At a Headless Zoom meeting yesterday, Richard Lang shared another helpful pointer.
When people look at you, notice that from your point of view, they are looking at nothing.
As so often with these pointers, what they point to is both very familiar and a new angle. What I notice has always been here, I have noticed it to some extent, and that particular pointer is fresh and highlights something I haven’t consciously noticed or investigated before in just that way.
I also realize that this is a version of the basic pointing experiment: Point at something in your environment. Notice the outline, texture, colors, and so on. Notice it’s an object. Then point at something else, and notice the same. Point at your feet. They, too, are objects. Point at your chest, that’s also an object. Then point back at where you are looking from. What do you find there? Do you find an object? Or space wide open for the world? The space that all objects, all experiences, happen within and as?
In this case, we use the gaze of others as the finger. When they look at me, I can take it as an invitation to notice what’s here. What do I find? Do I find an object? Or wide open space? Capacity for the world as it appears here?
I love these pointers. Each one brings attention to a certain feature of my nature, or of the world. I want to bring this with me. When someone looks at me, what do I find here? How is it to notice that? How is it to relate and interact from that noticing?
As Richard also mentioned, there is often a switch between (a) feeling self-conscious and focusing on this human self, and maybe even identifying with this human self, and (b) noticing the nothing here that’s full of the world. It’s not one or the other. Both are here, and both are valid and important.
Some background: The Headless Way and the Headless experiments were developed by Douglas Harding. Richard Lang is one of his friends, and is now among those sharing it with others. I love this approach for its simplicity, practicality, and for how egalitarian it is.
And a disclaimer: The quote from Richard is paraphrased. I did write down some notes, but I don’t think I got it exactly. Also, the way each of us talk about these things will be a little different, and that’s part of the beauty of it.
Douglas Harding and others in the Headless community talk about what happens after a shift into headlessness: We test teachings to see if they align with what we are noticing for ourselves. Richard Lang touches on this in the short video above.
HOW HAS IT BEEN FOR ME?
How do I relate to texts, teachings, teachers, and fellow explorers in this area?
I look for how clear they seem. How familiar are they with this terrain? This is what Douglas Harding describes.
I resonate with those who use a more direct language without too much jargon and tradition, and with as little cultural differences as possible. (Adyashanti, Byron Katie, Douglas Harding.)
When it comes to fellow explorers and teachers, I look for the ones where there is an immediate mutual recognition. (Adyashanti, Bonnie Greenwell, and others.)
I am especially happy when I find someone whose shift happened “out of the blue” as it did in my case, although that’s more rare.
In addition to clarity, I look for kindness, wisdom, pragmatism, freedom from tradition, and often special skills and insights I feel I can learn from.
IF WE DON’T RECOGNIZE OUR NATURE, HOW DO WE GO ABOUT IT?
How do we go about it if we are not familiar with our nature, and we cannot test teachings and teachers based on our own immediate noticing?
The most direct approach is to become more familiar with our nature through guided explorations. The ones I find most helpful are the Headless experiments (Headless Way) and the Big Mind process.
Otherwise, the normal guidelines are often helpful: Look for a tradition or teacher that seems kind, wise, pragmatic, clear, and healthy.
Be aware of your own projections of hopes, fears, shadow, and so on. Whatever you see in the world, including in teachers, is what you have in yourself. Don’t put up with behavior that seems unethical. And it’s often helpful to think of the others as friends, guides, and coaches more than “teachers”.
A FEW MORE WORDS ABOUT HOW IT WAS FOR ME
When this human self was sixteen, there was a strong oneness shift “out of the blue”. All was revealed as God, with no exceptions. These days, I would say that consciousness woke up to itself.
I looked for others who were familiar with the same terrain, and that took years. Mainly because I lived in a little town in Norway and it was the 1980s.
BOOKS
First, the ones I found through books…
The first I found was Meister Eckhart. I still remember standing at a shelf at the old main library in Oslo, reading a book by him, and seeing that beneath layers of cultural differences and a Christian language, he seemed to come from the same or similar place.
In the beginning, that was a typical experience. The layers of tradition and cultural differences were there in Buddhist texts, although they too often seemed to come from the same place. I loved Taoist texts, although they were often more indirect about it.
I also loved systems views and the books by Fritjof Capra, although his books came at it from a more intellectual angle.
The first that seemed more clear and with fewer layers of cultural differences was Ken Wilber’s No Boundary which I loved. He seemed to come from a similar place as me in terms of culture and worldview.
This was all in the late 1980s.
I then found the books by Jes Bertelsen which combined a direct noticing with Jung, Buddist and Christian practices, and energetic work. For me, that was perfect, although he didn’t seem to come from a completely clear place at the time.
I also read a book by Vigdis Garbarek who lived in Oslo as I did, although I didn’t contact her since she didn’t come from a completely clear place. It was close but filtered through some layers.
At the Zen Center, in my mid-twenties, I got into old and new Zen texts, many of which came from a clear place and with less jargon and fewer layers of tradition. My Zen teacher also developed the Big Mind process which came from a clear place and felt completely at home for me.
Some years later, in my early to mid thirties, I found Adyashanti, Byron Katie, and Douglas Harding, and finally felt I had found “my people”. They came from a clear place and talked about it in a way that was less filtered through tradition and cultural differences.
IN PERSON
When it comes to in-person encounters, these have been more rare.
I did go to the Tibetan Buddhist center in Oslo for a while, although felt a distance there because of it all being so heavily clothed in terminology and tradition. When I initially happened to speak from my own direct experience, the Norwegian teacher seemed reactive and angry so I learned to not speak up.
I found my friend BH in my late teens, who seems very familiar with this terrain, and the same with Hanne Bertelsen a few years later. Genpo Roshi seemed very familiar with this terrain as well, and I love his Big Mind process. Later, my connection with Bonnie Greenwell and Adyashanti was very important, and there have been several others. I especially love the circle around Adyashanti.
THE UPSIDES AND CHALLENGES OF NOT FINDING OTHERS SO EASILY
There were upsides and challenges in not finding others for a few years.
The main upside is that I was free to explore and get familiar with the terrain on my own, without the influence of traditions or teachers.
The main challenge was at a much more human level. This human self lived within a context of oneness, and also was profoundly alone in these explorations.
A brief video from Richard Lang and the Headless Way. If you are interested in exploring this further, go to the Headless Way website. This is something we can have a taste of for ourselves.
If you are that person in your field… if they are in a positive state they are spreading positive energy and you are that positive energy, and if they are spreading negative energy you are that negative energy, so the company you keep becomes more important if you are living from that space.
– one of the hosts of the Rising Laterally podcast in an interview with Richard Lang, ca. 40 minutes in
Richard answered this very well, and I thought I would explore it a bit for myself.
The context of this quote
The Rising Laterally folks interviewed Richard Lang who spoke about the Headless Way and the headless experiments.
Through the headless experiments, we find ourselves as capacity for the world as it appears to us. We are that which the world, as we experience it, happens within and as.
We are the content of our experience, including whatever people we encounter or are with.
When the host said “if you are that person in the field”, he referred to this. That we are capacity for other people, as we experience them, and they happen within and as what we are. We are them, in a very immediate way, for the time they are with us and in our experience.
What does positive & negative energy mean?
I am not sure.
I suspect “positive energy” can mean someone intentionally “positive”, which can be very annoying and not helpful in the long run for the person feeling they need to live that way. It can also mean someone generally healthy and content with life.
And “negative energy” may refer to what happens when we are in pain and react to that pain, for instance through catastrophic thinking, blame, going into victimhood, or something similar.
The different layers
When we notice what we are, how do we relate to others?
Do we, as one of the hosts of the podcast said, avoid “negative energy” more carefully? Or does something else happen?
Whether we notice what we are or not, our human self still has personal preferences. We’ll still be drawn to some people and less to others. That’s natural and not a problem.
When we find ourselves as capacity for our world, we also realize that as capacity, we are not really touched by any of it. We don’t need to avoid “negative energy”, whatever that means.
Depending on our maturity at our human level, we may not see it as “negative energy”. We may see it as someone in pain. Someone struggling with their pain and trying to deal with it as best as they can. We may come more from empathy and understanding. We may make ourselves available, for a time, for this other person and listen, be with them, and see if something else is appropriate and seems helpful.
At the same time, we want to be a good steward of our life. We may spend some time with people who are in pain and react to their pain in different ways. Although, we may not want to marry that person or someone we don’t resonate with at a human level.
The complexity of it
It’s a complex topic. We will have our preferences at a human level. We find that what we are is not touched by how others are. We may have more understanding and empathy. We may want to be a friend to the person and spend some time with them. We’ll want to be a good steward of our own life.
How we see and relate to others when they are in pain depends on a wide range of things. Our maturity. How much we have healed ourselves. What we have gone through at a human level. How much we generally have investigated ourselves. Our relationship with that person and the role we find ourselves in. And so on.
The world is our mirror
What much of this boils down to is that we relate to others as we relate to ourselves.
If we have trained ourselves to think about something as “negative energy” and to shun and avoid it in ourselves, we’ll tend to do the same when we encounter it in others.
If we have explored this in ourselves, found that it comes from our reaction to our own pain, that it’s innocent and comes from a desire to protect ourselves, and generally befriended it and seen more clearly what it is about, we may not feel we need to shun or avoid it. We see that it feels better to meet it, be with it, find love for it, and investigate what’s behind it. And if that’s the case, we’ll tend to meet it in a similar way when we encounter it in others.
What would Jesus do?
Since Jesus is an archetype of sorts for living from this space, as capacity for the world, what did he do? According to the stories, he spent his time with the outcasts of society, with prostitutes, tax collectors, and similar people others shunned.
Why? Perhaps because he knew these people needed a friend more than many others. Perhaps he wanted to see what was left in him of old conditioning. Perhaps he did it as an example and pointer to those in the mainstream who tended to shun these groups of people.
The simplicity of it
Ultimately, it can also be quite simple.
When we meet someone in pain, and perhaps are caught up in reaction to their pain, what would an ordinary, kind human being do? It doesn’t have to more complicated than that.
Although it’s several years since I discovered this book, Douglas Harding, and the Headless experiments, it feels fresh and new. And I am reminded of how much I enjoy and love this approach to finding what we really are.
The approach is simple, direct, honest, and pragmatic, and can be profoundly transformative for anyone sincerely exploring it.
The best way to begin may be with this book, or the Headless Way website.
A documentary about The Man With No Head, Douglas Harding. I love the headless experiments and Douglas Harding’s way of talking about who and what we are. The documentary is created by Richard Lang.
