Quotes from "Embracing the Beloved"

There are so many good quotes in there, I think I'll start writing them here. I just posted this first one on my facebook, but then immediately ran across another, so here goes with a nice list:

"Nothing is worth the separation or guarding of hearts . . . the commitment to wholeness elevates relationship to mystical heights. When we expand from loving another being to the beingness of love, alternatives for healing and insight arise. The healing become immense. Hope turns to confidence. Fear to fearless mindfulness. And joy, so absent in even some of the most remarkable beings, becomes a common condition. The heart opens beyond the grieving mind. The lotus rises from dark waters." (61, 63) "Nothing is worth keeping the heart closed for even a moment longer . . . holding even to the slightest separation, even to a single thought, even to being "right," can create an abyss which our faithfulness fears to leap" (92).

"The heart, steady as the Buddha under the Bo tree, whispers "If I die of loneliness, so be it. I will continue this investigation until the heart sees clearly" (68). I probably like this one because in a sense, it's what I did. No matter how much they hurt me, I refuse to shut down my heart. I am done suffering (suffering, but not experiencing pain, as that will never end until I cease breathing). I would rather be alone than be with someone and feel alone. And other sentiments that helped get me where I am from there.

 "It is the time that we spend alone with the Beloved that makes us the partner our partner has always been looking for" (69).

"A conscious committed relationship is the bonding of two "whole" human beings attempting to be mercifully human together" (83).

"In "worldly" triangulation we look to the marriage counselor, minister or mentor. In "spiritual" triangulation the two turn toward the One. The context is no longer "How do I get mine?" but rather, "How can we become together all that we might be?" (91).

"...what leaves the "negative residue" is not the thought, no matter how dark or fearful, but the negative reaction (holding), as opposed to the healing response (letting go), to that moment. That a "positive" thought grasped is less healing than a "negative" one met with mercy. Allowed to dissolve into the golden flow of consciousness. Our thoughts so small, our resistance so enormous" (106).  . . . no longer posturing like Saint George at the dragon's throat, we remove our armor and pet the big lizard's belly" (107).

"Enlightenment does not perfect the personality, only the point of view" (107).

"The arms of the mother are always around you, all you need do is put your head on her shoulder" (113). 

Same or Different

So, this "argument" I've too frequently had with meditation teachers about psychological versus spiritual work in meditation just became a little clearer thanks to Steven and Ondrea Levine. For my prelim literature review, I'm reading Embracing the Beloved, which has some interesting interpersonal exercises and practices that I'll likely end up incorporating into my dissertation method/intervention. In chapter 10, I and Other, they write:

"So the Zen master might ask, "Is I and other the same or different?" Don't answer! Don't reply too quickly! If you answer from the I and say "Different," you will not be telling the whole truth. If you answer from amness and say "Same," you will be equally mistaken. . . . The answer, or course, is not to say it but to be it. To do the psychological (different) work, as well as the spiritual (same) explorations to have a whole relationship..."

Alas, how obvious should this have been? Both they and I have a piece of the truth. Indeed, I fight against their seeming attachment to their partial truth and they certainly are working against my own attachment to my own partial truth. I'm not sure it's this simple...I'm not sure I've ever claimed the spiritual (not their word) is unimportant, only that the psychological is also critical. It seems I am constantly told, at worst, that it's irrelevant, or at best that it doesn't go deep enough. The latter I agree with. In part, I suppose I feel offended that generally someone who knows little about psychology and likely has not done their own deep psychological investigation through therapy or other means makes claims that they cannot know to be true.

As usual, a core issue here is how upset I let this make me, how easily I lose grasp of my own truth, how much I yearn for (appear to need) their stamp of approval on what I experientially know to be true. Ye of little faith, Melissa, in yourself and your wisdom. The lack of words is always problematic for me, of course, because as much as I want their stamp of approval, I strive to convince them (haha, who am I kidding, probably not possible and likely not necessary) but fail. I mostly feel I cannot find words for what I want to convey. The Levines helped give me words and for this I am grateful. Even if they disappear from explicit consciousness and are missing next time I search for them, once more my partial truth has been reinforced. I am reminded again that I do know, that I am okay, that my feet are on the path. Approval of other or not...

Addendum: this is nice too: "There has long been in spiritual and psychological communities the saying "You have to be someone before you can be no one."" [I distinctly remember saying basically this to a Zen teacher who wasn't able to or simply didn't acknowledge what I was trying to say. This, of course, is why I like this quote...giving my as-yet weak faith another pat on the back.] "It is a way of saying that you can't skip over the necessary psychological integrations in order to experience the boundarylessness of your true being. This solid truth points out that without some degree of psychological wholeness, we will not be able to integrate the spiritual insights that arise."