It seems helpful to investigate stories before and after Ground awakening.

The benefits are perhaps most obvious before awakening, when we believe stories, take them as true. In this case, investigating beliefs invites in a healing and maturing of our human self, and also releases identification out of them so it is easier for what we are to notice itself.

But the benefits are there also after (stable) awakening, when we already see stories as just mental field creations. As tools of practical value only, an aid for our human self to function in the world, and as pointers for what we are to notice itself.

If we don’t continue to investigate stories here, we tend to stick with the ones we already know the practical value of and dismiss the rest. We have a quite limited repertoire of stories we recognize as having practical value. (This is maybe most easily noticed in teachers who come out of a particular tradition, and have a hard time recognizing/acknowledging the value in how other traditions and teachers do it. Or teachers/awakened ones who come from a specific culture, and have trouble appreciate the norms and customs of other cultures.)

And if we continue to investigate stories, we can find the practical value in each of them and our repertoire expands. There is a sense of universal appreciation of stories, independent of their content. And also a lightly-held sense of when and how - in daily life and practice - each of them may be helpful. (I see this most easily in Byron Katie and Adyashanti, and also - growing into it through the Big Mind process - Genpo Roshi.)
(more…)

One of the beautiful things about inquiry is that it meets people where they are. It is a gentle, organic process, working with what is there in terms of content and dynamics.

This is easily seen in The Work.

I have a knot. A belief with its associated emotions and behaviors.

It clashes with my stories of what is, and there is stress.

I notice this stress in whatever form I tend to most easily notice it. For me, it is often a sense of contraction and tension of body and mind. A sense of unease and discomfort. A sense of something (an identity, position) to protect.

I find the story behind the stress.

I inquire into it.

I find answers that are more true for me than the initial story.

I notice who I am without that belief.

I take my new insights into daily life. This includes the validity in the reversals of the initial story, and I hold all of those in whatever way that makes most sense to me right now.

And all of this changes over time. It changes as I heal, mature and notice more what I really am. As knots unravel, the knots behind them surface and I can inquire into them.

It works only with what is here. With what surfaces naturally, in daily life. With the answers and insights that are true for me here now. It all unfolds in a very gentle and organic way, working with the material present.

Vince has a good post on ways teachers and traditions sometimes speak about enlightenment, and what types of dynamics it may set up in the group.

The verbal level is of course important, partly because it sets up maps people use to navigate by.

Yet, something else is as important: The tools we are given. First, to have an immediate taste of what we are. Then, to work with beliefs and stories directly, no matter what they are about.

The tools I am familiar with here are the ones I have written about many times before.

Some tools for inviting in a taste of enlightenment include headless experiments and the Big Mind process. These give a taste of what we are and ways to explore it for ourselves, although obviously not with the same clarity as a full blown awakening. Doing this can be helpful in letting go of some of the more exotic ideas about enlightenment. What we are is something that is quite simple, available to be noticed here now, and not really out there in others or the future.

And there are also good tools available to help us unravel beliefs and stories about enlightenment, teachers or anything else. The Work helps us explore the effects of beliefs, and find what is already more true for us. And exploring the sense fields helps us see thought as thought, and how an overlay of thought on each of the sense fields create gestalts. It also helps us find ourselves as what we are, outside of what any story tells us.

At least for me, having and using these tools - with some sincerity - is far more important than any models, mainly because they first help me explore the terrain for myself, and then because they help me unravel beliefs and attachments to any story and identity.

Also, any model can become a belief, an identification with a story. So it is helpful to work with any model we are presented with - or come up with on our own - in this way, no matter how accurate it appears to be. In a conventional sense, some models are more accurate, meaning they have more practical value. But really, all models are equally far away from what they appear to be about.

I also see that I personally prefer practices aligned with awakening, but with an emphasis on the practical and day to day aspects of it. So in that sense, I would be more in the “no need to talk about it too much” camp. (Although I obviously explore it quite a bit here, but that is on my own.)

(more…)

We can have trust in something, but if we do we depend on whatever we have trust in being available to us, and we are also likely to be disappointed.

Another approach is to realize that this trust awakened in us by something in the world, is right here now. It can be found independent on circumstances. And it is really just trust. Not in anything in particular. Or maybe, in life, existence, what is.

One way it may emerge is through certain explorations, such as wholeheartedly allowing any experience, and being open to investigating any belief.

When I wholeheartedly allow what I am experiencing right now, especially those experiences that seem the most scary, I find that it is OK. I can be with it, allow it, as it is, as if it would never change. It may be more than OK.

Even as the content of experience stays much the same, there may also be a shift into a sense of nurturing fullness and a quiet joy. A quiet joy in just experiencing, independent of the content of experience, revealed when I don’t struggle against it.

And when I investigate beliefs, including those that seem most untouchable or create the most stress for me, I find that the belief, and what it refers to, also are OK. And again, it may be more than OK. I may find the gifts in the reversals of the initial belief, a release of identification out of the initial story and its reversals, and clarity.

In both cases, I may find a genuine appreciation for what is, as it is.

There is a receptivity of the heart and mind, and this invites in a sense of trust in nothing in particular, or in what is, as it is.

And this trust eventually is experienced in the belly center. It becomes a deeply felt trust. A sense of nurturing fullness of the belly center, and in experience in general.

What does it mean to be fearless?

Going into danger while throwing caution to the wind? Pushing away fear and pretending it is not there? Manipulating experience so fear will not arise? Acting in spite of fear?

For me, it has to do with going directly into that which I fear the most.

To fully allow any experience, no matter how scary it seems. To be with it, independent of its content, including the resistance itself, as if it would never change.

And to investigating any belief and story that comes up for me, however dear it may be to me and however much the world may tell me it is true, and find what is more true for me.

Through this there is a growing trust.

A trust that comes through seeing that any experience is OK, no matter how scary it may seem when I resist it.

And a trust that comes from thoroughly investigate any belief, including the most scary and apparently true ones, and find the complete innocence and freedom that is already there, waiting for the investigation.

A trust that comes from receptivity of heart and mind.

Finally, it has to do with finding myself as that which any experience, and any story, happens within, to and as, independent of the particulars of its content.

The facilitation sheet for The Work has some excellent subquestions to help us look at beliefs in a more detailed way.

If you are familiar with The Work, what additional subquestions do you find helpful? Please share by leaving a comment.

Below are some additional subquestions I have found helpful, one - at least - from Byron Katie, and a couple from other facilitators.

1. Is it true?
   • What is your evidence?
2. Can you absolutely know it is true?
3. How do you react when you think that thought?
   • What are you not able to appreciate when you hold onto that belief?
   • What feelings do you get to avoid when you hold onto that belief?
4. Who would you be without the thought?
   • What are you able to appreciate?
   • From this space of […], are you ready to go to the turnarounds?

The impostor syndrome is apparently quite common these days, and maybe for good reasons. After all, almost no matter which area we work in, most of us know only a fraction of the knowledge that is out there, and we know very well that even all current human knowledge is only a fraction of all possible knowledge. We are only scratching a surface that is only scratching yet another surface. It was simpler when most folks were farmers, fishermen and craftsmen.

We feel like an impostor, because it is true! No matter what we do, independent of culture and setting, it is true in several different ways. And it is a perceived problem only if it is not seen through, when it is only half explored.

So one way of working with it is to more thoroughly see how it is true, with specific examples. This takes out the stress of feeling that we have to defend against the story that we are an impostor.

Then, we can explore equally thoroughly how the reverse is true, in what ways are we not an impostor. And that takes out the stress of being stuck in just one of the permutations of the impostor story.

We are freed out of the dynamic through seeing that each permutation has some truth in it, and none is close to having the whole picture.

(more…)

Another dimension of practice is whether we emphasize the universal or the specific.

Do we emphasize the universal, that which is valid for everyone at any time? I tend to gravitate towards these tools, such as The Work, headless experiments and the Big Mind process.

Or do we emphasize that which is specific to where someone is in the process of discovering who they are as a human self, or what they are as that which experience happens within, to and as?

There are benefits and drawbacks to each.

If we emphasize the universal, it has the obvious benefits of being inclusive, accessible, and offering pointers and tools we can use at any point in the process of discovering who and what we are. It helps us see that we all are in the same boat. It makes it relatively simple for us.

The drawback is that people sometimes needs pointers and tools specific to where they are, it may be easy to think we are somewhere in the process we are not (mistaking a glimpse for a stable noticing, or unity for nondual), and there can be a lack of differentiation and clarity about the dynamics of the process as it unfolds over time.

If we emphasize that which is specific to where people are, it has the obvious benefit of being tailored (if skillfully done), it helps people see where they are in the overall process, and it can help differentiate the different states and stages.

The drawbacks include ignoring or overlooking the universal, getting caught up in maps, and getting caught up in competitiveness.

In practice, of course, both are usually included. If we emphasize the universal, it is usually presented in a way tailored to and specific to where someone is, and a good teacher will know from experience what is helpful. If we emphasize the specific, it is often placed in the context of the universal, in terms of what is universally valid for anyone and any time, and the universality of how the process unfolds over time.

(more…)

It is interesting how delusion and clarity sometimes look similar to each other, at least on the surface.

For instance, if I don’t seem too rattled by a certain experience, it can be interpreted as stoic or coming from clarity.

But there is of course a big difference under the surface.

In the first case, I come from a belief, and resist experience and the truth in the reversals of the initial belief. I tell myself I have to be strong, or not show emotions, so I resist whatever I am experiencing, and am not receptive to the truths in the reversals of that particular story.

In the second case, I fully allow experience and the truths in the reversals of whatever stories apply to the situation. I am not at war with what is, but come from clarity.

(more…)

When I work on beliefs through inquiry, significant shifts sometimes happen during or in the days or weeks or months following the inquiry, or set of inquiries. The shift in views usually happen right away, and sometimes are filled in as times goes by. And they are also sometimes in the felt sense. It is as if the body gets it, knows it, feels it.

One of my topics for inquiry has been a retaining wall project, which in a conventional sense has been a big mistake. We received bad advice up front, started on a very time consuming and expensive project, and now have to redo it and go back to a much simpler solution. (Which is what we wanted initially anyway.) So it seems like a big mistake, and one that was costly in terms of time and money. It is a mistake, in a conventional sense.

But it also helped me see, feel and love how mistakes are part of any process. They are not something that happens that shouldn’t have, or somehow is extraneous to the process. They are intrinsic to and embedded in the process. In this case, they are what needed to happen for the simpler wall to be built. I don’t only see it, as I did earlier, but there is a shift in my body sense of it, how it is felt in the body. The truth of it is now, also, in the body.

For many of these insights, seeing it doesn’t take much. It is often just part of conventional wisdom. But it is something entirely different to genuinely love and feel it, be at peace with it, and even enjoy and appreciate it.

From being stressed out about it, losing some sleep over it at times, and seeing it as a problem, I now see it as a support. It is not only intrinsic to this process of building the simpler wall that we need and want, but it has helped me to feel how mistakes are intrinsic to any process. They are what needs to happen for something to get accomplished, and sometimes not accomplished.

This is another of those topics that seem so simple and childish on the surface, but goes to the core of our life and who or what we take ourselves to be. (I seem to specialize in those…!)

Any story is a tool. One that helps our human self orient and function in the world, or as a guide to awakening. And as any other tool, it has no value beyond the practical.

It is easy to see when we look at physical tools, like a hammer, or nails. We see that they have a purely practical function. They help us in daily life. And they have no value beyond that. If they didn’t help us, we wouldn’t use them or even bring attention to them.

(more…)

I went to a Process Work class today with Arny Mindell, and noticed again how important it is to embody whatever insights come up, to feel it in the body, to act from it, to discover how it moves and talks, to become it with all of me.

And then realized that I can do this with the turnarounds in The Work too. I find a turnaround and take some time finding the truth in it (as usual). Then, I shift into and become the figure (voice, subpersonality) that has that turnaround story, the one who sees the world in that way, and feel how it is to be it, to move as it, to speak as it.

I can also explore what it has to say. How does the world look from that perspective? What insights does it have? How can it help this human self? Does the human self listen to what it has to say? How would it be if this human self lived from it? And finally, after going through all of the turnarounds, shift into the place (figure, voice) that holds all of them, and use each one freely. What does this one have to say?

It may be helpful to go through all of the turnarounds first, in the usual The Work way, and then take the most juicy ones and explore them in this way.

This is an interesting, and possibly useful (or not), way of combining The Work (the four questions and the turnarounds), Process Work (the embodiment, with movements, voice and more), and Voice Dialog/the Big Mind Process (speaking as it, explore questions as it.)

This combines some of the strengths of each: From The Work, its simplicity, its clear structure, and how easy it is to find stressful beliefs to work with. From Process Work, how deeply it is felt. From the Big Mind process, the refinement of the questions and the diverse and in-depth exploration that can take place.

Our best friends are often the ones who contradict our stories, the stories we are familiar with, used to, and sometimes attached to or identified with. It invites us to find the truth in all the reversals, harvest practical insights from each, release identification with any one, and even taste the inherent neutrality of the situation.

Instead of being identified with our familiar stories, needing to defend them as true and against the truth in their reversals, they now become tools of practical value. Instead of missing out of the truth in the reversals, I can harvest nutrients from these truths. The ones I didn’t see earlier because I was too busy attaching to, building up, maintaining and defending my familiar stories.

So when I read “I am usually not a fan of MoE” I thought it would be a great opportunity to explore how this is true for me. In what ways am I not a fan of MoE (this blog)? And in what ways is he not a fan of MoE? And others?

There is gold in each story that come out of those questions.

And as anything else here, it is more universal than just what I can get out of it. Anyone can explore this for themselves, and find their own gold.

A quick way of finding good stories to work with is to ask what am I most ashamed of? What am I most afraid to hear? What am I afraid someone will tell me? Which stories, about me or anything else, do I feel I need to defend against?

I don’t know, yet, what Tom doesn’t like about this blog. But whatever it is, chances are I have thought the same myself. And not knowing specifically what he doesn’t like gives me a good opportunity to project onto him what these stories may be, so I can see my own stories about myself.

(And these stories are not just about me. They are stories everything is filtered through. My wife. My parents. My friends. My teachers. Anyone I hear about or meet. Life itself. The universe. God. Whatever happens gets filtered through these same stories.)

Before I go into my own stories about MoE, what stories do you have about MoE? Don’t hold back if you share them with me (which would be great), I have probably thought it myself. Probably more often than you have

Feel free to post a comment with any stories about how it would be better if MoE… Or the way you complain about MoE in your own mind. Any advice that comes up. Or when you are not a fan of MoE.

You can then take these stories to inquiry, and see what is, already, more true for you than these stories. Or rather, in addition to these stories, because our familiar ones have truths as well.

(more…)

There are of course stage specific tools, both teachings and practices, and these have practical value.

But at the same time, I can’t help noticing that the tools I am currently using are not stage specific. They can be used by anyone, from novices to people familiar with the terrain, from those firmly in grips of a great deal of beliefs to those verging on the border of selfless realization.

The Big Mind process can be helpful at any stage of the path, inviting our human self to function better in the world, refining our insights into dynamics, finding ourselves as Big Mind/Heart, and bringing it more fully into the life of this human self.

The Work can be used by anyone, including children, those with few beliefs apart from a subtle one of being a separate I, and also those from whom awakeness is awake to itself, helping them gain a more detailed insight into the dynamics of stories and their effects.

Allowing experience can be used by anyone, at any time. Can I be with what I am experiencing right now? Can I fully allow it, wholeheartedly, in a heartfelt way, as if it would never go away? Can I allow it all, including resistance and what is resisted? This invites a release of identification with resistance, and a release of identification out of content of experience in general. It also helps us notice how content of experience appears one way when resisted, and often a quite different way when allowed.

Headless experiments can be used by anyone, and most of them can be used any time and any situation. We find ourselves as headless, as the no-thing that things arise within, to and as. And we explore how this is lived through our human self.

Exploring the sense fields can be done by anyone, at least after a short period of inviting in a more stable attention. It helps us explore impermanence, notice thoughts as just thoughts, noticing the difference between attention absorbed into the inside of thoughts and not, exploring how thoughts form gestalts with the other sense fields that may seem very substantial and real, and much more.

Each of these are tools available to anyone, with just some basic pointers. Most of them are largely self-regulating, having built-in feedback mechanisms to guide us. All of them can be used by novices and those more familiar with the terrain, up to selfless realization and beyond.

When I revisit old inquiries, I sometimes notice how there is more receptivity of heart, mind and feelings.

It is as if the initial inquiry opened the door just a little, and this allowed, over time, the door to open more fully.

An example is this inquiry, which I just went back to because of a comment posted there, and realizing that there is more receptivity of heart, mind and feelings here now, around this topic.

This prompted me to explore one of the turnarounds again, from what is alive here now, finding it far richer this time, and feeling, loving and seeing it more fully and clearly.

I read a great post from Vince on how to relate to accusations.

One thing I would like to add to the list is gaining insight from the content of the accusations. In this way, we benefit from the content, and the other person benefits from feeling heard and acknowledged.

(Few things are as annoying as being caught up in reactivity and sharing it with someone who just goes into equanimity without relating to the content of what we have to say.)

Anything anyone has to say about us has, inevitably, some grain of truth in it.

How can I find it in myself? Can I find three or more examples in my own life where it is genuinely true for me, maybe even in how I relate to this person right now?

Why is it better that this person said this in exactly this way? Can I find three genuine examples of why it is better?

It can be very helpful to explore the chains leading up to reactive emotions, rigid views, and desires.

One at a time, asking the question and waiting for an answer to come up.

When I do this, I find that whatever beliefs are there, whatever stories I am identified with, go back to the central belief, or sense of, a separate I, an I with an Other.

I find that whatever reactive emotions are there lead back to fear. Fear for the survival of this human self. Fear for pain and suffering.

I find that whatever surface desire is there leads back to a desire for happiness, and freedom from suffering.

And I find that all of this goes back to love. Love for this human self and whatever is within its circle of us.

And I see that all of this is pure innocence. An innocence in adopting beliefs from my surroundings. An innocence in the fear that is there naturally when there is a sense of a separate I. An innocence in the desire for happiness and freedom from suffering. An innocence in the love we already are, filtered through the boundary of us. And an innocence in where this boundary of us is placed, coming from culture and maturity.

The risk in writing this is that this too becomes another belief. Another place we go in our stories to create a sense of security, of having figured it all out.

And one remedy is in taking the time for the questions to sink in and the answers to surface. Going through one at a time, not knowing where it will lead. Trusting what comes up.

Sincerely exploring this for ourselves, inviting in curiosity and receptivity. Inviting in an open heart. Inviting in a bodily felt sense of the questions and the answers that surface. Allowing experience in a wholehearted way.

Seeing that any answer is really a question, even if the question mark initially seemed to be left out.

And also investigating our beliefs around all this, including the belief of I know, through The Work or another form of inquiry.

I took the time to read some integral blogs today, and found some of the usual comments about “radical relativism” which I am sure many would apply to The Work. It helped me differentiate something that is pretty obvious, and we all know, but it may be good to clarify it for ourselves as well.

There are two ways of relating to and working with stories.

One is inquiry, such as The Work. I find a belief, or actually any story would do, and investigate it using the four questions and the turnarounds. And in the turnarounds, I find the genuine truth for me in each of them, with at least three examples of how it is already true in my own life. These stories then are equal to me, in that I can find the truth in each of them, I see they are all stories, and I also notice the inherent neutrality of the situation behind the stories.

And all of this has one purpose: to invite in a release of identification with any of these stories. To see that each of them are tools of practical value only. To not get blindly caught up in them and the drama of right and wrong and identification with them.

The other way of relating to stories is as tools. Tools of practical value for this human self, living its life in the world. Here, of course, the stories are not equal. Although there is some truth in each one, and each one can be useful in a particular situation, some have more explanation power than others, some are more compassionate than others, some are more elegant and gets the work done more effectively than others. Which one is a better tool depends on the situation, and also on where I am and what is available to me in terms of insights, experience, skills and so on.

Together, there is a freedom from identification with stories, which helps us live our lives with more clarity, kindness and insight. And there is a freedom in which stories we use, for practical purposes.

In the first case, there is an equality of the stories. It has to be, if we are honest with ourselves, and if we are to invite identification to release out of the stories.

In the second case, there is clearly not an equality among the stories. Some are more appropriate than others in any given situation, and we choose the best we can based on what tools  are available to us currently.

As I said initially, this is pretty obvious. Anyone who has done The Work or similar inquiries knows this at some level, even if they have not clarified it for themselves in this way. Using stories as tools of practical value, whether we identify with them or not, is what we naturally do. We cannot help it.

(more…)

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…)

Byron Katie has a very effective way of finding beliefs and generating statements for inquiry:

Write down one of the things you are most ashamed of in your life. Something you like the least to share with others and yourself.

Then, write down a list of what this means.

Say the initial statement is that I lied to a friend. And that means that I can’t be trusted, I betrayed our friendship, I am a lousy friend, he wouldn’t want anything to do with me if he knew, I am a bad person, I am confused, I put myself ahead of others, and so on.

Then select one or more of these that have the most charge, or do all of them one at a time, and take them to inquiry. Is it true? Sure? What happens when I believe that thought? Who would I be without them? What are the reversals, and the genuine truths in each of them?

There are different literal and metaphorical interpretations of this perplexing statement by Jesus:

If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Here is one way of looking at it that makes sense to me:

When we believe in stories, we are identified with them and try to defend and protect them. If someone says something that goes against these, we automatically defend them and create drama around it. We act from a fixed view, a closed heart, reactive emotions.

Yet, when there is a release of identification with these stories, when there is only clarity, there is no need to defend and protect them. We know they have only limited and practical value, we are familiar with the truths in their turnarounds. Instead of defending against what someone says, we can join with it. We see the truth in it.

(more…)

Some common and less common stories about The Work, and how they are not true, true, and true about me.

The Work… is pollyannish, superficial, cognitive therapy, rationalization, affirmations, pacifying, makes you into a doormat, and is heartless.

• The Work is pollyannish
  • The Work is not pollyannish: No, it helps me discover what is already more true for me. If anything, it is sobering. It helps me look at situations from many different angles, including some I have resisted in the past, and get a fuller and more nuanced picture.
  • The Work is pollyannish: It is in that it reveals the complete innocence behind any story and belief. It does also help find the good in anything, but only as part of a bigger picture, and only as one story overlaid on an inherently neutral situation.
  • I am pollyannish: Well, yes. When I believe a story I am pollyannish in the sense of being naive. I naively take that story to be true, accurate, substantial, and act as if it is. Also, I am pollyannish/naive if I believe things about The Work or any other practice, if I rely on preconceived ideas of what I will find, and if I go to those ideas instead of what is alive here now.

(more…)

Byron Katie had a good additional question during the workshop on Saturday:

If the universe is a friendly place, why would ….? (Fill in with the topic of the initial belief.)

This is quite similar to Joanna Macy’s exercise called My Choices for This Life, or the Bodhisattva Check-In, where we explore why we chose to be as a human being in this moment of history, and then explore this more in detail with the particulars of this human life. How does it all contribute to this life, with its particular insights, gifts, opportunities?

Both are of course just thought experiments, a way of framing our experience in a different way.

And at the same time, both mimic how it appears when Big Mind, and especially Big Heart, awakens to itself. When Big Mind/Heart is awake to itself, we naturally see the life of this human self in the context of the universe as friendly, and the particulars of our life as gifts to open our heart and mind.

But there is no need to make it into a belief. If it is not alive in immediate experience, it can be explored as just a thought experiment. A what if, and then see what comes out of it.

As a subquestion in The Work, it may fit immediately before or after the turnarounds when our view is already quite open and receptive.

Byron Katie briefly mentioned the difference between personal boundaries and clarity during the workshop, and it is a topic that has been of interest to me for a while.

If I create and act from a sense of personal boundaries, there is a sense of something to protect, separation, precariousness, and fear.

If I act from clarity, there is a sense of intimacy, no separation, kindness, trust, peace.

The interesting thing is that my actions in the world don’t necessarily look so different in the two cases. I am in both cases more than capable of giving a clear yes or no, of taking care of myself, of being firm and even forceful when needed.

The difference is in my experience of it. In the first case, of coming from a sense of separation, precariousness, fear. And in the second case, from clarity, kindness, intimacy.

If I am clear, I don’t need to worry about boundaries. But if  I am not, they are certainly useful. And the stress that goes with trying to create, maintain and live from personal boundaries may encourage me to find another way, for instance through inquiry and clarity.

My partner and I stayed at a hot springs place near Ashland for a couple of nights, and she overheard a stressful (to her) conversation one morning, a woman complaining about Gangaji’s followers and why they can’t see how she is no better than them. (Meaning that they already have everything they see in her.)

So she first turned it around for the woman speaking, and then applied it to herself. I can’t see how Gangaji is no better than me. First, it helped her see that the woman gave advice to herself. Then, it helped her find the truth of it for herself. And in this double insight, the stress went out of the situation.

This is a great way of working with the complaints of others. Find the turnaround. See how it applies to the person talking. (The advice is for themselves.) And then see how it applies to me. (The advice is really for me.)

And there is another turnaround here: People go to see Gangaji because they know, somewhere, that she is them. They know, somewhere, that what they see in her is what they know from themselves, they want to be reminded about this, so they go to see Gangaji.

That is of course the case with any teacher or idol. We seek their company, one way or another, because we know, somewhere, that everything we see in them is something we recognize from ourselves. Being with them is a way of finding it in ourselves, whether we are aware of that process or not.

Beyond just teachers and people we admire and look up to, it is true for anyone we experience attraction or aversion to. Our attention goes to them, because we know, somewhere, that what we see in them is something we have in ourselves. Getting familiar with it out there is a way of being familiar with it, and recognizing it, right here. It is a way of becoming familiar with our own fullness.

One way of working more consciously with this is to first visualize whomever we experience attraction or aversion to, then visualize ourselves as them (body-mind-action), and take the time to feel it, allow it to sink in, and feel the fullness of it.

We went to a workshop with Byron Katie in Ashland this weekend (9 inches of snow Sunday!), and I appreciate how she goes right into The Work without any introduction or talk about philosophy. She asked how many had never tried it before, then asked us to fill out a “what I complain about” worksheet, did the process with a few participants, and then had us facilitate each other.

Someone asked me about The Work earlier tonight, and I told her the story of how I got into it.

A couple of years back, I visited a friend of mine in Salt Lake City that I hadn’t seen for a while. He has had chronic fatigue syndrome for as long as I have known him, and had always looked tired, worn down, exhausted. This time, when he opened the door, he was radiant. I asked him if the chronic fatigue was gone and he said “no, but I am not bothered by it anymore”.

He had found peace with the symptoms, and instead of working against the symptoms was now working with it. He would rest when he needed, work when he could, and the drama had gone out of it.

I thought that if it had worked so well for him, who had decades of experience with Buddhism and other approaches, it would be interesting for me to try it as well. He gave me some worksheets, I tried it without much initial success, he facilitated me so I could get a taste of it, and I have stayed with it since.

Initial draft…

Some forms of inquiry…

First we have the ones focusing on awakeness itself, on awakeness noticing itself, such as the Big Mind part of the Big Mind process, the headless experiments, other forms of pointing out instructions, and - to some extent - question number four in The Work. We can also explore the content of awareness, see that it is all content, coming and going on its own time, yet something is not coming and going? What is it?

Then, on explorations of the sense fields, differentiating sensations, sounds, smells, taste and thought, how thoughts combine with the other sense fields to create gestalts that in themselves may look very real and substantial, and seeing thoughts as just thoughts.

Then, all the ones that invite us to investigate the nature of thoughts, such as investigations of sense fields, headless experiments, the Big Mind process, and The Work. Through these, we get to see the nature of thoughts as mimicking the other sense fields, as ephemeral, insubstantial, as just tools of practical value for this human self. And we get to see what happens when these thoughts are taken as more than just thoughts, when they are believed in, forms unquestioned gestalts with the other sense fields, and their content appears substantial and real.

Then, the ones that focuses on the content of thought, such as The Work, investigating beliefs in detail.

And one that is involved in most forms in inquiry, and also in how these writings come about: Allowing a question to sink in, as a seed, and an answer to surface later on its own time. A question comes up, is allowed to sink in, and something then surfaces seconds, minutes, hours, days or weeks later.

Inquiries can be structured, such as the Big Mind process and The Work, and also the headless experiments and exploring the sense fields, where the outcome is - to some extent - known in advance, if not by us then by others who have done it for themselves.

Or they can be more open, where attention just follows what happens with quiet interest and curiosity, allowing it to unfold, reveal itself, lead us along its own path, to something different, new, unexpected. We can do this with whatever arises, either informally in this way, or using specific techniques such as in Process Work.

And then there are some general pointers and orientations that are shared by many of these forms of inquiry, such as interest, curiosity, sincerity, receptivity, a stable attention, willingness to discover something unexpected, taking time and allow the questions and what comes up to sink in, inviting in the heart and a felt-sense of what is happening, allowing our human self to reorganize within the process, and so on.

There are also a group of inquiries I am not sure where fit in, for instance asking ourselves Adyashanti’s question what do I hope to get out of this? and is it true that this is not already here? This is a structured investigation, helping us to see what is already here. (Which they all do, by the way.)

We all shift into different views and identities throughout the day, fluidly, depending on the situation. We may not always like it, and sometimes we do, but it happens anyway.

We shift into different voices or subpersonalities, taking on their perspectives, seeing and feeling the world from their viewpoints, relating to the world from their place.

And that is why we can shift in this way on command (or invitation) as well, sometimes with surprising ease, for instance in the context of voice dialog or the Big Mind process.

But what are those voices? Are they little men, women, animals, creatures, living in us, pulling our strings?

Here is a quick summary of what comes up for me when I look…

• Each voice (subpersonality) is created from a story or combination of stories.
  • The story of separation creates fear.
  • The story of need creates wants.
  • The story of an identity gives flavor to attractions and aversions.
  • The story of loss creates sadness.
  • The story of wrong creates anger.
  • The story of lack creates seeking.
  • The story of fullness creates non-seeking.
• Each voice has its own perspective, viewpoint, and filters the world in a particular way.
• There are story, emotional and action components to each voice, all following from the initial story.
• Voices can be identified with, disowned, or owned, familiar and free to function yet not taken as an “I”.
  • When voices are closely identified with, there is a belief in the stories creating them. (This tends to lead to a disowning of the polar opposite voices, and the validity of the reversals of the story.)
  • When voices are disowned, the validity of the stories creating them is also disowned.
  • When voices and their polar opposites are all familiar and owned, there is a fluidity among them. Each one is free to function when needed, and none of them are taken as an “I”.
• These voices and stories can be identified with or not.
  • We are identified with a voice when we disown its polar opposites, just as we believe in a story when we deny the validity of its reversals. The voices and stories are taken as an I, we get caught up in the drama of it, and it all seems very real.
  • Identification is released out of a voice when we embrace, own and become familiar with it and all of its opposites, just a belief is released when we find the validity of its reversals. In this case, there is a fluidity among them, each one available to come out when the situation calls for it. From a voice appearing as “I” and a story as the absolute truth, they are revealed as simply tools for this human self to operate in the world.

So in the Big Mind process, we explore all the different voices, the gestalts of stories, emotions and behaviors created from an initial, often quite simple, story. We gradually disidentify with those we are overly identified with. We become familiar with and own those that were previously disowned. We find a larger space holding voices at each end of the polarities and find a new fluidity among them. Our identity expands to hold and be comfortable with more and more voices.

In The Work, there is a quite similar process. We find a belief and question it, finding what is already more true for us. Our identification releases out of the initial story and expands to embrace the validity of all of its reversals as well. We find a new fluidity among and within this initial story and each of its reversals.

And each of those stories have its own gestalt. They each have associated emotions and behaviors. So we (are invited to) find a new familiarity and fluidity with these as well, in our daily life.

Each of these gestalts, these voices, are more familiar, owned, part of the active repertoire of our human self. There is more of a fluidity among them in daily life. And less identification with them.

They just happen. Living their own life, on their own schedule. There is no “I” there, anywhere.

(more…)

As with other practices, The Work often seem to work best if the three centers are included.

Thinking about it as the three centers can be a little too abstract and removed from direct experience. (I only use the three centers when I organize experiences here on this journal.)

Instead, we can explore it in a more immediate and practical way… as allowing experience, staying with what is happening, bringing in the heart, and inviting in a felt-sense of what is happening during inquiry.

For each of the questions, we can do all of this…

Allow whatever content of experience comes up… feelings, sensations, emotions, whatever it may be. Asking myself, can I be with what I am experiencing right now?

Staying with whatever is happening. Allowing it to be experienced, felt, loved. Allowing it to sink in. To work on me. Taking time to stay with it and see what happens. Being with it instead of rushing through.

Bringing in the heart… do the inquiry in a wholehearted and heartfelt way. Have compassion for myself as I go through the inquiry. Be with whatever comes up as I would with a child or a wounded animal.

Inviting in a felt-sense of whatever happens… Take time to feel what comes up under each question. To bring it into the body, and bring the body into the inquiry. To feel the reactions to the belief under question number three, the release under number four, and the truth and how it would be to live the truth in daily life for the turnarounds. Making it come alive in a felt sense, in the body.

Rushing through the questions, or staying at a mental level even if we slow down, can certainly have some effects. It can open doors which over time allows a deeper shift. There is nothing wrong in doing it this way.

But for me, bringing in the heart and bodily felt sense, and taking the time to allow it all to sink in and seep through our being, seems far more juicy. It allows whatever comes up during the inquiry to work on me in a more thorough way. I place more of myself under the influence of what comes up.