Tag: Buddhist Practice

Some basic ways to understand FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML practice first generates and then depends upon clear communication between partners.

When clear communication is established, FIML increases mental clarity and positive feelings. Another way of saying this is FIML practice reduces both mental confusion and neurotic feelings.

Thus, FIML can be fairly easily explained or understood by referring to these three basic outcomes:

  • clear communication
  • elevated or enhanced mental clarity
  • increased positive feelings

Stated in the negative, these same three basic outcomes of FIML practice are:

  • elimination of communication blockages
  • reduction or elimination of metal confusion
  • reduction or elimination of neurotic feelings

FIML practice does not emphasize a difference between private confusion (neurosis) and public confusion (irrational semiotics of a culture or society). We do recognize that there is a difference between the public and the private, but this difference lies on a continuum: a private neurosis is often shaped by cultural semiotics while cultural semiotics are often grounded in the neurotic feelings of many individuals.

A good deal of psychological reasoning today is based on what is “normal”, what “most people feel”, and/or what deviates from that or interferes with an individual’s ability to function within “normal” ranges. FIML recognizes social norms, but partners are not asked to judge themselves on that basis. Nor are partners encouraged to label themselves with psychological terms. Rather, partners are encouraged (and shown how) to discover for themselves how to understand themselves based the three outcomes described above. We are confident that the high ethical standards required to do FIML successfully will show partners with great clarity that sound ethics are essential to human fulfillment.

FIML is a liberative practice because it frees partners from mental confusion, emotional suffering, and the hardships of unsatisfying communication. Since FIML works with real data agreed upon by both partners it avoids idealism and wishful-thinking.

FIML enhances traditional Buddhist practices because it allows partners to share their introspections while checking each others’ work. When we speak an inner truth to someone who we know will understand and who cares about us, that inner truth will deepen and benefit both partners.  Based on the three outcomes described above, FIML partners will be able to create a sort of subculture of their own founded on standards that they both (all) find fulfilling and right.

In most of our descriptions of FIML, we have tried to use ordinary words while providing clear definitions of them if they have a special meaning in the context of FIML. One word that is especially important is neurosis. By this term, we mean “mistaken interpretation” or “ongoing mistaken interpretation.” We use the word this way because it is a basic tenet of FIML that most, if not all, mental and emotional suffering is generated by communication errors. We proudly use the words error, mistake, wrong, erroneous, incorrect and so on when describing communication problems because communication problems almost always are grounded in mistakes: someone heard wrong, interpreted wrongly, spoke wrongly, and so on. FIML practice shows partners how to identify and correct these mistakes the moment they appear, thus forestalling the generation or perdurance of full-blown neurosis.

FIML is less concerned with long explanations about the past and more concerned with the dynamic moment during which partners communicate and react to each other based on real data that can be retrieved and agreed upon by both of them. The mental and emotional clarity that results from this practice is highly rewarding and within the reach of most people with the basic necessary conditions–a trusted partner, enough time to do the practice, mutual caring.

Advanced FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is a method for generating crystal clear communication between participating partners. Once this has been achieved partners will notice a profound reduction in neurotic feelings–anxiety, worry, fear, suspicion, depression, boredom, anomie, etc.

Following this, many FIML practitioners will also notice that the practice has given them insights into cultural semiotics that parallel changes in art and literature. In designing FIML, we were not originally looking for this outcome, but it is there. Let me explain.

The “semiotics” or vocabulary of all art forms have changed throughout history, but especially since the 19th century. For example, in music the notion of what is dissonant or harmonic has changed from simpler classical forms, which demanded greater conformity between scales and chords, to jazz and modern music that allow for much greater freedom. Similarly, in the visual arts, the modern sense of color, balance, and perspective has changed to allow for much greater freedom of expression than in the past. The same kinds of changes can be seen in literature, chess, math, architecture, design, and many other areas.

We even see these changes in society as many more concepts and ways of living are now allowed than in the past–a more open sense of gender and sexual orientation, for example, are generally considered normal or acceptable in many parts of the world when just a few decades ago they were not. We also have a much broader and deeper understanding of race, culture, history, religion, ethnicity, and so on.

All of this relates to FIML in this way: FIML gives partners the means to understand and reorganize any and all levels of cultural semiotics they can become aware of. By semiotics I mean all signs, symbols, mores, taboos, beliefs, roles, impressions, memories, feelings, etc. that are connected to language and that thereby influence our use of language. That basically means everything in your mind, including language. Semiotics is the water the fish of language and communication swim in. Your mind is filled with a multifaceted semiotics that affects everything you do, say, and hear. Normally, we are only sort of aware of this.

FIML practice will lead many partners to realize that the semiotics–whatever they may be–in which their lives are immersed are as fully open to interpretation and reorganization as the artistic and cultural traditions described above. How partners decide to interpret their shared semiotics is up to them. FIML says nothing about that. What FIML will do is show you in a most intimate and convincing way that your capacity to fully understand your partner can also free you from traditional strictures in how you think about psychology, society, politics, history, art, and so on. If you want to play classical tunes with that knowledge, that is fine. If you want to play jazz or something you make up, that is also fine.

FIML will free you to do whatever you like with the semiotics you share with your partner.

In this way, I think that FIML practice can greatly enhance traditional Buddhist practice. At the same time, FIML may make traditional Buddhist practice more accessible or relevant to people today. FIML shows partners the emptiness of their semiotics in a way that may be more engaging than traditional techniques.

(As a side note, one great concern I have about FIML is ethics. I am quite convinced the ethics required to successfully practice FIML will convince partners that high ethical standards are essential for good living, but I cannot prove that. It does not follow logically and we do not have enough examples of successful FIML practitioners to claim that based on the numbers. No social or intellectual system, not even a strict legal system, can ensure that all members will behave ethically. I hope that FIML will be so powerful and transformational to those who do it, though, that high ethical standards will be a nearly inevitable byproduct of the practice. Time will tell.)

A few interesting links

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
  • This story has been out for a few days: Empathetic Rats Help Each Other Out. Comments I have read from people who have cared for rats say that the points made in the study are obvious–rats are wonderful little guys with complex social sensibilities and generous emotions. The purpose of the study, of course, was to prove the matter according to the rules of science. In teaching and sharing FIML, we sometimes feel like one of those rats who got out of his cage. All we wanna do is show other people how to get out.
  • This study from Yale, Tuning out: How brains benefit from meditation, shows how widespread the value of meditation can be. Note that the study finds that experienced meditators have “decreased activity in areas of the brain called the default mode network.” In ways somewhat similar to meditation, FIML practice should change what our default interpersonal mode is because by doing FIML we learn to monitor and discuss default responses from a “meta” point of view. This has a profound and profoundly beneficial effect on FIML partners because not just their own minds, but their interactions with each other also benefit greatly from increased awareness and decreased default responses. FIML practice has the added benefit of both partners being able to confirm with great confidence their mutual understanding.
  • This article is about widening our understanding of psychopathy: Psychopathy: A Misunderstood Personality Disorder. This subject may not seem to have much to do with Buddhism or FIML, but there are some parallels. Good Buddhist practice does eventually produce a sort of distancing from the rough-and-tumble of ordinary emotions. This is not the same as being emotionless, but I do know of at least one famous Buddhist master who tells people it’s best to “have no emotions.” That is a challenging idea that I have rejected for years but am more inclined now to see as a valuable guide in many situations. In FIML practice, it is essential that partners have enough self-control to hold their feelings in abeyance until they can check them with their partner. None of that is psychopathy as we usually understand that word, but the linked article does provide some indication that some aspects of what we call psychopathy may actually be desirable.
  • This article–Is Doing Harm the Same as Allowing It to Happen?–touches on Buddhist morality in that it shows us that it requires extra thought to see the value in preventing harm. A “sin” of omission is as bad as a “sin” of commission, if you think about it. In FIML practice, you can see this truth happening right in the moment and right in your own mind. With FIML you can see how real data plays out. If you feel a bothersome interpretation forming in your mind and you say nothing about it to your partner, you will leave them with the mistaken impression that everything has been understood and all is well with you. This omission may then lead you to further engage in a longer private series of thoughts and additional interpretations. From a small omission, a large and long stream of selfish and probably erroneous consciousness may follow.

Being misunderstood

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

One of the worst things about being misunderstood is that very often the more you try to be understood, the worse the problem grows.

Most societies have strong proscriptions against too much talking, and Buddhism is no exception.

I want to discuss three people to whom I have tried to explain FIML with little or no success—a close friend, a Buddhist nun, and a close relative.

The close friend, who was a very knowledgeable and conscientious Buddhist, was never able to hear what I was saying. He always seemed to think that I was making excuses for something I said or prying into his thoughts with the intention of tripping him up. At the time, this person was a very close friend to whom I spoke almost every day, often at great length. We could talk about everything else in the world—politics, Buddhism, atheism, history, people, whatever—but he could not or would not talk to me about how we talked to each other. Admittedly, I was not skilled in talking about FIML in those days. I could only see the basics and had little idea where pursuing them might lead. Nonetheless, no matter how much I tried to explain what I wanted to say, my good friend never heard it and often would get mad at me for persisting.

The Buddhist nun was sort of similar in that she always thought I was making an excuse for myself or looking for some way to make her look bad or wrong. No matter how I introduced the subject, she never seemed to understand the meta-perspective I was going for. This person was a skilled meditator and deeply conversant in virtually all aspects of the Dharma. My feeling then, and now, was that what I was saying seemed to her to go too far outside of Buddhist teachings; it seemed to her to be a nutty idea her friend had, not an interesting discovery someone wanted to share with her.

The close relative is not a Buddhist. Since she knows I care about her, she does listen to me, but I don’t know if she is only being polite. I can see that doing FIML practice sometimes pains her and that she has trouble stopping her emotional reactions from taking over. She has done several successful sessions with me and she has said that it is helping her in other areas of her life, but I have yet to see the light really go on in her head.

These three examples showed me that it can be difficult to get friends or family to see or understand the meta-position that is essential for successful FIML practice. The best way to avoid these problems is to focus on trivial incidents and explain beforehand what you are going to do. You have to make your prospective partner understand that a new perspective is called for. FIML actually requires that a new sort of consciousness—an emergent trait—be generated in the minds of both partners.

I provided the examples above because I hope they will help you avoid similar problems. FIML is not that hard to do or explain, but it can seem confusing or difficult because the subject matter of FIML is each person’s dynamic self/speech in the moment and people are normally not used to thinking that way, let alone talking about it.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 5

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Right Speech: Once couples, partners, or close friends learn how to successfully do FIML practice, they will have enormous freedom of speech.

They will be able to speak to each other without fear of being misunderstood or wrongly judged. This is so because each person will know that if they say something that causes a jangle in the other, it will be brought up and resolved quickly. Who wants to be married to someone with whom we are afraid to speak our mind? Who wants to have to monitor their speech when they are at home with their partner? With successful FIML practice couples can enjoy a free-flowing, creative style of speaking whenever they are together.

Right Action: In Buddhism Right Action indicates harmless conduct or ethically sound conduct.

Just as our speech can be misunderstood and just as we may misunderstand words spoken to us, so our actions may be misinterpreted by our friends and loved ones. Misunderstandings based on actions can and should be addressed in FIML practice in a way that is similar to, but not exactly the same, as the ways we deal with speech misunderstandings.

Some of what we do is unconscious. Much of what is in our unconscious mind has been conditioned by the culture or subculture within which we were raised. It is not likely that any two people in this complex, modern world will have the same cultural responses to everything. Even two people raised in the same town will have some cultural differences. These might include family traditions (the family is a subculture), religious training, the kinds of friends they had or have, and so on. Some of these cultural influences are easily changed or adapted, but some are more stubborn. Cultural influences condition our actions.

Here is an example of a stubborn cultural difference I share with my SO. I come from a subculture that requires “multiple-offering”. This subculture uses multiple offering as a way of communicating feelings or negotiating what to do next, among other things. My SO was formed in a subculture that does “single-offerings.” In her subculture, if she wants to communicate her feelings or negotiate what to do next, she can just say it.

Put very simply, multiple-offering means when you invite someone or offer them food or something else, you usually have to do it several times. And if food or something else is being offered to you, you can’t just say, yes, give me some. You have to be a little demure or even refuse until it is offered a time or two more. Supposedly, in Kyoto, Japan, you must refuse an offer three times before accepting it. In my subculture, there is not such a specific requirement, but you do have to wobble a little and be reoffered at least once or twice in many/most cases. If you don’t, it seems cold or even rude.

In the single offering subculture within which my SO was raised, there is nothing as confusing as this. If someone offers you some food, you take it and say thanks if you want it. If you don’t want it, you say no thanks. It’s a great system, but one in which someone like me will go hungry.

Anyway, what we have noticed about these cultural differences is they are really deeply entrenched in us. I do multiple-offering quite subconsciously with great regularity in a wide variety of situations. I do it so often, my SO can even become mildly irritated with me, or at least she used to; now she understands how it looks from my point of view. On the flip side, she almost never does multiple-offering with me. You get one chance to jump at something and if you pass it up, you won’t get any. I used to feel that her system was pretty cold, but now I understand that it is very rational and direct, two qualities I admire. In her subculture, people negotiate feelings differently and probably more efficiently and effectively than in mine.

These ingrained cultural sensibilities that affect speech and behavior are actions. To be Right about these Actions, we don’t have to change them since neither system is harmful or unethical. All we have to do is understand that we each feel differently about them. Once we understand that, these culturally ingrained actions can play themselves out while we can find them amusing, even fascinating sometimes.

Some of our actions we can change, but some we cannot change easily. With FIML practice we should be able to figure out when cultural differences are causing misunderstandings and how to deal with them. What we have noticed about ours is some of them can and should change to be more ethically sound or more based on wisdom, but others of them can be left alone to be enjoyed as harmless artifacts of the conditioning (karma) we received in the past.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 4

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

Right Speech: A great deal of Buddhist literature emphasizes the importance of Right Speech. In this post, I want to emphasize that for FIML practice right listening (or right hearing) is every bit as important. If we only pay attention to Right Speech, especially within an intimate relationship, we will very likely become sort of formal, wimpy, even dishonest, in what we say to each other.

When we do FIML practice we want be mindful both of what we say and what we hear.

Right Speech and right listening are based on Right View and Right Thought. The basic way that the Noble Eightfold Path is understood is that if our views are right, our thoughts will be right, and then Right Speech will follow from that. The problem with such a general statement, though, is that it does not take into account the many errors that can and do occur when people speak, gesture, make expressions, or listen to one another. A basic premise of FIML practice is that we frequently make errors when we speak and when we hear.

In this post, I am going to emphasize listening in relation to FIML practice because it is usually the listener who initiates a FIML query or discussion. And it is usually within the listener that a neurosis is stimulated.

To add a little background, in general terms, we can make a distinction between the limbic system of the human brain and the neocortex. The limbic system is associated with emotion, while the neocortex is associated with reasoning, conscious thought, and language. The day may come when neither of these two terms is considered useful by scientists, but they can serve us well enough for this discussion. When we have a limbic response, our heart rate often increases, we may experience a surge of adreniline, we will surely feel some sort of emotion rising within us.

In contrast to the limbic system, the neocortex is capable of observing our behavior objectively and without emotion. It is the neocortex that allows us to be mindful, to reflect on what we are doing or have done, and to make changes for the better. In FIML practice, we want to use our neocortex to help us quickly dissociate from our negative limbic responses. This means that the moment you hear your partner say something that causes a negative limbic response in you, you call on your neocortex to stop or slow that response while at the same time indicating to your partner that you want to begin a FIML query.

This may sound hard to do, and it can be difficult at first, but with a bit of practice both partners will get good at it. The main thing to understand is that we want to prevent our limbic repsonse from running away from us. If we call on the neocortex the moment we notice a limbic response rising in us, we will very likely succeed in halting that response and halting the customary neurotic thoughts and views that are associated with it.

Remember, in FIML practice, especially at first, we want to deal with very brief periods of time–just a few seconds. If your partner says something that causes you to have a limbic response and if you can identify that response immediately, there is not enough time for you to go into all the complaints and explanations you are used to. Your habitual neurotic thoughts, feelings, and stories will not have time within a few seconds to dominate your mind.

For example, if you hear what you think is derision in your partner’s voice and you feel an emotional jangle due to that tone of voice. Stop. Ask your partner without accusing them, without assuming anything else, what they just said. If their tone of voice was what caused a jangle in you, just ask them what were they thinking, why did they use that tone of voice. If you listen carefully to their answer and accept their explanation, you will almost always find that there was no derision at all in their mind. Maybe they were tired, maybe the subject (not you) seemed irritating, maybe you completely misheard them.

Once you succeed in doing this practice a few times with the same neurosis, you will discover that that neurosis will begin to lose its power. When you don’t feed it with yet another mistaken interpretation, it will begin to wither and die. The human mind is very efficient. If you can show it that there is a better way to think or do something and if your mind is convinced of that, it will change. So, when you show your mind through repeated FIML queries that one or more of its habitual interpretations (one or more of its neuroses) is clearly mistaken, your mind will abandon that wrong interpretation.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 3

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Right Thought: Just as Right Views lead to Right Thoughts, so wrong views lead to wrong thoughts.

In Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML), a wrong view occurs when one partner misunderstands what the other partner is saying to them. If the misunderstanding has no emotional content, it will be unlikely to cause serious problems. If I ask for a pencil and you hand me a pen because I turned my head as I said “pencil”, it is unlikely that any difficulties will result. This is so because I have asked for a particular physical object. When you hand the wrong object to me, I should know immediately that you misheard what I said. I will correct the mistake and ask you again for a pen, which you will now hand to me.

Seems so simple.

But if we are honest with ourselves, isn’t it true that we have at some time in the past formed wrong thoughts during an exchange as simple as that one? Maybe there was a bit of extra pressure, like doing taxes. In times like that who has never become irritated at having to ask twice for something? Who has never blamed the person who misheard the word you mispronounced? Or if you were the one doing the handing, who has never become irritated and said, “Make up your mind already!” And what couple has never gotten into a fight over an incident as small as that?

Once the fighting starts, who knows where it will end? We can be sure that throughout history many human beings have lost their lives over less than that.

I hope the example above illustrates several points: 1) that the start of the misunderstanding is nothing more than a mistake; 2) that if the mistake is discovered and corrected immediately, no wrong view or wrong thoughts will be formed; 3) but if the mistake is not discovered and corrected, there is a significant chance that an emotional scene will follow.

Even if there is no emotional scene, this situation may well result in one or both partners harboring wrong thoughts. I may not say anything, but I may think that you never listen because you don’t respect me. Or you may stay quiet but think that I am disrespecting you by making so many requests. Unfortunately, there are far too many ways in which even very affectionate couples or close friends can misunderstand each other.

If a misunderstanding does develop from an incident like this, isn’t it clear that that misunderstanding will be likely to grow stronger when similar incidents occur? Once we have formed a wrong view and bolstered it with wrong thoughts, we will have a great tendency to find even more evidence for our wrong thoughts.

In previous posts we have called wrong thoughts of this type neuroses or, to use the Buddhist term, kleshas.

FIML practice is designed to help us focus on very small incidents of wrong view or wrong thought. Doing this helps us discover exactly how and why our neuroses are formed and maintained. By focusing on very small, even trivial, incidents like the one described above, FIML practitioners will learn how to disentangle themselves from the wrong thoughts and neuroses that cause so much trouble in their interpersonal relationships.

If you can catch yourself forming a wrong view and the wrong thoughts that must necessarily follow, you will probably discover one of your neuroses (kleshas) as it is happening. If you can discuss this objectively with your partner and see the matter from their point of view, you will very likely succeed in disentangling, at least for the moment, from that habitual neurotic reaction. And if you can do this three, four, or five times with incidents involving the same neurosis, you will very likely cause that neurosis to be eliminated from your mind like smoke in the wind.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 2

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Right View: The opposite of a Right View is a wrong view or a delusion. In Buddhist teachings almost all people are considered to be deluded almost all of the time. Another way of saying that is everyone is crazy.

In Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML) wrong views (or neuroses or craziness) arise when we form an erroneous interpretation of what someone is saying or has said. When we are not certain about what someone means, we are all but forced to fill in the blanks with an interpretation that arises in our own mind. Generally, those kinds of interpretations will have a long history in us. If we are insecure, for example, we will tend to interpret what people are saying to us in a negative or self-abnegating way.

With most people in most situations, we cannot do much to correct this problem. In most situations, if someone says, “you look nice today,” we cannot ask them if they really mean it. If we are insecure about our looks, we may be powerless to avoid drawing the conclusion that the person is patronizing us by trying to make us feel good. If we are really insecure, we might even decide they are insulting us and walk away feeling offended.

In FIML practice, this kind of very common problem can be corrected by working with your partner. In a secure setting if your partner says, “you look good today”, if you feel a jangle of insecurity or discomfort at hearing those words, you can stop the conversation right there and ask: “Why did you say that? What was in your mind when you said that?” Chances are your partner, especially if they are your spouse, really does think you look good. If that’s the case, you can talk about that for a while and explain how compliments like that usually make you feel, how you both understand what looking good means, etc..

If your partner really was just trying to cheer you up with their compliment, from now on they will know that this is not a good way to do that. Once you both understand each other’s states of mind when that compliment was given, you will then have the opportunity to have a long conversation about compliments, how they feel, why you like or dislike them, when you give them and why, and so on. The important thing to understand is that in doing a FIML exercise, at the very moment that a jangle of neurosis begins to arise within you, you will disentangle yourself from the usual cascade of bad feelings that normally follow. Your partner will also benefit from understanding you better, and in many cases, they will benefit because they have similar feelings themselves.

If conditions allow, FIML practice can and should be done whenever either partner feels a jangle of discomfort, anxiety, fear, sadness, etc. while interacting with each other. If we are mindful, we should with practice be able to immediately stop our conversation and fully explain our states of mind to each other. What we want to do is explain the few seconds just before and during the jangle of discomfort as it arises. If both partners can remember their states of mind and if they can explain them in an objective fashion (no emotion here), both will greatly benefit from the increase in mutual understanding. And both will have taken another step toward basing their relationship on a Right View of each other.

FIML practice emphasizes language because when we work with language, we have good objective data. We want to avoid, especially in the beginning, going into long explanations about our psychology. Instead, we want to focus very clearly on what the words just spoken were and how we may have interpreted them. We can also focus on tone of voice, expression, gesture, or demeanor, but keeping a clear memory of what the words were will almost always make FIML exercises run more smoothly. In many cases, the speaker may simply have chosen a vague word, or a wrong one, and by explaining that remove the need to go any further.

FIML exercises can also be done with excessive or misplaced positive feelings, but negative ones tend to be more common and are easier to deal with at first.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 1

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The first four parts of the Noble Eightfold Path are Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action. In the sections below, we will discuss Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML) in relation to these four parts.

Right View: An important aspect of having Right View is knowing that our minds are deluded in many ways. In Buddhist terminology, we say that our minds contain many kleshas. The word klesha is translated as “defilement”, “hindrance” (to enlightenment), “toxic fixation”, etc. A klesha is a delusion. It is an error or a mistake in consciousness. It is a wrong view.

It is very difficult to overcome or eradicate kleshas because much of what they obstruct is Right View. When we add the practice of FIML to Buddhist practice, because we are including an intimate partner, we make it much easier to identify our kleshas and correct them.

Right Speech: In the practice of FIML, we focus on the dynamics of our speech and our partner’s speech as it is happening in the moment. For our purposes, a moment is defined as 3-10 seconds. It cannot be longer than what both partners are able to remember with great clarity. Spoken language is a linear series of sounds whose basic unit of meaning is generally a phrase or a word. By focusing on only small bits of language–usually no more than a phrase or two–we provide both partners with real data that they both can agree on. If I say, “I want to go to the store” and you agree that you just heard me say “I want to go to the store”, we can do FIML with that phrase because we both agree on it. If you think you heard me say “I want to go to the floor”, we can also do FIML, as long as you accept my correction when I say that what I really said was “store” not “floor”.

Right Thought: Once two partners (for discussion we will use only two partners in our examples) have fully agreed on exactly what was said, a discussion of the thoughts and feelings behind what was said and heard can take place. To be very crude, if I said “I want to go to the store” and you thought you heard me say “I think you are a whore” much pain and misunderstanding would result if this mistake were not corrected immediately. A good FIML exercise often begins at this point–when one partner believes they have heard something disturbing, something that makes their nerves jangle or that causes unpleasant feelings to arise. At this point, the hearer should immediately begin a FIML exercise by signalling that that is what they are doing and then proceeding in a neutral state of mind to open a FIML query. In this case, the hearer would say something like, “Stop: What did you just say?” The speaker, ideally, would stop and recall what they had just said and then repeat it: “I said ‘I want to go to the store.'” At this, the hearer will probably laugh and say, “I thought you said ‘I think you are a whore.'”

In this example, the FIML exercise might end there. It might also continue with a discussion of why the hearer misheard in that way. Partners might also want to discuss what might have happened had the mistake not been corrected.

Right Action: In FIML exercises Right Action entails observing and/or controlling our emotional reactions the moment they arise. We want to be mindful enough to catch them the moment they arise and trusting enough to discuss them with our partner right away. If the two partners in the example above start arguing about what the speaker really said (“You did too call me a whore, you stupid drunk.”), obviously no progress will be made and basic kleshas will be strengthened.

Good practice of Right Action requires partners, to the best of their abilities, to be mindful of what was said and heard, to observe and control their emotional reactions, to listen to each other, and to be honest with each other. If emotions get out of control, it is best to agree to drop the subject and return to it the next time something like it comes up. If a real klesha is involved, you can be certain a similar or closely related misunderstanding will arise again. Both partners will be better equipped to deal with it when that next happens if they are capable of realizing that they might not have handled themselves as well as they could have during the exercise that just got derailed.

Right Action also comes into play in FIML in that during FIML exercises we must also be aware of our tone of voice, our expression, our gestures, demeanor, and so on. All of these are “actions”. We will get Right about them when we are clear about what they are and how they appear to our partner.

FIML exercises can get heated and go wrong, but once you get the hang of it, that is a very rare occurrence. Over time, a strong foundation of mutual trust and understanding will help partners achieve a Right View of almost all situations that arise between them.