A new phenomenology of Schematism Tech

Problem: Why should you get behind whatever present vedana may be?

Context: I was just working, but losing energy because I was spending a lot of it hating my tiredness.

Charles Tart:

All those words form a barrier to sensing other aspects of mental functioning.

Charles Tart

The (concept guided) willing of spontaneity can attack actual (sensory) spontaneity. That is to say: presence can be, and I can stubbornly intend “Don’t be!” towards it. This is a recipe for disaster—tension and frustration.

The Buddhist response is the counterintuitive formula: Will what is. The what here refers to vedana, feeling. All of the real, the felt and sensed, is. Wishing otherwise must fail.

(The problem is that there is a fine line between negating present-time sensation and negating goals. The Buddhist Vipassana technique of “affirming what is” is a slippery slope into also affirming the unreality of your goals. If this is OK, how can you self-motivate to work to realize your goals?)

Anyway, I was working and feeling like crap. Then, instead of resisting and attacking feeling-like-crap, I thought,

Yes. I am feeling like crap. But I am really feeling this stuff right now. It’s … it’s there.

And then I felt the same sensations as before, but they weren’t pushing back. And I had more energy.

This is the clear and proper theorizing of Schematism Tech in the way it is used in Scientology and Landmark. They have you do resistance exercises. But they are not precise about how this works. And they need to highlight the distinction between resisting reality of sensations as such vs resisting the unreality of your goals—a resistance that should not be relinquished.