Robert Augustus Masters Q&A Part Twelve
April 16, 2006
A. Jana/Plasmafly asks:
1. I want to know how RAM went from his meltdown up into his present adaptation level. Does Robert think he would have gone back to University, if he hadn't gone through the crash? Was it time, his practices, new relationships or his college work that was principly involved in his recovery? (I know that's a silly question.)
2. Has Robert got a different friend pool nowadays compared to the 80's, I mean people he is peers with, not students? Do his present friends seem more real to him?
3. Does Robert think that such a thorough meltdown is somehow important to him personally, in who he is now. That is, would Robert feel less than he is now, if he hadn't gone through that? And does he feel that it was a necessary catharsis, a necessary part of his development for body, mind and soul?
Robert answers:
1. By committing myself to being present no matter what; by honoring the needs of the personal and interpersonal as much as those of the transpersonal; by practicing compassion when I didn’t want to; by letting everything serve my awakening. So much was involved in my recovery/reemergence that I cannot isolate any one factor; it all combined to bring me to where I now am. Would I have gone back to University if I hadn’t crashed? Probably not -- I would have been too averse to put myself in the position of student.
2. Yes.
3. Yes. Following is a poem (actually now a song sung by my wife Diane) that holds within its flow much about my meltdown:
Again I break, my need dissolving my pride
Again I spill, my hurt streaming, streaming wide
Again I die, letting all the goodbyes tear open my sky
Again I whisper and again I roar
Swimming through the dreamy door
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One behind the show
Again I fall, chained to my lies
Again I rise, filled with blazing night and newborn cries
Again I pump up my will, gunning for the Holy Thrill
Again I wake, letting go of both hope and despair
No longer seeking something else to wear
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One appearing as the show
Again I reach through the darkness shining wild
Again I rock in the cradle of Eternity's child
Again I die, releasing all that I took to be mine
Again I howl, prowling through forests of palm and pine
One hand on a spear, the other on my fear
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One behind the show
Again I gaze from one eye, my broken body aglow
Again I drop my sword, watching my blood cut rivers in the snow
Again I beat a sweating drum, urging you to leave your mind
Again I disappear without leaving anything behind
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One appearing as the show
Again I smile, touching what's always touched me
Again I dance in the fire, burning free
Again I remember to embrace my wounds
Again I rebuild the temple, rising from my ruins
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One behind the show
Again I break and taste the final goodbye
Again I ride a wave of everlasting sky
Again I fall and forget the Sacred Call
And again I remember and again I include it all
And again here we are, in the flesh yet unborn
Lovers with both the calm and the storm
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One beyond the show
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B. Arthur/adastra asks:
In The Anatomy and Evolution of Anger, you write:
"...let us consider the power of intimacy to shake us to our core, to open us in ways that we might never otherwise permit; as hellish as the difficult aspects of intimate relationship can sometimes be, they are - usually in hindsight - none other than fierce grace. (p.172, Anger)
"When we are intimate with an other, we can be very, very hurt. We can become crazily jealous, possessive, enraged, angry in ways we never thought possible, our spiritual practices shredding into near non-existence in the storms of our pain and reactivity. It might seem under such conditions that our capacity for awakening has been severely diminished, but that is from the viewpoint that sees only (and that makes a problem out of) the turbulence, the unbridled chaos, of our disintegrating position.
"However, in such rough and wild waters swirls another possibility, one equipped with nothing but a lifeline to What-really-matters. But if we only try to think our way through our relational chaos or dilemma, we merely confine its turbulent forces in our minds, thereby intensifying our confusion, instead of letting its energies - including anger – fuel our leap into a more fitting level of being. Here, we may begin to view relational intimacy not as an end (nor as a haven only), but rather as a means, an extremely potent crucible for Awakening's alchemy.
"In the liberating bondage of genuine intimacy, our separateness is our ticket Home..." (Robert Augustus Masters, The Anatomy and Evolution of Anger, p. 174)"
1. Does the fierce alchemy of intimacy you speak of here apply only to romantically/sexually intimate relationships, or can other types of relationships work this way as well? A guru/disciple relationship would, I suppose, be another such possibility, but what about a very close friendship? Is there something about a sexual bond that creates the conditions for this kind of transformative alchemy? What are the essential elements which make this kind of transformative intimacy possible?
2. In terms of spiritual transformation or Awakening, how do monogamous relationships compare to polyamorous relationships? Is it necessary or helpful for two people to bond exclusively? Or could it actually be more potent, at least in some cases, to be in a polyamorous arrangement?
Also in Anger, you say,
"In a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, it was found that emotionally expressive psychotherapy significantly reduced depression levels, even though pain levels remained the same, suggesting that the pain itself was not depressing, but rather the "held" or "pressed-down" emotions associated with that pain. (Anger, p.120)"
footnote to above:
"As such, depression is not a feeling, but rather a suppression of feeling, consuming an enormous amount of life-energy in its "pressing down" of feeling. It could be said to be the sensation of nearly successful repression, minus any significantly satisfying compensatory lift. In this sense, it is a pain that walls away a deeper pain, serving as the drugged yet still wretchedly insomniac gatekeeper of incarcerated pain. It is no secret that most of those who come to psychotherapy with symptoms of depression are female. Why is this? Part of the answer lies in the fact that female anger is generally more negatively viewed in our culture than is male anger. Those who have been historically most disempowered culturally are likely to be the most suppressed in their anger (Stearns and Stearns, 1986) - and what is more depressing than feeling, over and over, helpless because of a pervasive sense of disempowerment?
"Getting openly angry is not the cure for depression, but doing so can help lift "the weight" enough for movement to occur, for deeper, more healing tears to emerge, for aliveness to flow more freely. (p. 128)"
3. Do you think that depression always involves suppression of feeling? Are there cases where the cause may be more primarily physiological? It doesn't feel like suppression to me - it feels like a sucking vortex or an intense gravity. Admittedly, when it starts to lift there may be other feelings that come to the surface - anger, grief - and their release may bring some relief. Other times my mood may shift in a positive direction without going through any kind of cathartic release. In any case, could you say more about this? Is there anywhere in your writings where you have discussed depression in more detail?
Robert answers:
1. The “fierce alchemy of intimacy” that I speak of especially applies to those who are in mature monogamous relationships, but it can also apply to any relationship that is loving, conscious, and close, such as a deep friendship. I don’t see it as applicable, though, to the guru-disciple relationship, because such intimacy requires a true peer relationship, and guru and disciple are not on equal ground.
A sexual bond, and I mean an open-eyed, vital, heartfelt sexual bond, simply magnifies whatever depth and closeness already exists in the relationship. In mature monogamy (see my answer to question 2), sex becomes ecstatically juicy communion on many levels, an embracing that opens us until we are but openness itself, effortlessly sentient.
And what are the essential elements that make transformative intimacy possible? The desire for it, coupled with a commitment to do the preliminary work of exposing and working through our neurotic ways of relating. This is no small task. It doesn’t just ask for quality time spent in meditation, study, and psychotherapy, but also for the hard learnings that come from getting into relationship along the way. About the lessons that come through being in relationship: We get to keep doing them until we’ve learned them by heart.
2. Monogamy versus polyamory (intimate relationship with more than one partner at the same time), with regard to depth, awakening potential, and capacity for ecstasy? Monogamy, by a landslide, so long as we’re talking about mature monogamy (referred to from now as MM), as opposed to status quo, growth-stunting, passion-dulling monogamy, referred to from now on as IM, or immature monogamy.
IM is, especially in men, often infected with promiscuous desire and fantasy, however much that might be repressed or camouflaged with upstanding virtues. Airbrush this, infuse it with talk of integrity and unconditional love and jealously-transcending ethics, consider bringing in another partner or two, and you’re closer than near to polyamorous or multiple-partnering (referred to from now on as MP) territory.
At this point, those who promote MP might jump in and say that it is not IM, because of how loving and open it is. Though there may in some cases be some truth in this, it glosses over the difficulties associated with such “love” and “openness”. One such difficulty is the restriction that MP places on attachment, coupled with its denial that it is doing so. If we have more than one lover, then when things get rocky or flat with one, we can go to another, instead of staying with and working with that rockiness or dryness; we can, in other words, keep ourselves removed from getting as attached as we might if we were with only one deep intimate. Another difficulty has to do with the fuzzy or too-easily-collapsed boundaries that often accompany the enthused “openness” of “open” relationships (this of course also often characterizes IM).
IM gets neurotically attached, MP avoids attachment, and MM (mature monogamy) permits attachment, without making a problem out of it. And what’s so important about attachment in intimate relationship? Well, for starters, without it we are not nearly vulnerable enough in our relationships; it’s easy to be loving but not vulnerable, but without sufficient vulnerability, we won’t open -- and be broken open -- to depths that we otherwise could. I’ll say more about the value of attachment in intimate relationship a bit later.
Those who are caught up in -- or dragged down by -- IM are going to want some compensation for their doing time in the cult of two that is IM, and high on that list, especially for men, is erotic pleasure. If they are not sexually happy with their wives, which is often the case, then they’re probably going to end up hanging out with or acting out their pornographic leanings, which may include polyamorous fantasies. They have not yet learned that eroticism (excessive interest in sexual promise and opportunity) promises happiness, but real sex begins with happiness.
Men in general are not naturally monogamous (at least compared to women), and have to learn it. How? By waking up, especially when in the midst of IM (and MP fantasies). IM is not entirely useless, because time spent in it can -- through the sheer dissatisfaction that it generates -- ready us for something deeper and far more fulfilling that still is monogamous.
MM is a life-giving, passion-deepening, spiritually-opening choice, and it’s a choice we cannot truly make until we’ve become incapable of IM and unseducible by MP’s advances. At this point, we can love so deeply and so fully in a one-on-one relationship that we can become very attached, so that if our beloved were to suddenly die or betray us, our heart would be ripped wide open. Opening to such attachment means that we are not going to run away or dissociate from whatever pain our relationship might bring us. Here, we are not repressing our MP urges, but have outgrown them, leaving ourselves no escape routes (like another lover or some other potent distraction) from our chosen relationship.
MM is all about finding freedom through intimacy, especially the profound and singular intimacy that characterizes a truly bonded partnership. Our relationship with our beloved is then a sacred container that we are deeply committed to protecting and taking good care of. This means, in part, not leaking energy elsewhere, not distracting ourselves from challenges in the relationship, waking up in the midst of reactivity, and putting no limit on our love for our beloved.
Such deep focus, such devotion to our shared depth, such shared safety to get really vulnerable and really alive with each other, such shared emotional and existential and spiritual nakedness, is an ongoing choice made all the richer by cutting off all exits. Then she is not just a woman to him, but all women and Woman Incarnate, and he is to her not just a man, but all men, and Man Incarnate. This is not metaphysical mush, but a living reality, full-blooded and more often than not ecstatic.
Having said all this, I’m not condemning MP, but simply attempting to place it in a relational context that divests it of any glamor we might want to associate it with. MP confuses love and sexuality; yes, we can love more than one person deeply, but this does not mean that we can or need to be sexual with them! Putting a limit on whom we are sexual with does not necessarily put a limit on whom we are loving deeply. Those committed to MM find freedom through limitation.
A man who has not learned MM is going to be, however subtly, chronically on the verge of betraying his partner (and not just sexually). In IM sexuality, fantasy usually plays a big role, allowing us to pump energy into mindgames that make pleasurable sensation and release more important than true intimacy. But in MM sexuality, fantasy is nonexistent (being utterly unnecessary), since the living reality and succulent mystery of each other is more than enough to keep both joyously turned on, especially given the remarkably deep shared trust that is present. Such trust is rooted in the dynamic safety and integrity inherent to MM.
IM may be an avoidance of overt MP, but MP is an avoidance of MM. Put another way, IM and MP are two aspects of a stage of relatedness that must be outgrown and outdanced before MM can take the stage.
One more thing about MM before I finish my rant: MM makes possible the kind of relationship that transcends relationship. Touching the One through the two. Freedom through intimacy. MM is, in other words, a profoundly liberating bondage, a deeply joined freefall into What-Really-Matters. MP is too wrapped up in the shallow end of the pool to generate the depth possible through MM.
In MM, there is not room for another lover, but more than enough room for the Beloved.
And one last thing about IM and MM: Jump in, wherever you are. When you hit bottom, push off and surface, then paddle out a bit deeper. Eventually, you will leave the arms of the familiar, and have no bottom to hit, no end to love, no limit to depth. This is the beginning of MM. What joy, what a blessing, what an all-round wonder, it is to do and allow all this through awakened, full-blooded monogamy!
3. There’s much I could say here, but will for now share just a bit, acknowledging that depression is an enormously complex topic...
Even the suppression of feeling has a feeling to it, which might well have its own attending intensity. What you describe as “a sucking vortex or an intense gravity” may be depression, and may also be more fear than depression. The sensations that typically characterize depression are contractive and heavy -- there’s a pervasive sense of being pressed down. Having things kept down (and weighted down) consumes a lot of life-energy, draining and enervating us, laying us low.
Where anxiety wires us, depression flattens us, leaving us amorphously and greyly embodied, stuck in a flaccid rigor mortis. In depression, cognition is employed as an immune system of sorts, barring entry to the bare reality of certain feelings — with all of their attending imperatives and intuitions — and whatever else is organismically recognized as a threat.
The fact that the rate of depression has risen dramatically since the 1950s is a testament to how threatened we, however unconsciously, feel about our lives, both personally and collectively. Numbness is a common “solution” to feeling threatened, and depression, if nothing else, is a kind of partial numbness. As much as we may look negatively upon depression, we still tend to prefer the burdened beast of depression to the monsters of the deep...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A. Jana/Plasmafly asks:
1. I want to know how RAM went from his meltdown up into his present adaptation level. Does Robert think he would have gone back to University, if he hadn't gone through the crash? Was it time, his practices, new relationships or his college work that was principly involved in his recovery? (I know that's a silly question.)
2. Has Robert got a different friend pool nowadays compared to the 80's, I mean people he is peers with, not students? Do his present friends seem more real to him?
3. Does Robert think that such a thorough meltdown is somehow important to him personally, in who he is now. That is, would Robert feel less than he is now, if he hadn't gone through that? And does he feel that it was a necessary catharsis, a necessary part of his development for body, mind and soul?
Robert answers:
1. By committing myself to being present no matter what; by honoring the needs of the personal and interpersonal as much as those of the transpersonal; by practicing compassion when I didn’t want to; by letting everything serve my awakening. So much was involved in my recovery/reemergence that I cannot isolate any one factor; it all combined to bring me to where I now am. Would I have gone back to University if I hadn’t crashed? Probably not -- I would have been too averse to put myself in the position of student.
2. Yes.
3. Yes. Following is a poem (actually now a song sung by my wife Diane) that holds within its flow much about my meltdown:
Again I break, my need dissolving my pride
Again I spill, my hurt streaming, streaming wide
Again I die, letting all the goodbyes tear open my sky
Again I whisper and again I roar
Swimming through the dreamy door
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One behind the show
Again I fall, chained to my lies
Again I rise, filled with blazing night and newborn cries
Again I pump up my will, gunning for the Holy Thrill
Again I wake, letting go of both hope and despair
No longer seeking something else to wear
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One appearing as the show
Again I reach through the darkness shining wild
Again I rock in the cradle of Eternity's child
Again I die, releasing all that I took to be mine
Again I howl, prowling through forests of palm and pine
One hand on a spear, the other on my fear
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One behind the show
Again I gaze from one eye, my broken body aglow
Again I drop my sword, watching my blood cut rivers in the snow
Again I beat a sweating drum, urging you to leave your mind
Again I disappear without leaving anything behind
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One appearing as the show
Again I smile, touching what's always touched me
Again I dance in the fire, burning free
Again I remember to embrace my wounds
Again I rebuild the temple, rising from my ruins
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One behind the show
Again I break and taste the final goodbye
Again I ride a wave of everlasting sky
Again I fall and forget the Sacred Call
And again I remember and again I include it all
And again here we are, in the flesh yet unborn
Lovers with both the calm and the storm
And again I join what's above with what's below
And again I recognize the One beyond the show
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B. Arthur/adastra asks:
In The Anatomy and Evolution of Anger, you write:
"...let us consider the power of intimacy to shake us to our core, to open us in ways that we might never otherwise permit; as hellish as the difficult aspects of intimate relationship can sometimes be, they are - usually in hindsight - none other than fierce grace. (p.172, Anger)
"When we are intimate with an other, we can be very, very hurt. We can become crazily jealous, possessive, enraged, angry in ways we never thought possible, our spiritual practices shredding into near non-existence in the storms of our pain and reactivity. It might seem under such conditions that our capacity for awakening has been severely diminished, but that is from the viewpoint that sees only (and that makes a problem out of) the turbulence, the unbridled chaos, of our disintegrating position.
"However, in such rough and wild waters swirls another possibility, one equipped with nothing but a lifeline to What-really-matters. But if we only try to think our way through our relational chaos or dilemma, we merely confine its turbulent forces in our minds, thereby intensifying our confusion, instead of letting its energies - including anger – fuel our leap into a more fitting level of being. Here, we may begin to view relational intimacy not as an end (nor as a haven only), but rather as a means, an extremely potent crucible for Awakening's alchemy.
"In the liberating bondage of genuine intimacy, our separateness is our ticket Home..." (Robert Augustus Masters, The Anatomy and Evolution of Anger, p. 174)"
1. Does the fierce alchemy of intimacy you speak of here apply only to romantically/sexually intimate relationships, or can other types of relationships work this way as well? A guru/disciple relationship would, I suppose, be another such possibility, but what about a very close friendship? Is there something about a sexual bond that creates the conditions for this kind of transformative alchemy? What are the essential elements which make this kind of transformative intimacy possible?
2. In terms of spiritual transformation or Awakening, how do monogamous relationships compare to polyamorous relationships? Is it necessary or helpful for two people to bond exclusively? Or could it actually be more potent, at least in some cases, to be in a polyamorous arrangement?
Also in Anger, you say,
"In a study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, it was found that emotionally expressive psychotherapy significantly reduced depression levels, even though pain levels remained the same, suggesting that the pain itself was not depressing, but rather the "held" or "pressed-down" emotions associated with that pain. (Anger, p.120)"
footnote to above:
"As such, depression is not a feeling, but rather a suppression of feeling, consuming an enormous amount of life-energy in its "pressing down" of feeling. It could be said to be the sensation of nearly successful repression, minus any significantly satisfying compensatory lift. In this sense, it is a pain that walls away a deeper pain, serving as the drugged yet still wretchedly insomniac gatekeeper of incarcerated pain. It is no secret that most of those who come to psychotherapy with symptoms of depression are female. Why is this? Part of the answer lies in the fact that female anger is generally more negatively viewed in our culture than is male anger. Those who have been historically most disempowered culturally are likely to be the most suppressed in their anger (Stearns and Stearns, 1986) - and what is more depressing than feeling, over and over, helpless because of a pervasive sense of disempowerment?
"Getting openly angry is not the cure for depression, but doing so can help lift "the weight" enough for movement to occur, for deeper, more healing tears to emerge, for aliveness to flow more freely. (p. 128)"
3. Do you think that depression always involves suppression of feeling? Are there cases where the cause may be more primarily physiological? It doesn't feel like suppression to me - it feels like a sucking vortex or an intense gravity. Admittedly, when it starts to lift there may be other feelings that come to the surface - anger, grief - and their release may bring some relief. Other times my mood may shift in a positive direction without going through any kind of cathartic release. In any case, could you say more about this? Is there anywhere in your writings where you have discussed depression in more detail?
Robert answers:
1. The “fierce alchemy of intimacy” that I speak of especially applies to those who are in mature monogamous relationships, but it can also apply to any relationship that is loving, conscious, and close, such as a deep friendship. I don’t see it as applicable, though, to the guru-disciple relationship, because such intimacy requires a true peer relationship, and guru and disciple are not on equal ground.
A sexual bond, and I mean an open-eyed, vital, heartfelt sexual bond, simply magnifies whatever depth and closeness already exists in the relationship. In mature monogamy (see my answer to question 2), sex becomes ecstatically juicy communion on many levels, an embracing that opens us until we are but openness itself, effortlessly sentient.
And what are the essential elements that make transformative intimacy possible? The desire for it, coupled with a commitment to do the preliminary work of exposing and working through our neurotic ways of relating. This is no small task. It doesn’t just ask for quality time spent in meditation, study, and psychotherapy, but also for the hard learnings that come from getting into relationship along the way. About the lessons that come through being in relationship: We get to keep doing them until we’ve learned them by heart.
2. Monogamy versus polyamory (intimate relationship with more than one partner at the same time), with regard to depth, awakening potential, and capacity for ecstasy? Monogamy, by a landslide, so long as we’re talking about mature monogamy (referred to from now as MM), as opposed to status quo, growth-stunting, passion-dulling monogamy, referred to from now on as IM, or immature monogamy.
IM is, especially in men, often infected with promiscuous desire and fantasy, however much that might be repressed or camouflaged with upstanding virtues. Airbrush this, infuse it with talk of integrity and unconditional love and jealously-transcending ethics, consider bringing in another partner or two, and you’re closer than near to polyamorous or multiple-partnering (referred to from now on as MP) territory.
At this point, those who promote MP might jump in and say that it is not IM, because of how loving and open it is. Though there may in some cases be some truth in this, it glosses over the difficulties associated with such “love” and “openness”. One such difficulty is the restriction that MP places on attachment, coupled with its denial that it is doing so. If we have more than one lover, then when things get rocky or flat with one, we can go to another, instead of staying with and working with that rockiness or dryness; we can, in other words, keep ourselves removed from getting as attached as we might if we were with only one deep intimate. Another difficulty has to do with the fuzzy or too-easily-collapsed boundaries that often accompany the enthused “openness” of “open” relationships (this of course also often characterizes IM).
IM gets neurotically attached, MP avoids attachment, and MM (mature monogamy) permits attachment, without making a problem out of it. And what’s so important about attachment in intimate relationship? Well, for starters, without it we are not nearly vulnerable enough in our relationships; it’s easy to be loving but not vulnerable, but without sufficient vulnerability, we won’t open -- and be broken open -- to depths that we otherwise could. I’ll say more about the value of attachment in intimate relationship a bit later.
Those who are caught up in -- or dragged down by -- IM are going to want some compensation for their doing time in the cult of two that is IM, and high on that list, especially for men, is erotic pleasure. If they are not sexually happy with their wives, which is often the case, then they’re probably going to end up hanging out with or acting out their pornographic leanings, which may include polyamorous fantasies. They have not yet learned that eroticism (excessive interest in sexual promise and opportunity) promises happiness, but real sex begins with happiness.
Men in general are not naturally monogamous (at least compared to women), and have to learn it. How? By waking up, especially when in the midst of IM (and MP fantasies). IM is not entirely useless, because time spent in it can -- through the sheer dissatisfaction that it generates -- ready us for something deeper and far more fulfilling that still is monogamous.
MM is a life-giving, passion-deepening, spiritually-opening choice, and it’s a choice we cannot truly make until we’ve become incapable of IM and unseducible by MP’s advances. At this point, we can love so deeply and so fully in a one-on-one relationship that we can become very attached, so that if our beloved were to suddenly die or betray us, our heart would be ripped wide open. Opening to such attachment means that we are not going to run away or dissociate from whatever pain our relationship might bring us. Here, we are not repressing our MP urges, but have outgrown them, leaving ourselves no escape routes (like another lover or some other potent distraction) from our chosen relationship.
MM is all about finding freedom through intimacy, especially the profound and singular intimacy that characterizes a truly bonded partnership. Our relationship with our beloved is then a sacred container that we are deeply committed to protecting and taking good care of. This means, in part, not leaking energy elsewhere, not distracting ourselves from challenges in the relationship, waking up in the midst of reactivity, and putting no limit on our love for our beloved.
Such deep focus, such devotion to our shared depth, such shared safety to get really vulnerable and really alive with each other, such shared emotional and existential and spiritual nakedness, is an ongoing choice made all the richer by cutting off all exits. Then she is not just a woman to him, but all women and Woman Incarnate, and he is to her not just a man, but all men, and Man Incarnate. This is not metaphysical mush, but a living reality, full-blooded and more often than not ecstatic.
Having said all this, I’m not condemning MP, but simply attempting to place it in a relational context that divests it of any glamor we might want to associate it with. MP confuses love and sexuality; yes, we can love more than one person deeply, but this does not mean that we can or need to be sexual with them! Putting a limit on whom we are sexual with does not necessarily put a limit on whom we are loving deeply. Those committed to MM find freedom through limitation.
A man who has not learned MM is going to be, however subtly, chronically on the verge of betraying his partner (and not just sexually). In IM sexuality, fantasy usually plays a big role, allowing us to pump energy into mindgames that make pleasurable sensation and release more important than true intimacy. But in MM sexuality, fantasy is nonexistent (being utterly unnecessary), since the living reality and succulent mystery of each other is more than enough to keep both joyously turned on, especially given the remarkably deep shared trust that is present. Such trust is rooted in the dynamic safety and integrity inherent to MM.
IM may be an avoidance of overt MP, but MP is an avoidance of MM. Put another way, IM and MP are two aspects of a stage of relatedness that must be outgrown and outdanced before MM can take the stage.
One more thing about MM before I finish my rant: MM makes possible the kind of relationship that transcends relationship. Touching the One through the two. Freedom through intimacy. MM is, in other words, a profoundly liberating bondage, a deeply joined freefall into What-Really-Matters. MP is too wrapped up in the shallow end of the pool to generate the depth possible through MM.
In MM, there is not room for another lover, but more than enough room for the Beloved.
And one last thing about IM and MM: Jump in, wherever you are. When you hit bottom, push off and surface, then paddle out a bit deeper. Eventually, you will leave the arms of the familiar, and have no bottom to hit, no end to love, no limit to depth. This is the beginning of MM. What joy, what a blessing, what an all-round wonder, it is to do and allow all this through awakened, full-blooded monogamy!
3. There’s much I could say here, but will for now share just a bit, acknowledging that depression is an enormously complex topic...
Even the suppression of feeling has a feeling to it, which might well have its own attending intensity. What you describe as “a sucking vortex or an intense gravity” may be depression, and may also be more fear than depression. The sensations that typically characterize depression are contractive and heavy -- there’s a pervasive sense of being pressed down. Having things kept down (and weighted down) consumes a lot of life-energy, draining and enervating us, laying us low.
Where anxiety wires us, depression flattens us, leaving us amorphously and greyly embodied, stuck in a flaccid rigor mortis. In depression, cognition is employed as an immune system of sorts, barring entry to the bare reality of certain feelings — with all of their attending imperatives and intuitions — and whatever else is organismically recognized as a threat.
The fact that the rate of depression has risen dramatically since the 1950s is a testament to how threatened we, however unconsciously, feel about our lives, both personally and collectively. Numbness is a common “solution” to feeling threatened, and depression, if nothing else, is a kind of partial numbness. As much as we may look negatively upon depression, we still tend to prefer the burdened beast of depression to the monsters of the deep...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
posted by adastra at 6:31 AM
