Polyamory as a modality for spiritual growth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDGiGYycT
Perhaps the greatest "spiritual growth" hurdle most us must leap, eventually, is the one which allows us to (paradoxically?) accept all of ourselves, just as we are.

If you're very sensitive and aware, you will notice that the proposition that (a) there is a hurdle and (b) one may leap it is itself bullshit.

In truth, one can not, by any effort, decide to accept one's self just as one is in a manner which in any sense resembles jumping a hurdle.

Radical, fundamental self-acceptance is not something one can do with will power and might, as if pulling one's self up by one's boot straps. There are no such boots or straps! In fact, nothing whatsoever can be done about it. Nothing.

Patiently waiting is of no help.

Pleading to god is of no help.

No amount of effort can accomplish this work.

You can pray or meditate for a thousand thousand lifetimes and it's of no use. Nothing can be gained by it.

The notion that there is "work" we need to do -- and "accomplish" -- is at the very heart of the "problem" we imagine we're trying to solve.

It's as though we're in a log rolling contest. -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDGiGYycT0 -- in which we're desperately trying not to fall off the log into the water. The last thing we want to do is quit the whole game! We've "invested" so much!

Letting go and falling would perhaps seem a good idea, but what if we were to just watch and see, carefully observe our notion that we are something that needs to be fixed, improved, made a better version. I propose that doing so -- watching our efforts closely -- will be enough to liberate us from the game. When we see though the game, the game dissolves. Something else takes its place. Is it something "better"? New and improved? ;):eek::D
 
Last edited:
Can I see through the game if I try hard enough? :) (Kidding ...)
 
Good one!

I think most of us associate "trying hard" with muscular tension. Seeing through "games" of this sort seems to be accompanied by, if not led by, the release of muscular tension. :p

Can you try hard enough to stop trying so hard? :confused::rolleyes:
 
LOL, I know right?

Relax, muscles! Relax! Mmmph! Would you just relax already? ;)

"Relax, don't do it ... when you want to get to it ..."
 
Hey, I wonder if this is anything like that scene in "Somewhere in Time" where Richard Collier is trying to go back in time. He reaches a point where all the strain and effort finally melt away into a contented slumber ... and then at precisely that moment, the time jump occurs.
 
When we see though the game, the game dissolves. Something else takes its place

This reminded me of the book Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse. (Wikipedia Link) Sometimes when I am reading about secular buddhism I get similar "THIS!" type reactions.

To be quite honest, though, River - I don't understand much of what you write on this subject. But I think that this is likely a matter of communicating our conceptualizations. I will often feel like I have this idea in my head, but when I try to explain it to someone else the words I have at my disposal seem inadequate to the task.

Other bits of posts reminded me of several nice Feynman quotes:

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true."


and


“I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here. I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.”


Not knowing the answers to the "big" questions - doesn't bother me a bit (I don't really understand why they are "questions" in the first place. Go on with your day, do the best you can, enjoy the journey - the world will be here tomorrow (or it won't).
 
To be quite honest, though, River - I don't understand much of what you write on this subject. But I think that this is likely a matter of communicating our conceptualizations. I will often feel like I have this idea in my head, but when I try to explain it to someone else the words I have at my disposal seem inadequate to the task.

That of which I wrote was not as a result of an intellectual exercise, and so, in some sense, not the product of conceptualization. I employed concepts around, but not within, the felt (intuitive) insight which was the heart of my communication. One cannot figure these things out, at least not at the initial stage of "understanding". One has to feel the truth of them. Otherwise, they are not true. ::p

It's not different from other kinds of knowing, like knowing what its like to give and receive a wet kiss from someone we love. You can "know" about that by doing it, not by reading about it in a book or running calculations on it. And the formula H20 tells us nothing very much about what it is (not would be) like to swim in a wild river or drink a glass of water.

It is possible to have the felt experience of being enough, of being whole, of not needing to be improved upon. It is possible to live and move from this awareness while also improving upon one's self -- in a strange and paradoxical way. All such improvements are like shaping gold into different shapes. It's gold. Its already precious. It needs no improvement. But we can enjoy the play of shapes.
 
Speaking of gold and of games...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh44QPT1mPE

One game has us searching for a heart of gold. Another game begins with the knowledge that the heart is already golden.

The difference is the notion that the heart must be transformed, alchemically from lead to gold versus the notion that one can simply open the inner curtains or blinds and let the gold come streaming in ... so that one realizes one is entirely golden and is then free to go about one's business as a creature of luminous goldenness -- at which point it is no longer a game at all, since there's nothing more for the heart to accomplish.

It is still a game when one imagines otherwise, takes a "path"... seeks transformation.... The game gets a little better when it is seen as a game, and thus at least partially seen through. Seeing the game allows the game to undo itself from within. No game is necessary. The warmth of the golden heart is always present, whether we are aware of it or not. The true heart needs no improvement -- only discovery.
 
Re (from Feynman):
"I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell."

That's the way it seems to me also.
 
Re (from Feynman):


That's the way it seems to me also.

Perhaps "the universe" is without any ultimate, singular "purpose," but that's no reason to conclude that our world and life is without any meaning -- as some imagine. I think caring, loving, kindness, affection, sharing, giving ... (all of which are aspects of one thing) is a good candidate for provision of meaning in our lives. There are those who imagine that human life -- and live in general -- is "meaningless," but I entirely disagree. Life is overflowingly meaningful, as there is so much opportunity to care, share, give, love....
 
I think life can have meaning because we can assign meaning to our own lives.
 
I think life can have meaning because we can assign meaning to our own lives.

I don't know quite enough existentialist philosophy to say with any deep assurance that this is basically the principal contribution of existentialism, but I doubt I'm far off if I say so!

Here's the most basic problem with this kind of response.: We dwell in a world in which the local weather simply IS what the local weather is, in which the center of gravity is "down" and never up, in which things just are, because this is how they are -- e.g., rivers flow down hill, never up. We call these undeniable facts... well, facts. They are part of a fabric of collective meaning which we call "objective". Unicorns, for example (however lovely they are in our imaginations) don't really exist in the real world. They are not objectively real. They are not a fact. (Well, imaginary unicorns are entirely factual. While real unicorns are all made up.)

My point?

Your ability to "assign meaning" has significant real world limits. It is The World which provides these limits. You cannot decide -- with all of your might -- that flying pink unicorns are the meaning of human existence. Not unless you are willing to leave all of the rest of humanity behind (well, the overwhelming majority).

This means that reality -- things as they are -- are the larger portion of your capacity to "assign meaning" to your life and this world.

The good news about this is that gravity is something we can all relate to, as we can relate to the weather, to our common human experience.... In other words, we're all in this together -- and our togetherness is part of the meaning in our lives -- and transcends our willy-nilly powers to "assign meaning" to our lives.
 
The idea that polyamory is part of our spiritual lives is something Evie and I have discussed often- which is unsurprising as 'spirituality' is a core part of our lives, separately and as a couple. We certainly see polyamory as having a spiritual dimension.

A reoccurring idea in this thread has been the idea that a great part of the spirituality of polyamory is based on confronting and (successfully) dealing with the emotionally and psychologically challenging aspect of seeing someone we love being intimate with someone else. In this polyamory is, I think, a more fruitful avenue for consciousness-raising than a standard monogamous relationship. As someone else already said, in polyamory there is no place to hide from jealousy and possessiveness.

But dealing with the dark and foetid parts of the psyche does not necessarily make it a 'spiritual' process but rather it could be seen as simply a psychological process. However, I see the psychological dimension as a handmaiden to the spiritual- silence the murmurers of the psyche so the still, quiet voice of the soul can be heard etc etc.*

In working with these kinds of feelings, one of the curious things that I have found is that my emotional self is at ease with polyamory but my intellectual self is the seat of my unease and concerns. I would have thought it would have been the other way around. Should be interesting to see what comes of it as I sit with those feelings (similar to Carson's approach).


/Adam


*yeah, I talk like that all the time. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
In Buddhism they call this stage in the awakening process "the dark night of the soul."

Hi Carson

The dark night of the soul was originally a Christian concept (though universal in its application), being a poem and commentary written by St John of the Cross, a Spanish Dominican monk, in the 16th Century.

In the traditional (i.e. Christian mysticism) sense, the dark night of the soul was not so much challenging beliefs but more about the painfulness of the journey to union with God and the loneliness being suspended above earth but below heaven, cut off from comfort and solace from both sources. A distinct part of the phenomenon is the feeling of having spiritually died and are in spiritual Limbo (before eventually being reborn).

/Adam
 
That's a beautiful thought - something I endorse wholeheartedly- Why we are not alone on this planet.
Every relationship - whether poly or mono, romantic or platonic - is a learning opportunity for self-growth. That is why we are not alone here on the planet. it is through others that we learn about ourselves, and if we pay attention to the dynamics we create, we will have a lot to learn. Polyamory shouldn't be up on a pedestal above other approaches or types.
 
I definitely do think that the experiences and people that I am enjoying these days in my polyamorous lifestyle are feeding and growing my spirit and bringing me new insights. Learning and understanding them, learning more about myself, and analyzing and gaining understanding of our various dynamics and energy flows...it's wonderful in ways that are hard to really explain.

For me though, it's not just polyamory and it's not just sex. The BDSM activity is a huge part of it, too. Best way to put this...my Sadist, my "Zen Sadist" as I like to call him, he is a Buddhist and often talks about mindfulness, being fully present in the moment, or "Being Here Now." Given that my activities aren't so much rooted in protocol and power exchange, but more physical experiences as a bottom and a masochist, there are these amazing times where the overload of sensations (whether pain or pleasure) in such an intense way, and the neurochemical floods that ensue, bring every part of that time and experience into a singular focus. I cannot think about it, my brain stops in its monologue, and I am simply and purely receptive. I am more fully a part of the world and at the same time, not.

I like that they talk about how this state, subspace, is like runner's high, rather than what one might imagine as just receiving pain. You go to a place that is beyond pain. You travel through the pain to a different mode of existing. To me, it is new and wonderful and I'm only just beginning to explore it. And the orgasms! I'd had many in the past. But nothing like this. I had no idea how ignorant I was...what I am doing now, it's similar to the pain stuff only it's...more. If I want to go to a transcendant place via orgasms, I do have to be restrained. It's overload. I have to get past it, to shut my brain down. It feels like being filled with electricity.

What's cool, is that my body serves my mind, and in my beliefs, the mind is the soul, the concentration of energy and electrical impulse that differentiates "alive" from "dead." I have no religion, but I do have my own ideas, and I have a lot of respect for faith. Faith, what a person believes to make sense of their world, to get through their hardships, and appreciate their blessings, that is beautiful. Religion is just a group of people and a whole lot of clutter. I don't like clutter. For me, spiritual moments...really spiritual experiences...are a matter of getting as far from the clutter as possible.

No words. No rules. No books. No rituals. No stories. No saviors. No characters. No beings. No trappings. The only House of Worship is the place you go to find yourself. The only concept of God that means anything to me is simple purpose and process. Cells divide. Can you hear your hair growing? But it's doing that. And the planets are orbiting. And what ever were the odds we would not only evolve, but any one of us would be born, or that apes with advanced brains would build computers and create a means for me to speak to you, and you to speak to me? There is no good and evil. Only purpose, a general idea of continuation, and a revulsion for that which threatens it. That's my faith.

But hey. Your faith is not my faith. And that's OK!
 
hi- new here [apr 2016] & what a wonderful treasure trove awaits me in this thread!! i am 63 & have had similar questions/comments as posed in this thread since my teens. i need time to read & digest some of what is here. the improvement of my inner self has been a life long project. more later...
 
Lately, I've been thinking about how my polyamory is in some ways a reasonable outgrowth of my religious upbringing, or lack thereof.

My great-great grandfather, Henry, was clearly a freethinker, very activist as a Freemason, Forester, & union organizer, a constant reader & autodidact, & organized the city's cemetery almost single-handed (becoming its first sexton, a position now held by my brother). This has had a big influence in my life.

I'm not much on "faith" -- if something's worth achieving, then a little prayer is fine, but progress only comes from doing stuff, & getting actual verifiable results. I seem cynical & pessimistic, but (in MY mind, at least) this balances & moderates my inherently trusting nature. I am willing to trust, but I expect to find that trust validated.

Monogamy requires a LOT of faith & trust & suchlike, yet shies away from expecting clear results. This bugs me, & I often rail against dragging that mentality & its attendant potential for delusion (of self & others) into nonmonogamy.

Similarly, I can't see any wisdom in using religion to rationalize away the bad shit of the world. This strikes me as nothing but some bad play-acting to kill time until we wind up in Heaven, eternally singing praises of some white-robed cloud-being.

If there is/are God/gods, then surely he/she/it/they would want us to do our best, right? to strive for improving what we have? to work constantly toward betterment? The only Super-Being that I find acceptable is one who wants me to show up with a GREAT story to tell.

That means risk, that means taking chances, that means accepting failure & learning by it & diving back into the fray with hope of doing a little better the next time.

And thus with polyamory. For me, a "life-long" (or even "long-term") relationship is something that happens if that's the way it happens, rather than some sort of goal at the top of the escalator. Live life well, help others to do the same, & the "profit" is something that happens day-to-day, maybe minute-to-minute, rather than once-&-done.
 
Last edited:
Hi Carson

The dark night of the soul was originally a Christian concept (though universal in its application), being a poem and commentary written by St John of the Cross, a Spanish Dominican monk, in the 16th Century.

In the traditional (i.e. Christian mysticism) sense, the dark night of the soul was not so much challenging beliefs but more about the painfulness of the journey to union with God and the loneliness being suspended above earth but below heaven, cut off from comfort and solace from both sources. A distinct part of the phenomenon is the feeling of having spiritually died and are in spiritual Limbo (before eventually being reborn).

/Adam

Hi Adam,

Thanks for sharing your understanding of the dark night of the soul (TDNOTS).

The reason I connected TDNOTS to the Buddhist traditions is because I find their elaboration on it much more detailed and easy to interpret than the Gnostic traditions. I interpret the Christian "version", which you explained nicely, the exact same as I interpret the Buddhist version though, I just find the way it's written in the Christian version to be more metaphorical and harder to pin to my living experience. But not impossible.

For me, the result is the same. The reason the journey is painful is because of the questioning... essentially the questioning is the "losing of one's religion" which is incredibly painful. Being "suspended" between heaven and earth is a metaphor for the result of having no ideological foundation to stand on (because it's all been questioned and discarded as "I can't know this to be true"). For me this phase did indeed directly precede the "born again" phase in which I saw all of life with fresh eyes. The day it happened I ended up in a grocery store and was moved to tears at the sight of a mango. Literally wept with joy at how beautiful a mango was. A very liberating sensation after spending 8 painful months questioning every belief and finding nothing solid there.

Carson
 
Back
Top