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.

They shouldn’t have closed the RoundRobin. (To those who have not done The School.)

Byron Katie’s organization have a roundrobin system that used to be open to anyone. You would sign up, get matched with someone else, and then do daily inquiries over phone for a month, taking turns facilitating each other. I did it for a year and a half, and got a great deal out of it. They decided to close it a few months ago, limiting it to those who have done The School, a several day (and quite expensive) training in The Work that I haven’t attended.

(more…)

There is an often unquestioned, and unnoticed, assumption that war is necessary to get things done. Not the type of wars we find in Iraq and other places, but the war within each of us, the war with reality.

There is a difference between our stories of what is and what should be, and the tension between these is what drives action. If this is all we know, or have noticed, then it can be difficult to image actions and engagement coming out of anything else.

Yet, when our attachment to even a single story is released, we come to see how life unfolds without war. An impulse comes up, and if there isn’t a good reason not to engage in it, we do it. All within a sense of ease, clarity, simplicity, intimacy with life.

(more…)

Some of the ways to explore the mechanisms of samsara…

The main mechanism of samsara is a belief in thoughts. We take thoughts as somehow inherently true, or as reflecting something inherently true in the world. We put all or most truth into one story, and take out the truth of its reversals. In this way, a sense of I and Other is created, and this sense of a separate I is usually anchored in this human self (although it could also be this alive presence, the soul level, or witnessing itself, the causal level). And from here, the whole human drama we are so familiar with unfolds… with all its excitement and also sense of something being off.

Through The Work, we can explore these beliefs directly. We notice stress, find the belief behind it, investigate it, find the truth in its reversals, and through all this, the attachment to the story tends to release.

Through the Big Mind process, we explore each voice, and see that there is no separate I inherent in any of them. We release identification with those we have been identified with, and embrace those that have been disowned, excluded through the attachment to those same beliefs and identities. They are all there, each one with its own purpose and function for this human self and its life in the world, and yet, there is no “I” inherent in any of them.

We can shift into headlessness through the headless experiments, and see that all content of awareness is just that, content of awareness. Sounds, sights, thoughts, all just content of awareness. Trees, cars, people, sensations, thoughts, all content of awareness. They are all part of the same field. It is only thoughts that say that some are “I” and others are “Other”, and these thoughts are content of awareness as well. If “I” am anything, it is what this content arises within, to and as. All content comes and goes, but what they all arise within, to and as does not. It is what time & space and all content, including that which we previously identified with, arise within, to and as.

We can use labeling practice, temporarily differentiating the field of content into sensation, sound, smell/taste, sight, and thought, which helps us see thought as just thought, and how it combines with the other portions of the field to create gestalts that seem very real and substantial when taken only at the level of gestalts.

And lots more practices as well. These are just the ones I happen to be familiar with and use right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(more…)

When we find the grain of truth in reversals of our initial belief, it can look like rationalization. We are finding ways of looking at something that helps us find peace with it.

But is it really a rationalization? It seems that it could be, if we take one particular turnaround and put all truth into that one, clinging to it as the only perspective we consciously hold.

For instance, I may have the belief that he shouldn’t drink, so one of the turnarounds is he should drink, and I can find several reasons why. He does, so he obviously gets something out of it. It triggers beliefs in me, so I get to take a look at them. It may function as a safety valve for him, a temporary escape, which is something we all do.

If it ended there, it may indeed be a rationalization, even if the turnaround itself and each of the truths in it are genuine to me. It is a rationalization because it leaves out a great deal of the picture, it leaves out the other reversals.

Together, all of the reversals gives a much fuller and richer picture. It helps us see a situation from several different angles, and the grain of truth in each one. It gives us the freedom to apply any one of those stories as a guideline for action, and then switch when the situation seems to call for it.

And that is not rationalization. That is owning the truth of each perspective, and freedom and fluidity of engagement.

This came up in a conversation earlier today, and it is interesting to explore in itself. Why do we do inquiries, such as the Work?

For me, I find that there is a curiosity there. What is really going on? What happens when I believe that thought? What are some of its effects? What is more true for me than the surface belief?

Sometimes, something may seem completely true to me, yet I know it (or any belief) cannot be. So that is another reason to explore it. It is an unquestioned belief, and I am curious about what is on the other side of it.

Other times, I know in many ways that it is not true, but parts of me still thinks it is true. I know it is not true, but I sometimes feel as if it is true, and my mind sometimes create supporting stories as if it is true. Inquiry then gives me an opportunity to explore a story from the view of the parts of me that still believe them.

Yet other times, I notice what appears as ghost patterns from past beliefs. I thought that particular belief was not around anymore, but the patterns from it are, so here too it can be helpful and interesting to explore what is happening. And inevitably, I find that there is still a belief there with all it usual effects.

In general, inquiry helps me see what happens when a story is believed in. And this helps me in my own life, and it also helps me understand others, both in terms of view and feeling. I can more easily see the grain of truth in the view they are coming from, and I know something about how it feels to be stuck in such a view. My mind and feelings are more receptive, which helps my heart to be more receptive as well.

A portion of what we think of as being human are effects of beliefs. It is the portion that has to do with a rigid view, reactive emotions and behaviors, and a more closed heart.

How do we relate to this part of our humanness?

Often, we defend it. We find reasons why it is right and even good. Or we may be ashamed, unable to change it much even as we see it unfold. We may blindly be in the grips of it, experiencing it and also living it out in ways we sometimes regret afterwards. We may distract ourselves from it as much as possible. We may try to stuff it, holding it back, resisting the experience or living from it.

Or we may work with it more consciously.

We can allow these parts their voice and insights, through Process Work, Voice Dialog or the Big Mind process. We can step into their perspective, and see what they have to say to our human self, what they ask of us, what their contributions are, what gifts they offer, and how our human self can relate to them in a more constructive way, and how they can help our human self in a more constructive way.

We can allow the experience fully. We can fully allow the anger, sadness, pain, frustration, or whatever it may be. Just by releasing identification with the resistance to it, a lot changes. There is a release of identification with the dynamic as a whole (whatever arises and the resistance to it), which gives a sense of freedom from it, and even an opportunity of a more conscious choice in how to relate to it and express it.

We can use it as a pointer or invitation to explore more in detail what is going on. For instance, what is the belief behind the reactiveness? Is it true? What happens when I believe that thought? Who would I be without it? What are the grain of truths in its turnarounds?

(more…)

I am using the subquestion what am I not able to appreciate when I believe that thought? more, which helps me discover things about appreciation. Mainly, that beliefs and identifications makes it impossible to appreciate certain things about the world. They filter appreciation as well as a great deal of other things.

When something falls within a belief or identity, I can appreciate it, but it is a slightly compulsive form of appreciation. I know that the world is only temporarily showing up within the boundaries I have set up for it, so I appreciate it, but also want to hold onto it. There is a tightness in it.

And when something falls outside of a belief or an identity, rubbing up against a should, it is certainly not appreciated.

When there is a release from attachment to story and the identity, there is a wider embrace of life and also a wider circle of appreciation. I can now appreciate what used to fall within the belief, but without or with less rigidity. And I can also appreciate, in a genuine and sincere way, what used to fall outside of the belief.

Said another way, I am free to appreciate life whether it aligns with that particular story and its corresponding identity or not.

There is nothing wrong with not appreciating certain things. It happens inevitably when a belief and its corresponding identity clashes with the world.

But after having lived with it for a certain time, there is often an impulse to move beyond. We realize we have created a prison for ourselves, which has helped us develop and get familiar with certain areas of this human self, but now it is time to move on.

In writing the previous post, I was reminded of how we are all fundamentalists.

What we usually recognize as fundamentalism is the crude form of taking certain religious or political views as absolutely true and beyond what can be questioned.

But fundamentalism happens in other contexts too. Whenever we take something as absolutely true and beyond what can be questioned, it is fundamentalism. In those cases, we become the bearded fundamentalist guy ready to do just about anything to protect our belief, or rather what we know to be true.

It can take many forms. I may believe in aliens and UFOs, rigidly hold onto it and interpret lots of different things within that context. I may take as absolutely true the official view produced by science today, and that anything that doesn’t fit doesn’t exist. Or that the democrats have it right, and the republicans wrong. Or that nothing Israel does should be questioned. Or that getting the US out of Iraq justifies any means. Or that my kids should do their homework. Or my partner shouldn’t cheat. Or that the tea I bought should have been warm. That my computer shouldn’t break down in the middle of this important work project. That my idea of how to do this particular task is the best one. That I shouldn’t have stubbed my toe. That I am an I with an Other.

Any idea, no matter how apparently small or mundane, can become the seed of fundamentalism. If we take it as absolutely true, as something not to question for whatever reason, we have the dynamics of fundamentalism right away. There is the perception of right and wrong, true and false, of ideas being somehow solid and substantial and reflecting something inherent in the world, and of being justified in acting to protect our ideas and making the world conform to the shoulds in our ideas. We are typically willing to break quite a few eggs to make that particular omelet.

Most of us see this to a certain extent. There is nothing new here. In fact, it is a pretty banal insight.

But what is not banal is where it stops for us. What am I willing to question, and what am I not willing to question? Where is that boundary? What ideas do I use to justify not questioning certain areas of life? What do I fear would happen if I did sincerely question it? What is more likely to happen?

We could sit down and make a list of what we typically see as outside of what can be questioned. Or we could just let life bring it up for us. Whenever there is a sense of something being off, there is a pointer right there to a belief we have not yet sincerely and thoroughly investigated.

We can also explore the dynamics of fundamentalism through voice dialog or the Big Mind process. What function does it serve? How does it help the self? What does it ask of the self? How does the self relate to it? Does the self sometimes become blindly identified with it? What happens then? What would be more helpful? How can the self recognize it more easily when it happens?

(more…)

I am reminded of how The Work and its effects appears differently depending on where we are coming from, and specifically what appears as real to us.

If we take the conventional world as basically real and true, accepting that we are separate individuals going about our business much as everyone agrees on, then The Work helps us find release from attachment to one particular perspective, and a fluidity among perspectives. We can see our situation from many different angles, and find the limited validity in each one. This in itself is a tremendous relief, and releases a great deal of energy and attention previously wrapped up in a far more narrow perspective and its struggle with life. We find a new clarity, freedom and engagement in our life.

This requires a willingness to let go of the idea that one perspective is right and the other ones wrong. But even if we still hold onto this to some degree, there can be a relief here. At least, we can question the things our worldview allows us to question, and that in itself is helpful to us. To take a crude example, I may believe that the Bible is the word of God and should be taken at face value as much as possible. That is fine, and I can still question other things, such as the idea that life should be fair and so on.

If there has been glimpses beyond taking any stories as real and substantial, The Work takes on yet another flavor. I may intuit or have glimpsed myself as awakeness and all its content as this awakeness, in whatever way I interpret or talk about that: all is Buddha Mind, Big Mind noticed itself as Big Mind, there is nothing but God and the Divine Mind, and so on. Here, I know to a certain extent, from experience, that the way things appear to us is just that, an appearance. It is all the play of God, and it is all inherently OK as it is. Any idea of something being not right comes from seeing something as not God. Within this context, The Work becomes a way of exploring the mechanisms of samsara, the ways attachment to thought filters what happens to make something look solid and not-God.

Finally, if awakeness has noticed everything as itself, inherently free from the overlay of thought including the sense of I and Other, center and periphery, and so on, this human self can still do The Work. It is still a way to explore the mechanisms of samsara in fine detail, and now to understand and possibly help others better. Also, as Byron Katie says, we are only awakened to a thought or not, and any story of that continuing into the future is just a story.

If we want to put this into some sort of developmental model, the whole process may go from a more fundamentalist context, to modern, to post-modern, to mystical glimpses and intuitions, to oneness, to nondual. But that is just another story, and it is rarely as clean-cut as that. Life is already free from those ideas.

The beauty of The Work is that it works with us exactly where we are. I have a belief, it creates friction with my story of what is, I experience stress, and I can inquire into it. It is a process that guides - and eventually undoes - itself, unfolding at its own pace and one step at a time.  It works with us wherever we are.

An uninformed post on something (see last paragraph) I want to inquire into:

Here’s a great, although brief, post on gender, filtered through the aqal framework, in a way that allows for a wide embrace of and fluidity among many different expressions and experiences of gender.

For me, gender is deeply interesting when there is a wide terrain and fluidity there. And it is difficult for me to be exited about it if the landscape is narrow, the dynamics rigid, and it is made into ideology one way or another. (Exited in terms of the map, and also in terms of how it is experienced and expressed in myself and others.)

This is one of the many ways to use the Big Mind process: Shift into the various expressions and experiences of gender, along different dimensions. Explore how each one contributes to the life of the small self, and to the expressions of Big Mind and Big Heart. See how the small self relates to each of them. Are there some that are disowned? Others that are rigidly identified with? How would it be if each of them are included in a more conscious way? How can there be more of a flow among them, a shifting into one and then another? What does the wider landscape look like?

The Work is also useful here, helping us to investigate our beliefs and identities around gender. Do I think I have to be one way or another? Do I see some modes as safe and other ones as unsafe? What do I think would happen if I brought out modes outside of my usual identities and habits?

For instance, the macho modes that Ken Wilber and some of his followers like to adopt is beautiful if part of a much wider landscape of available expressions and experiences of gender, and happens within a flow among them. And as with anything else, if it becomes an ideology, more rigid, and something to defend, it can quickly look a little weird.

Statement for inquiry: Ken Wilber shouldn’t be stuck in his macho attitudes.

Here is an interesting comment on Deida’s take on the topic:

So for instance David Deida’s sexology is infuriatingly heteronormative and employs some of the worst gender stereotypes I’ve ever seen. His latest book, “The Way of the Superior Man”, has a blurb from Ken Wilber saying something to the effect of how finally there’s a book for the non-castrated male. This is the kind of nonsense that is sure to attract the little-girl types in need of a father figure (cue: I gag), but I just don’t see what any of this has to do with the spiritual path, which requires incredible courage.

Another interesting point from the same comment:

As Adrienne Rich, Kate Millett and others have pointed out in their deconstruction of compulsory heterosexuality, the West’s dichotomy of homosexuality versus heterosexuality boils down to gender politics at the end of the day. Kate Millett brilliantly puts it: “Homosexuality was invented by a straight world dealing with its own bisexuality. But finding this difficult, and preferring not to admit it, it invented a pariah state, a leper colony for the incorrigible whose very existence, when tolerated openly, was admonition to all. We queers keep everyone straight as whores keep matrons virtuous.”

Through some of the subquestions, The Work helps us explore how our beliefs and perceptions are formed and maintained by culture and community and more.

For instance, asking the question when did I first have that thought? tends to bring up the whole initial context, how it came from family, society and more, and how it continues to be maintained by those around us and our culture. Question no. 4, who would I be without the thought? and the turnarounds help us see that having that belief, that identity, and that way of filtering the world is not inevitable. Other people and cultures may indeed see the world quite differently. Their experiences and interpretations may be very different from what I initially took for granted, and I too glimpse this now.

The Work also helps us work with the he/she/it, you and I dimensions. The initial statement is about Other, a he, she or it. When we read our inquiry to the one it is about, for instance our partner, the you dimension comes in. And the I dimension is there throughout.

Here are some of the ways The Work works with the shadow…

• It brings it up and out by encouraging us to find a stressful statement. Whenever there is a stressful thought, aka any belief, there is also a shadow inherent in it.
  • Often, a part of us see that belief as unacceptable, even if it is there, so we squash it and try to not make it visible to others or even ourselves. In this case, we may partly be aware of our shadow, and uncomfortable with it.
  • Other times, we may be completely identified with the initial statement and corresponding identity, so don’t even question it. In this case, it is usually a blind shadow, and we see it only out there in the wider world.
• It works with the shadow in its many forms, as a shadow of a belief, an identity, and a group identity.
  • We work with the shadow of a belief through the turnarounds, which help us see the grain of truth in its reversals. The shadow of a belief, a statement taken as absolutely true, is exactly there, in the grain of truth of its reversals and also the limited truth of the initial statement.
  • Any belief creates a corresponding identity, at the very least an identity as someone who has that belief, filters the world that particular way, and behaves in relation to that identity (whether these behaviors are aligned with the identity or not.) When I explore what comes up through question no. 3, what happens when I believe that thought?, I explore this identity and its consequences. Question no. 4 and the turnarounds helps me explore what happens when this identity is not blindly identified with anymore, and I allow myself to move more freely among the different reversals of that identity. These reversals are the former shadow of the initial identity, and this is a way to begin to make more friends with it, bring it more actively into my daily life, see what it asks of me, and harvest its gifts.
  • And from the shadows of the belief and its corresponding identity, group shadows form. Again, through questions no. 3, 4 and the turnarounds, we get to see and explore this group identity, its consequences, its shadow/reversals, and what happens when there is a release from blindly identifying with it.
• Through taking one or more of the turnarounds into daily life, we get to explore it more actively there as well, with the insights inquiry gave us.
  • We get find the truth in the reversals/shadow of the initial belief, live from a space holding the limited truth in all of them, and find a fluidity among them in daily life.
  • We get to find in ourselves the the reversals/shadow of the initial identity, explore how it is to admit to and live from those reversal identities, and finding a fluidity among them in daily life. What is different when I live from an identity that previously was not acceptable? What gifts does it offer? How it is to find more fluidity among them in daily life?
  • And we get to explore the corresponding group shadows as well. Which groups in my life have these shadows, and how are they expressed? What happens if I deliberately move outside of the group norms and acknowledge the grain of truth in the reversals of the belief, and maybe shift into the reversals identities? Is is accepted or not? Does it help shift the group into a wider embrace? If not, maybe I could leave the group?

The impulse to explore this in a little more detail (not that I haven’t many times before) came when I read some discussion about The Work in the context of the Ken Wilber type integral framework. Sometimes, we can be so intent on finding how things does not align with a particular framework that we miss how it does. (Not that it has to, or even should.)

(more…)

The Work can be pretty annoying when it becomes another ideology, another guideline for how to respond to situations and how to see the world, another set of rules for what is OK to say and do, another source of information for what is “politically correct”, another way to squish what I really feel, and so on. I see this quite a bit in the BK inquiry world, although not in Byron Katie herself.

As usual, when something just becomes a belief things go out of whack. But when it is really explored, really taken as a practice, it can free us.

Statement: Inquiry is annoying. (more…)

Is there anyone out there who would like to do The Work with me?

Since they closed off the official RoundRobin system to folks who haven’t gone to “the school” with Byron Katie (I have only done weekend workshops with her), I am missing having a regular facilitation partner.

The way it would work is that we commit to doing inquiry together for a month, either daily or at another interval that works for both of us. It can be done over phone (my preference), through email, or a combination. One of us asks the simple questions, the other answers. And then we switch the next day.

If more than one is interested, I’d be happy to set up a small unofficial roundrobin system so we’ll each have a new partner each month.

No experience necessary! It doesn’t matter where you live. And if you are not sure, let’s try it once or twice and you can decide if you’d like to continue.

Send an email to mysteryofexistence - at - gmail - dot - com if you are interested, or have questions.

If you are new to The Work…

(more…)

I read through the thread on Myth of the Given and The Work at the Integral Naked forum, and learned something more about the myth of the given.

Apparently, working with and seeing through the myth of the given goes beyond the simple version of it: recognizing appearances as just appearances, filtered in numerous ways, conditioned by infinite causes. It also includes a specific way to analyze why it appears as it does through bringing in the intersubjective, and the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st person perspectives.

I guess we have do it one that one specific way for it to count

So does The Work do it in that one particular way? Let’s see…

• Intersubjective. Well, The Work is intersubjective in one way (I know this one doesn’t count), in that it is often done with a partner, and also shared with others. Also, it is intersubjective in that many of the subquestions (under question no. 3) specifically helps us look at how our beliefs are created in community, and appears real because they are shared by community. Questions no. 4 and the turnarounds helps us see how they are not absolutes, and that different communities indeed see and filter things differently.
• 3rd, 2nd and 1st person perspectives. As with the 3-2-1 process, the initial statement and subquestions to question no. 3 is an exploration of the 3rd person perspective (he/she/it). The second person perspective (you) comes in mostly when we work directly with another, reading our inquiries on statements on them while they listen, and we then talk about it afterwards. And the first person (I) comes in throughout.
• The filter of context. For me, and also others it seems, an analysis of the role of context follows from some of the subquestions for question no. 3, as outlined under the first point. For instance, when we look at the question “when did you first have that thought” it is often clear how it came through culture, family, religion, or some other influence.

This isn’t to say that The Work completely addresses the Myth of the Given, nor that it has to. Also, maybe some additional subquestions, and different configurations of doing it, would make it more aligned? (One question could be “where did the belief come from”, although the answer to that one usually comes through the question “when did you first have that belief”.)

And even if The Work already addresses the Myth of the Given, through many of its subquestions and the turnarounds, why make it explicit? Why not let people discover it for themselves? If it is made explicit, it can too easily just be another myth, another belief, another “should”, another way to blind ourselves.

I also see that the Myth of the Given seemed so obvious to me initially, that we filter the world in innumerable ways, and that these filters are created by infinite causes. But it is apparently not that simple. I still don’t quite get how KW and others use it…

(more…)

I found these beautiful inquiries by someone who, like me, appreciate the work of Ken Wilber and The Work by Byron Katie.

Here are a few excerpts:

Belief: The Work ignores intersubjectivity. I can turn this around right away.

Turnaround:

1. The Work considers intersubjectivity. I do the Work with my partner. I listen to her Judge your Neighbor worksheet on me and facilitate her doing the Work on me while I listen with an open heart. She does the same thing for me. I couldn’t ask for a better mirror and if that isn’t intersubjectivity what is? The Work can be done with family, friends, colleagues, enemies, anybody. I learn an enormous amount when I facilitate another – about them and me.
2. I ignore intersubjectivity. When I defend myself against criticism as a knee jerk reaction. As Katie often says, Defense is the first act of War. When I believe my thoughts about others without enquiry. When I do not question my thoughts about me (my multiple selves – parent, child, adult).

   …..

Turnarounds to “The Work does not take into consideration the evolution of consciousness”:

1. The Work does take into consideration the evolution of consciousness. The Work questions the lies/pathologies that surface at every structure stage of consciousness. In the process, the untrue beliefs are left behind and I am freed to evolve or not. As Katie says, there are only 3 kinds of business; my business, your business and God’s business. Eros is God’s business.
2. I do not take into consideration the evolution of others’ consciousness. I believe that others can’t evolve, that they are blocked or stuck believing their myths. I believe this about my partner, my friends and work colleagues. I tend to believe the worst about them. And yes, I believe that of some of the Greens in this forum! Sorry guys, my bad.
3. I do not take into consideration the evolution of my consciousness. I often consider my problem to be hopeless. My understanding won’t get better. My fear won’t get better. My relationship won’t get better.

   …..

Turnarounds for “The Work is limited by the Myth of the Given”.

1. The Work in not limited by the Myth of the Given. The Work (4 questions) investigates any myth (beliefs) that I take as given (true). For example I believe the myth that my father is dead when his genes are alive in me, his memory is alive in me, his image is alive in me. By investigating every story, the Work leaves me as what I am (truth) in the moment. As Katie says, the Work takes nothing away and gives nothing. It’s only 4 questions.
2. I limit myself by the Myth (lies) that I take to be Given. There is no question in my mind that I was suffering from the myths that I believed. The energy that I use in holding on to beliefs that conflict with reality limits my creativity and action.
3. I believe the myth of the other/(s) to be given. I project my thoughts (myths) on to others and think that my image of them is real (given). Who is an Other without my story?

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.

Going beyond our comfort zone is part of many forms of learning, insight, clarification, development and so on… from physical exercise to relationships to learning languages to insight in the workings of the mind and much else. The effort itself may include going beyond the comfort zone, as in physical exercise. And the new terrain we find ourselves in may be beyond our comfort zone as well, as in relationships, learning and insights.

So here too, there is a dual set of beliefs. One that creates a desire to move ahead and beyond what is familiar and/or comfortable. And another which makes us want to stay within it. And both have their function. One brings movement, dynamism and moving into new areas of the landscape, the other stability, rest and deepening familiarity with this area of the landscape.

Through inquiry, we can explore both sets of beliefs, their functions and effects, and how it would be without the attachment and identification with them.

(more…)

The reasons for doing inquiry, and specifically the work, include…

• To see what is already more true for us than the initial belief
• To become more familiar with the dynamics of beliefs (attaching to a story, taking it as substantial and an absolute reality and truth) and so also the mechanisms of samsara
• And to find peace with what is

But it also has a very pragmatic side, in conventional terms, which is of course why many do it.

I find for myself, over and over, and most recently this evening, how inquiry helps shift…

• At the head center
  • From being confined to the inside of the story to an open landscape where the initial story is a small part
  • From rigidity to fluidity of views (able to see the truth in the reversals of the initial belief or identity)
  • From identification to disidentification
  • From taking the story and some objects of the story as an I to seeing it as a me or an it (subject to object, or first to second or third person)
• At the heart center
  • From a closed to an open heart, towards myself, others and life
• At the belly center
  • From emotional reactivity to neutrality or a sense of nurturing fullness
• At each center, or emerging from the combination
  • From confusion to clarity
  • From drama to ease
  • From separation to intimacy with oneself, others, life
  • From a split to a seamless terrain
  • From aversion to sympathy
  • From judgment to recognition, finding in myself what I see in others
  • From war to peace with what is and particular stories about it (the reversals of the initial belief)
  • From fighting to joining with what is and particular stories about it (the reversals)
  • From a deepening sense of I and Other to what holds and embraces both

And each of these, which are aspects of the same process, have a tangible and practical effect on my daily life.

When I am caught up on the inside of a story, I create a prison for myself which hinders my view and actions, and the drama, struggle and confusion created by the belief does not help the situation. I am caught up in rigid views, possibilities and actions and act from contraction and confusion, so my actions are not likely to be very effective, have the outcome I desire, or be aimed at an outcome I would want when there is more clarity. In addition, the struggle drains energy so there is less available. Or it may bring about a compulsiveness which initially may seem very energetic, but then leads to a crash.

When there is a release from the attachment to the story, the landscape opens up, I am free to the see grain of truth in the reverse stories and identities, and there is a sense of ease, clarity and naturalness which opens up for more effective solutions and actions in the world. It opens for more clarity about goals and strategies, and the clarity and energy to engage in it in a steady way.

So say I have the story that people should not lie, someone does, and it impacts my business adversely. If I am strongly caught up in the story about it, there is a volatile fog of emotional reactivity, rigid views, self-righteousness, aversion, and more. I may get mired in the dust cloud and prevent myself from acting. And when I act, it may be rash or from reactivity, so the outcome is not likely to be all that good for those involved. At the very least, it will create ill-feelings and a memory which my attention will return to in an attempt to resolve and find peace with it.

If there is more clarity around that story, and what is more true for me, I can act from clarity, empathy and a sense of ease, which is far more likely to bring about a situation that is more satisfactory for everyone involved.

If we see a dark night as a wearing off of beliefs and identifications, then The Work is a voluntary and gentle dark night. It has that same essence of the dark night, without the torment. Usually, it is even fun and a relief.

It is something our personality wants to do even if it involves disidentification with this personality and its beliefs and identities.

But that doesn’t mean that the nigredo quality isn’t there. Life is different than our beliefs tells us it should be, there is a sense of something being off (nigredo), which then, if we are in the habit of doing The Work, nudges us to identify the belief behind it and inquire into it, exploring what is already more true for us than that surface belief.