"Modelling" Curiosity

  One of the most interesting skills I have tried to teach myself recently, as a student in particular, is how to intentionally model curiosity or a curious learner. I say this with the knowledge that I am not "by nature" a curious person. In fact, when I was in Kindergarten, I distinctly recall being a child who had no questions whatsoever about the workings of a piano, even when the insides of the piano were being exposed for the children to see and touch. Curiosity depends to a certain extent on cathexis, or a sense of emotional bonding to something, and I have found that it was never so easy to get me interested in things like the inside of pianos. Could I ever, as an adult, deliberately or intentionally direct my emotions to curiosity about anything?
   One crucial aspect of curiosity is a kind of meta-awareness. If I am coming to a place with an awareness of how, in what context, from what background(s) I approach the new place, I am probably more likely to be curious about how the situation unfolds, and what it adds to my existing experiences or mindsets. That's a mouthful of abstract, "educational psychology" language, but for me it points to being able to "interview" myself as though my brain were the interviewee. Well, brain, seeing as you are in this situation, what makes you want to learn about it? What disengages you? What are you having difficulties grasping, and why do you think it might be so? Engaging the mind in this mock interview is one way for the brain to be tricked into thinking it's learning process is  interesting to someone else.
  This also brings me to a point about social learning, or the way learning is a "social" activity.  People rarely make a whole lot of sense of things if they feel they are in isolation, without a "someone" standing in front of them/beside them and showing a real sense of interest in what the other is learning. Learning itself is quite often precisely this kind of interchange, where there is a difference between two viewpoints. I think the trick is how to induce a sense of social learning in all situations, even when one is entirely alone to learn. In the latter case, we still need to mimic the conditions of an "interested other" who is a little bit behind and needs catching up on what you are doing and thinking. Knowing that the other has a genuine interest drives our compassion to want to fill that person in on what we are thinking at the moment. The other (real or imagined) essentially motivates learning and reflection on learning.

Modest Rejoicing

In Adage 21 of the 108 Adages, Master Sheng Yen remarks, "When good things happen, we should rejoice in, praise, encourage, and then learn from them in modesty." This, I find, is a very interesting sentence to pack. It almost seems that when good things happen, we don't need very much instruction on how to accept the good thing; after all, do we not naturally "rejoice in" the good things, from the bottom of our heart? Here, I think it's important to perhaps clarify what might be meant by "good things" here. After all, "good" could mean any number of wanted, favorable things, but not everything that we want is beneficial. Perhaps when Master Sheng Yen is talking about good things, he is mainly talking about beneficial things. For example, getting a scholarship to attend a prestigious university might be thought of as a "good" thing because of the opportunities it unlocks for the person to realize their full potential in society. Good does not necessarily mean "for one's own pleasure": it tends to refer to something that is growth enhancing and potentially benefits all, not just one.
   That being said, perhaps one can think of rejoicing, praising and learning from good things as the ability to understand how they arise and to celebrate their arising. When I recognize that I succeeded in doing something I dreamed of, I rejoice not just in the ability to achieve that goal but also try to learn from the process of achieving it: the bumps, uncertainties, ups and downs, etc, are what lead a person to cultivate a more modest appraisal of the good, knowing that they require sacrifices on our part. And perhaps this is also where the "in modesty" part comes to play: without modesty, I might either overestimate the good that I experience or take it for granted without examining its conditioned arising. To learn modestly is to reflect on how good things arise and how they depend on many factors and people, not just to my own abilities and strengths. Reflecting in this way will help me cherish what I have but also not be reluctant to part with them if needed.


http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=46















http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=46

Clay Heavens, Clay Hells

In Chan practice, sometimes we talk about the idea that the mind is only ever interacting with itself. Of course, this is a very high level teaching, and I am not even a fraction of a way to understanding it. However, I think what it means is that it's only myself that is capable of upsetting my, either by holding onto certain thoughts or perspectives, or attaching to ideas. I create both heaven and hell for myself, simply though harboring certain kinds of ideas.
   Fine and everything, but sometimes it can be overwhelming to reflect on where to start with this perspective. If people upset themselves with delusional thoughts, what thoughts will they try to eradicate? I think this is where the tricky part comes into it, because meditation practice is not about trying to change "bad" into "good" thoughts. It is more about being able to abide in all the habit energies without trying to privilege some shapes over others. It's clearly knowing our part in shaping our attitudes and thoughts, and knowing that the thoughts are always created.
   An analogy might be something like a sculptor who is initially working with a lump of clay that is very inert, and later sculpts that clay into the scariest thing that she can possibly imagine. She occupies herself with something else, and turns around, only to see this very scary monster looking back at her. And momentarily, she forgets that she created the image out of clay. In the same way, we create thoughts and then forget that it is we who created them. In fact, we often forget the clay and focus on the image we create out of the clay. This is similar to the way that we take thoughts to be some kind of ultimate reality.
   When I am reading a juicy book (such as one about Buddhism!) I might completely trust the author's wisdom, to the point where I am having a conversation with that author. I feel as though the author is standing in front of me, reading my thoughts the same way that I can read the author's book. But is this really true? In fact, the words are not "on the page" in that moment. Instead, mind is putting together the letters to form the words and connecting those words with distinct meanings, which in turn link to other associations, and so on and so forth. One tiny word can trigger an entire chain of hidden associations. This might be somewhat like those "pop up" books that I used to read as a kid, where a single slide of the finger or turn of the page conjures a three dimensional image of something that literally leaps out at you. Yes, it often feels damn real!
  Again, though, this is only the mind having a conversation with itself, because there is nobody actually reading our own thoughts. So if I am miserable because of a book I read, or conversely, "elated", I should realize that the source is basically the same source.  And that gives me a little bit more room not to feel stuck in a thought.
   

Self Affirmation

Self affirmation, according to Master Sheng Yen, is not simply about affirming "me" over the others. Interestingly in his video (which I have pasted below), he speaks to the contrary tendency to actually affirm both others and the self in sense of responsibility. This is not easy, but as Master Sheng Yen remarks, how can we possibly know ourselves (strengths, weaknesses, etc) unless we are interacting with others? It's only ever in the context of other beings that we can speak of taking responsibility. This certainly does remind me of Wenger's thoughts around communities of learning, for precisely the similar reason of seeing our identities as coming out of interactions with groups.
  Why call this "affirmation" when a person is acknowledging both strengths and weaknesses? How is admitting one's mistakes and weaknesses a form of affirmation? I think this is a tricky thing because in Western culture, being "affirmative" is often equated with only showing one's "positive" traits. We are told on interviews to be careful not to show our failings or weaknesses, and even then to be careful how we phrase it. But as Master Sheng Yen suggests, it's in clearly recognizing weaknesses that one can actually work with them and prevent them from becoming destructive. If my weakness is about sleeping in late, I make it an extra precaution to make myself wake up and not hit the snooze button. Knowing my tendency to want to sleep longer makes me make the extra steps to counterbalance that tendency.
    Conversely, bringing up weaknesses with the intention of "putting oneself down" is not really the attitude that Master Sheng Yen wants to promote. Self-deprecation does not represent a balanced view of one's traits, and therefore has a tendency to lead a person to inactivity. Again, balance is important: nobody is "all bad", any more than they are "all good", and our mixture of qualities allows us to be of benefit even if we haven't mastered certain skills in life. This means that we should try not to hide when we are finding that we are unskilled in something. Instead, we acknowledge lack of skill in some areas and recollect that there are other skills that one has to benefit others in the meantime.

Self Affirmation Part I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXo1JbNZ0s

Learning Communities

  One of the interesting consequences of reading Etienne Wenger is that it makes me realize how important community is to learning. Is this a "therapeutic" insight? A healing insight? Well, being an introverted person who likes to process things on his own and see a bigger picture (rather than piecemeal), I sometimes feel like learning in communities comes across as too fragmented. But what I am realizing is how this is mainly due to my expectations of what learning is supposed to be and how it's supposed to happen. Maybe I can summarize in a few key points.
   First is, shattering the expectation of a unified learner, who, furthermore is capable of "knowing everything". Knowing everything about a subject, as Wenger suggests, is neither particularly feasible nor desirable. People can sometimes choose to learn superficially because they know that the subject material will not become part of their performance evaluation, or might even be subject to change. Highly technical information might even be glossed over in favor of a high level information, simply because there is no need to learn the nitty gritty to perform one's functions in an organization.
  Second is, the importance of not taking for granted the "untold" spaces of learning. Learning can even take place through a chat on facebook. Now, that's a revelation to me! If the discussion is meaningful and brings together insights from different people and is related to some kind of significant thing we do, then learning can take place in those simple conversations. In other words, learning is neither restricted to authority nor contained only in book learning--even though, in theory, the latter is often the more comprehensive and weightier treatment of a given subject.
    Lastly, the importance of allowing for gaps, or "mind the gap". There are many ways that gaps in a person's understanding or knowledge can be filled, and expecting it to come from the help button on one's computer (or help desk) is too simplistic. Help comes in unexpected places, and part of the idea of learning is not to reify the process to one or two channels, but rather, to stay open to a multiplicity of channels.
  I believe that these principles, among others, help me to relax into new channels of learning, as well as to never feel that a meeting or an unexpected encounter is a waste of time. It can help build one's repertoire of learning and meaning.

Staying in Confusion and Observing Ego

In the book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism, Chogyam Trungpa writes, "In order to reassure ourselves, we work to fit into our intellectual scheme every aspect of our lives which might be confusing. And our effort is so serious and solemn, so straightforward and sincere, that it is difficult to be suspicious of it." (p.15). I have to admit that even in writing a blog, my attempt to clarify spiritual writings might also be the attempt to smooth over or reassure, rather than face confusion straight on. So the question is, how to face confusion without trying to neatly categorize it?
   Categorization is a special kind desire. When I categorize anything, I feel reassured and also less fearful, knowing that I can "keep things together" in my mind. Admittedly, this is a very important skill to have when one is going to school or trying to present a proposal at work. I would definitely not discount these inclinations to categorize. But when a person is trying to learn something new, they have to endure confusion before something new arises: some new understanding, creation, synthesis or insight. If I am not able to tolerate some kind of confusion or ambiguity, then I fall back to the same reassuring categories that I have built up for myself in the past, provided that those solutions still appear feasible and satisfying. Luckily, however, categories lose their appeal over time: they might work in one instance to clarify things a little, but later, that clarification becomes somewhat habitual (part of the background schema of how we habitually organize) and there is no longer any joy or relief coming from using those categories. This especially happens in organizations, as people come to recognize that what worked in the past is no longer satisfying: it doesn't bring about good or better ways of doing things.
   About confusion: how to be with it long enough to gain insight? I think this is where confusion often masks as something else, like"depression". When I neatly categorize an emotion as a call for help, I try to avoid ambiguity or confusion: I want to neatly tie the knots. But this neat tying of things, again, does not bring about a valid learning experience. It simply reinforces the same ways of trying to find safety or reassurance related to the self.
   The self is needed to function, yes, but being in confusion is needed to go beyond self. Chogyam Trungpa notes, "The simplicity of meditation means just experiencing the ape instinct of ego. If anything more than this is laid onto our psychology, then it becomes a very heavy, thick mask, a suit of armor." (p.16) Observing the ego without trying to "solve" the ego is a very important aspect of meditation.

Trungpa, C (2008), Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Boston: Shambhala

Gratitude, Grace, Surrender

I have been rereading Kerry Howell's very excellent book Gratitude in Education: A Radical View where she writes about the common tendency in education to equate gratitude with positive emotions, which in turn leads to solipsistic mentality (p.34). Howells proposes a contrast between "gratitude for", which tends to be materialistic and self-absorbed, and "gratitude to" which genuinely reaches out, through actions, to others. In other words, for gratitude to be authentically directed toward someone, it needs to take the form of a humble reaching out or a real gift. It's not enough to say in my head, "I am so grateful for so and so", but that feeling needs to take the form of actions. Howells also warns of the dangers of equating gratitude to mere emotion, such as the tendency to equate negative emotions to a failure to be grateful.
   While I agree with Howells, I think one thing that is missing in her account is what orientations incline people to be grateful and which do not. Howells hints at the role of grace in the beginning of the book, particularly noticing times when she herself could not sustain a grateful attitude all the time and was "saved" by the supportive emotions of another person. Grace works well in certain religious contexts, I have to admit, but I can't help but wonder if it's not simply a reified concept to describe serendipitous moments, and does not have any substantial power in itself. The "essence" of grace, if there is one, is that element of not being able to control or grasp: of surrender, in other words. My guess, although I haven't studied it, is that the inclination most conducive to gratitude would be something like the willingness to surrender (let go) which characterizes meditative practices in particular.
   "Let go of what?" you might be asking. The letting go part is actually letting go of the need to control oneself and the subconscious expectations one puts on others. It is a free gesture, letting the world know that whatever it needs to do, you are willing to go along with it. This idea ties rather amorphously to gratitude but I am thinking that a willingness to surrender allows our actions to truly be gifts, rather than exchanges. And this requires a kind of yielding to a gift of one's own that cannot be taken away from someone. Perhaps this "gift" is about liberation or negation, but it's the secure sense that the true essence of us does not lie in a securing of an idea, an image, an object, etc. In that negation, there is a willingness to give because there is no longer anything to lose.

Howells, Kerry, Gratitude in Education: A Radical View. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers

Everything is a Benefactor

Master Sheng Yen remarks in Adage 21 of the 108 Adages, "Feel thankful for the chances to hone ourselves: both good and ill fortune are our benefactors. "This is a very important reminder, and one which really amounts, for me, to learning to accept all situations with equanimity. It’s also a reminder that even when people spend their lives looking for things that give them joy or pleasure, it doesn’t mean that they won’t have vexations. There is no perfection to be found in life, but when my mind is able to accept all situations, everything can indeed be perfect the way it is. This is a subtle turn of mind, but it amounts to realizing that cause and conditions don’t fail, and one is where one is for specific reasons.

Now, does this mean that one should accept the status quo? There is actually no such thing as “status quo”, because everything is always changing. That means that I can be humble about what I need to learn, but I don’t need to feel despondent, or take a kind of hopeless or helpless approach to things around me. Whatever I am able to do, I should do. For example, if I am introduced to a new process at work, I would do well to put my heart and brain into learning the new process as best as I can. But I should also recognize that no one can master everything at once, and things happen in their own time based on the conditions ripening. If I don’t understand a technology the first time, I gratefully accept that there is at least some small aspect that I can grasp or make sense of. Then I know that this too will change and evolve into something else later on.

Learning about complex systems, both at work and in school (see my previous entry on Wenger’s concept) is sometimes daunting. I don’t have a systematic mind to see the whole picture, and sometimes I can only absorb small bits and pieces where possible. However, this is a benefactor in the sense that it gives me something to chew on; a special challenge for me to learn and master over time. Sometimes it can be dry and I will go through times when I am not quite understanding, but then I just take a break and put my efforts back into it again. The same goes with any challenge I face. Trying is much better than giving up.

http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=46

Communities of Practice

   What does learning mean? I have been reflecting on this question in light of my reading of Etienne Wenger's book Communities of Practice. Learning is actually pretty mysterious, or it least it's been presented as such by psychologists who focus on the brain. For many people, learning is a process that involves activation of certain centers of the brain. But according to thinkers like Wenger, learning is an active process of shaping an identity that becomes over time within a situated context, or what Wenger refers to as communities of practice. Wenger interestingly notes that in order for learning to happen, several conditions need to be met, including a shared goal that is valued by a community, a learner's sense of identity moving through community to attain desirable ends, a negotiated sense of meaning that is intersubjective and always open-ended.

       Here is one interesting implication: even though people are said to work toward the same goals in a community, they still construct very different meanings around how they move toward that goal and who they are in relation to that goal. To use a simple example : a church or a Buddhist community has many people who are volunteering with the same ends in mind, but they see themselves as having different places in that shared meaning. I might consider myself to be a "novice" practitioner in relation to  someone who is more experienced and seasoned, and this influences the way I speak or act within the community, or where my "place" is in relation to others. It even influences what I feel I am learning in that community, and here is where the role of mutual affirmation plays a big part in deciding to what extent I am "learning". The most obvious example of this is seeking confirmation from a Dharma master of one's spiritual attainment in practice. But there are less obvious examples elsewhere that show how learning is an affirmed process of constructing a narrative.

 I am not thinking, however, that learning is entirely based on a social construction. After all, there does need to be a cognitive component to learning. But I am saying that even this learning needs to situate itself in some social context to even be considered learning. I suppose a hypothetical case might be that of a person who does math equations on a desert island, using a writing in sand to record their findings. Such a person might be said to learn, but how would anyone know what they have learned unless it fits into a context of past learning by others? How would we even know that learning has been achieved if it is not properly recorded or accounted for? Learning has to have some kind of performance to be considered learning.

As well, I would also argue that certain kinds of learning claim more social legitimacy than others. Learning C programming (or BASIC, an early computer program) would seem a rather futile exercise if we know that these programs are no longer actively used anywhere. When these programs are being learned, there is an implicit understanding that some skill is transferable to something that has more social import or viability (for example, a more contemporary software, or the ability to reason in general, which has many applications).  I am hard  pressed to find a form of learning that is not in some way linked to a social system or community.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity.  Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Importance of Gratitude in Growth

Master Sheng Yen remarks "Gratitude can make us grow, and the resolve to return favors can help us succeed."

I think it's interesting especially that Master Sheng Yen connects gratitude to the ability to succeed. When a person truly feels that they have been indebted to others for their success, they start to internalize the perspective of "paying forward", and this is a different motivation from simply succeeding for one's own sake.

During our Wednesday guided class tonight, we talked about how making goals and even teaching students changes with meditation and the ability to see the nature of things as 5 skandhas. It's not that students don't set goals anymore. To the contrary, the scope and nature of those goals starts to change and grow when we are trying to work less for the sake of self and more in interconnection with others. Part of it is seeing that living in the world is a collaborative effort. The other part is renouncing the self that is always seeking its own gratification or aggrandizement.

I think gratitude also comes from simply relaxing and being present rather than shooting for the next goal. This is very important, for as I mentioned in my previous entry, how is gratitude possible when a person is not able to stop and appreciate or even receive anything from others? Without that delicate balance of giving and receiving, one may give without knowing the true value of the gift itself.

http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=46

Right Pursuits

In Adage 18, Master Sheng Yen remarks, "Pursue only what you can and should acquire. Never pursue what you can't and shouldn't acquire". I find this statement puzzling: after all, can we never know absolutely what we should or shouldn’t acquire? Recently, I am developing a lesson plan for my Junior students to learn about the Trojan War. Part of what I want to express to them is how the Greek view places a lot of emphasis on human beings not taking more than what is granted to them—not “stealing” from the gods. The tricky part of the Iliad and its telling of the Trojan War, is that each god/goddess competes with each other for their claims to what human beings deserve and what is their fate. Even these immortal beings are confused about what humans deserve to have! So begins a gradual shift from blaming fate to taking responsibility for one’s own course in life.

  What I can tell is that Buddhist philosophy tends to explore actions from the perspective of their intentions and the consciousness that gives rise to them. When I am taking things out of a sense of greed, I don’t have the base line from which to tell what is needed and what is only desire. My whole experience becomes off kilter, and I am only using things around me to regulate my desires and emotions. This is a kind of addictive mindset. Similarly, the more one craves, the more one has to work in extraordinary ways to maintain that craving, whether it be for a substance or for a lifestyle. This is the meaning, perhaps of “never pursue what you can’t and shouldn’t acquire”. On the other hand, there are in fact things that are desirable to have in the world. Now, I don’t always know which path leads to benefit for all beings, but perhaps one way for me to tell is to ask myself what is my intention for pursuing something. Is it because I want to look or feel “good”, or is it because I am genuinely concerned for the good of all? If the latter, then I will feel very little desire in the form of craving. Instead, I feel an open joy that comes from open hands, ones that no longer need to clutch onto anything. There isn't so much frustration if the desired outcome is not attained, since one is not trying to seek aggrandizement from their seeking.

http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=46

Counting Blessings

To increase our blessings we need to recognize blessings, cherish blessings, nurture blessings, and sow the seeds of blessings.
Master Sheng Yen

When I am first reading this adage by Master Sheng Yen, I begin to wonder, what does he mean by increasing blessings? What are blessings, exactly? When we talk about "counting your blessings" there is almost an implication of luck embedded there, as though one is blessed by a benevolent power that grants people special favors based on their behavior. It's interesting that Master Sheng Yen first mentions "recognizing blessings", and this is an important point. Many people might be blessed with things that they simply don't realize because it hasn't been made conscious. I have found that when I am writing (just as I am now, for instance), I am finding more reasons to be blessed than, say, letting my thoughts wander. It could be because being able to write something down entails much more focus and an ability to put down scattered thoughts, which makes the thinking process smoother and more disciplined. I believe that there is something to be said for the process of writing and how it's a meditative process in itself, encouraging the mind to be more focused. And this is bound to make a person more observant as well---hence, the ability to recognize blessings which goes with that.
   Cherishing blessings is naturally coming out of recognizing one's blessings. This makes sense, since without a sincere recognition of what we are blessed with (and grateful for), there  is not that much to cherish. And on top of this is the need to nurture blessings, since blessings are not just one-time; they can be grown, just the same way as a person grows a plant or nurtures a seed.
   Finally, "sowing the seeds of blessings" is essentially about spreading blessings to others. I think that this is none other than paying something forward, out of a sense of gratitude. 
   One thing that isn't stated in this passage is the role of receiving a blessing fully; knowing that a blessing is good requires some acknowledgement of it, a kind of ability to really admire it and appreciate it. This is hard to do in a fast paced society, and I find it helpful to consciously think about one's blessings in a deliberate way rather than jumping directly to sowing the seeds of blessings. And did anyone notice that Master Sheng Yen's four steps of increasing blessings is analogous to the four means of dealing with problems?

Recognize = face
Cherish = accept
Nurture = deal with
Sow = Let go

http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=46

Four Parts of a Problem

In Adage #17, Master Sheng Yen outlines four steps in dealing with a problem:

When faced with any difficulty of life, resolve it by following these four steps: face it, accept it, deal with it, and then let it go.
Recently, there has been a lot of coverage on the news about the outbreak of gun violence, both in the US and Canada. I was curious to know, how does Master Sheng Yen's adage apply to handling violence? How can we face something that seems to be out of our control, because it is often based on the motivations of isolated people and incidents?
   I think it's important to first of all accept that a difficulty is a difficulty-whether it's yours or it's mine. In fact, from a Chan perspective, there is no separate "me" and "you" because it's all being experienced by mind. It's easy to see the news coverage and think that the perpetrator of a violent act is solely responsible. In fact, the media often wants viewers to believe that violence is literally done by "isolated" people, such as young males who spend their time playing video games. But this way of portraying the perpetrators only adds to the illusion that violence comes from a single person, randomly or even by virtue of their eccentricities. Such a view doesn't consider the totality of what is happening in a society collectively that furthers the chances of violence.
  Cause and conditions do not start from isolated events; they are the result of interlocking factors. I have been studying this idea in both Master Sheng Yen's Chan and Enlightenment and World of Chan. We "face" this situation by not pretending that problems belong exclusively to someone else. If my heart is not peaceful, for example, then I am not any different from those who are violent. The only difference is cause and conditions that might put me in a better position to know how to handle emotions, as well as certain privilege. In facing violence around me, I am seeing that there is no beginning to it; it is simply what I am living with along with other sentient beings around me. Then I can start to accept it: I can own up to the issue as a difficulty that I am suffering from alongside all sentient beings. I don't pretend that the problem belongs to someone else, or can be removed by removing someone else. It becomes our problem, mutually.
   Dealing with the problem means to try to do my part to minimize violence, out of compassion and respect for sentient life. It doesn't mean that I take on everyone's suffering as my own, but it means that I do my small part in not harming others; learning to relax so that I am not being lead by thoughts or emotions that are negative; and continuing to study spiritual teachings that uplift my character as much as I can. This is not easy, but it's possible if everyone tried to do it in a small way. It really has to start from one's mindset, not to give rise to feelings of discrimination, anger or hatred.
   Letting go...well, I think letting go doesn't mean letting go of the difficulty. Instead, it means to let go of self grasping. There is a difference between someone who tries to work on themselves and someone who is so identified with a problem that they decide to go on a crusade about it. Back in the 1800s there was an infamous lady named Carrie Nation, who decided to "do her part" to control alcohol consumption, by going into bars and threatening bartenders with a hatchet if they sold alcohol of any kind. Well, needless to say, this is perhaps going too far! But actually, many people hold symbolic hatchets when they decide they want to change something. They try to make themselves into walking symbols of a problem by doing something that shows their determination--perhaps a trademark, such as hugging a tree when there is a bulldozer. Such kinds of solutions often create more agitation and conflict than they are designed to mitigate. I think it's because the person is so attached to a cause that they neglect the needs or wishes of others, and this creates misunderstandings and needless conflict.
    After writing this post, I feel more relaxed. It is as though writing it helped me find who I am again.


References
http://www.dharmadrum.org/content/about/about2.aspx?sn=46