Occupation = Social Standing = Conditioned Response, An Example Of Aversion, Taught By The Buddha.

[rockyysdt]

I recently completed my third stint at a well run International Retreat in Southern Thailand.

With my only one expectation, completing the scheduled period, my progress was exponential over the others in experience.

After surrendering modern world appendages (cell phone, money, credit cards, Laptop, watch, IPod, IPad, camera and the like), and with a pledge to keep the five precepts, around 100 participants and l found ourselves in an environment, stripped of external stimulation.

Add to this an agreement to abstain from wearing perfume, jewellery, revealing clothing, singing, dancing, and speech (vow of silence), our mind/thoughts were isolated from the elements we use daily to categorize and judge those around us.

Due to our deep rooted conditioning, when interacting with those we meet, after visual/verbal/aural/etc observations, we very quickly categorize (typecast) others.

This type of conditioning allows us to maintain interaction within our social strata and distances those below or above our station.

My fascination with psychology and interest in Buddhism keeps me mindful of human behavior and conditioning.

During the silent phase of the retreat, with no way of communicating, and with minimal outward signs of status, we were all as one, with a single purpose.

Being a beginner in terms of my path to Awakening, I view myself as having two "l's".

My "ego" and my "observer".

At the end of the retreat, when silence was broken, I found myself sharing experience with another retreatant.

Both my ego and my observer were present.

Describing his background, and experience, within a minute or so, he included "five star", "successful international business", "wealth' and "high status", amongst other things.

His level of interest/interaction was high until he asked me what I did.

After my reply, he then seemed to lose interest, went quiet and left.

My ego experienced a cluster of aversions, including humiliation, inadequacy, and worthlessness.

My observer observed my thoughts trigger corresponding negative feelings, a result of the aversion.

My ability to observe allowed me to be aware that l was attached to what others think of me, and also the gentleman's attachment to superiority.

Attachment to social status and its control over us is extremely powerful and can affect us all in terms of our path.

Most of us spend most of our lives ( time & resource) grooming ourselves to reflect our image and status in life.

This very self image is our obstacle to Awakening.

Edited June 29, 2012 by rockyysdt

[ccarbaugh]

Finally! - a thoughtful, meaningful post that actually says something! Thank you!

Edited June 30, 2012 by camerata
Off-topic stuff from a blog deleted.

[zzdocxx]

Thanks rocky, that was interesting.

[camerata]

Speaking personally, I've always been a loner and couldn't give a stuff about my status or social standing in life. I refused a company car when it was offered as one of the benefits of my job. But then it's just as easy to get attached to the idea of one's self-perceived uniqueness in being a non-conformist in society.

I seem to recall that in one of Carl Sagan's books he mentioned that "pecking order" (i.e. social status) is controlled by the "Reptilian Brain" - the oldest part of the human brain. So no wonder it exerts a strong influence on us.

Almost all conditioning is genetic programming or something drummed into us as kids, so it's no wonder it is difficult to overcome.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank Rocky for your reflection.

I like your observer-ego distinction. I guess, ultimately, they derive from the same source though.

Would you say your ego is fuelled by attachment, and in turn fuels more attachment?

And if the observer is freed from those attachments, what fuels it and what does it fuel?

[rockyysdt]

Thank Rocky for your reflection.

I like your observer-ego distinction. I guess, ultimately, they derive from the same source though.

Since my association with this Forum and Theravada teaching I've learned about Mindfulness/Awareness.

Prior to this the extent of my practice was silent sitting.

Splitting my conscious state into the Ego & the Observer was my way of conceptualizing Mindfulness/Awareness

I also conceptualize my Observer growing in strength as practice becomes more regular.

Maybe someday I will be left with the Observer with little to observe (diminished Ego).

But then who is the Observer?

There is suffering, but none who suffers.

There is doing, although there is no doer.

Liberation exists, but no liberated person.

Although there is a path, there is no goer.

Would you say your ego is fuelled by attachment, and in turn fuels more attachment?

Charlotte Jocobeck expresses the opposite:

A life of no self is centered on no particular thing, but on all things (unattached), so the characteristics of a self cannot appear.

To be no self is to be joy, because it opposes nothing.

No self is beneficial to everything.

And if the observer is freed from those attachments, what fuels it and what does it fuel?

Although living a comfortable life by many standards, my Observer is fueled by my need to find meaning and escape from Dukkha.

You will not find the end of Dukkha by travelling.

Only by being in this fathom long carcass (body).

The origin of the world and the end of the world is to be found in this fathom long carcass. No where else.

This fathom long carcass, endowed with its eyes, its ears, its nose and everything else, is where it is to be found.

Edited June 30, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Speaking personally, I've always been a loner and couldn't give a stuff about my status or social standing in life. I refused a company car when it was offered as one of the benefits of my job. But then it's just as easy to get attached to the idea of one's self-perceived uniqueness in being a non-conformist in society.

I seem to recall that in one of Carl Sagan's books he mentioned that "pecking order" (i.e. social status) is controlled by the "Reptilian Brain" - the oldest part of the human brain. So no wonder it exerts a strong influence on us.

Almost all conditioning is genetic programming or something drummed into us as kids, so it's no wonder it is difficult to overcome.

Although you turned your back on status and perks (company car), interactions revealing your position would still result in an elevated pecking order.

The involvement of the "Reptilian Brain" in the assessment of pecking order is very interesting.

Would that work both ways?

That is, ones feeling of inferiority, as well as anothers feeling of superiority.

Edited June 30, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Thank Rocky for your reflection.

I like your observer-ego distinction. I guess, ultimately, they derive from the same source though.

Since my association with this Forum and Theravada teaching I've learned about Mindfulness/Awareness.

Prior to this the extent of my practice was silent sitting.

Splitting my conscious state into the Ego & the Observer was my way of conceptualizing Mindfulness/Awareness

I also conceptualize my Observer growing in strength as practice becomes more regular.

Maybe someday I will be left with the Observer with little to observe (diminished Ego).

But then who is the Observer?

There is suffering, but none who suffers.

There is doing, although there is no doer.

Liberation exists, but no liberated person.

Although there is a path, there is no goer.

Would you say your ego is fuelled by attachment, and in turn fuels more attachment?

Charlotte Jocobeck expresses the opposite:

A life of no self is centered on no particular thing, but on all things (unattached), so the characteristics of a self cannot appear.

To be no self is to be joy, because it opposes nothing.

No self is beneficial to everything.

And if the observer is freed from those attachments, what fuels it and what does it fuel?

Although living a comfortable life by many standards, my Observer is fueled by my need to find meaning and escape from Dukkha.

You will not find the end of Dukkha by travelling.

Only by being in this fathom long carcass (body).

The origin of the world and the end of the world is to be found in this fathom long carcass. No where else.

This fathom long carcass, endowed with its eyes, its ears, its nose and everything else, is where it is to be found.

Thank you, Rocky, for your thoughtful and thought-provoking response. You seem to be making good progress along the path.

I am always mystified, however, when the "self" is unpacked to the point of nothingness. The Buddha was not a nihilist; he just didn't want to get into metaphysical discussions. He preferred to just unpeel the onion and not speculate about how the nothingness that remained became an onion in the first place. He was focused on teaching a dharma of practice and self-healing through meditation and right thought. Intellectual pedantry, together with ritualism, was what he was reacting to in the Brahmanism of his time.

To say that you might one day be just an observer with nothing to observe, but that the observer is nothing and no one, just complicates things, doesn't it? If the observer has rid itself of the ego, then something - something purer and less contingent - remains, doesn't it? Is this in fact Nirvana, an unconditioned state that is nevertheless a state of being, but no longer attached to the causal existence that you experience as ego? Maybe you will have attained Nirvana, Rocky.

But how does one attain Nirvana within this fathom-long carcass? I think it is because the shedding of ego, with its attachment, illusion and delusion, can only take place in an embodied state. Disembodied entities - angels, spirits, gods and goddesses - do not attain Nirvana. They have to be reborn, and Nirvana is not attained after death as a reward for doing all the right things, but in the present moment and in your own embodied form. The ego-self has been transcended (and discarded); Nirvana has been attained in the body, in the present.

"... birth has been exhausted, the celibate life has been lived, what must be done has been done and there is no more of this to come." (Kalama Sutta)

(The bhikkhu referred to in this Sutta has not died. The Buddha is referring to his moment of realization.)

The Buddha didn't need to die before attaining Nirvana. He'd already attained it on the night of his Enlightenment. Sure, he had to go through the physical debilitation that a long life brings, and only with the end of that debilitation would Nirvana be complete, but the moment of attainment of Nirvana, the "realization" that the ego is not the real self, and the "letting-go" of the ego-self, took place in Bodhgaya, in the flesh, some forty years before he died.

(I don't know if what I've said is correct or orthodox Theravada. I'm just trying to work things out.)

[Several]

Like Rocky I spend two months at a retreat. Despite all best efforts by yogis and residents samsara still leaked in. Like Camerata I've always been a loner and couldn't really give a fig about social standing. Death equalises all from kings to paupers. Gotama realised this and abandoned a position of royalty to become a Buddha.

In a psychology course we were told that up to 80% of a mans personality is made up from his occupation. Two men meeting for the first time will ask 'so what do you do for a living' within the first 3 or 4 questions. It becomes so ingrained that it is almost impossible to overcome even when inside a retreat as the OP discovered. It is a major hinderance. Defining oneself as a loner is also a pitfall as it necessarily requires the ego to define itself as seperate from the whole and therefore 'I'.

But wouldn't society be chaotic without percieved structure? All the little cogs and rods and other parts of the machine working away in their places to give us all the impression that humanity is 'going somewhere?'

Then the day comes for some when the realisation that there must be something more dawns, and the way to finding it is to leave the social rank behind. And then to leave the you behind.

An observer without something to observe. To observation stripped of subject all things must be equal. All kings are Ozymandias.

It can be done.

[rockyysdt]

Like Rocky I spend two months at a retreat. Despite all best efforts by yogis and residents samsara still leaked in. Like Camerata I've always been a loner and couldn't really give a fig about social standing. Death equalises all from kings to paupers. Gotama realised this and abandoned a position of royalty to become a Buddha.

Due to physical and environmental influences in my life I found myself, at times a kind of a loner.

During periods in school and work life, I found myself in social groups in which I was the only member.

I was not only the leader but the entire group.

If you're a loner, unless you already know why, a key element in your growth (Buddhist and otherwise) is to know why you gravitated to being a loner.

Why, psychologically, are you a loner?

Death definitely is an equalizer.

Our problem is that most of us are subject to auto response, which will include associated beliefs and corresponding feelings.

Perhaps your auto response is: "couldn't really give a fig about social standing" which protects you from feelings others may experience.

Lyrics which come to mind about death being an equalizer are:

He had white horses

And ladies by the score

All dressed in satin

And waiting by the door

He went to fight wars

For his country and his king

Of his honor and his glory

The people would sing

A bullet had found him

His blood ran as he cried

No money could save him

So he laid down and he died

Ooooh, what a lucky man he was

Edited July 1, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I am always mystified, however, when the "self" is unpacked to the point of nothingness.

A retreatant I met was struggling with this very issue.

I noticed he was very diligent with his practice and his commitment.

He was always first to the Meditation Hall and would remain long after others had left.

He had developed and sat in the traditional lotus position during silent sits, and when walking appeared very connected to his surroundings using a walking meditation technique.

He also would skip many of the meals preferring to direct his resource to practice.

On the last evening during the group talks, he presented a very concerning state.

His practice delivered him to very deep states, but he indicated this was impacting on his normal life.

His diminishing ego was impacting on his ability to interact with his girlfriend, family and work.

He found himself fantasising in order to maintain an element of ego with which to interact socially with.

I don't know what the answer is, but I've heard that one can end up in states of nothingness (dead end in terms of ones path).

It was described that nothingness should be avoided, but, although perhaps empty of thought and ego, the meditative state is vibrant, positive and alive.

The Buddha was not a nihilist; he just didn't want to get into metaphysical discussions. He preferred to just unpeel the onion and not speculate about how the nothingness that remained became an onion in the first place. He was focused on teaching a dharma of practice and self-healing through meditation and right thought. Intellectual pedantry, together with ritualism, was what he was reacting to in the Brahmanism of his time.

To say that you might one day be just an observer with nothing to observe, but that the observer is nothing and no one, just complicates things, doesn't it? If the observer has rid itself of the ego, then something - something purer and less contingent - remains, doesn't it? Is this in fact Nirvana, an unconditioned state that is nevertheless a state of being, but no longer attached to the causal existence that you experience as ego? Maybe you will have attained Nirvana, Rocky.

But how does one attain Nirvana within this fathom-long carcass? I think it is because the shedding of ego, with its attachment, illusion and delusion, can only take place in an embodied state. Disembodied entities - angels, spirits, gods and goddesses - do not attain Nirvana. They have to be reborn, and Nirvana is not attained after death as a reward for doing all the right things, but in the present moment and in your own embodied form. The ego-self has been transcended (and discarded); Nirvana has been attained in the body, in the present.

"... birth has been exhausted, the celibate life has been lived, what must be done has been done and there is no more of this to come." (Kalama Sutta)

(The bhikkhu referred to in this Sutta has not died. The Buddha is referring to his moment of realization.)

The Buddha didn't need to die before attaining Nirvana. He'd already attained it on the night of his Enlightenment. Sure, he had to go through the physical debilitation that a long life brings, and only with the end of that debilitation would Nirvana be complete, but the moment of attainment of Nirvana, the "realization" that the ego is not the real self, and the "letting-go" of the ego-self, took place in Bodhgaya, in the flesh, some forty years before he died.

(I don't know if what I've said is correct or orthodox Theravada. I'm just trying to work things out.)

I'm completely open on these points Adrian.

Did the Buddha remain alive for another 40 years because Nirvana is a state or a verb and once this fathom long carcass rots away that's it, or is he now in a kind of infinite state?

Did the Buddha continue to have periods of suffering after his Awakening, due to the fruits of past Kharma, or is the state or level of Nirvana (Awakening) dependent on ongoing practice (being in the present)?

Is Awakening a different (vastly superior) way of living (see and experience things as they really are) and not a passage through to immortality?

Is life/existence "the way things really are", far more than we can ever imagine?

Edited July 1, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Although you turned your back on status and perks (company car), interactions revealing your position would still result in an elevated pecking order.

Well, of course you can't avoid the fact that people will treat you as a phuyai if you are a phuyai. The point is not to get attached to it. Interactions that reveal my age, education and nationality may also result in an automatically elevated respect from others, but you just stay aware of it and don't get attached.

The involvement of the "Reptilian Brain" in the assessment of pecking order is very interesting.

Would that work both ways?

That is, ones feeling of inferiority, as well as anothers feeling of superiority.

Yes. See Sagan's remarks about primates. Every animal is dominant over and submissive to some others, and they presumably enjoy playing both roles. Unlike humans!

[Several]

Although you turned your back on status and perks (company car), interactions revealing your position would still result in an elevated pecking order.

Well, of course you can't avoid the fact that people will treat you as a phuyai if you are a phuyai. The point is not to get attached to it. Interactions that reveal my age, education and nationality may also result in an automatically elevated respect from others, but you just stay aware of it and don't get attached.

The involvement of the "Reptilian Brain" in the assessment of pecking order is very interesting.

Would that work both ways?

That is, ones feeling of inferiority, as well as anothers feeling of superiority.

Yes. See Sagan's remarks about primates. Every animal is dominant over and submissive to some others, and they presumably enjoy playing both roles. Unlike humans!

Many humans most definitely enjoy this state. Prisons and business are full of those who submit to superiors and dominate subordinates. The BDSM community would not exist without it. Military organisations would be useless without it. If I've understood you correctly that is.

If I find myself in a position where I am being treated as a superior I avoid taking advantage of it unless I think my actions could be beneficial. If someone tries to dominate me I quickly discourage that mentality or simply avoid them.

It may be naieve of me, in a world of ingrained hierarchical psyche, but I believe we are all equal in reality and that social status is a very strong illusion that we cannot let go of because it acts as a kind of 'glue' that keeps the structure of society upright.

[Xangsamhua]

Yes. See Sagan's remarks about primates. Every animal is dominant over and submissive to some others, and they presumably enjoy playing both roles. Unlike humans!

Many humans most definitely enjoy this state. Prisons and business are full of those who submit to superiors and dominate subordinates. The BDSM community would not exist without it. Military organisations would be useless without it. If I've understood you correctly that is.

A very interesting observation. Yes, many people enjoy being subordinate. Maybe most (it might be safer). I guess being subordinate doesn't equate with powerlessness if it's a state one chooses, or is comfortable in, though it probably reflects social hierarchies or one's personal life-conditions and circumstances.

I'm not sure where all this fits in to moha (delusion) and dosa (aversion), if that's what we're talking about in regard to social or neurological conditioning and its impact on how we think and respond. Its kind of a conversation-stopper, really, isn't it. We engage with hierarchies via the reptilian elements in our brain; not much room for "servant leadership" here. I wonder how much Gandhi was influenced by the reptilian part of his psyche. If it's all a matter of one's inner monitor lizard, then we don't seem to have much room for responsibility.

The Buddha was a leader. Even in his pre-enlightenment wandering, he seems to have quickly won recognition for his intelligence and leadership ability. Being the scion of a noble family may have contributed to that, but not all scions turn out to be leaders. His social status would certainly have helped, though, in gaining the support of influential people, in addition to the obvious holiness of his life and the reasonableness of his teaching. His early followers, from mainly Kshatriya and Brahmin families, would have found his caste origins reassuring.

His elevated status could just as easily have led him into delusion, of course, as it did to many others, and indeed as his father tried to manufacture for him throughout the first thirty years of his life. However, Gautama rejected the kshatriya princely life, in part because he saw through its transient benefits and in part as the result of many lives in preparation for the enlightenment he realized at Bodhgaya.

How the Buddha managed to find himself under the Bodhi tree when he did and what led up to the dramatic moment of awakening, we don't really know. We only have the legends. However, when it happened, the Buddha said it was "unprovoked", suggesting it was a flash of insight, not the outcome of a process of ratiocination and reflection.

I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.

(Ariyapariyesana Sutta)

It appears, then, if the Buddha's experience is a template for others' potential, that the attainment of awakening and release is not so much the logical next step in a process of development, but a cathartic moment of kenosis ('self-emptying of one's will'). We will attain awakening, if we do, not as a result of socially and neurologically conditioned reasoning and response, but in a flash - satori - rather like all those bhikkhus in the suttas who seemed to attain enlightenment or become once-returners all of a sudden after hearing the Buddha's words. Perhaps the historical and geographical conditions were just right for them. They were in the right place at the right time, together with their abundance of good karma from prior lives.

If this is so, the effects of conditioning on things like aversion and delusion may be real and need to be worked through, over how many lifetimes, but the final cathartic release and awakening from samsara is an "unbinding". It is not "caused", but its effect is to free one from the yoke of cause and effect - not physically; life goes on - but karmically, at the very core of our being (and I'm not saying it's an empty core), until the physical life has ended. I'm intrigued of course as to the source of the catharsis that brings about

kenosis, but that is seen as speculative and getting away from the Buddha's teaching. Mystics in the different religious traditions have quite a bit to say about it, however.

[camerata]

Many humans most definitely enjoy this state. Prisons and business are full of those who submit to superiors and dominate subordinates. The BDSM community would not exist without it. Military organisations would be useless without it. If I've understood you correctly that is.

What Sagan actually said was something like, "with humans everyone wants to be the alpha male." It was a somewhat off-the-cuff remark.

[rockyysdt]

A very interesting observation. Yes, many people enjoy being subordinate. Maybe most (it might be safer). I guess being subordinate doesn't equate with powerlessness if it's a state one chooses, or is comfortable in, though it probably reflects social hierarchies or one's personal life-conditions and circumstances.

My experience suggests there are variables reflecting ones conditioning.

These might include:

Some might be have an aversion to confrontation or to stand up for themselves, allowing themselves to be bossed or pushed around even though inside they experience frustration and powerlessness.

Some may be extremely shy causing them to take a passive role with others, whilst inside experiencing much pain due to their inability to break the psychological hold.

Some may have very low self esteem which causes them to be inconspicuous and dominated. They may dress plainly so as not to bring attention to themselves even though loathe the mental state they find themselves in.

I can't think of why some would find pleasure in being made to feel inferior.

I thought sadists hate their situation but are compelled to be dominated due to their deep seated subconscious conditioning.

Battered wife syndrome comes to mind.

They seem to attract men who are violent.

They dislike being beaten, but are drawn to this kind of man due to a number of psychological drivers.

Each of us has a uniquely conditioned subconscious which controls each of us.

If we can overcome its clutches we are well on our way to Awakening.

[Xangsamhua]

A very interesting observation. Yes, many people enjoy being subordinate. Maybe most (it might be safer). I guess being subordinate doesn't equate with powerlessness if it's a state one chooses, or is comfortable in, though it probably reflects social hierarchies or one's personal life-conditions and circumstances.

My experience suggests there are variables reflecting ones conditioning.

These might include:

Some might be have an aversion to confrontation or to stand up for themselves, allowing themselves to be bossed or pushed around even though inside they experience frustration and powerlessness.

Some may be extremely shy causing them to take a passive role with others, whilst inside experiencing much pain due to their inability to break the psychological hold.

Some may have very low self esteem which causes them to be inconspicuous and dominated. They may dress plainly so as not to bring attention to themselves even though loathe the mental state they find themselves in.

I can't think of why some would find pleasure in being made to feel inferior.

I thought sadists hate their situation but are compelled to be dominated due to their deep seated subconscious conditioning.

Battered wife syndrome comes to mind.

They seem to attract men who are violent.

They dislike being beaten, but are drawn to this kind of man due to a number of psychological drivers.

Each of us has a uniquely conditioned subconscious which controls each of us.

If we can overcome its clutches we are well on our way to Awakening.

Yes, that all seems reasonable, as long as we don't confuse being subordinate with being inferior, especially if being inferior is regarded as self-destructive or something to be ashamed of. All organizations have some kind of hierarchy. I can't think of any that are really flat. One hopes only that the hierarchy reflects ability, knowledge, wisdom, etc, not mere seniority, or nepotism, or charm.

And there's nothing shameful about being inferior, unless it's in morality - trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, compassion, etc. If one holds a position of inferiority because one lacks experience, knowledge, ability and wisdom, where's the shame? If one lacks those qualities, but really, really would like to be the boss, then frustration will follow and little sympathy to go with it.

There's been some discussion recently in the education media about the importance of self-esteem. Over the past 40 years, much teaching practice has been driven, at least in part, by a belief that teachers must be sensitive to children's self-esteem. They mustn't do anything that threatens a child's self-esteem and sense of value in the community. Well, as you could see coming, there's now a growing acknowledgement that this has all gone overboard.

Many children have not been sufficiently challenged, have not been required to self-examine, have not been accountable for their performance or behaviour, have not been taught that there are standards that they must learn to abide by. The study of self-esteem among criminals in fact revealed that many have an excess of it, to the extent that they believe they are entitled to much more of the world's goods than they have and are prepared to satisfy this sense of entitlement by criminal and violent behaviour. A realistic understanding of their status and entitlements from an early age, reinforced at school, may have kept them to more reasonable modus operandi in life.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[huli]

There's been some discussion recently in the education media about the importance of self-esteem. Over the past 40 years, much teaching practice has been driven, at least in part, by a belief that teachers must be sensitive to children's self-esteem. They mustn't do anything that threatens a child's self-esteem and sense of value in the community. Well, as you could see coming, there's now a growing acknowledgement that this has all gone overboard.

Many children have not been sufficiently challenged, have not been required to self-examine, have not been accountable for their performance or behaviour, have not been taught that there are standards that they must learn to abide by. The study of self-esteem among criminals in fact revealed that many have an excess of it, to the extent that they believe they are entitled to much more of the world's goods than they have and are prepared to satisfy this sense of entitlement by criminal and violent behaviour. A realistic understanding of their status and entitlements from an early age, reinforced at school, may have kept them to more reasonable modus operandi in life.

It is very interesting to read your comments on self-esteem. I think that the importance of self-esteem as discussed in the west is in sharp contrast to Buddhist principals. The place of self-esteem vis-a-vis the conditioning that Rocky wrote about in his OP would probably be fertile ground for discussion also.

The typical western view is that getting what we desire is the ultimate in a happy life. It could be that high self-esteem is part of this getting what we want. However, and as you mention with criminals, high self-esteem can drive desire and selfishness to excess and pathology. Rather than being the basis of a healthy personality, high self-esteem is not necessarily so.

.

Western Psychology posits that, if nothing else, we are someone, and necessarily have a self-image, and we won't be happy if we have a lousy image of ourself, so we should have a good one. I really can't find too much fault with that, unless we are Enlightened maybe. If we are moral, and generous, and compassionate, we will get a joy out of it, and feel good about ourselves, i.e. high self-esteem. I note that all of those qualities are practiced in the social milieu. This is in contrast to selfish desire. As far as I know, Western Psychology does not make this distinction, nor do Western religions reject high self-esteem that is founded on getting what you want. Donald Trump has a high self-esteem because he got all kind of stuff he wanted. Good for him. That is one problem he doesn't have, low self-esteem.

The Buddhist position, that emphasis on the self is bad, is in stark contrast to the glorification of the self which is the theme in the West. I have often wondered about self-esteem. Somehow, it just seems like a phony veneer, but as long as we have an image about ourself, might as well have a good one, I suppose.

Edited July 2, 2012 by huli

[rockyysdt]

It is very interesting to read your comments on self-esteem. I think that the importance of self-esteem as discussed in the west is in sharp contrast to Buddhist principals. The place of self-esteem vis-a-vis the conditioning that Rocky wrote about in his OP would probably be fertile ground for discussion also.

The typical western view is that getting what we desire is the ultimate in a happy life. It could be that high self-esteem is part of this getting what we want. However, and as you mention with criminals, high self-esteem can drive desire and selfishness to excess and pathology. Rather than being the basis of a healthy personality, high self-esteem is not necessarily so.

.

Western Psychology posits that, if nothing else, we are someone, and necessarily have a self-image, and we won't be happy if we have a lousy image of ourself, so we should have a good one. I really can't find too much fault with that, unless we are Enlightened maybe. If we are moral, and generous, and compassionate, we will get a joy out of it, and feel good about ourselves, i.e. high self-esteem. I note that all of those qualities are practiced in the social milieu. This is in contrast to selfish desire. As far as I know, Western Psychology does not make this distinction, nor do Western religions reject high self-esteem that is founded on getting what you want. Donald Trump has a high self-esteem because he got all kind of stuff he wanted. Good for him. That is one problem he doesn't have, low self-esteem.

The Buddhist position, that emphasis on the self is bad, is in stark contrast to the glorification of the self which is the theme in the West. I have often wondered about self-esteem. Somehow, it just seems like a phony veneer, but as long as we have an image about ourself, might as well have a good one, I suppose.

I hadn't thought in terms of desire and selfishness Huli.

Our unique conditioning will probably cause all kinds of problems as a result of low self esteem.

I was thinking more to do with social standing.

Most humans find themselves needing acceptance as a member in a group.

This emotional need probably evolved, as survival, during primitive times, would have been enhanced living in groups.

As indicated, self esteem (high or low) is associated with ego or sense of self.

Initially evolved to enhance survival, it seems to travel in the opposite direction to diminishing the "l" or ego.

Edited July 3, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Yes, that all seems reasonable, as long as we don't confuse being subordinate with being inferior, especially if being inferior is regarded as self-destructive or something to be ashamed of. All organizations have some kind of hierarchy. I can't think of any that are really flat. One hopes only that the hierarchy reflects ability, knowledge, wisdom, etc, not mere seniority, or nepotism, or charm.

And there's nothing shameful about being inferior, unless it's in morality - trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, compassion, etc. If one holds a position of inferiority because one lacks experience, knowledge, ability and wisdom, where's the shame? If one lacks those qualities, but really, really would like to be the boss, then frustration will follow and little sympathy to go with it.

There's been some discussion recently in the education media about the importance of self-esteem. Over the past 40 years, much teaching practice has been driven, at least in part, by a belief that teachers must be sensitive to children's self-esteem. They mustn't do anything that threatens a child's self-esteem and sense of value in the community. Well, as you could see coming, there's now a growing acknowledgement that this has all gone overboard.

Many children have not been sufficiently challenged, have not been required to self-examine, have not been accountable for their performance or behaviour, have not been taught that there are standards that they must learn to abide by. The study of self-esteem among criminals in fact revealed that many have an excess of it, to the extent that they believe they are entitled to much more of the world's goods than they have and are prepared to satisfy this sense of entitlement by criminal and violent behaviour. A realistic understanding of their status and entitlements from an early age, reinforced at school, may have kept them to more reasonable modus operandi in life.

A subtle but important point, the difference between inferior and subordinate.

From my experience (observation & personal), many with low self esteem will gravitate to subordinate roles.

The subordinate role will align with the self image of many individuals.

Naturally capability, experience, knowledge and diligence should be the drivers when filling management and subordinate positions in commerce and industry.

I've observed many times, individuals lacking in capability, experience, knowledge and diligence, performing positions of leadership and management for which they have no aptitude, other than their ego and self importance.

I've also observed many times, individuals who are very capable, experienced, and knowledgeable, performing subordinate positions due to low self esteem or related reasons.

Their personal conditioning pushes them into roles which are unfulfilling.

It's conditions like these which will cause, using the Buddhist terminology, Dukkha.

We know that our problem is nothing but thought, and that by following Dharma we are able to break free from this conditioning (attachment).

Unfortunately, for most, it has a strong hold and will require dedicated regular practice to overcome.

The catch is, most fall back to their old habits, succumbing to negative thought.

As you indicate, it's most definitely something which begins with early age.

Are our parents suitably qualified to raise children?

I suspect, in many ways, not.

My contention is that the biggest obstacle to successfully practicing Dharma is our conditioning.

Edited July 3, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Seem to recall Buddha saying most women are more devout practitioners than men, or something to that effect. Allowing the Bhikkuni order to run out and keeping very strict rules about contact with the opposite sex may have been due to mens weakness as much as womens. Did Buddha ever say women were inferior? Sure I'll find out soon.

In the 1920's a high level yogi (who's name escapes me) decided to teach yoga to women for the first time in its history and against public opinion. But as he predicted yoga has exploded into a global phenomenon with upward of 95% of practitioners being women. I have always had female yoga teachers and sometimes been the only male in class. This agrees with what Buddha said about women being focused more on the spiritual than men in general.

The priblem most likely boils down to Sila (morality).

[Several]

And I have managed to post that on the wrong page. Sorry. (see tecnology in Buddhism forum for why I am a ludite.)

Should have been in Sexism in Buddhism forum, not unmindfulness in posting state.

I'll shut up now.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Several