Monthly Archives: July 2012

Best of Self = Way Beyond Self

It’s not actually that easy to illustrate the concept of “Peak Experience” without cliché

You at your best are good for you, because you do glimpse some truth in that moment. Concentrating on your peaks, moments when you have felt at your best (not necessarily when others would assume you to be at your best, although usually there are all sorts of resonances going on) feeds through your life and makes peak Breakouts more frequent. This is good prep for serious energy work not dissimilar to the Smile. Here again is the list from last week of the S-terms or B-values; one can meditate on how various of them are reflected in peak experiences and learn from these contexts how the best “you” feels and what it does, keeping it very personal to one own actualisation.

A collection of these can be dipped into for purposes of shifting mood, which can happen quite easily, especially when emotional arousal has dropped off. When bad emotions have been somewhat processed, they tend to linger for lack of a way to shift. Going to peaks and may produce a near-magical transformation.

Brief qigong exercises will make it doubly effective. An appropriate technique like qigong breathing can spread feelings through the system, or they can be gathered in the saliva and swallowed to the Tan Tien, Glenn-style. The more advanced with open meridians can run the feelings through them to see what they do. This practice is key to many of Glenn’s statements about energy, such as his comments on checking out the healer, Lisa:

I took some of her healing energy and ran it through me using the internal witness to observe. It was nice and pink and lit up all the meridians and organs. She knew her stuff.

Path Notes (1993, pp. 145-6)

Becoming a connoisseur of energy is a key to sensing people and situations. Glenn taught the martial way but it can be used in so many not-overtly-martial situations. These practices can help develop that awareness as can a few things in Chia’s Healing Light of the Tao (2008). Rob Williams gives excellent instruction in chapters 6 and 7 of his Hoshinjutsu (2009).

Over time of meditating on peaks people may get memories of ones that are very close to the kinds of thing Glenn recommends for the Smile — achievement, love, etc. — but may also get very different stuff. Many of my peaks didn’t look very interesting from the outside. It’s all good if it seems to be what really matters to and about you. This is not such a long step from meditating on the questions, “Who am I really?” (Maharshi), “What is my original face?” (Zen) and so forth, practices which if approached consistently can bring results in themselves, although the smoothing-out of Kundalini egoless states is very useful.

Having some way to understand things from this perspective really seems to cut out the bs, and I’ll advocate this more later, showing how it matches up with other systems but in a secular way. A whole theory is coalescing now around Maslow that also revises the Pyramid of Needs into a useful tool, plus systems of Shadow acceptance come from his self-actualisation approach… this is a great way to relate one’s experiences to ordinary life, because Peaks are seeded by ordinary life.

This gets to why Glenn so often said, follow your heart. He meant, follow the flavour of the feeling and learn to distinguish the subtlety thereof, to trust what you sense and get information from it:

… conscious love is created from the exploration and opening of one’s own heart through diligent meditation and introspection. It is only through knowing yourself that true love and compassion evolve… ninjo… is the concept of human feelings [B-cognition] being vastly more important than what is logical and profitable [D-cognition]… Start paying attention to what other people feel like in various situations… Don’t rationalize the feelings, just build your catalog… run hot angry emotions through your meridians and see if you like the migraine feeling… if you’re going to kick in the more intuitive side of your brain, which also processes feelings, you must remember that we feel before we think. Since most of us, particularly men, have had a lot of training in ignoring our emotions, finding them in charge can have interesting consequences…

– all from Path Notes

Continually strengthening and radiating your peaks through yourself starts the process of recreating and recoalescing towards what matters and what aligns all body and soul functions. As qi builds this spreads naturally to others around you via resonance, changing life in interesting ways. The work looks private, but no work giving instant access to the energy systems of others, as well as one’s own, could ever be private. Its results spread through everything you have ever entrained to, changing the world one person at a time.

Use of one’s own experience is I think a vital ingredient, one I’m going to design in more strongly. Peak is the psychology of the natural high. Given how I feel these days I still think it could and should change world, and it reminds me that Glenn used to say, “this is what people should be doing” — meaning, some form of it, not one form in particular, but a form that works.

However, there’s no denying that the Peak concept, in democratising, also was used in an irresponsible and ungrounded way. This is the 60s and 70s we’re talking about, that outburst which made so much possible, including stuff that led in unproductive directions. Maslow himself wrote excellently on that. The dangers of irresponsibility and selfishness, of needing to escalate the high, of impatience, the shadow of Peak, were well seen by him in his new 1970 Preface to Religions, Values and Peak Experiences (1964). In this and so many other things his patient voice was not always heeded. Not everyone used LSD the careful way Grof did. Meditation takes dedication, even if the methods are extremely efficient. Peak-hunger could get too frenzied.

A lot of things got winnowed out, which may be for the best considering the immense power added to these theories by qigong and Kundalini. But the unfortunate side of that in turn, as mentioned last week, is that much science has actually given up trying to understand human beings in this way. We turned to wishing ourselves numbered patterns. The attempt to master humanity by dehumanising reached to healing and life itself, and tried to snuff out the spirit that does indeed still keep us all alive.

Glenn seems to have nonetheless based himself in the older Humanistic and Maslovian approach quite strongly, using it to understand what had happened after his unexpected awakening. This was a big part of what he called ‘strategy’, which in turn focused on enjoyment and the investigation of feeling, yet could also be scientifically investigated with work on the chakras. That takes a certain amount of sophistication. Chakra openings are peaks of a different kind, but they are peaks. One finds instinctively one’s style, the archetypal push and flavour of the chakras, of the organs and meridians. Subjective hooking into the eternal makes meaningfulness of a uniquely self-actualising kind even as it breaks down the social masks, and with each new pattern of understanding you make a step into “becoming part of it” as the Navajo say.

The universe is a huge spontaneous poem written in feelings and images that course through the soul. Anyone who wants to make the run for the grail just has to get the meditations and peaks into gear. When the meridians and the chakras open properly there is no need to depend so much on memories of peaks, because the flow of energy clears conscious access to the living source of them, a step at a time. The job becomes to continually plateau-Breakout into the living truth of constant peak.

The qigong systems I use (see Reading Lists) are about flow. Those who haven’t yet experienced it, especially Westerners with their lack of much tradition concerning it, may not get that qi is as obvious and easy to feel — and later to see — as anything physical. Qi in motion on the level of the meridians can literally be felt clearing and refreshing all areas of the system, everything that was clung to can be let go in favour of flow with reality. These are not only physical-type blockages. Blockages of the soul, of trauma, of crisis, of meaning, are also dissolved. The beauty of this is hard to relate but easy to enjoy.

It becomes clear that everything one experienced was experienced through this, through this mind-body system which the energy is causing to zing and flash. Each area opened opens a level of the cosmos to one’s mind, and one’s mind to that level. Peaks at this stage have coalesced into the neutral guiding star of spontaneous persistence and beauty that continually lights the personal way to the universal. The seed planted by those peak moments grows to flower in the cosmos. The Taoists call this “becoming a real human”.

——————————————————————

I’m off to play with what I’ve got here for a while, and will probably be posting in a slightly differently pattern and style when I return, including more details on a secular psychological basis for these qigong realisations, and other stuff. Meanwhile I’ll be adding to the Reading Lists and dealing with the Webster rebuttal… enjoy. :)


[coolpaintingsquib]

Excellent stuff from Holton Rower:

… I’m interested in marbling recently, part of the re-evaluation-of-hippie thing… I connect that with this, as it’s so mandala-like, but I don’t know anything about the artist…

EDIT: Someone just told me Justin Bieber is a fan! You can’t get any more inoffensive than this folks!


Re-Hanging My Hat

In all of these peak experiences it becomes impossible to differentiate sharply between the self and the non-self… Observe first of all that this is an empirical statement and not a philosophical or theological one. Anyone can repeat these findings.

– Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature (1971)

Quite unexpectedly, this post marks the beginning of the end of this phase of this blog. I will probably do one more next week, and then take a break, I don’t know exactly how long. During that break there will still be more on the Reading Lists and the Webster Rebuttal though.

I guess what I’m experiencing here is kind of a Breakout. :) I’ve written and rewritten the following post but don’t know that I’ve managed to convey what’s exciting me… Still, I think it will bear a lot of fruit down the road and I just want to experiment with it for a while without writing stuff down.

—————————————————————————-

Glenn: taught humanity not just spirituality

Since religion in any organised and orthodox Western sense is not necessary for spiritual experience and enlightenment, and in my case I’m sure would prevent it, I’ve always been looking for secular theories that will do the philosophical heavy lifting. Until now I didn’t appreciate how Glenn’s training in Humanistic psych helped him deal with Kundalini, in a sense prepared him for it attitudinally (along with martial arts of course). Humanistic psych is not exactly “spiritual”, just open to experience. For Glenn it actually did a lot of what a “having a faith” would do for someone, but wasn’t a faith, was empirical.

Glenn was able to be both highly connected to spiritual traditions and in a considerable degree of irony towards them, using powers of psychological reinterpretation to smoke out the crowd-herding dogmas, rhetorics, superstitions, and plain old mistakes.

I always thought in general that with enough transpersonal psych I’d get the answers I wanted. But after I went through all the Wilbers and the Ferrers, even though I learned something from Grof alright, my reaction was… ok, what else have you got?

I didn’t see that Glenn had actually got his stuff from the Humanistic and evidential, a lot more than from the Transpersonal, which is mostly non-evidential. What he did after he’d experienced Kundalini was a) replicate it on others; and b) develop psychological instruments based on chakra models. That is exactly what Maslow would have done. Wilber never did this. Translating the ancient transpersonal into our lives in a new form is about careful, cautious, wise prescription based on doing the legwork.

Because Maslow did that legwork he often had to backtrack. When he was more decisive he often was wrong and had to eat humble pie later, because the evidence went another way. That’s life! Humanistic psych, which in 1962 he liked to call “holistic-dynamic” psych, was always about understanding the human experiential world. After that, you could quantify.

I begin to understand how Glenn was able to integrate all his experiences without losing his scientific focus, and also how he could integrate so much hard science without losing his soul and going left-brained. He kept the Humanistic focus and never let the results run him. In turn I begin to get why so much conversation on the science of the transpersonal bores me rigid, why conversation with “skeptics” is such a farce — indeed, why I leapt at the opportunity to reply to Webster! He at least has a focus on the experience of human existence. Without that appreciation for the human, the world is ‘cut in half’ by scientific investigation, for no good reason. And we know that same cutting-in-half happens in religions too.

By sensitive observation, testing both qualitative and quantitative, on lots of people, you make something democratic. Religious top-down declarations of truth are undermined. It’s a different world at that point.

—————————————————-

Readers of John Michael Greer got a nice idea from him a few weeks back:

What you contemplate, you imitate

I remember Greer was talking about fellow peak oil writer James Howard Kunstler, for example, who has written so long and scathingly about certain aspects of American life, that he occasionally sounds and thinks just like what he’s lampooning. Compare that with the process by which a medieval monk’s long contemplation of Christ causes changes of a more positive kind.

I introduced the idea of entrainment, of which these are examples. I was groping there, still am, for the actual nub, trying to describe how “it” crosses over from human mind to “the universe”. What I didn’t manage to get across was that entrainment means something is happening, something more than what ”you” are consciously doing.

I said then: “Psychologically, let’s call entrainment the process whereby interaction with ‘something’ brings a personality into being.” That is what happened to Kunstler. There is a blurring of object with subject in a process of transformation. It just happens. Kunstler did the contemplating, but the imitating happened “by itself”. At the end of the day, whose behaviour do we have there? :) What caused the contemplation and what caused the imitation?

The fact that it occurs “by itself” is the key. I’ve always noticed “something acting through me”, I’m not trying to say this is something amazing, but something, even before I started out to work with all this. That to me is another great key which I need to take time off writing, and maybe most reading, in order to play with. St Romain describes “ground itself looking through my eyes”, and that is exactly it.

This connects to a lot of what Anandamayi Ma would say — she is worth the study — but at the same time via Humanistic psych it relates to ordinary human life, being constantly let go of, as we do when we peak. It may have seemed hyperbolic to say Benson-style Breakout was “the central human psychological mechanism” but I think there is something very important there. (I might refer to the Kunstler thing as a ‘plateau Breakout’.) What acts when we ‘let go’ is the real thing.

I believe one could look at the entire universe as the product of spontaneous entrainments. Think of the descriptions of the creation processes. Yin entrained to Yang and spontaneous results thereof. The universe as a big Breakout, one big continuous transformation.

The universe is a form of mentation. Spiritual training has you constantly learning to direct attention and increase its power, so that you can entrain and crucially de-entrain as opposed to being run by the entrainments you just find yourself with.

Qi is the medium through which entrainments happen, is itself the medium of transformation, even of the physical. That all fits with the science — the Lu/Yan experiments I talked about before showed qi as precisely that.

And I suspect that each human life itself in a sense is one really big Breakout waiting to happen. I think I’ll just leave that statement hanging there. :)

—————————————————————-

Maslow — taught Glenn humanity

Maslow is just old enough to be yesterday’s man, not old enough to be “classic”, and totally “left behind” by fMRI in the last decade. I love that, because he was right. His empirical focus on positive aspects of human functioning is now derided as unscientific because it focused on values, but a) it was actually perfectly scientific, b) it came up with stuff you can actually use, and c) given that what you contemplate, you imitate, it was a bloody good idea.

When you say the world is mechanical, you don’t merely lose ‘meaning’, you lose all values, and hence, all chance of being scientific. Meditators know that neutrality doesn’t mean valuelessness. For human beings values are non-optional, and we can make rigorous scientific statements about them. Much normal science avoids this and is robbing us of our humanity. Maslow proved that human values can really be studied — the fact that so few picked up that gage is a choice, and it’s fear-driven, it’s deficiency-driven. People don’t want the responsibility. Many scientists want to be machines, and to know how to push human buttons.

What Maslow starts offering me is what he gave Glenn all along — a humanised way to tackle big questions and experiences, and relate them to ordinary humanity.

Think of the huge numbers of STEs and peak experiences which “just happen” — from ⅓ to ½ of the population in America has had an STE and numbers for general peak experiences must be even higher. We know that many of these events add meaning to life. We also know they don’t correlate to religious belief. When Maslow studied them he found fourteen consistent attributes which he called ‘B-values’ (“Being values”). Since these attributes appear spontaneously one could also call them “S-terms”, the attributes of spontaneity itself, as we experience it.

Here is one Maslow list of them:

WHOLENESS (unity; integration; tendency to one-ness; interconnectedness; simplicity; organization; structure; dichotomy-transcendence; order);

PERFECTION (necessity; just-right-ness; just-so-ness; inevitability; suitability; justice; completeness; “oughtness”);

COMPLETION (ending; finality; justice; “it’s finished”; fulfillment; finis and telos; destiny; fate);

JUSTICE (fairness; orderliness; lawfulness; “oughtness”);

ALIVENESS (process; non-deadness; spontaneity; self-regulation; full-functioning);

RICHNESS (differentiation, complexity; intricacy);

SIMPLICITY (honesty; nakedness; essentiality; abstract, essential, skeletal structure);

BEAUTY (rightness; form; aliveness; simplicity; richness; wholeness; perfection; completion; uniqueness; honesty);

GOODNESS (rightness; desirability; oughtness; justice; benevolence; honesty);

UNIQUENESS (idiosyncrasy; individuality; non-comparability; novelty);

EFFORTLESSNESS (ease; lack of strain, striving or difficulty; grace; perfect, beautiful functioning);

PLAYFULNESS (fun; joy; amusement; gaiety; humor; exuberance; effortlessness);

TRUTH (honesty; reality; nakedness; simplicity; richness; oughtness; beauty; pure, clean and unadulterated; completeness; essentiality).

SELF-SUFFICIENCY (autonomy; independence; not-needing-other-than-itself-in-order-to-be-itself; self-determining; environment-transcendence; separateness; living by its own laws).

This is from ordinary people’s self-reporting of peaks. It’s a basic, instant-grasp view of “how the Tao in action feels” for human beings. We know that neutrality and letting-go allows “it” to act. Therefore we know human “neutrality” is not morally neutral but full of values. Peak experiences can easily be remembered and focused on to hold true to one’s personal Way. This is an entrainment which will then break out in new peaks. Contemplate: imitate. Anyone who has looked over books in the Reading List will get the idea. I will give a couple of interesting things next week, but actually it’s all there.

Maslow provided a time-saving, tested, sure foundation for personal experiment on oneself that anyone non-religious, anyone determined to use their own symbols and translate the traditions their way, can use. Glenn went ahead and fulfilled this vision and democratised an even bigger chunk of higher reality.

I will try never again to underestimate Maslow. He was far righter on than I’d understood. Just look at this:

The person now becomes more a pure psyche and less a thing-of-the-world living under the laws if the world… B-cognition of the other is most possible when there is simultaneously a letting-be of the self and of the other…

Toward a Psychology of Being (1962)

I know there were times when he was wrong — but it doesn’t usually matter because one only needs to take the good stuff. Even then, I often find him eminently correctable. After all, he didn’t build a big “perfect” structure and then cry like a baby every time the truth took a bite out of it — he was always prepared to be wrong. One of the things he was wrong about, I mentioned before, was “needs”. He didn’t realise needs lose their blocking nature, not from being “fulfilled” necessarily (which may only entrain them further, as the Greeks knew) — but by conscious limitation and transmutation.

Yet Glenn was ahead of me:

Abraham Maslow, a great American theoretical psychologist, felt that one’s metaneeds (spiritual needs) could only be met when one’s basic needs for survival and security were met… He ignored the scriptures, tales of the aesthetes and ascetics who sometimes achieved enlightenment (self-actualization) through eliminating and shaping desire to higher needs.

Shadow Strategies (1996, p. 260)

And I believe Maslow did understand that, on some level:

There are certain theoretical advantages in stressing now the aspect of non-striving or non-needing and taking it as the centering-point (or center of organization) of the something we are studying.

Toward a Psychology of Being (1962)

Once awake to the possibility, you can move your energy in the down-the-pyramid direction (BTW the pyramid isn’t Maslow, it’s a later interpretation by Goble), and you don’t really need to alter the theory. He was thereabouts if not there; his finger missed some contours, but he was touching the truth that more reality = less need.

You can explain so much just with those 14 simple S-terms. Epicurus, who introduced me to need-reduction strategies that really work, fits very well from his angle. One could be literal and state that S-terms like “simplicity” and “effortlessness” are the particular focus of the Epicurean, whilst reducing both need and striving are the important methods. (Stress reduction was as big a deal for Epicurus as for Herbert Benson.) The nature of ataraxia, untroubledness, is fundamentally related to the neutral observation that enables transformation.

But one can go further and say that Epicurus’s ‘pleasure’ (hêdonê) is also related to peak experience in general. The Epicureans would have been having spontaneous peaks like anyone else, and their reduction of needs would have helped. The ‘pleasure’ of Epicurus moves toward the true self, of being as much ‘like a god’ as a human can be. It is more than mere ordinary pleasure, as he said so many times.

Maslow’s focus on actualisation of the individual was 100% correct. Ego death can’t be “done for you” and it goes one person at a time. Modern transpersonal “theory” like that of Ferrer (one is not allowed to call it psychology) has unceremoniously junked everything we once knew we knew about the psychology of egolessness, and all the places it touched Eastern tradition. Glenn ignored Ferrer completely.

I accused Maslow before of not recognising the relationship between peak experiences and death, but I wasn’t being totally fair there either. He writes:

Perhaps I should add here the paradoxical result — for some — that death may lose its dread aspect. Ecstasy is somehow close to death-experience, at least in the simple, empirical sense that death is often mentioned during reports of peaks… I have occasionally been told, “I felt that I could willingly die” or, “No one can ever again tell me death is bad”, etc.

Religions, Values and Peak-Experiences (1964, p.76)

So he knew about this. Just as with the pyramid, the data suggested a conclusion he acknowledged but didn’t place into the theory proper — an association of peak with death of the social self.

What happened with Glenn was that he back-engineered the qigong and chakra stuff in just this way, and tested it. This goes far beyond Maslow in terms of experience and effect, this is real goddess stuff — but Maslow is so open-ended it can be understood just the same exact way.

Believe it or not there is next to no widely-tested psychology on chakras apart from Glenn’s. People are writing books on ‘chakra psychology’ who haven’t even read his work, getting everything anecdotally. (I don’t denigrate a lifetime’s experienced wisdom in healing, for instance, but I do deny that it constitutes scientific knowledge in itself.) Psychology means testing, and you need a framework for testing. And it better be a Humanistic framework or else you’ll cut off the soul again.

From Glenn we know that different people habitually favour different chakras, and what that’s likely to do to stress levels, career, personality, and other measurable stuff, on a variety of accepted scales. That is actually unique so far as I’m aware. Bardon gives a lengthy process for determining one’s elemental balance — in my case Glenn’s test gave the same result as that process, but in 2 minutes flat. But of course Glenn also provides the crucial inner stuff, the connection to experience, so you can transform awareness, in a way you can customise to you.

All the physical experiments, all the quantifying, has to be secondary compared to that. That’s just information. What Glenn did has humanistic, customisable universality because thousands of people contributed to it, just as there were many subjects of Maslow’s B-values research. It captures something about living, something anyone’s unique life experience can add to.

(I’m not just dogmatically saying that “we need to test”. I’m saying I’ve just noticed that those who tested came up with results I could use, and those who didn’t, didn’t. I even believe that the limits on what is testable and in that sense knowable may be precisely the limits needed to maintain the personal freedom that religion can expunge.)

In this paragraph I should sum up what I’m saying… the world to me now looks as if it makes sense from a certain angle, a loose and usable kind of sense that redeems scientific endeavours since there is a way to integrate those with real feeling and value, and which shows that even the heights of “spirituality” are based on human conditions and proclivities that anyone can relate to. I don’t know why that has surprised me so much, but I do know that one reason I went for Glenn’s stuff is that he didn’t talk like a normal spirichal teacha, and now I begin to understand why, and what that has to do with the “it that acts”.

Incidentally, I also begin to understand why some people who ripped off Glenn’s methods ended up writing such crappy books.

I ‘ll take a little time off the blog to see what happens as a result, but will just do a quick post next week especially targeted at methods… cya then.


[Valiunasquib]

EDIT: This will now become the length of a proper post, and the post tomorrow will be three times the length of a normal post! I don’t give a toss! :)

Sun just came out and I realised: It’s all about Alasdair MacIntyre. Here — always good to watch the person. In his best-known work, After Virtue, he basically poses the question: Nietzsche or Aristotle? What he means is, values or no values? Nietzsche believed in the transvaluation of all values, which basically comes down to meaning that you have to punch a hole through all values, which are merely habitual inheritance of the weak, and carve your way through blablabla. Whereas Aristotle thought there were human values and a natural human telos. MacIntyre sides with Aristotle and I side with MacIntyre.

The point is that Maslow sides with MacIntyre as well. Not only did he believe in universal human values, he scientifically proved their existence. He essentially proved Nietzsche wrong. How could one mistake him for Nietzsche? This aspect of Nietzsche has been dead ever since the 50s, but like Freud is still happily screwing us up with its legacy. And since Maslow not many have really taken on board what this means.

Alright, as you were… :)

———————————————

Quite enjoyed the first half of Algis Valiunas’ view of the life and thinking of Maslow here: “Never before had a thinker aimed so high in the name of all humanity and remained sensible.” He overdoes the atheist-materialist tack, oversells Freud, and doesn’t get any of the letting-go egoless stuff of course, but that’s just fashion, and proves my idea that Maslow crosses those lines, appealing to SBNRs and muggles alike. The first half of the article is solid on much of Maslow’s own viewpoint.

The second is about the author’s personal obsessions. A little tidbit for you, you can spot if you know about Kundalini, Breakout, and so on. Valiunas picks out a Maslow quote:

“Do you want to find out what you ought to be? Then find out who you are! ‘Become what thou art!’ The description of what one ought to be is almost the same as the description of what one deeply is.”

Valiunas calls this an ‘inexact quotation’ from Nietzsche:

“What does your conscience say? — ‘You shall become the person you are.’”

This is daft. See and feel the difference between those quotes. See that Maslow says only “be what you are”, but that Nietzsche says what you are is a person, and thus betrays his ultimately non-transcendent viewpoint. Feel that Maslow, investigator of decency and the ordinary, the demophile who wished all to actualise, is at fundamental odds with Nietzsche who here is only one step away from the failure of Crowley.

There is nothing in the Nietzsche quote about ‘what one deeply is’. Maslow’s self-actualisation is not about ‘creating your own law’, superman-style. That is the Nietzschean lie, that those who transcend do so by blasting their own tunnel through the cliff of life. It is that precise lie that produced power-driven male science.

Actual transcendence involves acceptance of things as they are, and that is the nature of real transformation, which comes from outside the personality. The Tao does not act against anything, to become the Tao is not to become Napoleon! Nietzsche was even further from the truth than Freud. Neither “remained sensible”.

Benson’s Breakout demonstrates this evidentially. You can only become by allowing. My Laozi paraphrase again:

Knowing what beauty is makes ugliness, do not take hold of the world and act on it (that is, let go), do not employ forceful strategies, what you seize you lose. Teach the practice of no words, the usefulness comes when you don’t make an effort, act without expecting, make use of what is not there, abandon strategy, allow yourself to become obscure, know the male but hold to the female and become the world’s stream, become the pattern itself, enter the substantial and do not be occupied with the veneer…

Personal will is not the Way. Becoming and peace are indivisible. Nietzsche hated Epicurus.

Valiunas admits these differences of course, later, in his way, but still goes on to describe a ‘Maslovian hero’ who has nothing to do with the good sense exhibited in the first half of the article. This is almost as if Webster were to write on Maslow. Western culture has had such difficulties…

EDIT: oh, and of course, no comphrension in that article of the difference between science and philosophy. Can you imagine asking Nietzsche to test his conclusions? :) Freud supposedly was a “scientist”… yeah right.


New Kundalini Reading List

I will nest all the lists when I’ve done them but right now it has its own button.

The stuff from the last squib seems to be holding — it’s a good way to think about things, but also a good way to not think about things, which is equally important. :)

Husserl said psychology should not do explanation but simply description. For me what it should do is transformation. Life is a method of transformation, and I think that is going to be my primary method of “explaining” or “decribing” life… quite alchemical I suppose.


[didn'texpecthisquib]

… was so sure I’d be doing a lot more philosophy etc. But have just realised that if I take Maslow’s ideas and put them with Glenn’s I have a short cut that for me is going be a great basis for everything. Will save a lot of time. I can look into the big cosmological stuff as I go… but whoah, this is very good. :) It’s about spirituality coming spontaneously up out of life itself, as indeed it does.


The Way That Finds Itself

The Breakout Principle

If you are going to do it, it is actually not “you” who will do it — “it” will do itself. A big part of the skill taught by successful lineages is learning to watch neutrally as the process does the process.

This relates, on the level of ordinary psychology, to the Breakout Principle of Herbert Benson, in which you first put a lot of energy into the process of solving any problem — performance anxieties or creative blocks, life rearrangement or stress reduction, deep questions of purpose — then having struggled you let go of the process, stop, do something different, something repetitive usually, something in which “you” are not involved in the same way. It could be meditation, it could be needlework… he gives pages of things people have used including reading, shaving, drumming or folding laundry. Thanks to a mechanism we all possess, this causes you to be struck by a solution “breaking out” of previous thought patterns, a solution “from nowhere”.

Benson’s book in my opinion frankly is a little naff, but still very good to know. :) LATE EDIT: Just speed-re-read it and added more to the end of this post; if that inspires anyone to get the book it’s currently going for absolutely peanuts, especially on UK Amazon. (Maybe the rest of his stuff is worth a look too — Glenn cued off him in a lot of ways. He’s even got some of the biology which is such a big key. I’ve read Relaxation Response and it’s a good basic book with a pleasing attitude.)

I think this “Breakout” just may be the central human psychological mechanism. Yet there is so little on it in psychology — even transpersonal psychology, whose very name implies it. I think many people experience these signs as little peak experiences, which is how Benson analyses them. That connects to Maslow, but Maslow didn’t produce any method, where Benson does. I described one of my early Breakouts here on the ‘Box back in January, but didn’t even realise I was talking about a Breakout myself! I see now the description is exact, as bolded here:

I remember the moment I got my first blast of the actual Earth, from opening the base chakra plus doing a bunch of work with sexual energy. It was after I’d stopped meditating for the night and was engaged in something unconnected. Suddenly I felt it. The first words into my mind were ‘old and strong’. That was how I observed-experienced it unfolding…, bristling and deep, full of silence, strong, massively present and aware…

The Sequence of States in a Breakout

I think that moment of life in which something breaks through is a fundamental aspect of psychology which really goes places when you get deeper. At the stronger STE (Spiritually Transformative Experience) end of the scale, it leads to removing “oneself” from the equation altogether. Hence, “death”, hence “egoless” and so forth. That thing whose fortunes one has to keep track of amidst the baboon horde no longer binds. Although this is radical, I must mention that it is incredibly subtle too.

And it just happens. I like to remember what Glenn says:

Most of the religious writings with the exception of Patanjali strike me as poppycock. They describe the life, but not the practice that resulted in the life.

Path Notes of an American Ninja Master (1993), p. 41

Exactly — nor the process that this practice set in train. Preaching at people that they “should” remove their egos is probably fairly pointless — the word “should” is an ego word. My most beloved process is the Kundalini process, which long-term enables this neutrality exactly. In just the same way as we have “peak experiences” and “plateau experiences”, so we have peak STEs and plateau STEs. Kundalini sometimes announces itself with a big peak, but the plateau element is inevitable once awakened and comes from living with it for years. These changes are profound and are really what ‘ego death’ means.

There may be many true ways to do this and we know many involve Kundalini — possibly others don’t. (What is valuable is any way that works.) But I could never imagine a way which didn’t involve letting go to “it”. It does it; “it” is always doing everything.

An eloquent writer on the result is Philip St Romain, who is both Kundalini experiencer and Roman Catholic. Right away that tells us something about universality. I don’t know if he has taught Kundalini but he has certainly described it pretty well, and joins the group of those, like Gopi Krishna and Glenn, who were practicing something and then suddenly found ”it” happening. They didn’t know what “it” was at first and that is not an easy situation. In St Romain’s case the practice was prayer which perhaps says something about how sincerely most people pray by comparison :) and resulted in interesting stuff like the throat opening first. He writes:

One of the first things that happened to me, when in 1986 my prayer deepened, was a sense of having lost myself. The union between self-awareness and self-concept was dissolved, and without a self-concept mirror to gaze into, I no longer knew myself. I still had a self-concept; my beliefs and convictions about myself were still there… But the emotional bond with self-concept was severed…

Who was I? I realized that I was not my thoughts, not my memory, not my body… I sensed a response coming from my intuitive higher self. “Philip St Romain is dead!” came the word. “Quit trying to find him”…

Since then, the Egoic pole of consciousness has returned, only not as before. For although there is, with me, a very definite sense of “I”, this “I” is not the old mental-conceptual Ego. Now, the “I” is just an “I”… I have become increasingly aware of my attending self, or “I”, as pure attention itself. It often feels like the Ground Itself sees out of my senses, and when this happens, attention is realized at its Root. There is just the seeing…

Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality (1991)

This is an excellent description of death and rebirth into a different form of consciousness, the idea embodied in those myths I’ve mentioned before — Zagreus and Osiris, etc. The “Ground” mentioned is the “Dynamic Ground” of transpersonal psychologist Michael Washburn. The new “I” doesn’t get in the way so much, and doesn’t need to be got out of the way for “it” to happen through the person. This is the key. Note how the “ego death” just happened, naturally, which is why it can be so central in so many places. This is natural human functioning, of a certain kind.

Spontaneity is central to Kundalini — the bodily movements, the feelings, the perceptions, the natural results of wiring into the bigger version of oneself previously excluded by habitual attention only to what comes through the physical channels. All of this occurs.

I don’t see enough on spontaneity. Psychology doesn’t often understand its relevance and stamping it out of people is one of school’s first tasks. All moments of creativity and inspiration are spontaneities. This to me is what transpersonal psychology should be about, this psychology which goes “beyond the person”. Not so much with the maps based on comparing thinkings. I suppose that may be natural at the transcendent level — but how do you get there? I want more with the getting sleeves rolled up and finding these links. Spontaneity works on the ordinary level and then on non-ordinary levels. That makes it a principle with universal application.

Another master of generating Breakouts, Milton Erickson, shines when it comes to how rigidity grows in the natural frame of reference:

Eventually the entire conscious awareness of the individual may become restrictively governed or dictated by the very structure that originally developed to allow an increased freedom of response.

– Ronald Havens, The Wisdom of Milton H. Erickson (1985)

… which is why one needs to let go of that structure. But Erickson didn’t do what Benson did and give a range of formulae for one’s own breakouts, since his interest was purely clinical. He was a master at getting others out of their own ways, but didn’t see it as his job to give them a new map about what had happened. For Erickson all conscious maps are wayward, bizarre, rigid and complex, but the unconscious is simple, universal, and brilliant if allowed to work.

Of the world traditions, Taoism is the one that most values spontaneity — it has a term for it, ziran, which is fundamental since Laozi. Isabelle Robinet points out that ziran is the Te, the power, of the Tao itself, and represents “being natural in its highest sense”:

… ziran defines the way the world goes on by itself without anyone “doing” it… In human beings, ziran means being free from dependence on some other thing or substance [equivalent to self-actualised]… being natural… and being creative… To respect ziran one should not interfere (wuwei)… To act spontaneously is to have no intention of one’s own, to let the natural force that is within everything work freely…

Routledge Encyclopedia of Taoism, entry “ziran

It’s quite nice to see such an exact match. Whatever one says about religious tracts, once one has taken on board some of the functions of “it” in us, along with the process of transformation into “it”, a lot of Tao Te Ching turns out to be precisely about that process. Differences in translation can be interesting, here are two good ones…

Act without action, (wuwei)
And nothing is without order.

(ch. 3, Wing)

Act without contrivance
And nothing will be beyond control

(ch. 3, Lin)

The idea itself is everywhere you look in that book. “It” orders, “it” controls, “you” act without acting, without it being “you” acting.

Knowing what beauty is makes ugliness, do not take hold of the world and act on it (that is, let go), do not employ forceful strategies, what you seize you lose. Teach the practice of no words, the usefulness comes when you don’t make an effort, act without expecting, make use of what is not there, abandon strategy, allow yourself to become obscure, know the male but hold to the female and become the world’s stream, become the pattern itself, enter the substantial and do not be occupied with the veneer…

… just finished a dash through Benson’s book again. A good story I’ll give briefly: An ambitious attorney has a huge case that could make his career, gets incredibly stressed, and ignores all advice from Benson on how to reduce stress. As he rises for his summation he thinks he will “never get a word out”, yet delivers an excellent address with incredible crowd rapport by having a spontaneous breakout based on one simple thought: none of this really matters.

As Benson notes (p. 77) at that moment he abandoned control over his situation — a perfect reflection of the Laozi ideas.

“None of this really matters”. When you have been struggling, struggling for ever, is that statement not in itself a kind of death? The push and the stress have engaged the nervous system, telling it in effect that this struggle is all about staying alive — the sympathetic fight/flight response is entrained. When you let go of that, you realise that your attempt to control is not keeping you alive, that life itself is what is giving you life.

Deep spiritual experience is stronger than this and leads to permanent changes, as St Romain was describing. As Paul says, “Die every day,” and Soko Morinaga ups it to every moment. There’s a whole chapter on this in the rebuttal (now being digested by its first advance readers BTW, many thanks to them) because Webster carps on it.

“Stress” or arousal is good up to a point — then let go. Have this take place within a realm of quiet attention… etc.

For those interested, here are Benson’s basic ideas on triggering mechanisms (for use after you have gone as far as you can with the conscious struggle upcurve remember) — all these can lead to a Breakout:

1. Repetitive physical or mental activity breaking previous thought patterns.

2. Becoming immersed in some expression of your personal belief system.

3. Surrendering, “total abandon” (as with the attorney above).

4. Participating in an absorbing personal encounter.

5. Becoming deeply engaged in an altruistic activity.

6. Filling your mind with a dominant sensory impression — sound or sight.

These are fine places to start. You can combine them. Obviously qigong works real well. The full list of individual Breakout trigger activities is 3 whole pages of the book — pp. 40-3. As I say, copies are going for 11p on Amazon so if you want this, go for it.

Sometime I’m going to talk a little about that second item, the “belief system”, and various radical ways to think about that… a combination of philosophy and the ability to reprogram the nervous system can produce very interesting results. In the end I have always tried to avoid being a “true believer” because once independent you can get results from your own sets of symbols, provided you know where the bottom line is.

Advanced processual meditation goes further than Benson knows about which is where Glenn comes in, but the priming and the letting go can both be done in meditative states. That’s where the aforementioned observing/witnessing states come in, which allow “it” to happen because “you” are just the process of watching the process. The “preliminary stress” just means concentrated attention and qi.

As a final word, I know nothing about Eckhart Tolle but I just remembered something I’d seen once:

One night shortly after his 29th birthday, Tolle says he was in a state of suicidal despair [as he had been all his life BTW]. “I couldn’t live with myself any longer. And this question arose without an answer: who is the ‘I’ that cannot live with the self? What is the self? I felt drawn into a void. I didn’t know at the time that what really happened was the mind-made self, with its heaviness, its problems, that lives between the unsatisfying past and fearful future, collapsed. It dissolved.”

He pauses and reflects. “The next morning I woke up and everything was so peaceful. The peace was there because there was no self. Just a sense of presence or “beingness”, just observing and watching.” He laughs lightly. “I had no explanation for this.”

Classic breakout from lifelong struggle on the “who am I?” level, resulting in ego death seemingly. His way doesn’t seem Kundalini-orientated and he doesn’t understand there’s more to enlightenment than this “egoless state”, but his description precisely parallels St Romain’s. And his process is slap in the middle of the theory we have here. Which is what I mean about a universal principle!


[qigongformsquib]

EDIT: According to this page, Li’s book will be reprinted at some point.

A good thing.

So I finally managed to learn some of Li Ding’s Meridian Qigong. I love it. It opens the twelve ordinary meridians plus ren and du, and has an individual form for each one. Consequently you have so much choice and yet also a lot of symmetry. It means getting all the points really well in an interesting and memorable way.

It also is really effective. I had not expected this level of qi movement, absolutely targeted to the individual meridian, and each form also addresses the parts of the meridian that are well beneath the skin’s surface and activates them in detail. You can feel the associated organs literally pulsing with qi and aliveness. I absolutely love this and will be learning all the rest.

I want to put it into the Qigong Reading List of course, but I guess it has to go in the Advanced section. Sometimes I wonder… I don’t want to put people off by calling things ‘advanced’.

One reason I do it is that it’s an out-of-print book which will probably cost a little more, not much video of the form around to cue off, and I notice its price just went up, so you really have to shop around and may not be able to find a copy. Obviously when people start to realise something is good that puts the price up in itself. That’s very unfortunate and more and more I’m beginning to wonder whether I couldn’t reprint some of these old books on lulu and get the authors some cash, if there was any demand.

The other reason is that for real beginners I always recommend something without a lot of details to learn. With a walking qigong, with zhan zhuang, or with Swimming Dragon, there is really just one thing to learn, and you are away. No waiting to get into it, so very quick results. With the meridian forms it is more like t’ai chi — you have lots of individual moves with no repetitions. It’s basically 250 pages of solid moves. For someone who has been going a little while this is incredibly fun of course, but for beginners, I think they would look at it and wilt.

That’s been my feeling but am I being overly populist or somehow patronising by thinking that? If anyone has any thoughts, let me know…

I can hear the groans now! Why can’t you use a book that is actually in print?! Why all these small paperbacks no-one has ever heard of?! Well I like them… the truth is I am judging by the covers somewhat. This was a pattern that was set young. I always trusted things that were cheap, never things that looked polished and well-funded. I liked cheap popular paperbacks, they meant sanity. Glenn’s books were not overly polished on the outside, otherwise I might never have looked at them! I call this the “Hawk the Slayer effect…” :)


Ataraxia: Sdeen fo Dimaryp

Abraham Maslow: not merely the Aaron Copland of psychology, although that too

Abandon desire all ye who enter here

sign at the entrance to “Damo’s Cave” in the Glenn Morris exercise.

Abraham Maslow is a genius I still love to read, in fact I plan to read him more and more closely as time goes on. He is one of those default thinkers, like Rudolf Steiner, who underlie everything and capture so much of what is necessary about their times, but are not referenced consciously nearly so often as unconsciously.

All agree though that his “hierarchy of needs” is somewhat problematic. Supposedly it shows human needs, from physical at the base, through safety, love, esteem, to self-actualisation at the apex. The idea is that as you satisfy the lowest level, the next opens up, and so on.

… and his Hierarchy of Needs

It’s ironic that the hierarchy is what most people know of Maslow, and the only thing of his that undergrads learn, because it is far from his most important idea. Much of the work done on Maslow’s stuff since his time is unimpressive, since cognitivism refused to look at values with his boldness, and tried to pretend that peak experiences don’t exist. But flaws spotted in the pyramid are more sensible — as this page puts it, the problem is simply “deciding when a level has actually been ‘satisfied’”. How do you know when you have ‘enough’ food, esteem and love to move on to actualising yourself? Like the serial murderess says in Black Widow: “Rich is hard — you never really figure you’re quite there…”

Come to think of it, how do we model a hunger striker in solitary confinement? He doesn’t have company, yet is doing without food… perhaps for esteem he can’t see, and that means higher parts of the pyramid can overrule lower, even though the other way round is supposed to be the “correct” direction — and we see too that a person overruling top–>bottom is actualised… a person may give up self-esteem for sex, or give up food to feed family… one is the ‘giving up’ of capitulation, the other, of self-sacrifice. In what sense is food a “need” in that case? Or life itself? — there’s the point!

The actual situation seems more or less entirely the reverse of how the pyramid is usually read, in that as soon as some level of actualisation is present (meaning among other things acceptance, creativity and ethics) the other “needs” begin to be overruled by it. Ultimately, good yoga or qigong practice may take away even the “need” for breathing and eating itself, at times. The encounter with self-actualisation broadly is an encounter with death…

… one of Webster’s many mistakes was not realising this… 32,414 words as of today and more or less done the first draft, apart from an evidential appendix…

… and death is where we will all end up — not eating, not breathing, heart not beating. Many spiritual training methods by some means or another go to the shamanic place of getting this death in sooner, to a degree, and learn that closer to death is closer to life, a great mystery which I don’t claim fully to understand, although I’ve remarked on the connection between kundalini and death, and the regathering of threads it involves, on this blog before now.

Self-actualisation is indeed relegated to the tip of the pyramid on ordinary, unreconstructed instinct, by which people operating as part of society do usually function, trying to avoid ceasing to exist. But if you awaken creativity now via Kundalini, it rewrites the program as it rewires the nervous system, and ultimately can completely upend the structure.

Although he wasn’t Kundalini-specific of course, Maslow must have seen this on some level. Self-actualisation theory was deeply empirical, floating very close to real observed behaviour. And the subjects were described as “not identifying with ordinary ways”, “non-ordinary in motivation”, “non-needy” and so forth, continually, showing that Maslow was seeing the process in action, but somehow didn’t quite put his finger on it. He also saw the vital importance of the transpersonal via Peak Experiences, but wished to remove their mystical connotations, so may not have associated them with death. That would have been too “supernatural”.

It is to be noted that Kundalini experiencers usually have to become more ethical; the goddess does not give them another choice except to suffer from not doing so. See Greenwell and Kason. This shows that awakening and ethics are instinctively connected, not only intellectually so.

Later aspects of Maslow’s thought included the ‘plateau experience’ which was like a peak experience but constant. Thought like that remains absolutely central to the psychology of realisation in my opinion. I relate it strongly to Greek ataraxia, the aim of Epicureanism, but it includes a strand of mythic eternity owing to Maslow’s theory of “B-cognition”. I will definitely return to these ideas when I have time; meanwhile Rhea White introduces them here.


[correctionsquib]

My thanks to reader Carl (“friendly Swedish guy”) who has pointed out that Mantak does teach opening all 12 ordinary meridians — only, after opening the 8 extraordinary meridians, in the part of his process known as “Lesser Kan and Li”.

He also mentions that the “Middle Pillar Exercise” and other Israel Regardie-type work is moving energy in Western style which is definitely true. I’d like though to find any evidence that those techniques go back beyond the Golden Dawn era…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 112 other followers