心靈的結構和內容
心
的結構和內容 由於我們與他人交往的失敗，我們積累了隱瞞。我們隱瞞的是我們真正的想法或感受，但我們沒有說，認為我們應該說，根據我們自己的內在標準。對於我們感到難過並真正想坦白的事情尤其如此。但是有太多的禁令，所以我們不說那些話，它們就變成了我們內心的小塊，被阻止了。
思想是由這些扣留組成的;一團混亂、誤解和錯誤的結論，以及對我們實際想法和實際真實內容的大量困惑。這種混亂的結果是更多的困難和失敗，因為我們不斷嘗試聯繫是基於越來越多的不確定性和未說的事情。不表達這些東西會讓我們越來越不真實，我們越來越戲劇化。心靈清除可以有一個副標題：你到底想說什麼？因為這就是它主要歸結為的內容。
如果我們能問出這個問題，而我們面前的人真的把他們一直隱瞞的東西都說了出來，就不需要進一步的方法和技巧了。但大多數人不會用這種方法走得太遠，因為他們太困惑和苦惱，不知道從哪裡開始。要理解前進的道路，不僅要瞭解心是如何產生的，而且要瞭解它是如何結構的以及其中有什麼。我們需要以組合的方式將其拆開，為此，我們需要清楚地看到這種結構。
心靈
的二元結構 為什麼這個世界是這個樣子？為什麼會有二元性？為什麼有兩個？為什麼世界是相對的？...[這個]答案
顯示在[我們試圖相互交流]中。如果您已經完全知道其他，則不需要溝通;如果那個人完全認識你...但事實是你沒有。你沒有被完全理解，你沒有完全的經驗，你沒有被完全欣賞和完全被愛，儘管潛力在那裡，這是我們正在努力追求的。結果，你和另一個人之間有一些分離。這就是宇宙的基本二元性。
1 現實不是分裂的，但思想是分裂的。當頭腦產生時，我們就進入了一個二元論的世界。心靈只存在，並通過對立面創造意義。心靈的結構是二元論的。
統一有時被認為優於二元性，因為東方傳統特別提倡將非二元狀態作為我們的最終目標。這也可以用基督教的術語來談論;我們可以說在從伊甸園墮落後與上帝團聚。救恩是當我們允許統一的現實（在基督教的情況下，上帝）回到我們的意識中。它比我們所處的狀態更受歡迎，被困在一個這個或那個的世界里，向上或向下，黑色或白色，沒有確定性。但與許多事情一樣，實現它實際上比我們希望的更棘手。
統一和二元論並不是真正的對立面。它們是不同的存在類別。就像思想和個人一樣，他們不可能真正成為共同的。彼此比較，因為它們實際上並不對立。只有當我們處於二元狀態時，我們才會認為它們是對立的。偏愛一個而不是另一個是誤解情況。如果沒有首先的二元性，就無法有意識地實現統一。要有意識地達到，必須有另一個人或觀點，從中可以看到它並朝著這個角度努力。但這些時間和空間的隱喻在這裡也行不通，因為困難在於我們的感知。有了頭腦，我們以錯誤的角度看待事物。但我們實際上並沒有在錯誤的地方。個體已經是一個統一，但它需要頭腦，以便開始有意識地認識自己是這個統一的過程。這是問題核心的
動態悖論。
在某種程度上，開悟優於二元狀態，因為在覺悟的狀態中，現實被清楚地看到，這就是結束我們痛苦的原因。但是，如果不首先處於二元狀態，就無法實現這一目標。區別在於感知，所以儘管我們經常談論通往覺悟的道路或旅程，但實際上無處可去，也沒有什麼可達到的。
頭腦是二元性的狀態。我們認為這是現實，因為要有意義和敘事，就必須有相對性和對立性。沒有什麼是有意義的。任何事物都只有與其他事物或存在有關才有意義。阿拉伯數位 帕坦伽利說：
瑜伽士的行為超越了黑白的對立面（產生享受和產生痛苦），而其他人的行為是三重的（產生享受，產生痛苦，或兩者兼而有之）。
3
如果我們要處理心靈的核心，我們必須處理它的二元子結構。自我發展或瑜伽的任務是「重寫我們生活的敘事」。。四 這不是要尋找一個新故事，而是將敘事帶回它的起點，讓我們走上一條完全不同的道路。
衝突的本質 二元性是一種本質上是衝突
的心理狀態。沒有什麼是真正與其他任何東西衝突的，它只是它自己。所以二元性是一種幻覺。但是有一個真正的二元性，那就是一個人和另一個人的二元性。與心靈的虛假二元性不同，在真正的二元性中沒有內在的衝突;它只是個人之間的關係。
莎拉：當我參加最後一次啟蒙強化課程（EI）時，我正處於婚姻的某個時刻，認為它可能已經結束了。我做EI的部分原因是為了找到一些清晰度，並在必要時鼓起勇氣結束它。幾年來一直不順利。這沒什麼特別的;有很多小事。當人們問我詹姆斯怎麼樣時，我會覺得自己在低迷，我意識到我開始認為我們的婚姻
是一個問題。在EI上，它確實出現了一點，但不是那麼多。但是在第三天，我對我是誰有了這種美妙的體驗。我意識到我就是“我”。是我在做EI，我有想法。它美麗而明顯。我只是我。那天晚些時候，當我吃晚飯時，詹姆斯出現在我的腦海中，我突然發現我D一直把他看成一個大問題，以至於問題已經掩蓋了其他一切。但實際上他只是一個人，我們所擁有的只是一種關係。沒問題，關係。它讓一切都重新變得清晰起來，雖然事情並沒有立即得到解決，但最重要的是詹姆斯對我來說又是一個人。我可以和他說話，和他在一起，享受他的陪伴，或者不，因為只有他和我，而不是這個問題。
衝突只存在於自己內部。它通過試圖理解對方，同時推開對方來實現。所以我們想要接觸，但我們覺得有必要讓我們想要接觸的人保持安全距離。我們將這種內在衝突投射到他人和世界身上。衝突當然表現在事件和物質現實中，人們同意他們處於衝突之中;世界充斥著衝突。但所有這一切最終又回到了我們投射到世界上的內心衝突。
帕坦伽利建議，當人們表達反對意見並主張對他人造成傷害的行動時，他們實際上是在對過去的創傷做出反應。5 這也是許多心理治療的基礎，難怪有些人認為帕坦伽利是第一個記錄的心理治療模式。他接著說，當我們與反對我們的人做出反應和爭論時，這也是對我們自己過去經歷的反應。認真對待這種反對，只要我們相信衝突，就是誤解局勢的現實。
。瑜伽士對這些論點應該有的正確態度是慈悲，因為沒有穿透知識，這種來自我們心理深處的業力泡泡（也就是過去性情的果實）是永無止境的。
6
除非我們認識到衝突的真正位置，並從根源上處理它，否則我們改變事物的嘗試可能會滋生更多的衝突，我們的痛苦將繼續下去，以及我們對他人造成的傷害。
%20-%20Micro.png){kind=spacer}
從外部到核心
的思想層次
圖4.1 思維的層次7
頭腦似乎是一個壓倒性的混亂。但它實際上有一個可以映射的結構（圖4.1）。該地圖對於了解我們所處的位置很有用，並有助於我們衡量進度。如果我們想説明他人處理他們的思想，那麼
在這個地圖中看到他們從
哪裡開始也很重要，這樣工作就可以在適當的水準上完成。
在大多數情況下，只有當一個人從心靈的外層開始，那裡的固定性較少，並通過這些層次向下工作時，才會有令人滿意的進步。他們可能最終能夠工作到能夠在內核上工作的地步。試圖首先在更深層次上工作，認為處理核心問題將迅速而經濟地解決一個人的案件，這是很誘人的。這在理論上可能很誘人，但在實踐中它不起作用。
心靈的核心被深深地埋藏著，而且大多是無意識的。有可能在智力層面上理解它所建立的原則，但這不同於在經驗層面上理解它。這是我們必須努力實現的經驗或具體理解水準。這是因為心靈的問題，雖然聽起來像是一個純粹的認知問題，但卻是完全真實和發自內心的。
8 如果你與某人在比他們的經驗理解更深的層次上工作，這一點可以一次又一次地證明。即使他們有很好的智力理解並要求在那個深度工作。除非他們在外層工作取得了一些成功，否則他們只會被自己潛意識的大量阻擋，感覺自己處於無法穿透的迷霧中。另一個相關的原因是，他們需要善於在較小的東西上穿行，然後才能希望處理更深層中更深、更堅硬的材料。實際上進展甚微，他們會氣餒。這並不意味著進展必須是緩慢的，但必須是有條不紊的。
頭腦是由抗拒的經驗組成的。我們沒有抗拒的經歷最終並沒有成為心靈的碎片，而是成為沒有問題的過去的一部分。9 此外，當有一段被抵制的經驗需要儲存時，頭腦不會讓它自由浮動，而是試圖理解它，因為作為某種東西被抵制，它似乎對人格的完整性構成了威脅。10
心靈是一個控制和意義的系統;它的運作是為了試圖理解生活。當我們忘記了我們到底是誰時，我們渴望穩定和意義，並在頭腦中尋找它，這
似乎是唯一的地方。但是，由於它只是隨機地處理沒有內在意義的零碎內容，因此它永遠不會為我們提供令人滿意的描述。但即使知道這一點也不能阻止它和我們。因此，我們主要在潛意識層面上工作，但有時有點有意識地將抗拒的經驗分類，以便我們可以在敘述中理解它們。
在某些方面，頭腦就像一個電影製作人。它將所有這些膠片碎片作為劇照或短片，並盡最大努力將它們拼接成一個連貫的故事。它選擇的特定故事是基於內心更深層次的態度。但我們忘記的是，所有位實際上，從根本上說，都是無關的。它們最初被儲存在腦海中，原因與當前的情節無關。但是心靈世界的說服力是如此之大，以至於我們傾向於相信電影製作人從儲藏室中的所有碎片中編造的故事。
THE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE MIND
We accumulate withholds due to our failures in relating to others. What we withhold is what we really thought or felt but which we did not say and think we should have said, according to our own inner standard. This is especially true of things we feel bad about and really want to confess. But there are so many injunctions on doing so that we do not say those things and they become little lumps inside us, held back.
The mind is made up of these withholds; a stuck-together lump of upset, misunderstandings and false conclusions as well as a great deal of confusion about what we actually think and what is actually true. The result of this confusion is yet more difficulties and failures in relating because our continuing attempts at relating are based on increasing layers of uncertainty and things unsaid. Not expressing these things makes us increasingly inauthentic and we dramatise more and more. Mind Clearing could have a subtitle: What are you really trying to say? Because that is what it mostly boils down to.
If we could ask this question and the person in front of us really said all the things they had been withholding, there would be no need for further method and technique. But most people would not get far with this approach because they are too confused and distressed to know where to begin. To understand a way forward, it is useful not just to have an idea of how the mind comes about, but also to see how it is structured and what is in it. We need to take it apart in the way it was put together, and for that, we need to see that structure clearly.
The dualistic structure of the mind
Why is this world this way? Why is there duality? Why are there two? Why is the world relative? …[the] answer
is shown in [our trying to communicate with each other]. Communication would not be necessary if you already knew that other totally; and if that other knew you totally… But the fact is that you don’t. You are not totally understood, you are not totally experienced, you are not totally appreciated and totally loved, although the potential is there and it is what we are striving for. As a result there is some separation between you and the other. That is the basic duality of the universe.1
Reality is not divided, but the mind is. When the mind comes into being, we enter a world of dualism. The mind only exists and creates meaning through opposites. The very fabric of the mind is dualistic.
Unity is sometimes considered superior to duality because Eastern traditions in particular promote the non-dual state as our ultimate goal. This can be spoken of in Christian terms as well; we might speak of being reunited with God after the Fall from Eden. Salvation is when we allow the unified reality (in the Christian case, God) back into our consciousness. It is greatly to be preferred to the state we find ourselves in, stuck in a world of this or that, up or down, black or white, with no certainty. But as with so many things, it is actually more tricky to achieve than we may hope.
Unity and dualism are not real opposites. They are different categories of existence. Like the mind and the individual, they cannot really be compared to one another because they are in fact not opposite to one another. We only think they are opposites when we are in a state of duality. To prefer one to the other is to misunderstand the situation. Unity cannot be consciously attained without there first being duality. To be consciously attained there must be another person or viewpoint from which it can be seen and worked towards. But these metaphors of time and space also do not work here because the difficulty is our perception. With minds we see things in the wrong perspective. But we are not actually in the wrong place. The individual is already a unity but it needs the mind in order to begin the process of knowing itself consciously as that unity. This is the dynamic paradox at
the heart of the matter.
In a way, enlightenment is superior to the state of duality because, in the state of enlightenment, reality is seen clearly and this is what ends our suffering. But this cannot be achieved without being in the state of duality first. The difference is one of perception, so although we often talk about a path or journey to enlightenment, there is actually nowhere to go and nothing to attain.
The mind is a condition of duality. We think it is reality because, for there to be meaning and narrative, there must be relativity and opposites. Nothing has meaning on its own. Everything has meaning only in relation to other things or beings.2 Patanjali says:
The action of the yogi goes beyond contraries like black and white (enjoyment producing and pain producing), whereas the actions of others are threefold (enjoyment producing, pain producing, or both).3
If we want to deal with the mind at its core, we have to deal with its dualistic substructure. The task of self-development or yoga is ‘to rewrite the narrative of our lives’.4 This is not about finding a new story, but takes the narrative right back to its inception and sets us on an entirely different path.
The nature of conflict
Duality is a state of mind which is conflictual by nature. Nothing is really in conflict with anything else, it is just itself. So duality is a kind of illusion. But there is one real duality and that is the duality of one individual and another individual. Unlike the false duality of the mind, in true duality there is no inherent conflict; it is simply a relationship between individuals.
Sarah: When I went on my last Enlightenment Intensive (EI) I was at a point in my marriage of thinking it might be over. I was doing the EI partly to find some clarity on it and get the courage to end it if I had to. It hadn’t been going well for a couple of years. It wasn’t anything in particular; there were lots of little things. When people asked me how James was I would feel myself slumping and I realised I had come to think of our marriage
as a problem. On the EI it did come up a bit, but not that much. But on the third day I had this wonderful experience of who I am. I realised that I was ‘me’. It was me doing the EI, me having thoughts. It was beautiful and obvious. I’m just me. Later that day when I was eating my dinner, James came into my mind and I suddenly saw that I’d been seeing him as this big problem to the point where the problem had been obscuring everything else. But really he was just a person and what we had was just a relationship. Not a problem, a relationship. It put everything back into perspective and, although things didn’t all get sorted out instantly, the main thing was that James was a person again to me. I could talk to him and be with him and enjoy his company, or not, because it was just him and me, not this problem.
The conflict is only really within oneself. It comes about through trying to understand the other while, at the same time, pushing the other away. So we want contact but we feel the need to keep the people we want the contact with at a safe distance. We project this inner conflict onto others and the world. Conflicts do of course manifest in events and material reality and people agree they are in conflict; the world is rife with conflict. But all of this finally comes back to the inner conflict we are projecting onto the world.
Patanjali advises that when people express opposition and advocate action that causes harm to others, then they are really reacting to past trauma.5 This is also the basis of much psychotherapy, and it is no wonder some people have suggested that Patanjali’s is the first recorded psychotherapeutic model. He goes on to say that, when we react and argue with someone who is opposing us, this is also really a reaction to our own past experience. Taking such opposition seriously, to the extent we believe in the conflict, is to misunderstand the reality of the situation.
…the proper attitude that the yogi should have to such arguments is compassion, for without penetrating knowledge, such karmic bubbles from the depths of our psyche (that is, the fruits of past dispositions) are without end.6
Unless we recognise the real location of conflict and deal with that at its root, then our attempts to change things are likely to breed more conflict and our suffering will continue, together with the harm we are doing to others.
Levels of the mind from outside to core
Figure 4.1 The levels of the mind7
The mind can seem to be an overwhelming muddle. But it actually has a structure that can be mapped (Figure 4.1). The map is useful for knowing where we are and helps us measure progress. If we want to help others deal with their minds, then it is also important to see
where they are starting from in this map so the work can be done at an appropriate level.
In most cases there will only be satisfactory progress if a person starts from the outer layers of the mind, where there is less fixidity, and works down through the levels. They may finally get to a point of being able to work on the inner core. Trying to work on the deeper levels first, with the idea that dealing with the core will cut through a person’s case swiftly and economically, is tempting. It may be beguiling in theory, but in practice it does not work.
The core of the mind is very deeply buried and mostly unconscious. It is possible to understand at an intellectual level the principles on which it is built, but this is different from understanding it at an experiential level. It is the experiential, or embodied, level of understanding we must work towards. This is because the problem of the mind, while it might sound like a purely cognitive problem, is fully real and visceral.8
This can be demonstrated time and again if you work with someone at a level deeper than their experiential understanding. This is even if they have a good intellectual understanding and have requested working at that depth. Unless they have worked on the outer layers with some success, they will simply be blocked by the mass of their own subconscious mind and feel like they are in an impenetrable fog. The other, related reason, is that they need to get good at getting themselves across on the smaller stuff before they can hope to tackle the deeper, more rigid material in the deeper layers. Little progress will actually be made and they will be discouraged. That does not mean progress must be slow, but it must be methodical.
The mind is made up of resisted experiences. Experiences that we did not resist did not end up as the detritus of the mind but become part of the unproblematic past.9 Further, when there is a resisted piece of experience to store away, the mind will not leave it free-floating but try to make sense of it because, as something resisted, it seems like a threat to the integrity of the personality.10
The mind is a system of control and meaning; it operates in order to try to make sense of life. When we have lost sight of who we really are, we crave stability and meaning and look for it in the mind, which
seems like the only place there is. But since it is only ever shuffiing round random bits and pieces that have no inherent meaning, it will never offer us a satisfactory account of anything much. But even knowing this does not stop it and us. So we work away, mostly at a subconscious level, but sometimes a bit consciously, to file resisted experiences into categories in such a way that we can make sense of them within a narrative.
In some ways, the mind acts like a filmmaker. It has all these scraps of film as stills or shorts and does its best to splice them together into a coherent story. The particular stories it chooses are based on deeper levels of attitudes in the mind. But what we forget is that all the bits are really, fundamentally, unrelated. They were originally stored in the mind for reasons that have little to do with the current plot. But the persuasiveness of the world of mind is such that we tend to believe in the story the mind as filmmaker has made up out of all the bits in its storeroom.
的思想層次
圖4.1 思維的層次7頭腦似乎是一個壓倒性的混亂。但它實際上有一個可以映射的結構（圖4.1）。該地圖對於了解我們所處的位置很有用，並有助於我們衡量進度。如果我們想説明他人處理他們的思想，那麼
在這個地圖中看到他們從
哪裡開始也很重要，這樣工作就可以在適當的水準上完成。
在大多數情況下，只有當一個人從心靈的外層開始，那裡的固定性較少，並通過這些層次向下工作時，才會有令人滿意的進步。他們可能最終能夠工作到能夠在內核上工作的地步。試圖首先在更深層次上工作，認為處理核心問題將迅速而經濟地解決一個人的案件，這是很誘人的。這在理論上可能很誘人，但在實踐中它不起作用。
心靈的核心被深深地埋藏著，而且大多是無意識的。有可能在智力層面上理解它所建立的原則，但這不同於在經驗層面上理解它。這是我們必須努力實現的經驗或具體理解水準。這是因為心靈的問題，雖然聽起來像是一個純粹的認知問題，但卻是完全真實和發自內心的。
8 如果你與某人在比他們的經驗理解更深的層次上工作，這一點可以一次又一次地證明。即使他們有很好的智力理解並要求在那個深度工作。除非他們在外層工作取得了一些成功，否則他們只會被自己潛意識的大量阻擋，感覺自己處於無法穿透的迷霧中。另一個相關的原因是，他們需要善於在較小的東西上穿行，然後才能希望處理更深層中更深、更堅硬的材料。實際上進展甚微，他們會氣餒。這並不意味著進展必須是緩慢的，但必須是有條不紊的。
頭腦是由抗拒的經驗組成的。我們沒有抗拒的經歷最終並沒有成為心靈的碎片，而是成為沒有問題的過去的一部分。9 此外，當有一段被抵制的經驗需要儲存時，頭腦不會讓它自由浮動，而是試圖理解它，因為作為某種東西被抵制，它似乎對人格的完整性構成了威脅。10
心靈是一個控制和意義的系統;它的運作是為了試圖理解生活。當我們忘記了我們到底是誰時，我們渴望穩定和意義，並在頭腦中尋找它，這
似乎是唯一的地方。但是，由於它只是隨機地處理沒有內在意義的零碎內容，因此它永遠不會為我們提供令人滿意的描述。但即使知道這一點也不能阻止它和我們。因此，我們主要在潛意識層面上工作，但有時有點有意識地將抗拒的經驗分類，以便我們可以在敘述中理解它們。
在某些方面，頭腦就像一個電影製作人。它將所有這些膠片碎片作為劇照或短片，並盡最大努力將它們拼接成一個連貫的故事。它選擇的特定故事是基於內心更深層次的態度。但我們忘記的是，所有位實際上，從根本上說，都是無關的。它們最初被儲存在腦海中，原因與當前的情節無關。但是心靈世界的說服力是如此之大，以至於我們傾向於相信電影製作人從儲藏室中的所有碎片中編造的故事。
THE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE MIND
We accumulate withholds due to our failures in relating to others. What we withhold is what we really thought or felt but which we did not say and think we should have said, according to our own inner standard. This is especially true of things we feel bad about and really want to confess. But there are so many injunctions on doing so that we do not say those things and they become little lumps inside us, held back.
The mind is made up of these withholds; a stuck-together lump of upset, misunderstandings and false conclusions as well as a great deal of confusion about what we actually think and what is actually true. The result of this confusion is yet more difficulties and failures in relating because our continuing attempts at relating are based on increasing layers of uncertainty and things unsaid. Not expressing these things makes us increasingly inauthentic and we dramatise more and more. Mind Clearing could have a subtitle: What are you really trying to say? Because that is what it mostly boils down to.
If we could ask this question and the person in front of us really said all the things they had been withholding, there would be no need for further method and technique. But most people would not get far with this approach because they are too confused and distressed to know where to begin. To understand a way forward, it is useful not just to have an idea of how the mind comes about, but also to see how it is structured and what is in it. We need to take it apart in the way it was put together, and for that, we need to see that structure clearly.
The dualistic structure of the mind
Why is this world this way? Why is there duality? Why are there two? Why is the world relative? …[the] answer
is shown in [our trying to communicate with each other]. Communication would not be necessary if you already knew that other totally; and if that other knew you totally… But the fact is that you don’t. You are not totally understood, you are not totally experienced, you are not totally appreciated and totally loved, although the potential is there and it is what we are striving for. As a result there is some separation between you and the other. That is the basic duality of the universe.1
Reality is not divided, but the mind is. When the mind comes into being, we enter a world of dualism. The mind only exists and creates meaning through opposites. The very fabric of the mind is dualistic.
Unity is sometimes considered superior to duality because Eastern traditions in particular promote the non-dual state as our ultimate goal. This can be spoken of in Christian terms as well; we might speak of being reunited with God after the Fall from Eden. Salvation is when we allow the unified reality (in the Christian case, God) back into our consciousness. It is greatly to be preferred to the state we find ourselves in, stuck in a world of this or that, up or down, black or white, with no certainty. But as with so many things, it is actually more tricky to achieve than we may hope.
Unity and dualism are not real opposites. They are different categories of existence. Like the mind and the individual, they cannot really be compared to one another because they are in fact not opposite to one another. We only think they are opposites when we are in a state of duality. To prefer one to the other is to misunderstand the situation. Unity cannot be consciously attained without there first being duality. To be consciously attained there must be another person or viewpoint from which it can be seen and worked towards. But these metaphors of time and space also do not work here because the difficulty is our perception. With minds we see things in the wrong perspective. But we are not actually in the wrong place. The individual is already a unity but it needs the mind in order to begin the process of knowing itself consciously as that unity. This is the dynamic paradox at
the heart of the matter.
In a way, enlightenment is superior to the state of duality because, in the state of enlightenment, reality is seen clearly and this is what ends our suffering. But this cannot be achieved without being in the state of duality first. The difference is one of perception, so although we often talk about a path or journey to enlightenment, there is actually nowhere to go and nothing to attain.
The mind is a condition of duality. We think it is reality because, for there to be meaning and narrative, there must be relativity and opposites. Nothing has meaning on its own. Everything has meaning only in relation to other things or beings.2 Patanjali says:
The action of the yogi goes beyond contraries like black and white (enjoyment producing and pain producing), whereas the actions of others are threefold (enjoyment producing, pain producing, or both).3
If we want to deal with the mind at its core, we have to deal with its dualistic substructure. The task of self-development or yoga is ‘to rewrite the narrative of our lives’.4 This is not about finding a new story, but takes the narrative right back to its inception and sets us on an entirely different path.
The nature of conflict
Duality is a state of mind which is conflictual by nature. Nothing is really in conflict with anything else, it is just itself. So duality is a kind of illusion. But there is one real duality and that is the duality of one individual and another individual. Unlike the false duality of the mind, in true duality there is no inherent conflict; it is simply a relationship between individuals.
Sarah: When I went on my last Enlightenment Intensive (EI) I was at a point in my marriage of thinking it might be over. I was doing the EI partly to find some clarity on it and get the courage to end it if I had to. It hadn’t been going well for a couple of years. It wasn’t anything in particular; there were lots of little things. When people asked me how James was I would feel myself slumping and I realised I had come to think of our marriage
as a problem. On the EI it did come up a bit, but not that much. But on the third day I had this wonderful experience of who I am. I realised that I was ‘me’. It was me doing the EI, me having thoughts. It was beautiful and obvious. I’m just me. Later that day when I was eating my dinner, James came into my mind and I suddenly saw that I’d been seeing him as this big problem to the point where the problem had been obscuring everything else. But really he was just a person and what we had was just a relationship. Not a problem, a relationship. It put everything back into perspective and, although things didn’t all get sorted out instantly, the main thing was that James was a person again to me. I could talk to him and be with him and enjoy his company, or not, because it was just him and me, not this problem.
The conflict is only really within oneself. It comes about through trying to understand the other while, at the same time, pushing the other away. So we want contact but we feel the need to keep the people we want the contact with at a safe distance. We project this inner conflict onto others and the world. Conflicts do of course manifest in events and material reality and people agree they are in conflict; the world is rife with conflict. But all of this finally comes back to the inner conflict we are projecting onto the world.
Patanjali advises that when people express opposition and advocate action that causes harm to others, then they are really reacting to past trauma.5 This is also the basis of much psychotherapy, and it is no wonder some people have suggested that Patanjali’s is the first recorded psychotherapeutic model. He goes on to say that, when we react and argue with someone who is opposing us, this is also really a reaction to our own past experience. Taking such opposition seriously, to the extent we believe in the conflict, is to misunderstand the reality of the situation.
…the proper attitude that the yogi should have to such arguments is compassion, for without penetrating knowledge, such karmic bubbles from the depths of our psyche (that is, the fruits of past dispositions) are without end.6
Unless we recognise the real location of conflict and deal with that at its root, then our attempts to change things are likely to breed more conflict and our suffering will continue, together with the harm we are doing to others.
Levels of the mind from outside to coreFigure 4.1 The levels of the mind7The mind can seem to be an overwhelming muddle. But it actually has a structure that can be mapped (Figure 4.1). The map is useful for knowing where we are and helps us measure progress. If we want to help others deal with their minds, then it is also important to see
where they are starting from in this map so the work can be done at an appropriate level.
In most cases there will only be satisfactory progress if a person starts from the outer layers of the mind, where there is less fixidity, and works down through the levels. They may finally get to a point of being able to work on the inner core. Trying to work on the deeper levels first, with the idea that dealing with the core will cut through a person’s case swiftly and economically, is tempting. It may be beguiling in theory, but in practice it does not work.
The core of the mind is very deeply buried and mostly unconscious. It is possible to understand at an intellectual level the principles on which it is built, but this is different from understanding it at an experiential level. It is the experiential, or embodied, level of understanding we must work towards. This is because the problem of the mind, while it might sound like a purely cognitive problem, is fully real and visceral.8
This can be demonstrated time and again if you work with someone at a level deeper than their experiential understanding. This is even if they have a good intellectual understanding and have requested working at that depth. Unless they have worked on the outer layers with some success, they will simply be blocked by the mass of their own subconscious mind and feel like they are in an impenetrable fog. The other, related reason, is that they need to get good at getting themselves across on the smaller stuff before they can hope to tackle the deeper, more rigid material in the deeper layers. Little progress will actually be made and they will be discouraged. That does not mean progress must be slow, but it must be methodical.
The mind is made up of resisted experiences. Experiences that we did not resist did not end up as the detritus of the mind but become part of the unproblematic past.9 Further, when there is a resisted piece of experience to store away, the mind will not leave it free-floating but try to make sense of it because, as something resisted, it seems like a threat to the integrity of the personality.10
The mind is a system of control and meaning; it operates in order to try to make sense of life. When we have lost sight of who we really are, we crave stability and meaning and look for it in the mind, which
seems like the only place there is. But since it is only ever shuffiing round random bits and pieces that have no inherent meaning, it will never offer us a satisfactory account of anything much. But even knowing this does not stop it and us. So we work away, mostly at a subconscious level, but sometimes a bit consciously, to file resisted experiences into categories in such a way that we can make sense of them within a narrative.
In some ways, the mind acts like a filmmaker. It has all these scraps of film as stills or shorts and does its best to splice them together into a coherent story. The particular stories it chooses are based on deeper levels of attitudes in the mind. But what we forget is that all the bits are really, fundamentally, unrelated. They were originally stored in the mind for reasons that have little to do with the current plot. But the persuasiveness of the world of mind is such that we tend to believe in the story the mind as filmmaker has made up out of all the bits in its storeroom.
沒有留言:
張貼留言