The practice of awareness of reality is the process of learning a certain dexterity, dexterity in experiencing awareness of reality. Awareness of reality is an experience of consciousness that is characterized by simultaneity- that is, it is now, it is present- and impartiality, which means that it is whole, not partial.
Simultaneity is an elusive quality, but it can be understood and experienced relatively easily, and when you experience it, you know it. Our thought is storytelling. If we are telling stories about our experience in the present moment, of course we are always a little behind. This is the quality of our thought that this criterion of simultaneity highlights. We want to experience an awareness that is not thinking. Why? Because our thinking is not good enough. That is not to say that it is no good, but our thinking does not touch reality. The motivation that drives this practice is that one feels, sometimes to the marrow of one's bones, that one has not been responding appropriately to reality. My conscience reproaches me, and I know it is right. I wish with all my heart to live in peace with my conscience. But how? I must live in awareness of reality. Living in stupidity, I continue to make stupid mistakes. In unconsciousness, that can never end.
Awareness of reality must be present. Only then, can this practice fulfill its promise. This practice can and does give me hope. It keeps my faith and love alive. It has given me great insight. But life is real only then, when I am present. Of course it is theoretically real at all times. The question is whether I experience my reality, whole and present. I can only count on responding appropriately to reality if I am aware of reality.
If it isn't simultaneous, it isn't awareness, it's thinking. Thinking is good, but not good enough for God's kingdom to ever come on my Earth.
Mr. Nyland said that impartiality is easier to understand than simultaneity. I think that it is easier to understand simultaneity. Impartiality suggests that we must be aware of the whole of reality, simultaneously. That kind of consciousness can be imagined as an attribute of God, but it is really impossible for me to imagine it for myself. Yet it is obviously necessary for awareness of reality to be not partial. Partial awareness is what I have already. It is good, but not good enough. I don't require impartial awareness of the whole universe, like God, but I require impartial awareness of MY whole universe. Actually, I don't require even that, but I do require that when my awareness of reality exists, when I am actually present, that my awareness should have the quality of impartiality. It means that my consciousness regards my present with utter openness, an openness that can receive anything that could possibly exist in my universe with the same unconditional positive regard. Mr. Nyland used to say, "no liking or disliking." It doesn't go far enough. Impartiality means that my consciousness, at that moment, is aware of my present as God would view any aspect, any time or place, any person, even me, of His universe.
The practice of awareness of reality is the development of dexterity in experiencing impartial, simultaneous awareness of reality. The dexterity is what we lack, in the beginning. After 40 years, like a rather delayed child learning to walk, I have progressed. I can actually stand and even take a few shaky steps. It is a great accomplishment, but relative to actually living in awareness of reality, it's not much use as yet. My dexterity needs to develop further before I can eat that pie with ice cream on top, the satisfaction in life that is obviously accessible if one could live in awareness of reality. A little awareness now and then is not yet of that much practical use.
I have held out for the development of this dexterity. I have not devoted myself to seeking satisfaction wholeheartedly or scientifically. I have not tried with all my intelligence to avoid pain. I have seen the need to develop this dexterity. It was smart of me, regardless of who calls me a fool, including myself. I am not a fool for realizing my foolishness and realizing that, first of all, my consciousness must be corrected. That is the right way. This is what Mr. Nyland taught.
But it must be present. Presence has a meaning for me now that this word could not have had 40 years ago. All my efforts are associated with this word, the sum total of my real dexterity. When I was informed, a month ago, that in addition to the three core qualities articulated by Carl Rogers with which I have been familiar for years, and which have guided my counseling practice, he had also articulated a fourth, presence, it was a revelation. Obviously Rogers was quite right to add presence. Presence is instantaneous and also something that I do. That is really the same as saying that it is a dexterity.
I have been in certain habits regarding the practice of awareness of reality. We all are creatures of habit. It is like a child learning to walk is in the habit of crawling. How do you go from a habit of crawling to walking?
For me, presence is the key. I think it will unlock the Secret Garden.
In presence I leave crawling behind. I mean by crawling, thinking. I still think, of course, but when I am present, I am not immersed in thought. Life is real then, when I am present. Other people are real, my feelings are real.
I have an anxiety in entering this new world of presence. Is it impartial? Because impartiality is my God. In presence, I have no time to assure myself that my awareness is impartial. I don't stop to think. In presence, I trust my dexterity.
I do not trust myself. In God, I trust. According to the Uncertainty Principle, you can never be sure what the present holds, until you open it. Is God inside? Did I really get God for Christmas? It was promised, but until I am present, it must remain uncertain.
The question is, is it sustainable. I think it is sustainable. It feels sustainable. I have to walk. A friend of mine used the phrase, "to walk your talk," a few years ago. It is a little variant on the popular saying about walking the walk versus talking the talk. It was always a little irritating to me. Talking is an expression of thought. Walking occurs in reality, as does talking. Walking is one thing, talking is another. My walking doesn't have to conform to my thoughts or to my speech. But if I want to tell you about how I walk, I had best be aware of reality, if I want to speak the truth.
Now I am present, and now I remain present, and is it sustainable? My thinking is crawling, and I am back on my knees, and maybe I want to crawl for awhile, because I am in the habit, but now I am back on my feet. It is something I can do now, to walk, to remain present. I can do it. I return to crawling. I ask myself, is this walking O.K.? Is it really impartial, am I forgetting my God, the love and hope that has sustained me on this long crawl through the Valley of Death? So I return to my thinking, but now I stand again. Presence shows me that I can do it now. You know how it is with children. Once they learn to walk, they don't crawl much anymore. Walking is better.
Presence is not merely alertness or mindfulness, not for me, because I have developed dexterity in awareness of reality. Without that dexterity, presence must mean alertness or mindfulness. If you have not that dexterity, practicing alertness or mindfulness will not necessarily take you in the right direction, and it will definitely not keep you in the right direction.
Presence reminds me that I can walk. I don't need to worry about being motivated. My pain motivates me. But walking is a pleasure. I really don't need to keep my pain anymore. I have not wished to lose my pain until I learned to live in awareness of reality. I have known that this was the right way:
"The good man, in his dim strivings, remains indeed conscious of the right way."
And so God pardoned even Faust, who was so foolish as to sell his soul to the devil, in his eagerness to grab for pie with ice cream on top. But I wish to walk in consciousness of the right way, as a human being should walk. I will be present, in all things, in writing, in relationships, alone and with others. It is for me to do. God does not walk for me, but God made me to walk, and I know that He rejoices, I know that my mother and father, my beloved, all those with whom my love goes forever rejoice to see me present in awareness of reality. The spiritual world can see it. As for my fellow beings here on Earth, I must be present in my communication. "All flesh shall see it together." That is impartiality, present in the flesh.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a new dawn, present for us all.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Impartiality
We find ourselves where we are. That includes where we are in reality, and also where we are in our consciousness. I wish to be conscious of reality, the reality of this body, mind and feelings, also my whole reality, the universe as experienced by me, other people, present in body or in spirit, my relationship with the Earth, with all that is.
It includes my thoughts, but awareness is not thinking. Of course I think, in fact I love to think, I am good at it, I have a real interest in psychology and a number of other topics. But I am really seriously interested in psychology. My interest there goes beyond mere thought. My psychology is really my life.
The ultimate conclusion of all my psychological thinking is that I must wake up to reality, right now. Then, when I make this effort, my thinking just goes on, like all of my physical processes just go on. My attention is on my living as a whole, simultaneously with life of my real I.
One must learn this dexterity. It takes a lot of practice. What is the motivation?
The motivation is really our pain, emotional pain. We all experience emotional pain, and sometimes a great deal of it. It can drive people to suicide, although that is a profoundly stupid response to emotional pain. Sometimes one sees no way out. It can also drive people to what used to be called madness. Obviously we seek a way out of emotional pain. That is a principle of life, any organism does the same. It is simple enough if one sees a way out. If not, we often resort to distraction, maybe facilitated by drugs or alcohol. It can be a good strategy. We can easily be excessively focused on our pain. If one gets one's mind off it for a bit perspective is restored, one realizes that there is much more to my life than only my pain. But when the emotional pain is chronic, a need of ours that is not being met, it returns, maybe in full force. Relief by distraction may become more difficult. The required dose of drugs and alcohol may increase. One can easily spend so much time under the influence that one's possibility of actually getting needs met and thereby eliminating the cause of the pain is seriously impaired, and substance abuse can cause even more pain by damaging our relationships, finances and health, until it becomes substance dependance.
Acceptance is the better way. Obviously I don't mean acceptance that I must remain in pain (in Spain, mainly on the plain.) Of course I don't accept that, neither would a flea or a cockroach. Even a plant must hope for better on some level. I am talking about acceptance of reality as is, not a feeling of acceptance but an experience of acceptance. Of course I am responsible to respond to reality. That is my life, I respond continuously. If I am in pain, maybe great emotional pain, that is definitely telling me that I am not responding to reality correctly. I have to have hope that it could be better. Somehow, it must be possible for me to respond differently. At the moment, I don't know how.
In acceptance of my present, I accept my pain, I accept the reality that is causing my pain, and I accept my hope, faith and determination that I will move on, out of pain and toward paradise. I accept it all, impartially. This is not possible in my thought.
Impartiality means that I have an experience in my consciousness in which reality is accepted, at that moment, as is. I cannot be impartial in my thought, but it is possible for me to experience impartial awareness in my consciousness. It is not thought. It is a higher functioning of my consciousness, a capacity that I do have, and so do you, but which is not automatically developed by our life in our culture. It must be developed by one's own will and one's own efforts. This work cannot proceed in isolation. We must make a culture of awareness of reality.
I call it a higher functioning, not to evoke or express a certain pernicious form of egoism which is a huge trap for those who set out on this path. Exactly because the understanding of the need for real acceptance is rare in our culture, and the realization that acceptance of reality is only possible by means of a different kind of mental capacity from thinking is even much rarer-rarity squared, one might say: there is a very human, very understandable tendency for groups, and this is a group enterprise, there is a culture of this kind of practice, there is a tremendous history of human beings who have pursued this kind of quest, the way of life and of reconnection, one comes into contact, somehow, with this culture, and you are coming in contact with it right now; but there is a tendency for groups pursuing this kind of aim, in a culture that doesn't recognize the necessity and the value of it, to adopt a certain defensive egoism, that we who are "seekers of the truth" are actually superior, more enlightened, more developed, more chosen than our fellows. This is a disastrous attitude, even if it is understandable. It tends to paralyze relationships even within such groups, as everyone who has been seriously involved with this kind of practice knows.
A person must understand that I am, I exist. This is true for each person. I experience reality, my reality. I must respond to life as experienced by me. I experience emotional pain at times, sometimes great pain. There is no particular place for egoism in any of that. What person could not say the same? It's the truth. I do not wish to be in pain. It is not an exclusive club. I see that conscious acceptance of reality is the right response to emotional pain. Well, not everybody sees that, and I am convinced that it is right, so I can get egotistical about that. As I say, it is defensive.
In addition to the strategy of distraction from emotional pain, there are, in every culture, diagnoses for why one is experiencing pain and prescriptions for replacing pain with satisfaction. There is a prescribed cultural way of life. In a healthy culture, most people are following the cultural prescription more or less successfully. Our culture is showing clear signs of deterioration. The norm is not experience of intense emotional pain, although we do accept that bereavement, for example, will cause great pain. One is supposed to get over it. Many other life experiences obviously produce great emotional pain. We prefer not to think about it. To an extent, the culturally prescribed way of life represents a strategy of distraction from our pain, although it also represents a strategy for getting our needs met and thereby experiencing satisfaction rather than pain. What about the pain of death, of those we love, including animals, of our own inevitable death? No cultural prescription can really address that pain.
I really have a problem with the formulation that "life is suffering." My life, at times, is suffering, but I do not accept that it has to be like that. I wish to accept my life as is in order to respond correctly to my life, so that I don't HAVE to suffer. And I am sure that this is possible. I have tasted paradise as a result of practicing awareness of reality, but I sure don't live there, as yet.
This defensive egoism is a mental dam against the cultural prescriptions- for example, just make money, just be sociable, just find ways of having good sex, go shopping, buy a wide screen T.V., a smartphone, be interested in politics, etc. I want to practice awareness of reality. It takes time, effort, attention. I can't join wholeheartedly in the cultural life way because I need to pursue this aim. It is hard to explain it to others, except the group in which I learned the practice, they understand. When I am in pain, maybe great pain, I hear the song of the cultural prescriptions. Have I not heard it my whole life? No, I feel that I must seek first the kingdom of Heaven, and I have faith that then all else can be added unto me, because with God, all things are possible.
This is what I really want to say. There is a certain necessary and inevitable attitude toward impartial awareness. It is the attitude that necessitates the concept of God. People don't understand this. What is holy? Truth is holy. That which is, is holy. Not partial truth, our thinking is not holy. Impartial awareness of reality must be understood emotionally. In that understanding one knows what God means, love of God, remorse and repentance before God, and the wish to take that most light yoke of which Jesus spoke. When I understand impartiality, I do pray that God's kingdom may come on Earth as in Heaven, and of course that my trespasses may be forgiven, really by me, that I can forgive myself for the horrible stupidity that has caused such pain to me and to others associating with me. But I must work for God's kingdom to come on my Earth, that is the yoke. As to not leading us into temptation and delivering us from evil, I think that is really putting too much on God. It is up to me to be open to awareness of reality. It is the higher power of impartial and simultaneous consciousness, pure consciousness. I am just a reflection of the universe. As the universe has reflected me, so do I wish to reflect back, in gratitude. It is why we were given consciousness, the one talent that is death to hide. And in reflecting reality as is, I will respond to reality, not to my partial thoughts, which are not stupid so long as my awareness is at home. It isn't that my thoughts are stupid. But they sure are partial. "Don't believe everything you think." I do believe my awareness of reality. It is my God. God is omnipresent, present now. But I must pay attention to God, that is my Work. My culture didn't teach me about this, but I was fortunate enough to come in contact with a subculture that knew about it.
So what about all the immense emotional pain that crashes down on me sometimes these days, the pain of wrong living, stupidity in relationships, stupid expenditure of my time? The past must be accepted. It is, as is. My good wishes and good intentions were as they were, and are as they are. My laziness also was and is, as is. It has always been possible for me to master my laziness when I have seen how to work, and so is it possible now. It has also always been possible for me to master my fear, nd so is it possible now. It is presence that I have lacked. Why, why has it taken me so long? I have set out on this road many, many times and found myself again, not working, lost, in pain and again returned to the way and set out again, with the same result. It must continue, it can't stop. I have learned that it is not helpful to try to be a hero. I need to work for paradise. That is my task at all times and at every moment. Presence is required at every moment. I must work for that, and now I know how to work.
But I must be realistic. My presence is still in very early stages of development. It is like a small child just learning to walk. I have learned to stand and sometimes I can actually take a few steps. I am not as yet able to take the "Long Walk" to freedom, but yet in developing my presence I am actually starting on that walk, as those who made that heroic trek really started it when they learned to walk. I am not able to remain present for long. I get lost in relationships, I get lost in my thought. But I need to return and persist, as a small child does. It doesn't take them long to go from taking a few shaky steps to running around all over the place, once they get that far.
It has taken me a hell of a long time to get this far. It wouldn't have to take nearly so long if we had a real culture, even a real subculture of consciousness. We must make it. It has nothing to do with egoism. Reality produced me, reality is my higher power. I wish to conform to reality. There is no other way of life. Egoism is the way of death.
Impartiality calls to my love for this whole gift of life. It is the bridegroom. I do not accept every part of life. I do not accept the Nazis, for instance. Them, I will fight, "on the beaches and in the landing fields." No, I will never surrender. I would charge with Pickett, for life, but that is not demanded of me. It is demanded that I work, again and again, for real, impartial presence. It is the whole of life that I love. To that I say Yes without reservation. Yes, I will follow you, my Lord, and when this body dies I will follow you still. "Now, and at the hour of our death." Amen.
It includes my thoughts, but awareness is not thinking. Of course I think, in fact I love to think, I am good at it, I have a real interest in psychology and a number of other topics. But I am really seriously interested in psychology. My interest there goes beyond mere thought. My psychology is really my life.
The ultimate conclusion of all my psychological thinking is that I must wake up to reality, right now. Then, when I make this effort, my thinking just goes on, like all of my physical processes just go on. My attention is on my living as a whole, simultaneously with life of my real I.
One must learn this dexterity. It takes a lot of practice. What is the motivation?
The motivation is really our pain, emotional pain. We all experience emotional pain, and sometimes a great deal of it. It can drive people to suicide, although that is a profoundly stupid response to emotional pain. Sometimes one sees no way out. It can also drive people to what used to be called madness. Obviously we seek a way out of emotional pain. That is a principle of life, any organism does the same. It is simple enough if one sees a way out. If not, we often resort to distraction, maybe facilitated by drugs or alcohol. It can be a good strategy. We can easily be excessively focused on our pain. If one gets one's mind off it for a bit perspective is restored, one realizes that there is much more to my life than only my pain. But when the emotional pain is chronic, a need of ours that is not being met, it returns, maybe in full force. Relief by distraction may become more difficult. The required dose of drugs and alcohol may increase. One can easily spend so much time under the influence that one's possibility of actually getting needs met and thereby eliminating the cause of the pain is seriously impaired, and substance abuse can cause even more pain by damaging our relationships, finances and health, until it becomes substance dependance.
Acceptance is the better way. Obviously I don't mean acceptance that I must remain in pain (in Spain, mainly on the plain.) Of course I don't accept that, neither would a flea or a cockroach. Even a plant must hope for better on some level. I am talking about acceptance of reality as is, not a feeling of acceptance but an experience of acceptance. Of course I am responsible to respond to reality. That is my life, I respond continuously. If I am in pain, maybe great emotional pain, that is definitely telling me that I am not responding to reality correctly. I have to have hope that it could be better. Somehow, it must be possible for me to respond differently. At the moment, I don't know how.
In acceptance of my present, I accept my pain, I accept the reality that is causing my pain, and I accept my hope, faith and determination that I will move on, out of pain and toward paradise. I accept it all, impartially. This is not possible in my thought.
Impartiality means that I have an experience in my consciousness in which reality is accepted, at that moment, as is. I cannot be impartial in my thought, but it is possible for me to experience impartial awareness in my consciousness. It is not thought. It is a higher functioning of my consciousness, a capacity that I do have, and so do you, but which is not automatically developed by our life in our culture. It must be developed by one's own will and one's own efforts. This work cannot proceed in isolation. We must make a culture of awareness of reality.
I call it a higher functioning, not to evoke or express a certain pernicious form of egoism which is a huge trap for those who set out on this path. Exactly because the understanding of the need for real acceptance is rare in our culture, and the realization that acceptance of reality is only possible by means of a different kind of mental capacity from thinking is even much rarer-rarity squared, one might say: there is a very human, very understandable tendency for groups, and this is a group enterprise, there is a culture of this kind of practice, there is a tremendous history of human beings who have pursued this kind of quest, the way of life and of reconnection, one comes into contact, somehow, with this culture, and you are coming in contact with it right now; but there is a tendency for groups pursuing this kind of aim, in a culture that doesn't recognize the necessity and the value of it, to adopt a certain defensive egoism, that we who are "seekers of the truth" are actually superior, more enlightened, more developed, more chosen than our fellows. This is a disastrous attitude, even if it is understandable. It tends to paralyze relationships even within such groups, as everyone who has been seriously involved with this kind of practice knows.
A person must understand that I am, I exist. This is true for each person. I experience reality, my reality. I must respond to life as experienced by me. I experience emotional pain at times, sometimes great pain. There is no particular place for egoism in any of that. What person could not say the same? It's the truth. I do not wish to be in pain. It is not an exclusive club. I see that conscious acceptance of reality is the right response to emotional pain. Well, not everybody sees that, and I am convinced that it is right, so I can get egotistical about that. As I say, it is defensive.
In addition to the strategy of distraction from emotional pain, there are, in every culture, diagnoses for why one is experiencing pain and prescriptions for replacing pain with satisfaction. There is a prescribed cultural way of life. In a healthy culture, most people are following the cultural prescription more or less successfully. Our culture is showing clear signs of deterioration. The norm is not experience of intense emotional pain, although we do accept that bereavement, for example, will cause great pain. One is supposed to get over it. Many other life experiences obviously produce great emotional pain. We prefer not to think about it. To an extent, the culturally prescribed way of life represents a strategy of distraction from our pain, although it also represents a strategy for getting our needs met and thereby experiencing satisfaction rather than pain. What about the pain of death, of those we love, including animals, of our own inevitable death? No cultural prescription can really address that pain.
I really have a problem with the formulation that "life is suffering." My life, at times, is suffering, but I do not accept that it has to be like that. I wish to accept my life as is in order to respond correctly to my life, so that I don't HAVE to suffer. And I am sure that this is possible. I have tasted paradise as a result of practicing awareness of reality, but I sure don't live there, as yet.
This defensive egoism is a mental dam against the cultural prescriptions- for example, just make money, just be sociable, just find ways of having good sex, go shopping, buy a wide screen T.V., a smartphone, be interested in politics, etc. I want to practice awareness of reality. It takes time, effort, attention. I can't join wholeheartedly in the cultural life way because I need to pursue this aim. It is hard to explain it to others, except the group in which I learned the practice, they understand. When I am in pain, maybe great pain, I hear the song of the cultural prescriptions. Have I not heard it my whole life? No, I feel that I must seek first the kingdom of Heaven, and I have faith that then all else can be added unto me, because with God, all things are possible.
This is what I really want to say. There is a certain necessary and inevitable attitude toward impartial awareness. It is the attitude that necessitates the concept of God. People don't understand this. What is holy? Truth is holy. That which is, is holy. Not partial truth, our thinking is not holy. Impartial awareness of reality must be understood emotionally. In that understanding one knows what God means, love of God, remorse and repentance before God, and the wish to take that most light yoke of which Jesus spoke. When I understand impartiality, I do pray that God's kingdom may come on Earth as in Heaven, and of course that my trespasses may be forgiven, really by me, that I can forgive myself for the horrible stupidity that has caused such pain to me and to others associating with me. But I must work for God's kingdom to come on my Earth, that is the yoke. As to not leading us into temptation and delivering us from evil, I think that is really putting too much on God. It is up to me to be open to awareness of reality. It is the higher power of impartial and simultaneous consciousness, pure consciousness. I am just a reflection of the universe. As the universe has reflected me, so do I wish to reflect back, in gratitude. It is why we were given consciousness, the one talent that is death to hide. And in reflecting reality as is, I will respond to reality, not to my partial thoughts, which are not stupid so long as my awareness is at home. It isn't that my thoughts are stupid. But they sure are partial. "Don't believe everything you think." I do believe my awareness of reality. It is my God. God is omnipresent, present now. But I must pay attention to God, that is my Work. My culture didn't teach me about this, but I was fortunate enough to come in contact with a subculture that knew about it.
So what about all the immense emotional pain that crashes down on me sometimes these days, the pain of wrong living, stupidity in relationships, stupid expenditure of my time? The past must be accepted. It is, as is. My good wishes and good intentions were as they were, and are as they are. My laziness also was and is, as is. It has always been possible for me to master my laziness when I have seen how to work, and so is it possible now. It has also always been possible for me to master my fear, nd so is it possible now. It is presence that I have lacked. Why, why has it taken me so long? I have set out on this road many, many times and found myself again, not working, lost, in pain and again returned to the way and set out again, with the same result. It must continue, it can't stop. I have learned that it is not helpful to try to be a hero. I need to work for paradise. That is my task at all times and at every moment. Presence is required at every moment. I must work for that, and now I know how to work.
But I must be realistic. My presence is still in very early stages of development. It is like a small child just learning to walk. I have learned to stand and sometimes I can actually take a few steps. I am not as yet able to take the "Long Walk" to freedom, but yet in developing my presence I am actually starting on that walk, as those who made that heroic trek really started it when they learned to walk. I am not able to remain present for long. I get lost in relationships, I get lost in my thought. But I need to return and persist, as a small child does. It doesn't take them long to go from taking a few shaky steps to running around all over the place, once they get that far.
It has taken me a hell of a long time to get this far. It wouldn't have to take nearly so long if we had a real culture, even a real subculture of consciousness. We must make it. It has nothing to do with egoism. Reality produced me, reality is my higher power. I wish to conform to reality. There is no other way of life. Egoism is the way of death.
Impartiality calls to my love for this whole gift of life. It is the bridegroom. I do not accept every part of life. I do not accept the Nazis, for instance. Them, I will fight, "on the beaches and in the landing fields." No, I will never surrender. I would charge with Pickett, for life, but that is not demanded of me. It is demanded that I work, again and again, for real, impartial presence. It is the whole of life that I love. To that I say Yes without reservation. Yes, I will follow you, my Lord, and when this body dies I will follow you still. "Now, and at the hour of our death." Amen.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Practice of Presence
That professional training that I experienced in Brattleboro two weeks ago was a powerful learning experience. It has inspired my last four posts, and also this one.
Carl Rogers was a psychologist and a great counselor, I think. I didn't know him personally. I can personally attest that he was a great theorist of counseling.
My reason for wanting to become a professional counselor was that thanks to my practice of awareness of reality, I had reached a deeper understanding of my own psychological reality- the only psychological reality that a human being can know- than formerly. In other words, I had grown, and I had developed a faith founded on actual experience, that reality can be completely acceptable to me. Please don't misunderstand this. I am not God, nor am I as indifferent as a stone. Of course I have a reaction and a response to reality as experienced by me. I don't mean by "accept" that I am indifferent, or that I am going to just sit by, perhaps in full lotus, practicing non-attachment, while the world in general and my individual life in particular, goes to hell. No, I am attached to reality. I am both a fighter and a lover. Acceptance of reality also means acceptance of the reality of my own needs, and of my responsibility to get them met. By acceptance, I mean openness to that which is. If you haven't artificially removed yourself from your obligation to respond by tying your legs into a pretzel and committing yourself to immobility, you will respond automatically. If you are accepting of reality at that moment, you will also respond consciously.
I felt that I had something very valuable to offer in counseling, namely, my example of acceptance of reality. Rogers' understanding of counseling is congruent- he may have invented that very expressive term- with this kind of motivation for providing counseling service.
Counseling, for a professional, is a job, a professional service to be provided according to ethical standards. It is important work, justifying and demanding good or even the best effort on the part of the counselor. I have a little saying about my work, uttered jokingly, but it really is no joke: "nothing but the best." Counseling demands nothing less than my best. It is that important. Obviously, to have such a profession is a great blessing.
As Rogers pointed out in his later work, counseling, done well, requires real presence on the part of the counselor. Presence is contagious. If one person, either one, is truly present in a relationship between two people, both are likely to become present. and if one remains present, both are likely to remain present.
Actually, the responsibility of counseling within our present mental illness system, while on the one hand it calls the counselor to be present in the counseling relationship, also creates an obstacle to remaining present in the relationship. Because the client is assumed, in general, to have something wrong with them, some sort of "mental disorder," if not actually full-fledged illness, the counselor feels an added responsibility not to injure the client, and perhaps even to direct and lead the client like a child. The client is assumed to be more vulnerable than the counselor. This is a preconception that ethics demand us to maintain, and it interferes with remaining present. Also, in this mental illness system, the counseling or therapy relationship exists to assist in meeting the emotional needs of the client. The counselor's emotional needs must be subordinated. This also tends to draw the counselor away from full presence.
In a true mental health system the assumption that the client is more vulnerable than the counselor would be eliminated. The counselor would be able to descend from the pinnacle or pedestal of responsibility to protect, nurture and "baby" the client and could just counsel, as if counseling a king. In counseling a king, one would be aware of one's own vulnerability. One would have strong incentives and inclinations to be present in that relationship, not only to protect the king, and thereby the realm, but also to protect one's own head. It would be dangerous to counsel a king. "Termination" might have a whole different dimension than at present.
What I learned in Brattleboro was that Rogers' core principles are not merely a guide for my professional practice. Rogers articulated the principles of human relationship, the way it ought to be. It is actually easier to remain present in my non-professional relationships, in which I am responsible to be aware of my own emotional needs and am entirely free and responsible to seek emotional satisfaction in my relationships. In counseling, within the mental illness system, there are strict ethical limitations on that freedom. Remaining present in a professional counseling relationship is hard work, for that reason. It is really much easier in my other relationships, where there is everything in it for me personally, all the satisfaction to be potentially gained from loving, genuine, more or less intimate relationships with our own kind.
The real independent variable is presence. Rogers, as far as I know, did not address presence independent of relationships. We are not always in relation with others, except spiritually. There is not a specific need for presence in a spiritual relationship.
When I am alone, Robinson Crusoe for the moment, where is my attention? Often it is on my thinking, because I like to think. That is why writing is a good thing for me to do. Sometimes it is on my feelings, sometimes on my behavior or on my sensory perceptions.
When I am alone, I have the option of practicing awareness of reality. One has to learn about this option, how to exercise it and why one would want to. It is an invaluable help to me in coping with my life when alone. It is a good response to emotional or even physical pain, including the pain of loneliness. Human relationship can cure that pain, but only if it meets the core conditions, including presence on my part. In any case, when I am alone, I am not in relationship at the moment, even though I may be next moment. In practicing awareness of reality I am getting myself in good shape to be present in my relationships. If I am simply indulging in my thought and my feelings, I am tending toward laziness, and presence is active. I think that there is a value for me in active thinking, such as I write about. That is a focus of my attention that is acceptable to me. Idle thinking, or letting my mind wander, isn't so good. It tends to be a waste of energy, and my state of consciousness deteriorates.
Sometimes, when one is alone, one wishes to become active as a distraction from unpleasant thoughts and feelings. Awareness of reality is an at-traction, to reality. My thoughts are partial. In awareness I am on intimate terms with my present reality as a whole, impartial and simultaneous. I am truly accepting my present, when I am aware. I am opening my present. I don't know what's inside. The present is unknown. The Uncertainty Principle is experienced, in awareness. I wake up. I haven't seen this moment before.
The practice of awareness of reality is an activity. It is incompatible with laziness because it is an optional activity. With rare exceptions, such as a car accident or maybe an L.S.D. trip, conditions of life do not force us into awareness. We have to make the effort by our own free will, and in that moment, we are not lazy.
The presence of which Rogers speaks is not the full presence of awareness. It is what Mr. Nyland used to call alertness. Alertness is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for awareness. It is also a necessary, but not sufficient condition for completely satisfying relationships with our fellow human beings.
We must be on intimate terms with our own reality in order to be truly intimate with others. There is no substitute for awareness. We must learn to practice this when we are alone and when we are in relationship. It is the only way to paradise.
Some Christians believe that faith in Jesus Christ as our savior is the only way to paradise. This is awfully passive. Jesus is supposed to do it all for me. I am just supposed to wait for pie in the sky by and by.
I think that Jesus told us the truth about this in his parable about the talent. It was given to be used and invested. Burying it and waiting for paradise is not recommended in that parable, if you happen to be familiar with it. In fact, Jesus states plainly that this strategy is the direct road to "outer darkness."
In my personal imagination, even the most oblivious of us sinners will see the error of burying our talent at the very last moment and repent wholeheartedly, returning at the end like the prodigal son. But as Cat Stevens said, "you'll find out what's in store. So why not take a look now?" Get yours now with ice cream on top.
Carl Rogers was a psychologist and a great counselor, I think. I didn't know him personally. I can personally attest that he was a great theorist of counseling.
My reason for wanting to become a professional counselor was that thanks to my practice of awareness of reality, I had reached a deeper understanding of my own psychological reality- the only psychological reality that a human being can know- than formerly. In other words, I had grown, and I had developed a faith founded on actual experience, that reality can be completely acceptable to me. Please don't misunderstand this. I am not God, nor am I as indifferent as a stone. Of course I have a reaction and a response to reality as experienced by me. I don't mean by "accept" that I am indifferent, or that I am going to just sit by, perhaps in full lotus, practicing non-attachment, while the world in general and my individual life in particular, goes to hell. No, I am attached to reality. I am both a fighter and a lover. Acceptance of reality also means acceptance of the reality of my own needs, and of my responsibility to get them met. By acceptance, I mean openness to that which is. If you haven't artificially removed yourself from your obligation to respond by tying your legs into a pretzel and committing yourself to immobility, you will respond automatically. If you are accepting of reality at that moment, you will also respond consciously.
I felt that I had something very valuable to offer in counseling, namely, my example of acceptance of reality. Rogers' understanding of counseling is congruent- he may have invented that very expressive term- with this kind of motivation for providing counseling service.
Counseling, for a professional, is a job, a professional service to be provided according to ethical standards. It is important work, justifying and demanding good or even the best effort on the part of the counselor. I have a little saying about my work, uttered jokingly, but it really is no joke: "nothing but the best." Counseling demands nothing less than my best. It is that important. Obviously, to have such a profession is a great blessing.
As Rogers pointed out in his later work, counseling, done well, requires real presence on the part of the counselor. Presence is contagious. If one person, either one, is truly present in a relationship between two people, both are likely to become present. and if one remains present, both are likely to remain present.
Actually, the responsibility of counseling within our present mental illness system, while on the one hand it calls the counselor to be present in the counseling relationship, also creates an obstacle to remaining present in the relationship. Because the client is assumed, in general, to have something wrong with them, some sort of "mental disorder," if not actually full-fledged illness, the counselor feels an added responsibility not to injure the client, and perhaps even to direct and lead the client like a child. The client is assumed to be more vulnerable than the counselor. This is a preconception that ethics demand us to maintain, and it interferes with remaining present. Also, in this mental illness system, the counseling or therapy relationship exists to assist in meeting the emotional needs of the client. The counselor's emotional needs must be subordinated. This also tends to draw the counselor away from full presence.
In a true mental health system the assumption that the client is more vulnerable than the counselor would be eliminated. The counselor would be able to descend from the pinnacle or pedestal of responsibility to protect, nurture and "baby" the client and could just counsel, as if counseling a king. In counseling a king, one would be aware of one's own vulnerability. One would have strong incentives and inclinations to be present in that relationship, not only to protect the king, and thereby the realm, but also to protect one's own head. It would be dangerous to counsel a king. "Termination" might have a whole different dimension than at present.
What I learned in Brattleboro was that Rogers' core principles are not merely a guide for my professional practice. Rogers articulated the principles of human relationship, the way it ought to be. It is actually easier to remain present in my non-professional relationships, in which I am responsible to be aware of my own emotional needs and am entirely free and responsible to seek emotional satisfaction in my relationships. In counseling, within the mental illness system, there are strict ethical limitations on that freedom. Remaining present in a professional counseling relationship is hard work, for that reason. It is really much easier in my other relationships, where there is everything in it for me personally, all the satisfaction to be potentially gained from loving, genuine, more or less intimate relationships with our own kind.
The real independent variable is presence. Rogers, as far as I know, did not address presence independent of relationships. We are not always in relation with others, except spiritually. There is not a specific need for presence in a spiritual relationship.
When I am alone, Robinson Crusoe for the moment, where is my attention? Often it is on my thinking, because I like to think. That is why writing is a good thing for me to do. Sometimes it is on my feelings, sometimes on my behavior or on my sensory perceptions.
When I am alone, I have the option of practicing awareness of reality. One has to learn about this option, how to exercise it and why one would want to. It is an invaluable help to me in coping with my life when alone. It is a good response to emotional or even physical pain, including the pain of loneliness. Human relationship can cure that pain, but only if it meets the core conditions, including presence on my part. In any case, when I am alone, I am not in relationship at the moment, even though I may be next moment. In practicing awareness of reality I am getting myself in good shape to be present in my relationships. If I am simply indulging in my thought and my feelings, I am tending toward laziness, and presence is active. I think that there is a value for me in active thinking, such as I write about. That is a focus of my attention that is acceptable to me. Idle thinking, or letting my mind wander, isn't so good. It tends to be a waste of energy, and my state of consciousness deteriorates.
Sometimes, when one is alone, one wishes to become active as a distraction from unpleasant thoughts and feelings. Awareness of reality is an at-traction, to reality. My thoughts are partial. In awareness I am on intimate terms with my present reality as a whole, impartial and simultaneous. I am truly accepting my present, when I am aware. I am opening my present. I don't know what's inside. The present is unknown. The Uncertainty Principle is experienced, in awareness. I wake up. I haven't seen this moment before.
The practice of awareness of reality is an activity. It is incompatible with laziness because it is an optional activity. With rare exceptions, such as a car accident or maybe an L.S.D. trip, conditions of life do not force us into awareness. We have to make the effort by our own free will, and in that moment, we are not lazy.
The presence of which Rogers speaks is not the full presence of awareness. It is what Mr. Nyland used to call alertness. Alertness is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for awareness. It is also a necessary, but not sufficient condition for completely satisfying relationships with our fellow human beings.
We must be on intimate terms with our own reality in order to be truly intimate with others. There is no substitute for awareness. We must learn to practice this when we are alone and when we are in relationship. It is the only way to paradise.
Some Christians believe that faith in Jesus Christ as our savior is the only way to paradise. This is awfully passive. Jesus is supposed to do it all for me. I am just supposed to wait for pie in the sky by and by.
I think that Jesus told us the truth about this in his parable about the talent. It was given to be used and invested. Burying it and waiting for paradise is not recommended in that parable, if you happen to be familiar with it. In fact, Jesus states plainly that this strategy is the direct road to "outer darkness."
In my personal imagination, even the most oblivious of us sinners will see the error of burying our talent at the very last moment and repent wholeheartedly, returning at the end like the prodigal son. But as Cat Stevens said, "you'll find out what's in store. So why not take a look now?" Get yours now with ice cream on top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)