Transcription
You know, in a way, perhaps more fundamental than any of the details of what I'm talking about, or elements of the fabric, of the structure of what we're trying to communicate and convey, in a way, more fundamental than all that is this encouragement, permission, even request to inquire for yourself, to experiment, to play. Let yourself play. Let yourself ask questions. Let yourself turn over stones and see what's underneath. Let yourself find out, interrogate. So the permission, the encouragement, and yeah, even the request to inquire. And a part of inquiry is becoming aware of what our assumptions are and questioning those assumptions. That's part of inquiry. Inquiry is, or at least it can be, very much a movement of soulmaking, a part of soulmaking. Or I would say the other way around: soulmaking always involves some inquiry, I would say, because of this expansion of the logos in the eros-psyche-logos. And inquiry can be soulmaking. So there's this encouragement, almost, as I said, more fundamental than any of the details or the little insights or this or that practice or whatever. More general, more fundamental is this need, really, for inquiry, and this permission and encouragement to inquire.
So in the practice that we described in the first part of this talk, what we were calling opening to the deeper current of desire, that practice, you could see, I hope, and hear there how through that practice, in doing that, it will I think almost certainly question or overturn certain assumptions (if those assumptions are in place). For example, that desire that is not for ending suffering, or desire that is not just for mettā or for jhāna or whatever, that such desires that are not so sort of narrowly conceived as kind of path desires, the assumption that other desires are defilements and lead to dukkha. Through such a practice, almost inevitably, through engaging such a practice, it should upturn, uproot such assumptions, question them, bring one face to face with them and their questioning. Or the assumption that desire is always from something called the self, and it leads to selfing; it builds this bad thing called the self. Again, looking at such desires, and feeling where they come from and what they do when we relate to them in certain ways, should confront us with these assumptions, and hopefully bring more sophistication, more nuance, more depth of insight and breadth of insight into our whole understanding and relationship with desire.
We talked about this opening to the deeper current of desire, that practice. And by now, through this course, we could say there are many, if you like, uncommon observations, or not commonly reported or talked about or chronicled or systematized, broadcast, observations in relationship to desire and what desire is and does and can be, etc., and all that -- observations that are contrary to the usual assumptions and conclusions, at least in our kind of sub-culture. We have quite a whole host of these observations that don't fit, if you like, in the usual logos and set of assumptions and conclusions. For example, we have talked about (kind of reviewing now) the delineating eros from craving, saying desire is a large subset, and we can delineate a kind of desire called 'eros' and a kind of desire called 'craving,' if we use language in a certain way and define them. We're saying these are not equivalent, interchangeable words. Eros is not craving, and the imaginal is not papañca. So the erotic-imaginal is a very different thing than the contracting and proliferating and crazy-making movement of craving and papañca.
And we, for example, shared that if one is involved, in one's life, perhaps, with some other who is unavailable for whatever reasons -- either because of the boundaries, or because they're already involved with someone else, or they're just not interested, or they're just unavailable, or health, or whatever it is -- and one feels the contraction of dukkha, stuck, the contraction of craving, one is looping in a circle, one feels the pain of that, that contrary to usual instructions ('just let go,' etc., let go of that person, let go of the craving, let go of the attachment there) one possibility is actually to allow more of the imaginal element in, of the imaginal realm, allow the imaginal to open up in the seeing of the other and open up the whole constellation. So everything that goes with that: the sense of beauty, the sense of meaningfulness, the sense of necessity, depth, dimensionality, especially the dimensionality that comes with the imaginal, so that this other that I seem to be so stuck with and frustrated by not being able to have, actually they become more through the allowing of the erotic-imaginal, through seeing and sensing in that way. They become, if you like, expanded imaginally. They become more. They become more 'angel,' if you like, if we use that word in its imaginal sense. Their angelic function becomes more apparent to our erotic gaze, to our imaginal sensing, and also then (and related to that) their divinity. So opening, rather than turning away and trying to close down, or just avoid this person, or shut down the desire, or contemplate their foul body parts, etc., another possibility -- and yes, it's not easy, perhaps, at first, and it's certainly unusual, but with practice, absolutely possible -- to enter more into the imaginal, the imaginal vision, the imaginal sensing of this person.
The expansion that they then go through, the perception of this other filling out, and the expansion, widening, deepening, complicating of this imaginal object that they are also brings with it, rather than more problem, it becomes more obvious, it brings with it the evidentness, the self-evidence that this is image. So rather than getting stuck in a kind of concretization and a realism, as we let the imaginal kind of inflate, give dimensionality, give extra beauty, give angelism and angelic function and divinity to this person, all of that, it's obvious that we're dealing with image. And the mindfulness is there, and the energy body, and the attuning to resonances, etc.
[9:42] And because it punctures the realism, it takes the problem out of it, and it's no longer craving. It steers craving towards eros more. Letting the psyche, the image expand and deepen, so this object, this beloved other, this person that I feel I'm infatuated with or frustrated by or whatever, they're obviously more than just what they seem, and it's obviously imaginal. When we get stuck in craving, even despite papañca, there's the realism there -- we said this before -- and actually the object is limited. It's limited. It's capped. Even if there's proliferation, it's capped. The extension of the object goes into fantasizing about the future and this and that and whatever, rather than expanding the dimensionality of the object and of the self. I'm just repeating now, reviewing insights that are unusual, uncommon, that we've kind of unearthed here.
In allowing the eros and allowing the feeling of the eros, sometimes, often, that actually brings an equanimity in the experience of the eros, and a spaciousness at the same time as there is eros and soul. So it's not an equanimity devoid of eros. It's not an equanimity and spaciousness devoid of soul, or at least with only very limited soulmaking. We've given examples of this, but actually allowing the eros, trusting it, trusting the erotic-imaginal, there can be peace there, even if I'm not able to have this person for whatever reason in the way that I think that I want them, if that's the situation. But there can be peace here not from so much a letting go, turning away, avoiding, repressing, whatever, deciding to see them as ugly or stupid or unworthy or whatever. In the very opening more to the eros and the imaginal, we can have a sense of peace because we somehow have more. We have more through the image, in the image, with the image. Not talking about daydreaming. I don't have to repeat all this now. But there's, in the increase and the allowing of the imaginal and the erotic in relationship to this other with whom I've been contracted in craving, and stuck, etc., there can be equanimity, spaciousness, with eros, with soul, and also peace. Peace there.
So 'just let go,' which is sometimes so simplistically offered as a teaching, recommendation, is certainly an option, and it's a good possibility sometimes. But it may come at a cost. What's the cost? What am I losing there in terms of eros and soul? It's an option, though, absolutely, and it's something that we can cultivate that ability and that capacity and that skill in letting go in that sense. But it's not the only option. Wrapped up in that option of 'just let go, it's assuming all kinds of things. One of the things it's assuming is a realism: this real self is letting go of that real object. One can contemplate the emptiness of things, of self and object, but there's also this other way of actually recognizing who this person is to my psyche, letting the psyche create and discover the depths and the fuller beauty of this imaginal other. So yes, maybe that sounds dangerous. Maybe it sounds crazy. But absolutely possible, and doesn't really take that much development of practice to be able to do that.
You know, we talked about fantasies of the path and self on the path, etc., and one of the pieces of that that I mentioned a couple of times in that whole constellation was the fantasy of the teacher, or fantasy of others on the path and, let's say, the teacher. And, you know, as with working with a therapist or working with a teacher in any area or domain of education that one loves and one cares about, there can be the fantasy of the teacher and the eros in relationship with the teacher. This is really quite common. I'm sure many of you are aware of this. And at the same time, there's the boundary. Most often there's the boundary there between teacher and student. It's not just a relationship where one enters into this or that, and decides to do this or that, and consummate sexually or just be friends or whatever. So oftentimes, again, the encouragement is 'let go,' or 'just stop doing that.' Either that teacher says to the student, or someone else says, "Drop it. Don't. Think of someone else. Find someone else." Or it's conceived in a sort of either very classical psychoanalytic model of the Oedipal triangle or situation -- "I want this mummy or daddy" or whatever, and then it's related to that way; it's a projection based in the past, and it needs a kind of healthy walking through together the disappointment, and the kind of keeping the boundaries firm, and just walking through that disappointment there. Fine, you know. Fine. But there are also sometimes, again, in that kind of approach, other possibilities, other dimensions of possibility actually missed.
I'm sure like any other teacher, I've been on the receiving end of that, or that ... it's a strange way to say it, isn't it? That has arisen, or students have expressed that from time to time towards me. Completely what I would expect when a person loves the path and there's beauty in that relationship, in the teacher/student relationship, and there's the fertility of the soulmaking. It's going to get -- the eros is going to involve in this case the teacher, as that's part of the constellation. So I know that's not -- I don't take that, if it happens or when it happens, I don't take that in some way that's going to puff up my ego or something. It's not me as real. It's not that it has nothing to do with me, of course, or nothing to do with what I teach or whatever. But I can't take it about me. It's about the soul. It's about soulmaking. It's about the erotic movement of the soul and the erotic-imaginal there. And if a person is told, "Just absolutely stop it. Just turn it off," etc., or if it's only kind of reduced or shrunk into that kind of Oedipal paradigm or variations of the Oedipal paradigm that are common in modern psychotherapeutic circles, if it's only -- I'm not saying that's not sometimes an important element to address, but if it's only that, something else gets missed.
Someone wrote to me a while ago. And, you know, I realize the risks I'm even taking in sharing this, and the danger of how people hear it, and what they then assume, etc. So I'm not talking about anything that involves the boundary not being there and being very clear; it absolutely was there. And neither am I talking about something that I took personally or got off on in some way at all. So I hope you can really hear that, and trust that, and understand that we're talking now about something that's a little bit more sophisticated than probably a lot of too easy assumptions and explanations, etc., about the people involved, or about what's going on.
The person wrote after some time, "You and your teachings have never been just a teacher and teachings for me. You've been a key that's unlocked the whole cosmos and let it out of a box." So this is this person then actually realizing, after some time, what actually was happening in that movement of eros and the fantasy of the teacher, etc. In this case, there's an erotic-image, there's an erotic beloved other, and soulmaking was allowed through that image, because she didn't just stamp on it and turn it off, and she didn't just reduce it to "it's about daddy and wanting daddy," etc. So the soulmaking was allowed through an erotic-image. And when she said "a key that's unlocked the whole cosmos and let it out of a box," in a way, she literally meant that because, as we've been talking about, allowing the eros and the erotic-imaginal opened up the cosmopoesis and the whole realm of the imaginal perception of herself, of others, of the world. All this soulmaking and cosmopoesis, cosmopoetic sensibility was opened through, yes, through the teachings, but also through, in this case -- it doesn't have to be like this -- also through the allowing of the erotic other and allowing of the eros there.
And she says, "Falling in love with you was falling in love with an entire world -- no wonder it felt so big." It feels so big because it literally is big; it's a whole world. It's a whole world that's opening up in cosmopoesis. That's actually what she's falling in love with. It's not me. It's not me, this person, etc., that I should then take personally and feel like, wow, I'm this or that, or attractive, or anything like that. It's actually falling in love with an entire world. What world? The world of soulmaking, and the world seen and sensed through the soul, if you like, through the eyes of the soul, the sensibilities of the soul. She continues, "And I think I needed to borrow your soul for a while, while my own was just waking up." So the attraction, the eros, and the love is for the soulmaking. We could say psyche is in love with itself. Eros is sparked by the glimpse of psyche's own treasures.
So she, you, might see in someone else the treasures that belong to psyche, they belong to you, not just the other person. Psyche is sparked by a glimpse, a vision, if you like, of its own possibilities of deepening, widening, being enriched, all that. Psyche is in love with itself. The eros, the eros of the soul, the eros of psyche, is for soul, for psyche. Psyche is in love with itself. It's in love with its own growth. Soul loves soulmaking. Soul wants soulmaking. And when something happens with a person, and there's that erotic connection there, often what's happening is they, or the relationship, or something in the relationship, or the totality of that constellation is feeding soulmaking. At first sight, it can seem like it's them: "I want them. I need them in a certain form or mode of relating" or whatever it is. Sometimes it may be that that's allowed for in the circumstances, and it's the right thing, and lovely, whatever. But oftentimes it's not really about that. We make the mistake. It's really about the soulmaking, and we love it, and we sense it, and the soul longs for it.
And, you know, she's honest here and says, "Of course, the immature enchantment got mixed in there too. Maybe if you'd been an 80-year-old wrinkly sage it wouldn't have. But I'm glad that part has been ebbing as soul has taken hold." So there was this process over time of kind of going -- there's soulmaking, but it veers into craving and a contraction ("I want this," a very particular form or whatever), but the boundary, the agreement that the relationship has only this range and not a larger range extending itself to manifest in this way or that way, or sexually, or as friends or whatever, in the usual sense of the word, that agreement functions as a boundary, and the boundary creates a kind of container. It functions to create kind of walls, if you like, that manifest the potential for an alchemical vessel. In other words, that container can become, if it's related to in the right way, can become a kind of alchemical vessel. And the fire of eros heats up the soul-material in that vessel, the contents of the vessel, and there's the alchemical process, the soulmaking process that is allowed by the vessel and the fire and the imaginal perceptions.
So that container is not to contain the feelings, if you like, so that one can feel the original disappointment with one's parents, etc., in the more sort of standard psychotherapeutic models. That may be a part of it, as we've acknowledged. But principally, it's an alchemical vessel, a soulmaking container, in potential. I still need to have the art of alchemy, relate to it right, etc., protect that vessel, watch the fire, work on the contents, on the images, etc. So the walls there -- note this, too -- are not walls or barriers or blocks to image, nor to logos, nor to eros. The eros-psyche-logos, no aspect of that trinity is walled off or blocked or limited or cramped. It's the boundary that creates, the agreement that creates limits of action and actual manifestation. Of course there's going to be friendship there, deep friendship, but it's limited in terms of how it manifests. And that boundary, not walls of psyche, logos, or eros, but that boundary allows what we called before a temenos, another Greek word which I translated as 'sacred space.' Better to translate it as, in this case, a space that allows the making sacred. A temenos is a space that allows sacralizing, allows the alchemical process to transubstantiate the material into divine material, sacred material, soul-material. A temenos, a boundary, creates a space of potential. It may or may not realize that potential of soul, soulmaking.
And how does it do that? This goes back to what we said much earlier on the retreat. How does it do that? It's because the 'more' that's desired in the eros, the pothos in the eros, cannot pursue or look for that 'more' -- at a certain point, it realizes it cannot, will not get its 'more' on the level of one-dimensionality, and the level of more contact, or sexual contact, or hanging out, or whatever it is. So the only way it can get more is it's forced, if you like (that's maybe too strong a word), but it's contained in this alchemical vessel, and the only way it can get more is in the imaginal. Only or principally, let's say, the imaginal is the direction and space made available and offered for the movement of eros and the 'more' of the pothos, the more that it wants. So this is the available space. The fire of the eros and the material is directed, if you like, into the realm of psyche, of soul, of the imaginal. And there's, in the discovering of the fullness of the imaginal, more and more fullness of the imaginal, and the creation of that, the discovery and creation of that, there is soulmaking. And because self, too -- we've touched on this -- will be wrapped up or involved in that constellation, soulmaking constellation (it's not just about the other, about the teacher, about the therapist or whatever) -- self, other, world, eros itself, the whole constellation will be involved there and is supported to heat up and have that soulmaking process.
[31:18] And the soulmaking is allowed to kind of deepen and widen until it's seen for what it is. And it's not that object that I want, that person in that form. I actually want something more than that, deeper than that. Yes, in some instances, I will get that through a certain form of relationship, and that's all fine if it's okay. But actually the soul is after something else, hungry, thirsty for something else. So as she said, that part of it ebbed away, and there's still strong love, she writes, but it's very different now. So eros and love and care, minus the craving. Craving has been drained out of it. That whole process was allowed to give rise to soulmaking more and more, wider and deeper and complicated, beautiful process of soulmaking over some time, and peace, supported by the temenos or the alchemical vessel provided by the boundaries, and provided by the teachings, and provided by a certain way of relating to the whole thing, ways of relating to the whole thing.
So all this -- still talking about assumptions now, and opening up assumptions and inquiry, etc. Do we trust eros? Do we trust the imaginal? Do we trust the erotic-imaginal? Do we understand eros? Or, put it another way, because we said it's impossible to finally understand: is there an expanding of our understanding of eros? Are we moving in that direction, or have we just decided something and we stop looking? Do we trust the movement of soulmaking and the intelligence that might be propelling that movement of soulmaking? Can we trust that? Sometimes what happens is, there's a sort of partial trust of the eros in one direction, but not in another. For example, in that polarity we've talked about between the Unfabricated on one hand, some people with a longing and desire and eros towards the Unfabricated, if you like, and they might look, such people might look with distrust and suspicion and disrespect at people whose eros seems to be for the world and for the senses and for others. And vice versa: people whose eros seems to be or they feel it's directed to this world and the senses and the beauty here and other human beings, etc., look with perplexity, or suspicion of some kind of psychological wounding or something, at those whose eros wants the Unfabricated and maybe has chosen to leave aside the world and the senses and the kind of erotic engagement there for the sake of the erotic movement towards the Unfabricated. So these two camps of directions are often so suspicious of each other. This gets so hot and polemical philosophically within the Dharma as well. This is assuming one even allows eros.
Such opposition is assumed between the, if you like, transcendent or spirit or the Unfabricated on one hand, and the immanent or matter or the senses or things on the other hand. But that opposition, in terms of inclination or philosophically or whatever, can only really hold if there's realism, on the basis of realism. Can only really hold this opposition, this dichotomy, tug-of-war, mutual suspicion, only if there's realism, if we don't understand or see the emptiness of both, emptiness of the world, emptiness of sense perception, and the emptiness of the Unfabricated. Only if there's realism. Or another possibility is we've gone beyond the realism because we've explored the eros enough, and both movements. We've explored eros enough to understand that whole movement of rendering things, allowing their imaginal nature to open up, seeing image as image, and perhaps we've explored both directions.
So there's this opposition between, say, the transcendent, the Unfabricated, and the world or matter. There's this apparent opposition. We need to account, as I said, in our logos. I feel you can't really ignore this phenomenological observation that when clinging is reduced, to that extent there's a decrease in the fabrication of the perception of self, other, and world. Somehow I need to account for that. I can, based on certain epistemological assumptions, decide to ignore it. But to me, it's something that somehow we need to account for, especially as meditators. So we need to account for it. But it also seems to me to be the case that if eros is strong, if there is strong and deep and powerful eros running through a person, and if there's a logos or an intelligence that allows an expansion and an understanding, and also if we've been exposed to a concept or the idea of the Unfabricated or the transcendent, or if an intuition of it or the possibility of it has emerged somehow in consciousness, a glimpse, an intimation of it, either in meditation or through a certain direction of inquiry in meditation, perhaps, around fabrication, or as one moves about in the world and there's perhaps the veiled sense of it, the glimpse of it that's there as an intuition of a possibility, then the eros will actually eventually go in both directions. There will be eros for the transcendent. If we've been exposed to the idea, probably, if there's a certain amount of intelligence and a logos that can hold such a concept even if we don't quite understand it yet, and if the eros is strong, then the eros will go towards the transcendent at some point. It will actually go in both directions. We've said this before.
[39:52] But the desire for a mystic knowing and the desire for the Unfabricated, to me, when they are there, they are signals -- almost always, they are signals of a rich, deep, powerful eros in a person. People with less eros tend not to want to know the transcendent, the Unfabricated. That very desire indicates a deep, powerful longing, a deep, powerful movement of eros. And it's funny, several people have reported to me that other people look at them, and maybe they know them relatively well, or maybe less well, and they see someone who has this mystical inclination and who has a desire to know the Unfabricated, and they assume that because they want that, because there is this eros in that direction and that movement towards the Unfabricated and the mystical sensibility, they assume that they're therefore not interested in close relationship, in erotic or sexual relationships. Strange assumption, based on this opposition, this dichotomy. Actually, it's probably the opposite that is the case: that a person, as I said, who longs for the Unfabricated, who moves in that direction, who makes inquiries and practices in that direction, and wants to know, and wants to open, wants these other levels of perception that we could call 'mystical,' usually that person has a lot of eros, and also has a lot of eros in human relationships, and in the sort of purely intrapsychic imaginal.
Sometimes there are assumptions made by those without so much eros running through them. They make assumptions about other people, and in a way, they don't understand, they don't know, because they're basing their view on just how much eros they have. Or there's actually an anti-libidinal kind of fear that we talked about that they're making their assumptions based on, this fear of allowing eros, not just that they don't have it. They might have it, but they might be dampening it. So their eros is dampened or only channelled or allowed in a few limited directions because of this anti-libidinal fear or disappointment, rejection, whatever it is. And based on that view, a view that comes from that limited eros, they're reading other people, and making assumptions about other people and what's going on for them and what they're like.
It's so easy, again, just on the theme of this part of the talk, it's so easy to not let our questioning loose, if you like, or not to gather power in our questioning. Questioning is related to eros. It's penetrating, if we use that image, or it's opening. So sometimes the questioning is actually driven by eros. And again, sometimes people who keep questioning, it's also indicative of a movement of eros, of the fullness, the depth, the force, the power, the richness of the eros there. But with all this, we see just how easy it is for assumptions to be operating without us even realizing. And these assumptions wield a lot of power, and they have a lot of effects. They really affect how we view things, how we view others, how we view self, how we view existence, and then what unfolds for us. All kinds of assumptions. So we mentioned, just as an example, we mentioned just the assumption that desire always comes from lack, from a feeling of lack. Does it? Can I, do I dare question this? I would say it's possible for desire to come out of joy, out of a sense of celebration, out of a sense of abundance -- overabundance even, superabundance. Somehow the desire flows out of that. Again, this word 'flow,' related to 'libido.' There's an overflowing of the libido that manifests as desire. Sometimes at another level -- and we've already said this as well -- there's a recognition that desire is somehow already flowing from me to you on the imaginal level, in the imaginal realm, so to speak. It's already flowing. It's not coming out of lack. It's already there in some fullness.
I think before, at some point in one of the earlier talks, we said -- I'm pretty sure we said desire may be viewed in different ways. We can view it as really not okay, it's a defilement; or even if we don't use such strong language as 'defilement' or kilesa, we somehow anticipate or imagine that in awakening there's going to be somehow zero desire, and we're just kind of going along with the flow, without really wanting anything or desiring anything. Somehow the whole movement is away from desire. Desire is a sign of non-awakening, if you like. Or we might have a view that desire is, well, it's okay; everything's okay. Everything's all equal. It's all one. It's all whatever it is. No problem. There can be that kind of view of desire.
Or there might be a more nuanced view of only some desires are okay, and you'll pick your directions where it's okay. For the Buddha, the desire for jhāna was certainly okay. The desire to cultivate the brahmavihāras was certainly okay. The desire for awakening was certainly okay. The desire to live an ethical life, all that, okay. The desire to ordain into the monastic order. Some desires are okay depending on what they're for, where they're headed, and others are not. Or we may have the view that desire is okay if it's only a momentary arising. In other words, you get a pop-up of something called desire or craving or whatever, and as long as the mind doesn't cling to it and attach to that desire, get caught by it and dragged along with it, even just in the mind, then it's okay -- it's just a momentary arising. That would be another fourth view. Or a fifth view: that desire is something divine. There's a treasure there, a divine treasure of great beauty there.
I can't quite remember if I've said this before on this retreat so far, or even on another retreat, so forgive me if it's a repeat, but our word 'desire' -- some of you will know this; I heard this first from Rosanna, who shared it with me, pointed it out -- our word 'desire' in English comes from the Latin word desiderare, which is from de sidere, which means 'from the stars'; in other words, from the heavenly realms, from the gods, if you like, as the stellar constellations were seen, regarded as gods, as divine. So right there in the word, in our English word 'desire,' it bears the etymological origin in the very word of a regard for it that regarded it as divine in that way.
I'm just repeating what we said before: we could say there are five ways that desire may be viewed in, but actually, maybe even more discernment is needed than that, more nuance to our views of desire. And if I haven't said it already (I hope I have, but), the conception that I have of desire and the evaluation of desire -- it isn't okay, it's a defilement, only some is okay, etc. -- that conception and the evaluation of desire actually plays a role in then what the desire does, or what happens to it, or what unfolds. It's not a neutral factor. It's part of the dependent arising of the desire itself. Same with anything, in fact.
[50:53] The conception, the evaluation of desire, plays a creative part, plays a role in fabrication. And actually, there's always some conception and view of desire. I mean, sometimes it might be quite elaborate and involved, especially if you've had a lot of teaching and Dharma training -- you know, desire is quite a loaded, central subject. But even if not, there's always some conception and view of desire. I'm just reviewing a few things before moving on. There's always, I think I said, an imagined or an assumed relationship with getting the object that we desire. So, for example, here's this desire, and I anticipate getting what I want -- something really simple, or something not really simple: I'm thirsty, so I want some water, so I go to the tap. I anticipate getting it. I don't anticipate a drought, certainly not in Devon anyway, or I don't anticipate not being able to find clean water, because one of the good things about our society is it provides clean water. But that's part of what comes into the whole relationship of desire. This is often overlooked. It's very different when I have a desire and I anticipate not getting it, not getting the thing I want, and how does that colour and shape the whole experience and the very desire itself. Or then there's this other possibility of, as we said, realizing or sensing that on an imaginal level there already is what I desire; what I desire is already here. That actually then means there's a relationship with eros there and the imaginal.
So in relationship with the anticipated getting or not getting, or realizing it's already here on another level in the imaginal realm, we're talking about then very different things. There's always going to be some view about or relative to this getting or not getting (or whatever) the object. So that last one, the sense of it already being here, that already involves the imaginal. Again, just reviewing a little bit. With desire with the imaginal, or desire that's become eros, then has all kinds of possibilities. We went through some 'ways of looking' practices, really, practices, practising ways of looking that transformed a desire to eros, and allowed more equanimity or spaciousness or soulmaking, beauty, etc. So for example, I think there were four we touched on. One was seeing one's desire -- here's this desire; it feels problematic. Maybe I can't have that which I want. But seeing the desire as a divine influx. Its origins are in the divine or in the primordial Buddha, whatever. What does that then do to the experience? What does it do to the desire? What does it do to the sense of the situation? What does it do to any dukkha that might be there?
Or, as we mentioned just now, the second one might be recognizing with the imaginal sensibility, recognizing that that which I am desiring, and that which I feel a problem in relationship to desiring because it seems like I can't have it, recognizing through the imaginal sensibility, through the attunement, through the opening of the imaginal lens, recognizing that it's already happening in what we called hierophanic time, borrowing Henry Corbin's phrase. It's already happening. And again, what then does that do to the dukkha? What does that do to the desire? What does it do to the whole sense of the situation, the whole perception? And a third possibility we mentioned was seeing, again, with practice, this facility and skill and dexterity with the perception, the ways of looking in the imaginal perception -- it can be developed quite to extraordinary degrees. So I just decide to see the desire, the other, the object, the beloved other that one is desiring and the self as theophanies, as faces or aspects of the divine. It's slightly different from the first one; the first one was the desire originated in the divine or in the Buddha-nature or whatever, so it's a divine influx, the desire. This is not so much that, but the desire itself is divine, is divinity. It is God. It is the primordial Buddha, or an aspect of the primordial Buddha, or an aspect of the divine.
And a fourth possibility we offered was seeing, sensing, viewing, practising a way of looking that sees the image of the other, the image of the desired object, the image of the self desiring, and the desire itself, all three as the primordial Buddha making love to herself, making love to himself, God making love to her- or himself. So there's this, with practice. Some of you, if you're hearing this before you've done a lot of practice, it might be like, "How am I ever going to be able to do something like that?" Actually, again, it's absolutely not impossible, and it's not as far away as it might sound at first if you haven't really got in and played with imaginal practice. But basically, we can play with the views of desire, of the self, and of the object desired or the other, and develop that art. These ones that we're talking about here are different than seeing the desire as not-self or whatever, anattā. It's actually different views there. And develop those skills and that art, really. It's really, again, the art of perception, and how extraordinary are the possibilities, diverse and beautiful are the possibilities waiting for us to discover there.
So all that, what we've already outlined, when we include the imaginal in our relationship with desire, or we allow the imaginal to come into that relationship and infuse it and amplify it and extend it and complicate it. And then we can also talk about, and we have already talked a little bit about, what about the energy of desire? We've talked about this in different ways. So we can change the relationship with desire, or change what the desire actually is and does, through the way we relate to the energy of the desire as it manifests in the body. Sometimes this is clearest when it's sexual energy, and sexual energy that kind of feels problematic because it can't be moved or released because of the situation or whatever it is. There can be a pressure that accumulates in areas of the body, oftentimes in the genitals or whatever. Sometimes it can be really uncomfortable, painful, difficult to bear, difficult to handle. Very normal human experience. So one of the possibilities we talked about was just expanding the awareness, making sure you stretch it so the whole body, the whole energy body is encompassed in the awareness, is filled out by the awareness. Sometimes what happens is I just need to stretch the awareness and the energy starts spreading more. Something's happened in the uncomfortableness of the energy, in the contraction around the object desired, etc., or the imagination of that, and the whole thing has got contracted, and the energy itself has also got contracted. That's part of pressure, right? Pressure and contraction go together. Where gas is contracted, it's under higher pressure, and that pressure is uncomfortable. Just sometimes you don't even need to try moving the energy around, although that's a certain way of doing it. But in a way, a more subtle and even more refined way of doing it (both are possible) is just to spread the awareness. Because the awareness has more space, the energy will also spread to fill that space. And because it spreads, it's less contracted, and there's less pressure.
[1:01:10] Sometimes what can also happen in that movement, and allowing the energy to move, because it has more space, because the awareness is giving it more space, is that the pressured, uncomfortable sexual energy actually turns to bliss, to something like pīti or rapture. There's a second possibility I'd just like to offer as well. If there's a similar kind of situation, uncomfortable pressure of sexual energy gathered in one area in the body, say the genitals, to be aware at the same time of the heart centre in the centre of the chest. Aware of both regions at the same time -- the heart centre and, let's say, the genitals, where the pressure feels gathered uncomfortably. Just being aware of both will kind of allow the energy. Again, I don't have to move the energy, or make it do anything, or kind of yank it around, all of which is fine, too, but sometimes all you need to do is just be aware of the heart centre as well. Not instead; not saying, "Oh, go away from the genital area," etc. Include both. It's almost as if there's a channel then made between the heart and the genitals, that area of pressure, and one is including both. Naturally, what will usually happen is the energy will begin moving up that channel and into the heart. So then it's spread between the heart and the genitals. What you then have is it stimulates the heart or it reinvites the heart back into the energetic experience and the emotional experience, so it actually allows more love and warmth and connection with the other that one might be desiring, etc. So you've got the heart as well as the genitals. And in that spreading, and in that softening with the love and warmth, it doesn't take the sexual energy away or dampen it or get rid of it or anything like that, but it allows it to spread and include another dimension -- in this case, the heart dimension -- so that it's less pressured and less uncomfortable.
So that's just a little suggestion, offering, if that's sometimes the case, if that experience arises and it's difficult. But the main point right now is that, like anything else, like images, like actually any perception, any desire is dependent on how it is looked at. It's dependent on the way of looking, what we're calling the 'way of looking.' And if you remember, the way of looking includes the way of conceiving and the way of relating to it. So any desire, what it is, how it is, how it's felt, what happens to it, all that depends on how it is looked at, the way of looking, which includes the way of conceiving of it and evaluating it, and also the way of relating to it. So desire, if we're talking about desire, whatever name we give to it -- and we've chosen to use certain labels, etc. -- but if we talk about desire, whatever name we give to it, it's not good or bad in itself, so to speak. Neither its nature nor its trustworthiness (of desire) is determined by its obvious object. Neither its nature nor its trustworthiness is determined by its obvious object. In other words, "That's a sense desire, therefore it's a kilesa," "That's a desire for awakening or compassion, therefore it's positive." It's not so much, as we would usually tend to think with Dharma teaching, that this is a desire to trust, this is a desire not to trust, dependent on what it seems to be for. Right? Because we've gone into this, "What is the desire for?", in a number of different ways, whether imaginally, actually allowing the imaginal amplification, dimensionality to open up through the imaginal of this obvious object, or through asking the deeper question of what is being desired.
Sometimes we think about this desire or that desire, and imagine that it's a thing in itself, but we get confused because we're kind of implicitly including the idea of acting on it or following through on the desire physically or practically in the world. So when we go into all this, or just this question of even the impulse to inquire into desire, we start to realize in addition to all that I've just said in this talk, much of which is just reviewing what we've already been through, we start to see we need to consider and differentiate in our inquiry. If we're going to inquire into something called desire, then there's a differentiation to be made, there are differentiations to be made, between desire acted on, or desire repressed, or desire (quote) 'let go of,' or desire not noticed, or a desire whose energy is opened to but in relation to a deeper object, if you like, if we use that word as we did in the opening to the deeper current of desire practice.
We need to differentiate the movement of what we were calling pothos and that kind of infinite longing as something -- what would you say? -- spiritual or soulmaking. The kind of desire when we realize, in relation to what we said a few minutes ago, the desire when it's realized to be already consummated in hierophanic time in the imaginal realm. Desire seen as empty. All these differentiations. Desire seen as divine influx as we talked about. Desire regarded as defilement or problem, or 'sin' in other language. Desire regarded as or assumed to be originating in lack, whether that's an emotional lack or an intuition of the existential lack of a solid self. Some people explain the Dharma that way, that actually we have a suspicion or an intuition or occasional glimpses that we lack a solid self, and based on that we try and solidify a sense of self, as if getting things and getting involved with desire will kind of shore that up; it's based on this intuited sense of existential lack, lacking a solid self. Or desire assumed to be originating in, again, the existential intuition of impermanence of all things, a sense of the impermanence of all things: everything's impermanent, so there's a kind of hunger there. Or desire regarded as an avoidance strategy, avoiding grief feelings or these feelings of lack. Can't handle the impermanence, can't handle the lack of a solid self or whatever.
[1:10:07] So it's interesting. We, as usual, assume something to be findable as that thing: "There are things, and they're findable. They're obvious what they are." So we assume desire is findable as some thing, a mental event, if you like, a momentarily arising quality, an inclination, a factor in the process of the citta, whatever language we want to use. There is this thing called desire. There it was, right then, that micro-thing there in the process of the citta. But actually, desire is inseparable from all kinds of other factors. It's actually inseparable. I cannot find this thing called 'desire' in itself. Not just inseparable from the thoughts and actions that follow from it or are imagined in pursuit of the desired, but also, at a much more subtle level, the very conceivings of an object desired (or objects in general), inseparable from that, inseparable from time-view, time-sense, self-view, world-view, philosophical system, and even unconscious philosophical systems (which actually most philosophical views and systems are -- they're just kind of habitual views about what's real and what the world involves, etc.).
So in a person's life, and in any instance or any moment, the relationship with desire and the conception or view of it, conscious or unconscious, the relationship with it and the conception or view of desire, conscious or unconscious -- in other words, whether we're conscious or unconscious of the conception or view -- these are woven into a whole view and sense of existence and cosmology. Wrapped up in the whole thing, it's implicit in what we've been saying all through the retreat, that the relationship with desire and the whole view of desire are woven into a whole view and sense of existence and cosmology. So if it's a flat world, this is it. If there's an assumption there's no real meaning or purpose to existence, so let's just maximize the pleasure. The view of heaven and hell, reward/punishment, sin. Or the view that you need to transcend this world, as the Pali Canon's sort of transcendental thrust, and achieve an ending of rebirth. All these, and much more subtle ones, are kind of woven into our relationship with desire.
So that's woven in. That informs our relationship with desire. All these assumptions about objects, things, time, self-view, world-view, philosophical systems, that informs and shapes the relationship with desire. And similarly the relationship with desire and the conceiving of desire -- any desire, or desire in general, both -- will make a big difference. Again, the causality is both ways. The very ways we conceive of desire will make a big difference not just to the unfolding of that desire and the actions that it impels or it doesn't impel in the world, but also to the view and the sense of self, other, cosmos, and desire too. How I conceive of desire makes a big difference to all of that, the very view and sense of self, other, world, cosmos, and desire. I'm just drawing out what we perhaps just alluded to here over the days.
So we say: what is desire? Well, at one level, we can define it, of course. On another level, it's an unfindable element. I can't find it. I can't find it separate from all this other stuff. It's inextricably interwoven and linked with all that. It's unfindable. And yet, amazingly, we can still inquire into unfindable things, and we can still talk of the alchemy of this unfindable element, the alchemy of elements, as the alchemists used to talk about different elements, mercury and this and that. Unlike the alchemists who used to talk about purifying this or that element, it's not possible to have pure desire, just desire in itself, as some kind of isolated thing. Can't reduce this complex, interwoven mass of existence, can't really reduce it down to its basic elements and separate them. But still we can talk about the alchemy of those elements and the alchemy of desire. I can't remember if I've already said this. It's hopefully anyway obvious by now if I haven't said it. But that phrase the 'alchemy of desire' that we were using has a double meaning, right? So we're talking about the transformation of greed and craving, what we were calling greed and craving, into eros and into the eros-psyche-logos dynamic being liberated, into the liberation of the eros-psyche-logos dynamic, the soulmaking movement. The transformation of greed and craving into eros and the eros-psyche-logos movement. In other words, the transformation of a desire that's neither freeing nor soulmaking into a kind of desire called eros that is more freeing and more soulmaking. That's the first meaning of 'alchemy of desire.'
And a second meaning, at the same time, is the possibility that desire, when it manifests as eros, and that eros is allowed to stimulate and galvanize the eros-psyche-logos dynamic, when neither eros nor psyche nor logos are blocked or cramped in some way or another, then that kind of desire, that kind of eros and the eros-psyche-logos dynamic, will lead to a transubstantiation, a sense of perception, the transubstantiation of other, self, world, and eros itself. There is an alchemy, if you like, of everything, of existence, of the whole cosmos. Transubstantiated how? Given these imaginal dimensions and depths, and divinity and sacredness, and beauty and all of that. So on one level, we can't find it. On one level we can delineate it and make these delineations. On another level we can't find it, desire. And yet we can still talk about and practise this alchemy of desire and all the beauty and the soulmaking that comes out of that -- as I said before, knowing the emptiness.
