Zen Stoicism

[Tom A.]

Indeed. Sometimes we get surprised by the thoughts that pop up. It's a good way to really see what's under the hood.

Gassho,
Geerish.

Sent from my PAR-LX1M using Tapatalk

I don’t think there is an either/or in terms of emotional regulation vs watching emotion pass. It’s a balance for me. Some things I keep in mind (I not only majorly geek out over this but really hope it will help others as I wish I had learned about this stuff many years ago):

Thoughts and emotions are just secretions of the brain, let them go

AND

Sometimes we need to check the facts when emotion is intense,

There is criteria that needs to be met in order for an emotion to “fit the facts”:

1. it’s appropriate- the emotion is appropriate in the situation (ie you don’t feel extatic joy when you roll your car, unless it’s to be alive),

2. it’s useful (effective)- the emotion is useful in some way (ie it gets you and/or others to behave in an appropriate way, not willfully),

3. and it’s duration and intensity (not too intense, not too long)- the emotion is not too intense and doesn’t outlive its appropriateness and usefulness.

If this criteria is not met for a present emotion then there is always a distortion or fallacy of thought present too. To further complicate things, there is no “right” way to think, feel or act in a given situation, only emotions, thoughts and actions that “fit the facts” or not.

http://edencounseling.com/resources/dbt-emotional-regulation-group-4-handouts.pdf

Gassho,
Tom
SAT/Lah

[Kyōsen]

There are different forms of “free will.” Buddhists very much believe in free will. Buddhists believe in anatta “non-self” and karma which is different from free will/determinism. Dogen said something along the lines of that we are always on the knifes edge of choice.

Where would you find “influence over the conditions” if not in deliberate judgements, beliefs, values, goals and the decision to act or not? Cognitive-behavioral psychology can prove this to some extent. Let’s take emotion for instance, when there is a painful emotion present and the emotion doesn’t fit the facts of the situation, then one or more logically distorted thoughts will always be present also. When you catch yourself in a situation where you are experiencing a painful emotion and that emotion doesn’t fit the facts, then you can deliberately challenge your irrational distorted thought(s) thereby attenuating the painful emotion. If that turns out to be a practical illusion, then so be it.

(Sorry for way over three)

Tom
Gassho
Sat/Lah

I can't help but think of neurological experiments wherein someone is wired up to a brain scanning device of some kind and then told to press a button before it lights up. The button lights up when the device detects that the brain has decided to press it. The experiment consistently shows that the decision to press the button is made seconds before someone becomes consciously aware of the choice. They believe "they" are the ones who decided to push the button but, in reality, the decision was already made.

Outside of the world of neuroscience, when we look at the mental aggregates and their facts, they are all under the influence of karma. They are reactions to reactions to reactions. So one might ask "if it's all just reactions, what do we actually have any influence over?" What choices do we actually have? I think that's why some Buddhist monks over the centuries have said that we have influence over where our attention goes which is actually tremendously potent if you think about it. Whatever you choose to pay attention to is what gets your effort: perception, feeling, judgement, action, etc.

So if we choose to focus on our loved ones instead of mainstream news, that's going to reflect in our emotional and physical sense of well-being and what we spend most of our efforts on, as an example. This is related to why people who quit social media tend to report increased self-esteem and sense of well-being; their attention is being re-directed away from something toxic and unrealistic and "other" to what is actually present in their lives, what is "real", and what they can actually do something about. Which isn't to say all social media is bad, of course - it's a tool, really, and like any tool if you use it improperly then you could end up hurting yourself (and not all tools are appropriate for all jobs).

Gassho
Kyōsen
Sat|LAH

[Tom A.]

Ah, I see where you’re going with this but with the same logic “I” don’t have control of attention itself.

I’m gonna let you in on what I really believe: it’s all happening on its own for if “I” existed then there would be a homunculus behind the “I” and a homunculus behind that homunculus, behind that one etc... homuncules all the way down... and if I truly believe in philosophical naturalism, that everything has a natural cause, then nothing happens uncaused in a vacuum including “myself” and what “I” think “I” can “control.” But on a conceptual level, yes, “paying attention” to what “I” have “control” over is all “I” can “do.” I’m gonna retire from being so chatty, even I’m sick of my own bloviating. Let’s sit.

Gassho
Tom
Sat/Lah