Geoff! Excellent writing, speaking, and analysis/insight here. Thank you!
I'd like to offer a "yes, and" here...maybe "yes, and-ness" dwells alongside the transcendent immanence of radical acceptance... Not outshining, rather both.
I say this as a guide rooted in non-duality, of course. AND, one who teaches at the intersection of embodiment, i.e. Tantric Advaita, as it were. Engaging with life as part of the great unfolding, ever knowing that This is also beyond time and space.
To me, you are also speaking of that intersectionality!
You end with my favorite line from the Gita, too. I often joke with my students/mentees, You have no right to the fruits!!" 🍇🍉🍒🍏🥭
One last point of discussion, as part of the hopelessness required for freedom from suffering (aka freedom in bondage), and radical acceptance to the Ultimate:
One finally realizes that powerlessness applies to everything. Including whether or not volition, agency, action ARISES. That's the rub. Most people get stuck on that point, i.e. what about when there's more or less apparent self-will (apparent being the operative word)? WHO or WHAT is the original cause of THAT?
One sees the impossibility of cause and effect in Totality, which is an infinite number of happenings occurring simultaneously with the appearance of an individual action.
Keep up the good, wise work! And thank you for reading my comment. 😎
What a delight to be gifted with such a thoughtful comment! So many wise and good ideas here.
I think you’re right to provide the criticism of the word outshine, and I agree that the concepts complement each other. I suppose I was just trying to say that yes-and-ness envelops and makes more clear the same thing that is pointed to by the term radical acceptance.
But screw the competitive language, both/and is almost always better!
I do think that if you zoom out enough, there is no who or what that can be said to be the causative agent in an action that free will is apparently demonstrated in. I also think there’s value in zooming in a little bit and seeing our individual aspects of the totality as self-contained systems with semi permeable self selected boundaries.
If you zoom in enough, the fingers of a hand might seem like their own individual beings zoom out and they’re part of a human who, if you zoom out more, is one with the universe. It seems like a shitty metaphor, but sometimes people develop “alien hands” as a result of brain surgery that behave with a will of their own, and that the person they belong to can’t explain the actions of.
So it’s true if you zoom all the way out, that we are an indivisible whole, but there are benefits to being able to navigate different depths.
You could say a finger does its grasping better when it does its own particular job well AND knows that it’s part of a hand.
But wow: an infinite number of simultaneous happenings with the appearance of an individual action! What a perfect succinct way to describe the impossibility of locating will within a totally zoomed out perspective!
But all that said, I never could’ve imagined that my efforts would bring me the fruits of this opportunity to expand my exploration of these ideas. Thanks so much!
I appreciate your courage in confronting the contradictions and exploring a "yes, and" approach!
I feel personally that part of the reason for material incarnation is precisely to *get away from * an entirely self-created reality that is more characteristic of the spirit dimension. Sometimes there are hurricanes, and sometimes our bodies have strange ailments, and sometimes our closest friends die suddenly, and sometimes there are amazing sunsets, and we get to evolve and create and experience within all of those contexts, and in so doing grow in ways that we would not if we got to generate our own reality all of the time. I see it as not that different from the motivation to play certain computer games, to choose into an alternate reality where things just happen and we can develop our characters in response.
I have also been meditating recently on the nature of masculine and feminine, and I'm not sure I would entirely agree with your characterization of radical acceptance as feminine. I think that *any* philosophy that seeks to interpret reality through a mind-lens - to say "this is what this experience means" - is a creation of the masculine, even if "what it means" is a form of surrender or acceptance. I think that the feminine uses different ways of knowing, feeling her way forward and intuiting a course of action which may be sometimes surrendering and sometimes resisting but that is clearly known within the "is-ness" of each moment and is not ultimately informed or controlled by the mind. The mind can participate and understand the course of action but will not be able to fit it within a set of rules or guidelines. I'm not convinced that a feminine philosophy exists because once we enter the realm of philosophy we may no longer be within the realm of the feminine.
I love that take on divine feminine philosophy! Rather than disagree, I think I’d just reframe Radical Acceptance (or the YES to whatever comes) as a posture of welcome rather than a philosophy. The invitation to the universe to bring what it will that is implicit in surrender is more like something we do with our bodies.
I always like to picture it as holding my hands out and down palms forward, like the universe is a toddler I’m going to gather into a hug.
And yes, I vibe with the computer game analogy! A lot of my personal philosophy is an attempt to integrate all the spiritual wisdom like that which I have come across as a hobbyist householder seeker. I try to make space for it ALL to be true using a kind of Listening that makes me available to pull whichever nugget of Truth is appropriate to meet the moment I’m facing.
Thanks for your wonderfully thoughtful comment!! You really made me reflect. I appreciate it.
If I were to attempt to frame an approach that to life that felt feminine it would be something like this...
That which I am meant to accept I will accept.
That which I am meant to escape I will escape.
That which I am meant to fight I will fight.
Whatever I am confronted with, I trust that I will discern in the moment a course of action that is true to my essence.
Whatever course of action I choose, I will not obsess over its rightness or wrongness or ponder the outcomes of alternate choices. I will accept consequences and flow onward to the next moment of presence, the next stitch in the weaving of the pattern.
Beautiful, spot on, and very reminiscent of the Nodes in the Net conversation I had with Deborah Eden Tull (author of Luminous Darkness, a book about embracing the divine feminine and other concepts cast into Modernity’s shadow). The episode will come out next Tuesday:)
Everything about the Buddha was radical. To look for self interest in all situations will maintain the illusion of self and perpetuate the requisite sufferings. I use yes and with people who need confirmation, upon whom dharma and shadow work are wasted energy. I think general advice is only possible from a firm path if you don't compare it with others. Because money is an instrument for mediocre minds to compare the best options with a price tag, Buddha refused the ownership of possession to prove his point. B
I don't believe he would ever have said yes and to everything, precisely because he was enlightened and could offer the middle way, how else did he start a religion if not by offering the truth precisely when it was needed? It wasn't by coercion. Furthermore he did not radically accept everything, but radically denied the core corrupting elements of a human in this world, and preached and lived his own way swaying the hearts and minds of the world to this day.
Caveat: Buddha's radicalism was radically middle, but from the perspectives of overloading self to destruction or overloading matter to self, it can be seen as radical. Your 5 % action works for you, but I don't know how radical radical acceptance is, for non-monks for sure it is a good step. But without connections to monks it may only be a temporary self help with a hole you are wisely filling with yes and.
The Buddha's disposition toward withdrawal from society has a lot of implications in the way Buddhism continues to be practiced today. Householder practice is something that is very new, relatively speaking.
One of the main things I'm interested in writing about is figuring out how to translate historically monastic practices for people who want to remain grounded in the Earth realm stuff.
This yes-and-ness is one example. When the Buddhist nun Brach quotes (at the beginning of this essay) says "Thank you for this moment, I have no complaints" it means something completely different from what it means when we say it.
Figuring out ways to enjoy a nice sunny day while Godzilla attacks is some kind of metaphor for the times we live in, lol
So-that-ness seems tricky! I might have an intention with my actions, but there’s so many variables in our complex system of systems that is existence, it’s hard to feel confident that the result I intend to manifest will be what really comes to pass, right?
Still good to have a North Star or two as we navigate reality though.
Conscious intention and cultivating agency are useful practices for me, regardless of manifestation. I feel like trying at all can be a positive thing for a lot of folks, especially in our Godzilla-ridden present.
Totally agree. Reflecting, I’m kind of surprised I haven’t written about it much, but free will has been an obsession of mine for a lonnnnng time. A few years ago I got really serious about figuring out what was necessary to extract myself from determinism, shadow, karma, reactivity, and the influence of substances and habits that whisper THEIR will into my ear, overriding my own.
Whether it’s actually possible and whether the outcomes I hope for end up coming to pass, it’s definitely something that I am called to grapple with in this lifetime.
Hahah, good point! I think that idea of all suffering being caused by the illusion of separation came a few centuries after the Gita, though, right?
The question remains: how would it be written today?
I suppose it’s up to us to reimagine the holy texts in light of all the new information available to us. People have been doing it for thousands of years.
Geoff! Excellent writing, speaking, and analysis/insight here. Thank you!
I'd like to offer a "yes, and" here...maybe "yes, and-ness" dwells alongside the transcendent immanence of radical acceptance... Not outshining, rather both.
I say this as a guide rooted in non-duality, of course. AND, one who teaches at the intersection of embodiment, i.e. Tantric Advaita, as it were. Engaging with life as part of the great unfolding, ever knowing that This is also beyond time and space.
To me, you are also speaking of that intersectionality!
You end with my favorite line from the Gita, too. I often joke with my students/mentees, You have no right to the fruits!!" 🍇🍉🍒🍏🥭
One last point of discussion, as part of the hopelessness required for freedom from suffering (aka freedom in bondage), and radical acceptance to the Ultimate:
One finally realizes that powerlessness applies to everything. Including whether or not volition, agency, action ARISES. That's the rub. Most people get stuck on that point, i.e. what about when there's more or less apparent self-will (apparent being the operative word)? WHO or WHAT is the original cause of THAT?
One sees the impossibility of cause and effect in Totality, which is an infinite number of happenings occurring simultaneously with the appearance of an individual action.
Keep up the good, wise work! And thank you for reading my comment. 😎
What a delight to be gifted with such a thoughtful comment! So many wise and good ideas here.
I think you’re right to provide the criticism of the word outshine, and I agree that the concepts complement each other. I suppose I was just trying to say that yes-and-ness envelops and makes more clear the same thing that is pointed to by the term radical acceptance.
But screw the competitive language, both/and is almost always better!
I do think that if you zoom out enough, there is no who or what that can be said to be the causative agent in an action that free will is apparently demonstrated in. I also think there’s value in zooming in a little bit and seeing our individual aspects of the totality as self-contained systems with semi permeable self selected boundaries.
If you zoom in enough, the fingers of a hand might seem like their own individual beings zoom out and they’re part of a human who, if you zoom out more, is one with the universe. It seems like a shitty metaphor, but sometimes people develop “alien hands” as a result of brain surgery that behave with a will of their own, and that the person they belong to can’t explain the actions of.
So it’s true if you zoom all the way out, that we are an indivisible whole, but there are benefits to being able to navigate different depths.
You could say a finger does its grasping better when it does its own particular job well AND knows that it’s part of a hand.
But wow: an infinite number of simultaneous happenings with the appearance of an individual action! What a perfect succinct way to describe the impossibility of locating will within a totally zoomed out perspective!
But all that said, I never could’ve imagined that my efforts would bring me the fruits of this opportunity to expand my exploration of these ideas. Thanks so much!
Fruitful (no pun intended 🍌) inquiry all the way around! Thx for the exchange, Geoff!
This is a wonderful reframe that I absolutely was in need of during this time. Thank you
❤️🙏
More
YES, and …
than
yes, AND …
☺️
Depends on the circumstance!
YES, and to traffic
yes, AND to injustice
😁
Possibly … I’m ever the pacifist. I may not want to fight injustice. I’d rather face it, leave it behind and go home.
And by that I mean: not sure if justice/injustice is a false dichotomy.
I appreciate your courage in confronting the contradictions and exploring a "yes, and" approach!
I feel personally that part of the reason for material incarnation is precisely to *get away from * an entirely self-created reality that is more characteristic of the spirit dimension. Sometimes there are hurricanes, and sometimes our bodies have strange ailments, and sometimes our closest friends die suddenly, and sometimes there are amazing sunsets, and we get to evolve and create and experience within all of those contexts, and in so doing grow in ways that we would not if we got to generate our own reality all of the time. I see it as not that different from the motivation to play certain computer games, to choose into an alternate reality where things just happen and we can develop our characters in response.
I have also been meditating recently on the nature of masculine and feminine, and I'm not sure I would entirely agree with your characterization of radical acceptance as feminine. I think that *any* philosophy that seeks to interpret reality through a mind-lens - to say "this is what this experience means" - is a creation of the masculine, even if "what it means" is a form of surrender or acceptance. I think that the feminine uses different ways of knowing, feeling her way forward and intuiting a course of action which may be sometimes surrendering and sometimes resisting but that is clearly known within the "is-ness" of each moment and is not ultimately informed or controlled by the mind. The mind can participate and understand the course of action but will not be able to fit it within a set of rules or guidelines. I'm not convinced that a feminine philosophy exists because once we enter the realm of philosophy we may no longer be within the realm of the feminine.
I love that take on divine feminine philosophy! Rather than disagree, I think I’d just reframe Radical Acceptance (or the YES to whatever comes) as a posture of welcome rather than a philosophy. The invitation to the universe to bring what it will that is implicit in surrender is more like something we do with our bodies.
I always like to picture it as holding my hands out and down palms forward, like the universe is a toddler I’m going to gather into a hug.
And yes, I vibe with the computer game analogy! A lot of my personal philosophy is an attempt to integrate all the spiritual wisdom like that which I have come across as a hobbyist householder seeker. I try to make space for it ALL to be true using a kind of Listening that makes me available to pull whichever nugget of Truth is appropriate to meet the moment I’m facing.
Thanks for your wonderfully thoughtful comment!! You really made me reflect. I appreciate it.
If I were to attempt to frame an approach that to life that felt feminine it would be something like this...
That which I am meant to accept I will accept.
That which I am meant to escape I will escape.
That which I am meant to fight I will fight.
Whatever I am confronted with, I trust that I will discern in the moment a course of action that is true to my essence.
Whatever course of action I choose, I will not obsess over its rightness or wrongness or ponder the outcomes of alternate choices. I will accept consequences and flow onward to the next moment of presence, the next stitch in the weaving of the pattern.
Beautiful, spot on, and very reminiscent of the Nodes in the Net conversation I had with Deborah Eden Tull (author of Luminous Darkness, a book about embracing the divine feminine and other concepts cast into Modernity’s shadow). The episode will come out next Tuesday:)
I'll need to listen to that one :-).
Everything about the Buddha was radical. To look for self interest in all situations will maintain the illusion of self and perpetuate the requisite sufferings. I use yes and with people who need confirmation, upon whom dharma and shadow work are wasted energy. I think general advice is only possible from a firm path if you don't compare it with others. Because money is an instrument for mediocre minds to compare the best options with a price tag, Buddha refused the ownership of possession to prove his point. B
I don't believe he would ever have said yes and to everything, precisely because he was enlightened and could offer the middle way, how else did he start a religion if not by offering the truth precisely when it was needed? It wasn't by coercion. Furthermore he did not radically accept everything, but radically denied the core corrupting elements of a human in this world, and preached and lived his own way swaying the hearts and minds of the world to this day.
Caveat: Buddha's radicalism was radically middle, but from the perspectives of overloading self to destruction or overloading matter to self, it can be seen as radical. Your 5 % action works for you, but I don't know how radical radical acceptance is, for non-monks for sure it is a good step. But without connections to monks it may only be a temporary self help with a hole you are wisely filling with yes and.
Good points all around!
The Buddha's disposition toward withdrawal from society has a lot of implications in the way Buddhism continues to be practiced today. Householder practice is something that is very new, relatively speaking.
One of the main things I'm interested in writing about is figuring out how to translate historically monastic practices for people who want to remain grounded in the Earth realm stuff.
This yes-and-ness is one example. When the Buddhist nun Brach quotes (at the beginning of this essay) says "Thank you for this moment, I have no complaints" it means something completely different from what it means when we say it.
Great post! You know I'm here for the both/and ness!
You draw from improv -- to draw from narrative design (games), sometimes it's helpful to remember the why. It's the "so that" ness of [player] agency.
The sun is out AND Godzilla is attacking, so let's move slightly to the left of that flying bus bench SO THAT we can continue enjoying the day.
Figuring out ways to enjoy a nice sunny day while Godzilla attacks is some kind of metaphor for the times we live in, lol
So-that-ness seems tricky! I might have an intention with my actions, but there’s so many variables in our complex system of systems that is existence, it’s hard to feel confident that the result I intend to manifest will be what really comes to pass, right?
Still good to have a North Star or two as we navigate reality though.
Conscious intention and cultivating agency are useful practices for me, regardless of manifestation. I feel like trying at all can be a positive thing for a lot of folks, especially in our Godzilla-ridden present.
Totally agree. Reflecting, I’m kind of surprised I haven’t written about it much, but free will has been an obsession of mine for a lonnnnng time. A few years ago I got really serious about figuring out what was necessary to extract myself from determinism, shadow, karma, reactivity, and the influence of substances and habits that whisper THEIR will into my ear, overriding my own.
Whether it’s actually possible and whether the outcomes I hope for end up coming to pass, it’s definitely something that I am called to grapple with in this lifetime.
Hahah, good point! I think that idea of all suffering being caused by the illusion of separation came a few centuries after the Gita, though, right?
The question remains: how would it be written today?
I suppose it’s up to us to reimagine the holy texts in light of all the new information available to us. People have been doing it for thousands of years.
Why can’t we?