Thanks, now if I can just keep everything in perspective during those stressful, seemingly out of control moments. Maybe, I can carry a copy of this article around in my pocket, just realizing what's going on will be a big help.

You have laid out one of the best pieces of advice that I have yet seen in the blogoshpere: "the more things you can see as non-critical, the more content you'll be in life."

There is a Buddhist adage about this. It states that you will know you have reached the point that you describe in your post when you can stand across the street from your house, watching it burn to the ground, and rejoicing over the opportunity to start over.

I'm not there (yet).

Steven -

The important part, I think, is putting things in perspective while we're in between the stressful moments of life. That way, we can avoid repeating the same stresses over and over again.

It's a matter of recognizing our options while we're feeling calm and rested and also accepting that the "alternative" options are really ok. It's a lot easier to stay calm and rested than it is to get back there from those stressed feelings.

Dick -

One thing I definitely stand for is that we should never be upset with ourselves for not being "there." Far too often, spirituality becomes another reason for people to disparage their natural feelings. I don't believe that is the intent behind the Buddhist adage you mentioned, but I do believe we tend to do this to ourselves in response to spiritual ideals.

From a neurological standpoint, "attachment" to the familiar is hard-wired into us. I don't believe we can learn not to be attached to the familiar. But I do think we can learn not to be attached to the sadness that comes from loss.

In other words, I don't believe the trick is to avoid ever being sad. In fact, I think that's ridiculous. (For the record, I don't believe the Buddha was saying this either.) I believe the trick is to feel the sadness as a part of life without becoming attached to it. THAT is the attachment we need to let go of - not our attachment to people or to things but our attachment to particular emotions, so that we can experience them and then let them go instead of entering into a negative spiral of self-beration.

To illustrate the idea, here's another Buddhist story... Two monks are walking along in the rain when they come across a beautiful young woman preparing to cross the muddy road. The master sees her dilemma and picks her up in his arms, carrying her across and then bidding her farewell. Many miles later, the student is unable to remain quiet and says, "Master, why did you carry that woman across the road? You know the monks of our order are forbidden ever to touch a woman!" The Master replies, "I put that woman down miles ago. Why are you still carrying her?"

To be a conduit and not a switch.

And if a switch ends up in a closed position within our conduit, then we've only to think of EM's advice.

RE: the trick is to feel the sadness as a part of life without becoming attached to it.

Total agreement here! And I would go a step farther. Feel the sadness and accept that I created it; not in a blameful way, but in the sense that it is the product/outcome of my physical/intellectual/emotional/spiritual self.

Dave -

I love that analogy - a conduit - yes! To allow our emotions to flow naturally through us - to be open to the flow.

Ironically, in engineering terms, a closed switch opens the flow, and vice versa - so we actually need to be closed switches, lol. But I suppose in that sense a closed switch is, in fact, in an "open position," as you say. Ah the strangeness of language...

- EM

Dick -

I don't agree that this is "a step farther," and I have to take issue with your wording here. I would say instead, quite simply, that the sadness (of watching one's home burn to the ground) is the natural - and necessary - result of an extremely complex evolutionary process.

I believe that this mindset is in fact "a step farther" than the mindset that "I created it."

Because of the complexity of the topic, I will try to post the reasoning behind my rewording of this statement in a new blog article sometime in the next few days.

- EM

RE: I believe that this mindset is in fact "a step farther" than the mindset that "I created it."

You and I are talking now about "a step farther" on two different paths. I am speaking only about the path that reaches from blame to self-responsibility, while you are talking (I think) of a much larger, broader path of human existence.

So I would say, along with you, yes, the emotion is "the result of an extremely complex evolutionary process", AND, in the moment, I am responsible for it (I created it in the sense that my system produced it or it would not have occured). I do think that to ignore the latter half of that sentence is to collude with ourselves in creating a mentality of victimhood.

I also do not mean to say that we are never victimized--we are most certainly. But even then, it is we who create the feeling of victimhood.

My basic point is that so long as we place the responsibility (I do not mean blame) for our emotions outside of ourselves (with help from the structure of English), we are contibuting to an identity of victimhood.

EM,

As if. As if I didn't know. LOL!! I am dying over here. I am well aware of the open/closed switch difference, but in writing out my thoughts, I didn't give it a thought. To make matters even more embarassing (only if folks from my biz were to see this), I took a test yesterday that involved wiring, electrical controls and schematics. LOL!! No doubt where my head is at :-)

ROFL, Dave! I knew perfectly well what you meant - AND I also know perfectly well that you know a thing or two about electrical circuits! Forgive me for pointing out the wording - I found the irony too good to resist!

- EM

Dick -

Wow! This makes twelve comments on one post! That's a blog record so far! I love it!

Here's my problem. I really do hear what you're saying. I really do! But that broader path you mentioned shifts us beyond both blame and self-responsibility to a more integrated view of the universe in which both statements (it caused it/I caused it) are true and at the same time neither statement is true. Perhaps you could say that they are both half true, but that would still fail to convey the broader picture. I'm talking about a complete shift in perspective - a shift that renders both statements ultimately meaningless.

ROFL, Dick. Patience! I'll write a new article about it, I promise. But give me until after Christmas, would you?

Thanks,
EM

#13 - I love setting records!

I really do hear what you are saying as well, will await the full explication that you promise, and will probably take my post about language and victimization another step also. We are dancing across two (maybe three) paradigms while stuck in the language of the prevailing cultural paradigm - always a challenge. Like trying to tango when the band is playing a waltz. But always fun between people who hold mutual respect for one another.

Enjoy Christmas and be at peace.

Dick -

Lol, I have to admit that protracted misunderstandings aren't a lot of fun to me - especially when they occur over things I care deeply about - but they're worth going through when I feel strongly enough that a new way of thinking could really help people.

(I love questions though, so please, everyone - always feel free to ask me anything! I might not always have the answers, but some of my very favorite questions are the ones I don't have the answers to. I love an evolving dialogue!)

Have a wonderful holiday season - Christmas, Channukah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, New Year... you name it! Enjoy it, and bask in the global family that is Humanity.

Namaste & Aloha,
EM