kitandkat.com

This factor of not needing to be right is indeed one of the major things that makes it work for us, but it’s still hard to dissect.  I can think of two factors; one is that you don’t do stupid or annoying things, so I don’t have to try and change your behavior.  The second is that you, in turn, don’t try to control me, which is wonderfully liberating, but also stops any need for me to defend myself by counter-attacking with the same accusations because you’ve pushed my hypocrisy button.

So does that mean we’re both perfect?  That seems unlikely to me.  More probable is that we have a higher tolerance level, or to put it another way, other people have a lower tolerance level.  So what’s that about?  Well, neither of us are locked into things having to be a certain way; for example, last time we were away, we slept on opposite sides of the bed from usual.  How do we do this?  It’s not as if we drift through life in a zombied state, having no preferences at all; we do, but either our preferences coincide, or else we’re not so attached to them, because there are other choices that would work, so it’s easy to find something that’s mutually acceptable.  In the event that one of us has a strong desire, the other is happy to go with that; there is, after all, a distinct pleasure in seeing the happiness of the other.

And there we have it.  We’ve never reached a point where the two of us have strong and opposing desires, and though I can dream up dark scenarios, I can also imagine ways past them.  The bottom line is that neither of us see any benefit in conflict; it’s a waste of energy, it leaves damage that can take a long time to heal, if ever, and it has to be resolved eventually by putting one’s soul on the line, so why not start there?

Digg this

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

Dear Kat,

There’s nothing to report – we just continue to get on magnificently.

WAIT!  That’s the weird thing – how does this happen?

Firstly I want to distinguish between disagreements and arguments.  The former is possible, the latter unimaginable.  Why would I want to persuade you to do something against your will?  It may improve my lot in some way, but the cost of your compliance must be deducted from the benefit.

Let’s say that I see my benefit as M and the cost to you as Y.  Then I should go ahead if M > Y.

But you may see the benefit to me as M2 and the cost to you as Y2, so I shouldn’t do it if M2 < Y2.

For this clash not to take place, either

• Our assessment of each others’ states must be accurate.
• If not accurate, our assessment of each others’ states must be generous.
• We believe the reporting of the other.

This may be overly intellectual and abstract, but the point I want to make is that we fully accept the reported reality of the other and do not discount it as less important than ours.  This requires two things: that we accept the other as fully equal to ourselves, not in skills and desires but in rights and consciousness, and that we trust the other to be truthful.

Oh, I see I riffed on this a couple of posts ago. Read the rest of this entry »

Digg this

My Dear Kat,

This morning we spoke of people who act like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  We have both had partners like this.  One moment, everything is fine, then POW!  Something sets them off, and someone unrecognized appears: maybe hysterical, maybe furious, maybe withdrawn.

There are several ways we react to this.  One is to defend against the attack, to fight back, to deny the accusations.  A second is to feel guilty, to feel the attack is justified in some way.  Maybe I should have called her back?  Maybe I shouldn’t have said that?  It’s easy to react this way because sometimes we do screw up, and in such cases, this is the only way out.  A third way is to try and fix it, to do whatever it takes, because she is your partner and she is in pain, and because you want normal service to resume as soon as possible.

It was with A., a very volatile partner, that I first noticed the rock.  When she got angry, I wouldn’t let my self get dragged in.  I would not let myself be affected by it.  Oh, there were times it went on so long that I reacted in anger at the whole mess, but in general, I could just let it wash over me, could wait it out.

– – – – – – –

I write about all this because we don’t do it.  Ever.  In its place is a constancy, one that we both remarked on after getting to know each other.  I love the consistency.  Of course there is variability: sometimes you are tired or ill or quiet, but I never feel that you have changed in how you see me.  This knowledge is so very peaceful and calming.  Thank you.

Kit

Digg this