I’ve been wondering about the Witness State lately. When we give a Zero Balancing session in the Witness State, we remain objective and have no agenda, judgment or opinion about what needs to happen, how it happens, when it happens or where the session needs to go. We are not attached to a particular outcome. Considering the many aspects of our nature, I’ve been questioning whether it’s possible to have absolutely no attachment to the outcome on any level of ourselves. Let’s have a think about this together over a glass of wine or a cup of tea.

We teach and learn that as Zero Balancing practitioners, being in the Witness State is an important aspect of giving a good session. Is this true? Why? Would having an agenda interfere? If so, how? What if our agenda is to be helpful? 

Does having an agenda conflict with any other Zero Balancing principles? How about High Regard? Can we have an agenda and hold our client in high regard at the same time?

I recall an earlier discussion about paradigm, also known as worldview, and am thinking about whether one’s conscious awareness of their paradigm has an impact on their ability to remain in the witness state. For example, what if our worldview includes the belief that if someone really wanted to heal they would? And if they aren’t healing, they must not want to. Can we hold this belief unconsciously and still be in the Witness State? Can we hold this belief consciously and still be in the Witness State? 

What about paradigms from other trainings? Many of us were initially trained as Acupuncturists, Massage Therapists, Chiropractors or Physical Therapists. Can we hold beliefs taught in these other disciplines and remain in the Witness State? 

What about our client’s beliefs? Are we in the Witness State if we share our client’s beliefs? If we have a client who was told they cannot be healthy if their pelvis is out of alignment, and we agree, are we in the Witness State?

Are we attached to an outcome when we give a fulcrum? If the purpose of a fulcrum is to balance structure and energy and a fulcrum is indicated where energy is stuck in bone, does the practitioner have an agenda to free the struck energy? If the answer is yes, can one have that intention and still be in the Witness State? 

Is the desire to be helpful antithetical to staying in the Witness State? How many of us have found ourselves wanting to help, wanting the client’s pain to improve or anxiety to diminish? Is this an agenda? Can this desire interfere with healing? If so, how?  

What about clients who feel worse after their ZB? Does that impact us as practitioners? If it does, are we still in the Witness State? 

Can we remain in the Witness State when giving a ZB session to a family member? Or a good friend? Is it harder? Easier? 

Can we honestly say we have no opinion whatsoever about what needs to happen during a ZB session? If the client feels ungrounded and unstable at the beginning of the session, do we feel ok if they are just as ungrounded and unstable at the end of the session? If we don’t, is this an agenda? 

Is compassion part of the witness state? How about kindness? 

Thanks for diving in with me! I hope this has stimulated new insights about the Witness State.

Most of us experienced the donkey lean exercise in our first Zero Balancing class. Up out of our chairs, back to back or side by side with a partner, seeking that sweet spot into which we could both relax. Remember how good it felt to be supporting your partner while being supported by them? What was that? What made it feel so good? Let’s have a glass of wine or a cup of tea and wonder about it together…

We use the term ‘donkey lean’ frequently when talking about Zero Balancing sessions. We use it to describe the relationship we create with our client through our touch and all the ways we can enhance that relationship. We touch at Interface. We touch the client’s energy and structure simultaneously and consciously, AKA Donkey touch. We might attribute the client’s deep relaxation as a response to the quality of the donkey lean we have created. We practice staying present and keeping our attention in our hands as means of deepening the donkey lean. 

In my ZB classes, I ask students to name what they experience during the donkey lean exercise. Words like trust, safety, support and relaxation are common. What is it about leaning against another person that engenders these feelings? Why does a donkey lean feel good? What is happening structurally and energetically that causes us to feel so safe and supported? 

It is in the nature of the lean to be off-balance. As we lean, our shoulders are no longer over our hips. Our upper bodies are exposed to the pull of gravity and if not for our partner, we would fall. If our partner remains standing up straight while we lean, we won’t fall but the donkey lean feeling is missing. Why? We are safe. They are preventing us from falling and getting hurt. If our partner is leaning with their upper body but not their lower body, they can prevent our falling as well. We are still safe. Yet it doesn’t feel as good as if they are leaning as much as we are. We are still more exposed to gravity than they are. 

We are still more exposed. Is that it? Does the mutual feeling of exposure have an effect? Is it because when our partner leans as much as we do, they need to trust us as much as we need to trust them? We are responsible for each other’s safety, at least structurally. Why would that feel good?  

What about energetically? Can an energetic lean occur in the absence of a safe structural lean? Can we find the sweet spot, relax and trust someone who doesn’t have our back…literally? 

What about the opposite? Have you experienced a donkey lean in which someone leans in with their structure but not their energy? The person is physically there while not really being there? Does that feel safe? Does it feel good?

Have you experienced a donkey lean where you really wanted to lean in but your body just wouldn’t do it? Where you wanted to trust your partner but couldn’t? Why did that happen?

Have you noticed what happens if your partner’s attention wanders? Structurally everything remains the same, yet you instinctively sense a change. What has happened? 

Lastly, how does this phenomenon carry over into your practice? I’m often aware when giving a Zero Balancing session that I need to be present in my touch in order for my client to begin to relax. In donkey lean terms, I need to lean in first. A lot. In the donkey lean exercise, someone also needs to lean in first. Yet we can’t lean too much or we’ll fall before the other person’s lean can prevent it. What is different about these two situations?  

I hope this has intrigued and inspired you to wonder about donkey leans! Thanks for reading!

Interface is a term that can have many meanings. As a verb, it can mean to connect or mesh. One might say Zero Balancing works where energy and structure interface, where energy and structure connect or mesh in the body. As a Zero Balancing principle, however, we use the word as a noun. To be at Interface. It’s a place, a state, a border, a boundary.

The principle of Interface is introduced in Zero Balancing I and refined in the multiple classes that follow. It is one of the defining characteristics of ZB touch. Often confused with Donkey Touch, which is touching energy and structure simultaneously and consciously, Interface refers simply to the energetic boundary between practitioner and client. ZB touch is characterized by both Donkey Touch and Interface and employs both principles at the same time. Donkey touch enables us to connect with the whole person and Interface allows us to maintain a boundary between the whole of the client and the whole of ourselves. When at Interface, we are like two neighbors chatting over the fence that divides our properties. 

Many years ago, I was at a study group with a student who stated adamantly that she didn’t see the point of using Interface and didn’t plan to use it. A bit later in the day, she and I had the occasion to practice the sitting assessment. I was the practitioner first and as my hands moved down her back, she became aware of some pain in her right lower ribs. When she was practicing on me, she was amazed to find the same pain in the same place on my lower ribs. “Look at that!” she exclaimed. “We have pain in the exact same place!” As I gently told her I didn’t actually have any pain, I saw the light bulb flash on. She realized she couldn’t tell whose pain was whose. And in that moment, she understood the value of Interface. 

Like the aforementioned fence, a clear boundary serves both parties in several ways. In addition to clarifying what belongs to who, touch at Interface helps the client to feel their edges; where they stop and the practitioner starts. 

Interface also communicates respect and safety. This has vital importance in any therapeutic relationship. There is no intrusion. Energy bodies remain distinct. And touch communicates this truth instantaneously in a way that cannot be conveyed with words. If someone offers you a limp and distant handshake while saying,”It’s nice to meet you,” do you really believe them? Instinctively, we credit touch over words.

Safe touch is foundational to creating a healing environment. We know the sympathetic nervous system becomes engaged in response to a real or perceived threat. It’s an instinctive survival tool and as such, is outside the conscious control of the client. No matter how much the client may want to relax, if our touch feels unsafe part of them will be monitoring us with every fulcrum. This vigilance is often amplified with clients who have experienced trauma. 

Here is a place where the power of Interface becomes most evident. When every touch feels safe, our client can stop tracking our hands. Touching at Interface creates a sanctuary on your treatment table, where clients can drop their guard and drop more deeply into themselves.

In my humble opinion, the power of the Blue Line often goes unrecognized. This unassuming tool can be the key to deepening your connection with your client and increasing efficiency so you aren’t working as hard. Many of us rush past it, eager to get into the fulcrum where the magic happens. Yet pausing at a clear Blue Line is so often the gateway to creating an incredible fulcrum.

I recall my first introduction to the Blue Line, as it did not exist when I began my study of Zero Balancing in 1992. Dr. Fritz Smith was teaching a Geometry of Healing class outside of Boston, MA in the early 2000’s. I learned that as he was creating the brilliant schematic that illustrates the process of creating a fulcrum, he used a blue marker to draw the line that symbolized the first moment of connection with the consciousness of the client. The concepts of looseness, the Blue Line, and the box came into being and we all gained a deeper understanding of how to consciously create more effective fulcrums. 

The concept of looseness and being at the Blue Line is mind-blowing if you think about it. In life, if there is too much looseness, say in planning a coffee date, you and your friend may show up at the cafe on different days and times or even at different cafes! Taking that moment to confirm 3pm Tuesday, December 20th at Molly’s Muffins on 5th Street makes it much more likely you will both show up. The same is true in a ZB. Consciously taking out the looseness and coming to the Blue Line increases the likelihood of both you and your client showing up at the same time. 

Coming to the Blue Line can also be like knocking on someone’s door. As we come to the Blue Line and pause, we are allowing time for our client to approach and open the door. Then we can proceed together.

What are some possible repercussions of skipping the Blue Line? From an efficiency perspective, when we begin our fulcrum in looseness, part of our effort is expended taking out that looseness. Once the looseness is taken out, even the smallest added tension precipitates a fulcrum. As a ZB teacher, I see this as a very common reason people overwork, especially in the hip fulcrum and the Half Moon Vector (HMV) through the legs.

Second, we have skipped acknowledging that all important first connection with the donkey on the table. We have not knocked at the door. If someone is on your doorstep and doesn’t knock, you may not realize they are there. If someone opens your door without knocking, you may feel any number of ways, none of them conducive to deeper relaxation or dropping into yourself. When I have received an HMV through the legs without a clear Blue Line, my donkey has a slightly scary moment of “What’s happening?!!” Even though I’ve experienced thousands of HMVs and know what is happening, on the level of the donkey, the instinctive level, it puts me on the alert every time. 

It’s so simple and elegant. We come to the Blue Line. We pause. With those two actions our touch has connected with our clients on an essential level. We’ve let them know something is going to happen. We have invited them to open their door and come with us. We have deepened our lean. We have created the opportunity for an efficient fulcrum using only the effort required. We have created a safe environment that supports them dropping more deeply into themselves. This is the power of the Blue Line.

In Core ZB, we learn that a fulcrum creates a clearer, stronger field. In the Core Zero Balancing Study Guide clearer, stronger fields are defined as “vibratory fields that are more organized and of greater intensity than those that initially existed in the client.” We all have experienced clearer, stronger fields when both giving and receiving ZBs. I wonder what exactly is happening, don’t you? Let’s have a glass of wine or a cup of tea and wonder about it together.

Sometimes with clients, I will describe introducing a clearer, stronger field as having a similar effect to placing a magnet next to a pile of iron filings. It’s a loose analogy and it’s a place to start. Initially, the filings are in a disorganized heap. Although one could argue that the pile is at least organized enough to remain a heap! Once the magnet acts upon the filings, the heaped shape transforms and the filings line up. The magnet’s field is clearer, more organized, and stronger, more intense, than the field of the iron filings. 

Many times more organization changes the field in a way that feels better. Think about how you feel after cleaning your home or pruning an overgrown garden. Putting aside any feelings of accomplishment that may contribute, the area feels better to be in. If you are having an argument with someone and emotions are running high, one might call the field surrounding the pair of you less organized than it was before the argument began. Once you have reached an agreement, the field is more organized, yet differently organized than before the argument. There is more clarity; you know more about each other. An aspect of the relationship has transformed. 

Perhaps a certain intensity is required for things to change, for transformation to occur. Certainly enough intensity to overcome the current bonds of organization. The intensity of the field during an argument is likely higher than prior to the argument. Is this what’s happening? 

Does the fact a field is more organized actually give it more intensity? And can it cause the transformation of a less intense field absent a fulcrum? The field in my treatment space is very well organized. My clients often comment that they begin to feel better the minute they enter the room. Think of how you feel walking into the well organized field of a library or church. 

Is there an optimal amount of intensity? I’m thinking about tornadoes. One might say a tornado is a well organized system with a great deal of intensity. Certainly strong enough and intense enough to transform the shape of a house in its path. However, that transformation leads more toward chaos than further organization; the shape of the house now resembles the pile of iron filings pre-magnetization. Is it because there’s too much intensity and it prevents the reorganization we see with the magnetized filings? 

Do our own fields change as we give a ZB? Does introducing a clearer, stronger field through a fulcrum for the client also act to organize our own fields? Certainly if one has received multiple ZBs over a period of years, one’s field becomes better organized. But what about when initially learning ZB? My field was certainly NOT well organized when I first started studying ZB. And yet, my clients improved even as I stumbled my way through the protocol. Did something about the activity of giving a ZB create more organization in me? 

I hope this has intrigued and inspired you to wonder about clearer, stronger fields! Thanks for reading!