Transcription
Just to say again: you probably all have realized, the way we're conceiving of what we're calling soulmaking and the path of Soulmaking Dharma or practice is really quite wide. Do you get the sense how it can actually involve the whole of our beings, more dimensions and aspects than we're even aware of at the moment? So it can grow and it can move in different directions. And these different aspects and parts, aspects of the path, kind of support each other. So the well-being, the samādhi, it's an important part. The working with difficult emotions, being able to tend to, to notice, to be aware of, to care for what's happening emotionally -- this is a really important part of soulmaking, of the whole frame. And desire, and being able to open up desire in different ways, being able to let go of desire. Emptiness, imaginal, etc.
So in terms of Q & As, you know, please consider all that fair game. All of that's part of the package, and any aspect of that that you're working with or wondering about or you have a question about, whether it's a difficulty or a loveliness or a curiosity, or the conceptual framework. So it's really open. As I said yesterday, we are recording for the benefit of everyone, hopefully, and other beings elsewhere. But if you don't feel comfortable with your question being recorded, just say so, and I'll press 'pause.' Yeah? That's completely fine.
So, anybody ...? Andrea.
Q1: unlocking the energy body through concepts or sound, different sparks for different people
Yogi: Yeah, this is more of a surprise. It kind of goes to Catherine, as well, because you both said it in different ways yesterday, that it was the concept turning into percept. I think it was Catherine who said it that way. When we did the chanting yesterday ... it wasn't chanting, it was sound. And the sound, there was a combination of all the sound that we were making in the room, and then the suggestion from Catherine in what I feel was a kinaesthetic language. And that was huge in unlocking the energy body, and then later in the exercise with the moving the way your soul wanted to move, again. So I guess my wondering is different ways into the energy body, particularly -- you know, I would have said I'm purely kinaesthetic, but obviously the language makes a huge difference to getting in, and other times when I've just tried to work with the energy body and just bring the attention there, it's not happening. But it was so easy and so effortless in those other modes. So the question is: can you give more suggestions, or is it just kind of [inaudible]?
Rob: So if I understand the question, Andrea's reporting that in both -- I don't know what to call it -- when we sounded together yesterday (which I also find really beautiful when we do that; I really like it), there was a way that the sense of the energy body just really opened with the sounding and through the verbal suggestions that Catherine was making and the kind of language in there. And then also when we did the moving to the urgings and the promptings of soul, the connection, the language there, whatever was said, also stimulated a kind of opening and awareness and connection with the energy body that can sometimes not be so available when one is just sitting down, "Right, energy body. Let's open it up," and working with it more technically. Is that ...?
Yogi: Yeah, it was the invitation to move.
Rob: The invitation to move, okay, good.
Yes. [laughter] So, you know, energy body is part of all this business, and all this business, meaning the opening of soulmaking, including the opening of the sense of the energy body and that liquidity of that and the dimensionality of the very sense of the body, all of that opening can be ignited. So it's really like, if we use the analogy of fire, it can be sparked actually by anything, okay? There's a way that, we could say, all this business of soulmaking is a kind of grace. We're given it. We receive something. We receive a spark into the soul, and something ignites. That spark could be a line of poetry. It could be a certain way of languaging that connects certain elements of our being or aspects of our being that we don't usually connect -- so, for instance, movement or resonance, sound and energy body. It could be an idea, as you say, a concept. A concept functions, again, as, we could say, a spark into the soul, or a seed in the soul.
So that again, when there's soulmaking, when there's imaginal perception, when there's sensing with soul, all this is going on. Body is involved. There's a felt sense of the energy body that is different or expanded (not just spatially, but in terms of dimensionality and richness) than our usual way in our culture people tend to feel their bodies. There's concept involved. There's some sense of poetics involved, poetry. All this comes together. So it's a bit like we're open, receptive, sensitive, and sparks are given to us from teachers, from language, from reading, from listening, from poetry, from music, from life, from all of it, and the whole thing just gathers more -- I don't want to push the image too much, but -- readiness to ignite. Yeah?
So that means that you can then take something into practice. So a line of poetry, a word, a connection between two dimensions of being, like sound and energy, for instance, and just take that as a seed, and you drop that seed into the soul. You cast that spark into the soul. Does that make sense? There's always a range, with all practice. When you talk about emptiness practice or samādhi, there's always a range between active and playful and deliberate, and receptive. And for me, that whole range should be available. Whatever practice I'm doing -- mettā, emptiness, samādhi, jhāna, blah blah blah -- there's always this range. And I would like everyone to feel really comfortable with that whole range, and not just stuck, always just waiting and hoping, or just whatever happens is fine. That's a really good mode, that extreme, with the sensitivity, but also I can play, and I can kind of -- I was talking with someone this morning -- it's like I can engage in the art, and I know things to try, and I can respond to what's going on.
Like an artist, someone who's really into their art, there's that range. You say, "Where did this come from, that music? Where did that come from, that poetry? I don't know. It was a gift." There's a receptivity. But there's also this working of the elements. Does this make sense?
Yogi: Yeah. I think I was thinking, just categorizing, and realizing it's not the case -- so just putting someone in the category of kinaesthetic, and this person's in the category of ...
Rob: Yeah.
Yogi: And what sparks work for some people don't work for others, but I guess it doesn't ...
Rob: Well, I think it might be that people are more kinaesthetic or more whatever it is, but again, I would say if we're talking about soulmaking, what happens as the thing gets going is that it starts to reach out and involve every aspect of our being, and actually even create and discover more aspects. So someone who, for instance, hasn't been very kinaesthetic or kind of feeling the way soul can move in the body, after a while of soulmaking -- they don't need to force that; it might be that they go in via the concept, but they're working with the energy body -- at some point these sparks will connect, this spreading of the -- I don't know if it's a good image -- tentacles of soulmaking to start involving all these different dimensions and aspects of the being so that they start to come alive even when they haven't been alive. But we don't need to force that. If you go where there's soulmaking, you just invite it into, "This feels soulmaking," and you just are there in the ways that we're talking about, and work with it, it will spread. Other perceptions will open, other aspects and dimensions of sensitivity of the being will just go. And you'll still have people who are more like this or more like that, and that's fine, but there's this kind of multidimensional, multi-aspected sort of reaching out and involving and growing. Does that ...? Yeah? Great.
Hannah, yes? Hi, Hannah.
Q2: noticing and igniting twoness; trust your experience, but keep refining your view
Yogi: This question is particularly about twoness. The way that I find into images, it's very kinaesthetic generally, and I find it easier to do so when moving. Because of that, it feels like I kind of embody the image. And it feels soulful, but there's not so much the twoness.
Rob: Yeah, very good question. So Hannah's saying -- correct if I'm wrong -- a lot of the time, the way that images come alive, or kind of entering and engaging with images is through the kinaesthetic sense, through the body, and sometimes through movement. The image becomes soulful, but you feel like you're embodying the image; you're becoming that image, in a sense, perhaps. Yeah? So the question is: where's the twoness there? It's a really good question.
One thing I could say is, if you just let that happen, let that embodiment happen, let yourself become that, and just feel that out more and more, one possibility is what happens is that others or the rest of the world becomes a twoness with that image. In other words, let's say I become a dancing deity, and I'm some kind of dancing deity, and I'm really embodying that and I'm in that. Then the world around me, in what we're calling cosmopoesis, becomes an other to that deity in some other way, or other beings. That deity, as I am, is in relationship with other. But that might emerge in time as you just let yourself embody the image more. So that's one possibility.
Another possibility might be -- you know, it's strange. If you think about, or if you consider the ways we're aware of body, it's like -- so this relates to all the aggregates: body, aspects of mind, feelings, vedanā, perception -- I can feel like they're me. Or I'm looking. So I'm looking at my hand, and there's a kind of twoness now between my sense of me and my hand. But at other times, there's a sense that I am my hand, you know? So even when you're embodying something like that, it can move between a sort of vantage point of being inside and being identified with, and a vantage point of kind of some objectivity or twoness. That's just normal to perception, even in terms of our own bodies and minds. We say, "What a strange thought I had." It's like it's something else, other. From another perspective, it's not other at all. It's me. Who else am I, apart from all this stuff, you know? And I feel that I am that.
So what happens is, this is a basic sort of way identification works: it moves between twoness and identification. You know, you're not doing anything wrong, but if you hang out more in the experience, there will probably be a couple of ways that you'll start to notice twoness, different ways. Does that ...?
Yogi: I wonder if it's important to emphasize the twoness, like try and encourage it?
Rob: Yeah, so, with all these -- "Is it important to emphasize the twoness?", Hannah's asking. I'm just repeating so that people can hear. Yeah, twoness will be one of the nodes, one of the elements that we're going to go through, and what I would say, more than that, or rather slightly differently, is these nodes are things we can notice, okay? So I would put it there. It's less pushy at first. As I said, if you just, the more you hang out in these experiences as they open up, with all your sensitivity and all your enjoyment and all your curiosity, it's almost like you start to notice -- it's like your eyes get used to the dark, and you start to notice, "Oh, there is twoness here. I hadn't noticed that." And that noticing ignites it. So I don't need to do anything, so much as just notice when it comes. Sometimes it might be quite subtle. So, you know, twoness can be really extreme, we're really alienated from something, or it's a lot more subtle, the sense of twoness. But the noticing it brings that sense of twoness alive, and that helps the whole thing become, as I explained last night, more fully imaginal, if you like.
What we might say is, I would make a distinction between experiences of oneness, like melting into kind of union with something, which is really important as a kind of mystical direction or spiritual direction; it's important in the whole soulmaking business. But when we talk about imaginal perception, sensing with soul, there's more this twoness. So oneness is great, but if you find yourself kind of, "After all these years of practice," and this may not be the case with you, "I just have a tendency to kind of melt into different kinds of oneness, a kind of oneness of light, or a oneness of love, or a oneness of awareness," or whatever it is, "oneness of materiality" (it can be lots of things), then it would be more, "Let's find the twoness. Let's kind of retain the twoness." Yeah?
I could stop there, but ... When there's eros in relation, when there's, in this case, your embodiment, that movement, and if it is like a deity moving through or goddess or whatever it is, and then the body can become your beloved other. So then there's an erotic relationship. This body, as it's felt right now in whatever's happening, becomes the erotic-imaginal other, becomes the beloved other. And eros retains a sense of twoness. Even when it knows oneness -- I know this is one, I know we are one, some part of my mind knows that, but it preserves the erotic tension of twoness, and actually creates even more kind of bifurcations. I'll just throw that out as a seed. How does all this sound?
Yogi: It sounds good.
Rob: Yeah? So, you know, I was thinking today just about something else entirely about emptiness. There's a phrase -- I don't know who said it originally -- in the Dzogchen tradition, "Trust your experience, but keep refining your view." And to me, there's just so much wisdom in that. It's like, look, when we talk about what is imaginal, what's not, is this right, is there enough of this or that, these nodes that we're elaborating, it's to say things can unfold more, richer, more soulmaking, etc. But we have to kind of trust our experience and go with that. So in terms of what's unfolding, if it feels soulmaking, you're on the right track, and things will start to get a little more apparent in that field. Yeah? So just translate that Dzogchen phrase, "Trust your experience, but keep refining your view." And that's obviously to everyone.
Tanya, is it? Yes, hi.
Q3: where does soulmaking sit with Buddhadharma; clarity in explaining and teaching soulmaking
Yogi: [inaudible] This is about conceptual framework. I'm trying to understand [inaudible]. A lot of Buddhist practice is very much about the dissolving into emptiness, and I just thought, "Oh, so maybe what I'm doing is the opposite." And, "Oh, why have I not ... it doesn't feel like I'm aware of a huge range of practices that explore this area." There are some Indo-Tibetan sādhanās which [?] to some extent. But that's a sort of given imagery that you have to slot into to some extent. So I suppose my question is, is that how you see this area? It just feels like maybe this is some sort of way of the Western sādhanā [?].
Rob: I'll try and ... [laughter] I'm tired, so not your fault. Partly the question is: what exactly, where does this all sit with Buddhadharma and the Buddhist traditions, plural, really, and particularly with the notion of emptiness, and the common tendency of Buddhist traditions (but also non-Buddhist traditions) of kind of dissolving? And where else might we find stuff like this within Buddhist traditions. Is that okay? Okay.
I don't know where else. I'm not aware of other traditions exploring, certainly not in the way that we're talking about. Of course, as you say, Indo-Tibetan sādhanās and Vajrayāna employ the imagination with a concept of emptiness and all that. There are overlaps there, for sure, but I would say it's a little bit different. But there are definitely overlaps. The curious thing here -- so this might frustrate or confuse some people, or others might find it liberating -- is that if I just answer personally, I feel like I can conceive of it in different ways, conceive of what we're doing and kind of map it in different ways, and map its relationship to different Buddhist traditions. And for me, that flexibility of conception is also part of the soulmaking process. It arises out of soulmaking, and actually it's also part of emptiness, some ways construed. Emptiness, one of the things it's saying is things are not tightly definable. They're not findable. They're not rigid like that. Our concepts don't reflect some kind of truth, you know?
So when we say emptiness is form, form is emptiness -- mostly in my teaching, I tend to avoid the Heart Sūtra, because I think it can be interpreted so many different ways, which is great, you know. If I turn and ask you a question, what do you feel you need right now with this? Because different people will need different kind of working answers or working hypotheses about this relationship between Buddhadharma and soulmaking at different points and dependent on their personality and history. So if I give it back to you for a second, what would you say you need right now?
Yogi: I think for me the question's arising in terms of how I maybe explain to myself and others whether I've gone completely [inaudible], or whether there's something I can say that other people understand. [laughter]
Rob: Sure. At the risk of being irritating, if I push the question one stage further, and say: why? What's going on, and what's going on for you perhaps emotionally with that, you know? There's no right or wrong answer here. It's just actually what goes on for me in my relationships to the concepts, or the concepts that we're unfolding and exploring (actually creating and discovering), and the whole meaning, set of concepts, but also affect and love and reliance and community of Buddha[dharma], you know? So I think that's a big question. But maybe you have an answer right now. There's heart and soul and idea. There's quite a lot involved in ... Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yogi: I started thinking, but then you just went on and I lost it. [laughter]
Rob: Sorry. Okay. The short question was: why? [laughter]
Yogi: I got that bit.
Rob: Yeah, okay. So, your turn. [laughter]
Yogi: [inaudible] But I think in terms of communicating to other people, there's this funny tension that some people need clarity, and need to know that there's [inaudible], and other people may be happy with the uncertainty, and I think I'm ... Sometimes I just think I sound incredibly [?] and sort of vague in relation to people who want clarity.
Rob: Are you in a teaching role?
Yogi: Yeah.
Rob: Okay, okay, got it. And you're trying to teach about soulmaking and ...
Yogi: Yeah, it's around that area, and it sounds ... [inaudible] easy for people to get lost. Like you said, there's no single answer; it can just go any which way, it's so vast.
Rob: Yeah. And so you've got two parts of an answer. The first one was saying about being comfortable with not knowing. Not knowing what?
Yogi: I think not having the comfort of, "Oh, this is definitely the right way to go."
Rob: For yourself?
Yogi: Yeah, yeah. It is around clarity, around how difficult it is to have clarity in this area for myself and for other people. And what the consequence of that is.
Rob: Yeah, okay. Very good. I feel this is really important, so should we take a couple minutes? Yeah, thank you. Let's start with what you said last, the business about clarity. For yourself, you know, I would say something brought you here. Something brought you. As you said, "After years of Buddhadharma, I end up in the imaginal." Why? How? You know, you don't need to answer that now. [laughter] If I might offer an answer! [laughter] The soul loves soulmaking. Actually, you could say that's a core concept, and everything follows from that. Soul loves soulmaking. All the conceptual framework will come out of that. Soul loves soulmaking.
You have a compass for soulmaking, okay? All of us do. We can feel when something is -- "You keep going on and on. What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't ... I'm not quite clear." Don't worry so much about the clarity just yet, or rather, I would say trust. You can trust navigation even when things are a little bit foggy. The compass says go that way; I can't see more than 10 yards ahead, but the compass is saying go that way. That's the inner sense of soulmaking. Yeah? And you feel it in the energy body, you feel it in the heart. You feel it in ways that you couldn't even actually describe, and that's why we're going into all these aspects.
So I would say soul loves soulmaking. You have an instinctual, visceral, mental, emotional, soulful sense of what soulmaking feels like, and you can trust that as a barometer. I do think clarity is important, but it will come. So the other thing I want to say about all this, you know, it's complex. We're building or discovering or uncovering, or whatever you want to say, a kind of complex structure of subtle and sophisticated ideas that all kind of support it. That journey to clarity and precision and understanding and how it all works together, it will be gradual for everyone. I mean, everyone. Okay? Even the brightest person, you know, it's going to be ... So that's okay, you know? I think, to me, the conception is part of soulmaking. The soul loves concept, as well, and concepts that feed soul. It likes the intellect. It wants to include that in terms of aspects of being that haven't ignited yet, so that's important too. But let it feed it, and let it come gradually, and ask questions. At this point, there's actually loads of listening, and there's another forty hours or something about to come out. [laughter] Just warning you! [laughter]
It's a lot, it's sophisticated, but you have a compass anyway, yeah? So the other thing about clarity I want to say -- and this will come in our aspects -- is that there's something kind of contradictory about the whole thing. In other words, precision is beautiful and it's fertile. It's like I understand the concepts, it's clear, and yet the very concepts that we're using, they have these kind of shady boundaries of unclarity to them. Why? Because that's part of their fertility. Without that, they won't be soulmaking. So I start putting something in this rigid, tight box, I feel, "Phew, I understand it," boooof goes the soulmaking after a little while. So there's this kind of strange tension between clarity and precision, and kind of open-ended, sort of fuzzy-edged, elastic ... I'll talk about this again. So that's one thing.
Later on in this retreat, we may just bring up -- several people have said, "Oh, I want to teach this stuff," so we may just discuss that amongst ourselves, and where are we all at with that, what feels right or ready, and what's a good idea and what's maybe, hey, let's just wait a little bit. I'm not sure how else to answer this question about speaking to others and teaching. If it's not clear for you, it may just confuse other people. Or you might find that you can just make little poetic suggestions which open things up for people without kind of explaining a whole structure. Does that make sense? You can actually introduce poetry. There are all kinds of possibilities. You're just, again, throwing out poetic sparks like that, until you're ready to sort of, "Now I'm clear how it all fits together." How does that sound? Yeah? They're actually big and important, I think, multi-aspected questions, and it involves the whole being, all this. Is that okay for now? Yeah? Okay.
Let's have a minute of silence together.
