A conversation about how resistance and illusion can exist at all, leading into an exploration of intimacy in relationships, the role of discomfort, and following the heart's deeper longings.
A conversation about how resistance and illusion can exist at all, leading into an exploration of intimacy in relationships, the role of discomfort, and following the heart's deeper longings.
What came up for me was: what is resistance, even? How is it even possible?
It's not. It's an illusion.
But how can you even have an illusion? I don't get it. I just don't understand how you can hide from yourself. There's this whole thing we're calling illusion, this entire apparent experience of "I'm resisting, I'm losing myself, I'm in identification." How is that even possible?
The more you see the illusion
The more you see the illusion, the more impossible it is. And the more impossible you realize it always was. The more you see it never really happened. It's just a story. The illusion is believing the story. But then you can look and realize you never really believed it. You always knew it was a story.
I don't want to get too mental about it. It's just what was coming up. I think that's enough for that.
It's all Buddha nature. Always was, always will be.
And it's feeling more and more like that. Whatever resistance arises, it really dissolves quickly. Then there are these bigger things that come that don't have stories, and I notice those don't go as quickly, but they're still seen as nothing. It seems to be some kind of dance of energy.
I have a question about relating. We touched on it last time, and it's been coming up for me. In relationship, I was wondering if you could say more specifically what it looks like. I know you said that conflict doesn't really come up for you nowadays, but I would imagine that across all the areas of your life, people get triggered, even if you don't. How do you navigate that? Are you just noticing and not reacting? Do you address it? I know there's no blanket answer for every moment, but if there's anything you can say.
Two levels of being triggered
For me, being triggered has two aspects. One has to do with the experience, the energetic or emotional charge that comes up. The other is the level of acting out in reaction to that.
For me, things shifted quite quickly. There are aspects that changed over time, but there was a very significant drop. I went from being triggered and upset with things in work and relationships on a daily basis, very intensely, to basically (as I think I mentioned last time) being triggered in an intense way maybe two or three times in the last thirty years. About once a decade. And when I would get triggered, it would be like three or four days of emotional hangover. I would feel unwell for days. That doesn't happen anymore.
So shifts can happen at that level. That's a possibility, at least what I know experientially.
The vicious cycle of triggering others
Now, with other people getting triggered, a big part of that also stopped because, in my own triggering, I was triggering others. When one contracts into a place of separation and not feeling safe in a relationship, one also creates a sense in the other that feeds this lack of safety. It's a vicious cycle, and that pretty much completely stopped. Because if I'm not getting triggered, I'm rarely triggering others. And if there are situations where others get triggered, it's often very contained in a certain lovingness.
I do remember, for example, many years ago already, the biggest conflict at work came up with a business partner who got very upset. We went into a significant conflict, but I basically spent thirty or forty minutes helping this person ground. I was just in an openness and lovingness toward my partner, and things settled.
In that sense, it really is a moment-by-moment flowing with what's happening. Sometimes I find it very appropriate to push back, to bring certain expressions that you could call aggressive or an expression of anger. But it used to come from fear and identification most or all of the time. Now it mostly comes from a sense that in this moment, this feels appropriate. It's usually much shorter, less explosive, just more firm, and then it's not needed instantly, and there's no energy left over. I find that very appropriate in certain situations.
But I'm also more and more not spending time with people who either I trigger or with whom there isn't a good flow of relationship, because I don't find it interesting. I now spend very little time socializing.
That's what I'm sitting with. I've been alone for a really long time, and it feels really good. I do my relating here and there, and I've been in an improv group for many months. That was one of the few things I was doing socially. I started noticing triggers happening in the group, which I think is inevitable when you're spending that much time together and there isn't a shared value for transparency and authentic expression.
I notice I have a natural desire to ask, "What's coming up for you?" That just feels like the right way to express. And they really don't like that. They want to keep everything on the surface and brush whatever triggers they're having under the carpet. Someone just said, "It's just my face. I just have a face sometimes. Don't worry." And I thought, well, it's not your face; it's the entire room. The whole energy is shifting.
There's a part of me that thinks I can just accept that and not have a reaction, just be with whatever discomfort arises. But it's more that I don't really want to do that. The improv part is fun, but it seems like interpersonal things will come up more and more, and it's not fun to be around people who aren't interested in being honest with that.
Intimacy requires mutuality
The deeper work of what you're asking about really happens only in relationship. By that I mean interacting with people who are close. And it also cannot really be done very deeply unless the interest is mutual.
Exactly. I guess that's what my question was about. I was curious about both: how you navigate it when it's not mutual, and what it looks like when it is mutual. Is it just nicer, easier?
I wouldn't say it's nice or easier. I've found it in a sense harder, because you go to the deeper, more painful places. But it's nicer in that things actually can deeply shift.
I'd love it if you're willing to share more details of what that looks like. Is it you and your partner sitting together, saying, "This is what's coming up for me," and then she's sharing, and back and forth?
Devotion to openness and honesty
There's a lot. I wish she were here so she could speak to it as well. It is the love and even devotion to intimacy and honesty, the devotion to learning and being loving, and knowing that you can't know what is loving in the moment. Saying "ABC is loving" or doing "ABC is loving" can only be a conditioning. Any known way is going to be a conditioning. So you can't know.
It's this openness. It could start with a commitment, but it needs to be the love and devotion for openness, for intimacy, for truth, for vulnerability. And then what happens is conversations, all kinds of things. But the intimacy is what it's about, in the sense that, if there were a goal, it's to be intimate and open now. It's not about arriving tomorrow at a better state. Any kind of process or healing has an objective, but if you are loving and in devotion to openness, honesty, and intimacy, then the healing will happen.
I studied authentic relating practices, and a lot of it is based around the principle of presence, being here now. There are people who practice that. They may never have an awakening experience, but they're practicing this really present way of being in relationship.
I'm noticing that when you combine awakening with that, it seems really powerful. But I can also see how there can be a tendency where it's like, "Well, I don't need to talk about this because I can just be silent and notice."
If you're in relationship, then yes, you don't need to, and you can just be silent. But that might end up becoming just a movement away from intimacy. The priority, for me, is the intimacy. Yes, there isn't the need, but there could be a loss. It's like having a delicious meal in front of you and deciding not to have it.
I think because I've always leaned toward intimacy, that's always been my preference. Going into awakening, it moved more toward my own intimacy, not as much in relationship. Now, coming back into relationship, it feels like a choice: I can lean more into it, or I can hold back. Because I have a tendency to lean into intimacy, sometimes I can overdo it. Too much processing.
That's where maturity matters. Usually at first we go into relationship as a way of coping and avoiding. So yes, it's relationship, but it's not necessarily intimate. Only through more wakefulness, when there is an understanding and a knowing that the relationship isn't needed, can there be a deeper intimacy. But if going into intimacy brings up habits, that's where they can be seen. For example, the habit to process. You just said "too much processing." That's a habit. It's not necessarily intimacy to process.
I guess I'm calling it intimacy because it feels like, "I want to know what's in your world. Tell me about that. Here's my world. How are we connecting in these?" It feels like it comes from love and curiosity, but it can result in too much because there's a never-ending quality to it.
If there's a lot of words and processing, that's not necessarily as deep and intimate.
I'm mostly going from memory, because I haven't had a really close partnership since being deeper in the path of awakening. So I just don't know what that will look like.
Intimacy can be in complete silence.
That's my favorite. It's more when there's some kind of trigger that it becomes a question.
That's where the juicy bits are. When attachment comes up, and then triggering comes up, and then the addiction to processing comes up, all of that can be worked through. In that sense, it's a never-ending process of deepening. No matter how much awakening there has been, there's so much that can be lived and deepened.
Almost permanent delight
I was curious if there were some more specifics of what that can look like.
The specifics, for me, are that it's almost permanently delightful. Constantly enjoyable. Where there used to be a lot of friction and triggering, now it's been replaced (though "replaced" isn't quite right) by almost permanent delight, even when there are difficult things happening that are being talked about or not talked about, or experienced because of the nature of life and all the different situations that can bring up pain.
That's really sweet to hear. The last conversation I had with someone who was triggered, there was a lot of silence and she kept saying how uncomfortable the conversation was. She said, "This is so painful. I never want to do this again. I don't want to have to talk about what's going on." And I thought, "Wow. This is really fun for me." I can feel the discomfort, but I'm also really excited to get honest with someone. I just love going into the deep, the real, uncovering what's here.
I recommend it very highly.
It's not easy to find, and that's why I also ask about the other side: what do you do when you're in a world where 99.9 percent of the population doesn't want to do that?
I feel fortunate with the serendipity of having met my partner. It's beautiful. So I don't know the experience of not having that. But I find a lot of people delightful, even people who have no spiritual practice. Obviously, the closer you get to them, the more stuff comes up. Still, I don't need deep conversation in order to feel the deepest lovingness and intimacy with somebody who might be close to a stranger. Going down to a café and having a moment with a barista can be so beautiful and delightful.
Those are not the interactions that are any kind of question for me.
I understand. I can also say that with family and difficult relationships, even when there is more misunderstanding and difference, it all starts to have a lot of delight.
Dropping the label of discomfort
There's so much love there, especially with those deeper old attachments with family. And then some stuff comes up that's uncomfortable. I guess I do have a lot of distance. I'm not visiting them to be put in more uncomfortable situations, but from afar, it's great.
If I have one recommendation: what you're calling uncomfortable or discomfort, see what happens if you drop that label. It's a useful label up to some point, to recognize, "Oh, there is discomfort. Here it is. It's here a lot. Discomfort is almost constantly present in different ways. Now I can relate to it and engage with it." But at some point, it's a label that carries a negative interpretation of an experience.
I really like that. That's a really good reframe. Because that's actually what I said to the woman I was speaking with, who said, "This conversation is very uncomfortable." And I thought, "Oh, is it? I think it's fine." But I am doing that as well, in other relationships.
Where it's challenging to you. There I would recommend trying to relate to what you call discomfort and tasting it more directly, without names, without labels, so that it's not pushed away or judged as some subtle negative thing.
That's a good point. It can become mental, too. I'm really trying not to give this thought any energy, but there was so much learning around boundaries, "your stuff and my stuff," separation. That comes up too, trying to navigate whose is this. But it doesn't matter.
Boundaries and intelligence
Boundaries are very valid. Practice until it becomes a crutch.
What I've discovered is that boundaries just come from the intelligence doing what it needs to do. I don't have to be involved. It's just responding. There was a time when I needed to learn them, but now it's already there, so I don't have to think about it. I think it's that labeling of discomfort that then goes, "I'm uncomfortable because you are doing this, and I need to maintain this boundary with you."
That can be dropped.
But there does seem to be some intelligence of noting, "Well, this dynamic keeps happening around you, and maybe I don't need to spend as much time with you."
The question there is: do you want to be with that person or not? Whether or not certain discomfort appears, that's a valid choice. But what matters is whether you want to relate to and be in relationship with that person.
I think that's partly what informs the decision, because if you're noticing there's this challenge in relating and it keeps happening...
What I'm saying is: would you want to be with that person even if that challenge in the relationship would happen till the end of your life? Not needing it to stop, would you still want to be in relation to that person? Or is that a condition on the relationship? Either answer is fine; there's no right or wrong. It's just: where is the actual interest?
What determines a relationship
When you put it that way, it highlights: why do you spend time with anyone? Isn't it usually because it's fun and positive? The natural measurement is: what percentage of this is enjoyable versus not?
That's only something you can decide. You could also say, "Well, does it always have to be fun? What's the threshold?"
Fun can include going into deep, difficult things. That's fun for me. But it's very clear to me when it's fun and when we're just not using the same language.
At that level, what matters for me is: what's the desire? What's the deep love for? Is it for that relationship, even with the discomfort and the challenges, or not? What I'm recommending is that the movement comes from whether there is that love for the relationship or not.
I think the challenge is also that most relationships don't get to a level where there's really a loving bond unless you've spent a significant amount of time and grown together. Before that point, everyone's expendable based on "are you fun or are you not fun."
That's why I'm bringing it up. If the level of fun or discomfort determines the choice, it's pretty limited.
It's always been very clear for me that if people share the same values I have, then it's really fun for me to go into the uncomfortable together. If not, it just doesn't feel worth my time, unless we're keeping it at a really light level, like with improv, where it's just play. But inevitably that shifts, because that's what happens when you spend more time together. And if you don't share the same values, then it's no longer interesting for me.
I wish you to have all the relationships you want.
Following the heart's deeper longing
There's also the question of choice. I know you're a big fan of choice. And then there's this choicelessness that I want to surrender to.
The problem with choice is the belief that there's a separate entity or agent that is choosing, and that that's what I am.
So I think when choice feels like it's coming from there, that's where maybe surrendering feels better.
Just follow your heart. Take the risks. The energy that feels right for you is this surrendering and openness and non-choosing, which is very deep, real, and true. Even still, the invocation can come from the prayer, the invitation for the movement of your life to come from the deepest love and longing, as opposed to fear and contraction.
It's interesting how I'm aware of these deeper longings, and yet the moment-to-moment choices feel like they come more out of just wanting what's peaceful now and easy now.
That might be in opposition to the deeper heart desire, because ultimately, true peace has no condition.
I think that's a theme that keeps coming back. I still feel like I lean toward what's traditionally peaceful: stillness.
If you have a deeper longing that's calling you into something that might not be traditionally peaceful, I recommend you pay attention to that.
If I'm being more honest, I do take action toward the deeper longings, and then I'm always hitting some kind of barrier. I took all this action, but now I don't know the next step. So I pause and end up losing that momentum. It feels like there's missing information I need to take more action, but I get energized to do it.
Just follow your heart. Information is in the love and what you want. Then it's unknown.
I mean, I'm just talking about practical things. I don't know where I want to buy the land yet. I'm going through the motions, but I don't have the clarity.
That's life. That's always the dance.
So on the practical level, my heart is clear about what it wants, but I don't have the action steps I know of needed forward, and then I pause.
That's life. Follow your heart, and the rest will unfold.