Transcription
Okey-doke. Let's continue a little bit, looking at, touching on, some of the elements that we need to take into account, bring into our awareness, care for, on this path of soulmaking, if this vehicle, if this soulmaking vehicle, yāna if you like, doesn't spring a leak, if it's not going to spring a leak, run out of steam, blow a fuse or whatever. In other words, if imaginal practices, sensing with soul, soulmaking practices, in the broad range of what that means for us, is not going to actually increase dukkha, bring more dukkha. What are the elements that we need to be aware of and to care for? So continuing a little bit with that.
One area is around pacing. I've touched on this already, several times, on several different occasions. You know, you may have heard me say that one way of conceiving (very broadly speaking) of the 'goal,' if we can even use that word, or the direction, or the delivery of this kind of path, is as a potentially infinite and endless opening of soulmaking, of the eros-psyche-logos dynamic. And with that, the accessibility, and development, facility of and flexibility with a whole range of possible ways of looking and ways of conceiving. Broadly speaking, that could be conceived of as, if you like, the 'goal,' or the direction, or the movement, or, let's say, the issue of all this path.
But, you know, when we put it that way, the emphasis is really on flexibility and opening. It sounds like there's going to be this endless movement, and always moving from one thing to the other, always opening to the next thing. In reality, that would be a little misleading, and overemphasize the movement aspect, give a sense of constant movement, whereas sometimes what happens on our path, at any point in the path, is that we need to hold on to or stay with something. I don't just mean the breath, but it can mean that. It might be a logos that's opened up, a new idea -- something about divinity, or something about self, or something about soul, or something psychological. And, "Ah, this is a new thing. Something has just opened here." Then we need to kind of settle with that new thing, keep that in our sights, keep that plugged in, that logos, keep coming back to that, use it, orient from it and around it and to it, and let that do its work.
In other words, there's an opening, but then we need to kind of hold on to something, stay with something. It could be an image. We talked a lot about this in the past, about pacing with images, when to deliberately bring in an image that has worked for us before, when to just be open for new images, if you like, or whatever comes. Or it may be a desire, or a movement of eros. It's not just that we want to feel that kind of eruption of flame in the being, and in the energy, and in the psyche, but also, sometimes, that desire or that eros, we need to really steady with it, and really focus on it, let it fill the body, fill the psyche, let it align the being. Incredibly important when it comes to steadiness, equanimity, devotion, commitment, in the long-term, just letting our desires run deep, and because they run deep, they root us deeply. It's really like having a root deep into the earth when we take time with our deep desires, let them run deep, let ourselves feel them run deep, and let ourselves almost be constellated or constructed, our very body and psyche constructed, from the base of that desire, like it's one of the foundations of being.
So rather than just this desire, that eros, this image, another eros, another idea, all these aspects -- again, eros, psyche, logos here -- or any of these aspects at any time may need us, after the initial opening which reveals the new aspect, and presents it to us, and offers it to us as a possibility, then we might need to really steady with that for a while. That could be really quite a while, or shorter, or whatever. We return to it deliberately over and over, recall it deliberately, use it. In principle, then, there's an opening. There's some kind of opening. But then there's some kind of closing, if you like: closing around what has been revealed in that opening, what has been gifted to us in that opening, what we have discovered or created in that opening, some kind of grasping of that new (whatever it is) logos, new image, new desire. And grasping at it for a while, consolidating it, strengthening our connection with it and our accessibility to it, and the vividness of it, the power of it.
Otherwise, if it's only endless opening -- certainly if it's of ideas and logos, or images, or desires -- it's just going to be chaotic. There's not going to be that steadiness, that strength, that grounding. And nothing really transforms. It feels like it's always constantly erupting new stuff, and turning, and I don't know where I am. It can be kind of exciting, but one of the potential drawbacks, if it's just this kind of opening again and again and again, over and over, only opening, is that it's not actually, in the end, that transformative. It doesn't go deep and become fertile and potently meaningful and transformative in our lives.
So when we talk about pacing, again, some wisdom has to come in. Yes, a vision of increasing fluidity, flexibility, availability of ideas, conceptual frameworks, or ways of looking, and also of that whole potentially infinite and endless expansion, deepening, widening of the soulmaking dynamic and the eros-psyche-logos. But what that means from day to day, from moment to moment, is that there's a wisdom in regards to kind of fluidity and stability, consolidation, settling, staying steady with whatever that aspect is.
A little bit related to that, and I think I've said this before on a couple of retreats, but if you're working with this material on retreat, and wanting to incorporate soulmaking practices into your retreat life, retreat schedule, then really to know that it's probably not good to be doing imaginal practices all day long and nothing else. We dip in and out, a little or a lot as suits, as seems to serve, into practices of the erotic-imaginal. And within that context of moving in and out, you know, when we move out, we move into other practices. Other practices really are helpful complements and supports to practices of the erotic-imaginal, of sensing with soul. And in a way, I would view them as one kind of larger maṇḍala or integrated set of practices and approaches that kind of form the soulmaking path, really.
So dwelling in the energy body, with that sensitivity permeating the body, either developing samādhi or mettā, or being with the emotional life, all of that, emptiness practices of different kinds, to whatever depth one is familiar with (and one can always develop that, too, alongside or before or afterwards), mindfulness of any kind. All these are really, really helpful kind of ... if I say 'auxiliary,' that makes them sound secondary. They all fit together to form, to tessellate together, to form this bag of not really tricks, but bag of practices and approaches, that are really helpful to the whole movement and shipshapeness of our vehicle, if you like, and also the efficacy of the soulmaking practices -- their sustainability, but also their depth in the moment.
Really any practice that decreases fabrication of perception in the moment (perception of self, other, world) will be a good mix in with the soulmaking practices and imaginal practices. Most imaginal practices, we could view them as practices of skilful fabrication, and in contrast to practices that fabricate less in the moment, fabricate less perception. So emptiness practices, mettā, samādhi. Even mindfulness fabricates less to a small degree. These are all practices that fabricate less perception. Imaginal practices and sensing with soul are practices that fabricate perhaps a tiny bit less, but are actually engaged in what we might call skilful soulmaking fabrications of perception.
Another way of conceiving of this mix is that there are practices that, again, very broadly speaking, kind of build equanimity directly. So for example, samādhi practices, generally speaking, mettā practices, brahmavihāra practices, mindfulness, emptiness -- generally speaking, although they can also be quite exciting in terms of the energies they release at times, but generally speaking, the movement of those kind of practices is to more equanimity. So you've got that on the one side, that kind of group of practices, and on the other side you've got what we could call the practices of eros, so actually opening to the desire and the eros and the erotic-imaginal, etc. One can think about, loosely speaking, having a balance of those practices. It doesn't need to be 50/50, and the balance itself will be fluid, of course. But that we've got both. We can't just be kind of plugged into the super intense erotic-imaginal practices all the time. It would be super exciting, but it's going to tip the boat over at some point, or just burn the engine or something.
[12:40] And I've talked before, and particularly, I think, in the Eros Unfettered retreat, about the possibility of working within the erotic-imaginal practices, with the sensing with soul, and actually, by nuanced, delicate responsiveness and skill in those practices, balancing those practices at the same time as one is engaging them. So instead of going back and forth between these kind of practices and these kind of practices, actually giving attention, for example, to the spreading of the soulmaking towards self, other, and world equally; to the ways the energy might expand or need to move in the energy body; to bringing in different ways of looking; to ways of relating to desire, for example, with the Opening to the Current of Desire practices; to being aware of where in the soulmaking dynamic, which of the elements of eros-psyche-logos may be inhibited right now, and may be blocking the soulmaking, and so kind of tipping things over or drowning them a little bit, and allowing it to spread there, and so helping to balance the whole soulmaking process. We talked a lot about that. But broadly speaking, there's a sort of back and forth one can engage in between different kinds of practices, and also (perhaps a little bit more sophisticated; I don't know) balancing at the same time within the practices of the erotic-imaginal, within the practices of sensing with soul.
Again, if you've listened to a number of talks already ... I know we said to listen in order and stuff, and I know that people don't. So if you've listened to other series, you know, just to say again, perhaps you're on retreat or something and trying to practice with this stuff, just to say: it's really not necessary to do all the practices, or anything you don't feel comfortable with. And you shouldn't force yourself. If that's not obvious, I'm saying that now. And even more broadly, to say, you know, this soulmaking business and these kind of practices, it's just not everyone's cup of tea. I mean, some people will never be interested in this stuff, and that's completely and utterly fine. Souls are different, and they're drawn to different paths for lots of different reasons. So if you're listening to this stuff, obviously, please don't buy into some 'should' if it just actually doesn't attract you. Let it go, you know. There's plenty of other practice possibilities. And even if you're ambivalent, don't force yourself to do something: "I don't think I really need to do that practice and that practice, and that one sounds a little hairy, but I should make myself do it." Please don't think that way.
So again, there's pacing with all this. Many people do find themselves ambivalent. They're deeply drawn to these kind of teachings and these kind of practices, and at the same time, they're really ambivalent. They're really unsure for different reasons. If that's the case for you -- it's not just a question of, "Actually, this isn't really my thing. I'm not really drawn here" -- if that's the case, there's this kind of ambivalence, then I would encourage (A) perhaps talking to one of the teachers that's very versed in the soulmaking paradigm and sets of practices, but (B) also just a gentle questioning with yourself. What actually is the fear? Why do I feel reluctant to engage or explore such practices? What assumptions, perhaps, are involved in whatever fears might be operating or concerns? Really, as always with fear, it's generally good to let it become more conscious. I've said this many times before, but oftentimes we're bullied, pushed and pulled, and inhibited and shut down, and directed this way and that by fear, and we're not even fully conscious of, "What exactly is it that I'm afraid of? What exactly is it that I'm assuming here?" So I'm saying this as an invitation to a real gentle, caring, careful and thorough inquiry -- not as just another fancy way of saying, "Get over it, and move on, and push yourself through into these practices" at all.
Again, related to pacing: timing with all this, and timing with also questioning oneself or inquiring into what's going on for me if I feel ambivalent, it's a matter of respect and sensitivity. Sometimes I need to respect my concerns and my fear, and be sensitive to when is the right moment to turn to it and see, "What's going on for me now? What's going on in my heart and soul that there's this fear or refusal or ambivalence about taking another step?" Sometimes that needs to be respected. Sometimes we need to be sensitive to even the fact that that's there, and not push us through a kind of ambivalence that we haven't even noticed because we weren't paying attention to how we felt. So on the one hand, timing is a matter of respect and sensitivity. On the other hand, it's also, you know, there's a place for courage and boldness and fire and all of that -- in these explorations, certainly, but also in the exploration of the relationship with the explorations, if you follow what I mean.
[19:02] Some people may well think, and I know, and people have said to me, "These practices and these teachings, they are dangerous or they sound dangerous." It's usually they sound [dangerous], because it's usually someone who is not really engaging that's saying that. I mean, we might say, "Yeah, maybe. But dangerous to what?" What is it that you're thinking or assuming or concerning yourself with there? Oftentimes, a person will worry that allowing eros to arise, especially allowing sexual eros to arise, or allowing other desires, their energy to open, as we taught in different practices in different ways, that this can only be encouraging and feeding and reinforcing the kilesas -- movements of greed, because greed and desire are the same; or delusion, because fantasy and image must be delusion; or attachment, etc.
And this is really important to check this out. I can say to you it's not the case. If one practises with wisdom, with sensitivity, with care and with responsiveness, practises the soulmaking practices and enters this kind of conceptual framework with all that care and responsiveness, it's just not the case. Now, only you, if you have that concern, can actually verify that for yourself. But I think you will find that that's so. In a way, what we're talking about in this talk now, in these different parts of this talk, is yeah, what exactly do I need to care for? What exactly do I need to keep my eye out for? What exactly needs to be in place in order that I don't just end up feeding the kilesas and thus feeding dukkha?
A second concern sometimes that people have, related of course, is that sometimes people are happy talking about, using the word 'imaginal,' and using it in a slightly different way, as I pointed out in the first talk, and using it in a way that I would say is a little more tame, a little less radical, a little safer, and a little more under the thumb of the self, really, of the ego. This relates to sometimes the way Jung would encourage people to think about things. So people often, yeah, working with the imaginal and kind of engaging the sub-personalities.
I just want to point out again that that wouldn't be, that way of thinking about things wouldn't be quite what we mean by the imaginal and by sensing with soul. 'Sub-personalities,' in the very word, in the nomenclature there, implies 'sub-': it's less than something. Less than what? Less than the ego or the self. There's something who has got the final say and who is bigger than. 'Sub-' means 'less.' So this self, keeping my eye on things, sort of in charge and organizing and overviewing, of which there are these little sub-personalities, which can be fascinating and really helpful and bring some healing to integrate them into this bigger, super, superior personality or ego or whatever, and can be really, really useful. And some people, that's what they want to do. That's the extent of their interest and engagement, and that's the extent of the kind of logos or conceptual framework that they're willing to play with. That's absolutely fine.
I think we're going beyond that, and because of this sense that -- these elements that I outlined in the first talk -- part of of the imaginal, part of recognizing what we call the 'imaginal,' an 'imaginal figure,' means autonomy, means divinity, means unfathomability, means, in some way, I cannot figure out or get to the bottom of this imaginal figure. In some ways, it's bigger than me. In some ways, I am gifted something, by something, by something I don't understand, by something that is larger, more mysterious than me. 'Sub-personality,' therefore, is really the wrong word. They are autonomous persons -- at least, let's say we are entertaining that conceptual framework more often than not in our logos. We're not putting these things in our pocket or harnessing them or something like that. There's a different stance, a different relationship; essentially, really, a different conceptual framework deliberately entertained. We can move in and out of that, absolutely, and put it down, adopt another one, even adopt the sub-personality one, etc. But at times, at least, and probably the favoured one, is not to box them in and diminish these imaginal figures as sub-personalities.
Sometimes a person hearing that -- sometimes people don't hear that, and they just hear the word 'imaginal' and assume 'sub-personality' because they've heard that elsewhere in some psychological paradigm or other. So they don't hear the difference. I've dwelt a lot on the differences. Sometimes people will hear this more radical vision, and it will be scary: "What, I'm going to be a split personality? I'll have split personality disorder," or "That sounds bonkers. Isn't that what crazy people do?", and all this. So that might be a fear. But again, it's like, is that really what happens? Is that really the offshoot of all of this practice when I take the care, when I develop these elements, when I have that responsiveness, when there is the insight and the wisdom? I don't think so. I really don't think so. But something more powerful, and more radical, and more far-reaching, and more opening is opened for us, some much vaster landscape of soul is opened for us when we don't limit what opens (for example, with an imaginal figure as a sub-personality).
A third area that people can get concerned -- and again, it's a valid concern -- is that sometimes doing this work is really quite a different way of conceiving, of thinking about practice, about path, about life, about existence, about being, about every element of existence and of the universe. And not just kind of idly or abstractly engaging those thoughts in a way that they don't make a difference, but actually employing them -- again, this phrase that I use: entertaining certain conceptions. It means kind of plugging them in, seeing through those lenses, sensing through those lenses, and actually palpably feeling in the body, in the emotions, and in the soul, what a difference that makes to the sense of things, all things.
In that, in engaging these concepts and practices, there can be what I talked about a while ago, in the last few years at several different points: this breaking of the vessels. It's a Kabbalistic concept. Something shatters, stretches or at some point shatters -- some old way of thinking, some old way of relating, some old relational structures, some old way of conceiving practice or self or whatever it is. There can be that kind of fracturing, breaking of the vessels. And as much as there's a gift from that, it can be, at certain points in that process, when a vessel breaks that we've been used to for a while or is stretched to the point of tension and discomfort, that can be not easy. It's not a smooth kind of cruise all the time. And when those periods come in our life -- and I hope they do come, actually, because it's almost like this is the way that psyche works at times. It works in the breaking of things at times. It's part and parcel of the growth, of the movement, of the opening and deepening of the soulmaking dynamic over time. But when that does come, when those kinds of things come -- and they can come in very small ways or larger ways -- it's not easy. It takes a lot of equanimity and wisdom to navigate those fracturings, openings, and rebuildings of something new.
[29:24] So a person might hear these kind of teachings, or hear someone talking about this kind of stuff, and might hear the potential there for some kind of breaking out of the structures that one has gotten used to and lived in, and that may have actually supported one for a while, but may be a little bit ... not inhibiting, but past their sell-by date. And that can be a little bit worrying or daunting. If we go back to a couple of things I said earlier, one is that, again, going back to this thing about larger-scale pacing involved in this path, there is this Shevirat ha-Kelim as they call it in the Kabbalah, a breaking of the vessels, that can happen in all kinds of different domains of our life at times, even if we're not engaging in soulmaking practices. It's just part and parcel of being a maturing human being, growing up in our lives. So it happens anyway.
That can be part and parcel of what this path catalyses for us. And, as I said, it's not just constant opening and fracturing, endlessly new things slipping and sliding, and coming in, and breaking, and exploding. That's not the vision of the path. It's actually, there will be times, there need to be times for integration, for consolidation, for settling, for rebuilding, for building new structures or letting them be built, and then getting used to them, learning from them, as I said at the beginning. So there's a kind of movement back and forth between what we might call building and breaking, or consolidation, and this shattering or whatever. That's the rhythm, and that's part of our life anyway. It should be, and if it's not, one would have to think what's going on in one's life. One would probably feel quite dead as a human being if there's none of that going on in one's life.
The second thing I mentioned before is just about questioning, and the encouragement to question, to inquire. You know, inquiry, questioning, is also a dangerous business. It can be very dangerous because of exactly what we were just talking about: the breaking of the vessels. We inquire, we question, and it pushes on old structures, and questions them. And sometimes the inquiry has enough force, enough vitality, enough soul in it that things are broken, whether we're talking about intrapsychic or sometimes extrapsychic. So questioning can be dangerous, yes. As I said, it's a matter, though, of respect and sensitivity and not forcing, but also of courage, boldness, fire. So questioning can be dangerous, but sometimes -- and I would say always in the long run -- what is more dangerous than questioning is not questioning. More dangerous than questioning is not questioning, if we never question. There's going to be some huge cost to the soul from living a life that doesn't question.
Okay, just a couple more things for today, for now. A reminder regarding -- again, we're talking about typical areas where people feel a little nervous or ambivalent or unsure about the kind of teachings that we're presenting. One, obviously, is not just regarding eros, but specifically regarding when the eros is sexual. So the idea of engaging and exploring the sexual erotic-imaginal in practice is a little worrisome for some people. I'm not going to repeat this over and over, but we're talking about really a lot of mindfulness, a lot of sensitivity, a lot of care, a lot of respect, and the movement of opening up divinity.
This is something I said before, but it's worth repeating, I think: what one will quickly realize is that when an image is imaginal (so that includes an erotic sexual image), when it's imaginal, it has this quality of being iconic, as I said, which is almost like non-narrative. How that translates for sexual erotic-imaginal means that it doesn't tend to escalate: this sexual fantasy or images seem to be playing out. It doesn't tend to go one thing leads to the next, and it all moves towards a final denouement or orgasm or whatever it is, as a sort of less mindful and less imaginal sexual erotic imagery might do, in the way that usually pans out or relates for most human beings, or the way we usually relate to that. So, recognizing: "Ah, yes, it has this iconic [quality]. It doesn't actually need ..." It might just be a kind of instant of something that's captured as an icon, if you like, and we're resonating with that. It has that quality of not escalating.
[35:50] Similarly, another aspect is -- and right from the beginning teaching the imaginal, we have encouraged, with different emphases at different times, sort of more or less -- but there's been this encouragement to include and trust what we might call 'darker' images. So less nicey-nicey, less sort of all-white angels and cherubs, etc. -- which have their place, too, unquestionably, in the landscapes of the soul. But there are darker images, more voracious, more carnal, more seemingly sometimes violent. We talked about images of devouring and that kind of thing. I don't know if I mentioned (I'll throw it out again): 'devour' is maybe related, for the soul, as a word, to 'devoted.'
These images are often not what the mind fears they are. Even if they seem to be something really not helpful, there are usually ways of relating -- it's all in the ways of looking -- that redeem them, transform them, liberate the sacredness that's actually in them, the treasure that's actually in them, so it's not a matter of evil, or I'm going to do something weird, or all that. There's this encouragement, and again, at your own pace, and only when it feels comfortable, encouragement to include what we might call 'darker' images. And that includes the sexually darker.
For some, this is very easy. It's already part of what they feel very comfortable with in their sexuality. And for others, less so. There are lots of different reasons why that's the case. Some is in terms of education and past history and wounding. And again, souls are different. Some souls, if you like, have more darkness in them. That's not good or bad. It's just a character. And some have less, you know. So part of this whole discernment process with soulmaking is, again, "What is given to me, rather than me trying to fit into some pattern which is actually someone else's soul pattern?"
But with all this, with the sexual erotic-imaginal, and with the darker images or the darker sexual images if they're there, or when they're there, the divinity becomes clear. As we said, that aspect of divinity or theophany is one of the aspects of the imaginal, one of the elements of the imaginal. One starts to see, "Oh, that's there," and starts to feel the dimensionality, starts to feel the love. Implicit in love is respect. All these factors. And one starts to just trust the whole thing more. Sometimes, as I've pointed out, a drop of trust in the beginning can actually allow these other elements to show themselves, and then we can let them become more illuminated and amplify more in the sense of what's going on.
As I said, for me, what's possible here, and what's most important in this whole soulmaking movement and logos and potential, is the expansion of our senses of sacredness, even in those areas that seem like, "Well, that's the opposite of what my mind says is sacred," or "That can't be sacred," or whatever it is, or I tend to only see it in certain expressions, only feel a sense of sacredness and theophany in certain expressions. An important potential in this whole movement of soulmaking is the particularity of different kinds of sacredness. Not just a universal, "Everything is sacred. Everything is perfect," but this particular theophany, that particular theophany, through this particular thing, that particular expression. That's, for me, central and centrally important in the whole movement and opening up of soulmaking.
But really, with all this, and with all these cautions, what is, I think, most commonly at the root, what's most basic to all of these fears or concerns or ambivalences that people will have, is the issue of realism. It's a problem that's basic and sometimes underneath other apparent problems, and it's so common. This is what we run into. A person can be, let's say, with an image that's a little scary for some reason, doesn't fit my idea of what's holy or whatever, what's okay. Sometimes a person is fearing that "This means this about me. This means that I'm bad. This means that I've got some kind of very strange pathology or whatever." There's a kind of reification, really an identification, of that. And that brings up fear. So it's fear that it is really saying something about me.
On the other hand, there can be a fear that, if you like, this image, or entertaining this image, is exactly not real, and by entertaining what is not real, just by virtue of the fact that it involves the imagination, or it doesn't conform (if we're talking about extrapsychic sensing with soul) to the common, consensual, socially agreed-upon, dominant culture world-view of what a tree is, or what a tree feels or knows or can do or doesn't, and one fears, again, that by engaging in this kind of practice or these kind of ideas, I'm practising and reinforcing a dangerous not being in touch with reality -- I'm out of touch with something called 'reality.'
With either of those fears, whether it's a fear of "what this thing means about me," or "This is going to happen," or "Because I had an image of this, it must be a premonition or whatever," or it's a fear that I'm just encouraging myself to be out of touch with so-called 'reality,' and what would be the consequences of either of those ("I will then do this. It will get out of hand," etc.), underneath all this, underneath what I was talking about with the fears around the sexual erotic-imaginal, with almost anything -- most common, underneath it all, most basic as a kind of issue or problem that needs attention, is the realism. That's why we've talked so much about the imaginal Middle Way, about the theatre quality. Let's come back to that shortly.
