kitandkat.com

You ask about the origins of empty-mindedness.  One was my experience of long, drawn-out arguments with shouting, crying, begging, with-holding, accusing, sulking, withdrawing, and attacking.  Words and acts from the past would be dragged in to make a case.  Threats and demands would be made to gain the advantage.  Finally, through exhaustion, we would reach a position where each of us would abandon the attack and just express our needs.  It felt like a summer squall had blown in and passed over, leaving flooded paths, downed branches and litter all over.  At that point we were able to hear the other person and accept their needs as real.

After a long time, I saw that the argument was merely the precursor to this place of communication and potential resolution.  I never liked arguments, and these days, I choose to go directly to that post-squall place of self-expression without attack, where I can clearly distinguish between what I want to happen and what other people should do.

A second contribution to empty-mindedness has been a decade or more of sitting.  I won’t give instruction here, but through repeated practice, the ability to separate thoughts and actions, still the mind, be present and distinguish between thoughts and direct experience makes access to a center point of stillness easier and easier.

Lastly, I have done a number of Enlightenment Intensives, 3-day events which excel in removing the fog of language and revealing the truth underneath.

Digg this

One of the remarkable things about you is how much I am drawn to being present when I am with you.  I attribute that to your total acceptance: you offer a place for me to be myself — more than that, you encourage and rejoice in it.  This is so rare a quality in this world that I joyfully respond to it.

I am present when I respond and react to what is actually happening, rather than using what the past has taught me, or reacting in order to bring about some future outcome.  I don’t claim to be anywhere near perfection in this; presence is a matter of the degree to which we are focused on the events in front of us.  Neither do I claim that being present is always the most desirable state.  Sometimes the future needs attention, too, so we try to control the world in order to make our imagined future come to pass.  There are times when that is appropriate, but often it’s like always ordering the next meal while you’re eating the current one.

Being present is an important part of non-interference.  By being present, the world just is, so I can let you be who you are, which in turn gives you the opportunity to be present.  It’s a virtuous circle, and having experienced it, why would either of us ever want it to be any other way?  That is why I was so sure early on, even though I could not articulate the reason, that not only hadn’t we argued, but that we probably never would.

There is another aspect of being present that we have both remarked on, which is the experience of newness that it brings.  Nothing is ever the same, and it is very mysterious and counter-intuitive.  You would think that settling in for a movie or walking around the park would become drab through familiarity.  They don’t.  I surmise that they are intrinsically different – there is no Groundhog Day.  The walk I am taking on Thursday is never confused with the walk I took on Tuesday.

Another way to put this is that we are not constrained by our past, which gives us an extraordinary sense of potential, change and growth.  By being open to what is present, we are open to change.  It is not suppressed in favor of what has been, nor rejected in fear of what might happen.  The result is a sense that we always have more to do and more to explore.

P.S. In writing this, I really enjoyed some of our earlier posts on the subject:

• Union…Principles…Guidelines on 3/19
• The Path to Peace on 1/21
• Why do Things Always Change? on 6/11
• Being Present In The Moment is Celebrating It All! on 6/12
• Presence and Union on 6/15
• Spontaneity and No Rules on 7/14

Digg this

My Dear Kat,

We don’t argue.  Realisation of that was the genesis of our exploration of our relationship.  We’ve said “Oh, we don’t argue because we don’t want to”, and that is part of it, but in addition to that, we are able to come to a mutually agreeable decision every time.

Now that is no doubt made simpler by our having similar opinions on tidiness, money, work, politics and more (though anyone who picks a seriously mismatched partner is either inexperienced, masochistic, or working through issues), but it’s not that we always make the same choices initially.  Instead, we each put out our position and then start looking for something that works for both of us.  We don’t defend our position, and we’re not overly attached to it; instead, we want to find something that works for both of us because we recognise that the other has equal rights to their needs, that their desires have equal validity, reality, importance.

It’s not that we’re equal in our desires, but that we see the other as having as much right to their position as ourselves, and that we are affected by the happiness (or otherwise) of the other.

Another thing is (to steal your term) the celebration of difference – that the other introduces a variety into life that would not otherwise be there, and we welcome change rather than fearing it.  Doing so is easier because of our mutual benevolence – that we don’t want to take any course of action that will harm the other, so in the light of that, it is easy to trust the choices and suggestions of the other.

Digg this

Dear Kat,

We both awoke this morning from a especially restful sleep, and gave thanks to each other for the joy of each others’ company, then had the following conversation, which I want to capture before it escapes me.

Me: How come this happens?
You: Because we’re open to the present.
Me: So we are not yearning for how it formerly was, or wishing for some future state.  But if that is the correct approach, suppose you’re with an unsuitable partner – complaining, abusive, whatever – doesn’t accepting the present remove all motivation to change?  Isn’t the future ideal a great motivator?
You: But by being fully present, you see the behavior for what it is, and have the choice to change the situation.

Digg this

In yesterday’s post I puzzled over the prerequisites for our level of agreement.  On reflection, I think it needs a full belief in the golden rule, “Treat others as you wish to be treated”, which describes an equivalence between me and you, that we are both equally important.

To act based on this, you have to put yourself in their place for a moment.  A more succinct term for this is empathy, a skill that develops over the years (though it may stall or fall back in some).  Furthermore, it seems likely to me that to increase in empathy is to approach nearer to God, spirit, union or whatever term works for you.

Digg this

Dear Kat,

I have been mystified how we reach agreement on things.  For instance, I wrote here “We come to agreement on what we do together without apparent effort or decision-making” and here “This happens so regularly that it is a statistical impossibility that we should always want the same things.”

The other night you answered this so eloquently; let me see if I can summarise it.

It’s a result of being open and present.  You have an idea of what to do.  I suggest something else that is not in your mind.  Because you are open and undefended you are not stuck on your idea being the best.  More than that, you welcome the variety and difference that another person brings to the table.  Maybe it’s not to your liking, but that’s OK, too, because I am not bound to my suggestion.  And so it goes, and we rapidly reach a conclusion that works for both of us.  This whole process takes place so easily and fluidly that I think we must sometimes not see it happening, only experience the results.

It’s aided by several things.  That we like many of the same things broadens the area for agreement, but more than that is being open to newness and change, and not being attached to specific outcomes.  Lastly, we have no desire to triumph over the other, and want what is best for both of us.  This all takes a certain level of self-knowledge and non-attachment.  Do we make this a prerequisite?  Try to teach it?  Assume it is present?

Digg this

My dear Kat,

I want to make two points about the 100% factor — the principle of allowing each other total freedom, and how liberating that is.

The first is that I suspect people mishear it as 100% commitment.  Yes, that’s important too, but you can be 100% committed and a terrible nag.  We are talking about something very different.

Secondly, we’re not saying people should tolerate anything and everything, acting like a doormat and letting their partner walk all over them.  Instead, it is only possible in a partnership that has core agreements in place.  I think they vary from couple to couple, but examples would be trust, honesty, monogamy and fiscal responsibility.  When these are in place, nothing else is necessary.  You can give your partner the space to do and be whatever they please.

Peculiarly, these agreements were never made explicit between us until we sat down to write our wedding vows.  That must have been because our beliefs were communicated through our actions.

Digg this

My Dear Kat,

I live in constant wonder at the ease and comfort between us.  How is this so easy when other relationships were not?  I think those other people would say (assuming they could peer deep into my thoughts) that my commitment to you makes all the difference.  Certainly, that is a source of wonder and joy to me, but I don’t think that is the answer; there was no “Aha” moment when I decided to commit.  Instead, I look to you for being so peaceful, so accepting, so joyous, so sexual, so positive.

In deep appreciation,
Kit

Digg this

My Dear Kat,

I think we are on to something important in this discussion of allowing something to happen.  By insisting on a particular movie or director or genre rather than a preference, certain possibilities are ruled out, but by being open to alternatives, anything is possible.  This is a subtle point.  It’s different from suppressing one’s desires, different from taking a position of not caring, and different from freezing into inaction.  It’s about being open to other possibilities, of not being locked into a mindset of how things have to be.

We had a discussion about sex this morning that picked up this idea.

Sex seems to get better and better; again and again we have a never-before experience of union, and yet next time we discover something fresh and new.  This feels very mysterious, and contrary to the way things work in the world.  You pointed out that we act similarly to how we behave outside; we don’t have rules about what must be or expectations about what should or will happen, and this allows a spontaneous flow into states that we cannot imagine beforehand.

One way we came to this was when a medical condition precluded intercourse for some time.  This required us to be sexual in other ways, and showed us that sexual excitement and orgasm is not limited to particular body parts, but can occur anywhere and in many ways; it is a state of arousal that we achieve together, a state in which any or all of the body can partake.  Of course it is facilitated by and strongly connected to genitals, hormones, history and erotica, but it is as if they are only a gateway to bonding, that experience of being part of something over and above our individual selves.

Digg this

My Dear Kat,

The secret of a peaceful relationship is choosing to be in a peaceful relationship. This is how we are, and I am so grateful for it. We’ve talked much about this, and how it happens.  This is an attempt to pull it all together, or at least provide a starting framework.

No attacking
Each of these bullet points could be (and often has been!)  a complete post; I just wanted to get them all together in one place.

• not attacking the other person
• not blaming the other person
• having no expectations
• making no demands
• not expecting the other person to be or do anything in particular
• celebrating the other person’s differences rather than criticising them

No defending

• not taking the other person’s words as an attack
• not reacting defensively to the other person’s words or state

Speaking the truth

• You have to say what is going on when it reaches your consciousness. Obviously some timing is involved; halfway through the board meeting isn’t an appropriate occasion, but concealment doesn’t work for two reasons: it inhibits you from speaking, and the other picks up on it. As an example, your intuition during the weeks before I proposed.
• Another way to say this is “No secrets”. Many people think that white lies are acceptable, even within a relationship. I am very doubtful that they can exist and have no effect.

Listening with full attention
Even when the truth is being spoken, it has to be heard. There is a technique called active listening that involves paraphrasing the speaker’s words or emotions. I don’t do anything quite so formal, but instead, listen with full attention and treat it as a monologue. If I treat it as a dialogue, I lose attention as I compose a response. This is a distinct and conscious act, and (I think) the same experience as being present.

Trusting the other
For all of this to take place, you have to believe in the essential goodness of the other; you have to trust that there is no monster lurking in there ready to spring out. But if you believe that the majority of people are basically kind-hearted and well-intentioned, then this is your de facto position.  (This gets into my political belief that conservatives believe that evil lives in the heart of man, and liberals believe in the intrinsic goodness of people. So how do conservatives ever have a relationship? Maybe they divide the world into trusted and non-trusted.)

Digg this