Don’t Take Anything Personally:  Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.
- from The Four Agreements

I don’t know much about the Four Agreements, but saw this quote on facebook.

It is medicine for a certain fixed and habitual viewpoint, in this case, of taking whatever happens too personally.

But this view, intended to dislodge a habitual and fixed view, can itself be taken as an exclusive truth. The medicine needs its own medicine.

I find that I can take things too personally in two ways.

(more…)

What is identification really?

It can be seen as a mistake, a mistaken identity with a story, a view, a role.

And yet, it is of course not a mistake. It is just how life (the universe, existence, God, Allah, Buddha Mind) expresses itself here now. It is yet another way for existence to experience itself. It is a way for the infinite to temporarily experience itself as finite.

When there is identification, there is a story saying “this (other) view is what I really am”, but that is not sufficient. That story can be here without being believed, so a belief in that story is necessary. That belief seems the same as identification. Identification with a viewpoint is belief in a story. (What is a belief then? What are the dynamics there? What is really happening?)

I can notice the effects of identification: A sense of center. Of a separate I located at a specific location in space. An identity to flesh out the identification with a view. A sense of having to maintain and defend that view and identity. A sense of unease, tension, stress, distress. (Even if it is at a very low volume.)

I can notice how it is an overlay of images on top of sensations, and how muscles tense up to give those images a better anchor. Tensing the muscles makes what I (temporarily) take myself to be appear more stable and solid.

But all of those may be effects and more peripheral facets of identification.

(more…)

When I notice something – an emotion, story, sensation etc. – there is a softening or release of identification with it. I find myself as what notices, and less as what is noticed.

It is very simple, yet with a lot of complexity as well.

For instance, I may notice an emotion – allow it as it is, be with it. Yet, if that emotion is triggered by a story – as they often are – and I don’t notice that story, it means I am still identified with the story.

So whenever I notice an emotion, I can first allow that emotion as it is, with heart and kindness. And when look for the story behind it. Which story do I – somewhere – take as true, which triggers that emotion? Is that story true? What happens when I take it as true? Who am I without it? What is the validity in its reversals?

(more…)

I wanted to explore these islands of density a little further.

What are they made up of? I find sensations and an overlay of images. And these images include images of a location in space, an outline of the islands – roughly defining their shape and size, and labels and interpretations of these islands. And also images of a me with certain identities and viewpoints, relating to these images in certain ways depending on how they fit with these identities and viewpoints. Images of a doer acting in certain ways. And an image of an observer observer all of this.

(more…)

I just watched episode eight of NRK’s Vendepunkt (Turning Point), a TV series about quality of life. It is hosted by a psychologist (a particularly wise one), and the topics are exemplified through interviews with people who made a choice of leaving a stressful life for a simpler and more rewarding and deeply satisfying one. It is well worth watching if you understand Norwegian….!

Inner peace was mentioned several times. What does it mean? 

It can be a state, found through being in nature, connecting with good friends, through meditation and so on. But as any state it is precarious. At any moment, something can shift it into a different state. It doesn’t last. I may try to hold onto the peaceful state and push away incompatible states, but right away, I find that this activity in itself disturbs the peace.  This form of peace is ephemeral. 

There is also a different form of inner peache, one that is found through simply allowing experience, as it is. As if it would never change. Wholehearted. With kindness. Independent of the content of experience. (And if I find I can’t allow a particular experience, I can allow that as it is.) 

When I am caught up in holding onto or pushing away experiences, there is stress and a sense of being off balance. And when I find myself as that which allows experience – as it is, independent of its content, and including the impulses to hold onto and push away experience – there is a different peace. One that is independent of states. 

Here, there is stillness, even in the midst of a great deal of activity. 

(more…)

I notice a series of shifts for myself…

First, there is a noticing of what I am and what everything is. All is awakeness, no thing appearing as something, the play of Ground, and so on.

But something is left out. The sense of a separate I – as a doer and/or observer – is left out of this, and is still taken as what I am.

There is a oneness state here. A separate I one with everything, and all as awakeness itself.

And also a sense that something is missing. It is not quite complete yet.

(more…)

I keep coming back to this one as well…

When emotions come up and I notice there is an emotional attachment there, I can ask myself:

What is the story that trigger this emotion? (Story, memory, scenario.)

Which identity is threatened by this story?

Which identity is inclusive of that story? Which identity fits with it?

And then shift into allowing that identity. Feel into it. Feel it in my body.

Staying with it. Allowing my self-image to reorganize and realign to include that identity.

(more…)

Some ways to explore identification…

What is taken as an I?

What is it that identifies?

And as with any inquiry, explore with some innocence and curiosity. Not knowing what is there, because we truly don’t know.

(more…)

It can be helpful to ask…

What is identification?

What is identified with? What is taken as an I?

What is identified? What is it that identifies?

The friction between my stories of what should be and what is, is an invitation to let go of taking those stories as true. It is an invitation to let go of identification with those stories.

And since that friction creates emotions, those emotions come with the same invitation. An invitation to let go of identification with stories and identities.

Whatever they may be, and however subtle they may appear, emotions created from that friction is a very real invitation to let go of identification with identities. (Those emotions may be fear, anger, sadness, regret, hope, etc.)

(more…)

It can be fascinating to create and read lists such as “25 random things about me”, “music I like” and other ones popular on facebook and other places.

It helps others learn more about us. And when there is a mutual sharing of interests, there is an opportunity for all to expand what we are familiar with.

It is also an expression of the richness of human experience. Here is another way of experiencing the world, another flavor.

But it can also be another way to feel more real. A way to create and refine a particular identity, and then identify with it, take it as who I am, or even as what I am.

There is nothing wrong in that. And if I notice, I can investigate.

What happens when I identify with this identity? (Do I make it right? See it as better? Experience separation? Something to protect?)

Who would I be without identifying with it? (Enjoying what I like and dislike, without seeing it as anything more than that? Interested in other views? Recognizing how our likes and dislikes are products of each of our history?)

In what ways are the reversals of that identity also true about me? (For instance, if I am honest I see that I like just about any type of music, including music that may seem very different from that on the list.)

Living a lie is painful.

What does it mean to live a lie?

It happens whenever we take a story as true, which covers up what is more true for us. And when we take a story as true, we act as if it is true. We have to live it, we cannot help it.

So taking a story as true is to live a lie. We take our interpretations of something as true, and we act on that lie, either by taking actions that are not clear and kind, or by avoiding actions that would be the more clear and kind way.

And it is painful. Or more correctly, it is suffering. There is inevitably a clash between our stories of what should be (belief) and what is, was or may be, and this creates some version of stress, discomfort, unease or suffering.

And there is tension between what we – somewhere – know to be more true, and our actions in the world, whether we act in ways that create suffering or avoid acting in ways that would be more clear and kind. We create suffering in ourselves, and we act in ways that often trigger suffering in others because of their beliefs. The ripple effects go out far beyond the few we notice.

Sometimes we notice we are living a lie, yet we still live it because we are not clear, we have not investigated the stories thoroughly.

Sometimes we don’t notice it as a lie at all. Our stories of what is true covers it up. But we do notice the discomfort.

And sometimes we notice the discomfort, take it as a pointer to find a belief, investigate that story, find what is more true for us, and allow room for identification with it to fall away, on its own time. And to extent identification falls away, we live from clarity and kindness, at least in that one area of life.

(more…)

When we sacrifice something, we do it as an act of devotion or in the hopes of receiving something back. We sacrifice something precious to us – food, wine, gold, money, and in some cultures even people. And we may hope to receive prosperity, abundance, good crops, safety or something else precious to us. We sacrifice something precious as an act of devotion, or to receive something even more precious. 

And something quite similar happens in the context of awakening. Here, we are asked to sacrifice what is most precious to us, our identifications with stories and identities, with a me and an I. This invites what we are to notice itself, which is even more precious. And only when we clearly recognize that as more precious are we ready to sacrifice what we are asked to sacrifice: identification with everything we have ever taken ourselves to be. 

(more…)

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts
- Jaques in Shakespeare’s As You Like It (2/7)

This is true in the way Shakespeare points out. As a human being, we all play different roles throughout the day and throughout our lives.

And as usual, to the extent we identify with these roles, we get into struggle when life shifts the roles around. Some roles go, other roles come, and some needs to be played another way. (And we don’t always get a say.)

But we play more basic roles as well.

We have the roles of a human being, but there is also the basic role as a human itself. Two legs. A head. An animal with bodily needs and instincts. A cultured being living within a world of interpretations.

Then there is the role of a doer in its many flavors of a doer in the world, a decider, an observer.

And the even more basic role of an I with an Other. A separate I with a center and periphery, and an inside and outside.

All of these are roles, and as what we are – that which all form and experience happens within and as – we play these roles. Or we could say that the roles play themselves, whether there is a sense of a separate I there or not.

To the extent we identify with roles, there is drama. (Which is entertaining, although not always so comfortable.)

And to the extent they are recognized as roles – as temporary roles playing themselves out, with their own location in time and space, their own perspectives and views – it is all recognized as a play.

Even in the midst of whatever is happening, there is an enjoyment of the play. There is a recognition of an enjoyment that seems to always be there, inherent in experience itself.

(more…)

Fundamentalism happens whenever we take a story as true, and since we have a tendency to do that, we find fundamentalism in anything from “she should do the dishes” to politics and religion of any stripes.

So how does it show up in Buddhism?

It may show up in a relatively innocent way in how we see the founder of Buddhism. Do I really believe that Sakyamuni Buddha was a historical person? There is no historical data to support it, apart from Buddhism itself. He may well be a fictional person or a composite of several. At the very least, his life story is most likely changed and refined to function as a teaching story.

Just as with Jesus, the truth is that we don’t know if such a person existed. But we do know that in both cases, the stories about their lives are wonderful teaching stories. They reflect an inner truth. They are about us, when we embark on a spiritual journey.

The same is of course the case with the original teachings. According to Buddhism itself, they were transmitted orally for five hundred years before written down. How likely is it that they were transmitted accurately? Not very. Of course, whenever they were transmitted by someone where reality had awakened to itself, it means that there is a better chance of clarity in the teachings, and they may be very helpful. But it still doesn’t mean they reflect the original teachings very accurately.

And the same is the case with any of the Buddhist teachings. As soon as any of the maps, models, or pointers is taken as true, there is fundamentalism. They may be very helpful in a  limited and practical way – as a pointer for exploration – but that is about it. They are medicines, each one aimed at a particular condition, and have no value outside of that. (Apart from as entertainment, of course, as any story.)

The great thing about Buddhism is that it has a big fat exit sign built into it. From the very beginning, they said don’t take any of it as true. Use it only – and at most – as a pointer for your own exploration.

In a practical sense, I can then notice if and when I take any Buddhist story – or any story in general – as true. For instance, what expectations do I have about the path? Do I expect it to be slow or fast, gradual or sudden, difficult or easy? What happens when I take any of those stories as true? What am I hoping to get out of taking it as true? (A sense of security? Being a good student?) How would it be if I didn’t? What are the truths in the reversals of those stories?

I may find that whenever I take any story as true, even the most basic teaching stories in Buddhism, there is an identification with a story and an identity. A sense of a separate I – an I with an other – is automatically created. There is a view and identity to protect. (The “true teachings” of Buddhism! A “good” Buddhist student or teacher.) There is an identification firmly within content of experience. Everything is filtered through that story, and it may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. I act as if it is true, so it becomes true to the extent possible.

Whenever there is a sense of stress or tension, I am most likely attaching to a story as true. What is my belief? Is it true? What happens when I take it as true? How would it be if I didn’t? What is the grain of truth in its reversals?

(more…)

I sometimes come across someone who sees “politically correct” as undesirable, so I got curious and wanted to explore it a little further.

There is the official definition of politically correct:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term applied to language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to gender, racial, cultural, disabled, aged or other identity groups. Conversely, the term “politically incorrect” is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy. [Wikipedia]

And then politically correctness in a more general sense, as avoiding what may offend others.

Obviously, in that general sense, whether we are politically correct or not depends on our company. For instance, if we pride ourselves on not being politically correct, and are in a group of people who agree, then that becomes politically correct…!

As soon as we make something into a belief and identity, we automatically find ourselves doing that which we try to exclude. I try to be politically incorrect, find others who agree, and suddenly realize that being politically incorrect is now what is politically correct.

Then there is the limitations we put on ourselves if we make it into a belief. As soon as I take on an identity as someone who is not politically correct, I limit my views and actions. I have to spend time and energy making sure I don’t say or do things that could be perceived as politically correct, and I try to control – and sometimes cut myself off from – impulses that naturally would like to move freely among the terrain of what can be perceived as politically correct or incorrect.

I cut myself off from views and actions that may benefit myself and others.

In my case, I have asked for ethical/sustainable gifts for Christmas, and my wife and I are going to give ourselves the gift of sponsoring a child in need. If I had an identity that excluded being politically correct, I may have had difficulty doing either of those things. It is too fashionable. Too much the thing to do. And a family may not have received a goat. A child may not have received money for food, clothes and education.

(more…)

As soon as a story is taken as true, there is a sense of I & other and identification within form. And this makes it difficult for what I am to notice itself, for several reasons.

I am identified as an object within form, so I don’t look for myself outside of those boundaries.

I take myself as form, so all I see is form. I don’t notice how all form is emptiness/awakeness itself.

Attention is caught up in stories, which makes it less easy for what I am to notice itself.

(more…)

Whenever a story is taken as true, I take on a false identity.

At my human level, I have a range of identities including age, gender, occupation, and also how I am and what I like. All of these can be very helpful. They me us function in the world.

Yet, as soon as I take any of these identities as true, I (try to) limit who this human self is. Any identity excludes something else, and what is excluded is very often already here. This means that I need to spend time and energy on fleshing out, living within and defend the identity. Whenever I identify with an identity, it takes a lot of time and energy to keep it up, and it creates stress and tension as well.

And something similar happens at the level of what I am.

As soon as I take an identity as true, I am firmly identified as an object within the world of form. I take myself as within form, so all I see is form. And since stories are taken as true, I am distracted by them so it is not so easy for what I am to notice itself. I overlook the obvious: that which all form happens within and as, which is what I – already and always – am.

This is one of many examples of how the distance between psychology and spirituality can be very short. In this case, the only difference is in what type of identities we explore. In psychology, it is all the usual human identities. In spirituality, it is the identity of an I with an Other, an identity as an object within form, an identity with the story of I.

Through exploring false identities, I also find an appreciation for what they do.

At our human level, they portion out what we get familiar with in ourselves, taking it one step at a time instead of all at once. I have a limited identify for myself, so get to be more familiar with what is inside of that identity.Then, the identity may shift or expand and I get familiar with new territory. And so on.

And at the level of what we are, they make it all more interesting. It is a way for emptiness/awakeness to not only experience itself as form, but to identify as that form. Experience itself as limited. Live the drama of being an I with an other, a vulnerable object in a world of innumerable other objects. Temporarily, at least.

(more…)

Again a familiar topic, but something worth coming back to…

Which identities am I identified with? Which stories – about myself and the world – do I take as true? Which are unquestioned? What happens when I identify with them? How does it limit the life of this human self? What happens when I feel I need to defend that identity? How does it limit how I live in the world? How does it create a sense of an I with an Other, and inside and outside, a center and periphery? What happens if there is a release of this identification? What becomes available to me?

Identities are of course very useful. They have temporary practical value. They tell us the gender, age and different roles of this human self, and those roles give practical guidelines for how to live and act in the world. But are those identities who and what I really am? As a human being, I can find in myself whatever I see in others and the wider world. And I can also find myself as that which all of this happens within and as.

This came up for me again through a recent online conversation with someone who seemed to take “politically correct” as undesirable for himself. (That is my story.) Not having that particular identification myself, it is easy to see how such an identification is limiting and stressful. It takes energy to first decide if something is politically correct or not, and then make sure what I say and do doesn’t fit into that category.

The question is of course, where do I do the same? And one pointer is noticing when I experience stress, and then which identity or belief I feel a need to protect.

When I first decided on the URL for this blog, I saw it as refering to an absence of a sense of I.
 
I now realize that a simpler and more clear way of looking at it is as absence of i-dentification.
 
If I look for an absence of a sense of I, I am looking for something happening within content of experience. There will be times when there is no sense of I, but it is within content of experience. And as any content of experience, it comes and goes as a guest, on its own.
 
So absent of i-dentification is a little simpler and clearer. There is an absence of identification with content of experience, whatever that is, because what we are recognizes itself in all of it.
 
For me now, there is a vague sense of an “I” here. It is a gestalt made up of a set of sensations in the head area and the images of a center and an I with an Other. But when I look at it, I see that it is just like any other content of experience. It has form but no substance. It is the Ground of no-thing taking a form while never being anything else than no-thing. It is awakeness itself taking this particular form.
 
There is still some identification with this gestalt, but that too is awakeness itself.
 
Identification or not are both expressions of awakeness. When there is identification with experience, it doesn’t quite notice itself as awakeness and all forms as itself. And when it is awake to itself within and as whatever happens, there is a release of this identification. Either way is fine. Both are expressions of this awakeness. Awakeness exploring itself in a richness of ways. Although one tends to bring a slight sense of dissatisfaction and an impulse for a shift into the other. 
 
(more…)

A few different flavors of disidentification from own (as always quite limited) experience…

The object of identification falls away, and with it – over time – the identification with it. It wears off.

I may see myself as an athlete, have a serious injury, and the identification with that identity falls away. (Usually replaced with something else.)

Or I may have a oneness experience, maybe for a long time, which then falls away and with it the identification with that state. (Here is the opportunity to recognize what I am independent of any states.)

The object stays, but the identification with it falls away. The identification with a story, an identity, falls away. This can happen – maybe most easily – through different forms of inquiry, such as exploring the sense fields and The Work. It tends to be a gentler process than the previous one.

Also, the object may come and go, so there is a recognition that I am not that. For instance, the sense of a center/I-other may come and go, and I recognize it in either case as awakeness itself.

In all cases, the disidentification is really with a story. And the amount of drama/struggle/suffering is proportional to the resistance to the process of disidentification. When the object falls away, there may be a good deal of drama. And it may be a little gentler if the object stays and we explore identification through inquiry. And even more gentle if the object comes and goes, and there is a natural recognition – over time – that I am not that.

(more…)

Another inquiry that can be quite helpful…

Something happens. I take it as coming from my human self, and identify with this human self. So I say to myself – or others – I did that.

But is it true? What is really going on here?

A thought appears and another thought says “I thought that”. But where did the thought come from? It seems to have just appeared out of thin air.

A choice is made. It may have followed a set of thoughts, but where did the choice come from?

A shift is made into paying attention to something. Where did that shift come from?

In each case, I find that what I attach the “I” label to seems to just happen on its own. Living its own life. On its own time. A guest.

What I describe above is an exploration of this in immediate awareness, outside – although guided by – thought.

(more…)

Whenever someone says I need to talk with you, or can I ask you a personal question?, or something along those lines, it is a good opportunity to notice where my mind goes.

What am I most afraid she or he will ask me?

What do I imagine she or he will ask me? What is the worst case scenario? The best case scenario?

Which question would be most embarrassing?

And whatever comes up here is a good pointer to where I have hangups, where there is still a blind identification with certain roles and stories. It is good to notice, and whatever comes up is something I can take to inquiry.

(more…)

As Pema Chödrön says, there is a wisdom in no escape.

We notice that content of experience is what it is, right now, and that identifying with resistance to it only creates drama and suffering, so I may as well fully allow it, in a wholehearted way, as it is, as if it would never change.

And we may also notice that the sense of no escape is created from wanting to escape, in three ways.

First, without the thought of escape, there is no thought of no escape.

Then, by identifying with the thought of wanting escape, we try to escape, and realize it cannot be done.

And finally, identifying with the intention of escape is exactly how we are trapped in a sense of no escape.It brings identification firmly within content of experience, in this case the thought and intention and attempts of escape, so our identification is trapped within content of experience. We take ourselves to be an object in the world, at the mercy of the whims of a world living its own life.

Yet, as soon as identification is released out of this identification, there is an escape. When we fully allow experience as it is, including resistance to experience, there is a release of identification out of content of experience.

We find ourselves as that which experience happens within, to and as.

We find ourselves as that which is inherently free from any experience, allows all experience, and that all experience happens within, to and as.

We find ourselves as that which doesn’t need to escape. It is already free from it, so there is no need to escape that which does not bind. And it is already any content of experience happening, so there is no need to escape that which is not Other.

So to summarize:

• The wisdom of no escape is to realize that what is, is. The content of experience, here now, is what it is. Trying to escape it only creates drama and suffering. Fully allowing it invites in a sense of peace and clarity.
• The sense of no escape is created in three ways.
  • Without the thought of escape, no thought of no escape.
  • It is the trying to escape, which brings us to notice that there is no escape.
  • And it is the identification with that thought of escaping which traps us in the first place. It brings identification firmly within the world of form, so we are trapped within it and the whims of this world of form.
• As soon as we fully allow content of experience as it is, as if it would never change, identification is released out of content of experience. We find ourselves as that which content of experience happens within, to and as. As that which is already free from content of experience, because there is no identification with the thought of escape, because it is that which the ever changing world of form happens within, to and as, and because content of experience is not Other.

I have explored this before, but keep coming back to it:

Any belief has a shadow, and it is no different with the most basic belief, the one in a sense of a separate I, and I with an Other.

In this belief, we take ourselves to be content of awareness. As an object. As one of many. As a center.

So the reversals of this is then the shadow of the belief in being an I with an Other.
The reversal of taking ourselves to be content of awareness, is to find ourselves as awareness.

The reversal of taking ourselves as a thing, is to find ourselves as no thing.

The reversal of taking ourselves as one of many, is to find ourselves as the field it all arises within and as.

The reversal of taking ourselves as a center, is to find ourselves as no center.

And we relate to these the way we relate to projections in general. And we are attracted to awareness. We fear nothingness. We ignore the field with no center.

In each case, the reversals are already here. The awakeness. The no thing that allows all things. The field all arises within and as. The absence of a center anywhere.
And in each case, it doesn’t fit our identity. So we see it out there.

I have awareness, but it comes and goes, and it is not me. Nothingness is out there somewhere, or after death. The field with no center is the universe or God, not me.

(more…)

A belief is…

• An identification with a story.
• A story saying a story is true.
• Something that is at odds with reality, in several different ways.
• Which in turn creates stress, discomfort, even suffering.

It is an identification with a story. I quite literally take the story, and the view it offers on the world, as who I am.

It is an identification with a story saying a story can be true, and that particular stories are true. That is says something real about the world. Has inherent value. That it is something far more than just a tool of practical value to help our human self orient and navigate in the world.

It is at odds with reality, in different ways.

It is at odds with my story of what is, or may be. (a)

It is at odds with the truth in its reversals. (b)

It is at odds with noticing stories as only a tool, having no value beyond the practical of helping this human self orient and function in the world. (c)

It is at odds with what I already, somewhere, know I am. If I look here now, I find I am that which any story, and anything else, happens within, to and as. (d)

It is at odds with what is already, somewhere, more true for me. (e) I can find a+b+c+d(+e) by just looking, here now. All of this is already, somewhere, known to me. I only have to look to find it, to rediscover it.

And being at odds with reality creates a sense of something being off, of having to protect something, and so on, which creates a sense of stress, discomfort or even suffering.

A slightly different take on attachments…

Attachment to anything – situations, people, things, roles – is what causes suffering. Our stories about what should be and what is clash. Which is fine. It is just part of the human condition. But after a while, and if we act from kindness towards ourselves, we may want to explore this further. What is really going on? Is there another way?

One of the first things we may notice is that any attachment is really an attachment to a story. The story of I with an Other, and then all the other stories that flesh out the identity of this separate I.

I am an object in the world, so want what supports this object and do not want what does not support it. I am alive, so don’t want to be dead. I believe in fairness, so want to see fairness in how I and others are treated.

We may also notice that an attachment to a story is really an identification with this story. We have a story of an I with an Other, and take ourselves to be this separate I. We have a story of being a particular gender, age, of a particular ethnicity, having certain values, and take ourselves to be all of that.

Another thing we may notice is that it is all completely innocent. We are all dealing with this life as best as we can, and often from lack of clarity.

And then, that behind all of it is fear. Fear for what may happen to this human self. We attach to stories to deal with this fear, and try to avoid what we are afraid may happen to it.

And that behind this fear is love. A love for this human self and whatever is within its circle of concern. All attachments to stories come from love. From wanting the best for what we take as I and us.

So how do we explore attachments, or identifications with stories?

A simple and direct way is to investigate the beliefs themselves, and find what is already more true for us. I can use a sense of discomfort as a guide to discover when my stories of what is and should be clash, and then investigate one or both of these. Is it true? What happens when I believe that thought? Who would I be without it? What is the truth in its turnarounds?

Another is to investigate impermanence in the five sense fields, to see impermanence directly here and now. This helps us reorganize and find stories more aligned with this impermanence. And it also helps us see that no story is absolutely true, which invites a release of identification with these stories.

We can also include each of the three centers: head, heart and belly.

We can find ourselves as that which is already free from identification with stories, for instance through the headless experiments, the Big Mind process, and finding ourselves as what does not change in the midst of the constantly changing content of awareness.

We can invite our heart to open through various heart centered practices, or just a focus on the heart and its qualities.

And we can invite in a deep body sense of trust and nurturing fullness through various body and hara centered practices, such as Breema.

Each of these tends to invite in an opening in the two other centers, especially if we bring attention to it. An open heart invites in an open mind and a nurturing fullness. An open mind invites in an open heart and a felt-sense of trust. A body feeling of trust and nurturing fullness invites in an open heart and mind.

We may also discover that resisting experience tends to close each of the centers. That this happens only when there is an identification with this resistance.

And that fully allowing experience, independent of what it is, tends to invite in a receptivity and opening of each center. And that this is also an allowing of the resistance, which is a release of identification with it and the content of experience in general.

(more…)

Buddhism often talk about attachments to things in the world, and how this creates suffering.

But is that really what is going on? What is it an attachment really to? And what is an attachment?

When I explore this for myself, I find that what appears as an attachment to things in the world is something a little different.

Any attachment is to a story only. And this attachment is really an identification with a story.

The core story is that of an I with and Other, which is then fleshed out with other stories.

And I am identified with these, I take myself as these stories. I am this I with an Other, I am a living being, an object in the world, has a certain gender, age, from a specific ethnic background, has certain interests, skills, values, and so on.

I believe I am this human self, so am naturally attached to its well-being and aliveness. (Nothing wrong with that, although the added drama around it may be uncomfortable.) I believe people shouldn’t lie, so am attached to people speaking the truth. I believe a certain type of food will give me comfort, and that I need comfort, so appear attached to that food. I believe an intimate relationship will give me nurturing I cannot find any other way, and that I need that nurturing, so I am attached to having intimate relationships.

Our stories about what is and what should be often do not align, so attachments to stories create a sense of drama and discomfort. This is of course fine. But eventually, there may be an impulse to take a closer look at what is going on, and explore working with attachments.

One way of working with attachments is to explore impermanence.

Exploring impermanence has two effects. It invites in a disidentification with stories. And also a realignment of the stories we use in daily life, whether we are identified with them or not, to more closely reflect impermanence. In both cases, there is a release of attachment to having things a particular way. There is less of a war with what is, as Byron Katie says. (Although she uses a direct inquiry into the beliefs themselves, not this particular approach.)

We can explore it outside of stories, through directly see impermanence in the different sense fields. By getting familiar with impermanence in this way, we see that our stories are not true so there is a disidentification with them, and the stories we use realign as well. (This one is important for the disidentification part, less so for the realignment.)

We can also explore impermanence within stories, the impermanence of the universe, earth, humanity, civilizations, individuals, relationships and so on. This helps us realign our stories, and the larger perspective can also give a certain disidentification with stories. (This one is important for the realignment part, but maybe less effective for the disidentification.)

And we can investigate stories directly. We find a should which clashes with our stories of what is, and take it to inquiry. Is it true? What happens when I believe it? Who would I be without it? Can I find the truth in its turnarounds? This invites identification to be released out of the story.

A third way of releasing identification out of stories is to notice what we already are. We can use the sense fields to explore impermanence, see how all content of awareness comes and goes. But something does not come and go. What we really are does not seem to come and go. What is it? What is it that does not come and go? Or we can use the headless experiments to find ourselves as a no-thing full of whatever happens, or the Big Mind process to find ourselves as Big Mind.

There are of course lots of ways to explore attachments. These are just the ones I happen to be most familiar with right now.

So a quick summary:

• Attachments to situations or things in the world creates drama and suffering, because everything is living its own life and is in flux. We get what we don’t want. We don’t get what we want. We don’t lose what we have but don’t want. We can’t hold onto what we want to keep.
• This attachment is really an attachment to stories about what is and should be. And this attachment to stories is really an identification with them.
• We can work with this in two ways. First, by realigning the stories we use, whether we are identified with them or not, with everything living its own life, on its own schedule, and being in flux. Then, by inviting identification to release out of these stories altogether. Realignment without disidentification only works up to a point since the world always will show up differently from our stories about it. There will be a certain amount of drama and discomfort left. Disidentification without realignment will release the drama out of it, but the stories our human self uses in its daily life will not be as closely aligned with the world as they can be. Both are important.
• And there are several tools for working with attachments in these ways. One is The Work which directly addresses the beliefs, broadens the scope of stores we have available to us through the turnarounds, and invites in a release of identification with the stories. Another is exploring impermanence through the sense fields, which invites in a release of identification with stories, and some realignment of these stories. And we can also find ourselves as that which is already free from identification with stories, through headless experiments, the Big Mind process, or finding ourselves as that which does not come and go in the midst of all content of awareness coming and going.

(more…)

What happens when we resist experience?

• There is a sense of I and Other. A split into I here and Other over there.
• From that split comes fear. We fear to not have what we want and to have what we don’t want.
• There is a rigidity of view. We are stuck in our stories about I and Other and our relationship, and don’t see the validity in the reversals of those stories.
• Our heart opens, closes down or is ambivalent, depending on our stories.
• Emotions are reactive. There is a lack of trust.
• Whatever happens is filtered through all of these… I and Other, fear, fixed stories, an ambivalent heart, reactive emotions and lack of trust. It takes on an appearance created from all of these.
• Our identification is firmly within the world of form and we don’t notice Ground, and ourselves as Ground.

A quick overview of some forms of identification and disidentification:

• A polarized identification and disidentification with the field of form. Certain areas, such as this human self, is seen as a separate I, and the rest of the world, and awareness itself, is seen as Other. Identification is firmly within form itself, within content of awareness, and there is a sense of split within this field of form. This is the identification and disidentification that creates the whole (wonderful & terrible) drama of human life, when it is all taken as a drama of I and Other. It is also a mistaken identity.
• Awakeness can awaken to itself, and to this field of awakeness and form as itself. Here, there is an identification with anything arising as awakeness itself, and a disidentification with anything arising as just temporary manifestations of awakeness itself. The center of gravity is within, and as, awakeness, and although anything arising is recognized as itself, it is also recognized as only surface ripples. If this is all, it is awake yet nonfunctional.
• Within this awakening, there can still be a conventional identification with this human self. It is recognized as a vehicle for awakeness awake to itself, so it is “identified” with for only temporary and practical purposes, to allow it to function and orient in the world. This is similar to the first form of identification, only now it is free from any sense of separate I.
• And then there is the identification and disidentification of parts of this human self. Some are actively owned and part of its daily repertoire, and some are disowned and not. And this human self can actively shift into the disowned parts, becoming more familiar with them, and bringing them into its daily repertoire, allowing for fluidity among a wider terrain of who it already is. This is the one that allows our human self to heal, mature and develop into the fuller richness of what it is and can be.

More in depth…

(more…)