Warning:  What follows is a bit of a rant.  If that's not your vibe as of this now, move along. Have a great day!  ;)

First, for the non-rant.  Check out this cool article over at Thank God for Evolution, Reality: God's Secular Name.  Most excellent.  My favorite is the Philip K. Dick quote it opens with, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away."

Rant Begins

I have being seeing some version of the phrase, "Enlightenment (whatever that means)" with ever increasing frequency in the portions of the blogosphere, and the wider internet around which I stomp. Today I did a constrictive google search on the phrase and got 27,500 hits.  Shiva knows how many I would get with a few variations thrown in.

In a word, I hate that phrase.It offends me on several levels.  First, it is often used as a shield against debate, shared inquiry, questioning, or flat out BS calling.  It's a way to spout on with a facade of authority while remaining closed to (and defended against) differing opinions.  I see it as a very cowardly way to share an opinion.  (BTW - I have been guilty of using the phrase too, so don't go hunting to find a quote to throw in my face because you will succeed.  However, I saw the fence-sitting and wishy-washyness enough to stop using it.  When I start using it again tomorrow you can wag your finger and say, "Hah!"  Cool?)  Personally, I prefer, "I have no real idea what enlightenment is, but here's my take, FWIW." (Your mileage may vary.)

Second, what the hell kind of good essay writing/theorizing do these people think they are engaging in?  If you don't have a good working definition for a term, don't make it a corner stone of your point!  Please!

Whatever that means?  Well, I'll tell you.  Here are my personal working definitions.  They are what I use to wrestle with the concept, and they have been most fruitful for me.  Take 'em, or leave 'em.  It's all good.  If you don't like one of these (or if you do) I would love to hear your personal working definition in the comments.

1. "Enlightenment is the real knowledge that you are a robot and have been programmed, and that you can re-program yourself according to your own true will."  The great thing about this definition is that it is not exclusive.  It does not say that you cannot re-program your cultural and societal habitual behaviors (programming) without enlightenment.  It does not say that enlightenment is required to know that you are a robot (to whatever level you accept that label) and are subject to programming.  What it does say is that enlightenment changes knowing to "real knowing" or through-and-through final conviction and peace-making and acceptance of the situation. ("Balls to bones.")  It also does not say that once that real knowledge is in place that you suddenly become instantly re-habituated to perfect never flawed behaviors, just that you have a great opportunity (and leg-up) to get there.
2. "Enlightenment is the dissolving of the lie that you are this individual life."  With the dissolution of that lie comes a great freedom to act.  You no longer live your life driven at the core by worry and concern about living the right life, living the life you are living correctly, or ever-vigilant for the end of the life you are living.  You are not the life, and living from that makes everything much better, across the board.  It does not mean the dissolution of fear that a rabid dog is charging you, or that you may have hurt someone's feelings deeply by something you said/did/failed to do, or that you may have screwed up your financial situation by missing a credit card payment, or that you are going to be late to the play.  Those are all perfectly reasonable (and necessary) fears that arise within the life which you are experiencing, but which you fundamentally are not.  Nothing that happens within the life hurts, or helps you even if it hurts, or helps the life. (Which is precious, BTW.)
3. "Enlightenment is state in which anything said, or done, by a sage/saint/guru/master is as obviously so as your own breathing.  It all makes total, and common-place, sense."  That does not mean you become instantly capable of saying or doing such things.  It just means when you see, or hear them, you smile and nod with a soft inward, "Amen. Preach it, sister!"

Those are my current working definitions of what is fundamentally undefinable.  Just like any term it exists for convenience (and not confusion damn it!), and is subject to change and evolution over time just like any term or thing.  (Remember when "bad" did not possibly mean "good?")  Also, just like any word said ever, it's an opinion.  You can only ever speak about things, you cannot speak them into being so.  The word enlightenment is just a word, and only useful insofar as it allows for effective and useful discourse.  The state itself, just like the truth of a comfy cafe chair from which to issue forth blog rants, cannot be spoken into existence, it can only be spoken about.

Rant Ends

I freely claim, and assert the truth of all four of the above definitions within my own experience and life as being so and fully functional.

Cheers, and thanks for listening!

I eagerly await your commentary.

First for an oldy but a goody: All things are impermanent. That is their nature. Everything, everywhere, in all occasions, changes. The change may be slow, or it may be fast. It may be major, or it may be minor. It may be by choice, or by conditions. It may be wanted, or feared. But, no matter what we do, and no matter how hard we try to oppose it, everything changes. That includes us.

The analogy I have always loved for this is that of a river. The water ebbs, flows. It rises and falls. It rushes and saunters. Always it moves.

You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you. ~ Heraclitus

Sometimes, if you stand on the bottom rail of a bridge and lean over to watch the river slipping slowly away beneath you, you will suddenly know everything there is to be known. ~ Winnie the Pooh

He who postpones the hour of living is like the rustic who waits for the river to run out before he crosses. ~ Horace

Life is like that. We float along in it. It is constantly changing, all of life's parts. We are not free of that tide either. Everything about us in these lives, as these bodies, ebbs and flows. We struggle with this changing nature of what is. We want to hold onto the good parts, get rid of the bad parts and keep the things that are the way we want them that way.

We hold life against its own stream. The rivers keeps coming, buffeting us and the burden of hoped solidity we grip so tightly.

Instead we can hold our beliefs lightly. We can allow them to move a bit. We can delight as they are changed by the impact and alchemy of ever changing life. We can revel in their impermanence, sure that fundamentally we can never be bored with life's continuous, relentless unfolding. We can even be willing to let a belief go to float away downstream when it becomes inappropriate to hold onto, when its usefulness as been fulfilled.

This is not always an easy thing to do. But, it does have the luxury of being in agreement with the way things seem to be.

We all see what is happening around us and to us through filters.  Our conditioning, our reality-tunnels, our meaning grids.  Whatever you wand to call them, they are there.  Another word for these filters might be our maps of reality.  Bearing in mind that the maps are never the territory, they can nevertheless prove immensely valuable when dealing with the overwhelming amount of input that we constantly receive as parts of reality.  Looking at, working with, and editing these maps consciously, I would argue, is better than the alternatives; either having them occur by accidental trial & error, or (and this is by far the most common) having them handed to us by others and taking them on without questioning their validity.

One of the maps I am very fond of is the Integral Model put forth by Ken Wilber and the other researchers at the Integral Institute.  It makes a (very good) attempt to be a model/map of the territory of all that is while remaining simple enough to use easily.  One of the basic components are the four quadrants of reality.  The idea here is not to pigeon-hole any particular occasion into one of these quadrants, but rather to recognize that any occasion can be looked at from these four distinct areas.

The four areas are made by crossing two borders.  The first border is the one between the interior feeling content of an occasion and its exterior form or composition.  This can be visualized as a square with what it feels like to be a thing on the left, and what that thing is constructed of on the right.  The next border is is the one between being a single instance of the thing being examined, and multiple instances.  On our square the upper half represents the single, the lower represents the plural.

There is a further distinction which need only be held lightly for the moment, which makes the four quadrants of the square into eight sections of a cube.  Namely the front of the cube being the structure of the particular quadrant, and the rear of the cube being the raw material of that quadrant.  In the upper right quadrant of the examination of a human being, the back of the cube would be the raw energetic and material bits, the front would be the organization of that stuff into atoms, molecule, cells, tissues, organs and what not.

If we examine a person in this model we see several areas where examination of the self can prove advantageous. In the rear of the upper right quadrant we can make sure we are getting proper nutrition to build the structures of the front of that quadrant and make sure proper healing and recovery are taking place.  We can look at our place in society in the lower right quadrant and consider our job, and our social actions.  We can look to the lower left and see how we are contributing to, and benefiting from our relationships and culture.

Now, to the point of this post.  The upper left quadrant.  This area is, in a nutshell, what it feels like to be a self, and the thoughts we juggle and recycle as we make our way through reality.  The front of that quadrant is somewhat (if we are being honest and authentic in communicating our feelings and thoughts) open to examination by others by means of psychological modeling and behavioral mapping.  The rear part though, the raw feel of being, is all us.  Anything we communicate about this region obviously passes through the right side of our cube, since that is where external communication takes place.  The inside (rear-upper-left) of our being is also not open to plumbing by anyone else.  Here, in this most intimate of realms, we are on our own.

No one can access, or make changes to the inside of us as individuals.  No one else can find the truth there.  No one can explore this region but us.  It is for that reason that I say that the Buddha never enlightened anyone.  He had no way of pushing a magic button in this area that would make us "get it."  That's why his dieing words were an exhortation to us to work out our own salvation and to do so diligently.  Those sentiments appear again and again in all of the mystic and wisdom traditions of the world. If we want work done here, we have to do it.

Another implication is that, if we want to work on the totality of what we are, we need to not ignore any of the sections of our cube.  I don't mean an exhaustive exercising and improvement in all these areas is necessary, but an occasional looking in and watering of these different portions of the garden of our life seems to me to be a good idea.

Your life is a conditioned one.  All aspects of it.  Everything you see, hear, think and do is modified by and works through conditions.  Your birth itself is conditional.  Without the conditions of your parents having had intercourse, you would not be. The food you eat, the rest you get, the motorists not running you down, your life depends on a thousand and one conditions every day.  Without these conditions you cease.

Likewise your decisions, comportment, and way of passing through life are all conditioned.  Your beliefs, culture, habits, and physical composition all impose themselves on how you perceive, and how you interact with the world.

For my part, when I am able to watch myself closely I see that all of the reasons and justifications for the actions I take come after the fact in 99 cases out of 100. I may have truly brilliant reasons for something I said, or an action I took, but almost all of them, almost all the time, bubble to the surface and are realized after the fact. This is my natural state of affairs, it is the sum and substance of the life I live.

Such conditioning is inescapable.  Some spiritual paths make a call for living an unconditioned life, living spontaneously in the moment, choicelessly aware.  I say bollocks.  Such a moment is much more likely to be accidental than not, and even then any thing done has a backdrop of conditions, even if one of the conditions is to be influenced by as few conditions as possible!  It's a goose-chase, and in my not very humble opinion something of a waste of time.

Now, having said all that I will say that something can still be done.  Just because our actions may be, for a large (if not most) part non-spontaneous, and driven by conditioning does not mean there is nothing to be done.  Quite the contrary.  What can be done is to modify the conditioning. You can "re-program" yourself in certain ways to have the habitual conditioned response produce results more in keeping with whatever set of ethics, and morals you may claim to have. The methods for doing this are myriad, and I would suggest that doing it for yourself is a hell of a lot saner and safer than having someone else do it for you.

• Journaling
• Meditation
• Psychotherapy
• Voice Dialogue
• Socratic Inquiry
• The Sedona Method
• A 4th-Step Inventory
• Reflection
• Daily reviews of our actions
• Scenario driven role-play
• Chaos Magik
• etc, etc, etc

All of these can be used to uncover our habitual actions and the net of conditioning we carry with us.  Likewise, simple "Aha!" moments of, "Why the hell did I do that?" are pure gold for showing us bald-faced the programming of conditions we carry with us.

A simple exercise I picked up from Robert Anton Wilson easily reveals the depths of this conditional existence, as well as it's inherit-ness and necessity.  Take a seat, put a blank piece of paper before you, and raise up a pen. (Note paper and pen are crucial to avoid ease of self-editing and second guessing while jotting the list.) Now, write down 10 "programs" that run in your life that keep that life going.  Don't get fancy.  If you're experience is anything like mine when doing this list you will have some entries which are purely physical in nature.  They are the basic running rules of the human-animal body, the conditions without which life would not sustain.  To me that was an "Aha!" moment of realizing just how ubiquitous, and needed, conditioning is.

From a comment to Spiritual Experience vs. Realization (or What’s The Point, Anyway?), over at MommyMystic.com:

If part of what you are saying here is that the main plus of formal spiritual practice is that eventually you give up on it, and then are truly able to surrender, then I have to say, YES, it does seem to happen that way for some people.

It's the same with dieting.  We diet until we don't need to anymore.  This gets much more complicated when it comes into contact with reality, however.  A person is morbidly obese, they have a sudden flash that they need to do something about it.  They pick up a diet and start working it.  Often they persist in the diet until they get to a weight that seems to make them happy, and then they drop the diet and gain back some, or all, or even more of the weight.  The happiness fades and they pick up the same diet again, or turn away from it with a sense of betrayal and seek another diet.

The roller coaster continues.  The seeker of a thin body continues the search, does the work, drops the diet cause they are "done", gains back the weight and so on.  The long term damaging effects to the seeker's health that this pattern causes are well documented, and depressing.  Still the well documented fact often don't make much of an impression to the person caught in the yo-yo cycle since their immediate experience is one based on emotion, feelings of desperation, hope, depression, fear, isolation and dread.

Eventually, with a little bit of luck, or perhaps a momentary crack in the cycle brought about by some external circumstance, or internal clarity, a change takes place.  The seeker becomes more concerned with making a permanent change to their lifestyle rather than a quick fix. They look to trying to feel and be healthy rather than feeling and being thin.  At that point the word dreaded at many a weight loss support group rears it's maligned head: maintenance.

When stuck in the yo-yo pattern of the thin-body seeker, the word maintenance sounds like just more work.  It implies that the pain and discontent we feel while locked into an obese body will never end.  It dashes hope of some sunny hereafter where we can finally eat whatever we want, in whatever amounts, and never gain a pound.  Just like those lucky few metabolic freaks we know who we both despise and long to be.  (Substitute here the person who never seems to be terribly unhappy and inherently free of the existential angst which is the seed affliction of spiritual seeking.)

When we make the shift away from the yo-yo cycle, through whatever means, and turn from thin-body seeker to healthy body path walker (those names need a little work), maintenance becomes not a burden but instead an expression of all the lessons we have digested along the way.  We make healthier food choices, and move our bodies in enjoyable ways more often, because that is the person we have become.  Maintenace is no longer drudgery, it is instinctual.

We have changed.  Somewhere along the way, as we express our new way of being in the world, we come to the realization that we are the same as we were when we started.  We were always just ourselves.  We just showed up for life in a different manner.

I have long been a fan of Hunter S. Thompson (as you can see from the pic of me at Burning Man in 2006.)  Not his life, or even really his work, although I do enjoy his work a great deal.  I am a fan of his methodology.  Not his style, but the method he used to produce his style.  That methodology, of course, is Gonzo Journalism.  There is much dispute about the origins of the term Gonzo, what it actually means and what it does.  The term has been popularized, and used in different realms, to the point that the term is becoming ambiguous almost to the point of uselessness.

For the purposes of this article I want to be specific about the definition of Gonzo Journalism that I am using.

Gonzo Journalism is a style of journalism which is written subjectively, often including the reporter as part of the story via a first person narrative. The style tends to blend factual and fictional elements to emphasize an underlying message and engage the reader.

In the framework of Gonzo Journalism, the writer is an inherent part of the story being told.  The inescapable fact that the author of any story cannot be separated from the story is embraced rather than reduced. There is also a free hand taken with mixing fiction in with the facts of the story, blurring the line between them that is always hard to find, using metaphor, allegory, shock, and humor to draw attention to the point and moral (if any) of the story. I have always admired the simple honesty of this approach.  For my own part the world of journalism is not one I have been able to find a place in, but this methodology still rings true for me.

So, in an attempt to find a way to integrate the methodology into my own interests, I have come up with the following:

Gonzo Spirituality

In this approach the individual seeker on the spiritual path is brought to the forefront.  They are an active participant in their own realization, enlightenment, salvation.  In the spirit of Gonzo Journalism, the seeker can be brought to not only an equal footing with whatever path, or approach they are studying and practicing, but should become the center piece of the story.

(Warning: Several gross generalizations follow.  I assure you they are here only to stress a point.  Mostly.)

In the typical way that spiritual practice is handled, meaning the non-gonzo way, the "inner secrets", "special practices", "advanced understandings", and "true path" (ie - the real good shit) is held behind a flimsy curtain of authority.  It is believed that "beginners" and "lay people" and "John Q. Public" is just not up to handling the real stuff.  They can't cut the mustard.  They have to be sheltered and shepherded for their own good.  In the mean time they are good enough to provide tithes, donations, and life support to the structure of priests, gurus, gate keepers, "attained" ones, and any of the bureaucracy needed to run the church/ashram/commune/whatever.

Gonzo Spirituality (tm) says "Bollocks on that!"  Any spiritual path may have stages of practice and progress that build on each other.  That's really fine.  The Gonzo Spiritualist doesn't have an issue with that.  What the Gonzo Spiritual Seeker does have a problem is not knowing that.  Not knowing that the higher ups are holding onto some teachings to hit you with later, is a problem.  But, even worse is not understanding a reason for that holding back.  This is good old Modernism style skepticism at its actual finest.  There is a very valid reason why skepticism can be healthy and useful.  The Gonzo Seeker embraces skepticism and uses it in a skillful way to their own advantage.

One of the key points of Gonzo Spirituality is that not only is the seeker moved into a primary position and take at least some of the spotlight, but they also take the great sages that history has carried forward at their word.  That often comes in different methods, and phrases, but it boils down to something like, "You, the seeker, are trying to liberate you, the seeker, so obviously you, the seeker, must do the work.  You must liberate you, for yourself."

From that point follows the next.  It's your fault.  You are responsible.  Do not hand over your power to an authority figure, along with the responsibility for your life.  The Gonzo Seeker steps into the spotlight not only to take on all the benefits and accolades (although those rock), but they also accept the blame (at least their portion) for any fumbles and foibles.  Sorry folks, gotta take the bad along with the good.

There are, just as their are in any style of spiritual pursuit (or any pursuit for that matter), plenty of more key points that could be thrown into the gonzo bucket.  It's a creative way to be engaged and responsible for your own progress.  But, me throwing a bunch out there would make this more and more about my interpretation.  That's not very gonzo.  I would love to hear what other folks think about this topic, and invite as many comments as you can muster!

"We might think we can find a buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond this mind; we might think we can find serenity, clarity, and meaning beyond this mind, but such place does not exist. Everything that appears is this mind." ~ Bodhidharma

Please note that the above is, like anything said, just an opinion.  The heart of Gonzo Spirituality rabidly defends the right of anyone to pursue a path in a way which works for them.   That may, or may not, be the Gonzo way.  As long as it's working I would not dream of knocking it. Really.

Great article over at Marc and Angel Hack Life, How To Choose Happiness.  I don't personally ascribe to the view that happiness is a state of mind.  But, really my opinion is a matter of a different perspective and is not worth quibbling since from one point of view, and definition of the word "happiness" it is a state of mind.  Be that as it may, I'll tell you what really excites me about this article.

I have always been turned-on by the ideal of the Warrior for Peace.  It's a delicious paradox that does not need solving, but whose embrace leads to a rich outlook on life and a useful personal philosophy.  In my view, life is a constant battle.  Not a battle for survival of the body, although that does happen all to often, but rather a battle of ideologies.  Most of us truck through life struggling to put together a philosophy that at first makes our lives better, and as we evolve also makes life in general better.  As we soldier along we are servants to, and of, our prevailing philosophy, no matter how haphazardly those may be slapped together.  We champion that philosophy in all of our interactions, and the tools we use are the expressions and communications of our beliefs.  We use phrases and body language as weapons to wage these battles to keep our set of beliefs strong and alive.  For the most part we do this unconsciously and perfectly innocently.

To engage this in an active way is a much more useful way to wage this battle, and allows for us to truly consider what we are championing.  We can construct a philosophy of peace and mindfulness (as an example) and pick our words so as to advance that cause.  In the inevitable bumping against of our myriad philosophies and belief structures, we can choose an active rather than passive stance.  That, to me, is the Way of the Warrior of Peace.  It is how a soldier in the army of peace can fight the battle for more peace in this world.  Not as a method to dominate another's set of beliefs, but as a way to test our own and to spread the possibility of such an outlook.  Social engineering on the personal scale.

I got to the church where the satsang was to occur, far to early. My wife needed to be dropped off at the Caltrain station for the 6:15 train to meet a friend for a date. That did not leave enough time to head back home, so over the bridge I went. Parking was far to convenient, and I ended up arriving at 6:40. The satsang was not scheduled to start until 7:30.

So, cappuccino was the first order of business. I found a mini-mall/courtyard type situation with food options galore, and one source of the sacred bean infusion; a gelato stand. The cappuccino was dandy, and I sipped as I waited in line for a restroom to kill more time and to avoid any fidgeting in the immediate future.

I got back to the church with an empty bladder, and fine mid-range tension of "wired" at 7 on the dot. A few people where milling about, and slowly started wandering in.

As I joined the small group and shuffled my way in I realized there was a pit of nervousness in my gut, and it dawned on me why. It's like when you are hiking through a canyon and come across a cliff face that catches your eye and won't let go. You take in the vision of it and then, without thinking about it, you start to walk toward it. You simply have to touch it. You have to take in the reality with more than the senses you started the exchange with. You have to verify the truth. It was like that with John.

I've heard that communication is only 10% the words used. Another 15% is tone and cadence of the speech used. The rest, they say, is body language. I have a firm suspicion that at least some of the 75% believed to be body language is, in fact, the energetic presence of the person. I have worked with John for nearly two years. All of that work has been through reading of transcriptions, listening to audio and video recordings, and speaking with him over the Internet. What I have come to see that is in part a result of working with John is nothing but real. Still, just like the cliff side I needed to get a full picture of the man. I needed to see first hand that what John sees is real for him. That's a purely self-centered and subjective need, a need I fully admit I was brining to the situation, but there it was. I have been to see a handfull of teachers that I believe have authentic realizations about the truth of reality. Some of them have seem genuine. Some have not. That is also subjective opinion, but again, there it is.

All of that coalesced into my mind as I entered the small Unitarian church building. And, there was John. He was standing in the middle of the room, hands in pockets. He was smaller than I had imagined, and stooped with his age. His smile, shy and sweet, was in no way small.

We shuffled in and found our seats. I was amused by a drama of a group of five folks who had come together switch their seats four times, with much debate, until they finally settled into the pew in front of me. A short time later another woman came in and sat beside me. One of the spot-hoping crew in front recognized her from another spiritual group gathering and they started to chat. Turns out that of the group in front of me, two of the women had just come from an Adyashanti talk. They exchanged stories and recommendations, and the conversation had the feel of two old shoppers discussing where the best bargains in the mall were. They then began to speak about retreats and intensives they had gone on, "in their youth" with a wistful air of missing the "good old days." Spirituality, like anything else in life we do to change the particulars of life, lends itself to that kind of bargain shopping and pleasant experience mentality.

After a while I noted a petite woman making her way back and forth, adjusting the sound system. I thought, "That must be Carla." Carla is John's wife and the technical brains behind the operation. From what I have gathered, John is fairly hopeless with computers, and Carla took it upon herself to learn website design and maintenance, as well as VOIP conferencing, and audio recording and editing skills to support the spread of John's message. She too was smaller than I had imagined.

Once the church was moderately full, and 7:30 had arrived, John made his way to his director's chair. He began speaking in a manner I have become accustomed too, but this time it was different for me. This time I could take in the whole package. Whether the message comes across well to everyone, or not, I have absolutely no doubt that JOhn is the real deal. The fearless he radiates is palpable. The vichara has definitely done its work, and delivered its promise, in his case.

After he delivered his message, once again, and extolled the group to pursue the frightfully easily practice of the Vichara, he called for anyone who wanted to speak with him. My arm did not go up fast enough, and I was treated to John sitting patiently and conversing with a nervous, but very sincere, little man who claimed to have "washed out" of Buddhist meditation practice. John's treatment of this fragile little man was beautiful to watch, and the man left the encounter with a sincere taste of himself and a means to find it whenever he desired.

My arm shot up, but again too slow. This time the man who came up was in no way small. He was large both physically and energetically, and I recognized his voice from recordings of satsang on John's site I had previously listened to. His style of sp each was slow and wandering and he is nervous in front of crowds, so his share was filled with sidetracks and false starts. It turns out that he had been a member of a cult years before, and had been thrown out. That experience had scared him and was part of the story he spoke through with John. He also managed to get John "all riled up" which caused a long diatribe from John that was very helpful, not just to the man with him, but to the crowd as well.

Again my arm shot up, but John looked at his watch and sighed. He said, "We're kind of out of time. Will you be here tomorrow?"

I smiled back. "No, I can't be."

John smiled and looked over at Carla. "One more?"

Carla nodded but John seemed unconvinced. He does not like to put Carla through more work, and having another share probably meant that she would have to make two CDs of the session rather than one. But, Carla prompted him and finally John said, "Alright, one more."

I leapt up from my seat, and into the seat beside John. As is his custom he immediately asked my name.

I said, "Travis."

John smiled, "Hi, Travis. Oh! Travis!"

I heard Carla blurt out, "It's Travis!"

I was a bit taken back. I had told John, and Carla, that I was coming to see them this night since they were going to be so close to my home on a couple of the online satsangs. They had said that they were looking forward to meeting me in person, but I was not sure they were too happy about the idea since my discussion with John have not always been smooth. We had never had anything close to a fight online, but I had occasionally voiced differing opinions about some of the ways John spoke about what he has seen as a result of the vichara. I thought they would be pleasant, but that was about it. Boy was I wrong! John's face positively lit up. Carla later told me she cried a little when she realized it was me. It was like meeting family.

John and I spoke for a few moments. I kept it brief out of respect for Carla's efforts. I went back to my seat amongst smiles and an incredibly warm feeling.

John riffed on what we had discussed for a few moments, and then wrapped things up.

After Carla made her announcements, and people started to mill about, several folks came up to me.

"You're, Travis!" was the common phrase. These were folks who had attended some of the same online satsangs I had. I replied back with, "You're, Vivek!", "You're, Sarah!", "You're, Mike!" It was a meeting in the flesh of a community I already had in digital. Amidst the meeting of these new/old friends, Carla pushed through the crowd and pulled me from my seat into an amazingly strong and warm hug.

Vivek, and I, exchanged email addresses, and we are in the very early stages of planning a get together of all the folks in the Bay Area who share an interest in the vichara, and in John's way of communicating it.

All in all a fabulous and rewarding evening. And, a fine confirmation of what the vichara can do.

Self-inquiry is the practice of looking directly at the self, by the self.  It is an investigation of one's being, and what it means to be, done by oneself.  By this definition, it can be seen that no one can possibly do this for you.  Another important distinction to note is that self-inquiry is not an effort to gain something, or to change anything.  It is not concerned with adding to, or adjusting the self, but is simply a looking at what/who that self is as it is.

Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others. - Gautama Buddha

What a teacher of self-inquiry is not, is a giver of new knowledge, or an adjuster of old knowledge.  Bearing that in mind, my own practice of self-inquiry, and the growing number of discourses by people working with self-inquiry, I have so far found three distinct types of self-inquiry teachers.  Each individual teacher has aspects of all three, but most seem to focus primarily on one with bits of the other two poking in from time to time.

The Confessor

The Confessor has had some profound, and life altering experience of Self (capital S), or non-dual realization, or supreme bliss, or some such.  The experience has cut out the feet of worldly suffering and concern, and shown the TRUTH of reality to them.  They usually have only the vaguest idea how this happened.  Typically some version of the phrase, "by Grace", comes forward in their stories.  They serve primarily as proof of the possibility of resolving conclusively the question of what/who we are, and the snuffing out of suffering that seems to result.

Example of the Confessor tone:
Said the river to the seeker, "Does one really have to fret about enlightenment? No matter which way I turn, I'm homeward bound." - Anthony De Mello

The Coach

The Coach has had a profound, final insight into the nature of all that is.  They lack the roots of worldly suffering which seems to affect all of mankind.  (Sense a theme here?)  This occurred while (perhaps because?) they were actively pursuing a path of inquiry, or a path occurred to them as a result of their insight.  Either way they are left with a method, if not a goal, to point towards the experience.  By the nature of self-inquiry no one is able to hand out the results, but all can discuss how those results appear for them, and a Coach has some facility in helping to keep their "students" on target with the inquiry.  Unlike typical teachers they cannot hand out the answer, but they can herd one along the way to one's own realization.

Example of the Coach tone:
You don't have to understand that or develop a new narrative about who you are, what you are and what your relationship with life is. Simply bring your personal consciousness into direct contact with the you-ness of you, the I of you, the sense of being you, the sense of self that is always here. - John Sherman

The Carrier

This type of self-inquiry teacher may, or may not, have had a big opening experience or a life altering realization.  What they definitely have is a knowledge of the path, its tenants and some of the stories of realizations that other sages, realizers, and teachers of the path have had.  They carry forward the possibility and the methodology of the teaching.  The Carrier's role is not so much to assist others in their own realization, or to bear witness to what self-inquiry has resulted in for them, but rather to pass the flame of burning desire for self-inquiry on fanned by the recorded proof of those who have made the journey before.  They are also the historians and scholars of self-inquiry.

Examples of the Carrier tone would include lots of attributions of quotes, and statements referencing past teachers, saints, sages and gurus.

The first two types of teacher (the Confessor and the Coach) both tend to have a strong flavor of uniqueness about them.  You will often hear something like a term followed by the qualifier, "... as I use it." or preceded by the qualifier, "What I call..."  The third type (the Carrier) often does not have much of that self-distinguishing tone.

As I mentioned before, no single teacher is free of any of these three types (or styles) of teaching.  They all have all three.  They all also have a focus.  That focus can make what they are saying, and how they come across very unique.

I want to say that I sincerely believe that none of the above teaching types is better than the others.  Whatever works is good, and each teacher is inherently confined to using the style available to them.  Likewise each seeker is inherently bound to profiting from the method which most suits their particular disposition.  The only thing left to do is hope that the right seeker encounters the right teacher, and has the luck and determination to follow their personal path to its conclusion.

Of course, since what is being discussed is the self, it ultimately doesn't matter.  No matter whether you feel drawn to investigate the self actively, or not, obviously doesn't change the self which you already always are.

Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being shared. - Gautama Buddha

All of this is just how it appears to me, so take it for what it's worth.  (Which may not be much.)  For further excellent reading on the types of spiritual paths one can follow, check out Four Paths to Freedom - Which Is Your Root Path? over at Mommy Mystic.  Great stuff!

We are all capable of being different people in different times and places.  We take on roles to suit our current needs, and the needs of the situation.  The student.  The teacher.  The husband.  The gamer.  The cook.  The teacher.  The couch potato.  At anytime each of us can be any of these, and dozens more.  We can even be more than one at once, if needed.

Voice Dialogue is a type of psychoanalytic therapy pioneered by Hal & Sindra Stone that actively calls out these distinct roles and examines their world views with an aim toward integration and mental health.

Genpo Roshi adopted Voice Dialogue to Zen practice as the Big Mind process, with great results.  Some are even calling the Big Mind process the fourth turning of the Wheel of Dharma in Buddhism.

You can experience this yourself, immediately, by simply taking time to consciously check in with one of your roles.  One of Genpo Roshi's analogies is that we are each actually a company filled with employees and each has a particular job to perform.  You can imagine yourself as the Controller, or CEO, calling another employee into your office for a meeting.  Call in whomever you would like to, and have a check in.  If you do this out loud, or in writing, you might be surprised as each voice you use in the two sides of the conversation takes on a unique phraseology, personality, set of goals, and opinions.  Genpo Roshi suggests that most of us run this company in a very haphazard way with most of the employees not really being clear on what their job is, what their title is, and what duties they are to perform.  By talking to the voices with intentionality, and naming their roles specifically, they each (a part of you) get a better handle on what they are supposed to do.  Perhaps they even get a feeling of confidence and empowerment from having their actions acknowledged, directed and accepted.

Recent events in my life have expanded on this idea for me.

I was recently laid off from my job.  That has turned out to be a great thing, but at the time there was not a small amount of ruminating about what my life would become.  This real life event helped me to realize a big distinction between real life companies, and our internal companies of our distinct voices/roles.

In the real world you can cut back on the numbers of employees if the fiscal environment requires.  (This is what happened in my case.)  You can also fire an employee causing a negative impact on the operation of the company.

You internal company can do neither of those.  In the company of You, you are stuck with all of your employees, for better or worse.  No matter how dire the sparsity or resources, nor how harmful to the interests of the company an employee becomes, you simply cannot be rid of them.  They can't go anywhere.  You can certainly tell them they are fired, but at best they just skulk off to the basement, or some dark corner, and inevitably reappear at improper times.  Often these returns from the shadows will be surprising, scary, or explosive simply because you allowed yourself to believe they were gone.  It doesn't work.  You are stuck with your set of employees.  All of them.

In my pursuit of spirituality, discipline, and my hodgepodge of religion; my trying to be a better person, I have often "fired" an unwanted employee.  Greed.  Fear.  Anger.  Sloth.  Lust.  Jealousy.  No matter how many times I fired them, or how loudly and resolutely I yelled when doing so, the buggers always returned, and nearly always at the worst possible moments.

It doesn't work.

So, I am opting for a new policy.  I hear by declare an end to all firings, lay-offs, and suspensions in the company of Me.  Henceforth my employees, when they do their jobs at inappropriate times, and in unskilled ways, will not be let go.  Instead they will be named, acknowledged, and explained their proper realms of authority, and will be assigned to teams as needed.

Take Anger, for example.  My employee, Anger, is really good at his job.  Really, really, really good.  Top notch. No doubt.  I seriously don't think there is a better Anger anywhere else, and frankly I am lucky to have him.  A truly valued employee.  However, he does sometimes (often) jump to the job when he is not actually needed.  I recognize this now as an eagerness to do his job, and not a lack of skill.  In fact the failure is not his.  It's mine (the Master of the company).  He simply had not been explained his list of duties, and who he needs to check with before going into action, who gives him his assignments.  So, I spoke with Anger, and made sure he knew how much I enjoyed his work and how good he is at it.  I also explained that he was to check with at least one of a list of other employees before springing into action:  Fear, the Protector, Righteousness; Justice, Liberty, Fairness, the Controller, or me.  Whenever Anger feels like he should go into action, he is to check with one of those first, and if he gets an order to act from one of those he is to do so full bore, and with no reservation.  So far he seems to like the arrangement, and he is getting the hang of it.  There are still times we he gets over zealous, and acts without approval, but he's learning.  Doing a bang up job.

The same type of arrangement, differing only in particulars, can be made with any of the employees as needed.  And, each voice, no matter how refined or privileged is to always remember that, at the end of the day, they are all employees equal on the value scale.  None gets paid more than any other.

So, that's the new deal.  This company is moving forward, and it's taking every single one of its employees along.  No exceptions.