Whenever someone says I need to talk with you, or can I ask you a personal question?, or something along those lines, it is a good opportunity to notice where my mind goes.

What am I most afraid she or he will ask me?

What do I imagine she or he will ask me? What is the worst case scenario? The best case scenario?

Which question would be most embarrassing?

And whatever comes up here is a good pointer to where I have hangups, where there is still a blind identification with certain roles and stories. It is good to notice, and whatever comes up is something I can take to inquiry.

(more…)

As Pema Chödrön says, there is a wisdom in no escape.

We notice that content of experience is what it is, right now, and that identifying with resistance to it only creates drama and suffering, so I may as well fully allow it, in a wholehearted way, as it is, as if it would never change.

And we may also notice that the sense of no escape is created from wanting to escape, in three ways.

First, without the thought of escape, there is no thought of no escape.

Then, by identifying with the thought of wanting escape, we try to escape, and realize it cannot be done.

And finally, identifying with the intention of escape is exactly how we are trapped in a sense of no escape.It brings identification firmly within content of experience, in this case the thought and intention and attempts of escape, so our identification is trapped within content of experience. We take ourselves to be an object in the world, at the mercy of the whims of a world living its own life.

Yet, as soon as identification is released out of this identification, there is an escape. When we fully allow experience as it is, including resistance to experience, there is a release of identification out of content of experience.

We find ourselves as that which experience happens within, to and as.

We find ourselves as that which is inherently free from any experience, allows all experience, and that all experience happens within, to and as.

We find ourselves as that which doesn’t need to escape. It is already free from it, so there is no need to escape that which does not bind. And it is already any content of experience happening, so there is no need to escape that which is not Other.

So to summarize:

• The wisdom of no escape is to realize that what is, is. The content of experience, here now, is what it is. Trying to escape it only creates drama and suffering. Fully allowing it invites in a sense of peace and clarity.
• The sense of no escape is created in three ways.
  • Without the thought of escape, no thought of no escape.
  • It is the trying to escape, which brings us to notice that there is no escape.
  • And it is the identification with that thought of escaping which traps us in the first place. It brings identification firmly within the world of form, so we are trapped within it and the whims of this world of form.
• As soon as we fully allow content of experience as it is, as if it would never change, identification is released out of content of experience. We find ourselves as that which content of experience happens within, to and as. As that which is already free from content of experience, because there is no identification with the thought of escape, because it is that which the ever changing world of form happens within, to and as, and because content of experience is not Other.

I have explored this before, but keep coming back to it:

Any belief has a shadow, and it is no different with the most basic belief, the one in a sense of a separate I, and I with an Other.

In this belief, we take ourselves to be content of awareness. As an object. As one of many. As a center.

So the reversals of this is then the shadow of the belief in being an I with an Other.
The reversal of taking ourselves to be content of awareness, is to find ourselves as awareness.

The reversal of taking ourselves as a thing, is to find ourselves as no thing.

The reversal of taking ourselves as one of many, is to find ourselves as the field it all arises within and as.

The reversal of taking ourselves as a center, is to find ourselves as no center.

And we relate to these the way we relate to projections in general. And we are attracted to awareness. We fear nothingness. We ignore the field with no center.

In each case, the reversals are already here. The awakeness. The no thing that allows all things. The field all arises within and as. The absence of a center anywhere.
And in each case, it doesn’t fit our identity. So we see it out there.

I have awareness, but it comes and goes, and it is not me. Nothingness is out there somewhere, or after death. The field with no center is the universe or God, not me.

(more…)

A belief is…

• An identification with a story.
• A story saying a story is true.
• Something that is at odds with reality, in several different ways.
• Which in turn creates stress, discomfort, even suffering.

It is an identification with a story. I quite literally take the story, and the view it offers on the world, as who I am.

It is an identification with a story saying a story can be true, and that particular stories are true. That is says something real about the world. Has inherent value. That it is something far more than just a tool of practical value to help our human self orient and navigate in the world.

It is at odds with reality, in different ways.

It is at odds with my story of what is, or may be. (a)

It is at odds with the truth in its reversals. (b)

It is at odds with noticing stories as only a tool, having no value beyond the practical of helping this human self orient and function in the world. (c)

It is at odds with what I already, somewhere, know I am. If I look here now, I find I am that which any story, and anything else, happens within, to and as. (d)

It is at odds with what is already, somewhere, more true for me. (e) I can find a+b+c+d(+e) by just looking, here now. All of this is already, somewhere, known to me. I only have to look to find it, to rediscover it.

And being at odds with reality creates a sense of something being off, of having to protect something, and so on, which creates a sense of stress, discomfort or even suffering.

A slightly different take on attachments…

Attachment to anything - situations, people, things, roles - is what causes suffering. Our stories about what should be and what is clash. Which is fine. It is just part of the human condition. But after a while, and if we act from kindness towards ourselves, we may want to explore this further. What is really going on? Is there another way?

One of the first things we may notice is that any attachment is really an attachment to a story. The story of I with an Other, and then all the other stories that flesh out the identity of this separate I.

I am an object in the world, so want what supports this object and do not want what does not support it. I am alive, so don’t want to be dead. I believe in fairness, so want to see fairness in how I and others are treated.

We may also notice that an attachment to a story is really an identification with this story. We have a story of an I with an Other, and take ourselves to be this separate I. We have a story of being a particular gender, age, of a particular ethnicity, having certain values, and take ourselves to be all of that.

Another thing we may notice is that it is all completely innocent. We are all dealing with this life as best as we can, and often from lack of clarity.

And then, that behind all of it is fear. Fear for what may happen to this human self. We attach to stories to deal with this fear, and try to avoid what we are afraid may happen to it.

And that behind this fear is love. A love for this human self and whatever is within its circle of concern. All attachments to stories come from love. From wanting the best for what we take as I and us.

So how do we explore attachments, or identifications with stories?

A simple and direct way is to investigate the beliefs themselves, and find what is already more true for us. I can use a sense of discomfort as a guide to discover when my stories of what is and should be clash, and then investigate one or both of these. Is it true? What happens when I believe that thought? Who would I be without it? What is the truth in its turnarounds?

Another is to investigate impermanence in the five sense fields, to see impermanence directly here and now. This helps us reorganize and find stories more aligned with this impermanence. And it also helps us see that no story is absolutely true, which invites a release of identification with these stories.

We can also include each of the three centers: head, heart and belly.

We can find ourselves as that which is already free from identification with stories, for instance through the headless experiments, the Big Mind process, and finding ourselves as what does not change in the midst of the constantly changing content of awareness.

We can invite our heart to open through various heart centered practices, or just a focus on the heart and its qualities.

And we can invite in a deep body sense of trust and nurturing fullness through various body and hara centered practices, such as Breema.

Each of these tends to invite in an opening in the two other centers, especially if we bring attention to it. An open heart invites in an open mind and a nurturing fullness. An open mind invites in an open heart and a felt-sense of trust. A body feeling of trust and nurturing fullness invites in an open heart and mind.

We may also discover that resisting experience tends to close each of the centers. That this happens only when there is an identification with this resistance.

And that fully allowing experience, independent of what it is, tends to invite in a receptivity and opening of each center. And that this is also an allowing of the resistance, which is a release of identification with it and the content of experience in general.

(more…)

Buddhism often talk about attachments to things in the world, and how this creates suffering.

But is that really what is going on? What is it an attachment really to? And what is an attachment?

When I explore this for myself, I find that what appears as an attachment to things in the world is something a little different.

Any attachment is to a story only. And this attachment is really an identification with a story.

The core story is that of an I with and Other, which is then fleshed out with other stories.

And I am identified with these, I take myself as these stories. I am this I with an Other, I am a living being, an object in the world, has a certain gender, age, from a specific ethnic background, has certain interests, skills, values, and so on.

I believe I am this human self, so am naturally attached to its well-being and aliveness. (Nothing wrong with that, although the added drama around it may be uncomfortable.) I believe people shouldn’t lie, so am attached to people speaking the truth. I believe a certain type of food will give me comfort, and that I need comfort, so appear attached to that food. I believe an intimate relationship will give me nurturing I cannot find any other way, and that I need that nurturing, so I am attached to having intimate relationships.

Our stories about what is and what should be often do not align, so attachments to stories create a sense of drama and discomfort. This is of course fine. But eventually, there may be an impulse to take a closer look at what is going on, and explore working with attachments.

One way of working with attachments is to explore impermanence.

Exploring impermanence has two effects. It invites in a disidentification with stories. And also a realignment of the stories we use in daily life, whether we are identified with them or not, to more closely reflect impermanence. In both cases, there is a release of attachment to having things a particular way. There is less of a war with what is, as Byron Katie says. (Although she uses a direct inquiry into the beliefs themselves, not this particular approach.)

We can explore it outside of stories, through directly see impermanence in the different sense fields. By getting familiar with impermanence in this way, we see that our stories are not true so there is a disidentification with them, and the stories we use realign as well. (This one is important for the disidentification part, less so for the realignment.)

We can also explore impermanence within stories, the impermanence of the universe, earth, humanity, civilizations, individuals, relationships and so on. This helps us realign our stories, and the larger perspective can also give a certain disidentification with stories. (This one is important for the realignment part, but maybe less effective for the disidentification.)

And we can investigate stories directly. We find a should which clashes with our stories of what is, and take it to inquiry. Is it true? What happens when I believe it? Who would I be without it? Can I find the truth in its turnarounds? This invites identification to be released out of the story.

A third way of releasing identification out of stories is to notice what we already are. We can use the sense fields to explore impermanence, see how all content of awareness comes and goes. But something does not come and go. What we really are does not seem to come and go. What is it? What is it that does not come and go? Or we can use the headless experiments to find ourselves as a no-thing full of whatever happens, or the Big Mind process to find ourselves as Big Mind.

There are of course lots of ways to explore attachments. These are just the ones I happen to be most familiar with right now.

So a quick summary:

• Attachments to situations or things in the world creates drama and suffering, because everything is living its own life and is in flux. We get what we don’t want. We don’t get what we want. We don’t lose what we have but don’t want. We can’t hold onto what we want to keep.
• This attachment is really an attachment to stories about what is and should be. And this attachment to stories is really an identification with them.
• We can work with this in two ways. First, by realigning the stories we use, whether we are identified with them or not, with everything living its own life, on its own schedule, and being in flux. Then, by inviting identification to release out of these stories altogether. Realignment without disidentification only works up to a point since the world always will show up differently from our stories about it. There will be a certain amount of drama and discomfort left. Disidentification without realignment will release the drama out of it, but the stories our human self uses in its daily life will not be as closely aligned with the world as they can be. Both are important.
• And there are several tools for working with attachments in these ways. One is The Work which directly addresses the beliefs, broadens the scope of stores we have available to us through the turnarounds, and invites in a release of identification with the stories. Another is exploring impermanence through the sense fields, which invites in a release of identification with stories, and some realignment of these stories. And we can also find ourselves as that which is already free from identification with stories, through headless experiments, the Big Mind process, or finding ourselves as that which does not come and go in the midst of all content of awareness coming and going.

(more…)

What happens when we resist experience?

• There is a sense of I and Other. A split into I here and Other over there.
• From that split comes fear. We fear to not have what we want and to have what we don’t want.
• There is a rigidity of view. We are stuck in our stories about I and Other and our relationship, and don’t see the validity in the reversals of those stories.
• Our heart opens, closes down or is ambivalent, depending on our stories.
• Emotions are reactive. There is a lack of trust.
• Whatever happens is filtered through all of these… I and Other, fear, fixed stories, an ambivalent heart, reactive emotions and lack of trust. It takes on an appearance created from all of these.
• Our identification is firmly within the world of form and we don’t notice Ground, and ourselves as Ground.

A quick overview of some forms of identification and disidentification:

• A polarized identification and disidentification with the field of form. Certain areas, such as this human self, is seen as a separate I, and the rest of the world, and awareness itself, is seen as Other. Identification is firmly within form itself, within content of awareness, and there is a sense of split within this field of form. This is the identification and disidentification that creates the whole (wonderful & terrible) drama of human life, when it is all taken as a drama of I and Other. It is also a mistaken identity.
• Awakeness can awaken to itself, and to this field of awakeness and form as itself. Here, there is an identification with anything arising as awakeness itself, and a disidentification with anything arising as just temporary manifestations of awakeness itself. The center of gravity is within, and as, awakeness, and although anything arising is recognized as itself, it is also recognized as only surface ripples. If this is all, it is awake yet nonfunctional.
• Within this awakening, there can still be a conventional identification with this human self. It is recognized as a vehicle for awakeness awake to itself, so it is “identified” with for only temporary and practical purposes, to allow it to function and orient in the world. This is similar to the first form of identification, only now it is free from any sense of separate I.
• And then there is the identification and disidentification of parts of this human self. Some are actively owned and part of its daily repertoire, and some are disowned and not. And this human self can actively shift into the disowned parts, becoming more familiar with them, and bringing them into its daily repertoire, allowing for fluidity among a wider terrain of who it already is. This is the one that allows our human self to heal, mature and develop into the fuller richness of what it is and can be.

More in depth…

(more…)

This came up through the comments to a previous post, and I thought it was important enough to make into its own post.

>> “The moment you ‘identify’ with any quality or substance, good or bad, we then gotta say bye, bye to the nondual”

Sounds good to me. There is a release of exclusive identification with anything within form, which allows Big Mind or whatever we want to call it to notice itself… as this field of awakeness and form inherently absent of I and Other.

Just an additional point: At our human level, we still may have disowned aspects. There are some qualities we are familiar with and know how to shift into a live from in our daily life, yet other qualities that are more foreign to us in terms of living them.

As awakeness itself, there is no separation to any of these qualities. Yet this human self is more familiar with some than others.

So here, it can be helpful to “identify” with some, to shift into them, bring them to life through this human self, to expand the repertoire of this human self. This is of course a quite different form of identification, one that is more of a shifting into it, and is more fluid and temporary.

Looking at knots is one way to show how psychology and spirituality are intertwined.

A knot is any hangup we have, and is a belief and its corresponding emotions and behavioral patterns.

It is usually experienced as stressful, as something being off, and gives a sense of separation. And it gives a sense of I and Other (which is what gives rise to the stress and a sense of something being off and separation), and distracts us from seeing what we really are.

So from the context of taking ourselves as this human self, it is uncomfortable and disatisfactory. And from the context of Big Mind, it distracts Big Mind from noticing itself.

A knot comes from an identification with a story, so we can work with it through releasing identification.

For instance, we can be with the experience of it, allowing it fully, in a wholehearted way. We allow whatever content of awareness, including the resistance to whatever comes up, so there is a release from identification with content in general.

We can explore the different voices or subpersonalities involved, and see that there is no “I” in any of them.

Or we can inquire into the belief itself and find the truth in each of its reversals, which released exclusive identification with any of them - the initial story and its reversals.

Disidentification with the knot complex allows us to find more peace with it at our human level, through seeing it more clearly - finding what is more true for us than our initial belief, and fully feeling whatever comes up in our experiences without getting caught up in resistance. And it also makes it easier for Big Mind to notice itself.

We can also work more actively with owning, at our human level, what is left out from the initial belief and identity.

Through Voice Dialog, or the Big Mind process, we can shift into whatever voices are disowned by the initial belief and identity. We can try it on, see how the world looks from that perspective, explore what the voice offers to our human self, how it would be to bring it into our life more, and so on. We can also explore our human self’s relationship to the voice, and how that relationship can shift to allow the voice in more.

And the same can happen through Process Work, and by bringing the turnarounds of The Work into our daily life.

Owning disowned parts of our human self makes it easier, and more fun, to be who we take ourselves to be. And when what we are awakens to itself, it allows this awakening to be expressed through our human self in a richer and more fluid way. In either case, there is a new richness and fluidity there, a wider terrain that is expressed fluidly in the daily life of this human self. It is more fully and richly human.

Actively owning disowned parts also allows for a shift of identification out of our human self. On the one hand, we are more free to shift into the different voices and actively use them in our daily life. And on the other hand, it releases identification out of our human self in general. Which, as before, makes it easier for Big Mind to notice itself.

These are just a couple of ways working on who and what we are are intertwined, and one invites and encourages the other, using just a few approaches as examples.

We can also bring in the soul level, this alive presence which is timeless yet also within time, spaceless yet also within space, impersonal yet also personal, rich and substantial yet also simple and emptiness itself. When we shift into, become more familiar with, and find ourselves as this alive presence, it allows our human self to reorganize within itself. Our human self heals, matures, finds itself more in the fullness of itself. And it shifts identification out of our human self, which makes it easier for Big Mind to notice itself.

Shifting into our soul level brings a sense of richness, fullness, nurturing, trust, and of being home, which helps our human self to relax, and again shift identification out of it. We are less caught up in the usual beliefs, identities, fears, hopes and so on of our human self.

(more…)

In Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God, an opinion piece in New York Times, two books on that topic are reviewed. They seem to share a conventional Christian theological approach to the topic, the view that there is no good solution to the question of why a good God allows evil in the world, and they also share not going much further.

Within the conventional Christian views on this topic, we end up beating our heads against the wall. So the reasonable course of action would then be to go outside of this context and see what we can find there.

Why not look at why the Christian mystics have to say about the topic? What about other philosophies and religions? And maybe most importantly, why not explore it in your own experience?

Even a superficial inquiry into our own experience would tell us that (a) good and evil are human-made and culturally dependent concepts, and (b) suffering comes when our stories about what is and should be clash.

In a way, it is so obvious and so simple that it is easy to dismiss. We may notice it, explore it to some extent, and then tell ourselves that there has to be more to it than that. It cannot be that simple. And there may also be a fear that embracing this fully would lead to a breakdown of any shared norms into anarchy, nihilism, the worst forms of value relativism.

Exploring it a little further for ourselves, we find a freedom from identification with particular views, which is also a freedom to apply any view as seem appropriate to the situation. With this release of identification with views, the appearance of substance and inherent truth in views goes out, there is no need to defend or attack the truth of views anymore, and they appear as tools of limited and practical value only. We can allow ourselves to be guided by our experience and the natural empathy that arises when there is this release from identification with views, and freely and fluidly use any view that has practical value in a particular situation.

In life in general, and through practices such as the Big Mind process and The Work, there is a shift from taking something about our human self as intensely private and personal, to it being revealed as universal and shared.

With any belief, there is an identification with a particular view and identity. And when there is identification with it, it is taken as “I”, as personal, and sometimes as quite private… especially when we have shoulds around it. It becomes something to hide, to let out only when it seems safe, to protect, and so on. We take it all very seriously.

When the identification goes out of it, we see that it is universal and shared and the sense of it being private falls away. It is no longer something to protect. There is a sense of freedom around it.

This shift happens in many different ways. It can come about from just knowing that it is similar for other people. Or from seeing it as universal through the Big Mind process. Or allowing attachment to it to fall away through The Work.

So say I am uncomfortable in some social situations and take it as very embarrassing and private. I am closely identified with that role, and with beliefs and identities around it. It becomes something to hide, and only mention in especially safe situations. Yet, as soon as I realize that this is universal and shared, and both see and feel this, or the attachment to beliefs and identities around it fall away, this all changes.

There is a sense of release, relief and space around it. It is still personal, in the sense that it is happening to this human self, but it is not longer private or something I need to tiptoe around. Instead of being something that separates me from others, something that makes me special and different, it becomes something that connects and is shared.

It is seen and felt as universally human, happening here with a particular flavor as it does for anyone else.

That old piece of wisdom that we can be right or be at peace is something I notice almost daily, if I pay attention.

Whenever there is stress, it is because I - at some level - insists on being right about something by taking a story as exclusively true. I take it as absolutely true, and discount and dismiss the truth in its reversals. And this prevents me from seeing the limited truth in all of those versions of the story, and the inherent neutrality in what the story refers to.

So exploring this in more detail, seeing that the original story has only a limited truth to it, and that its reversals have a limited truth to them as well, there is more of a peace with the situation. Releasing identification with one particular story about it, I am not at odds with it anymore. From being identified with and as the story and the particular perspective, I am now that which holds a wider range of stories and perspectives, honoring and recognizing the limited truth in each one.

Being at peace with it sounds a little passive perhaps, but the reality of it is anything but passive. It is a space that allows for a dynamic, juicy and engaged flow among perspectives, including the freedom to use any one of them as a guideline for my actions in the world - while also being free from taking it as an absolute truth.

There are many ways to work with this. We can use Voice Dialog or the Big Mind process to explore the different views and perspectives, getting familiar with each one, and befriending and owning each one. We can investigate our original belief through The Work, seeing the consequences of rigidly clinging to it, the freedom in releasing the grip on it, and the truth in its reversals. We can use different forms of journeying, such as Process Work, exploring and taking on the different roles and perspectives and their relationships. Or we can even simply be with our experience, wholeheartedly, which includes releasing our grip on the initial perspective and story.

For instance, there is/was a tendency for me to be annoyed about noise, for instance when people eat loudly or talk during a performance, movie or talk, or play loud music in the neighborhood. So here, I can be right by holding onto my stories that these people should behave differently, and all the supporting stories of how they are oblivious, disrespectful, loud obnoxious Americans, people are more conscious and respectful where I come from, and so on. And this brings tension and stress. I am at odds with life as it shows up.

Or I can try to be at peace with it, while also being right, which doesn’t work very well.

Or, I can be willing to let go of being right, in the sense of taking my initial stories about it as the final or most true truth, and arrive at a wider - and more juicy, fluid and alive - embrace of the different views, roles and perspectives involved.

I can investigate the beliefs that people should be quiet during a performance, that it is disrespectful to make noises in certain situations, and so on. Is it true? What happens when I hold onto that belief, and if it wasn’t there? What is the truth in its reversals?

I can explore the roles and views involved through Voice Dialog and the Big Mind process. What do they each have to say? How do I habitually relate to and treat each one of them? What are the gifts of each one? How would they like to be treated?

I can allow any experiences that come up for me around it, in a wholehearted and heartfelt way. This inevitably involves releasing my grip on any one role, position or perspective.

I can explore it through Process Work, taking on the role of the noise maker and explore what it has to say, what it wants me to see and wake up to, and what gifts and contributions it has for me. It may tell me loosen up, this is all part of life. When you narrow your focus and exclude these sounds by your shoulds, you exclude life. 

I can find myself and headless or as Big Mind, and see that everything arising is just phenomena, just another experience. It is part of the field of awakeness and form, inherently absent of any I with an Other.

After finding this wider embrace and more free flow among roles, perspectives and views, I find that there is often a shift from stress, to neutrality, to even enjoyment and appreciation of what initially appeared as a disturbance.

And instead of either suppressing my compulsion to either leave or ask people to be quiet, or doing it from annoyance, I can do either or neither from more clarity, and with a sense of connection.

When I explore how a sense of I and Other is formed, I find three general zones:

First, a sense of subject, of an I as subject, experiencer, doer, and so on. This one is usually located in or around the head area, but can also be extended to other areas of this human self.

Then, a sense of self as object, as experienced. This is usually the rest of my human self and whatever thoughts filter as belonging to this human self, such as thoughts.

And finally, the rest of the world as object, which is made up of whatever is not a self as subject or object.

I also notice how the sense of subject and object are located in different areas of space so they can be differentiated from each other, which also means that when I bring attention to where the sense of subject seems to be located, it shifts to another location in space. Only the sensations it was placed on remains, but now as an object, as content of awareness, just like anything else, and free from a sense of subject.

For this sense of subject to appear real and substantial, it seems that it needs to be kept away from attention and awareness. Like the man behind in the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, it is kept hidden from view, and that is how its manifestations gets their appearance of reality and mystery.

But it is certainly possible to bring this sense of subject into attention and the field of awareness.

I can bring attention to the sensations the sense of subject is placed upon, and recognize them as just sensations. I can notice the thoughts placed on top of these sensations to create a sense of subject. I can notice how it shifts around when I bring attention to where it just was.

And I can also shift into Big Mind or headlessness, and immediately and directly see that what I previously took as subject - these sensations and this idea of a subject - itself is part of the content of awareness, just like anything else, and that a sense of identification with it can be released.

(There is a release of a identification with the with the sensations and thoughts making up the gestalt of a subject - even as they are still there, which is an interesting experience. The “I” goes out of the subject, the doer goes out of the doing, and so on.)

In each of these cases, I am looking directly at the man behind the curtain, and the reality of its manifestations falls apart. What initially seemed so real and substantial is now revealed as just appearances.

(more…)

Life, the universe, existence, God, Spirit, Big Mind, Buddha Mind, what is, leaves nothing out, so as long as we are leaving something out through beliefs and identities, something is missing. And we know something is missing. Something feels off. It is dukkha.

What in our own experience, here and now, leaves nothing out?

This awareness leaves nothing out. Something arises in awareness, and it is simple. There may be resistance to experiencing that something, and that too arises in awareness. There is no way awareness can leave anything out, just as space cannot resist anything happening within space.

If we explore this awareness, we find that it is no thing, has no shape, no color, no beginning, no end, and it allows existence and non-existence, life and death, mind and matter, nature and culture, and whatever we may label good and bad, right and wrong, and anything else.

So already, we - as awareness - allows it all. Already, we are aligned with life, the universe, Spirit, God, Big Mind, Buddha Mind. Already, we are that. We are the Ground of it all. We are the unmanifest and manifest. Effortlessly. Unavoidably.

But as soon as we cling to a belief as an exclusive truth, and identify with any exclusive identity (which means any identity at all), we don’t notice this. We are wrapped up in identification with a particular region of the manifest, and exclude the unmanifest and whatever happens outside of this region of the manifest. We have an exclusive identity, which filters the experience of everything through itself, making it appear very real. And that is when something feels off.

It feels off, because it is off. And it is off, because attention is wrapped up in stories, not available to notice what we already are.

Although this blog is not particularly funny, except in unintentional ways, I appreciate humor as much as anyone.

And as with good medicine in general, humor seems to work at the level of who I take myself to be, and can perhaps also help me notice or glimpse what I really am.

I notice that humor often helps me find some distance to and release from beliefs, identities and knots. It usually takes something most of us find stressful, some belief and should that is not accordance with what is, and offers some relief from that tension. It may even offer some lasting relief if it helps me see that whole dynamic as universally human and not (only) about me as an individual.

The bumbling behavior of Mr. Bean or Inspector Clouseau trigger my own fear of appearing bumbling in public. It is a behavior that doesn’t fit my desired identity, so tension comes up, and the humor releases this tension. If the humor also helps me realize and get a felt-sense of this dynamic as universal and shared by all of us, it can help me disidentify with the behavior and the shoulds around it, and this can give some lasting release and relief. It may still be there, but it is not taken as so personal anymore.

This is more likely to happen if the humor is heartfelt and coming from a sense of us, of us all being in it together.

The alternative is a more cynical humor, one that is about them rather than us. It can still give me an intellectual insight into certain patterns in others and myself, which is helpful. But it also tends to reinforce my shoulds and fears around it, which deepens a sense of split between us and them, and how I should be and how I (sometimes) am.

As Timothy Winter (Abdal Hakim Murad) puts it:

The road to God is paved with laughter at the self. The road to Hell is paved with laughter at others.

There is of course a lot more to humor.

For instance, a pointed humor is sometimes very helpful in revealing and cutting through self-deception and delusion, whether it happens in myself or ourselves. Other times, a friendly humor is more helpful in dissolving knots. This is not so different from what we discover when we explore the functions of the yang and yin forms of Big Heart.

(more…)

What are the relationships among beliefs, identities, knots and disowned parts or orphans?

Here is a quick sequence…

1. We believe a story. It is taken as real, substantial, somehow reflecting something inherent in the world. The grain of truth in its reversals are downplayed or ignored, and the grain of truth in the initial story is blown up and bolstered, made to appear as more than just a relative truth of practical value only.
2. This belief creates an identity. We form an identity as someone who takes that story as true. And the content of the story may also form an identity for us. For instance, if I believe that people should be considerate, my own identity is as someone who either is, or at least want to be, considerate.
3. Whenever there is an identification with a story or an identity, there is friction between this story/identity and how the world shows up. There is a gap between our stories of how things should be, and how they are or can be. And from here, a whole cascade of things happens, including fueling of resistance and certain emotions and behaviors. And since there is an identification with the story and identity fueling it, there will also be an identification with (most of) its effects. It is all taken as I, as intimately personal, as who I am.
4. The belief creates friction, which in turn has certain effects, and together they all form a knot. This knot is the whole conglomerate of beliefs and identities, and the patterns of resistance, emotions and behaviors associated with it.
5. This is where the orphans come into the picture. The obvious orphans are for instance the emotions created by the friction, which are usually resisted and disowned to a certain extent. Resistance itself may also be resisted, so this too becomes an orphan. And other orphans include the grain of truth in the reversals of the initial story and identity. Each of their reversals have a grain of truth in them, and this grain of truth it also resisted and disowned.

I believe I should be healthy, so form an identity as someone who is - or at least want to - be healthy. I am not healthy, so there is a friction between what is and what should be. This creates various emotions, such as frustration, anger, sadness, hopelessness, grief, and so on. It also fuels behaviors to avoid triggering a noticing of the discrepancy between what is and what should be, and the emotions created by this discrepancy. All of this creates a knot, and much of it is resisted to a certain extent. I try to escape it, avoid it, disown it. So the orphans here are the resistance itself, the emotions triggered, and also the grain of truth in the reversals of the initial story and identity. To welcome these orphans back into the warmth, I can be with the resistance and emotions in a heartfelt way, as if they would never change. And I can investigate the truth in the reversals of the initial story and identity.

Watching movies, and taking in stories in any other form, is a stocking up of human experiences. And this stocking up allows us to…

• Recognize and find insight into the patterns and dynamics playing themselves out in these stories, and also in our own life.
• Recognize in ourselves what we see out there, including in these stories. Whatever qualities and dynamics we see play themselves out among and within the characters of the stories, mirror what is right here in this human self.
• Release identification with these qualities and patterns, through seeing that they are universally human. They play themselves out in all of our human lives, and are not unique to this human self. There is also a release of identification through seeing these patterns play themselves out, over and over, in this life and in the stories, as an old movie that continues to play, but where there is less interest through being so familiar with it.

Of course, it helps if we are receptive to this. All of this probably happens to some extent no matter what, even if we - on the surface - use movies and other stories to confirm whatever cherished beliefs we have. But if we are willing to allow the movies to work on us, in these and other ways, this can unfold more freely.

Waking up is a process of mimicking Ground, until Ground awakens more fully to itself.

Ground, this awake void, allows any and all forms. If there is an identification as anything less, it creates an I with an Other, and drama.

Or we can say that awareness naturally allows any content, doesn’t hold onto any of it, and is inherently free from all of it. So when awareness awakes to itself, and recognizes its own content as itself, that too is what awakens.

Or we can say that the whole world of form, as it is, is God’s will. As long as there are attachments to stories and identities, we make everything into an I here and Other out there, and this I in opposition to God’s will. By letting go of identification with these stories and identities, God’s will is revealed as God’s will, and any resistance to it is also let go of.

After some exploration, we realize that there is no way out, in the sense of escaping content, and escaping content living its own life, on its own schedule.

And yet, there is a way out, in the sense of allowing identification to be released from this content, which means a release from the belief in stories, including the one of a separate self.

The two goes hand in hand. When there is a clarifying realization of content living its own life, there is a corresponding release of identification with content. And when there is a release of identification with stories (and content), there is a corresponding realization that content lives its own life, absent of a doer.

(more…)

In exploring resistance, a few things stand out:

First, that whatever arises, and in particular emotions and strong sensations, are filtered by resistance. They appear in an often entirely different way when there is resistance and when there is not. With resistance, there are clearly recognizable emotions such as sadness and anger, and clearly recognizable sensations such as pain. When there is a heartfelt being-with of whatever arises, each of those are revealed as something else… for me, often as a sweet fullness which cannot easily be labeled even if I wanted to.

Then, that resistance is not what it appears to be. When I explore the anatomy of resistance, there is really not much there. That too, is a gestalt formed by a variety of components, and when these components and the ways they form a gestalt is clearly seen, resistance - as I knew it - falls away. As with a sense of a separate self, it falls into its components.

And finally, resistance is only resistance when it is identified with. Resistance without identification is only part of what arises, as anything else. But with identification, it becomes something that appears very real, solid, substantial, creating a clear sense of I and Other, and separation. In this way, it is no different from anything else identified with. (And all I can ever really identify with is a story, which makes it appear as if I am identified with something else such as resistance.)

(more…)

I keep noticing a mutuality between the practices of being with whatever arises (especially emotions) and of inquiry into beliefs.

Being with allows for reduced resistance to what arises, which in turn leads to a disidentification with the belief that created the resistance in the first place. And this makes it easier, and more inviting, to inquire into that story.

Being with ==> (reduced identification with resistance + belief in story) + easier inquiry into story.

And inquiry into beliefs leads to reduced identification with the story creating the resistance and reduced identification with the resistance itself, which in turn leads to an easier being with of whatever arises.

Inquiry ==> (reduced identification with resistance + story that created it) + easier being with of whatever arises.

Both allows the stories involved to be there as before, and also its effects of resistance, emotions, and so on. And both allows for a disidentification with all of that. The story and its effects becomes a third person he/she/it, arising as anything else, rather than a first person I, taken as a life and death matter. Identification goes out of it, so we are not so caught up in the content of the story anymore, or of fighting the Other created by the story including the effects of the story.

And since there is less drama and less being caught up in stories, this makes it easier to be who we take ourselves to be (a separate self), and also easier for Ground to notice itself.

Another topic I keep coming back to….

The whole process of Ground awakening to itself is very much a differentiation of 1st person experience and 3rd person identity.

In our first person experience, what is alive in immediate awareness, we are awareness and the content of awareness is awareness itself. It is beyond and includes all polarities, free from any center, absent of an I with an Other.

And in our third person identity, as a he/she/it, an object in the world, as others see us, we are a human self in the world with a particular age, gender, nationality, preferences, set of likes and dislikes and so on. This third person identity is crucial for the functioning of this human self in the world, and it arises in immediate awareness as anything else. When awareness awakens to itself, there is no more or less identification with this human self and its identity than anything else arising.

When these two are confused, there is an identification with our third person identity. This he/she/it in the world becomes an “I” and appears as a subject, and with this identification comes a life and death drama with all its many flavors. What is already alive in immediate awareness becomes filtered through this temporary identification, making this field of awareness and form, inherently absent of an I with an Other, appear as I and Other. Identifying as content of awareness, an object within form, tends to put awareness itself on the other side of the I-Other split, and this is one way this dynamic perpetuates itself.

Differentiating the two allows for a disidentification with our third person identity, which in turn allows awareness to notice itself as the field of awareness and form, already and always absent of I and Other.

Put another way, there is a differentiation of the absolute (awake void and form) and the relative (third person identity), allowing awareness to be awake to itself while this human self still functions with its usual identity in the world.

Some ways of working with emotions…

• A wholehearted and heartfelt being with of whatever comes up, even if it would stay forever. This reduces identification with resistance, allowing content to reveal itself free from the filter of resistance and its appearance created by resistance.
• An inquiry into the components of an emotion reveals how its gestalt is created by sensation and a story about the sensations. When this is seen, the gestalt does no longer appear so real and substantial. It falls into its components.
• We can find and inquiring into the belief/s behind it. Any emotions is triggered by a belief, or rather the friction between believed-in stories about what is and what should be. We can identify these stories, inquire into them, and find what is already more true for us than the initial belief. This allows the attachment to the initial story to weaken or fall away, revealing the open space behind it.
• We can track what is behind the emotions, using for instance Process Work, allowing the process behind the emotion to unfold and reveal itself.
• We can find ourselves as headless or Big Mind, allowing the emotion to arise with less or no identification.
• We can explore the function of emotions through Voice Dialog or the Big Mind process, seeing their evolutionary and biological function, and how they help the human self (and how the simplicity of this process often gets convoluted through beliefs and resistance).
• We can bring attention to what is here in our perceptual field, for instance sensations, breath or the movements of the body, which reduces attachment to and fueling of the story about it as a particular emotion, and also reduces attachment to and fueling of the story triggering the emotion in the first place.
• We can also work with emotions in more conventional ways through relationships, biography, and also look at the larger whole of infinite causes, and biology, evolution, culture and society.

Any one of these may work well on its own, but the real effects come from using a combination of them over time, exploring emotions, and any particular emotion, from many different levels of the holarchy and from several different angles.

For instance, if we only bring our attention to the sensations of the body, it may work fine in the moment and may even over time weaken identification with the story triggering the emotion. But it may not be sufficient to see through the emotion and belief in a more thorough way. They will continue to come up in different situations and forms, inviting us to see and getting to know them more thoroughly.

To do that, it is helpful to inquire into the belief triggering it, and also recognize the gestalt of emotion as made up of a simple sensation and story. Here, we not only gain some insight into the mechanisms of samsara, but also allow it to be seen through and fall away more completely.

A rambling post…

At our human level, there is the conventional forms of engagement and identification. We are engaged in the world, to various degrees and in various ways, and we are also identified with our human self, identities, and beings and things in the wider world.

(more…)

From the previous post:

There is an absence of identification with any stories, and so with any particular content, since the void is absence, and also since thoughts and everything else are recognized as nothing other than the void itself taking temporary forms.

It is interesting to explore how identifications falls away when the void awakens to, or rather just notices, itself.

First, as void there is absence of any content, including identifications. When void awakens to itself, it realizes that it is absence so no identifications.

Then, when void awakens to itself it recognizes all forms as itself, as void itself. So when thoughts and stories, they are recognized as void, as insubstantial. They are recognized as just thoughts, of only temporary, limited and practical value for this human self to navigate in the world.

When I happen to mention the centaur way of experiencing oneself to people, I notice that not everyone can match it with what is alive in their own experience. Which in turn makes me interested in exploring it further for myself.

Some things that comes up…

• It is an alive experience of the wholeness of the human self, beyond and embracing body & psyche. It is its own gestalt, which happens to filter into body and mind if there is that story added onto it.
• The experience of my human self as a whole, beyond and embracing body-mind, has different flavors and can be in the foreground or background. Most of the time, it is more of a background experience, and sometimes, for instance in nature or when I do both body-oriented practices and meditation for a few days, it comes more into the foreground.
• It comes from, and deepens, an alignment within the whole of the human self. Over time, and when present, it seems to resolve into a deepening alignment within this whole, which brings a sense of less internal struggle, and also less struggle with the wider world.
• There is a parallel noticing of an already existing whole and a reorganization of this whole. I notice that this human self already and always is a whole, along with the wider world. And before this noticing there may be a reorganization and alignment within the whole of my human self which allows me to notice this, and this reorganization and alignment continues and deepens within that noticing.
• This all goes along with a change in identifications and beliefs. Before and after, there is a shift in identification with narrow identities that separate me from others, to more wider and inclusive identities where I see myself as in the same boat as others. I find myself as more deeply and universally human.
• There is a change in projections in general, and the shadow in particular, where I more easily see in others what I know from myself, and recognize in myself what I see in others.
• The immediate experience of the human self as a whole allows for a noticing of the wider whole in the same way. This human self is already and always a whole, and the wider world is the same. And this in turn allows for a sense of less or no separation, and of belonging to the larger whole.
• This gives me glimpses of the larger whole beyond and including this human self and the wider world. And this sets the stage for shifts into the witness, into pure seeing, where all form is revealed as one seamless whole. And of shifts into nature and deity-mysticism experiences, of all there is as made of one fabric, as divine, consciousness, God itself. Which in turn can lead to a shift into realized selflessness. Into the Ground - the void - awakening to itself, and then to itself as awake void and form, including as inherently absent of any I with an Other. (Although it certainly does not have to be a nicely organized progression as described here.)

A recent New York Times article, This is Your Life (and How You Tell It) on narrative psychology, which, in its essence, says the stories we tell about ourselves, others and the world, influence how we see these (in past, future, present) and our actions.

Psychologists have shown just how interpretations of memories can alter future behavior. In an experiment published in 2005, researchers had college students who described themselves as socially awkward in high school recall one of their most embarrassing moments. Half of the students reimagined the humiliation in the first person, and the other half pictured it in the third person.

Two clear differences emerged. Those who replayed the scene in the third person rated themselves as having changed significantly since high school — much more so than the first-person group did. The third-person perspective allowed people to reflect on the meaning of their social miscues, the authors suggest, and thus to perceive more psychological growth.

And their behavior changed, too. [...]

The recordings showed that members of the third-person group were much more sociable than the others. “They were more likely to initiate a conversation, after having perceived themselves as more changed,” said Lisa Libby, the lead author and a psychologist at Ohio State University. She added, “We think that feeling you have changed frees you up to behave as if you have; you think, ‘Wow, I’ve really made some progress’ and it gives you some real momentum.”

Several things come to mind here:

• We filter the world through our stories, which in turn color (determine, to a large extent) how we experience and act in the world.
• By changing these stories, we experience and act in the world differently.
• Yet, as long as we believe in these stories, at any level, we are trapped by them. We experience and act as if they were true.
• So when there is a disengagement from these stories, seeing them as relative truths with truths in each of their turnarounds, a whole new landscape opens up. One that is less filtered through believed-in stories, one that is more nakedly perceived, and one that allows us to play with any story, and use any story as a temporary and practical tool for this human self to navigate and orient in the world.
• Talking about this human self in third person allows for a disidentification with it, which in turn allows for (a) an easier rewrite of our stories about ourselves and the world, and (b) an easier disengagement with these stories in general. From seeing this human self, and our stories about it, as a subject and an “I”, it becomes an object and an he/she/it.

In terms of research, it seems that it would be good to explore the effects of (a) the type of stories used, and (b) the degree of belief in these stories. Are they taken as gospel truth, at all levels, included supported by society? Are they consciously not believed in, but believed in at deeper levels? Is there a release from them at more levels of being (emotional, behavioral)? What happens then?

In terms of therapy and practice, it is probably a good thing to include both the rewrite and disengagement aspects, especially as they mutually influence each other.

When there is a rewriting of our stories about ourselves and the world, for instance through finding the genuine, and relative, truths in each of their turnarounds, there is also an easier disengagement from them.

(The rewrite can happen in many ways, but the easiest, for me at least, is to fully acknowledge the limited truth in the initial story, and even the gifts in it, and also the limited truth in each of its turnarounds. Instead of denying the truth in one story and trying to hold onto another as true, there is more of a wide embrace and a wide open field this way. Denial brings a sense of struggle and precariousness, and a wide embrace a sense of ease and no truths or identities to protect.)

And conversely, when there is a disengagement from these stories, even temporarily, it is easier to rewrite them.

The New York Times Story is also a reminder of modern academic psychology still being in its infancy, which means that a large portion of it still is an examination, refinement or rediscovery of what is already known, even by regular laypeople. It is a necessary phase, and valuable in itself as it helps refine and clarify processes and mechanisms… and also sift out what is valid and what is not among what laypeople assume is so!

When this initial phase is more fleshed out, and the insights from many contemplative and body-oriented traditions are explored in a more modern (post modern, post-post modern) context, there is a great potential for a far more finely-tuned and practical insights into the mind, as the aqal map is only the initial - and very general - taste of.

When I do impermanence practices, visualizing everything and everyone in my life - including this human self and any state and experience - as already gone, it seems strangely familiar. And it is not only because I have done it before.

When I explore, I see that it is because it reflects my daily first person experience of the world.

Deepening into what we are is a process of differentiating 1st and 3rd person identities of ourselves.

My third person identity is the identity of this human self in the world, and it has a purely practical function. It is the identity of this he, she or it.

My first person identity is very different. When the third person identity is seen as third person identity, seen as he/it and not I, then my first person identity reveals itself more clearly. Now, I find myself as awake void and form, and that is it. There is no center there, no I with an Other, no exclusive identification with any content of awareness.

Together, there is freedom from identification, yet also the ability for this human self to function in the world. In first person experience, I am awake void and form, released from identification with any particular content. Yet, this human self has a third person identity (as an he) which helps it function in the world.

This also helps me see that in my first person experience, the world steadily comes and goes, it dies and is reborn here/now and always. People vanish, places vanish, thoughts vanish, perceptions vanish, states vanish, content of awareness as a whole vanish.

When this human self leaves a room, the room vanishes. When someone is no longer around, they vanish. When it closes its eyes, the visual world vanishes. When it dreams, any familiar content sometimes vanish and a whole different world appears. When it goes into dreamless sleep, any content of awareness vanishes.

So death is intimately familiar to us, in our first person experience. It is what happens here now, always. The world dies, and is reborn, in innumerable shapes and combinations.

It is only in my third person identity that something appears to stay around, and then dies with a death certificate. In my first person experience, it is only in the realm of thoughts that someone is still alive, or something is still around, even if it is no longer here in perceptions.

And it is only in the realm of thoughts that there is a difference between someone or something gone in perception but most likely coming back (”alive”), or gone forever (”dead”).

In first person experience, it is really only in the realm of thoughts and stories that someone or something is alive or dead.

So death is intimately familiar. In my immediate experience, the world dies, and is reborn, here now and always.

And as usual, if this is taken as a belief, it looks weird… it can become a defense against grief, a denial of death, a resistance to fully experiencing and being with what comes up when someone close to us dies.

But if it is a living experience, a living realization, what we notice in immediate experience, it is a freedom… a freedom from identification, a freedom to experience grief fully when someone or something dies, and a freedom for gratitude to surface more easily… gratitude for it having lived and been in our life.

(more…)

I used to be strongly identified with an identity as (wannabe) cultured etc., which lead me to read a good amount of literature classics, philosophy and art history, watch obscure and sophisticated movies, listen to music such as Arvo Part, Palestrina, Bach, Philip Glass, and so on, and although I genuinely enjoyed it and got a lot out of it, it was also a one-sided life and identification.

During the dark night, this identification, as so many others, wore down, and there is now more of an open space for anything… deep and shallow, artsy and popular… it doesn’t matter much anymore.

And the irony in this shift is that now, finding more fluidity within the wide landscapes of literature, movies and music, I am also more easily able to find the depth in the shallow, and the same dynamics and patterns in all of it. Popular or sophisticated… it is all reflections of the same basic dynamics and patterns of the mind.

There is a depth in the shallow that, although I was aware of it all the time, I held at arm-lengths distance. Now, that it is right here in my life with no distance, I can appreciate it much more.

Conversely, I guess I can say that there is a shallowness in the deep as well, often an identification with a particular identity which sets up boundaries where there really are none, and a self-congratulatory attitude about things that are really not that sophisticated, and sometimes not even that important.