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.

I notice a belief in anything I write about here as being obvious… of not much interest to anyone, and not worth exploring or communicating to myself or others.

And it comes partly from this all being old news for me, for the most part nothing else than what was already alive in immediate awareness in my late teens. (As friends of mine from that time, who happen to see this blog, are quick to point out.)

So it is true. It is obvious to me, in one sense. And I am sure it is obvious to many others as well, especially those who are far beyond this and have explored this - and much more - in far more detail, and brought it into their own lives in a far more alive way.

Yet, the reverse is also true. It is not obvious. I still explore it and find it helpful to write about it, so it must not be completely obvious to me at all levels. At the very least, there is a deepening into it in my own life, in how I live. And also, it is (obviously!) not obvious to everybody. A quick look at what is happening in the world is enough to tell me that. It may be pretty obvious to those who have an interest in exploring it for themselves, and have done so for a little while, but not everybody have that interest, or have taken the time to explore it.

(more…)

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

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

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

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

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

Several things come to mind here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whenever I go to the dentist, or as today for a mini-surgery, I notice how drama is all in the mind. The body is fine, as far as I can tell, and there are hardly any sensations at all. But the mind cooks up a range of stories, take them as (more or less) real, and create a drama. (In this situation, a minor one, which makes it more easy to explore.)

When I ask myself, what do I have to let go of for finding peace with the situation, what comes up is the drama itself. I have to let go of the belief that drama is needed for change, that drama is needed for taking care of life, and in this case, this human self.

It is a deeply ingrained pattern: drama=protection. And it goes all the way to that core identity of a separate self.

A belief in a separate self creates a sense of drama, and somehow, somewhere along the way, there is that other belief that drama equals taking care of life. That drama is needed to take care of life. That drama is how we take care of life.

(more…)

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

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

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

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

I am reading Bernadette Robert’s Path to No-Self, which is a beautiful and clear description of her own path to selfless realization, described in a Christian context.

Two things have stayed with me from the final few chapters…

The first is the inherent torments of the unitive life, the state of oneness with God, yet with still a vague sense of I and Other there.

There are the torments of (a) not being able to express clearly the beauty, clarity, insights, wisdom and compassion here, in one’s own life or words, and also (b) it often not being appreciated, or understood, by others. For myself, I can also add the torments of the intensity of that phase, of extremes of energies going through and massive amounts of reorganization needed of the human self (probably not everybody goes through this).

The beauty of these torments, which Bernadette Roberts describe so clearly, is how it prepares for a final release of a sense of I with an Other.

The remaining sense of a separate I is what gives birth to the torments in the first place. The identification with the particular identities of this separate I gives resistance to what arises in different ways. It is a resistance to what is, which ultimately is the Ground of awake emptiness & form inherently free of an I with an Other. This resistance is what creates the torments, and also what helps burn through the resistance itself, the sense of an I with an Other.

The other thing I found interesting is Phase V, the Open Mind, a practice of going outside of ones habitual perspectives and views, of finding fluidity among a range of perspectives which then tends to reveal the inherent neutrality of any situation (my words).

This is very much similar to the turnaround part of The Work. And, as BR mentions, it seems to be an essential (?) part of the shift from the unitive life, where there is still a sense of a separate I with a particular perspective, to selfless realization which is free from any fixed identifications and perspectives (so also able to play freely with them and make use of them as the situation calls for).

As she also mentions, the fear before entered into is that it will make us into zombies, doormats or nihilists, but what is really happening is just this freedom to play with and explore a range of perspectives and viewpoints, seeing them all as stories of only practical and limited value (not absolute truths). And the whole process is infused with heart and compassion, which gives a practical direction that thoughts alone cannot provide (she doesn’t talk about this explicitly, but it is there between the lines).

The heart (love, compassion, empathy) gives the direction and is the main guide for actions in the world, it tells us what, and the head (stories, views, perspectives, frameworks) tells us how.

(more…)

This is a topic that has come up in conversation a few times recently… usually when I describe a pattern I notice in own experience, and the other saying something along the lines of “don’t try to change the content of experience”. It is good advice, but also a little too general and simplistic.

When I notice what is already more true for me about what is experienced, the content of experience does change… almost as an unintended side-effect.

An emotion of sadness comes up. I bring attention to it in an heartfelt way, and the character of the experience changes to a tender sweetness. (I see that the initial experience of sadness came from resistance to the experience, when when there was a more wholehearted allowing of it, the content of the experience reveals itself as different flavors of bliss.)

An emotion of irritability comes up. I bring attention to what is really there, and see that all there is is a sensation and a story about the sensation, which together make up the gestalt of irritability. By seeing this, in real time, the gestalt falls into its components, and there is simply a sensation recognized as sensation, and a story recognized as just a story. Again, the content of experience inevitably changes due to a more clear and differentiated seeing of what was already there.

An emotion of anger comes up. I identify the story behind it (she should be more careful), inquire into it (is it true, what happens when I believe it?, what happens without the story?, what are the truths in its turnarounds?), and again see in a more clear and differentiated way what is already more true for me. This invites the attachment to the story to fall away, and along with it the pattern of reactivity giving rise to the emotion. Again, the content inevitably changes simply from seeing what is already more true.

Of course, it does matter what the motivation behind it is… Do I explore experiences to see what is more true for me, or to change it? If I do it out of curiosity, to see what is revealed when I explore it, then a change of content is just a side-effect, and not really that important apart from something else to notice. If I do it to change content, I have an image of the outcome, and possibly also of how the process itself should look, which makes it a less sincere, genuine and open-ended investigation.

In that sense, the advice is a good one. But it is also important to allow the content itself to change on its own, as a consequence of whatever investigation we engage in.

During the retreat, it was also very clear how only beliefs are distracting.

A thought (story) arises, and if there is no belief in it, it just arises and vanishes into emptiness. It is just a guest, just like clouds, the wind, water in a stream, and anything else. Attention does not necessarily go there, and if it does, it is seen as just a thought. Attention also does not necessarily go into the content of the thought, but even if it does, it is still seen as just a thought.

It is only beliefs that attention cannot resist. When a story arises, and it is attached to, taken as having some absolute truth, then attention gets swept away, lured in, caught up in it…

It really has little choice, unless it happens within a situation where it is easier to see a thought as just a thought, such as when attention is brought to it and aids such as labeling (”thought”) is used. The other option is to inquire into the content of the thought, allowing the attachment to it fall away that way.

The first approach, seeing a thought as just a thought, can be done in real-time, but does not necessarily dissolve the belief itself… next time the thought arises, which it will, the attachment is likely to be there again. Still, the tendency to attach to that particular story, and any story, may wear off over time, changing the habitual patterns of attaching to it. Each time the thought is seen as just a thought, the tendency to attach to it weakens a little, the grooves get a little less deep. But this may be a slow and painstaking process.

The second approach, of inquiring into the content of the thought, requires some time specifically set aside for that purpose, but can allow attachments fall away relatively quickly. When the thought is thoroughly explored… its truth content, its effects, how it would be without it, and the truths in all its reversals… attachment naturally tends to fall away. The story becomes just a story again, without the tendency to attach to it or see it as anything more than just one of innumerable relative truths.

So only thoughts believed in, attached to as more than a relative truth, are distracting, allowing attention to be caught up in its content. Creating a world out of the story that appear as more than just a story, that appear as real.

Looking a little further, I also see that it may appear as if situations and things in themselves are distracting, but it is really the believed-in story triggered by them that is. Similarly, it may appear as if there is attachment to situations and things, but again, the attachment is really to the believed-in story triggered by them.

Luckily, we can get familiar with this terrain so the attachment to stories fade and fall away. And we can do this through (a) seeing thoughts as just thoughts (through for instance labeling practice) weakening the habitual tendency to attach to them, and (b) inquiring into the content of the thoughts, allowing the attachment to them to fall away that way.

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

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

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

(more…)

What is beyond beliefs? Or rather, what is beyond seeing the grain of truth in a story and all its reversals, and the inherent neutrality of the situation?

It is very simple…

If we think apathy or nihilism or laissez faire or cynicism or heartlessness or rampant egotism or putting anyone down or aloofness, it could not be further from the truth.

It is true that any of those can come from a belief in any situation being inherently neutral. Actually, any of those, or a range of other ones, are almost inevitable if there is that belief, and it is taken seriously.

But it is very different to actually go beyond beliefs… to really see and have a felt-sense of how all stories are just stories, and all of the turnarounds of each of them have truths in them, canceling each other out and revealing the inherent neutrality of the situation. Using an inquiry such as The Work, we can go beyond beliefs one at a time, seeing this shift over and over in different areas of life.

What is beyond beliefs is a differentiated clarity and a receptivity of mind and heart. We see and acknowledge the relative truth in all reversals of a story. We are free to play with any of the conventional truths, knowing they are only relative truths. We act from compassion and empathy, from a freedom to see and have a felt-sense of ourselves in others. We act from wisdom, knowing that stories are only stories, for practical and temporary use only.

We are free to meet people where they are, acknowledging the truths in the stories they hold onto, and act from that differentiated clarity, empathy and wisdom, in whatever way seems appropriate in the situation (being receptive to learn from it and see how it could have been done differently). And then not call it any of that.

There is nothing wrong with relativism… but it must be a true relativism, one that goes beyond beliefs, including any philosophy such as relativism.

It is very simple… when it is alive in immediate awareness… when it is lived.

Awakening is a process of constantly pulling the rug out from under one’s own feet.

Any belief is stuckness in a particular story, and this prevents Ground from noticing itself as Ground.

Noticing these beliefs, and inviting them to unravel, is similar to pulling the rug out from under one’s own feet. Any belief gives a sense of a platform, a ground, a fixed view and position, it gives a place to stand, an identity. Unraveling beliefs allows that to fall away, until there is no ground there anymore… no fixed positions or identities… no place to stand. Noticing oneself as the groundless Ground of void, and everything arising within, to and as this awake void.

The same is also true for a healing of and deepening into who we are, as individuals (at the relative level, and after the basics are taken care of).

Here, the stuckness of beliefs prevents a wide embrace of who we are as individuals on the human and soul levels. It prevents an exploration of the evolving fullness of who we are, and a lived familiarity with it.

And here too, healing and familiarity with who we are involves pulling the rug out from under one’s own feet, allowing old beliefs to fall away revealing the wide open field that was already there.

Life will do it for us to some extent. But we can also actively participate in the process, and find it to be quite interesting and even enjoyable, for instance by using The Work to explore what is already more true for us than the surface beliefs.

Statement: I shouldn’t be so concerned with this (what I write about here)

(more…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(more…)

I suppose the topic of the previous post also relates to the discussion around postmodernism.

We can use an exploration of the grain of truth in reversals to (a) free ourselves from taking any story as an absolute truth and (b) invite a glimpse of the inherent neutrality of any situation.

But if we stop there, we get stuck in the same way as (some forms of) postmodernism.

The next step is now to engage with the conventional stories of our society, this time from a more differentiated clarity, and a more receptive mind and heart.

We find a freedom from beliefs and identities, which is also a freedom to use and work with the conventional views, stories and frameworks.

(more…)

Tom’s comment on the post on cults brought up some genuinely good points, and put the finger on something that has been in the back of my mind for a while.

We can of course play around with stories and find the grain of truth in each of their reversals. And the value in this is for me to explore my own beliefs and identities around it, to find more clarity there, allowing the grip on any one story to release, and have less to defend. I find a more fluid relationship with the story and its reversals.

What it also does is to take out any absolute truth in any story and thoroughly pull the rug out from under the issue. Which is also the point. It helps reveal that they are all just stories, placed upon a situation that is inherently neutral.

So any charge and rigidity around it, from my side, is diffused. There is a lighter touch there. More receptivity of mind and heart…. seeing the truth in the turnarounds, and allowing for a more genuine connection with others. There is more fluidity.

Which then allows me to play and engage with the conventional views in a more clear, differentiated and receptive way, with less to protect, less rigidity.

So in the case of cults, the exploration allows me to find it in myself, and also how it is not true, opening up some space. Which in turn allows me to use the term in a conventional way with less to protect, less personal investment in it, and so - possibly - with more clarity and in a more differentiated way.

Tom used the example of a murderer, and it is the same there. I can easily find how I am a murderer (eating animals and plants, stepping on bugs, eliminating people in my thoughts, and so on). And I can also find how people labeled a murderer, by society, are not (they were victims of circumstances, their actions local effects of infinite causes, they were blindly caught up in beliefs which triggered the actions without them being able to stop it, and so on).

If I don’t engage in this exploration, it is far too easy to be caught up in blind beliefs about it… which brings with it blind emotions and reactivity. And these are not a good place to come from if I want to make more clear decisions.

Having engaged in the exploration, finding the truth in how we all are and are not murderers, I find myself in the same boat as the person labeled murderer by society. There is more genuine empathy, more of a sense of connection. I am not able to dehumanize him or her so easily.

I am now able to use the conventional definitions of a murderer with more clarity, with a more receptive mind and heart, and hopefully with more differentiation and wisdom.

It does not mean that I will support freeing anyone labeled a murderer (most likely, I won’t). But it does mean that I am able to explore the definition, and make it more nuanced for myself. It means I may be less caught up in blind emotionality and reactivity, which makes it less likely that I would want to see someone sentenced based on flimsy evidence (less scapegoating), and it also makes it less likely that I will support sentences that are mainly revenge based.

I am more free to support a fair trial and fair and appropriate sentencing, and to explore what that really means, all the while experiencing a genuine connection with and empathy for anyone involved, including the one who committed the crime.

There is nothing new here. It is something we all (I assume) know from our own life. In a way, it is just old fashioned common sense… at least the one that comes more from differentiated clarity and compassion.

I am exploring an interesting mutuality of tension and beliefs…

Through The Work, I see how beliefs create tension… both mental and physical. Any belief brings a sense of something to protect (an apparent truth or identity), which in turn brings tension.

And through labeling practice, I see how sensations combine with stories to create the appearance of emotions, moods, and even a sense of separate self. If an appropriate sensation is not available for a particular story, the body tenses up to make it available. And if the sensation needs to be amplified, the body tenses up more right there, which in turn allows for an amplification of the story.

The sensation/story complex allows for a sense of a center in space (located somewhere in the body), which in turn allows for a split of space, with an I here and Other out there. All of which is essential for the existence of the belief.

So beliefs create tension… by creating a sense of something (a truth or an identity) to protect, which naturally brings tension.

And tension allows for the belief… by creating (and amplifying) sensations which the story can combine with. When sensation and story combine, it creates an appearance of a separate self, emotions and moods, all of which are essential for the appearance, and maintenance, of the belief.

Beliefs amplify tension, and tension amplify beliefs.

(more…)

Knots (beliefs, and their effects) show up in different ways…

• As something we are blindly identified with and defend in every way. We take it as an absolute truth, we see ourselves as completely justified in being contracted and acting on it.
• As something we are caught up in, yet recognize as a knot. There is some disidentification with it, some space, a little more of a sense of choice in how we relate to it and act on it.
• As something we know how to relate to when it arises, allowing the charge in it to be greatly reduced… for instance by fully allowing it (as much as we can). It still arises, it is there, but there is more space around it, even more of a sense of freedom in how we relate to it, and whether and how we act on it.
• As a ghost, a pale reflection of itself without much or any charge. The pattern may still come up (for instance the old story) but arising within clarity.
• And as nonexistent, something there is a complete release from. And maybe even with a new appreciation for exactly that which used to be a trigger for contraction.

When I explore old patterns using The Work, I see this process… Often, it starts with knowing intellectually that it is a knot, but still sometimes being in the grips of it. Then, some of the charge goes out and there is more of a sense of space around it, even if it still arises. Then, not much charge there at all, just a ghost of the pattern arising within clarity. The story free from a charge. Then, no charge and no pattern, only clarity, and even appreciation.

I am sitting on the deck right now working on the computer (on either side of writing this!), one of our neighbors is playing loud music, and I find myself not noticing, or when noticing at peace with it, and even appreciating it… his enjoyment of it, and me being exposed to music I wouldn’t normally be exposed to (oldies).

This is one of the situations where an old pattern used to come up for me: being annoyed, going into stories about how inconsiderate he is, why can’t he use headphones?, why can’t he turn it down? When I first started doing The Work on it, there was more of an intellectual shift around it, and this became more and more experiential and lived as I sat with what came up from that and similar inquiries, each one allowing me to see more clearly what was going on, and allow the truths of the turnarounds to sink in a little deeper.

At times, even early on in the process, there was an easy and effortless peace with it. Other times, even later one, and especially when I was worn down physically, old patterns got triggered again. But it has been quite a while now since anything got triggered by our neighbor playing loud music… apart from the transparent ghost of the story occasionally, and other times appreciation.

In this particular situation, I decided to work on myself instead of trying to change the external situation (the guy is retired, and his big love is fixing up old cars, so why not let him have that enjoyment). But in many others, it may be more appropriate to work both here with myself, investigation beliefs and finding some clarity, and also in the world, directly with the situation.

Also, as Byron Katie says, we can be enlightened to this thought, but maybe not to the next one. I can find complete release from a particular belief, and the stress that goes along with that belief, but there may still be other beliefs there, stories taken as more than just stories, relative truths, mere tools for orienting in the world.

The definition of enlightenment is quite simple, although can be put in different ways:

• Ground awakened to itself (emptiness, awake to itself)
• Realized selflessness (no separate self anywhere, just awake emptiness and form, and form as no other than awake emptiness)
• Differentiation of the absolute (awake emptiness and form, as is), and the relative (any stories about it, filtering the absolute through stories)
• The timeless now (awake emptiness) awake to itself, that which time/space unfold within, to and as.
• The complete allowing of any forms (inherent in Ground) awake to itself.

Of anyone, I appreciate the most how Byron Katie talks about this… as usual, it is simple, clear, and uncompromising in a kind way.

No one is permanently enlightened. That would be the story of a future. There’s only enlightenment in the moment. Do you believe in a stressful thought? Then you’re confused. Do you realize the thought isn’t true? Then you’re enlightened to it. It’s as simple as that. And then the next thought comes, and maybe you’re enlightened to it as well, and maybe not.

This way of looking at it explains why people who are not “officially” enlightened still can be very enlightened in some situations and areas, and people who are officially enlightened sometimes are not… still stuck in rigid beliefs (I certainly saw that a lot during my time at the Zen center…!)

The quote is from chapter 13 of A Thousand Names for Joy by Byron Katie, edited by Stephen Mitchell.

There are two ways to lose a belief, and they often go hand in hand.

One is through friction.

I have a belief telling me how life is or should be, and an identity telling me what I am and am not. In both cases, I split life right down the middle, allowing one region of the landscape and not the rest.

When life inevitably shows up outside of my belief or identity, there is a friction between my belief and life, which is experienced a uncomfortable… as stress, something being off, suffering, anger, fear, and so on.

This friction, if it continues, slowly wears off (and out!) the belief. Over time, constantly at odds with life, it has to go, in spite of even the most persistent resistance. It is just too obvious that life is more than my belief, and I more than the identity. My personality may not like it, especially at first, but there is not much choice there either.

The other is through investigation.

I notice the warning signs of holding onto a belief or identity (stress), I identify the belief or set of beliefs behind it, and investigate its effects, what would be without it, and the grain of truth in each of the reversals of the initial story. This too allows it to fall away, although it can be faster and less painful, even fun.

In the first case, I take the side of my habitual beliefs and identities, and it may be a drawn out and painful affair.

In the second case, I take the side of life inviting the belief to go, and it becomes more playful, have a sense of more ease, and can even be fun and enjoyable.

Although most of the time, there seems to be a mix of the two. There is the friction between life and belief, and the stress and resistance that comes with it. And there is the ease of the investigation, when that is finally engaged with.

Bankei advised to not side with yourself.

When I am in the grips of a belief or an identity, I am siding with myself. I believe something is true, and dammit if I am not going to protect it, defend it, come up with reasons why it is obviously true, and so get even more entrenched and stuck in it.

The alternative is to not side with myself, in different ways.

I can notice a belief or an identity being triggered… with its sense of something to protect, stress, righteousness, going into further stories…

Right there, I may find myself refraining from fueling it further and acting blindly on it.

Or I may find that the grip on it loosens, allowing my mind to be more receptive to the truth in the turnarounds, and my heart more receptive to the situation, bringing a sense of connection with myself and other (if another is involved).

And I can then, when the situation allows, take time to investigate the belief (and identity) more in depth. Is it true? What happens when I hold onto the belief? If it is not there? What are the truths in its reversals?

That is the real not siding with oneself: going outside of the boundaries of the initial story and identity, in a very gentle way, seeing what is already more true for me… the truth of what happens when the belief is held onto, the truth in its reversals, even tasting the situation as inherently neutral when the stories cancel each other out.

When we believe in stories, we inevitably believe in stories which are contradictory and mutually exclusive… at least if we take each of them to be an absolute truth. They may come up as a chain, one leading to another. We may be aware of their mutual contradictions and try to suppress some or all of them. We may bring them all to the surface, staying with the dissonance, and explore new stories which may resolve the contradictions. Or we may investigate the beliefs, one by one, and find what is already more true for us.

Here is an example of a chain: I should have awakened in a stable way by now > a Ground awakening is literally an awakening as nothing, as the void, so it gets “me” nothing in any way, so why even want it > wanting it is what keeps it from happening, so I shouldn’t want it > all of this creates a sense of gridlock and weariness, and that is exactly what sometimes goes before such an awakening > that story brings up a sense of anticipation, which is exactly what prevents it from happening, so it would be better if my attention doesn’t go there > but that is suppressing and resisting what is, which is exactly what holds a sense of a separate self in place > …

The mind goes around and around, attaching to one story, then another, then another.

There can be a temporary release and a softening of the grip through being with it all, for instance through meditation… allowing it all come and go on its own, as it does anyway.

But a fuller release comes through engaging with these stories through investigation. Is it true? What happens when I believe that story? What happens if the (attachment to the) story is not there? What are the truths (and gifts) in each of its turnarounds?

There are some great gifts in public, or shared, inquiry, as is often done with The Work and the Big Mind process.

We learn about the process itself from watching, and then doing it on our own.

We get to see that whatever comes up in someone else is also right here in me. I can find what comes up over there also right here. It is a perfect mirror.

And we see, over and over, the pure gold available to any and all of us… the profound wisdom available in each of us, surfacing when attention is skilfully brought to it through simple questions.

Through The Work and the Big Mind process, I have seen people with little or no background in any spiritual practice find a clarity and wisdom in themselves, expressed clearly and simply, that matches that of any master psychologist or spiritual teacher. It is available right here, in any of us.

As Byron Katie says, there is no more or less wisdom in any of us.

It may not be noticed right away, but simple questions invites it to surface.

Byron Katie working with a group in prison… more at YouTube

Genpo Roshi facilitating One-Heart-Mind & Integrated Free Functioning Self… more at YouTube

When I believe a story, taking it as an absolute truth, my world is narrowed in as defined by the story. In a sense, I find myself on the inside of the story. Similarly, any belief creates an identity which defines who I take myself to be. And any belief also creates a sense of a separate self, which needs to be anchored somewhere - usually in this human self. So I also find myself on the inside of this human self. So there is a sense of a separate I, existing on the inside of this human self, inside of a particular identity, and inside of a belief in a particular belief about life.

As soon as I start exploring this, I find myself also outside of all of this. I am outside, looking in. So right there is some distance, some release.

And if there is a thorough and sincere exploration of what is already more true for me than the belief, it falls away… The belief in the story falls away. The identification with the identity it creates falls away. And the sense of a separate I defined by and existing on the inside of the story, identity and this human self falls away.

There is a taste of spaciousness, and even of Big Mind.

Now, I am that which all of this… stories, identities, this human self… arises within, to and as. This awakeness it arises within, to and as. This awake nothingness all things happen within, to and as.

I just read this post from Carol Skolnick’s blog Soul Surgery:

This will be the last post on this blog. I’ve realized I have absolutely nothing to say that can be of any value to anyone. In fact, I am retiring from my position as facilitator of The Work; I’ve been of no help and realized I ought to get a real job.

Besides, I finally had to admit The Work doesn’t work. I’ve stopped doing it. Since there’s nobody and nothing anyway, why even bother?

Thank you for your loyal readership…and if you want to keep deluding yourself with this nonsense, go ahead and knock yourself out, but I really hope you eventually wake up and smell the coffee, as I have.

Initially, I thought it was meant seriously, but then noticed (with the help of some of the comments) that it was posted on April 1st. Still, it certainly brought up some things for me, especially about The Work not working. I noticed how I didn’t want it to not work, which is a clear sign that there is a belief, and an identity, there, excluding some parts of life and some relative truths. In this case, the ways The Work does not work.

So in what ways does The Work not work?

• It seems to not work for everyone. I have heard and seen people going through the motions, and (apparently) not getting anything out of it. The first person I facilitated even said he felt worse after having gone through the questions! As with anything else, it works for some and not others, and who and when it works for changes too.
• It may not give the result initially expected or wanted by the personality. It is not for changing circumstances (although that could happen).
• On some issues, it takes time to see a shift. Sometimes, the same or similar inquiries are done many times, before releases start to happen.
• Sometimes, old patterns surface and take over as if no work had ever been done. They may even appear stronger than before any work had been done on it.
• If the motivation to hold onto the belief is stronger than the motivation to (a) see what is more true, or (b) peace, then it may not work.
• If there is a motivation to get a particular result beyond (a) seeing what is more true, or (b) peace, then it may not work. The motivation may get in the way for a sincere inquiry.
• If there is not sincerity in the inquiry, it may not work.
• If it is done in a too disembodied fashion, without a feeling into what comes up, it may not work.
• If it is done too quickly, without taking time to allow what surfaces to sink in, it may not work.

And all of these are of course only stories as well. I cannot know that any of these are absolutely true. But they do open up a new territory for me. I don’t have to hold onto the belief that The Work works. I can find the freedom to be comfortable even in the landscape of it not working. I can find the truth in it.

If there is a belief that The Work works, then there is something to defend, and there is stress. If I can find the truth in the turnarounds of that initial story, then there is just a wide open landscape… a receptivity of mind (finding the truth in it) and heart (connection, recognition and empathy with those for whom it doesn’t seem to work).