A Report

I’m enjoying holding the TSK vision in my heart as I engage in dialogue with my three volunteers. They’re responding well to the exercises that I assign them each week, and I notice that when I am encouraging in the client (where appropriate) some present-centred inquiry, I tend to use the ‘interplay of body, thought, feelings, etc.’ model , which each of them have responded to easily.

One client reported that she usually is in a high state of anxiety at the hairdresser, but that after doing the expanding/condensing exercise for a week, she discovered herself sitting in the hairdressers completely relaxed! It surprised her and she accounted for it in terms of spaciousness.

I’m not always keeping the TSK language in view, because, for example, a client’s trauma, or their depression, might necessitate a lot more reflective listening time.  When that has been the case I don’t lose sight of my own ‘interplay’ dynamics, at least; though I’m giving less TSK guidance input to the client. As with any – for a want of a better term – ‘non-dual’ approach, it certainly helps me carry things gently and lovingly.

With one of my clients the ‘layers’ language which Jack has introduced was very helpful.

One big question has come up for me, to investigate as I proceed with my inquiry into TSK and therapy: What place my usual ‘parts’ language. It’s taken me years to get a language of sub-personalities that is based in the paticcasamuppada model, and it has worked well with clients. A common example, would be the language of the ‘inner child.’ I usually make sure that clients understand that ‘parts’ or ‘selves- language’ is only metaphorical  – a person is not made of parts! – but here in the TSK vision the language is more ‘impersonal,’ it seems to me This is a question which I’ve had before this, but more in theory than practice, and so it is great to be playing at this inquiring edge with clients.

As has been pointed out by such people as Eugene Gendlin and Rollo May, in this age we have so many ways in which ‘the person’ gets lost in public discourse. I see the danger in my own spiritual discipline (I’m a Dharma teacher).  Is TSK like this, too?

Anyhow, this is probably one reason that I’ve been using the ‘interplay’ language more than usual, with these clients.

A note: my usual modality is ‘experiential therapy’ a la Eugene Gendlin, and I do see a lot of room in the TSK books for articulating a TSK angle on the ‘felt sense, ‘ which is Gendlin’s specialty.

More later, Christopher.