As long as we take ourselves to be a portion of the content of awareness, there will be a sense of precariousness. Partly because of a sense of a separate I, which is then vulnerable to the whims of the larger world. And partly because there is identification with something inherently transient.

There is a belief in a story, which creates a sense of I and Other. And this sense of a separate I is anchored on particular perceptions, such as sensations. Both of these steps are precarious. They need to be maintained, bolstered, protected, supported, actively fueled. And all of this takes a good deal of energy and attention, even if we are not consciously aware of it happening.

(more…)

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.

Not knowing comes in two distinct flavors…

There is the not knowing outside of thought and stories, and the not knowing inside of thought and stories.

Awareness is inherently free from knowing, and this is noticed when this field of awakeness and form awakens to itself as a field, inherently free from the filter of any story, including the stories of a separate self, a center, a subject and object, and so on. This is the not knowing outside of thoughts and stories, the not knowing inherent in the Buddha Mind. And we can notice this one in a simple way by asking ourselves: is knowing inherent in the awareness of what is happening here now, or does a sense of knowing come from the filter of thought overlaid on this?

Then there is the conventional not knowing, the not knowing within the context of stories. The world is always more than and different from our stories about it (our maps, theories, assumptions, guesses, beliefs), so our stories are of temporary and practical value only. They help us orient and navigate in the world, but not much more than that. Inherent in any story is the not knowing from it having only limited and practical value, at best, and from the equally limited truth in each of its reversals.

Noticing and becoming familiar with both of these forms of not knowing is of great value in our lives. The first not knowing help us notice what we really are, free from and outside of any stories. The second not knowing helps us see stories as only tools of practical and temporary value. Both help us find ourselves as that which is already free from stories, see thoughts as just thoughts, and free us from taking stories as anything more than just stories. There is a mutuality between both, one offering insight into the other.

And they are really just two ways of talking about the same.

Creation stories are projections in different ways…

They often describe a creation of something from nothing, mirroring what is happening here now… an awake nothingness within which something mysteriously happens, and it also happens as this awake nothingness.

There is also often an unfolding from simplicity to complexity, again reflecting what is happening here now. From simple stories, such as extent and continuity, unfolds a complexity of stories. A whole world is created from and within simplicity, and this world complexifies, matures, unfolds, evolves.

Similarly, there is often a process of unfolding from and within duality. Here now is awakeness, itself no thing, having no form, no extent, no beginning or end. And within and as this awakeness is the world of form. Awakeness and form is the basic polarity, within the context of both as awakeness. Also, as soon as there is an overlay of stories, the field of awakeness and form is split through boundaries and a world of polarities appears…. birth and death, mind and matter, nature and culture, right and wrong, I and you.

In a very basic way, there is also a projection of whatever is inside of a story. There is a story of a creation, and the content of this story is projected out there, onto the world in the past, and also present and future.

Beyond this, different creation stories can reflect specific processes of birth and renewal in a psychological sense, as studied by Jung and others.

A few weeks ago, I talked with someone who had it all figured out. For every topic, she seemed to have a flow chart ready in her mind, rattling off the lists and the flows. It was impressive and slightly disturbing at the same time, especially as I could see myself so clearly in her…. as this blog itself is evidence for:

Something is alive for me in immediate awareness, often outside of thoughts, but then quickly gets channeled into sorting and mapping and figuring it all out, creating a sense of control and safety that way.

But is it really all that safe to have it all figured out?

If I get caught up the creations of my own thoughts, I am blinded by it. I won’t so easily see what is outside of the terrain it maps out, including the truth in the many reversals of the initial stories. Also, if I take it all as real and true, it tends to clash with the world as it shows up on its own, which then trigger reactive emotions. I identify with and get caught up in these reactive emotions since I identified with the belief triggering them in the first place, and this only blind me further.

So in the sense of the safety of this human self, getting all fascinated by how the mind can figure things out is not necessarily safe. It may illuminate some things, but it certainly blinds me as well.

Also, does having it all figured out mean I don’t have to experience fear?

When I tell myself I have it all figured out, it seems that everything is under control. I don’t have to experience fear anymore. But it is still there, I am only distracting attention away from it.

And having it all figured out in itself creates fear. I am afraid that I got it wrong, and know somewhere I inevitably did. I am afraid life will show up differently from my neatly worked out map, which it, again, inevitably will. So both before and when my map falls apart, there is fear. And then there is the stress of having to try to keep it all together, even as it falls apart.

Having it figured out may look appealing, especially to the world of thought, and especially in our culture which places so much emphasis on it and trust in it.

But when I look at it a little more closely, I see that it can easily blind me, and it does not help avoid having to experience fear or anything else I would rather not experience.

(more…)

When we believe lots of stories, such as I am a separate self, I am this human self, I have these preferences, characteristics, identities, and so on, then it doesn’t help much to say that any story is “just a story”. Since all the more basic beliefs are still there, and seem very much real and substantial, there is a yes - but response at best.

I really am this human self with this life, in this situation, so then lots of other stories seem real as well. Telling myself, or others, that it is just a story, makes no sense at all. I may hear it from a teacher or someone I respect, I may try to believe it, but it doesn’t work.

It is only when these more basic stories are seen as just stories, including the one of a separate self, that there is a release from stories in general. Now, I can say that a story is just a story, because it is alive in immediate awareness. It is directly seen, here now. Yet, it may be alive for me but not for others, so even here, it makes little sense to tell others that whatever is up for them is just a story. It may still be real to them. As usual, the advice, or pointer, is for myself.

There is the story I am sick, or maybe more specifically I am sick and shouldn’t be. If I recognize stories as just stories, even to some extent, through having explored and investigated many of them, then I can see this too as a story. It is a thought arising as content of awareness, along with sensations, sights, sounds, smells and tastes. Nowhere in all of this can I find illness, and nowhere can I find that it should be any different. All of that is just from the inside of thoughts.

[And I can, of course, still go to the doctor. This human self if sick, from a conventional view, so it makes good sense to go to the doctor and do whatever is possible to help it. The story is recognized as just a story. At the same time, there is often very useful and practical information there for this human self, in how it operates and navigates in the world, even if there is no ultimate or absolute truth in it.]

If I don’t recognize stories as just stories, then the illness is very real, and that it happens to me is very real. As Byron Katie says, when we believe a story, it is the job of the mind to make it appear real, and it does a very good job at it as well. In this situation, it doesn’t help to tell myself that it is just a story, because it seems far more real and substantial than that. And if it is happening to someone else, it doesn’t help telling them that either, even if I can see it as just a story.

What I can do is recognize that story - it is just a story - as a question. If I take it as a statement, it becomes yet another belief, fueling more stress. If I take it as a question, it becomes a pointer, something to investigate. It is really true that it is just a story? If I explore it for myself, what do I find? What is already more true for me than the initial belief?

When we look at stories, we find some recurrent basic plots. And this is true whether the stories take the form of film, novels, short stories, oral stories, history, our life stories, self-talk, dreams, and so on. And different people propose a different number and different types of such basic plots.

The essence of any plot is the drama of I and Other, revolving around the question what will happen to to this separate self? As soon as there is a sense of a separate self, there is drama and that question.

From there, we have innumerable plot types. And these are defined by a few different things…

Who is the Other? Is it one or more other people, nature, God, oneself?

What type of situation or challenge is there? What is the flavor of the drama? Is it discovery? Love? Revenge? Adventure? Pursuit? Maturation? Transformation? Escape? Sacrifice? Mistaken identity?

What role does the protagonist play? Hero? Villain? Fool? Perpetrator? Victim?

What is the trajectory or outcome of the drama? How does it unfold? Where does it go? Is there a climax? A silence before the storm? A segment of life? Happy ending? Sad ending? Unclear or unfinished ending? Is it really an ending? What happens afterwards?

When I look at my own stories, I can find each of these. When there is a sense of a separate self here, it plays all of the different roles, opposed to any of the various Others, in each of the different flavor of dramas, and with a wide range of trajectories and ways it unfolds.

The outer stories, the ones about others, the ones in movies, novels, fairy tales, the ones others tell about themselves, they all reflect stories right here, about this separate self.

Any story has only a relative truth. It has limited and temporary validity only, and there is also a grain of truth in each of its reversals.

And it is relative for several different reasons.

First, stories differentiate within the seamless whole of the world, which means that any segment only exists relative to something else. Here is relative to there. False relative to true. Life to death.

The appearance of anything distinct is dependent on, in contrast to, and relative to a boundary and something on the other side of the boundary.

Then, there is a grain of truth in each of the reversals of any story. The appearance of limited truth of any story happens when we recognize the grain of truth in its reversals as well. We recognize the relative relationship between the initial story and its reversals, and the grain of truth in each of them.

And if we ignore this, trying to put all truth into one story and remove truth from its reversals, then that appearance too is dependent on the relative relationship between the initial story and its reversals.

When I see the grain of truth in each of the reversals, I may find that I appear as a separate self, but when I look, I also find that this sense of separate self only comes from an image, a thought, and is not inherent in what arises. There is a grain of truth in both. Or, I lie, and I can find that in my life. Sometimes I lie blatantly, and even if I try to be honest, what comes out of my mouth is a lie because it is a limited truth.

Or, if I take I am honest as an absolute truth, then that truth can only appear because there is no truth in its reversal, I lie.

The appearance of a limited or absolute truth in any story is dependent on, in contrast to, and relative to, its reversals.

Also, any story has a grain of truth only as related to a set of other stories. It is dependent on a particular context of other stories to have even this grain of truth. And it is when we switch this context of other stories that we can see the grain of truth in its reversals.

I lie. Yes, I can find a set of stories that says that - in memories of times when I did, and even here now because any storytelling, any use of words, is really a lie. It leaves out a great deal, simplifies horribly independent of how complex it is, and splits the world when the world itself is not split.

I am honest. Yes, I can find that too, in another set of stories. Even if I blatantly lie in some situations, there are many other situations where I am quite honest. And here now, I try to use stories that honestly reflect my experiences, as much as possible. I try to be true to what appears as true to me here and now.

The appearance of truth in any story is dependent on, in contrast to, and relative to, a set of supporting stories.

And finally, a relative truth only exists because there is an absolute truth. It is dependent on, in contrast to, and relative to an absolute truth.

Relative truth is what arises filtered through stories, whether these are recognized as only stories or not. And the absolute is this field of awake void and form, recognized as awakeness itself. And in real life, both go together very well.

Awake void and form is inherently absent of and untouched by any stories, including the one of I and Other, whether it recognizes itself as awakeness or not. And the overlay of stories, whether taken as just stories or not, is essential for this human self to function in the world.

The appearance of a relative truth is dependent on, in contrast to, and relative to an absolute truth. And the relative truth arises due to, from and within the absolute, so is dependent on it that way too.
(more…)

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…)

As there is a release attachment to stories, we become both more and less radical. We can maybe say that we become more radical at the depth, in a freedom from beliefs, and less radical at the surface, in an ability to meet people where they are and play with and use any story.

And, of course, that ability to meet people where they are, and use and play with any story as the situation calls for, is maybe the most radical.

It is the most radical, yet typically appears not radical at all. It just appears as deeply human and somewhat mature.

All stories about creation, salvation, doomsday, end times, birth, death, heaven and hell, and so on, are projections of what is happening here and now.

It is probably easiest to see this with heaven and hell. The world confirms to my beliefs of how it should be, and there is heaven. There is friction between the world and my beliefs, and hell. In both cases, it is happening here and now, within this awake timeless present.

Salvation is also here and now, and happens when there is a disidentification with what arises, and specifically when there is a release from attachment to a story, when it is no longer held onto as absolutely true, when there is an opening there or a more full release.

Birth and death, and creation and destruction, are also right here and now. Within this awake timeless present, form continually arise in a new, different and fresh way. The world of form continuosly dies as what it was and is reborn as something else. There is continuos birth and death, creation and destruction, right here and now, in immediate awareness. 

For each of these, there is no need to look any further than what is right here now, alive in immediate awareness. What is alive here now is really all there is. Anything else is just a story, an abstraction, found only on the inside of a thought.

And thoughts arise within this awake timeless present, as ephemeral and insubstantial as anything else arising.

I see more and more how a thorough relativism opens for a guidance by the heart.

When there is a thorough relativism at the levels of views and stories, a sincere investigation of each story and the truth in its reversals, there is a release from attachment to any of them. There is a freedom in how we relate to them and use them in our daily life. They become only tools of temporary and practical value. An aid for this human self to navigate and operate in the world.

And when there is a release from stories, it allows the heart to reveal itself.

An attachment to stories closes the heart. It creates beliefs and identities to be protected, it creates a sense of absolute truth and false at the level of thoughts, it creates a sense of contraction and constriction, it creates rigidity, it closes our heart down towards people and situations that do not conform with what our stories tells us are desirable. It splits the world down the middle, and closes our heart to one half of it.

So when there is a release from this attachment, the heart naturally opens to include what was previously left out.

There is a natural guidance from the heart, and the views - now liberated from beliefs - are in its service.

Far from nihilism, a true relativism leads to actions that are likely to be seen as wise and compassionate, especially if combined with some worldly maturity and wisdom.

The fluidity of views rests on the steady heart.

In real life, it is usually not as clear cut of course, but this is at least a pattern we can glimpse every time a belief bites the dust, and one that is revealed in its fullness when Ground noticed itself more clearly.

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 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.

We went to an inquiry group earlier tonight (The Work), and one of the participants worked on reactivity coming up around noise (not me, although I am familiar with that one). At some point in the process, it became very clear how an avoidance of noisy situations is really an avoidance of the beliefs triggered by noisy situations.

I believe people should be quiet (which may be fleshed out with stories of how noise is a lack of respect etc.), so when people around me are noisy, I get uncomfortable, feel a sense of separation and alienation, want them to go away, want to be somewhere else, get caught up in stories of how they are noisy/disrespectful/barbarians, notice muscles tensing up and the breath becoming more shallow, and on and on.

So more precisely, any attraction or aversion is a seeking or avoidance of the consequences of a triggered belief, which is a seeking or avoidance of triggering the belief, which is a seeking or avoidance of any triggers of the belief in the world.

Going back to noise, this is especially clear to me through shifting among experiencing the same type of noise as (a) neutral, (b) enjoyable, and (c) intolerable… all dependent on which stories are triggered, if any.

When there is a belief in a separate self, however subtle it may appear to be, any other story is filtered through this core story. Any other story, whether told to others or oneself, is tweaked just slightly to make this separate self look either a little better or worse than the rest of the world (as what it used to be, could have been, may be, what others are, and so on).

When there is a belief in the core story of a separate self, then every other story gets caught up in its gravity and is used to support and prop up that story of a separate self… as better or worse than the rest of the world.

And it is possible to see this in real time, as it happens, in a finely tuned and finely grained way…

It is easy to resist this, especially as we see more closely what the effects are of all of this (separation, alienation, being caught up in the rollercoaster), but that too is just another story used to prop up a sense of separate self. Resistance itself, or rather the identification with the resistance, comes from and supports a sense of a separate self… an “I” resisting something else.

Eventually, it brings a sense of a gridlock… everything grinds to a halt, with nowhere to go, no way out… with only grace as the only possibility, the grace of a release from a belief in this separate self, an I with an Other…. and no way to create or trigger this grace. It has to happen on its own, in its own time.

And, of course, wanting, looking forward to, expecting, hoping for, wishing for, even praying for this grace, is just another story propping up the sense of a separate self. A story about an I here that grace may happen to, one that is separate from grace and the results of the grace.

Which brings us back to the gridlock. And then the seeing of this gridlock, knowing it is what may invite grace to happen, so a looking forward to it, and then seeing that too as another story tweaked to support the sense of separate self.

And so it goes.

The process of going from the absolute and back to include the relative happens many times and at many scales.

As with so much else, it is clearly seen through The Work where we start out with a belief (a story taken as true, and clashing with what is), examine it to thoroughly which allows the attachment to naturally fall away, finding the freedom and spaciousness on the other side of the belief, and then finally being free to play with the story again - now without taking it as more than just a story.

It can also happen as part of our deepening process into what and who we are (especially into what we are). At some point, all the usual dramas most of us are caught up in do not seem so interesting anymore. We see through them, knowing that they all come from attachment to stories, and that what people try to find through them (lasting fullfilment, freedom from suffering) cannot be found that way. During this phase, it may be difficult to engage with these stories both in our own life, and also when it shows up through others.

But then, as the process moves on, there is again the freedom to engage with these stories as they emerge through others. Now, we do it from the heart, through our heart connection with others.

The stories themselves may not be so interesting, yet they become a great tool for connecting with others at the heart and human levels.

This also happens after the void awakens to itself… the void shows up in the form of a human being interacting with this human self, and the heart opens up - especially if there is suffering there, and the connection happens in any way available, including through small talk. The fullness comes through the heart connection, not from the content of what is being said. Or anything being said… the connection can be there even in silence, people together doing their own quiet things.

And it is really what is already happening. Connections between people are very often an attempt to connect at heart and human levels, and the content is less important. The weather, what was on TV last night, or gossip about a neighbor will do just fine.

If it looks, at the surface, as anything else than am attempt at a heart and human connection, it is usually because beliefs gets in the way. Beliefs that makes it appear as if something that is should be different, which creates resistance, drama and struggle - within and among us. She shouldn’t support Bush. I need to make a good impression. I need acceptance. I need that raise. He reminds me of my uncle who I am not on very good terms with.

I notice that there is more emptying out going on… and it is all an emptying out of identifications with thoughts. And in the process, for a while, there is very little engagement with those thoughts, which is reflected here in very little references to what other writes about, the aqal framework, Buddhist philosophy and so on. What is left is only what is alive here now, and the thoughts needed to reflect them.

It is just one phase, and in general, if it all empties out, then it fills up again, and where there was an attachment to and identification with thought, there is now a free play with and explorations of these thoughts. There is a freedom to explore them without identification. (But what happens in this case is of course still in the future, and itself only a thought.)

It is a funny thing, how the process of disidentification with a story sometimes goes along with a temporary reduced engagement with the story itself and maybe even the object of the story. I guess stepping away from the story, and sometimes its object, allows for an easier disidentification with it. And when it has been released, there is the freedom of engagement again.

For me, one of the stories that is being let go of is exactly this: that a process of letting go of identifications with stories does not need to involve letting go of the stories or the object of the stories. That too is just a belief, a temporary preference of this personality. Sometimes, that letting go of the stories themselves, and even the objects of them, seems to happen whether my personality wants it or not.

It is soon time to explore another theme than stories and beliefs, but for now, that is what still comes up…

Our personality is a collection of habitual patterns, and in particular likes and dislikes, and it is wonderful in that way. It creates a part of the richness of the human experience.

(more…)

I also had an opportunity to explore thoughts more… just noticing thoughts as thoughts, and leave it at that, without fueling them, without getting absorbed into their content.

And seeing all the many forms and levels of thoughts…

Seeing how thoughts mirror and mimic a sensory world... taking the form of each of the sense fields, such as sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and are really nothing beyond that. Yet, when attention goes to their content, and there is a fascination with the thoughts, they create a whole world without or independent of sensory input.

And also, the levels of thoughts.

There are the thoughts which we are most familiar with… clear, well defined, explicit

Then, the ones which are more subtle and transparent. For instance, there is a sound, and then a subtle image of a plane hovers for a while. Or a sound, and then a subtle image of a person walking on gravel. This normally happens outside of where attention goes, but is clear when attention is brought to it. It is the mind labeling experience, usually slightly outside of attention.

Then the level of thoughts where they are more like bubbles forming but not quite bursting. They are like the beginnings of burps that don’t go anywhere. A murmuring outside of what can be clearly resolved, even when attention is brought to it (this may change as it is explored further).

And then a level of thoughts and stories that form our most unquestioned, and unnoticed, beliefs. The belief in continuity, in space and time, in a separate self, and so on.

These beliefs can be mirrored at a more everyday thought level and explored there, and a great deal of valuable insights can come from it. But that, in itself, does not necessarily touch the deeper layer of stories.

As Fred, one of the teachers at the CSS retreat, said: our conscious thinking cannot create or prevent awakening. It has nothing to do with it.

There is a glimpse of this level when I do concentration/stabilization practice (for instance bringing attention to the breath). When an intention is added to it, there is sometimes a shift into a place “below” even many of the most basic stories, for instance that of continuity.

If music is playing it “falls into its own parts” and there is no sense of any continuity. There is a clear seeing of continuity of space and time as being created by a story of continuity. A story that pieces is all together creating the appearance of continuity.

(That is what Kant said too, but it is quite different - and startling at first - to directly, clearly, nakedly, see it.)

I assume this is the level where the story of I, as Joel calls it, sits as well. It is the realm of of most basic stories, the ones believed in at a level below what we usually take as beliefs. The ones our rational mind and conscious thinking cannot even touch. Our conscious thinking cannot create or prevent awakening. It has nothing to do with it.

The story of a separate self has to be released at that deep level… below the thoughts as clear and explicit, as subtle images, as little burps… 

Another sobering thing from the retreat: sharing the car with someone fascinated by what he is able to figure out with his mind, to the point of not seeing much beyond that… It is a good mirror for me. This blog, and what I write right here, is a good example of being caught up in fascination of the conceptual mind… one ounce of naked experience, and a pound of conceptualization…

Joel used the analogy of a printing press on this topic: what comes in white paper (naked experience), it goes through the printing press, and comes out as printed paper (conceptualized experience). Usually, we are stuck on the second end of the printing press, noticing only the conceptualized experience, experience filtered through stories. We may even read words on the paper saying “these are just words printed on a paper, and the paper itself is white and has nothing written on it” and still not see beyond the words.

At the same time, all it takes is only glimpse at the other end, and we know, from our own investigation, what naked experiences are. And that may help us not get so caught up in the stories about it. Especially if it happens over and over, so we get familiar with it.

I am back from the retreat, and what I am left with is seeing even clearer - in real time - how any story that is attached to creates a sense of a separate self.

The function of stories is to navigate the world, and they are great for that. But when attached to, it is as if the function of stories becomes to create and flesh out a sense of separate self. It goes for any story, even the most apparently innocent ones.

The Work is great for noticing this in a general way. But seeing it clearly, in real time, is different, and quite sobering…

(more…)

I am spending a good deal of time buying book treasures from used book stores, mostly on Buddhist and art subjects. I also belong to a Buddhist group and discover, to my horror, that they are selling these books to the public at give-away prices. I had intended only some books to be sold on, and the rest to be kept. Some of the books are rare finds, and may not even be appreciated by those buying them. Even as I try to explain the situation to the people selling them, more are sold.

This dream had a nightmarish quality… spending all that time identifying and buying book treasures, and then having them all sold off to the general public for next to nothing…!

The dream parallels two things in my life:

First, the giving away of my insights and skills freely, without asking for anything in return (including having volunteered a large number of hours for NWEI, and giving away a large number of Breema sessions for free).

The other, more specific to this retreat, a surrendering of conceptualized insights… seeing them for what they are, only thoughts. Only images and sounds created by the mind, arising and dissolving from and into nothingness.

Surrendering is inherent in the process of just seeing thoughts as thoughts, arising from and dissolving into nothingness.

There are many stories of obsessiveness, apparent disasters and waking up, mirroring (one version of) the awakening process.

Moby Dick is about one man’s obsessiveness with the white whale (God) which eventually drags him and his ship under (the death of a sense of separate I along with any other belief and identity), leaving only the ocean, the nondual awakening.

The Truman Show is about a man gradually intuiting that his life is a fabrication, the apparent disasters that happens when he attempts to break out (loss of identities and beliefs), and his final breaking out.

The Matrix trilogy is about a man first waking out of the conventional dream, and then through a great deal of struggle finding an awakening that goes beyond and embraces all polarities… Neo and Agent Smith (good and evil, persona and shadow), the machine world and Zion (mind and matter, also in its version of empty luminosity and form), the Matrix and the real world (deluded and awake).

I notice an unusual sensation in the stomach, and I see how different stories can be added to it.

One is of it as a sense of dread or uneasiness about my life or the world, which then creates that mood and atmosphere. Another is of having eaten an unusual combination of foods which made my stomach unsettled.

If I don’t pay attention, the first story surfaces, and other stories may be added to it to support the sense of uneasiness about my life or the world. And there is no lack of secondary stories which may support it and justify it.

If I pay a little more attention to what is going on, I see that it is far more likely that the sensation is coming from an unusual combination of foods. It is physical, and expected considering what I have been eating.

And if I look even closer, I see that either of these are simply a sensation + a story, a sensation with a story added to it.

Not seeing it, the sensation + story conglomerate seems very real… there is really an upset stomach there, or an uneasiness about the world. The sensations give a sense of substance to the story. Seeing it more clearly, the conglomerate falls into its components… simply sensations and a story, living their separate and distinct lives.

Looking at how the sense of substance is created, I see that it goes both ways: the story adds a sense of substance and reality to the sensations (holding them in place, solidifying them) and the sensations gives a sense of substance and reality to the stories (lending their own quality of substance to the stories).

As long as there is still a sense of a separate self hanging around, there will inevitably be inflation. Or more precisely, the inherent neutrality is split into a sense of being better and worse than the rest of the world.

Inflation can especially easily happen when the soul level surfaces in its many forms… as alive presence, indwelling God, luminosity, fertile darkness, luminous blackness, or in whatever other form it takes. On the inherent neutrality of all this, stories are placed, and they are inevitably believed in, to some extent at least… oh - I must be special since this is happening to me, finally - all my years of practice is paying off!, I know something others don’t, I am at a more advanced level than others, and so on. As usual, the variations are endless. And it will happen, even if we know, intellectually, the illusion and mistake that is behind it.

Technically, inflation is when the “ego” takes on something as its own, when it really doesn’t belong to the ego. The term “ego” here means (a) a belief in the story of a separate self, and (b) that sense of a separate self is then placed upon this human self. So all that is happening is that what occurs outside of that boundary is, to some extent, placed within the boundary, as if what is inside somehow possesses, or can take credit for, what is outside.

In Zen and some other traditions, they deal with it by not talking about it, and if a student brings it up, the teacher will ignore it, or (figuratively or literally) give the student a smack with the stick.

It works, to some extent, but is also a crude way of dealing with it. Most of the time, it just creates more confusion for the student.

To me, it seems more effective to (a) allow the inflation (it is there anyway, so may as well allow it), and (b) inquire into it to find what is already more true.

(more…)

I have always enjoyed figuring things out. (I was one of those kids who would take things apart and put them together again, with varying degrees of success, to see how they work.)

So, in the spirit of figuring things out, I am wondering why I enjoy figuring things out…

No matter what the area of exploration, the enjoyment is still there… unless it is temporarily clouded over by stress from deadlines or dire consequences of not figuring it out.

It can be making this WordPress blog work, exploring what works in relationships in general and with a particular person or group, exploring how the mind works, thinking through what is needed for winter camping, exploring how to train a specific cat using clicker training, or whatever else.

Here are some things that come to mind…

• Evolution
  There is a clear evolutionary advantage in enjoying exploring and figuring things out. It helps us solve problems when they arise, find new strategies to reach certain goals, and move beyond where we are in general. It is to great benefit to individuals to have this to some extent. On a group level, only some need to have this joy of exploration as a passion, and that is exactly what we see.
• Release
  Whenever we are faced with (something we define) as a problem, there is a certain tension there. Life is one way, and we would like it to be a different way. This tension is often experienced as unpleasant (which actually comes from a belief), so we are motivated to resolve the situation, which means to either change life itself, or our stories about it, or a combination. In either case, figuring out how to resolve it gives a sense of release, which we experience as pleasant (which actually comes from another belief).
• Socially
  There are also social aspects to the joy in exploring. It is a shared belief, at least in our culture, that exploring it a desirable thing… for its own sake, and also for what it produces. So when we explore, we are aligned with our own beliefs about what is desirable and good. It also means that explorers, in just about any area of life, are often admired (or at least approved of) by society.
• For its own sake
  Then there is the joy in exploring itself. What I find (and what I hear from others to who look into it) is that there is a quiet joy in experiencing itself, independent of the content of the experience. There also seems to be a joy inherent in exploration itself, although that may really come from what is described in the previous posts (and whatever is left out).

So all around, from biology, psychology, socially, and practically, there are benefits to exploring which all (can) trigger a sense of joy.

(more…)

My partner and I went to an intimate Jazz/folk club concert last night, with a relatively unknown but excellent singer-composer. We sat at one of the last available tables in a corner, next to someone who read a newspaper. I noticed how I had a story about it being impolite to read a newspaper at a concert. Others didn’t even talk among themselves but listened intently to the lyrics and music…! This stewed for a while, fueled by the sounds of the newspaper as he turned the pages.

Until life, as it sometimes does, brought up a complete reversal of the story.

During the intermission, I discovered that he was the husband of the performer. From what she had said about him from the stage (without mentioning that he was in the audience), and the song she had written about him, their relationship seemed very affectionate and mutually supportive, and he had even come with her from Texas as support. Later on, I even learned that he was the one who had encouraged her solo career (!).

It made me feel pretty stupid, and was also a reminder of the nature of stories… the mind creates stories (it’s its job), and these stories are just innocent questions. When we take them as anything more than that, we get caught up in them, and now the mind’s job is to make them appear true… by finding evidence and create supporting stories. And this, inevitably, creates a sense of something being off, even suffering sometimes.

I read ~C4Chaos‘ post on cults, which is a topic it is good for people with weird interests (like myself) to explore.

I remember that even back in high school, I realized that I belonged to different cults, and always would.

As Byron Katie says, a cult is two people agreeing.

So yes, I am in lots of cults… some of them are called integral, Buddhist, Christian, people who think Arvo Part is great, people who like strawberries, people who like a clean house, people who think people shouldn’t lie, western culture, and the human cult (I am sure other species could easily see us as a dangerous cult, if they had stories going the way we do).

Some of the trademarks of a cult is (a) people within it agree and think they are right, (b) others believe other things and see them as misguided, and (c) they potentially harm themselves and others.

On each of these points, all of the ones I listed above are cults. And we all belong to lots of cults.

• All the ones listed, and many others, consist of people who agree. Who believe a certain thing, and support that belief with all sorts of evidence, including others agreeing.
• All are contrasted by other groups of people who disagree and see them as misguided, at best.
• And any belief is stressful, at best, and harm ourselves and others in different ways.

This is true of integral, Buddhist, people who like a clean house, and even people who like (something as apparently innocent as) strawberries.

In short, they are cults.

So that is why I am in a cult. But the reversal is also true, and equally important to explore.

I am not in a cult, since I am (sometimes) open to explore my beliefs… to lighten the hold on them, even to let them go when I see clearer what is going on. And few of these are groups that, at least intentionally, harm others (with the exception of the human cult, which often is quite dangerous to itself and other species).

And I am also of course free to explore and play around with the conventional definitions of cults… Buddhist and Christians are not, because they are too mainstream (they were cults when they were smaller, and still may be seen as cults when they are in a significant minority… such as Zen in Utah). People who like strawberries are not because it is (appears!) too innocent. Humans… well, maybe they are, from the view of many other species.

So I can explore and go along with, to different extents, all these conventional ways of looking at cults… but now, with less need to protect or defend particular beliefs and identities around them. I can be more fluid with it, seeing the (limited) truth in any of the ways we can play with the story of cults, including free to see the truth in how I am in lots of cults, and also how I am not.

I find it very interesting how tension allows for, and amplifies, beliefs.

A sensation combined with a thought, allows for a belief.. a story taken as true… in several different ways.

• It creates a sense of a center in space, located somewhere in this physical body.
• This sense of center allows for a split of space, into I here and Other out there. I is now somewhere in/around this physical body, and Other is the rest of the world of form.
• This split also allows for the appearance of “right” here (in what is now me) and “wrong” out there (in what is now life, the world, others)
  • And in addition to right/wrong, it allows for any polarity to be split, with one pole here and the other out there… male/female, good/bad, desirable/undesirable, and so on.
  • It also allows for the appearance of I as a thing, and no-thing (void) as Other, and even awareness as Other (something that is somehow possessed by this human self)
• The sensation also gives a sense of base for action in the world (including resistance to experiences), which in turn supports a sense of an I here and Other there, and the appearance of a doer placed upon the doing

If an appropriate sensation is not available, the appropriate muscles tense up to make it available.

And if the sensation/story complex needs to be amplified, it can be done by tensing up further to amplify the sensation, and also by amplifying the story through additional supporting stories.

(Also, a sensation, when amplified by tension, creates a sense of density in space… a sense of something solid and substantial, which provides a more solid companion for the story, which in turn allows the story itself to appear as more solid, real and substantial.)

As I have mentioned before, it seems almost comical when seen… which is also why the whole appearance of a belief (and the content of the belief, such as a separate self) tends to fall apart when clearly seen in this way.