When Satya and Skanda used to run two week Intensives in the UK they combined the first three days with a standard Intensive. I think they did this in order to make the group more viable financially – they had a large air-fare to cover as well as all the other costs. I did the same for the first two 2-week Intensives I mastered – and vowed to never do it again. There are advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages are that the process makes a lot more money and that the two week people get off to a flying start. The more money comes from the fact that for the first three days the group may be as large as 40 or 50 people. The flying start arises because the two week people are on a tougher schedule and infected with the high energy of the three day process.
The disadvantages are that I was wiped out at the end of the three days and found it hard to manage the separation and changeover of the two groups. The three day schedule is a lot more strenuous, even though it only has a couple more dyads than the two week schedule. The high energy “sprint” of the three day also leaves everyone, including monitors and master, feeling exhausted. And if the three day group is as large as 40 or 50 people the exhaustion is even greater. So beware of this.
The separation of the two groups at 9pm on day three works as follows. The combined group has the last dyad for the day ending at 9pm. The combined group then says goodbye to each other. After about 15 minutes the three day participants are herded off into a separate room, the two week group remains in the group room with the monitor and are told to quietly contemplate their question. The Master then goes to the three day group and gives the closing talk. He also stays with the group for the start of the party and says goodbyes to people for about 10-15 minutes. The Master then returns to the two week group and gives an introductory talk to them; including stuff about how the rules and schedule are different, the seconds for lunch and so on. The two week group is off to bed by about 10pm and woken up at 6am the next morning. The three day people are encouraged to leave on the night of day 3, if they do stay over they have to remain in bed while the 2-week people get up and have to depart before breakfast. So it can be done, but you can see that it is quite messy and stressful.
So now to the two week schedule itself. The standard two week schedule is shown below. I used this standard schedule for the first two two-week Intensives I ran and found several problems with it. These are as follows;
(a) the one hour work period in the morning is disliked by participants
(b) there is not enough time between the end of work period and lunch for the cook to get it all done – especially if the participants have been slow during the work period (
c) there is no sitting contemplation.
- 6.00 6.15 Get up
- 6.15 7.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 7.00 7.15 Physical
- 7.15 7.45 Breakfast
- 7.45 8.30 Enlightenment Exercise
- 8.30 9.15 Enlightenment Exercise
- 9.15 10.15 Working Period
- 10.15 11.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 11.00 11.45 Lunch
- 11.45 12.30 Enlightenment Exercise
- 12.30 13.15 Walking Period
- 13.15 14.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 14.00 14.45 Lecture
- 14.45 1530 Enlightenment Exercise
- 15.30 15.45 Snack
- 15.45 16.30 Working Period
- 16.30 17.30 Rest
- 17.30 18.15 Enlightenment Exercise
- 18.15 18.45 Dinner
- 18.45 19.30 Enlightenment Exercise
- 19.30 20.15 Enlightenment Exercise
- 20.15 21.00 Walking Period
- 21.00 21.45 Enlightenment Exercise
- 21.45 22.00 Snack
- 22.00 22.15 Retire
So the basic changes I made were
(1) shorten the morning work to 45 minutes
(2) add two fifteen minute sitting periods, one after breakfast and one after lecture
(3) increase the length of the rest period to 75 minutes
(4) shorten the evening walk to 30 minutes
(5) switch the morning work so that it is followed by the back-to-back EEs
The net result is a schedule that is fifteen minutes longer, but which participants and staff like a lot more. The extra fifteen minutes on the rest period seems to make a lot of difference, it means that people are more ready to wake up and feel more refreshed by it. The final version that I used on my later two week Intensives is shown below. I am satisfied that this is about as good as it can get for a two week schedule. By the end of the Intensive most participants are tired, indicating that the schedule taxed them just enough – and not too much. People who find the schedule too light usually get up early and give themselves an extra meditation period.
Final 2 week Schedule
- 6.00 6.15 Get up
- 6.15 7.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 7.00 7.15 Physical
- 7.15 7.45 Breakfast
- 7.45 8.00 Sitting Contemplation
- 8.00 8.45 Enlightenment Exercise
- 8.45 9.30 Enlightenment Exercise
- 9.15 10.15 Working Period
- 10.15 11.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 11.00 11.45 Lunch
- 11.45 12.30 Enlightenment Exercise
- 12.30 13.15 Walking Period
- 13.15 14.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 14.00 14.45 Lecture
- 14.45 15.00 Sitting Contemplation
- 15.00 15.45 Enlightenment Exercise
- 15.45 16.00 Snack
- 16.00 16.45 Working Period
- 16.45 18.00 Rest
- 18.00 18.45 Enlightenment Exercise
- 18.45 19.15 Dinner
- 19.15 20.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 20.00 20.45 Enlightenment Exercise
- 20.45 21.45 Walking Period
- 21.45 22.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 22.00 22.15 Snack
- 22.15 22.30 Retire
For six week Intensives the schedule has to be lighter. The two week schedule is not sustainable for more than two weeks. So I dropped out another dyad and pulled the morning walk back before lunch. The six week schedule is also shown on the following page. There was one problem with this schedule, namely the longer gap between breakfast and lunch. To keep participants from getting very hungry the portions for breakfast were increased. But it might be better to try to reduce that gap by pushing the walk back after lunch.
Six Week Schedule
- 6.00 6.15 Get up
- 6.15 7.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 7.00 7.15 Physical
- 7.15 7.45 Breakfast
- 7.45 8.00 Sitting Contemplation
- 8.00 8.45 Enlightenment Exercise
- 8.45 9.30 Working period
- 9.30 10.15 Enlightenment Exercise
- 10.15 11.00 Walk
- 11.00 11.45 Enlightenment Exercise
- 11.45 12.30 Lunch
- 12.30 13.15 Enlightenment Exercise
- 13.15 14.00 Lecture
- 14.00 14.15 Sitting Contempl
- 14.15 15.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 15.00 15.15 Snack
- 15.15 16.00 Working Period
- 16.00 17.15 Rest
- 17.15 18.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 18.00 18.30 Dinner
- 18.30 9.15 Enlightenment Exercise
- 19.15 20.00 Enlightenment Exercise
- 20.00 20.30 Walking Period
- 20.30 21.15 Enlightenment Exercise
- 21.15 21.30 Snack
- 21.30 21.45 Retire
The last two week that I ran (before preparing these notes) was at a venue where there were constraints on the meal times. I therefore approached the whole schedule from a different perspective and thought about what would work best. I came to the conclusion that the best time for rest was shortly after lunch – when people were really sleepy anyway – and that it would be better to have more physical exercise. To make room for the additional physical exercise period I dropped the afternoon work period – it was never popular and did not contribute much anyway. The resulting schedule is shown below, and it worked extremely well. Indeed a few of the old hands who had done many long Intensives with me thought it was a significant improvement.
If you want to make changes to the schedule here are the key things that I came to regard as important constraints.
- participants are exhausted by the end of two weeks with a schedule that has 11 dyads a day and between 7 and 8 hours sleep a night. So keep within these constraints.
- the gaps between meal times should be as even as possible. The most difficult gap to keep small enough is that between breakfast and lunch. The rest of the time the snack keeps food levels OK.
- if the rest period is only 45 minutes long participants are shocked by the wake up call and spend the next dyad waking up. I have found making the rest 75 minutes long works best. People have a good sleep and are ready to engage again in the next dyad.
- the work periods do not contribute much to the Intensive. One work period a day brings up stuff related to work and doing things, and this can be helpful. It is also helpful for participants to feel they are contributing to the overall environment of the group. But few people are able to maintain their contemplation during work – so it can disrupt the flow.
My experience of using different schedules has lead me to conclude that there are many different schedules that will work fine – provided that you follow the first two guidelines set out above.
In the Master’s manual Charles Berner describes a definite pattern of energy on a long Intensive. I have never ever observed this pattern. Instead I have observed a different pattern. It is now my view that the pattern of energy shown by the group is actually a reflection of the Master’s energy state. (I discuss some of the evidence for this in section 6.1). After the first couple of long Intensives the pattern that I noticed was this;
- there was a flurry of experiences with a high energy on days 2 to 5
- days 5 to 8 had a few experiences each day but were basically the group going deeper, dropping layers of identification and learning how to accept and surrender more
- the peak occurred between days 9 and 11. The peak is also marked by several experiences occurring close together and by a special energy coming into the room for a dyad or two.
- days 12 to 14 were something of an anti-climax. I was able to inspire the group to continue, and there were sometimes very nice experiences toward the end.
I have observed the tendency of the group to rebel between days 8 and 11, but it has not caused me any difficulty. I am too strict and go on about the mind too much in lectures for people to get into open rebellion. I also give good lectures on criticalness and how to handle it, the importance of the formality in the dyads for the process and so on well in advance of any trouble.
Incidentally in 2006 the Intensive started on the evening the people arrived; there was an opening lecture and one dyad before they went to bed. The dyads then ran for a full 12 days. On the morning of day 13 there was a closing talk and then an introduction to a series of integration exercises. The Intensive rules continued for the first half day and there were dyads throughout the day. Further details of this are included in Appendix 5.
I also suspect that the pattern of energy in the group is influenced a lot by the degree of intervention that the Master takes on. In the long Intensives on which I was a participant, Satya intervened very little in people’s processes. This provides a lot of space for participants and also leaves them to find their own resources to deal with difficulties, from which I gained a lot of benefit. However it can also leave individuals stuck for long periods.
The style I adopted was different. First I made sure that I tracked everyone in the group, which means that I listened in to their communications and made sure I heard everyone every day. I would make sure a person was not stuck or doing the technique incorrectly for more than two days. If I thought they were stuck with a technique error I would initiate an interview to first, check my assessment and second provide whatever correction was necessary. This fairly high level of intervention keeps the group moving, so it does not run into the doldrums and crises described by Charles Berner. This high level of intervention is made easier when the group is odd since the sitting out periods provides an easy opportunity to talk to each participant on a regular basis. Indeed the participants twig to this and choose to sit out when they require an interview. Note that with odd numbers on long Intensives you need a very good system for keeping records of who has sat out when. My system is illustrated in Appendix 6.
I find it essential to organise a time for myself to exercise and rest during the day. Whenever I have neglected either I have had a hard time, either physically, mentally or emotionally – often combinations of all three. I use the exercise period to have a run followed by a shower (in my own bathroom, which I also find essential). I usually sleep in the morning walk period, for some reason it is a time when I get particularly drowsy. I also get sleep during the work-snack-rest period in the afternoon.
3.1 Related Issues
There are a number of other factors that need to be taken into account when devising a schedule and considering the overall level of stress on participants.
The first is what participants do during the meal and exercise periods. Do they continue to contemplate their question? Are they allowed to talk to each other about what is going on with them? Should they be instructed to “be in the here and now” or to continue to contemplate?
I have very limited experience on these questions. On the long Intensives in which I participated I found talking to other participants, and listening to their talk, completely distracting. I also found the schedules devised by Satya quite light – so I maintained silence and continued to contemplate my question steadily. This worked well for me as a participant and so, when I started Mastering long Intensives I gave instructions to participants to do the same. But this is not how other Masters run long Intensives. I experienced silence and continued contemplation as increasing the intensity (and hence the stress and pressure) of the Intensive. I also found that the spectrum of participants who took long Intensives with me could all tolerate the schedules (set out above) with these rules.
People who had been used to my style of running Intensives found it hard when participating in other long Intensives where talking was permitted during the meal breaks and where people were instructed to “be present” rather than contemplating their question. My view is that there is not a right or wrong way to proceed on this, it is a matter of style, intensity and what Master and participants are used to.
There is generally no senior monitor on long Intensives, that is there is no one monitoring the participants in the room during dyads. In the group room it is just the participants and the Master. This is different from three day Intensives where there may be one or more monitors assisting in the room. My reasons for continuing this tradition were
(a) being a monitor in the room is an extremely exhausting role, in fact the most exhausting role on 3-day events. I would not expect anyone to have the stamina to be able to do it for two weeks
(b) there is a general sense in which the participants are expected to take more responsibility for their participation in the process which reduces the need for monitors. There should be no new comers on long Intensives, the participants are people already familiar with the process and are willing and able to abide by the rules
(c) a stronger relationship builds up between the Master and the participants when there is no monitor present, and this, it seems to me, is an important requirement of the long Intensive process. Participants are putting themselves in the Master’s hands a great deal more on long Intensives, so the relationship with the Master needs to be stronger.
Finally there is the issue as to whether to use a gong timer or cycle dyads. As with the instructions regarding what to do in breaks, I consider this to be largely a matter of the Master’s style. There are benefits and drawbacks associated with both choices. Cycle dyads tend to keep participants doing the technique better and also allows them to complete communications – whereas the gong timer can often cut the communication cycle badly. Against that I personally found it a lot harder to monitor what was going on in the room using cycle dyads. With the gong timer there is no doubt about who should be talking and in what direction to restart an interrupted dyad. Because I elect to track participants closely this advantage of using the gong timer was the overriding factor. The gong timer also establishes a rhythm that seems to aid the process of long Intensives – it helps people to drop time. One significant disadvantage of cycle dyads is that some participants may use a lot more or a lot less time than their partners, over a long period this can become a serious issue – one the gong timer makes apparent and starts to correct.
3.2 The Rules
When I started running long Intensives I used essentially the same rules as for a three-day – with one exception. I permitted people to keep a journal – though the times when they were allowed to write in it were circumscribed and I always warned of the dangers of paying too much attention to it. As I lead more 3-day events my wording and emphasis regarding the rules changed. I ceased saying “talk only of enlightenment” and basically said “no talking except during dyads, when engaging with me or a monitor or for simple information exchange.” My Intensives basically became ‘silent’.
I also changed the way that the rule about judgements was couched. I made a point of saying that it was against the rules to pass any judgement, positive or negative, on any other participant, in any way whatsoever. This covered the bases of not just saying negative things but raising eyebrows, frowning or smiling and so on. I explained that positive judgements were as debilitating as negative ones in terms of fostering a space where people could have direct experiences.
When I present the rules I now say enough about them so that people get both a precise wording, and, more importantly, the spirit of what the rule is aiming to achieve and why it is important. This, coupled with my no nonsense attitude, has meant that I have had very little trouble from people breaking rules – on long and short Intensives. I also aim to nip problems in the bud. If I spot someone struggling with criticalness I may initiate an interview with them to help them handle it creatively. Similarly if I notice someone starting to turn up late for dyads and lecture I will say to the person that I have noticed this and that they need to pay attention to being on time.
Recently I have made some other changes to the rules that I regard as beneficial. The first is that I have changed the “no touching unless specifically invited to do so” to “no touching”. I noticed that people found it hard to refuse an invitation to a hug or touching – even when it was not what they wanted. I also attended a 7-day Satori event in which there was no touching at all – and found it beneficial. It threw me more into myself and my process. So I used it on 3-day events and on the last two week.
Another feature of the Satori event was that it had no sugar, honey or sweet food at all. This was a departure from the standard 3-day EI that would allow honey (one teaspoon only!) in herb tea and had sweet snacks in the middle of the day. I found that having no sugar at all stabilised my energy and that after the first day I did not miss it at all. This was in contrast to having the occasional spoon of honey – which kept my desire for sweetness alive. The last two week was at a venue run by sanyassins. They provided significantly more food than I would have expected for an Intensive. But this had no observable effect on the group – other than there being very few complaints about the food or hunger in dyads. There was a high proportion of raw food (fruit and salad) in the diet and I concluded that provided this was so then larger food portions may actually be beneficial (in that they avoid the distraction of hunger).
A Master's Path 