surrender

I've been re-reading a book by a monk named Wilfrid Stinissen, and was really struck by a couple of excerpts yesterday. Paraphrasing to secularize and generalize a bit, he says that we seek awakening everywhere we think it should be, trying to find and cling to the experiences that we conceive of as what awakening must be like, but it does not need to be sought, as it is already present - even in the things we think it shouldn't be in (such as banal or unpleasant things).

He says that when we truly surrender, we know it by the fact that we are not troubled or uncomfortable, no matter what arises. It's all included, it's all allowed. Whatever arises, if we resist it or reject it, discontent arises. When we surrender everything, there is no resistance, no rejection, and thus no discontent.

I thought that was well said, and points to the deepest difficulty of practice - the former part particularly before awakening, the latter part, in my experience, becoming more vivid and addressable after.

Thoughts?

Upon your old recommendation (on the old site?) I'm reading the book now! It's going slow for me (religious aversion) but I feel like it's good for me, like eating kale. More to follow...

ROFL!!

But seriously, it does seem that surrender practice in general (whether in a religious context or not) is the best possible practice for letting one deal with all ones issues regarding daddy, God, authority, and so forth.

I suspect that book is very difficult even for Christians. One of the very difficult things to wrap ones head around is this idea of radical inclusivity. Exoteric religions in general, and people in general, tend to be very delighted with boundary-drawing. The more lines and boxes and categories and limits the better. We spend most of our (unawake) lives dwelling on, living for, killing for, defending and supporting big fat divisions: these people are crap, these people are cool; these things are sacred, these things are shit; these things are worthy, these things are bogus, and so on.

Stinissen is one of the most clear I've ever read on the really radical dropping of boundaries that awakening allows and reveals. There's a big pointy Zen stick in his hand, and he doesn't shrink from using it. I don't think there are very many people out there, even religious ones, who would find his points very comfortable.

I was talking to a very Christian old friend a few weeks ago about this Will of God stuff, and she said "You know, I know I'm supposed to want God's Will to be done, but I am fully aware that most of the time I actually don't. Because what if he wants something I don't want? What if God's Will means accepting things that are difficult or uncomfortable? I can't bring myself to pray for that, because I don't have the courage." I pointed out it doesn't actually make much difference, because God's Will is only whatever happens anyway. The purpose of the prayer is to accept "what is, just as it is" and stop wishing for things to be different. You know, relinquishing clinging and aversion and all that.

It wouldn't be called practice if it were easy.

Well, I ate a little more kale on a business trip I was on this week... boy, "Into your Hands, Father" is very slow reading for me.

I will finish it though.

I'm about halfway through and I keep wondering, is it harder to be conventionally religious and then become a contemplative? It seems like so much has to be seen more maturely when we start off with a very strong sense of a human-like, parental-type God. (Of course, there's the whole church as authority thing too, but I think these can be separated.) When the mystery/reality is so well described by religion, so boxed in and with so much narrative, it might take doubly as long to have a contemplative insight into it.

This is something I am very interested in talking to the monk about at the retreat next week. When I read Christian contemplative's writings - whether medieval or modern or even ancient - I am just struck by how closely their experiences mirror my own. It has a deep resonance.

When I read or hear non-contemplative expounding on Christianity, I feel like it just misses the boat. It's all about lines and boxes and categories and boundaries and judgement and sin... it has almost nothing to do with my own personal experience as a contemplative.

THe fact is I know a bunch of people who ran like hell from the church when they were young, but after awakening have a real appreciation for the meaning of it now - feeling that what they learned as kids had almost nothing to do with this esoteric, mystical understanding of the teachings that resonates with the experiences of contemplatives in many traditions. A few have even returned to some engagement with the church, or are comfortable teaching students using Christian contemplation, for example.

A friend of mine, raised Catholic/fled as soon as he could, woke up last week. Talking to him a few days later he said he was rather marveling at the realization that he had suddenly gained a really new appreciation for Jesus as a teacher. He had never thought that would happen, but it all seemed to make sense now in a new way and seemed to have little to do with the dogma and nuns with rulers he'd grown up around. Now, we joked, "Do What Thou Wilt" (a la Crowley) and "They Will Be Done" (a la Lord's Prayer) take on a whole new meaning. When love is experienced so deeply, as he was experiencing recently, "love thy neighbor" etc takes on a whole new meaning.

But I have never met a Christian who is NOT awake who can get that at all. They tend to be quite rigid and hung up on rules and regulations. And I have never met a Christian who IS awake, period (in person), except a few who spent most of their practice in eastern traditions or mixes of practices and got back into Christianity later, and therefore have a great deal of flexibility in how they can talk about things.

So I am very curious to talk to this monk, who is very deep in this one tradition, to see what his take on exoteric vs esoteric Christianity is, and (at least in private) how he is able to engage with (or not) someone whose background is quite eclectic. Just like with some Buddhist teachers I have spoken to, I would not ask some questions in public, as they sometimes feel obligated to speak as representatives of the tradition and not say things that might disturb the flock, so to speak. In private they will often be much more forthright.

Your kale is my chocolate cake, at the moment. Ken Wilber is my kale. Never could even finish the Wikipedia page.

I'm actually also very curious to hear how best those of you who are more secular or even atheist describe, teach and practice surrender? For me it developed out of "be with everything just as it is" (which I think is a dzogchen teaching?), but I always had a devotional streak so it tended to overlap with work with saints, deities, etc. all along.

The quick answer is "the moment is already here, tune into that".

Those are great questions to ask... and probably universal for any religion that has text-based and meditation-based practitioners. Lord knows Buddhism has that challenge, too.

shargrol wrote: Those are great questions to ask... and probably universal for any religion that has text-based and meditation-based practitioners. Lord knows Buddhism has that challenge, too.

For sure. I went to a Chinese temple once, and it was just like being at a cathedral. Priests were chanting up front. The people were standing and kneeling on cue. In the back people came and went, lighting devotional candles at various saints' altars. There was no "meditating" or "dharma teaching" like western sanghas have.

And among western-style sanghas, there are plenty of people more into the concepts or the rules or the yoga pants and singing bowls than any kind of personal contemplative practice. And indeed some who are downright disdainful or smug about how right they are and how stupid everyone else is, though I have not encountered Buddhist teachings that outright encourage that attitude...

(I don't think there's anything wrong with NOT being a contemplative, btw. In case any of this discussion implied it's a poor choice. Just pointing out that it's a whole different way of relating to a spiritual tradition.)

shargrol wrote: The quick answer is "the moment is already here, tune into that".

I suppose it's largely about recognizing lack of agency. Theistic methods transfer the sense of agency to deity (which is pervasive/inclusive, not separate (again something I'm not sure crosses that exoteric/esoteric boundary...) But simply recognizing "all this arises and passes away by itself, the experiencing of it is also spontaneous and not me/not mine, no one is doing anything" etc points to more or less the same experience, I think? It all seems sort of equivalent to me, just different metaphors or pointings...

Growing up in the Foursquare Church, I am well acquainted with surrender in terms of deities, spirits, etc. Though, the only acceptable deity was God/Jesus, and the only spirit was the Holy Spirit. Everything else was considered demonic.

In this tradition/denomination, expressions of spiritual gifts (charismata) comes only through first being baptized in the Holy Spirit (or just Spirit with a capital 'S'), which happens through invitation and surrender/letting go/trusting God. Then, subsequent expressions of the charismata are exercised through faith and surrender, but also through a willingness to participate in how the Spirit is "moving." The list of spiritual gifts used most frequently by Pentecostals comes from 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. They are: wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophesy, distinguishing between spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. The most widely practiced are healing, prophesy, and tongues. During my early years of undergrad, I asked God to endow me with the gift of interpretation of tongues, because I didn't ever see anyone doing it. I had some success with it, and it would take more than one post to explain what this entails from a modern Pentecostal point of view*. (I think it may have meant something different to the New Testament writers, but I digress.)

Now, I'm much more like Chris in my understanding and practice of surrender. For me it has more to do with letting go of self-defining thoughts, or referencing-making. By allow thoughts to arise and vanish like waves, I can experience the awareness beyond thought, which is also not wholly other than thought. In other words, Being. I think the only way to really experience being is through surrender, because without letting go of identification with artificial, thought-constructed references, one's only experience of being is embedded in the habit of doing.

*I'm sort of surprised by my willingness to share more about my experience with Pentecostalism, because I've been somewhat embarrassed about it for years. I'm getting better about accepting past experiences as they happened in memory, without needing to draw firm conclusions about what was really happening. I'm also not angry about the situation anymore, which is quite a relief. Telling stories may still conjure up old feelings, but they're not so sticky anymore. It's good to cultivate a sense of humor about one's past

Yeah. I think I feel pretty comfortable with both ways of explaining/describing things, and I'm not sure they are radically different, but I come from a mixed-practice background (and used to study anthropology) so that may not be true for people who are very immersed in only one view or another.

Perhaps this is part of what I'm exploring. How much flexibility do people have to understand things using different teachings or metaphors? Are some things just going to make no sense at all outside of a certain traditional view, or...

It's interesting!

Ona Kiser wrote: I'm actually also very curious to hear how best those of you who are more secular or even atheist describe, teach and practice surrender?

I'm atheist in the sense of not being in possession of any gods (the wording is deliberate, it goes both ways). I do not hold any grudges towards the gods. I am of the opinion that the attribute of "existence" does not apply to the gods, that it is not useful to refer to the gods in terms of existence. I don't extend this jovial relationship with the gods to organized religion however: I am thoroughly un-enthusiastic about all cults of the gods and the associated hierarchies. So that's the sense in which I am atheist and secular.

Surrender is "fake it till you make it" regarding release, or letting go. Release is not an act, rather a cessation of action. But surrender, which is an act, can be used as a statement of intent or gesture setting the direction towards genuine release. It's a tool.

Being atheist, it was an act of surrender for me to take up religious practice and study religious literature. Having received training in natural science, performing magickal acts and understanding the world in terms of magickal thinking were acts of surrender. Both are forms of "surrender of" something, which is a bit restrictive. There is also the "surrender to" type of practice, which is more inclusive, for example, I did a "surrender to the emptiness aspect of a certain deity" practice regularly for a couple of months last year.

Another nice way to practice surrender is to "include" whatever pops up. This is surrender of boundaries, to everything.

Cheers,
Florian

Florian Weps wrote:
Surrender is "fake it till you make it" regarding release, or letting go. Release is not an act, rather a cessation of action. But surrender, which is an act, can be used as a statement of intent or gesture setting the direction towards genuine release. It's a tool.

Good stuff, Florian. That's a great way to look at it, and I think it's true. I am pretty clearly aware, I think, that my current Christian mysticism/Catholicism rabbit hole has everything to do with being a sort of large-scale magickal ritual regarding surrender practice. I have been reading one book after another by various 17th and 18th century monks, and find the vocabulary and method particularly appealing. More than that, as is typical in my practice for some years now, things keep unfolding in synchronicities which just lead me along, and I am quite curious about where it will all lead. As with things I have done in the past, I seem to be inclined to throw myself in the deep end and go for it. However, I have a strong suspicion this particular project will not lead to any "answer" or "end" but will prove to be yet another process which exhausts itself in its own way, just as other practices have in the past. Which will be very interesting.

Ooh la la. I finally finished reading it, but admittedly some skimming toward the end. That book probably has logged about 3,000 miles in my briefcase bag, I had to finish it and move on!

In a nut shell, of course all the statements about surrender, obedience, etc. are correct... but what drives me bonkers is these books just talk about it. Talk talk talk. And on top of it, it adds another level of complexity by using the same language as the authoritative/paternal god into it. Ugh.

Then FINALLY! on page 100 or so, it mentions an actual practice, essentially silent prayer/silent meditation. It is described as something for a very advanced surrenderer (new word I think I made up). The book ends on page 105.

So you can go around beating your head against the wall, trying to second guess yourself and god's intent for 100 pages of your life. And then for the last 5 pages of your life, you should consider starting meditating?

AAAAAAaaaaaaah!!!!

Ona, why why why???

It seems so much more simple to say that:

1. this moment is happening
2. if you are more relaxed, you will be more aware, and you will percieve the reality of the moment more clearly
3. the way to relax is to drop your pretensions and anticipations and just experience as if for the first time
4. you will feel the benefit of the relaxation and the increased awareness. this is the way to be. (God wants you to be this way.)
5. when you are more aware, you will naturally know what to do
6. the more aware you become, the more sensitive you are to pretension and anticipation, so don't be surprised if things are still challenging, but you will know you are on the right track because you wouldn't trade the sensitivity for numbness.
7. share what you know with others. we're all in this together. (God wants you to help others.)
8. your pretensions and anticipations can drop away so much that it feels like there is barely a "you" in the moment. That's fine and normal. It can be somewhat scary at times, but that's fine and normal.
9. look back and see how much you have changed over time and how much better you are for walking this path.
10. when you feel like you've climbed to the top of a 100 foot pole, keep climbing with great trust and great doubt. (God wants you to do this, even though you don't know how.)

Written with good humor, which I hope you can pick up on!

By the way...

Most of my reaction above is (probably obviously) driven by a sense that people need a view, a practice, and a sangha very early in their attempts to become less sinful and/or more awakened. Intention, even the most noble intention like surrendering to god, is important at the beginning, but intention without a view and practice it is going to be slow going with so much suffering. Unfortunately, this suffering is sometimes fetishized. The slow road may be inevitable, but usually it isn't. It's not without cost, a slow road tends to create stoic/pessimistic habits that linger. Much better to wake up quickly, be born again quickly, be of help to others quickly.

That's my view of things right now... I could be wrong, I admit.

ROFL!!!

I have to say one of the reasons I LIKED this book was because (unlike all the other *modern* books on the subject I've looked at) it DIDN'T spend ten chapters explaining how to meditate. I already know that stuff. If I read one more book on Christian meditation that explains how to do it (and then has to give you several chapters as to how to respond when certain (particularly Protestant) acquaintances fear it might be devil worship) I will shoot myself.

Why I think it makes sense only as an "advanced" book is because the "surrender to divine will" stuff has little to do, in my view, with "trying to second guess yourself and god's intent for 100 pages of your life". To me it has only to do with letting go of attachment and aversion.

As you said: " 5. when you are more aware, you will naturally know what to do"

Divine Will is just another way to talk about "that which already always is" or "the unfolding of every moment". (Or as you said, "this moment is happening"). For someone who is not awake (or at least not somewhat awake), I think the whole difficulty with the idea (whether in a Christian vocabulary or not) is that it points to your attachments and resistance like a laser beam. The less experienced you are, the less it is even possible to see those things, no matter how bright the laser beam. You are too identified with your stuff. At more "advanced" levels it becomes more useful to use teachings that point out and point out and point out.

I like your super-simplified take on things! Thanks for doing that. I am finding that in some traditions (magick being one of them) there are an enormous number of (former or semi-former) Catholics, perhaps because of the robes candles and chanting stuff and the belief in supernatural phenomena. It can be interesting and sometimes helpful to talk about these things cross-traditionally. There's something about the Christian approach that really resonates for me right now, though I value being able to talk about things in ways that work, rather than being stuck in one dogmatic vocabulary. My own teachers were always able to do that for me and I think that was a huge benefit. I think it's terribly limiting to get into a "my way or the highway" attitude about methods, dogma, beliefs or views. I like a pragmatic "whatever works best" approach.

Thanks for being a guinea pig! Feel free to return the "favor" by making me eat some kale of your choice.

Phew! I'm glad you had a good laugh, I was trying to be funny, too!



I think what I liked most about the book was imaging a monk/father trying to wean a follower from the basic Phase 1 form of "if god loves me, he gives me pleasure, if he hates me, he gives me pain" view of the world to the Phase 2 form "there is wisdom in the joys and sorrows of life, look closely and understand what it teaches about your view of god's creation" view of the world. I had sympathy for what a chore that would be! I really did (abstractly) appreciate the "pointing out instructions"... I guess that, in person, the pointing out would be shorter and more tailored. This book is more of a collection of material for three different phases of pointing out... maybe saving the silent prayer suggestion until the nun/priest was sure the follower wouldn't think it was devil worship!

I spent a little time a few weeks ago at my sister's church for a baptism... I spent a lot of time thinking about how far teaching can go and still stay within the "dogma" of the sect. The minister was getting pretty close to the edge, if not over. It was an amazing thing to see (she was a good teacher)... but I also wondered about how confining the dogma was for her. Was she risking her position/job? I don't know enough to know, but I kept seeing how the Phase 1 people almost automatically find conflict with the Phase 2 worldview. They don't like how Phase 2 makes us semi-responsible for our reactions/experiences.

Yeah, I am totally fascinated by how people who clearly have deep insight deal with the boundaries that the dogma of their tradition requires (particularly if they have a job like ordained priest, etc.). I have had private conversations with priests in several traditions (who knew me well enough to be honest) who were very forthright about the complex rites, rituals and dogma being simply a tool that people need at certain stages to help their practice along, but really being utterly unnecessary at a certain point.

It reminds me, actually, of a conversation I had with a "student" today, who reported she was astonished to fall asleep during meditation but keep meditating anyway (some sort of deep semi-conscious state arose, basically). Because she thought it was really important not to fall asleep, but clearly it actually didn't matter. That seemed like exactly the same kind of situation. If you tell a beginner they can fall asleep during practice with no problem, and that you often spend meditations in a sleep-like state, some large number of them will just go take a nap instead of meditating and not develop a good practice. They don't have the brain changes that support sleeping (or whatever similar states of consciousness) while meditating. Once it arises naturally like that then the rule doesn't apply anymore. But I think it would be counterproductive to have them try to jump ahead of where they are and misunderstand that sleeping is the same as meditating.

Thoughts?

My only clear thought about moving from dogma/rituals to practice is that there should be a period of silent prayer as part of sunday service. Something uncomfortably long, like maybe 7 whole minutes! Gotta whet peoples' appetites for silent prayer a little. Then about 20% will say "I like that" and there can be home practice for them.

Is that so radical? Probably so...

Yes, and all spoken words should be spoken slowly, not rattled through like you are rushing off to a dinner date.

Ona Kiser wrote: Yeah, I am totally fascinated by how people who clearly have deep insight deal with the boundaries that the dogma of their tradition requires (particularly if they have a job like ordained priest, etc.)

Just for fun, I should mention the two things the priest suggested which struck me as close to violating dogma, which may or may not be true (I don't know enough to be sure).

The first was she suggested that Jesus feeding 5000 people with a few loaves and a few fish.... was not a miracle, except in the sense that the parable of "stone soup" is miraculous.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup

The second was that baptism didn't wash away original sin and create a place in heaven for the child, it already was fully loved and accepted by god before baptism.

(Are these ideas as contentious as I think they could be?)

I'm not a theology expert, so I can't say for sure, but they do seem that way.

I'm recalling another I ran into in which the writer emphasized that God is fully present even in Hell. It's just that the souls or beings "there" can't see him. That blindness to God's presence (and the suffering that comes from that blindness) being the definition of Hell (rather than a literal place underground where a guy named Satan makes you sit in a vat of boiling oil or whatever).

I'm not sure that's theologically incorrect in a technical sense, but I think it would rub a lot of Christians the wrong way to not think of it more literally as your big nasty punishment for being naughty, rather than unawake-ness.

Ona Kiser wrote: I'm recalling another I ran into in which the writer emphasized that God is fully present even in Hell. It's just that the souls or beings "there" can't see him.

I'm not a theologian either, but I think that one is actual Kosher. I'm remembering something like that idea explains how God still has power over the Devil even in Hell... and shows that God is merciful even in hell. Does that ring a bell?

I'm reminded of Meister Eckhart, the Christian mystic, who said you have to burst through God to get to God. That is, you have to drop all beliefs, dogma and concepts to form a relationship with the ineffable. I think St. John of the Cross said the same.

I think I have to strive, strive and strive some more in order to get to the place where I can let go and surrender. Myabe I am at that point now. Don't know.

A monk was walking down a path and came to a stream he couldn't jump across. He cut loose one end of a vine, walked it way back and then swung himself over the stream. When he got to the other side, he let go. A lot of work to get to where he could let go.

jack

PS. How do I change my password here?