2 Comments
Mar 19·edited Mar 19Liked by Guy Duperreault

I'm treating myself to second coffee, to calm the Chihuahua attention span, and give myself the luxury of reading this article with full attention and comments in-the-moment.

The synchronicities! You already saw my piece mentioning Douglas Jack with the longhouse as the fractal of society, the part that contains the whole. And somewhere in a comment thread, we were talking about hieroglyphs and I asked about the other hiero words like hierarchy and hierophant, and I had a tab open on the hiero gamos, which was new to me, but forgot where it had come from. Eureka!

This is beautiful: "Or, if some kind of unworded and unlimited synchronicity-giving life-force energy does exist outside of the word ..." Kathleen will love this too.

Hah! I'm glad you amended that I was offended to perverse delight, which is much more in character. But my opinion that Michael Stone is an egotistical asshole in no way says that about you. In fact, the opposite! As I've said before, I think you're much too harsh on yourself. You look at times when you addressed a physical problem or belittling relationship or limiting life circumstance, and think you showed hubris in believing you'd solved it. But all I see is humility in the face of some very serious obstacles. You let Stone interpret your experience with his words--that include Oneness being a psychotic way to frame reality--rather than your own. I prefer your words rather than his frame. But yes, I did find his list of things that 'Oneness' would solve pretty funny.

I know you've read the comments on my thread about words as spells that bind us. Nef has an interesting analogy to the bicameral mind: "That which Governs (holds definition) in front has a Ruler (living meaning) in secret. Language is reflecting a bridge between hard analytical and intuitive Mind. To fully Re-Member Mind is to Mend the two together."

If the Ruler behind is nefarious and has twisted the living meaning then it seems like definition of that which Governs is the way to get it back. It isn't your definition of spiritual bypassing that I disagreed with. I disagree with the concept. Your definition gave me a way to show why and that it wasn't a dismissal of you but a challenge of a way you were ridiculing yourself.

In light of that, what I mean by the term 'ego' is superiority, not body consciousness. To believe in my superiority, I have to believe first that I'm separate from you. Likewise, a desire to see myself as superior precludes the possibility of Oneness. I don't think 'a belief in Oneness' is a worthwhile goal, it's as vapid as Stone describes. As my Course meditation said yesterday, "Only illusions require belief." So my job, as I see it, is to remove the obstacles to recognizing Oneness, if that is Reality, by weeding out my desire for superiority. I wouldn't call that 'killing the ego.'

I looked up the etymology of castigate, as how you twice describe my critique of Stone's superiority. It comes from 'caste' as an unmixed race that's pure, and the cutting off of what makes it impure. So to 'castigate' is done from a belief in superiority. It's interesting that you describe me as critiquing you for having the 'cajones' to define spiritual bypassing. Castigate and castrate seem very similar. And interesting also that Ganesh is a powerful feeling of masculinity and your gout is personified as a bossy, trashy woman. Hmmm...

No word better conveys superiority than 'master' and the one in the archery example is belittling and scolding of the four-year student, who he shames when he succeeds 'for his own good.' Many other stories have Zen masters hitting and even mutilating their students 'for their own good.' I just don't get it.

If you put the Master in a tight red dress with big hair, and had her speak the same way to the student, would you hear it differently? Would it be devouring rather than 'for his own good'?

What I suggest is that people define what words mean to them (and I took no offense that you were defining it for everyone, I don't think it's a useful term, myself). And then, the other person can translate into another term if that's not their definition. If I were to take spiritual-bypassing and New Age in your context, the word I'd substitute is superstition. They're both superstitions that if certain rituals--physical or mental--are performed, it will make good things happen or prevent bad. The proof that the mental construct is right is in what happens in the body or the world.

I think what you're describing with Ganesh is a different form of superstition, and I hesitate to say that because it's working for you! If you withdraw your belief in it, will the gout come back? I'd like to think no. But I don't know.

Thanks again for letting me into your very humble self-analysis. And don't think I missed the 'big hair in a cubic house' ;-)

Expand full comment
author

thank you, tereza. lots here again.

and so the synchronicities continue! and in such unexpected ways, of course. so glad that 'hierosgamos' came to you with synchronistic timing.

and it seems we are running a bit parallel in our understanding, since i don't see myself as being harsh to my self. i will investigate that and see if i'm mistakenly being masochistic. (I really don't think so! i'll see with some shadow work and the i ching, too, i suspect.)

loved that you took the time to look up and share the etymology of 'castigate'. so intuitively interesting that i would use that word. it goes back to something i learned from jung in his dream work — he would rely on the etymology of the words, names and language used the dreams to dig into the meaning.

and i will suggest that you are very judgmental of teachers, even or perhaps especially so, the tough ones. when i re-read that exchange again, i don't see the disparity you are citing. the teacher 'master' has had an experience that will assist the student. as a teacher, myself, across many disciplines, my teaching practice was comprised of two things: learning from the student by listening to what they are looking to learn from me, even when teaching engineering and engineering drawing; and having the language that creates from within them the awareness as opposed to me pouring my stuff into them. and that zen master didn't shame the student — the student felt shame for having mistrusted the master. and the master felt his trust had been betrayed by the student. your portrayal of the exchange is ... dismissive and judgmental, actually, of the master and the student both.

and i did smile and laugh with your image of the master in a red dress and big hair. and no, it would make no difference to me, i'm sure. i am open to being deluded about this although form personal experience i don't think i am. i worked with some women who came close to the image you provided and they were amongst the smartest and wisest people i've worked with. and there was only one who was a total devouring vampire — to men as siren and to women as ogre. and many in between. and i've worked with women with humble dress who were the same. funny, as i was thinking about this image, i went back through my times and it seems to me i don't judge books by their covers nor people by their coverings. hmmmm.

more shadow work to investigate. and to consider why my gout presented in the way she did. as i write this i realise that the dress of alicia had nothing to do with being silly or stupid or even vain because i knew in the experience that alicia was very smart and intelligent. she was there at my behest. it was something else. more to think about: i had the energy feeling of the universal masculine energy and perhaps the exaggeration of the female energy in the body was a kind of balancing? interesting thought. and the whole dynamic of 'anima' too likely plays a part of that. (lol! did pfeiffer's character play a part, the person struggling with self worth looking to build a new life? hmmmm. by 2017 i'd spent 20+ years doing anima building work to heal the damage i'd done there, close the rift i'd created.)

"You let Stone interpret your experience with his words". really? i will hesitantly say that i didn't and that i haven't. and will take your bold assertion of my experience and investigate how well your observation captures me. captured me? my intuition is that that missed the mark. i'll check it out.

and it is fascinating how you have taken my experience with ganesha as superstition! that has me laughing, because i assure you it wasn't. of course, no amount of that will convince you otherwise. the experience was a bodily experiential one and not a superstitious one. have i put words to the experience? yes, how else can i articulate it?! lol. so, i don't have a belief or disbelief for that matter in ganesha. i experienced an aspect of the wordless energy that is the universe as it made itself manifest at that time within my experience of life sitting in a hall with 1100 people. no belief was involved and so i have no worry about the gout returning or not returning. an exact analogy was when i did the sudarshan kriya breath and my body changed into vegetarian. it wasn't belief or an idea or a thought. it was an experience of the body, the body as soul in life and has nothing to do with belief. (that is the muscle testing process when done with integrity and not condescendingly.) if / when alicia returns i will say 'i see you' and go from there. you have, in a way it seems to me, mistaken the actual target with the apparent target. another way to consider that is the energy of the universe that is making itself manifest as tereza is distinct from the energy that is guy. and so we can see, here, read, feel, talk, those differences that are real and yet are resting, like those unwined wine corks bobbing on an ocean the size of an unlimited universe. and so, ganesha or not ganesha is a part of that. i'm a little surprised you saw this this way with your steady assertion of a basic oneness, something i've not contradicted, i don't think.

and so it continues. likely there is much more i could write. now to get ready to leave the cafe and to sit with a koan meditation led by a master, one who i know is equal to me, open to mistakes, and also for whom i am open to the possibility of learning from because we are equals with disequilibriums of experience that are the gifts that allow for mutual growth.

thank you for a thoughtful and though provoking reply. all the best.

Expand full comment