Venture Fourth Weekly Work<br>Week Four, Aug. 15, 2009

Our theme for week four is Responsibility. This is chapter 21, page 197 in Everyday Holiness.

Morinis points out two meanings of the roots for the Hebrew word for responsibility, "after" and "other". He suggests that "after" is more about "I should", about fear of punishment, or even fear of not being loved if we don't do what we should. "Other" is more about "bearing the burden of the other."

I have a broader take on these. I feel that "after" and "other" are not so different, when we look at this entire mass through an understanding of kamma.

Every cause bears a result. The result is the "after." One predominant cause of our choices is the whole notion of the separate self, what we may call the delusion of self. That delusion leads us to act from fear, wanting to create a more pleasant "after." There's nothing necessarily bad about that wish, but it keeps the kamma going. This is the whole flow of samsara.

When we transcend (even if only momentarily) the illusion of self, and move into a place of knowing our interbeing with all that is, we still see cause and effect, but know it more as one continuum where every result becomes the next cause. We see how the choice effects not only this illusory "me" but also the whole fabric of everything, and that true well being for all can only come when that entire fabric is honored. We become more able to hold loving space for all past and present causes, and not to become so fixated on the ones of this moment or on fixing any specific causes. In the largest sense, there is nothing to fix and no one to fix it, and yet we still must attend to distortion that does harm.

Please explore this idea this week. When there is motivation to act for the good of "others," what is at the heart of that motivation for you? Is it more "after," "other" or a mix? They are likely to both exist in part; that's fine. Can you see the place of connection that is at the heart of the intention, even while the small self is still waving his/ her arms for attention? Can you attend to that small self with love, seeing any fear, any desire for love, for attention, and not move into stories of self-accusation that this part of the self is there, but just turn and see the larger, loving motivation that is also there. What happens when you do this? We're not trying to caste out the ego but to find the great heart that lies beneath.

Aaron also speaks of the word responsibility is a different way, the ability to respond. Not to react, to respond. When we "take responsibility" or "act responsibly" we respond to situations. We as humans have that ability. What blocks the ability to respond with humility, respect, joy and love? What supports it?

On page 201, "Not in This Life," Morinis speaks more directly of kamma; "... we also reap for all eternity the fruits of our actions." Here would be a good place to reflect on kamma and what you understand of it. Every action has a result. Often we have multiple motivations and they give us a mix of results. When I offer care to another person with love and the highest intention for their well-being, I experience the fruit of that action and intention. When a small part of me looks around and says, "did anyone notice?" I experience also the result of that small fear and need to prove my worth. When I look at that small voice with kindness, I experience the result of that kindness. When I look at that small voice with shame and hold on to that feeling of shame, I move myself further back into belief that I am not whole, divine or loved.

Each separate thread must be explored, attended and released, but no one is doing that exploration and attending!

On the top of page 203, I was struck by his quote, "The World to Come is the most internal of the internal worlds! God is deep inside the World to Come. To get to the World to Come you have to build your own internal world during your life, and it is with that internal world that you will enter the World to Come."

This is such a clear statement of kamma and of non-duality as I experience it. It also reminds me of the Christian statement, "The Kingdom of God is within you." (not an exact quote of Jesus' words.)

We reap what we sow. And the Divine is always within us, waiting to be invited to more fully manifest. "I am That." (Have any of you read Sri Nisargadatta Marahaj's book I Am That? It's a very beautiful statement of non-dual awareness.)

On Page 205 top Morinis says, "The go wants everything for me, cares only for me and it is by learning and struggling to bear the burden of the other that one is enabled to overcome the insistent voice of the ego as the guiding source in life." Here we see both voices, that of love (and interbeing) and of fear (ego/ limits/ self). They come together, and the ongoing question is not how to get rid of ego or fear, but how to relate to that, also, with love. Then it is no longer the master. It arises, it is attended to, it dissolves. Aaron's book Human has the main focus to make this point. I'm pasting the final pages (without the original formatting):

Barbara: Letting go of wanting, and not grasping at anything, is so hard. That's what I fight with every school "vacation" when my days are so full of the needs of others. I find myself exhausted with trying to meditate from 5:00 to 7:00AM, a long, long day of activity and then meditation again at midnight or so, with only a few hours of sleep. Aaron asks me why I'm so attached to having to meditate in those early morning hours. Why not put it aside for a few days, sit just a half-hour instead. That's another good question. I don't know why. My whole being cries out for that interlude of solitude, but I see that the issue is more about grasping than any real need. How do I let go of it? Aaron?

Gently, and with love, child. This time is essential for your spiritual growth and I would never advise you to let go of meditation on a long term basis. But you are attached to the idea of it, as much as the practice. It is less a letting go of the time for a few days than it is working with the feeling of compulsion. Simply be with what is there. Do what needs to be done, with love. Stay in the moment and do whatever is in front of you. You are using your frustration as a 'weapon' of righteous anger.

Your resentment comes when you see what you incorrectly perceive as 'your needs' balanced against 'their needs.' But there is no self or other here. Deep inside you know this. Service to others is service to self. And both are service to God. I have said this to you before. Do not suppress your needs; rather, notice them and their intensity so that you can more lovingly put that urgency aside and do whatever needs to be done. This is the essence of what you're being asked to learn.

You cannot 'renounce' your needs, cannot just say 'I won't need ... 'and go on from there. You know this is dishonest. Your sense of needing must become transparent through constant awareness of it, until it simply becomes a background tension, 'feeling a need' that is noticed and observed. Otherwise there will always be resentment, and resentment and love cannot coexist. "I need," is a story, based on fear. By "story" I mean an habitual line of thinking that avoids the direct experience. "I choose" is a straightforward response to the moment. You may choose, to make the bagel or not, to serve another or not. It is okay to say no, with love. You may choose to meditate. Do it with presence that perceives the choices of the loving heart.

When you carry this through to its end, the oneness of self/other will predominate and the conflict will dissolve. But you will always notice the occasional need of 'self' calling out, just more ego to be mindfully acknowledged, with love and compassion for the self-centeredness that generates it. You are human, and certainly not a saint. Allow your feelings and be aware, and make the conscious decision to skillfully and lovingly do what needs to be done. Just follow your heart. It becomes easier with practice.

In the context of Morinis' words on page 205 top, I find it interesting to consider the definitions often given of negative and positive polarity as "service to self" and "service to others." On pages 179-181 of Manna:

Through the years, Aaron impressed upon me the importance of our free will choice of harm or non-harm, to make choices from love, not fear, and to act in ways that are predominantly in service to all, not just self-serving. There is both positivity and negativity in the world. We're constantly offered the choice of service to one or the other. These forces aren't opposites, or dual in any way. Aaron sees positivity as Light and negativity as the relative absence of Light, not as an ultimate darkness. Yet in that relative absence of Light, great pain and hardship can emerge so we do need to make a clear choice.

We cannot simply use service to self or others as the definition of positivity and negativity.

Positive polarity has been defined in the past as service to others and negative polarity as service to self; yet, on the ultimate level there is no self or other. How, then, may we define these terms? We can define polarity most clearly within a discussion of energy and the contraction or non-contraction of the energy field. I believe that the contraction or non-contraction of energy is the best basis for determining positive or negative polarity. No being is totally positively- or negatively-polarized, so we do not have a totally contracted or open energy field. The relative bias toward positivity or negativity may be measured by the degree of contraction.

The deepest expression of positivity is the willingness to be a vessel through which energy – as abundance, as loving kindness, as light – may flow, to draw for the vessel-entity that which is needed for its own sustenance and to freely pass the rest through without any holding. Thus, one does not deny or make a martyr of the self, nor does one do harm to another or withhold out of fear. Ultimate positive polarity knows the infinite nature of Source so it has no fear that it must withhold or suffer lack. Neither does it serve another in preference to itself for it knows that the needs of both will be met. When this pattern is in process, what I see visually is the clear flow of energy through the vessel-entity, circulating within its physical, emotional, and mental levels and passing freely from it to all who would receive it.

Please remember as I speak that negative polarity is a distortion of positive polarity. Negative polarity may be defined as the contraction of fear whereby the serving entity contracts its energy because it does not fully understand the unlimited nature of the Divine. Fear leads it to the biased belief that all needs may not be met. It may hold back more than it needs, thus depriving another momentarily; but still causing another real pain through that momentary deprivation, or it may be induced by fear to much deeper and more ongoing harm to others. An example would be one who habitually abuses others, one who steals, or even murders in the name of service to self, and from fear.

It may move to the opposite bias, serving others at the expense of itself, and thereby, depleting and even destroying itself. On the surface, such movement appears to be positive polarity, service to others, but self is also an other. To do harm to any, even the self, demonstrates the presence of the contraction of fear. There is the distorted belief that there is not enough, or that the self is insufficient as a channel for that abundance. If one denies self, not including self in that sharing of abundance, there is then the distortion that self is separate from other. This being may be basically of positive polarity but contains these particular biases of duality and of its own insufficiency. Therefore, its energy field is contracted around the issue of meeting its own needs. It expresses a negative distortion within the positively polarized vehicle, rust on the otherwise open pipe.

The pipe that is clogged with debris reminds one of a contracted state, yet no matter how clogged the pipe is, it has the potential to open. The water pushes against that congestion just as light touches darkness, asking it to open, receive and share. Openness is the true nature of the pipe or of any vehicle. It is the true nature of the soul.

What of the saint who truly gives its life, in love, to serve another? Here there is no contraction. Its deepest need is being met. That need is to do precisely what it has done, to accept the harm in place of another with a deep awareness that it is suffering no harm, but is merely willingly suffering damage to this particular physical body as a necessary means of service in the moment.

Thus, Aaron taught me to watch for contraction in myself, and to attend to that contraction as a way to cease to encourage negative thought. Unpleasant and fearful experiences will come. Whatever happens, we always have options as to how we will relate to them. This is true of the flat tire and the stubbed toe, as well as of serious illness, loss and pain. Will we offer it hatred or kind attention? If contraction arises, will we see it and attend to it, or act it out in the world? A famous Buddhist scripture, the Dhammapada, begins with the words, "Hatred never dissolves hatred; only love dissolves hatred. This is the truth, ancient and unchangeable." The question then is how to offer loving kindness to negativity in myself and in the world.

This is all offered as guidance as you begin this week's work with responsibility. There is an old story that gives the distinction between heaven and hell. The visitor sees a room filled with banquet tables laden with food, and beings moaning and crying, starving, though the food is there. Then he visits the next realm. The food is the same and beings are happy. He notices in both cases they have rigid arms. The spoon cannot reach your own mouth. In room two, they are feeding each other. On page 208 Morinis speaks of, "feeding ourselves." You may like to try a simple exercise if you have a willing partner, to literally prepare a meal and each feed the other. Do it with great mindfulness to both eating and feeding; be aware of each others' needs; be aware of how good it feels to have another deeply concerned for your needs.

Please also reflect on the precepts as you work with responsibility. How do the precepts relate to our sense of responsibility? Can we take the precepts from both "after" and "other" perspectives? How does it change them when we bring this together, no "after" or "other" just pure presence? At the start of the intensive we will have an opportunity to take the precepts.

Venture Fourth Weekly WorkWeek Four, Aug. 15, 2009

Venture Fourth Weekly Work
Week Four, Aug. 15, 2009