A subject that has been on my mind a lot in recent weeks relates to the best way to deal with a painful negative emotion. As anyone who knows me will attest to, I am always searching for “the best way” to do things, despite the fact that theory rarely reflects practice in philosophical matters.
Omitting the usual meandering prose, I will present my ludicrously brief analysis of western and eastern teachings on the matter.
Western Philosophy
The dominant philosophy in contemporary western society is Judeo-Christian.
I can’t find much on the subject of maintaining the best mental state in western literature. Most popular titles and articles refer mainly to the eastern teachings on the subject of inner peace and equanimity.
However, my summary of contemporary western thought on the subject is this. After the fact, this philosophy advocates calm contemplation, objective thinking, and ultimately a kind of inner reconciliation in the face of a severe emotional blow.
I have a few problems with this method, however. Much of what I read sounds suspiciously like brooding, or wallowing in self-pity. Much of western opinion on the subject seems to centre around “protecting the inner child” from the harsh realities of what the world has, or has to, dish out. I reject this kind of “internal protectionism”.
Furthermore, I believe that internal reconciliation, after the fact, does nothing to actually improve one’s ability to weather future storms, or address the possible root causes for the crisis, whatever it may be.
Eastern Philosophy
The dominant philosophy in eastern culture is various offshoots of Buddhism. I have always been interested in buddhist teachings regarding attachment, the relationship between the material world and the world within our hearts and minds, and choices we have to accept or reject pretty much anything from the outer as it attempts to affect the inner.
The most interesting two schools of buddhism are Zen and Vipassana:
Zen Buddhism
In response to a powerful negative emotional experience, Zen buddhism recommends:
- clearing your mind and not thinking of it at all
- distracting yourself physically
-
It’s an interesting idea, but I find it too “mysterious”, relying too heavily on the supposedly infinite but in practise nebulous and unmeasurable “power of the subconcious” to quietly rev up and fix all the problems, and improve you to boot, if only you can stop the concious mind interfering for a while.
Another interesting point is this approaches’ superficial similarity to the princple that, while one is asleep, one’s body will come alive and start mending any damage at a greatly accelerated rate compared to the wakeful state. Well, that’s known to be at least somewhat true. The difference is that the physical repair process is at least partially understood, and physical healing can be measured. Emotional health cannot be so easily represented on a graph, and I submit that one’s perception of one’s own emotional health can vary greatly from moment to moment, and may be particularly susceptible to placebo-like effects and temporary confidences where no real structural improvement has taken shape.
Most of all, though, the Zen approach just seems too good to be true. Like one of those “lose weight while you sleep!” pills, it seems to promise too much out, with not enough in. I can’t bring myself to fully trust such magical methodologies.
Vipassana Buddhism
Advocates the student to:
- face a problem directly, without looking away, until it disappears
- examine the critical choices leading to the disaster
- adopt a doctrine of detachment from emotional reaction and compulsivity
-
In the end I like this approach the best.
It emphasises a direct confrontation with the problem, and the taking of responsibility for the choices that led up to it. Finally, it encourages one to distance oneself from petty emotion.
Note
I will add to this entry as I think of improvements to the writing and content. Apologies if it is a bit scattered and lacking polish.
)
