Classroom Talk
Fall 2002 Archive
Belated remarks on metaphysical models not being sacrosanct. Posted by John on November 20, 2002 at 12:19:51:
Hi, Folks!
I'm squeaking through my arduous schedule at my other job by the hair of my chinny-chin-chin. I just sacked-out all day yesterday, my first day off,
and I slept in this morning, as well. Yet, I must be getting stronger. I'm here-now. I can feel the energy in me.
I looked over a long class that I did some weeks ago that never got finished and posted—about metaphysical models not being sacrosanct. I started
dressing it up a bit, attempting to make it clearer. And though I had some misgivings about whether it's timely or not here-now, I realized, especially
towards the end, that there are "important" points in there, to me, at least— "important" points about the structure or model of this training that I'd
like to have gotten across to students in this class.
But before I get to that, let me just gab a bit about two movies I just happened to see by accident on television last night and this morning. I'm a tough
critic of movies, and I felt these two were excellently done, and even timely, in a sense, regarding some happenings lately here in Classroom Talk.
The one last night was like an epiphany, because I'd seen it before, without knowing its title, and it was here that I had heard a song that has been
haunting me this year—to me, the most poignant song that I've heard in a long time. I think it's Neil Young singing a song that seems like it was
written by James Taylor, called "On this Harvest Moon." It was in this movie that I had found it, and for months and months I've been yearning to
hear it again.
"Come a little closer, dear,
"Hear what I have to say."
And in the midst of enjoying this movie, with David Schwimmer playing a young man who can't do anything right, but is absolutely authentic about it,
and Gwinneth Paltrow, who loves him through one mistake after another, and . . . . . all of a sudden, here comes this song, in the background music,
and I realized I had found it again.
"Because I'm still in love with you,
"I wanna see you dance again.
"Because I'm still in love with you.
"On this harvest moon."
And I was 'in Heaven," Folks. Everything in life seemed to be okay. Such was the artistic and sentimental beauty of those sounds, that I felt suddenly
like everything was okay with the human race.
And I came down to my keyboard, and I picked it out, with some difficulty, as the melody is very simple, yet is somehow very subtle, too. I put the
tune in my memory, so I can sing it, whenever I please.
Later, I looked up the movie's title, and was astonished to find that it was called "The Pallbearer" (1996). It's a romantic comedy, yet the title fits the
comic plot.
This morning, without even rolling out of bed, I turned on the television, and channel surfed for awhile, until my interest became captured by a movie
with Ellen Burstyn and an older Italian actor that I like, whose name I forgot, a movie about three older Jewish widows who loved their husbands
very much. And the Burstyn character is very afraid when she falls in love with this older Italian man that she meets. After a serious
misunderstanding, there is a point where he tells her, "I was afraid." And, a light comes over her face and she says, "I was afraid, too." Not only did I
feel the acting in this was superb, but I became convinced that the author of the book, or script, or editor was an enlightened man or, or more likely
woman. One of my wishes for many years has been that there be more enlightened scripts for movies out of Hollywood.
I don't know. I think perhaps through the arts, through music or through innovative films, or in a new kind of novels, the messages of authenticity,
humility, and love can best be conveyed to the masses of people—if mindfulness and its related arts are ever to reach greater numbers of people in this
world— and not through religion or even through little mindfulness classes like our own.
It makes me happy to see these examples of works of art that are so illuminating. With so much bad news around the world, so many bad signs—the
painful mistakes that world leaders are making, as well as those poor devils who sew hatred and violence on their own—it's been seeming to me that
art has been "dying out" in the human race. The music, the films, the books that have been developed in recent years—for the most part they haven't
been making it with me. And then I see a few examples, by serendipity, of works of art that are teaching the good that still lies within us, and I "take
heart in humanity" again.
Oh yeah, when I looked up the title of this morning's movie, it was "The Cemetery Club" (1993). It is about death, and living beyond death, both as
survivors and those who die. Despite the grimness of their titles, I recommend both of these movies to the class, for glimpses of what can lie on
through and beyond our self-imposed limits of conditioning. Maybe I'm just being sentimental lately. If so, good for me! I feel there is so much to live
for.
And here, with love for all of you, is that by-passed class that I hadn't gotten finished:
The intellectual expressions of the various metaphysical models are not sacrosanct. The model used in our classes is not sacrosanct.
Meaning no disrespect to others who see it differently, it seems to me that the metaphysical models are obviously and apparently somewhat different
when we examine the teaching of Buddhists, mystical Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and other great spiritual traditions, and in modern times, the
teachings of the various best known and most highly regarded teachers of our times have different models, too. Comparing Gurdjieff to Almaas, or
Nicoll to Tolle, or Tart to Kabat-Zinn, or Mitsuo Aoki to me, will not always yield perfect matches in all parts of the modern metaphysical models that
we have each laid out. But that doesn't matter. They all *work*.
And it doesn't mean they are in "disagreement," either. There is much of total reality (i.e. "the Totality," "the Absolute," etc.) to be broken down into
language for passing along teachings of this kind, including the awareness game training among them, as to the parts of it All that this training
addresses. And there can be many ways of breaking the totality of reality down into language. Different approaches may often have different
definitions of the same terms, as well as different perspectives on the way that the reality of life fits together and works. And it doesn't matter.
Words are only an approximation of reality, anyway. They can never quite get all the way there. And experiencing reality is our aim in playing the
awareness game . . . . . whatever the words are that may be used to describe it. Such "spiritual use of words" is employed only to stimulate students
and to coach students with hints that they may catch-on to, in order to discover direct contact with reality on their own, through their own natural
senses and direct experiences, and with their own words if they wish to express them.
So the various metaphysical models are just approximations of reality—"fingers pointing at the Moon." They are very highly useful to students of all
the various approaches, but they are not sacrosanct. They are just teaching tools.
In our model here, Essence does not ride in Personality. Essence and Personality are *different* in ways that I've already discussed. That's just for
the sake of making it easier for us to see in playing this game. Personality can be seen riding in personality stuff. And Essence can be seen riding in *
essence stuff*, which is different than personality stuff, in this approach.
Let's look for example at the Can-Do-Person/Dictator in the first positition on our wheel (and this analogizes with the other types around the wheel in
the same way).
The Can-Do-Person (i.e. Essence) can be recognized in sheer can-do ability in whatever task is being done (such as building a useful box out of wood).
The Dictator (i.e. Personality) is recognized in behavioral manipulations which control other people (such as making demands or "putting an imaginary
box" around other people.). We can recognize the can-do-ness in the person who is building the finest of boxes. And we can recognize the
manipulating in the person who is making demands and forcing others into the boxes that they conceive.
The two can be told apart, fairly easily. My model is designed that way to make it easy for an awareness game player to tell Personality and Essence
apart. This game's model is for use off the top of your head in the present, when you wake up and see if it is can-do-ness that is obviously happening,
or if it is manipulating (whether you or the other person in the room with you is doing whatever is being done.). You can see. As defined here, you
can tell the two states apart by the very nature of them.
If it is your own manipulation, you can step aside from it—that is, with practice you can learn to do that. And if you can keep your presence of mind
in the situation, you can express your authenticity in a non-manipulative form instead of manipulating.
Yes, that will take a certain amount of constancy on your part in practicing mindfully over the days and weeks, becoming able to make such a mindful
warrior move. Perhaps for some of you in this class—and this might be the most important thing I'm coaching today—the best preparation right now
for becoming able to achieve a move like this might simply be to practice waking up while you are in the presence of other people, and just being in
there awake in there behind those eyes and within your body, silently, without attempting to do anything else so far.
When it has become easy for you to do that, attempting *any* of the other moves of this game will be much easier for you to try out.
As the wheelbook points out, the make-up of the Can Do Person/Dictator has certain very fundamental characteristic strengths and qualities. Among
these are physical strength, manual dexterity, boldness, and bravery.
Qualities like these are said to be "inherently basic," in the awareness game. Any of us may have been born with these same characteristics to varying
degrees. We all have some of each of them. We all have enough manual dexterity to tie our shoes, for instance, but we may not have enough manual
dexterity to build a wooden box properly. Where these mentioned qualities of can-do-ness show up to the greatest degree is among people who have
the Can Do Person/Dictator in their basic profile. These are the ones among us who have the greatest strength, dexterity, boldness and bravery.
So, in our model, these particular qualities are found to be inherent in that type. That is, they are found to be inherent in the Essence of that type.
The awareness game says that we all have a certain amount of all eight ot the types of Essence that are described in the wheelbook, and so we all have
some of those particular four qualities. (It is in the usually three primary Personality types that we each have that we all differ so greatly from each
other. But we all are somewhat alike in all of the eight sets of traits of the Essence, to some degree at least. We all have to have some degree of can-
do-ness to live our daily lives.)
If we see a person manifesting the funny-stuff controlling behaviorisms of the Dictator (take Saddam Hussein as one prominent example of this that
everybody knows) we can see, obviously, that it takes having physical strength, manual dexterity, boldness, and bravery in the man for him to do the
Dictator personality things that we see him doing on our television screens during his life. If he didn't have these very traits, which come from
Essence, he just wouldn't be able to walk around and do what he does—like firing off that rifle from the podium in front of the crowd—when he's
coming from the excesses of Personality. (On our side we have Charlton Hestons and Dick Cheneys who can do that.)
So . . . . . . in that sense . . . . . we can see the qualities of the Essence of the man "carrying," so to speak, the personality manifestations that Saddam
does in the world (bringing back automatic knee-jerk reactions from others against him). In that sense we *can* see the Essence "carrying the
Personality." In this sense, the Essence and Personality of the man are obviously intermingled—being strong, and frightening people. In a way it is
quite true that his Personality is an embodiment of the qualities of his Essence, such as strength.
In the awareness game model, this is accounted for. Some of you will remember that I have spoken of Personality as the qualities of the Essence *when
they are taken too far*.
Personality is Essence when it is carried out to manipulative extremes.
This is how I differentiate between the Essence and the Personality . . . again, not because this view of it is sacrosanct, but just for the sake of making
it easy to tell the difference between the two in an awakened present moment.
If the behavior of the person goes beyond manifesting a high level of strength, dexterity, boldness, and bravery in his or her ability to do whatever is
being done, it may be going too far. The person may be using their strength to manipulate others, to bully them, and push them around. Not going
too far with one's strength (in the awareness game model) is Essence. Going too far with one's strength is Personality. And, going too far in
personality brings back painful retribution upon each of us. In this view, we are each our own punishment.
From my point of view, it's good to have "a model." A model, such as those which are found in various spiritual and metaphysical approaches, can
serve as a framework for putting a student's experiences into an organized form that makes it much easier to remember a collective knowing of the
teachings one has heard, as that compares to their own direct experiences. And any model can give useful hints, too, in recognizing new things that
you haven't seen so far.
But the model is not sacrosanct—or so I say. In our approach, I always coach you to go by your own experiences in preference to the model, anyway.
And I mean that. The model is just a teaching tool for helping you to put understandings together as you are learning along in a way that can be more
easily remembered.
Finally, in this regard, as far as the awareness game is concerned, the only model that you need to remember to play this game is quite a simple one. It
says that:
• You have grown up with some conditioned manipulative patterns of behavior that get in your way and make your life harder for you than it has to
be. These patterns of behavior make it harder for other people to get along with you, too, by rubbing them the wrong way and sometimes stinging
them, sometimes even bringing stinging reactions back against you that wound you.
• When you recognize what these conditioned manipulative patterns are in your own make-up, you can begin practicing stepping aside from doing
them. And when you recognize these conditioned patterns in others, you can simply know that's going on. And you can address the heart of the
other person, anyway, with whatever you care about the most—by speaking right on through their manipulative patterns on the outside, in
remembering to address them, without judging them, with candid, non-manipulative communication of your own experienced authenticity.
• And the object of this game is peace within each of you, and harmony for you both in your relating (or non-relating) with each other, and thereby
the greater potential power of your collaborative efforts in the actual use of your greatest strengths, qualities, and talents, whether acting together on
purpose, or on your own apart.
• Achieving the cessation of suffering is your own job . . . not that of the world around you.
A little bigger and more detailed model than that (such as found in many systems) can help in the growth of your understandings of human life over-
all. Yet none of these models is sacrosanct, in my view. Yet . . . for the play of the awareness game, that's all of the model that you really need.
Until next time,
Coach
Continue with Fall 2002 Classroom Talk or
Post a new discussion in the current Classroom Talk
Archived 02/04/2003