Robert Augustus Masters Q&A Part Fifteen
April 16, 2006
from the Questions for Robert Masters re Poly, Monogamy, etc? thread in Zaadz:
A. LaSara asks:
“Isn’t it possible that there is a form of polyamory that might be defined as Mature Poly (MP), similar to the MM concept?”
Robert answers:
The fact that it is theoretically possible reminds me of Jim Carrey’s character in “Dumb and Dumber” asking a woman to whom he’s very attracted what his chances are of going out with her; she says something like one in a million, and he’s overjoyed, now that he knows he has a chance. We may think that it’s theoretically possible for any child born in America to become President, but we know, in that place in us where facts are not mistaken for Truth, that it really ain’t so. All of which is to say that Mature Polyamory (MP) is, at least to me, little more than a concept thats slim mathematical chance of actually manifesting is used to present it as more than just a concept.
I don’t, however, think that we are, at a certain stage, incapable of MP, but that those who are capable of it are not drawn to pursuing it. They have better things to do, more relevant matters in which to engage; they no longer have any need to have multiple partners, and in fact may not even be interested in Mature Monogamy (MM). Let’s clarify this by considering a relatively extreme example: Those who are most deeply capable of being in relationship, which means, in part, being consistently present, loving, and intimate with the Nondual, are more often than not disinterested in intimate relationship. Imagine how incredibly loving, compassionate, and wise a sage like Ramana Maharshi would be in a relationship; imagine what a profoundly open and spiritual partner he would be. Trouble is, he had no interest in such relationship, already having a deeper than deep intimacy with all. (The fact that so many great Realizers become increasingly androgynous as they ripen into their Realization is, of course, a factor here.)
The irony is that we are most capable of intimate relationship when we no longer have to have it; then some may choose it, and some may not, but if it is entered into, it is very different than a conventional relationship.
My sense is that the more deeply we awaken, the less scattered our attention regarding intimate relationship becomes; early on, multiple-partnering is more appealing and arousing (especially for men), as our sexuality mechanically extends to all kinds of people; later, we are more drawn to awakened, deeply committed monogamy, as our sexuality becomes less global and more intimately personal, more focused on one intimate; still later, we may go even deeper into mature monogamy (especially if doing so serves others), or we may lose interest (in a nonavoidant, awakened sense) in intimate relationship altogether. An immature person loves very few and feels sexually pulled toward many; a more mature person loves many and feels sexually pulled toward very few; a truly mature person loves all and feels sexually pulled to a particular beloved, or passes into true celibacy. This is not a progression toward more sexual repression, but rather toward more sexual freedom. Having more than one partner does not mean that one is freer sexually, but rather that one is not yet ready to go really deep with another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B. Elizabeth/Tamgoddess asks:
1. I have a situation which has become unbearably painful for me. A very close very dear friend has been depressed for years, and I am unable to help. He has convinced himself that nobody can help him and there's nothing that can be done. He's tried various things, but can't stick with anything. It's a very self-perpetuating and self-defeating cycle.
When I'm talking to him, I realize that what he is going through is, in part, a spiritual crisis. He has fallen into the abyss and found meaninglessness and suffering all around him. If he were a Buddhist, I'd know just what to say! But he is an atheist, and if I made any mention of a spiritual crisis, he'd be not only insulted, but he'd have nothing but scorn for anything I said. I feel like we have no language that we can use to communicate across this divide.
He has been diagnosed in the past with PTSD, ADHD and depression, by various people. He's tried to do EMDR, but he says he feels that none of his problems are worth discussing, much less writing down. Needless to say, that therapy is going nowhere, as he doesn't even feel that his problems, or even his "self", is worth discussing.
I have done what I could do so far. At this point, I know that he has to want to make changes, and clearly, he's not there yet. But I feel so deeply compelled by his pain that I continue to try to help. Maybe in part it's because I have no such tolerance for pain that he does. It seems that he will never hit bottom, and his capacity for wallowing in this pain is infinite! I want to pull him from this abyss he's trapped in.
How can i deal with this? I feel as though I MUST do something. What is it that I can do, (or not do)? He won't get help, and instead has this whole twisted logic of how nothing will ever get better and it's either all his fault or other people's fault who are out to get him. Because he's lost all of his friends, he's convinced himself that he never had any to begin with.
2. What's the difference between wallowing in an emotion–say unhappiness, where you're almost enjoying it in a way–and just trying to be present with that emotion?
Robert answers:
1. My thoughts/intuitions, in no particular order, are:
First of all, a tough, tough situation...Your hands appear to be tied, even as you ache to do something, anything (including doing nothing), to help him. If nothing else, you are bound to become more intimate with your helplessness to make something happen that you really really want to see happen.
You say you don’t feel that you have any common ground with him that can help pull him from the abyss. First of all, you do have that common ground: your suffering. You don’t need to tell him this, but simply feel your way to its core; once you are there, present in the very heart of your pain, appropriate actions regarding him will start to emerge, including doing nothing more than embracing your helplessness to help him.
Second, it sounds like he’s more at the edge of the abyss than actually in it. You might want to reframe his spiritual crisis as an existential crisis, but without speaking of it like this to him. My experience of working with people in his situation is that blunt, no-bullshit yet still caring talk works best. No babying, no speaking from a “higher” place, no trying to fix him, no conveyed sense that he’s being seen as damaged goods.
I’d want to ask him at some point, after making some real connection with him (if only with regards to how incredibly shitty life can be), what keeps him going. I’d also ask him, at a fitting time, that assuming he wants to be freed from his suffering, if he’d be willing to do whatever that took, however small or halting the steps might be. I’d also want to explain to him that his suffering is being amplified by the shock that he’s still carrying, and that until such shock is released from his system, his efforts to get himself to higher ground will not work.
Before he can “be pulled from the abyss”, he needs to not only know it better, but also demonstrate that he would cooperate with such a “pulling”.
You say he won’t get any help. Does this mean that he thinks he can do it himself? Or that he thinks he’s beyond help? And if he clearly isn’t able to do it himself, where does that leave him? Perhaps face-to-face with the pride that says he should be able to do it by himself, beneath which there is very likely a shitload of shame.
Your gift to him is not to “help” him (for he might simply be slipping into the more debilitating dimensions of shame because of the weakness that needing help may imply), but to let him know how his situation makes you feel. Then you are simply sharing data -- hurt, anger, fear, helplessness, and so on -- rather than beliefs about him and his situation. I’m suggesting a being-to-being encounter, without any attachment to a particular outcome.
If he lets in what you’re sharing (which doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing or disagreeing with it, but rather feeling it), he may start to feel a camaraderie with you that will actually be far more helpful than any advice or direction you might give him. Those who are really down and pissed off about it don’t want to fixed, but to be truly met, even if it’s in their latest gutter. Then, they and you get to, after a bit more down-to-earth connecting, mutually gaze at the situation in question. If we won’t enter into the actual pain (at least to some extent) that someone like your friend is experiencing, then we we’ll be at too much of a distance from them to really be of service to them.
He needs some good therapy, but needs to choose it for himself, and to do that, he has to view it as a needed step. My feeling is that he needs a therapist who is willing to get into the scarier stuff with him, rather than sitting back in the safety of a more removed circumstance. It sounds like he’s not just hurting, but also indulging in his misery, but he needs to see this himself, and to also see that shaming himself for this only prolongs his stay in such miserable territory.
I suggest that you don’t try to talk him into getting help. Instead, talk about times you’ve needed help and have gotten it, without, however, doing so to get him to get help. What matters here is your sincerity and your vulnerability. Address not his pain, but yours. This is not about commiserating with him about how difficult Life can be, but rather about inviting him, bit by bit, into that depth of shared heart that has room for everyone’s suffering. The more you enter that zone while you’re with him, the more likely it is that he will, sooner or later, begin moving in a similar direction.
2. “What's the difference between wallowing in an emotion –- say unhappiness, where you're almost enjoying it in a way –- and just trying to be present with that emotion?”
To wallow in an emotion is to indulge in it, to get lost in its dramatics, whereas being present with it is to remain awake in the midst of it, relating to it instead of from it. To wallow in an emotion is to not take responsibility for its arising and expression, allowing ourselves to be “consumed” or “swept away” by its energies and viewpoint. To be present with the very same emotion is to take responsibility for its arising and expression, so that we are no longer playing victim to it; then we can allow the energies of our emotional state to be as they are without having to submit to their viewpoint and action tendencies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C. Arthur/adastra asks:
I have a friend who was in a ceremony recently, and by her report experienced a profound awakening to who she really is – the ground of being manifesting as a particular bodymind, no longer experiencing a sense of separation. During the experience the cosmic mother erased her personal history – it's not that she doesn't remember traumatic things that happened to her, she just feels unaffected by them; what she tells me is that she has realized that everything is utterly impersonal, everything. Therefore she feels she no longer has anything to “work through,” although if anything came up, any personal or interpersonal difficulty or blockage she'd work through it. “Whatever is there, if something comes up, I'll deal with it; it doesn't matter one way or the other.”
During the ceremony she asked the mother to be shown if there were any blockages she needed to work through that were impeding her process. The response was, "I could vaporize that in a second if you wanted me to - do you want me to?" My friend said, "yes," and felt a sense of relief. Next the mother said, "I could vaporize you too, want me to?" Upon my friends assent, she felt her face melt, then her body, and then everything just blew away. In a subsequent ceremony, over and over again she got the message, "Nothing is personal."
My feeling is that she may well have awakened - although I don't feel qualified to make that judgment, since I'm not awake in that sense. She looks and feels “softer” and more present. She speaks about her perspective in a way that sounds congruent with my (intellectual) understanding of these things. She also reports that her body feels different, one manifestation of this being that she is no longer digesting meat very well.
Since she no longer feels any involvement with "her own personal issues", we've talked about whether she could possibly be doing a “spiritual bypass” - but I don't feel that's what she's doing. Another possibility is that she has, in fact, suddenly woken up, not through a long term meditation practice (the closest equivalent for her is using Holosync while sleeping for the past several years) but rather as a result of an induced state change in a sacred ceremonial context.
One other detail I feel I should mention: she did have a profound spiritual experience four or five years ago in which she woke up in some sense - an enduring realization (although she says what happened recently goes much deeper) - and it is obvious to me that she's undergone much development in the intervening time, in both personal and spiritual aspects.
1. Do you think it's possible that she has really woken up suddenly? In Darkness Shining Wild you discuss several similar cases.
2. How would I know if she has? Would it be possible for me to tell, since I'm not at the level of awareness I believe she is experiencing? Would it take someone at a similar level to tell for sure?
3. Sometimes when I talk to her about this, I feel an internal sensation that's sort of like a gravity or attraction; could this be some sort of resonance with her state? If so, how can I facilitate or encourage that?
4. Could she be doing a spiritual bypass? How would we tell? And what should she do if she that is the case?
another question, unrelated to the above
Among people who participate in indigenous or similar rituals which induce altered states for the purpose of personal or spiritual growth – using one or more of the “Four D’s" (dancing, drumming, dreaming and drugging) – several times people have expressed the strong conviction that one should generally speaking keep their visions/revelations to themselves. One explanation given was that this was [subtle or soul] medicine and to speak (too) freely about it would “scatter the medicine” and render it ineffective.
I feel on an intuitive level that there may be something to this, and have consequently exercised more caution in talking about my inner visionary experiences. An alternative explanation could be that to discuss such things too freely – at least for a period of time after such material arises – would distract you from potent internal processing or “metabolizing” of the material; this could apply whether the material arises as a result of dreaming, a therapy session or workshop, meditation, or an altered state induced by any of a variety of means (holotropic breathwork, drumming, Ayahuasca etc.)
On the other hand, sharing such experience can elicit valuable insights or shared experience from another person (especially an intimate other) or group; furthermore, in group sharing, there can be healing benefit for other members of the group or the group as a whole - something I've noticed in both your workshops and in "sharing circles" following shamanic ceremonies.
It did seem to me a while ago that there might be some “diffusion” of the potential potency of such experiences on the part of people who were talking about them too openly, especially in the sense of “this amazing incredible experience that happened to me!” At times I found such sharing intrusive. Other times I received valuable information that applied to my own process. Also, I have found sharing such experience with an intimate other in itself sometimes appeared to be a potent facilitator of growth and insight. In a group sharing experience I’m thinking of, people were careful not to discuss too much in the way of details of their visions or deep experiences, yet shared some of their insights and/or talked about their process in a more general way. I found this to be very moving and identified with much of what was shared - in fact, everyone's story always has some relevance for me.
5. What do you think and feel about this idea of retaining visionary experience or insights and either not talking about it at all, not sharing it for a period of time, or sharing only very selectively? What relevance do you see for the cultural context, the values and practices of the individuals involved, the particular setting (e.g. indigenous healing retreat or group psychotherapy session)?
Robert answers:
1. It’s possible that she had a sudden awakening, a satori. There are many levels of awakening, and many ways to frame it, so it’s not so simple as to just say that she awakened. Awakened from what? There’s plenty to consider here: For example, some who have had a direct experiences of their fundamental nature get caught up in premature assumptions of Enlightenment. And, to thicken the plot, the self-transcendence that typically characterizes sudden awakenings can easily lead one to confuse the “no-self” of deep realization with the “no-self” of shattered egoity (as seemed to be case with Suzanne Segal, in whose final days memories of childhood abuse began surfacing, casting her “no-self” sense of herself in a less overtly spiritual and more depersonalized context). Also, those who have awakened deeply don’t usually go around letting others know that they’ve thus awakened. Only the spiritually ambitious ego wants to claim Enlightenment (all the while wanting, like a character in a Fellini movie, to be present at its own funeral).
2. How to know? See her with not with the eyes of your mind, but of your heart. Let go of the notion that she’s at a different level than you. You don’t have to be where she is to get a sense of her state. You don’t need to, for example, be at the Dalai Lama’s “level” to be able to tell that he’s an unusually kind person; you can feel it, and that feeling carries its own authority. You may not be able to classify your friend’s state, but you can feel it. Let such feeling be primary, and interpretation secondary. It’s so, so important not to automatically assume that someone else is at a certain “level”, but instead to let yourself resonate with her or him, and then see where you are.
3. Such resonance is deepened by opening more fully to her state, but it’s crucial to remember that your increased connection with her state is being triggered by rather than caused by her state. That is, she is not stirring you; you are stirring yourself. Do not make the error of collapsing your boundaries in order to resonate more fully with her; instead, expand your boundaries to do so, thereby including her in the circle/sphere of your being. This keeps your capacity to discern alive and well. So many, when in the presence of someone supposedly at a deeper level than themselves, discard or disregard their bullshit detector.
4. Yes, she could be doing a spiritual bypass. One possible sign of this is her emphasis on the impersonal. Not that reality is not impersonal in a very profound sense, but to me the Real is not just impersonal, but also prepersonal, personal, transpersonal, and interpersonal. I’m suspicious of teachings that overemphasize the impersonal and frame the personal as something lesser.
You say that “she no longer feels any involvement with ‘her own personal issues’”. That sounds like a kind of spiritual bypassing to me. It’s one thing to be stuck in and dramatizing one’s own personal issues, and another thing altogether to be utterly uninvolved with them. The latter speaks of depersonalization and dissociation more than of true transcendence.
I am involved with my personal issues; they are part of my being. I choose not to cut myself off from them, but rather to cultivate a relationship to them that serves my well-being. If one is really awakening, there is an increasingly radical nonavoidance of all that constitutes one -- at least that’s how I see it. I’m not saying that your friend has not had some kind of genuine awakening, but that it (from what you say) is possibly being used by her, however unknowingly, to help bypass or distance her from any pain she may still be carrying from her past. Real awakening does not grant us immunity from our pain, but rather allows us to feel it more fully, without, however, getting lost or invested in its viewpoint. Some teachings advise us not to take it (whatever “it” may be) personally, but I’d like to suggest that such advice ought to be accompanied by the admonition not to take it (whatever “it” may be) impersonally. Rather, simply take it as it is.
5. Sharing sacred experience? Share it very selectively; talking about it to those who are not ready to hear it, or who are not open to hearing it, does no one any good. If you are going to speak about it, tailor to the one with whom you are sharing it; articulate it uniquely for them, as if telling it for the first time. (If someone tells me a story about themselves in the very same manner that they’d tell it to someone else, I am not nearly as interested as I would be if they were to tell it to me in a way that takes into fitting account me as listener.) Find, and keep finding, the fitting language, tone, pacing, timing, emphases, asides; allowing yourself to be creative in your delivery honors what you are sharing. Remember that getting across context is as important as accurately sharing relevant content.
Be clear about your motivation for sharing your sacred or visionary experience. If your listeners have little or no context for it, then that should be addressed, before sharing any of the deeper material. This, of course, presumes that you even ought to be sharing it with them! If in doubt as to whether to share it or not, I’d recommend not sharing it.
Take the following as a possible option: Rather than talking about a deep state we may be in, we may instead simply turn to our listeners and -- assuming that they are already receptive to us -- look into their eyes, allowing them to sense our state through the quality of contact we are making with them. If they sufficiently resonate with us, then we may speak, making sure our language is and remains congruent with our state; this may mean poetic speech, very simple statements, paradoxical utterances, pauses, and so on. Be spontaneous here. Truth cannot be rehearsed.
Consider two deep lovers: So much is said without saying anything. Even saying each other’s name may seem like a lie. Nonverbal sounds may be more eloquent than any words. Silence may often be permitted to say what has to be said. And still, there is a place for language. Feel, for example, Rumi’s ecstatic insights being downloaded into a languaging that can carry us beyond language. We are all capable of speaking from our depths, whatever form our speech might take. What matters is keeping our delivery fresh and attuned to whomever is listening, while maintaining an accuracy of more than just content.
from the Questions for Robert Masters re Poly, Monogamy, etc? thread in Zaadz:
A. LaSara asks:
“Isn’t it possible that there is a form of polyamory that might be defined as Mature Poly (MP), similar to the MM concept?”
Robert answers:
The fact that it is theoretically possible reminds me of Jim Carrey’s character in “Dumb and Dumber” asking a woman to whom he’s very attracted what his chances are of going out with her; she says something like one in a million, and he’s overjoyed, now that he knows he has a chance. We may think that it’s theoretically possible for any child born in America to become President, but we know, in that place in us where facts are not mistaken for Truth, that it really ain’t so. All of which is to say that Mature Polyamory (MP) is, at least to me, little more than a concept thats slim mathematical chance of actually manifesting is used to present it as more than just a concept.
I don’t, however, think that we are, at a certain stage, incapable of MP, but that those who are capable of it are not drawn to pursuing it. They have better things to do, more relevant matters in which to engage; they no longer have any need to have multiple partners, and in fact may not even be interested in Mature Monogamy (MM). Let’s clarify this by considering a relatively extreme example: Those who are most deeply capable of being in relationship, which means, in part, being consistently present, loving, and intimate with the Nondual, are more often than not disinterested in intimate relationship. Imagine how incredibly loving, compassionate, and wise a sage like Ramana Maharshi would be in a relationship; imagine what a profoundly open and spiritual partner he would be. Trouble is, he had no interest in such relationship, already having a deeper than deep intimacy with all. (The fact that so many great Realizers become increasingly androgynous as they ripen into their Realization is, of course, a factor here.)
The irony is that we are most capable of intimate relationship when we no longer have to have it; then some may choose it, and some may not, but if it is entered into, it is very different than a conventional relationship.
My sense is that the more deeply we awaken, the less scattered our attention regarding intimate relationship becomes; early on, multiple-partnering is more appealing and arousing (especially for men), as our sexuality mechanically extends to all kinds of people; later, we are more drawn to awakened, deeply committed monogamy, as our sexuality becomes less global and more intimately personal, more focused on one intimate; still later, we may go even deeper into mature monogamy (especially if doing so serves others), or we may lose interest (in a nonavoidant, awakened sense) in intimate relationship altogether. An immature person loves very few and feels sexually pulled toward many; a more mature person loves many and feels sexually pulled toward very few; a truly mature person loves all and feels sexually pulled to a particular beloved, or passes into true celibacy. This is not a progression toward more sexual repression, but rather toward more sexual freedom. Having more than one partner does not mean that one is freer sexually, but rather that one is not yet ready to go really deep with another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B. Elizabeth/Tamgoddess asks:
1. I have a situation which has become unbearably painful for me. A very close very dear friend has been depressed for years, and I am unable to help. He has convinced himself that nobody can help him and there's nothing that can be done. He's tried various things, but can't stick with anything. It's a very self-perpetuating and self-defeating cycle.
When I'm talking to him, I realize that what he is going through is, in part, a spiritual crisis. He has fallen into the abyss and found meaninglessness and suffering all around him. If he were a Buddhist, I'd know just what to say! But he is an atheist, and if I made any mention of a spiritual crisis, he'd be not only insulted, but he'd have nothing but scorn for anything I said. I feel like we have no language that we can use to communicate across this divide.
He has been diagnosed in the past with PTSD, ADHD and depression, by various people. He's tried to do EMDR, but he says he feels that none of his problems are worth discussing, much less writing down. Needless to say, that therapy is going nowhere, as he doesn't even feel that his problems, or even his "self", is worth discussing.
I have done what I could do so far. At this point, I know that he has to want to make changes, and clearly, he's not there yet. But I feel so deeply compelled by his pain that I continue to try to help. Maybe in part it's because I have no such tolerance for pain that he does. It seems that he will never hit bottom, and his capacity for wallowing in this pain is infinite! I want to pull him from this abyss he's trapped in.
How can i deal with this? I feel as though I MUST do something. What is it that I can do, (or not do)? He won't get help, and instead has this whole twisted logic of how nothing will ever get better and it's either all his fault or other people's fault who are out to get him. Because he's lost all of his friends, he's convinced himself that he never had any to begin with.
2. What's the difference between wallowing in an emotion–say unhappiness, where you're almost enjoying it in a way–and just trying to be present with that emotion?
Robert answers:
1. My thoughts/intuitions, in no particular order, are:
First of all, a tough, tough situation...Your hands appear to be tied, even as you ache to do something, anything (including doing nothing), to help him. If nothing else, you are bound to become more intimate with your helplessness to make something happen that you really really want to see happen.
You say you don’t feel that you have any common ground with him that can help pull him from the abyss. First of all, you do have that common ground: your suffering. You don’t need to tell him this, but simply feel your way to its core; once you are there, present in the very heart of your pain, appropriate actions regarding him will start to emerge, including doing nothing more than embracing your helplessness to help him.
Second, it sounds like he’s more at the edge of the abyss than actually in it. You might want to reframe his spiritual crisis as an existential crisis, but without speaking of it like this to him. My experience of working with people in his situation is that blunt, no-bullshit yet still caring talk works best. No babying, no speaking from a “higher” place, no trying to fix him, no conveyed sense that he’s being seen as damaged goods.
I’d want to ask him at some point, after making some real connection with him (if only with regards to how incredibly shitty life can be), what keeps him going. I’d also ask him, at a fitting time, that assuming he wants to be freed from his suffering, if he’d be willing to do whatever that took, however small or halting the steps might be. I’d also want to explain to him that his suffering is being amplified by the shock that he’s still carrying, and that until such shock is released from his system, his efforts to get himself to higher ground will not work.
Before he can “be pulled from the abyss”, he needs to not only know it better, but also demonstrate that he would cooperate with such a “pulling”.
You say he won’t get any help. Does this mean that he thinks he can do it himself? Or that he thinks he’s beyond help? And if he clearly isn’t able to do it himself, where does that leave him? Perhaps face-to-face with the pride that says he should be able to do it by himself, beneath which there is very likely a shitload of shame.
Your gift to him is not to “help” him (for he might simply be slipping into the more debilitating dimensions of shame because of the weakness that needing help may imply), but to let him know how his situation makes you feel. Then you are simply sharing data -- hurt, anger, fear, helplessness, and so on -- rather than beliefs about him and his situation. I’m suggesting a being-to-being encounter, without any attachment to a particular outcome.
If he lets in what you’re sharing (which doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing or disagreeing with it, but rather feeling it), he may start to feel a camaraderie with you that will actually be far more helpful than any advice or direction you might give him. Those who are really down and pissed off about it don’t want to fixed, but to be truly met, even if it’s in their latest gutter. Then, they and you get to, after a bit more down-to-earth connecting, mutually gaze at the situation in question. If we won’t enter into the actual pain (at least to some extent) that someone like your friend is experiencing, then we we’ll be at too much of a distance from them to really be of service to them.
He needs some good therapy, but needs to choose it for himself, and to do that, he has to view it as a needed step. My feeling is that he needs a therapist who is willing to get into the scarier stuff with him, rather than sitting back in the safety of a more removed circumstance. It sounds like he’s not just hurting, but also indulging in his misery, but he needs to see this himself, and to also see that shaming himself for this only prolongs his stay in such miserable territory.
I suggest that you don’t try to talk him into getting help. Instead, talk about times you’ve needed help and have gotten it, without, however, doing so to get him to get help. What matters here is your sincerity and your vulnerability. Address not his pain, but yours. This is not about commiserating with him about how difficult Life can be, but rather about inviting him, bit by bit, into that depth of shared heart that has room for everyone’s suffering. The more you enter that zone while you’re with him, the more likely it is that he will, sooner or later, begin moving in a similar direction.
2. “What's the difference between wallowing in an emotion –- say unhappiness, where you're almost enjoying it in a way –- and just trying to be present with that emotion?”
To wallow in an emotion is to indulge in it, to get lost in its dramatics, whereas being present with it is to remain awake in the midst of it, relating to it instead of from it. To wallow in an emotion is to not take responsibility for its arising and expression, allowing ourselves to be “consumed” or “swept away” by its energies and viewpoint. To be present with the very same emotion is to take responsibility for its arising and expression, so that we are no longer playing victim to it; then we can allow the energies of our emotional state to be as they are without having to submit to their viewpoint and action tendencies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C. Arthur/adastra asks:
I have a friend who was in a ceremony recently, and by her report experienced a profound awakening to who she really is – the ground of being manifesting as a particular bodymind, no longer experiencing a sense of separation. During the experience the cosmic mother erased her personal history – it's not that she doesn't remember traumatic things that happened to her, she just feels unaffected by them; what she tells me is that she has realized that everything is utterly impersonal, everything. Therefore she feels she no longer has anything to “work through,” although if anything came up, any personal or interpersonal difficulty or blockage she'd work through it. “Whatever is there, if something comes up, I'll deal with it; it doesn't matter one way or the other.”
During the ceremony she asked the mother to be shown if there were any blockages she needed to work through that were impeding her process. The response was, "I could vaporize that in a second if you wanted me to - do you want me to?" My friend said, "yes," and felt a sense of relief. Next the mother said, "I could vaporize you too, want me to?" Upon my friends assent, she felt her face melt, then her body, and then everything just blew away. In a subsequent ceremony, over and over again she got the message, "Nothing is personal."
My feeling is that she may well have awakened - although I don't feel qualified to make that judgment, since I'm not awake in that sense. She looks and feels “softer” and more present. She speaks about her perspective in a way that sounds congruent with my (intellectual) understanding of these things. She also reports that her body feels different, one manifestation of this being that she is no longer digesting meat very well.
Since she no longer feels any involvement with "her own personal issues", we've talked about whether she could possibly be doing a “spiritual bypass” - but I don't feel that's what she's doing. Another possibility is that she has, in fact, suddenly woken up, not through a long term meditation practice (the closest equivalent for her is using Holosync while sleeping for the past several years) but rather as a result of an induced state change in a sacred ceremonial context.
One other detail I feel I should mention: she did have a profound spiritual experience four or five years ago in which she woke up in some sense - an enduring realization (although she says what happened recently goes much deeper) - and it is obvious to me that she's undergone much development in the intervening time, in both personal and spiritual aspects.
1. Do you think it's possible that she has really woken up suddenly? In Darkness Shining Wild you discuss several similar cases.
2. How would I know if she has? Would it be possible for me to tell, since I'm not at the level of awareness I believe she is experiencing? Would it take someone at a similar level to tell for sure?
3. Sometimes when I talk to her about this, I feel an internal sensation that's sort of like a gravity or attraction; could this be some sort of resonance with her state? If so, how can I facilitate or encourage that?
4. Could she be doing a spiritual bypass? How would we tell? And what should she do if she that is the case?
another question, unrelated to the above
Among people who participate in indigenous or similar rituals which induce altered states for the purpose of personal or spiritual growth – using one or more of the “Four D’s" (dancing, drumming, dreaming and drugging) – several times people have expressed the strong conviction that one should generally speaking keep their visions/revelations to themselves. One explanation given was that this was [subtle or soul] medicine and to speak (too) freely about it would “scatter the medicine” and render it ineffective.
I feel on an intuitive level that there may be something to this, and have consequently exercised more caution in talking about my inner visionary experiences. An alternative explanation could be that to discuss such things too freely – at least for a period of time after such material arises – would distract you from potent internal processing or “metabolizing” of the material; this could apply whether the material arises as a result of dreaming, a therapy session or workshop, meditation, or an altered state induced by any of a variety of means (holotropic breathwork, drumming, Ayahuasca etc.)
On the other hand, sharing such experience can elicit valuable insights or shared experience from another person (especially an intimate other) or group; furthermore, in group sharing, there can be healing benefit for other members of the group or the group as a whole - something I've noticed in both your workshops and in "sharing circles" following shamanic ceremonies.
It did seem to me a while ago that there might be some “diffusion” of the potential potency of such experiences on the part of people who were talking about them too openly, especially in the sense of “this amazing incredible experience that happened to me!” At times I found such sharing intrusive. Other times I received valuable information that applied to my own process. Also, I have found sharing such experience with an intimate other in itself sometimes appeared to be a potent facilitator of growth and insight. In a group sharing experience I’m thinking of, people were careful not to discuss too much in the way of details of their visions or deep experiences, yet shared some of their insights and/or talked about their process in a more general way. I found this to be very moving and identified with much of what was shared - in fact, everyone's story always has some relevance for me.
5. What do you think and feel about this idea of retaining visionary experience or insights and either not talking about it at all, not sharing it for a period of time, or sharing only very selectively? What relevance do you see for the cultural context, the values and practices of the individuals involved, the particular setting (e.g. indigenous healing retreat or group psychotherapy session)?
Robert answers:
1. It’s possible that she had a sudden awakening, a satori. There are many levels of awakening, and many ways to frame it, so it’s not so simple as to just say that she awakened. Awakened from what? There’s plenty to consider here: For example, some who have had a direct experiences of their fundamental nature get caught up in premature assumptions of Enlightenment. And, to thicken the plot, the self-transcendence that typically characterizes sudden awakenings can easily lead one to confuse the “no-self” of deep realization with the “no-self” of shattered egoity (as seemed to be case with Suzanne Segal, in whose final days memories of childhood abuse began surfacing, casting her “no-self” sense of herself in a less overtly spiritual and more depersonalized context). Also, those who have awakened deeply don’t usually go around letting others know that they’ve thus awakened. Only the spiritually ambitious ego wants to claim Enlightenment (all the while wanting, like a character in a Fellini movie, to be present at its own funeral).
2. How to know? See her with not with the eyes of your mind, but of your heart. Let go of the notion that she’s at a different level than you. You don’t have to be where she is to get a sense of her state. You don’t need to, for example, be at the Dalai Lama’s “level” to be able to tell that he’s an unusually kind person; you can feel it, and that feeling carries its own authority. You may not be able to classify your friend’s state, but you can feel it. Let such feeling be primary, and interpretation secondary. It’s so, so important not to automatically assume that someone else is at a certain “level”, but instead to let yourself resonate with her or him, and then see where you are.
3. Such resonance is deepened by opening more fully to her state, but it’s crucial to remember that your increased connection with her state is being triggered by rather than caused by her state. That is, she is not stirring you; you are stirring yourself. Do not make the error of collapsing your boundaries in order to resonate more fully with her; instead, expand your boundaries to do so, thereby including her in the circle/sphere of your being. This keeps your capacity to discern alive and well. So many, when in the presence of someone supposedly at a deeper level than themselves, discard or disregard their bullshit detector.
4. Yes, she could be doing a spiritual bypass. One possible sign of this is her emphasis on the impersonal. Not that reality is not impersonal in a very profound sense, but to me the Real is not just impersonal, but also prepersonal, personal, transpersonal, and interpersonal. I’m suspicious of teachings that overemphasize the impersonal and frame the personal as something lesser.
You say that “she no longer feels any involvement with ‘her own personal issues’”. That sounds like a kind of spiritual bypassing to me. It’s one thing to be stuck in and dramatizing one’s own personal issues, and another thing altogether to be utterly uninvolved with them. The latter speaks of depersonalization and dissociation more than of true transcendence.
I am involved with my personal issues; they are part of my being. I choose not to cut myself off from them, but rather to cultivate a relationship to them that serves my well-being. If one is really awakening, there is an increasingly radical nonavoidance of all that constitutes one -- at least that’s how I see it. I’m not saying that your friend has not had some kind of genuine awakening, but that it (from what you say) is possibly being used by her, however unknowingly, to help bypass or distance her from any pain she may still be carrying from her past. Real awakening does not grant us immunity from our pain, but rather allows us to feel it more fully, without, however, getting lost or invested in its viewpoint. Some teachings advise us not to take it (whatever “it” may be) personally, but I’d like to suggest that such advice ought to be accompanied by the admonition not to take it (whatever “it” may be) impersonally. Rather, simply take it as it is.
5. Sharing sacred experience? Share it very selectively; talking about it to those who are not ready to hear it, or who are not open to hearing it, does no one any good. If you are going to speak about it, tailor to the one with whom you are sharing it; articulate it uniquely for them, as if telling it for the first time. (If someone tells me a story about themselves in the very same manner that they’d tell it to someone else, I am not nearly as interested as I would be if they were to tell it to me in a way that takes into fitting account me as listener.) Find, and keep finding, the fitting language, tone, pacing, timing, emphases, asides; allowing yourself to be creative in your delivery honors what you are sharing. Remember that getting across context is as important as accurately sharing relevant content.
Be clear about your motivation for sharing your sacred or visionary experience. If your listeners have little or no context for it, then that should be addressed, before sharing any of the deeper material. This, of course, presumes that you even ought to be sharing it with them! If in doubt as to whether to share it or not, I’d recommend not sharing it.
Take the following as a possible option: Rather than talking about a deep state we may be in, we may instead simply turn to our listeners and -- assuming that they are already receptive to us -- look into their eyes, allowing them to sense our state through the quality of contact we are making with them. If they sufficiently resonate with us, then we may speak, making sure our language is and remains congruent with our state; this may mean poetic speech, very simple statements, paradoxical utterances, pauses, and so on. Be spontaneous here. Truth cannot be rehearsed.
Consider two deep lovers: So much is said without saying anything. Even saying each other’s name may seem like a lie. Nonverbal sounds may be more eloquent than any words. Silence may often be permitted to say what has to be said. And still, there is a place for language. Feel, for example, Rumi’s ecstatic insights being downloaded into a languaging that can carry us beyond language. We are all capable of speaking from our depths, whatever form our speech might take. What matters is keeping our delivery fresh and attuned to whomever is listening, while maintaining an accuracy of more than just content.
posted by adastra at 4:57 PM
