• October 20, 2017

    Every spiritual practice has traps. Stalking is no exception. One trap is that you may have the aim to improve yourself, to be a better human being. This aim, and all similar aims, express a wish for certainty, security, some place where I can be safe from criticism, especially criticism of myself. Stalking is not for this.

    What then is the aim of stalking?       

    Freedom…freedom from our own habits and limitations. Freedom brings uncertainty and new possibilities. You cannot even imagine how different the world would be if you were no longer as bound by the fetters of the known.

    Tags: , ,

  • October 12, 2017

    I am still having trouble understanding what you mean by the stalking exercise.

    The hunter tracks his prey by knowing its likely behavior in certain circumstances. How does it approach the water hole? How does it move in rocky terrain? When does it feed and when does it sleep?

    Impartial observation of self brings a similar clarity. I see what my behavior is in specific situations. My aim is to see without bias or analysis. Attention itself brings about change. Disclosure itself is powerful medicine. But I also accumulate knowledge as a hunter does. I learn when I am likely to have the sensation of envy, when I become fearful or when I get bored. It is possible to think of these situations and produce in myself the physical reactions that would arise in them. Can I make use of this knowledge?

    Stalking is a way of using what I have learned about myself to provoke a change in my response to ordinary situations.

    Let’s suppose that I have observed a particular reaction I have to an unnecessarily talkative person. I signal my disinterest by partially turning away and I have an involuntary reaction of impatient irritation which expresses as a sensation of tightening in the chest and a dismissive gesture of the hands and head. I have decided that when this reaction begins, I will face the speaker, smile and listen with apparent courtesy (whether genuine or not). I observe the effects on myself and others.

    You cannot do this exercise if you have not previously observed yourself impartially many times. Impartiality brings separation and dis-identification from the state and these are the very qualities that enable you to remember to stalk yourself in this situation. Otherwise, you will forget your aim and your life will continue in its habitual form.

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • September 24, 2017

    After observation of self comes stalking. Who do you stalk? Only yourself. What differentiates observation of self from stalking? In stalking, you set up the situation in order to engage without identification.

    Stalking is done with intention. In order to be intentional, it is necessary to be unidentified. Ordinary human behaviour, from the shamanic point of view, is folly. It consists of unintended, automatic reactions to stimulus in the environment. The reactions are shaped by identification. Stalking is controlled folly…it explores the possibility of reacting differently or not reacting at all.

    In ordinary life, we continually avoid real engagement. Our ordinary engagements are highly structured. We are careful not to offend, not to reveal ourselves, not to be uncomfortable, unless someone steps on our ‘corns’ as Gurdjieff would say, in which case we may feel justified when other less delightful automatic reactions take over. Our habitual conditioning is designed to make us comfortable.

    We are unconsciously vain…always manoeuvring to avoid appearing to be stupid or ‘not in the know’. If we are caught out, we may slip into self-deprecating humour or anger as the case may be. This automatic behavior can be observed. It can also be stalked. Stalking involves taking the risk of entering into the unpredictable, which is inherently uncomfortable.

    This is difficult to understand. Can you provide an example?

    Let us say that I am drawn to having political exchanges with others, in person and through social media. I explain this by saying that my intent is to change the attitudes of others which I think are too emotional and biased. My exchanges are shaped by this agenda.

    In fact, my desire to engage has many other unconscious benefits…it is energizing, requires attention, overcomes boredom and loneliness, challenges me to think independently and express myself clearly. These benefits are covered over by my agenda. Could the potential of this engagement be enhanced if the rationalization of changing the opinions of others were to be relinquished?

    Removing the programming opens up the possibility of play…controlled folly…in which I do not have the protection of ‘doing the expected thing’. These engagements can take new and different directions without my habituated agenda. Now, having no goal, I can be more aware of the subtlety of the engagement. Do I have any tendency towards cruelty or rejection? What are my sensations during the engagement when I am no longer protected by my identification with a high-minded, superior aim? Do I have a clearer view of the other person?

    Having disarmed myself of my secret mission, might the other participants also disarm? Perhaps, but that is not the aim. In this work, there is only the stalking of self.

    This is one example. The principle is to observe how you compress the range of your experience to make yourself comfortable and then to act contrary to your habit.

    Engagement has value in itself. Can you give up your roles and assumptions in order to see what is actually happening? The stalker knows the value of engagement and wishes to act outside his conditioning, for the sake of discovery.

    Tags: , , , , ,