Otis

The "constricting/contracting" totally matches my experience. When I am able to get out of my way in dance, then it's as if 20+ years have dropped from my body. For me, dancing from the ego is like riding a bike with the brakes on all the time! I think the English translation of the self/no-self metaphor is unfortunately confusing. Especially since it suggests a dualistic answer (there is no self), whereas I think Buddha was saying something in-between: what you think of as the self is only an illusion and a small fragment of who you are.

By all means, I think it is essential to observe where I am, all along the path. And where I am includes the ease and the discomfort, not only in my body, but in my compassion, in my construct of the world, in my frustration with events and other people, in my forgiveness and acceptance of myself, in my personality's grasping. The ease and discomfort are important, because they suggest the next step, what needs to be worked on now. But I think it would be incorrect to say: "discomfort is arising, therefore I must be on the wrong path" or "I'm finding ease, therefore I am advanced". These conclusions are premature, I think, because the path doesn't follow a simple, linear or predictable unfolding. I see spiritual growth as a very similar process to stretching the body. When I stretch, discomfort and ease are my guides, which explain to me what needs to be unwound, and what is the most organic path to unwinding it. In stretching, as I progress, I experience more freedom and I am more flexible. But that doesn't mean that pain goes away. I don't experience milestones in stretching, instead, the emphasis just shifts to some other part of my body. Where am I at, in freeing my body? Further than when I started. That's all I can say with anything like certainty. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the new freedom, but measuring it seems not only impossible, but delusional. And so it is with spiritual stretching. I may think I'm doing just fine, and feeling great. But that ease will probably lead me to the next discomfort, perhaps uncovering a traumatized area that I have, hitherto, been unaware of. Now, all of a sudden, everything is harder, there is more pain, I may even have a tough time finding compassion for others. But that does not mean that I'm on the wrong path. The traumatized area needs my attention, waking it up (including its pain) is essential for growth. Turning away from that area, because it seems to be "hurting my metrics", messing with my growth curve, is just a recipe for delaying growth, and perpetuating the trauma. Rather than "measuring my spiritual progress", I think it is far more useful to just take this all very seriously (although, of course, with a sense of humor and play). If I am ruthlessly honest with myself, if I choose to accept and face my own pain, if I love the path (as an organic nonlinear unpredictable beautiful unfolding), then I do not need to measure, compare, or conceptualize, since those are reinforcers of the ego need for control, which is precisely the source of my dysfunction. I just need to keep loving growth, and trusting the path.

Excellent share, Ulises! I was going to excerpt some parts that really resonated with me, but the truth is, I think the interview is rich and full from start to finish. Great illumination on finding one's own path, and balancing inner and outer guidance (among many other things). If other readers have shied away from finishing the read, because of length, I highly recommend checking it out when you have the time. Very worthwhile!

I think that Libertarianism can help frame solutions in society. I think that's also true for capitalism, socialism, etc. No system is all right, nor all wrong. Each has its own strengths and its own weaknesses, and the most successful governments seem to blend all of the above. I don't think that a Libertarian society would be a very pleasant one to live in, especially if you were old, sick, disabled, a woman or a minority (the old frontier wild West is an illustration of life under Libertarianism; not kind to the powerless). But Libertarianism frames some issues very well, just as the other -isms help illustrate truths that Libertarianism IMO totally misses.

Balance in everything.

I think that's one of the horrible myths about enlightenment: that somehow "I" will become this great or happy or compassionate thing. But, in my view, enlightenment cannot include "I", because I (my ego) is precisely what keeps me addicted to delusion. In order to be free, I have to give up "I". I have to surrender my importance, my will, my choices, my beliefs, my habits. All of these things are merely cysts in the mind, obstructions to proper function. None of those qualities of me will lead me to liberation; freedom only comes when I let them go. If I am a cluster of functions in a relatively small part of my brain, then why I am trying to micromanage the whole Self? Why do I always think I have to be the parent, the boss, the one in charge? IME, when I get out of the way, the Self that emerges is much more powerful, flexible, spontaneous, and wise, than "I" have ever been. p.s. I cannot say that the Self which emerges when I get out of the way is the whole Self, either (it probably isn't). My greater Self is waking up slowly, as I surrender, bit by bit, my control of the organism. I doubt that "I" will be around to ever witness the full awakening, if it happens, because by then, I will be long gone, returned to whatever function (a conduit for awareness?) that I was initially evolved to do.

This is my take on the whole self/non-self thing. Of course there is a Self. I have a body. It is the whole of me. That is my greater Self. Within that body, there is a brain. And within that brain, there are many structures and neurochemical pathways, which serve different functions. The small-s "self", also known as "I", is merely a cluster of functions. What I think of as "me" is mostly just the parts of my brain that speak English (primarily the thoughts). There are lots of other powerful functions in the brain, like imagination, intuition, emotions, choice, perception, etc. But these are not "me", because they sometimes take me by surprise, and they are all somewhat out of "my" control. It is precisely this small-s self which mistakes my simulacrum of the world, for the actual world. It is this part which is addicted to "shoulds", methods, concepts and hierarchy. It is this part that sees itself as important, that believes stories about the world, that is addicted to pleasure, that turns away from pain. This is the "self" that does not exist (as a distinct entity). There is no homunculus in my brain, pulling the levers, making my body do its thing. "I" am just a cluster of functions, not a person. I am my ego, just a small piece of the whole. There is, however, a body, with all of its many functions (including "me"). That body is my "true Self". Unfortunately, the "true Self" is usually depicted in "spiritual" terms, as if it was something "out there". But I see no need to create an abstract "true Self", when there is clearly a physical one. I don't need to be "more than flesh" in order to be whole. I just need to stop pretending that my (small-s) self is greater than my body, when to my view, the opposite is clearly true.

Yeah, I think you're hitting on an unfortunate human trend. We want to distance ourselves from a group that is uncomfortably similar to ours. It's precisely the ones that we are almost identical with, that we hate the most. This is especially obvious in war zones in which two groups, barely differentiable from outside, turn on each other savagely. Sunnis and shia. Hutus and Tutsis. Irish Catholics and Protestants, etc. IME, on Taoist and Zen discussion groups, the vitriol is usually reserved for New Agers and hippies. I assume this is because they sport Yin/Yang symbols and talk about very similar concepts. But they are just different enough, and easy enough to dismiss, that they end up representing "the idiot stepchild of the family". Not that a Taoist and a New Ager wouldn't have a lot to talk about. Not that there aren't a lot of very cool people who happen to be hippies. But I guess everybody needs someone to hate.

Interesting stuff, Manitou. Thanks for sharing about your practices.

Thanks for sharing that, Aaron.

What I think of as karma is best illustrated by the Hatfields and McCoys. If I steal your cow, you kill my soldier, so I kill your son, so you rape my daughter. I may not be the one who suffers directly from my "bad" deeds, but I have still created a cycle of havoc and disaster that only harms. Even on a more mundane level, any excess force that I use tears both ways. If I force a square peg into a round hole, then I've damaged the future function of both peg and hole. If I over-punish my child, she will learn to distrust me. If I am an unaware driver, my car and my insurance rates will suffer. There's also an internal karma. If I see someone else as an enemy, then I suffer from the hate I have within me. If I fool myself, in order to make myself feel better, then I suffer from living in self-delusion. If I see myself as superior to some, then I simultaneously buy into the story that I am inferior to others. The Hindu and Christian versions of "cosmic justice", however, don't match anything I experience in the world, so I see no reason to believe in that version of karma.

Good warning! IME, as I gradually awaken, I become more aware of my esoteric senses (siddhis). But these senses do not belong to me, because I am the ego, a separate and limited part of my brain. In order to allow these "powers" to mature and discover, then I can be at best, a gardener, who nourishes and fosters these senses. But I only scratch the surface with these senses, if I insist on being the boss of them. They are no less "me" than I am, so I have to give them the grace to own themselves. In other words, the powers do not belong to me, but I can make friends with them, and enjoy their contributions, thereby.

I think it is worth mentioning: not only am I made up of the same stuff as Hitler (and Milosevic, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.), but I am also made up of the same stuff as Mother Theresa and Ghandi. This highlights the importance of my choice of path. If I fall in love with being superior, then it doesn't matter how righteous I am, I will become a monster. But if I fall in love with life, with the world, with other people, then I will move in the opposite direction.

Manitou, I'm so glad to hear that Joe does not have cancer! Best to both of you!

I think there's a pretty good argument against trying to measure your progress, because I don't think meditation is really about achievement. Nor is growth linear; rather it cycles around in ways that defy easy measurement. I think a journal is a good idea, though, if you feel the need to relate the present to the past. There are no yardsticks, other than someone else's concepts, so I'd recommend just having fun with meditation. Learn to love it, instead of trying to get something out of it. Learn to love being ruthlessly honest in observing the contents of your head. Learn to love seeing your own process from a different perspective. Rather than aiming for enlightenment, just live your life with as little clutter as possible, right now. If you tie everything to the expectation of an outcome, then all of the important in-between will be missed. And IME, it's all about the in-between, staying on the path, rather than fulfilling any check lists.

Mewtwo, I'm very curious about how this has shaped your journey, what your path has looked like thus far, what it is you have healed/awoken, or seek to heal/awaken, etc. Could you say more about this? Aaron, too, if you're willing to share.

Yeah, that's some chilling stuff, all right. No one thinks they're going to be one of those guys, until they do it. I think the way America turned on its Muslims is an excellent example of how our principles are discarded, as soon as our panic is activated. And the fact that almost no news outlet in America will seriously discuss how awful we made life for the Iraqis. As a society, we've developed a mass blindness to the suffering that we create. I also think that soccer and other sports-related violence sheds some interesting light on mob mentality.

Good share, Ralis. I just saw "A State of Mind", which I highly recommend. It's a documentary about ordinary North Koreans, how they live and how they believe. There are many shots similar to "Triumph of the Will", of precision marching and en masse choreographies; the ethic and aesthetic is all about suppression of the individual, in glorifying the state. p.s. It's on Netflix.

Hi Marblehead; thanks for sharing that. As you know, when the advice is to the ruler, on how to rule the land, I like to consider what advice there in it, for an ego that is trying to rule the Self. My ego wants to be the ruler, wants to tell all my other parts how to do their jobs. If my ego tells my heart how to love, for example, then it is only creating neurosis, because my ego has no idea how to love. It only knows how to protect itself. So instead, my ego can approach my heart, and ask it nicely: "Can you show me how you love?" But my heart will say: "I do not know how", because my heart lives in the mystery, and knows nothing. And so, if my ego is wise, I will say back to my heart: "That's okay. I trust you. Just do what you're supposed to do, and I trust that you will find your way to opening." I do not need to teach my various parts. I just need to foster them, nourish them, give them the chance to grow on their own. My parts, in gratitude for letting them be, will teach me, and show me the path to life.

I agree with you completely. In no way did I mean to imply that "fearlessness" meant "without awareness". Fearlessness just means that I speak my understanding as clearly as possible, without need to be socially "correct". That doesn't mean not to act with love. To me, love says: "don't project on others. Don't pretend that I can know what others cannot. Don't tell other people that they are wrong, that they are lesser, who they are, what they need, or what their practice means. Never work from a mental simulacrum of the other person, because it will always be false, always just a reflection of my own wishes and fears. Respond only to what they wrote, not what I imagine their heads were really thinking. These are my safeguards when posting, and I try to keep to them. But love does not tell me not to be insistent. Or not to share unpopular opinions. Or that someone else can't handle the "truth". Only fear tells me these things. So I insist to myself only to be as honest as possible, not as well-received as possible. Hopefully, the longer I practice being honest with others, the better I will get at expressing myself in a way that does not cause upset.

I don't know anything about triangulation, Manitou, but I wish you and Joe the best. I hope you are indeed right, that nothing needs to be removed.

Nice. I was about to mention how it reminded me of EMDR. Also, I very much liked what you had to say about "observing your perceptions." Good stuff.

My ideal for a discussion group is that we all see the discussion as practice. We're not here to save each other, or to convince someone else that they're doing it wrong. We're here to grow. Not to abuse, not to be right, not to "win", but to grow. It's not a video game, and there's no points. But it's life, so it is important. Every time I state my opinion, it's an opportunity to make sure that what I think makes as much sense as possible. If what I'm saying doesn't make sense, then it only serves me to see that, or to have it pointed out. If I'm just trying to assert my truth as the real truth, then I don't grow at all. I just pump my ego up. But if I offer what I have to share, and am (honestly, clearly, specifically, compassionately) critiqued, then there's a great opportunity for growth. Assuming I'm willing to listen. I don't want to coddle other people's egos, nor do I want mine coddled. I'm not interested in trying to reinforce anyone's delusions, nor do I want mine reinforced. I want to cut away everything that is not necessary, and spend my practice in the essential. I look around the Bums, and see a great group of intelligent, wise, experienced and kind fellow travelers. Can this be our mutual dojo for practicing making sense? Can we keep each other honest, not by being mean or superior or dismissive, but by being fearlessly clear? Can we assist in each other's growth, without falling into either extreme of being against - or just trying to please - each other?

Of all the functions of the body, none is more mysterious and provocative than pain. We often treat pain as if it is an outside invader, like a virus, that needs to be killed. But clearly, pain is not something that exists out there in the world, but is right here in my body, in my head. Pain must serve a function (or many of them), or it would not exist. Compared to a sense as powerful and useful as vision, pain seems like a mistake, like a neurological dysfunction. But is it? Is it possible that egoic man just has the wrong relationship to pain? Do we resent it, when we really should be thankful for it? How do you view pain? What is its function? How does it fit into your Taoist/Buddhist/whatever cosmology? Do you think animals have the same relationship to pain as man, and if not, why not? How do you relate to pain? Is it part of your cultivation? Do you see it as an enemy, or an ally? Do you embrace it, or turn away from it? Do you use it for self-healing? How does that relationship change as you age? C'mon, Bums! Share your pain!

Hee hee. Honestly, I would repeat the content of all my posts to my (hypothetical) child, but not to my best friend or mother. Not because I see anything inflammatory or offensive in what I write, but talking about radical beliefs has that effect, anyway. That's what's so cool here: the room to be honest about what we believe. Talk about the nature of existence with someone who is clinging on to their beliefs, and their reaction is usually hostility. Here there's room to say exactly what I mean, as long as I'm not being cruel about it. I do my best not to project onto others, or even to call anyone wrong (unless they project onto me), but I have no wish to be shy about saying what I think makes sense.