Transcription
Okay. So we have half an hour or so before tea, if there are any questions or things that might be helpful. We have a couple of remote mics. So somehow we'll just pass the mics to whoever would like to ask a question, and that way everyone can hear. Anyone? Please. Hi, Bridget.
Q1: staying faithful to one image or exploring others; the movement toward making more manifold
Yogi: I got confused in that guided practice because I've been in a developing relationship with one image for a while. It's proving very fruitful. And I was wondering whether, in a way, to take the opportunity to see whether something else came up. But at the same time, I felt that I was being unfaithful to this relationship that's evolving.
Rob: Yeah, thank you. That's a beautiful question. When you say to be open to something else coming up, did you mean some other image, or some other character, so to speak, or something else happening than had been usual with that same image?
Yogi: No, it was more to whether another image ...
Rob: Yeah, okay. In a way, there's no right and wrong to all this. We're exploring soul, you know? But a couple of things I guess I would say. One is: it's not necessary to change image, in terms of what we want to explore. So if we're exploring the imaginal and eros, as we'll unfold, what I want to say is any time there's an image, there's eros. Okay? And that might feel like, "Oh, no, I don't think there is." But there is in the way that we mean 'eros.' It might not be so noticeable. In other words, as it's kind of implied in the guided meditation, the eros may be really obvious, and really not very subtle, and really sexual, let's say, but any imaginal relationship, I would call it 'erotic.' Now, I'm going to unfold what that means more as we go on. There are two aspects to it: staying with the same image, and kind of getting a little bit more attuned and sensitive, and noticing what's actually involved in that relationship. Does that make sense? In other words, it's fine to stay with it. Absolutely fine. Wonderful. And you might notice more and more about the texture and the qualities in that relationship. Does that make sense? Yeah?
It might also be that what happens with an image that's a regular image for you is that the nature of the relationship changes. So it's the same image, but the relationship, like relationships do, they evolve -- and sometimes in quite surprising ways. Again, this is just staying with the image and seeing what happens. So it could be that on the face of it, nothing much new happens, but I'm actually noticing more than I had before. That's option number one. Option number two is: I stay with the same image, and I am faithful to the image. It's really beautiful language: we're faithful to that image. I'll say something more about that in a second. But in being faithful, it means I'm really open to that image, and open to what I put in and get back, and what the image gives to me. So it evolves. It's dynamic. We don't know what's going to happen. So both of those are staying with the image.
The third thing to say is a little bit different. I would say, at least the way I've taught it so far, we're polyamorous imaginally. [laughter] So we're also polymorphously perverse. But we'll come back to that later. [laughter] What that means is, it's not being unfaithful to have many images. And I would say the nature of most people's psyche is that there are many images. Just because I have these multiple and sometimes contradictory images, it doesn't mean that I'm not faithful to one. Do you see what I mean? It's different than the way we usually think about what it means to be faithful in relationship. Does that make sense? To me, it wouldn't be being unfaithful. It's complicated, I think, or made more difficult by the ways we tend to think about especially erotic relationship (in the large sense) in most Western culture, but also religious relationship.
I mean, it's interesting here -- we had another one that we may or may not bring in, but typically there's one Buddha, or it's Jesus. But you can see how even in religions -- how Jesus, then Mary comes, and then the different saints come. There's a tendency, and we'll get to this more and more, as soul does its thing, as soulmaking happens, there is a making manifold, more and more and more. So more images, more separate images, more contradictory, more complementary images, but also one image starts to get more and more complicated, create more faces, more aspects. Does that make sense? And as I said, you see that in institutional religion as a kind of cultural/historical movement towards -- you see we've got Buddha, Kuan Yin. We have Tārā. That's what happens historically. And you'll see it internally, so to speak, in your own soulmaking process. But none of those options, to me, are being unfaithful. They're all valid, beautiful potential explorations. In a way, I haven't really answered your question. But do you want to say anything ...? No? How does that sound? Okay? Yeah. Okay.
Anybody?
Q2: fantasies of the path, relating to images that are less obvious or formed
Yogi: Last night, you mentioned something about having an erotic relationship with the path in the talk. I was just wondering whether you could say any more about that, if you're going to.
Rob: There's a whole other talk about that, and we might also devote a bit of practice to it in a couple of different ways. A little bit related, in a very general way, to what we were talking about with Bridget [Q1], what happens -- and I think this is in the talk tonight -- what happens is that as eros gets going and as the whole soulmaking process gets going, it is very -- what's the word? -- generative, creative, prolific in what gets discovered and created. So in every facet of our life, in every dimension of being, eros can come and infuse and start to inseminate that thing or that relationship or that aspect of being, and then soulmaking happens in relationship to that being, to whatever that aspect is or that thing is. So this could be obviously a person. It could be the path. It could be nature. It could be some thing in nature. It could be oneself. It could be some aspect of oneself. And in that process, the object comes alive and comes to be more than it was before. Wrapped up in that is meaningfulness, love, dedication, devotion, all these things in relationship to the erotic and imaginally pregnant object. So that happens in relation to the path.
If I turn round what I just said, where there's love, where there's devotion, where there's meaningfulness, there there is eros, there there is image happening, there there is fantasy. Often we don't realize that. People say, "I don't have images," and this and that. Our life is infused with images. Where are they? Look where there's meaningfulness, where there's love, where there's dedication, where there's devotion, where there's aliveness. That thing is erotically imaginally alive for you. It could be something you would never have thought to put the word 'eros' or 'imaginal' with or anything like that. It could be an idea. It could be something very -- your feet! It could be absolutely anything from the most gross, concrete thing, to something very subtle, to something seemingly abstract. Anything can come alive in this way. So that's a general point. Do you want more about that specifically now, or do you want to wait?
Yogi: Well, it was more just the sense of relating to it, because it's not an object, it's not a visual image, it's not something kinaesthetic ...
Rob: Relating to the path?
Yogi: Yeah, or to the pull of that kind of calling.
Rob: Yeah. I would say it is. When we have path, you have what? You have goal or aim or direction. You have 'where I am now.' You have the being who is treading the path -- that's you. You have someone who has done it before, probably, or maybe not, so the Buddha or whoever. What you get with any image is you get an imaginal constellation involving self, other, thing, the world that it's happening in, time, all that stuff. So when you say 'the path,' depending on how Buddhist or not Buddhist or what you conceive your path is, there will be someone or some teacher. There will be your image of yourself on the path. We may come back to this in quite a big way. It's like, what do I fantasize is my job on the path? What am I actually doing here? What is my fantasy of awakening? So it might not be visual, but there are usually not-quite-fully-conscious fantasies going on in the imaginal constellation of what we are devoted to. Mostly we don't realize that fantasy is going on, that the whole thing is being beautifully supported and propelled and impregnated with fantasy, because we tend to think of fantasy as a derogatory thing. So we don't realize that. And then secondly, we don't quite know what they are. We're not quite conscious of everything that's wrapped up. Does this make sense?
Yogi: Yeah. Perhaps I didn't phrase the question very well. It was more the sense of relating to that pull, almost like a being, even though it's not one. So there's something very -- it's not the Buddha, it's not ... I don't even know what it is; some other. It doesn't have so much a kind of beingness to it, and yet there's a calling. It demands something.
Rob: Yeah. Okay. So I would, again -- and I just dropped it in very briefly in the guided meditation -- an image may not have a discernible form. You understand? We talk about image, "Oh, I see he looks like this," or "She looks like that," or whatever it is. But an image can be something as vague as that that's constellating still as an image. And I'll say again what I said before: around that, in relationship to that, is still the fantasy of the self, the movement, the world that it happens in, the tradition that it happens in, the history, the future. Do you understand? Quite often we have images that are not actually clearly delineated, certainly not visually or in any other sense of a way. They're kind of vague, and that's perfectly valid. But there will be something in there that is a little more formed, if you like, like the self and what the self's job is and that kind of thing. Does that ...? [laughs] Are you sure? No? Okay. I just want to dwell on this because it seems important.
Yogi: It's more doing the kind of practice we did when we did the guided meditation -- it seems harder to do with something ...
Rob: Well. Yeah. Maybe I didn't set it up in a way that would work for something like that. But for instance, and we may or may not get to this on this retreat, you can feel energetically and heartfully and soulfully what that pull and that calling does. Even if the object is not quite clear, it's going to do something in your being when you open to it, when you sit with it, when you align with it, when you give yourself to it. Sometimes that's all that needs to happen, you know? And then it's feeling: what does that feel like? Sometimes you let yourself do that, the being opens -- and again, this relates to Bridget's question -- something then changes in the image, and something may become more formed. But it doesn't need to be. It's not like, "It would be better if it was in technicolor and really clear." Not necessarily. But there's a fullness and a multidimensionality and a multifacetedness of that whole erotic relationship that you can, again, you can find your way into it and let it fill out more without demanding that it be like this or like that or have a certain form. You understand? These things, you know -- I'm very much not like, "We're going to tell the imaginal world what to do. We have an agenda. It should be like this. And not only that, it should fix these things about my personality" and whatever. I would incline more to being led by something, listening to something, and letting that guide, the other way around. Okay? Okay. Linda?
Q3: usefulness and limitations of interpreting or analysing images; playing with conceiving of image as primary
Yogi: I'm wondering, listening to your talks, my impression is that the way of relating to the image is much more about resonances and not about interpretation or analysis. But I'm wondering perhaps, in early days, when it's something that is being learned and becoming more familiar, it seems that there might be a place for moving between the receptivity and some analysis or interpretation. Because what I find is that if I allow that, it can kick it off again; it can get something moving again.
Rob: So if I understand: early days, you mean early days ...
Yogi: There's an association, or there's, "Oh, yes, I can see why."
Rob: Yeah. By 'early days,' you mean early days in your practice of ...
Yogi: Yeah.
Rob: Okay. And if I understand, something makes sense sort of analytically, or why a certain image would come up or something like that, and then that kick-starts what?
Yogi: It kick-starts something happening spontaneously.
Rob: Okay. Yeah. Absolutely fine. The thing about soulmaking is that I would say every dimension of our being is involved, every facet. For me, it absolutely includes the intellectual faculties in all kinds of ways, all kinds. This is just the answer that's coming now, but the only caution I would give is don't limit. If it's like, "I've analysed it. Done. Put it in a box," the image will die -- the opposite [of kick-starting]. If, though, you have this sense or, let's say, grant, play with the idea, entertain the idea that the image is infinitely meaningful, so that whatever analysis comes to you or you come up with at any point never exhausts the image. It doesn't finish it. It's just one. It means this, and it might mean its opposite, or it might mean something complementary. It might mean many things. Yeah? It's not that you necessarily have to find them out, but there's a kind of superabundant depth to them. Does that make sense? So, fine, absolutely. And especially, again, you're finding what works for you with this. I really encourage experimenting with what works and what gives it life, etc. I would just be cautious about putting things in boxes, because then they die.
Yogi: I suppose it happens if an image comes because I've taken something to a sit: "I'm going to look at this," and then there's some apparently completely disconnected image. Then at some point there will be an, "Oh, yes, I can see how this relates back to the question I brought or the issue I brought to the sit."
Rob: Okay, yeah, sure. Yes. Very good, beautiful. And how about, "the image was always there"? What drove the issue was the image. Do you understand? It's like, we're playing with an idea here, partly, we're playing with the idea that image is primary. That's not how we tend to think, at least not in this culture. We tend to think exactly the way you said so far: "I had this issue, I had this thought, and then this image came." Fine. It's a great way of thinking. But also the other way round. So again, you're kind of supporting this view of this superabundance and mystery and fullness and primacy of the image.
Yogi: The specific image?
Rob: Yes. Yes, yeah, absolutely. You're just playing with different concepts there in a larger sense. That sort of involvement of the intellect can really be fertile for the whole soulmaking process. It kind of gives it more soil and more structure to unfold in and grow. Does that ...? Yeah? Okay.
Q4: soul as a subjective entity or a way of relating; feeling the instrument of soul-perception as located somewhere (heart, etc.)
Yogi: Two quick little things really, and they come out of things that both Catherine has said and you've said. First is what Catherine said, that every desire has an object. I find that problematic. I understand that's the psychology of desire, that's how it's spoken about, but I've worked for quite a few years now with Prapto Suryodarmo, a Javanese movement teacher, and he always says not subject/object but subject/subject. I think it relates to what you say about allowing an image's autonomy. There can be a lot of problems if you start thinking about an image or a tree or a flower as an object. That's something I wanted to share. And the other thing is the problem -- I have a difficulty; it's probably just how I image soul. But I don't feel a difference between heart and soul. Heart gets bigger sometimes, but it seems to be the centre and the engine of soul for me.
Rob: What do you mean by 'heart'?
Yogi: I feel it in the energy. I feel it here. And sometimes it stretches and can stretch way out. But any image that has that kind of resonance, this is where I'll feel it. I'll feel it in the body, as well, all over the place. I'll get mental excitement. But that's the centre.
Rob: Catherine and I were talking about this recently over a while. There's no reason to change anything there. Again, I would just be quite open. It may be that for you, let's say, the centre or the faculty or the instrument of soul-perception is here. For me, personally, it's not located in any one place, but it does definitely involve energy body; it has to be involved. But for you, it might be centred here. For someone else, who knows? So, great. And in some of the Sufi traditions, they talk about heart is the centre of soul-perception. It's not quite what we mean, by just openness of heart and emotionality, okay, so there are linguistic problems here. There might also be -- and I'm not sure; I don't know the answer -- there might also be just personal sort of ways we tend to feel this differently, and that's fine. Again, I would just keep open. It might be that's always going to be that way for you. It might be it evolves.
In terms of soul -- and again, I can't remember what's in the talk tonight, but I might have touched on it -- we can talk of soul as a subjective entity, as if it's a subjective entity, like we talk about mind or something like that. We can also talk about soul as just a way of relating. That takes it out of this "where is it?" sort of thing. It's in the relationship. It's a mode, or modes, plural, of relating, if that makes sense. So I think probably what you'll find when I speak is I slip between those two ways of talking about it. But again, I'm a little loath to tie it down to one or the other, you know, if that makes sense. Yeah? Okay. Good.
Sampo, did you have a question?
Q5: navigating in the moment; clinging/craving versus eros
Yogi: [inaudible] and sometimes it tends to kind of inseminate more, and I'm noticing a hesitancy in letting myself analyse or interpret.
Rob: Yeah. I go back to this thing of there's no right and wrong. It's like surfing or cycling, you know, that kind of thing, in the sense of you get -- like any meditation practice (we could be talking about emptiness practices here, we could be talking about samādhi, we could be talking about mettā), there's a creativity and a playfulness and experimentation involved. You get the sense of, like, "Whoops. I've gone down a hole here," or "Whoops, I've fallen off," or "I've hit a brick wall," or whatever it is, or "Oh, that's interesting. It feels just right now," or "It's opening nicely, and I wouldn't have thought that my analysis would have done that, because analysis is supposed to be a bad thing." Or vice versa: "I'm analysing, and I get all just heady and disconnected." So rather than creating a rule, I would just say this is part of the sailing. You're feeling the wind. You're feeling the breeze, the currents of the water, and what kind of catches it right in the moment. There are things we can say, absolutely -- that this tends to help, try and do this and that -- but generally I don' t think there's such a formula to all of this. That's why I keep going on about the sensitivity and da-da-da. In the moment, how's my little boat doing here with the wind?
And the second thing, just to reiterate something or put in different words what I said to Linda [Q3], there's analysis at different levels. So there's an analysis that might be particular to this image and, say, a connection or whatever -- my psychological history, perhaps, or who knows what -- but there's also kind of just the analysis in terms of understanding, for instance, the whole process of soulmaking, and how that happens. So that's more like a meta-level. So it's all good if it's good in the moment, you know? Do you understand? I would be wary of giving kind of pre-fab, formulaic answers, really. How does that sound?
Yogi: Sounds good. Will you be talking more about transforming the craving/clinging desires into more erotic desires instead? That's also something that, with some images, especially in the guided, when you suggested we just bring an image of your choosing, it might be like, "Well, it's not exactly a divine image at the moment, but it feels like there might be something coming on. It might just turn out it was something I craved or thought was cool or whatever."
Rob: [laughs] Yeah, sure. I think we'll be talking about it more. I am pretty sure we will. I actually can't remember what's in the talk, but I'm pretty sure. If not, let's talk about it more. Basically, yes, you can have eros, all that lovely divinity and multidimensionality, and then whoops, it's just contracted into craving. How do I know? Energy body is one thing. That tells me. With craving, the energy body contracts. That's one signal. But similarly, we can stay with something and say, "Well, this shouldn't work," or "This is craving," and the way of relating to it -- and it might have to do with bringing the heart more involved; it might have to do with getting the energy body more involved.
One way to lean it more towards eros is to really get the whole energy body involved and expand that field. When there's craving, the energy body also contracts. The awareness contracts, maybe to one area in the body -- sometimes extremely. Sexually, sometimes what can happen is the awareness contracts to one area of the body. So what can really help is opening that, getting the whole energy body involved. What is it to 'look' at this imaginal object -- and I use 'look' in inverted commas -- to 'look' with my energy body? Do you understand? And that leans the whole thing more towards what we're calling 'erotic.' Yeah? Humility is another thing. It's related to the autonomy. I give this, rather than they're an object that I want, or they're an object that's going to do something for me. I could have a god that's basically just trying to do something for me, or that's how I see him/her, etc. So there's something about humility and reverence, as well, that leans it towards or opens it towards the erotic. So that's two things for right now. But hopefully we'll be saying a lot about that. Does that sound okay?
Yogi: Yes, thank you.
Rob: Okay, good. So there was the tea bell. Let's just have a couple of moments of quiet together.
