Breaking Up, Saying Good-bye

For the young — and for those of all ages — break-ups can bring acute grieving, complicated not only by the loss of accustomed love, comfort and companionship, but also by the meanings associated with the break-up. Obsessive jealousy, insecurity — wondering why it happened, feeling a loss of control, obsessing over the last things you said or did, or whether you could have done or should do anything more in order to fix or maintain what was.

One who grieves a break-up (or end of a relationship) often experiences one or more stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally, acceptance.

Accepting yourself, your emotions and your reality opens the way to healing. One way to facilitate that state of acceptance is a ceremony, such as the one I offer here. Ideally, you would speak the words below with both people present. If that is not practical,  do on your own, changing words as needed, as a way of reaching towards closure and moving on with life.

The following Separation Ceremony is excerpted from my book, No Ordinary Moments.
* * *
We are here to acknowledge the parting of two souls whose paths now go their separate ways.
Though we may seem to separate for negative reasons, with feelings of sorrow and anger, feelings both expressed and unexpressed, it is time to accept that whether or not we consciously desire this change, it will be for the highest good of all concerned no matter what reasons now appear for us to separate or to stay together.

It is up to each of us to make the best use of this separation, to learn about ourselves, and to grow and evolve, so that the time we’ve had together, and the time to part, will bear fruit in the future for each of us.

Take a few moments to remember a happy time together, without clinging to it, but knowing that these memories can last, in spite of the shadows and difficulties we now experience. [Pause to remember.]

Let us acknowledge what we have shared and created together; let us acknowledge each other for what we have been able to give of ourselves, whether we gave little or in abundance, recognizing that we did the best we were capable of at our present stage of evolution. [Pause to give silent thanks.]

We acknowledge ourselves for whatever painful feelings arise, and we accept that they will pass. We leave open the possibility that when the feelings heal, we may someday, sooner or later, share as friends, and offer the mutual support of those who understand each other.

We recognize that the end of one thing opens the space for another, and that grieving in time is washed away by the joys of new experience. As two individual souls of value, we say good-bye. While accepting our present feelings, we turn to the future with wisdom gained from experience.

* * *

My purpose in writing this separation ceremony is not to dissolve all  feelings of sorrow  that naturally accompany a break-up or death or divorce — such emotions may persist for a time, just as a painful physical wound takes time to heal. Yet such challenging events can serve as teachable moments to hel us grow stronger, wiser and more compassionate.

Calories, Choices and Longevity

An old friend sent me a link to a July 15th piece in the New York Times on the upside, and downside, or caloric restriction as a means to increase longevity – why it works, and how it may not work.  Here’s the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/opinion/16iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

The story itself is well done, expressing a point of view I may personally agree with, with reservations.  The assumption of the write is an all-or-nothing choice: that if we restrict calories, we will necessarily be "miserable" and "depressed."  

It may be true that starving oneself as a lifestyle — (I’m not talking about anorexia or other eating disorders; just lighter eating over time) — may reflect a constellation of values and tendencies to be leaner and also meaner.  But this question seems a matter of choice and balance, not either-or.  

Below were my reflections that I shared with my friend after reading the above-linked article:

 

 

On the Ego

The term ego — (along with superego, and id) were brought into public awareness by the late Dr. Sigmund Freud, neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis. However, according to a Wikipedia entry:

"The terms ‘id,’ ‘ego,’ and ’super-ego’ are not Freud’s own but are latinisations originating from his translator James Strachey. Freud himself wrote of ‘das Es,’ ‘das Ich,’ and ‘das Über-Ich’ — respectively, ‘the It,’ ‘the I,’ and the ‘Over-I’ (or ‘Upper-I’)."

It may be mere coincidence, but these original terms of Freud — The Id (It), the Ego (I) and the "Super-Ego" (Over-I) are remarkably similar to a more ancient Hawaiian (Huna) model that refers to the primitive Basic Self (Id or It), the Conscious Self (I) and Higher Self (Over-I or Upper-I). Whether or not Dr. Freud was exposed to or inspired by the earlier Huna teachings is mere conjecture.

Let it suffice here to note that the Ego was merely a helpful description or map (in the context of the Id and Super-Ego) of self-understanding. Pointing to the "I" (translated by James Strachey using the Latin "Ego") was a mere convention, not a pejorative (negative or desparaging) term.

I was simply I — one’s identity or sense of self. In psychology, the term "ego-strength" referred to a positive quality, a clear sense of oneself and one’s boundaries. And in some realistic spiritual traditions, it was recognize that one had to first develop a strong sense of self before one could transcend it.

Yet today, this term "ego" has become much maligned and obscured. The ego has come to mean this illusory sense of a separate self, also called (by philosopher Alan Watts) the "skin bag" with whch we define and limit ourselves. And enlightenment required the transcendence of this illusory ego, or "I."

This may in fact be true from a spiritual perspective, and many practices have been proposed by mystics, ascetics, and others, including self-denial, meditation (insight), tantric absorption, and so forth. But let us return to the specific topic of ego, and the confusion about it.

Today — especially in spiritual circles — if someone tells you that you have a "huge ego," this is not usually considered a complement. Vain, prideful, narcissistic and (seemingly) conceited people are said to be "full of ego" or to have big egos.

Most spiritual seekers aspire to "get rid of" or "let go" of the ego. When someone tells me this, I ask them, "Who is making that statement?" (Answer: It is the ego stating that it wishes to get rid of ego and rise to a higher state of spiritual achievement — the same drive as success-driven people everywhere, but in a seemingly "higher arena.")

According to Sufi philosophy, there are a small group of people in India known as masts (pronounced: musts) who do not seem to have an ego (or a sense of self) due to an "intoxication with God" and an inward focus. Most show no external desire, not even to eat, and must often be fed by others. In the west we might call them catagonic, but they are revered by some for being "egoless."

Again, according to a Wikipedia entry:
According to Meher Baba, a mast is one entranced or spellbound by internal spiritual experiences and ecstasies, who therefore cannot function outwardly in an ordinary way, and may appear mad to a casual outside observer. . . . Meher Baba distinguishes the mast state from madness, saying that in the case of the mad person mind is sped up, while in the case of the mast it is slowed down . . . Meher Baba contacted hundreds of masts all over India, Pakistan, and Iran, saying that he was freeing them from enchantment and helping them to continue on the spiritual path and to be of inward service to humanity.

Masts can be in varying degrees of the states of salik or majzoob. Salik means more in touch with outward surroundings — grounded and ordinary. Majzoob refers to that state of being immersed in the inner plane and divorced from the outside world."

I suggest that we are not here to get rid of the ego or sense of separate self; we are here to transcend it. We transcend the ego in two primary ways (and the first way can lead to the second): First, through insight — knowing ourselves to the bone, past self-imagery and illusion, seeing all our mechanisms, shadow side and tendencies. Second, through humor — not taking this self, this identity, so serioiusly, and transcending the need to defend the self. As noted, insight leads to humor.

There are various methods proposed in different traditions to achieve deep self-knowledge and authenticity, including dream-study and shadow-work, meditation (to grasp the nature of mind), naikan (a Japanese practice of looking inward), as well as tools for self-analysis such as the enneagram work, various psychological tests, astrological insights, and so forth. 

One of the most useful and accessible tools to gain insight into the self is the Life Purpose System that I teach in (and my reason for writing) The Life You Were Born to Live. This is actually a form of "ego-reduction" because the more one sees one’s tendencies, the greater one’s sense of humor about this "self" and its mechanisms and tendencies.

We are here to recognize it as one functional part of a larger being, as an organizing principle of experience. Problems of fear and anxiety arise when we come to believe that this "I" or "ego" is all that we are, rather than a part.

According to the Hunas, when a new baby is born (and the soul descends or comes fully into the body with the first breath), that child already has a Basic Self from the moment of conception, and it has a Higher Self (Guardian Angel, Spiritual Guide) – but little or no ego (or sense of separate self) at birth. In other words, infants do not at first realize that they are separate from anything else. They abide for a brief time in mystery; nothing means anything.

The difference between an infant and a Zen master is that in the Zen master, the ego is transcended or seen through; in an infant, the ego is merely undeveloped.

However, soon, given the nature of our learning capacity, sense perceptions begin to make more sense, and repeated experience brings associations. Babies explore the physical body, and sources of nourishment and touch bring pleasure and comfort and warmth. Within days, weeks or months, the baby begins to become a someone.

This sense of self, along with fears, stress, and self-absorption, peaks for many in their teens and twenties (the "bullet-proof, know-it all" stage) until the more self-reflective thirties when life has begun to — well, kick some ass — and we cannot escape at least a few moments of actual insight into our human foibles.

There are those (teachers) who blame all bad things on this "ego" and advise letting go of it (as if that were possible). In ancient times we said, "The Devil made me do it." Now, in our spiritual sophistication, we say, "The Ego made me do it." The ego has become the universal spiritual scapegoat.

It is ironic that some teachers who speak of our pure essence and the ego who obstructs this purity of life and being, are non-dualists, who state that "Nirvana and Samsara are one" and posit no separation between flesh and spirit. Yet what could be more dualistic than proposing a "good" essence and "evil" ego (as the source of all troubles)?

In fact, the ego is not a thing, but rather a process or tendency to contract into this mis-perception of separation — to believe in its reality. Certainly there is this body and many other bodies; this is observable fact. But does the body itself experience separation from its envronment? Or is that a function of the mind and its perceptions? This is an important question to consider.

As I have explained in various seminars, we live in two worlds, each with its own truths – the conventional and transcendental worlds.  Conventionally speaking, we are separate, individuated beings who are born, live and die. This is demonstrable truth — the body decomposes and the "soul" merely a concept or belief from the conventional view. From the transcendent view of those monks and avatars and other enlightened people, who we are (pure Awareness) is never born and never dies, and separation is illusion.

Meantime, if ego is indeed a process, moment to moment, let us recognize that ego is as ego does, and focus on how the body behaves.

I am not out to get rid of my ego. I use my ego, my identity, to learn, to teach and to serve. The "I," or Conscious Self, is here to learn, to absorb information, and to function as a person in the world.

Yet, as an ancient saying goes, "Where there is an other, fear arises." This sense of being a self, separate from and competing with others, does tend to engender fear, anxiety, and every sort of stress — not to mention the mortal dread of death.

When we realize that we are a leaf, but exist beyond the stem; we are also part of the entire tree, roots and earth — when we realize that we are not only the falling raindrop, but also the sea into which it falls — we transcend self-and-other, and expand beyond fear for this illusory personality-part of our larger being. Recognizing the self as a necessary part of the whole, we function well in the world, but hold to the vision of our larger Self.

On a physical, structural, biological and cosmic level, we recognize the Earth as a singular, living being floating in space, and ourselves as one of billions of cells on that body. From Earth we come, to Earth we return.

You are, like this Dan Millman character now typing these words, existing as naturally as a flower or sea shell, being what you are and doing what you do. For reasons both wonderful and mysterious, you have appeared here, out of mystery, and to mystery you return. Meanwhile, there are few truisms beyond the existential necessity to live your life as well as you can, with all its rising and falling, light and shadows — accepting and embracing these precious moments of human awareness.

The theater of life goes on, as does this egoic existence; then it changes, as do we all. Conventionally speaking, we are born, live, then die. The Basic Self goes on; the Higher Self continues; only the Conscious Self, this Ego, ends. It is like a disposable contact lens, fulfilling its purpose here this lifetime. This too is a natural part of the Way.

On Labels and Self-Help

Maybe you’ve heard that joke about the bookstore customer who approaches the Information desk and asks for help in finding the Self-Help section. The bookseller responds, “I could tell you, but that would defeat the purpose.”

Well, this commentary is about the self-help categories in order to make sense of our world. We meet someone and say, “What do you do?” (or “Where are you from?” or “What do you believe in?”)

We divide and label and categorize the stream of experience, ideas, people, and things into categories or boxes, and we give each box a mental label. It can be disorienting to come across anything that doesn’t fit into one of our boxes.

There is nothing wrong with labels, as long as we realize they are only labels—that the word is not the thing; the map is not the territory; the menu is not the meal.

When I was an undergraduate student at U.C. Berkeley some years ago, I learned that one of my favorite professors, author-renaissance man Ernest Becker failed to receive a tenure appointment because he was so multi-faceted in his interests (anthropology, psychology, philosophy) that they couldn’t decide where he belonged. He just didn’t fit into a category or familiar label.

I’ve encountered challenges throughout my career similar to those faced by Becker. Given a certain grasp of universal law and (for lack of a better phrase) the bigger picture of life, I’m quite a good generalist in a world (and media) that adores credentialed experts. Those who have a Ph.D. or M.D. degree can make the most speculative (or even ludicrous) suppositions, even if they wander out of their field of expertise.

It’s been said that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing at all. I’ve never appeared on Oprah (or other national talk shows) not only because I lack academic credentials (no M.D. or Ph.D.) – I’m not associated with a recognizable tradition (box/category). I’m not a Roshi, Lama, Rabbi, Iman, Priest or dervish. While I can speak on any number of topics, I am not a relationship coach, money expert, fitness guru or pet psychologist. So it’s, like: “Who is this peaceful warrior guy?  What is his thing, his category, his label? What specific problem does he solve?”

Suggesting how we might live with a more peaceful heart and warrior spirit may seem “too soft,” vague or fuzzy for the talk show hosts. It’s not controversial or topical. It has no clear-cut label, strategy, method, secret, or quick fix. Rather, what I teach involves a process of living and learning.

My work defies neat categories.  In fact, when Way of the Peaceful Warrior was first published, it didn’t fit into philosophy, psychology, or religion. Nor did it fit neatly into fiction or non-fiction (since my first few books contain elements of both).

So the bookstores came up with a new label and category, a miscellaneous drawer termed “New Age,” cluttered with topics including the occult, witchcraft, paganism, angels, E.S.P., divination, and so forth.  Unless the author is a Ph.D., which seems to bump the book into the Psychology section.

I’ve never felt comfortable in the New Age category — but when asked which category I  prefer, I’m in a quandary:  Would I prefer Inspiration? Spirituality? Personal Growth? Or Self-Help?

Self-Help remains one of the most popular labels. Books in this section generally outsell most novels but are religiously ignored by overwhelmed book reviewers who prefer more literary and “substantial” material.

There’s a story about a customer who goes to the “Information” counter at a local bookstore and asks, “Can you direct me to the Self-Help section?” The clerk answers, “If I did, that would defeat the purpose.” Customer, help thyself.

Fair enough. But when you think about it—when you go beyond and beneath the label, “self-help” has a wholesome feel to it.  It reminds one of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. “Physician heal thyself.” “God helps those who help themselves”—so what could be wrong with reading books and seeking guidance to help us help ourselves?

It requires a certain kind of openness and humility for someone to acknowledge that they don’t know it all and might appreciate guidance or other perspectives.

As with any category of books (or people from any walk of life), the quality of work can be expressed in a kind of bell-shaped curve, from truly terrible, up through mediocre, through the ranges of satisfactory and standard, to competent, above-average, excellent, outstanding, superb, brillian.  This bell curve also applies to the range of plumbers, physicians, dog trainers, and everyone else—including books.  Some self-help books are poorly-written and delusional.  Some authors (even popular ones) appeal to our hopes and fantasies, expressing impressive but idealistic notions and magical thinking which at best may “uplift” or inspire for a little while. Others are just plain deluded.

But one can also find gems in the Self-Help (or Inspiration or New Age or Philosophy or Psychology) section that may last the test of time, and remind us of practical, realistic principles, accessible practices, and expanded perspectives that enrich our lives.

A genre (whether mystery or new age or fiction) should be judged by its entire range – the best as well as the worst.  But when uninformed people take pot-shots and make snide generalities about “self-help books and gullible people who read them,” they might want to consider the following:

The first “self-help” teachers were named Aristotle, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Confucius—and Epictetus, Mencius, Socrates and Plato, and Rumi, Hafiz, Kabir, and Gibran, and Benjamin Franklin and the transcendentalists Emerson and Thoreau, and all the sages who came before and after. They wrote advice and guidance, they shared illuminating perspectves and offered reminders and principles for living the good life—jas do many of today’s quality authors.

Time has a way of sorting out the timeless teachers whose words ring of reality and of truth.  Lesser pundits may rise on the surging tide of national television appearances and other media coverage, only to fall by the wayside when the tide has waned.  Others may not make a big splash, but the ripples, carried by word of mouth, are endless.

I call each reader to a clear sense of discernment, so they might differentiate practical, authentic teachings from idealistic, lofty sounding abstract concepts. Read or listen carefully to what is being said; ask yourself, “How can I use this? Does it simply impress me or make me feel good for a while, or does it call me to a elevated action in everyday life? Does it fascinate or truly illuminate?  Does it comfort or also challenge?”

Keep reading, listening, and learning from different sources. (No one is smarter than all of us.) Each writer is like a radio station with a different frequency.  Some people like to tune in to one frequency; others surf the channels.

In the meantime, I’ll continue doing my work, quietly, in my little, writing messages of tough-love to those of you with the eyes to see, the ears to hear—those of you who aspire to live with a more peaceful heart, and a warrior’s spirit.

Those who need to find my work somehow do so, despite the lack of a “Peaceful Warrior” section in your local bookseller.

On Aging and Eldercare

Lately I’ve thought about aging parents — not because of my own parents, who have passed into memory — but because of comments I receive from people to help out parents in their declining years.

I empathize the bitter-sweet labors of love helping out aging parents. Here is the truth of all our lives:  No matter how well we take care of ourselves, our bodies are like old cars:  the shocks give out, we have problems with the electrical system, the fuel system, etc.  No matter how well a car is cared for, preventative maintenance and tune-ups included, eventually parts wear out until its time to do a trade-in…)

Maybe you are facing this time of life, or will in the not-so-distant future.  Or maybe you will soon be one of those elder parents, concerned with your finances and health care in your remaining years, striving or hoping to maintain independence, and not wanting to be an undue burden on your children.

Maybe you’ve heard the saying:  “Be kind to your children; someday they will be choosing your nursing home.” There’s some truth to that. Children must one day become elder caregivers or at least elder advocates. They will weigh the costs of nursing homes; they will help dole out the remaining savings for elderly and sometimes physically or mentally debilitated parents — in many cases their own “inheritance” or their own savings on those costly final years of life.

The decisions the elderly, or their children, must make are both financial and familial, influenced by memory, and feelings of gratitude, and obligation or even resentment. Because the fact is, elderly parents can indeed become a burden on their children — just as they were a burden on their parents when they were infants and young children. But it is also a labor of love, and a chance for children to pay back all they have been given (and it is more than most children remember or appreciate.) Caring parents make many emotional (not to mention financial) deposits in their children’s lives. Eventually, the time may come when it is the turn of the children to repay that debt, even for imperfect parents.

Sometimes parents (or more often, a remaining parent) are invited to live with their children. This was more common in the past — more common in some cultures.  In my case, my parents lived in a nice assisted living facilty until my mother died. Because we still had children at home and because my father had severe dementia, we did not take him in.  Instead, I found an excellent private care faciltity in my area, and visited him regularly.

Whether to have a remaining parent live with them or finding an assisted living facility, or bringing someone in regularly to help out (and care for) their parent is an individual choice. Weighing the value of their history and relationship, and available finances, is never an easy decision.  We all want to do the right thing, but that is not the same thing in every case.

In most areas of the country, grown children newly confronting the physical and mental and medical needs and declining capacities of parents to care for themselves can seek the advice of an experienced Elder Care Ombudsman.  You can google elder care + advice and find resources.

I welcome any comments or contributions from readers who are elders themselves, and also of mature adults whose parents are in their declining years, now facing these questions.