Co-Counseling or Talking to “Perfect” Strangers (oh no!)

Introduction

Since I want you to support my bid to become the next President of the United States, I should introduce myself to you - personally. Or, at least, as "personally" as possible and appropriate between strangers on a website.

Thanks are in order

Before I share my experiences as a co-counselor (and, equally, as a man who was co-counseled), I want to say "thank you." I know that many of you have read my Blogspot postings with attention and interest. Of course, that doesn't mean you necessarily agree with my politics. But I hope to have at least given my staunchest critics pause. My philosophy? If you can't win ‘em over, at least give ‘em pause.

My views on therapy

I've come to realize that many Americans "do" therapy. And this includes many within my circle of friends & acquaintances. Therapy is a word I loosely use to cover a lot of territory: From those who have long-term commitments to psychotherapists to those who have engaged any one of a variety of professionals due to sudden traumas in their lives, and including those who participate in "the process" in the name of obtaining personal growth.

My views on therapy are colored by my Buddhist practice, which is unique to me (so is, therefore, not a reflection on how the many established Buddhist groups/sects/temples might feel). I've always been skeptical of the bearded, aloof Freudian and his couch. Not that I've ever "gone there," but perhaps because I'd heard too many jokes. Or seen too many movies like Mel Brookes' little gem High Anxiety.

When I learned that many of my fellow Buddhists were participating in some type of therapy, I was surprised. I even called them on it: "Why aren't you chanting to overcome the negative karma which is ‘obviously' at the root of your distress?"

To which they'd reply: "If you had a broken arm, would you chant to overcome that or would you see a doctor?"

I feel (now) that such a response is to compare apples to oranges. However, at the time I didn't argue the point. [Ah, but please notice: that doesn't mean I had actually accepted such an argument.]

My Introduction to Re-evaluation Counseling (aka RC)

Back in the fall of 1999, I was undergoing a stressful time in my life, having decided to end my marriage of 19 years. Some of my Buddhist friends suggested that peer counseling might help me as a forum for talking things out but not by engaging a professional therapist. These friends were convinced that RC's core approach would help me and help me to help others.

Briefly, it goes something like this: Any person should be able to, with a minimum of training in certain ground rules and basic theory, learn how to take turns talking to and then listening to any other person - without interruption - for a pre-agreed period of time, with the purpose of inducing "discharge." [At this point, I direct your attention to http://www.rc.org, especially the Basic RC Theory link.]

Sidebar: I don't want to inject a lot of specific RC theory and background into this post, simply because there's so much already available on the internet - pro and con - for those curious enough to surf this topic.

In order to participate in RC, I had to be screened. This took place at no cost at an RC teacher's home. I was there and so were two other prospects - women whom I had never met before. The RC teacher and her assistant were there, so this made 5 of us in that living room (2 to introduce and 3 to learn and, hopefully, be accepted into the community).

I had my suspicions: Was this a cult? A scam? A lonely-hearts' club? So before I even went to that intro meeting, I did a lot of net surfing and wasn't entirely pleased with what I saw, but I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I mean, what's the harm in listening to someone else's spiel - who knows? I might even learn something from it.

I Decide to Join RC and am Accepted

I liked the grassroots approach and obvious dedication of the teachers and adherents, and the fact it was cheap. I ended up going back to that RC teacher's apartment for two 8-week classes, costing me $12 per week for one three-hour meeting per week. Babysitters cost more than that! So obviously they weren't out to relieve me of my worldly fortune.

In addition to the once-per-week classes (consisting of lecture and counseling sessions), we were expected to contact our fellow students during the week to arrange for one-on-one sessions at a mutually-agreeable place (usually our homes, but not always).

The first rule we learned was confidentiality. Nothing that came up in a session would ever be discussed or shared outside that session with anyone - not even with the session's participants (unless permission from the counseled was obtained).

How an RC Session Works

Sessions could be one-on-one or in a small or large group. In a one-on-one, we would pair up in class and then go to another room in the apartment in order to share time. That is, if I got to counsel first, that meant I'd get to listen to my partner for (usually) 5 minutes without me interrupting or (most importantly) offering my analysis of what was said.

That was the hardest part to understand at first. We were told that rendering a personal opinion was strictly forbidden because we had to accept that each individual client was smart enough to eventually figure out his own solutions to his own problems on his own - when he was ready to. All he needed from us was our undivided, nonjudgmental, unhurried attention.

Part of the theory was: People don't open up and speak freely because they're constantly afraid of being interrupted, and yet it is the attention of others that we seek and find to be most healing. As soon as we came to learn that we had five (precious!) minutes of someone's undivided attention and that we wouldn't be interrupted, the outpouring of thoughts and emotions quickly followed.

This isn’t to say that the counseled person has to say or do anything. He can just sit there like a bump on a log while his minutes tick away. Knowing one could do that was very empowering, since counselors were never supposed to show impatience or to hint at any kind of expectations.

So, after I had filled the role of counselor for 5 minutes, me and my partner would take a one minute "breather" (transition period), and then it would be my turn to be counseled for five minutes.

My Most Memorable Single Encounter

I spent about seven hours on a Saturday with seven men in order to work on a life story theme. RC theory believes, if men had a chance to speak to other men about their life history, they could overcome biases such as "men fear closeness with other men because they've been raised to see them as potentially hostile competition," or "men are programmed to be strong, silent types who are most praiseworthy when keeping their pain to themselves."

We organized the available time so that each of us would get 40 minutes to sit in front of the group and just talk off the top of our heads. That's it: No holds barred and spontaneous. We could say anything we wanted to. Or say nothing at all. And through it all, because of our training, we had the assurance that seven other men were listening to and processing our words and (most importantly) giving us their undivided attention.

I went second and, like the others (I suppose), didn't know exactly what I'd end up saying. After I was done (that is, when the timer went off), there wasn't a dry eye in the place - except mine! It felt great to have the floor like that, and I suppose it was therapeutic to process like that, but I was amazed at how others reacted to my life story.

I thought: "Wow, in the telling of my tale, I certainly didn't expect this kind of reaction. Does my life suck that badly?"

The Value of having a Regular Co-counselor

We were encouraged to pair up and meet once per week with someone who would agree to regularly co-counsel with us. I was fortunate that this very intelligent woman (in her 30's) was self-employed and, therefore, had flexible hours. We would meet in an empty office for 90 minutes before I had to start work at 11 a.m. Our time-sharing, by mutual agreement in advance, was for 40 minutes each, and this relationship lasted for a year.

She decided to end our sessions because she had too much on her calendar (including time needed to go back to school), and because (quite frankly) she saw diminishing returns in our continuing. That was hard for me, because I felt like I was being abandoned, but I had to agree that she was right.

To be Counselors only

Part of the reason I had left the RC movement was their position on our relationships to each other. That is, if we met in RC, we weren't supposed to connect in any other way. We couldn't invite our co-counselors to our birthday parties, try to sell them insurance, or convert them to our religion. I understood the reason: In order to trust your counselor, you had to be sure they didn't have any ulterior motives.

I saw how the simple idea of taking turns with others in talking and listening could lead to genuine closeness, and I didn't see why friendship couldn't be allowed to develop. Only later did I come to realize that not everybody is like me: I can take "no" for an answer (although, in fairness, I have to add: due to RC, I learned how to take "no" for an answer gracefully). I suppose the RC movement was afraid of jealousy arising when individuals might gravitate toward others. Or hard feelings might come about in the face of rejection.

These are all good considerations.

However, I would challenge RC to this day with this: "You yourselves admit that counseling theory is advancing as we continue to engage in the process and to develop as individuals. So you might well come to develop a theoretical basis complete with rules/protocols by which, someday, co-counselors could become friends while remaining good counseling allies to each other."

Conclusion

I learned a lot from the RC community and found them to be lovely, caring, dedicated people who are truly committed to building that better world most of us only day dream about. I had doctrinal disputes with RCers, but I admired how they tried to evolve a systematic approach to understanding why people end up so distressed and unhappy.

I also admire their personal commitment of time and energy. All in the name of trying to get people to talk to and listen to each other. This even extended to efforts to get Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs to take turns listening to each other's stories.

Maybe RCers are on to something: Maybe it won't be mass, impersonal movements that will save the world. Maybe it's more a matter of more one-on-one.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There are a lot of ways people can share their humanity; some ways are better than others; and others still are works in progress” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Cohen & Wilber & Shakyamuni Buddha

I would like to share my views concerning two New Age gurus: Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen.

Starting with Ken Wilber:

I've only read one of his books, though I know he's written voluminously on, well, everything (or so it would seem). I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a whole shelf at Borders filled with many of the books he's written over 30 years. So I bought a copy of A Theory of Everything and found it to be at least worthy of note. I've also read about him in Andrew Cohen's magazine, What is Enlightenment?

Ken may be a lot of things to a lot of people, but to me he seems primarily an academic, especially considering his love of constructing models. It also didn't take me long to catch on to at least two distinct advantages he enjoys:

ONE:  How much his four quadrants model looks like the Cartesian coordinate system most of us first encountered in high school math class. Make no mistake about Wilber's model, though: It is not that x-y axis system. However, at least subconsciously, he can reach people by utilizing something they're already familiar with. Talk about the power of symbols!

TWO:  Having a great buzz word like "Integral." I'm sure he was well-intentioned when choosing that word, but it's also true that there are a lot of people running around saying "Integral this" and "Integral that" who have only scratched the surface of his massive amount of written material.

None of this is to say that I think Ken Wilber is a bad man. The only danger I can see is that too many people might be tempted to go along with his program without making any real attempt to understand it. Or worse: abandoning any efforts to do their own thinking. Or far worse: Not attempting to seek their own Buddhist practice and, thereby, their own enlightenment.

As I said, I have read only one of Ken Wilber's books. However, I'm going to go out on a limb here and propose a thesis: Ken Wilber's written materials contain very little praise of Shakyamuni Buddha and very little teaching of the Buddha's doctrines. This is just a thesis offered by me, a man who doesn't know one way or the other. However, I invite anyone reading this to direct me to some of Wilber's writings which specifically attempt to analyze Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings, especially those most profound teachings which are contained in The Lotus Sutra.

[NOTE:  All references herein to The Lotus Sutra concern the version translated into English by Burton Watson. This version is free and available in its entirety on-line.]

My gut instinct tells me that Wilber has not addressed The Lotus Sutra at all, though what appears on page 200 of the Lotus should have been of special interest to him before he wrote all that stuff:

"Do not try to apprehend phenomena, to understand or to see them" - Shakyamuni Buddha.

It seems to me, Ken Wilber has tried too hard to ignore these words of the Buddha.

Now, on to Andrew Cohen:

From page 75 of issue #33 of What is Enlightenment? magazine:

Andrew Cohen speaking to Ken Wilber:

"I asked him at one point, ‘Rinpoche, what's the difference between someone who is serious about awakening and someone who is not?' And he said, ‘That's easy. The people who are serious are all Mahayana Buddhists, and the people who are not are all Hinayana Buddhists.' And he wasn't kidding. I was backpedaling in my mind, wondering how this extraordinary man could be as enlightened and as fiercely independent as he appeared to be and simultaneously be holding on to such foolish ethnocentric notions."

I thought it was rather odd that Cohen didn't come right out and ask Rinpoche what he meant by this. I mean, he bothered to ask a question but didn't bother with a follow up.

I don't know how Rinpoche might have replied to a Cohen follow up, but this is what I would have said, for I happen to agree with Rinpoche's assessment, but I don’t give a blanket seal-of-approval to all of the Mahayana teachings:

“That’s easy. The people who are serious are those who read, recite, ponder, and share (with others) The Lotus Sutra [claimed by some to be the highest of the Mahayana teachings].”

The Lotus Sutra states several important points, which are unique to that sutra:

[Page 166]

All bodhisattvas who attain the enlightenment of a Buddha in all cases do so through the Lotus Sutra.

[Page 207]:

This Lotus Sutra is the secret storehouse of the Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones. Among the sutras, it holds the highest place.

[Page 274]

To put it briefly, all the doctrines possessed by the Thus Come One, all the freely exercised supernatural powers of the Thus Come One, the storehouse of all the secret essentials of the Thus Come One, all the most profound matters of the Thus Come One - all these are proclaimed, revealed, and clearly expounded in this [Lotus] sutra.

[Page 35]

In the Buddha lands of the ten directions

there is only the Law of the one vehicle,

there are not two, there are not three,

except when the Buddha preaches so as an expedient means,

merely employing provisional names and terms

in order to conduct and guide living beings

and preach to them the Buddha wisdom.

The Buddhas appear in the world

solely for this one reason, which is true;

the other two are not the truth.

Never do they use a lesser vehicle

to save living beings and ferry them across.

[Page 31]

The Buddha said to Shariputra, "The Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones, simply teach and convert the bodhisattvas. All the things they do are at all times done for this one purpose."

[Page 31]

These living beings, by listening to the doctrines of the Buddhas, are all eventually able to attain wisdom embracing all species.

[Page 98]

I [Shakyamuni Buddha] am one who knows all things, sees all things, understands the way, opens up the way, preaches the way.

[Page 165]

...if they are not willing to see, hear, read, recite, copy, embrace and offer alms to this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that such persons are not yet practicing the bodhisattva way in a fitting manner.

[Page 229]

[Note: Since this next quote tells us that Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive and with us to this very day, we don't really have to worry about finding a guru, something which Cohen and others strongly urge of us. With Shakyamuni Buddha with us, who really needs any other teacher?]

In order to save living beings,

as an expedient means I appear to enter nirvana

but in truth I do not pass into extinction.

I am always here, preaching the Law.

I am always here,

but through my transcendental powers

I make it so that living beings in their befuddlement

do not see me even when close by.

[Page 240]

How much more in the case of persons who read, recite and embrace this sutra! Such persons are in effect receiving the Thus Come One on the crown of their heads.

[Page 162]

Medicine King, these persons who read and recite the Lotus Sutra - you should understand that these persons adorn themselves s with the adornments of the Buddha; they are borne upon the shoulders of the thus Come one.

This last quote is one of my inspirations for conducting my Buddhist practice as I do. My practice consists of reading out loud from the English language version of The Lotus Sutra as translated by Burton Watson for one hour per day. I do not meditate. I do not focus on my breath. I make no attempt to enter a trance. And I don't do yoga. I simply read aloud from the Lotus Sutra, try to understand it, and try to encourage others to do the same.

So far, I’ve read the Lotus over 120 times. This would make a stack of books ten feet tall, since each copy of the Lotus is about one inch in thickness. And each time I read it, I manage to pull something new out of it. Go figure.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“When looking for a guru, take that grain of salt, for (as the Buddha taught): What you are seeking is wisdom that comes of itself, teacherless wisdom, Buddha wisdom.”