity, then we consign the outcome of that change to chance. We become as a leaf in the wind, with no pain, stress, or exertion, but equally likely to to be blown to the gutter or the sky. If we instead take some control of our self-evolution, we become as the falcon. The falcon needs to exert itself to go where it wants, and may break its wings if it flies against too strong a storm. But it has infinitely more choices than the leaf; it can choose to fly to the sky, rather than being blown to the floor.

I don't think the idea of "dishonor" quite applies to someone's reactions. Imagine someone who, due to their background, feels intense guilt whenever they are complimented. That reaction may be very natural and completely understandable if you know their past - but that doesn't make it appropriate. It seems like such a person would be well-advised to take affirmative steps to change that reaction. However, wanting to change that reaction doesn't mean that they need to deny it exists. Rather, it suggests a need for self-understanding in order to find out how the undesired quality arose, and thus how best to change it.

Regarding the angry activists, it seems like their anger is necessary only to overcome their relative powerlessness to effect the change they want. If the activists had the power to simply sit down and rewrite the law, they wouldn't need to get angry. I believe that we are empowered to change ourselves, and thus more closely match the latter case.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

Following up on the activist example...

I don't disagree with you that their anger is necessary only to overcome their relative powerlessness to effect the change they want. But that's the point isn't it?