Undergoing: Notes Toward a More Honest Practice
There's a moment most meditators know. You sit down, follow the instruction — observe your breath, notice your thoughts, don't judge — and almost immediately something goes wrong. A feeling arrives that is too large, too sticky, too familiar in the worst way. You try to observe it from a safe distance. You remind yourself that you are not your thoughts. You attempt to place the feeling on an imaginary leaf and watch it float downstream. And yet there you are, still churning, now with the added discomfort of having failed at the one thing that was supposed to help.
I've been practicing meditation, in one form or another, since the early 1990s. I've sat with teachers from the Himalayan tradition, practiced MBSR in the lineage of Jon Kabat-Zinn, worked with ACT and ERP in therapy, read Tara Brach, Sharon Salzberg, Kristin Neff, and others I admire and continue to use. I am not writing to criticize any of them. I am writing because something in the standard instruction — something small but consequential — has always bothered me, and it took me years to find the right words for it.
The word is observe.
The Word That Slips
When clinical mindfulness says "observe your experience non-judgmentally," it borrows a vocabulary from empirical science — the detached, clear-eyed gaze of someone cataloguing data from a position safely outside the phenomenon. And that vocabulary, whatever its institutional advantages, does not describe what actually happens when you sit with grief, shame, fear, or the particular weight of a life that has gone wrong in ways that don't resolve.
The teachers themselves often know this. Zinn's "surf the waves of breath," Kornfield's patient warmth with difficult emotion, Salzberg's instruction to simply "be with" what arises — these phrases point at something intimate and participatory, not at clinical detachment. The problem is not the teachers but the transmission: when living teaching gets extracted into manuals, apps, and training protocols, the evocative warmth tends to drop away while the observational register hardens. What remains can inadvertently create the very performance anxiety it was meant to dissolve — especially for people already carrying shame, for whom "not being detached enough" becomes one more way to fall short.
A restless, tearful, or angry sitting is not a failed sitting. It is the practice, in full.
Undergoing, Not Observing
What I've come to call undergoing is less a technique than a reorientation. It doesn't ask you to stand outside your experience and watch it from a safe tower. It asks you to stay in it — to remain present to what is happening, including the turbulence, the morphing, the way one feeling bleeds into another without resolution — without fleeing into action, narrative, or analysis.
There is a Pali word, upekkha, usually translated as "equanimity" and sometimes as "detached observation." The etymology suggests something different: upa (near, close to) + iksh (to look). To stand close and look. Not a view from above, but a willingness to remain proximate to what is difficult — the way a parent stays close while a child moves through something hard, present without controlling, witnessing without managing. The near enemy of upekkha in Buddhist psychology is apathy — the cold checking-out that looks like equanimity but is actually a form of abandonment. What I'm calling undergoing is the opposite of that near enemy.
The Pali term was always pointing here. The clinical translation quietly moved it elsewhere.
The Spectator Problem
Several popular frameworks have formalized the observational model in ways that can complicate rather than support healing, particularly for people dealing with shame or past difficulty.
Steven Hayes's ACT introduces "Self as Context" — the "observing self," a stable locus of pure awareness from which one witnesses the flux of thoughts and feelings without being captured by them. For someone acutely distressed, this can be a useful first handhold: the suggestion that there is something in you that is not identical with the current storm. I have found it useful myself. But taken seriously as a description of what's happening, it sets up a dualism — a pristine observer and a turbulent observed — that is both phenomenologically inaccurate and potentially dissociative. The observer is not pristine. When I am shamed, the entire field of my experience is shaped by shame, including whatever I call "the part that's noticing." There is no view from nowhere.
DBT, which draws on Linehan's own Zen practice, also employs detached observation as a core skill — and again, for someone in acute crisis, this framing can be lifesaving. The clinical context matters. But as ongoing practice, the instruction to observe rather than undergo can install a subtle performance standard: how detached am I? Am I monitoring my monitoring correctly? This second-order anxiety — the meta-level watching of the watching — is one of the more insidious byproducts of the spectator model, and it afflicts people who are trying hardest.
To be clear: these frameworks have helped me, and I would not dismiss them. I recommend DBT's urge surfing and Kristin Neff's self-compassion exercises; I find Tara Brach's RAIN genuinely useful, especially at the beginning of a sitting when the feeling is too large to enter directly. "Witness" language can help a desperate or agitated person dip their toes into their own experience rather than running from it. All to the good. The question is what happens once practice becomes a conscious routine — at that point, gently shifting the idiom can prevent the reification of an inner spectator, remove a superfluous source of performance anxiety, and make room for the fuller, messier, more honest engagement the practice was always inviting.
What Actually Happens
When I sit with a difficult feeling — the kind that surfaces from old shame, family difficulty, or simply the way a life accumulates its losses — what I experience is not a calm observer watching a turbulent object. What I experience is a succession of thises: this breath, this tightness in the jaw, this memory of something said years ago, this involuntary shifting of attention, this wanting it to be different, this grief behind the wanting. Each this is not observed from outside — it is undergone from within, as a situated perspective that shifts and morphs as I remain with it.
The frustrated desire to be different from what I am — the restlessness, the craving for the feeling to end — is not an obstacle to the practice. It is the practice. It is the primary material. When I stop trying to fix it and simply stay with how it feels to be in that wanting, something begins to move. Not always. Not on demand. But with a regularity that I've come to trust over thirty years of doing this.
This is close to what Vipassana points at when taught well — not a clinical cataloguing of sensations, but a clear understanding arrived at through intimate acquaintance. Vidya and avidya, knowledge and its absence in the Sanskrit tradition, are not visual terms in any optical sense. They describe a quality of knowing similar to what we mean when we say we know a person well — not by their definition, but by the feel of their presence, accumulated through years of transaction. I know my grief the way I know an old friend. Not by observing it. By having been in it, with it, changed by it over time.
For Everyone, In Their Own Way
This practice is not for any particular type of person. I don't claim it is better than prayer, or more effective than therapy, or equivalent to what years of formal Zen training produces. I have no interest in those comparisons.
What I would say is this: whatever your convictions — and I have no wish to disturb them — there will be moments when raw feeling arrives uninvited, persistent, unresponsive to explanation or doctrine. Not the same feeling in the same way for everyone. The Dalai Lama is honest that he experiences pain, anger, and sorrow as genuinely difficult — not because his practice has failed him, but because being human includes that. The devout Christian who prays through grief is still, in the first instant, hit by something raw before the prayer begins. The secular rationalist who reasons through anxiety is still, in the first instant, gripped before the cognition arrives.
That interval — between the arrival of the feeling and the arrival of the consolation — is the territory this practice addresses. Not by replacing what you already have, but by meeting what your existing resources cannot fully meet: the recalcitrance of the felt life, common across belief systems, different in its texture for each of us, but shared in its essential stubbornness.
Dewey called it the precariousness of the world. Peirce's fallibilism, at its deepest, points at the same thing: not "abandon your convictions," but "reality has a way of surprising everyone." We are all, in that sense, thrown back on our own resources.
The practice I'm describing is what I do with that moment. It is not a system. It is not trademarked. It has no certification. It is what I've found, over a long time, in the ongoing transaction between a difficult life and whatever attention I've been able to bring to it.
That, and nothing more authoritative than that, is what I'm offering here.
No comments:
Post a Comment