Section 8 — Facilitator Formation

Section 7 established Facilitator Formation as a methodological prerequisite of the TFM architecture, not a phase. This section is its canonical home. It addresses one question:

What kind of facilitator must a person become, and what capacities must they develop, to practice TFM responsibly? [P]

The Facilitator as Part of the Method

TFM treats the facilitator as part of the conditions of experience. [P] The facilitator is not a neutral delivery mechanism standing outside the process. They bring into the container:

• attention and perception;

• interpretation;

• embodiment and emotional state;

• relational patterns;

• assumptions and preferences;

• authority and interventions;

• limitations and unresolved material.

Because the facilitator inevitably affects the process, TFM requires deliberate formation in how that influence is exercised, constrained, and examined. [P]

The proposition that practitioners matter is not unique to TFM. In psychotherapy research, for example, Baldwin, Wampold, and Imel (2007) found that differences between therapists in the working alliance predicted client outcomes, while differences between clients in the alliance did not. [S] Geller and Greenberg (2012) describe therapeutic presence as a state that can be cultivated through preparation, both before sessions and in the practitioner's wider life. [S] These findings come from clinical psychotherapy and cannot be generalized directly to nonclinical TFM facilitation. They are cited as precedent for the broader proposition that practitioners are not interchangeable merely because they use the same intervention, not as evidence about TFM. [P]

TFM's own proposition is narrower: the facilitator's formation is structurally connected to how the architecture is enacted (§7). [P] Several examples show why.

• A facilitator who cannot remain present with intensity may alter a process out of personal discomfort.

• A facilitator attached to a particular outcome may read participant behavior as confirming it.

• A facilitator seeking validation may intensify an experience unnecessarily.

• A facilitator who cannot tolerate silence may intervene when no intervention is needed.

• A facilitator certain of their intuitions may impose meaning on participants.

These are not merely personality matters. They affect fidelity, because the facilitator's condition shapes how the governing principle, continuous functions, and standing commitments are carried out. [P]

The standard is responsible formation, not perfection. Formation does not produce a purified, healed, spiritually advanced, or psychologically complete facilitator. [P] It does not eliminate:

• bias, projection, error, or blind spots;

• ethical responsibility;

• the need for supervision or peer review;

• scope limits or referral duties.

It develops the person who exercises facilitative influence so that the influence can be exercised more responsibly.

Formation and Preparation

TFM distinguishes the formation of the facilitator from preparation for a particular facilitation (§7). [P]

• Formation is developmental and ongoing. It precedes and continues across all facilitation, and it concerns who the facilitator is becoming and what they are able to do.

• Preparation is Phase 1 (Prepare) of a specific facilitated process. It includes Intentional Alignment and the facilitator's check of their own present readiness, capacity, and role.

Formation is therefore not a phase, not part of Prepare, not a session procedure, and not a claim about spiritual attainment. [P] A well-formed facilitator still prepares for each session. A thorough preparation does not substitute for formation the facilitator has not undertaken.

Formation and Transformational Stewardship

Transformational Stewardship, TFM's governing principle, asks a great deal of the person who practices it (§7). It requires a facilitator capable of: [P]

• exercising responsibility without ownership;

• exercising authority without domination;

• remaining receptive without abdicating judgment;

• perceiving without automatically believing interpretations;

• acting without unnecessary interference;

• adapting without abandoning structure;

• serving without making the process about themselves;

• recognizing when their own capacity or competence is insufficient.

Formation develops the human capacities needed to enact the architecture. It does not replace the architecture, which constrains the facilitator regardless of how well formed they are (§7). [P]

The Formation Model

The Formation Model is the subordinate model that elaborates the Methodological Prerequisite and the Service Orientation commitment (§7). [P] It has five components. The first four are set out in this subsection. The practices of formation and preparation that make up the fifth are developed in the subsections that follow.

1. Formation capacities

TFM holds that the following capacities are developed through formation: [P]

• embodied presence;

• groundedness;

• self-awareness;

• emotional regulation;

• relational awareness;

• familiarity with one's own psychological material;

• competence in the practices being offered;

• the capacity to remain present around intensity;

• discernment;

• ethical judgment;

• awareness of personal projection;

• the capacity to tolerate uncertainty;

• responsiveness without impulsivity;

• the ability to maintain structure while remaining receptive to emergence.

2. The practice-competence progression

TFM distinguishes four stages in a facilitator's relationship to any practice: [P]

knowing about a practice → having practiced it → having embodied sufficient familiarity with it → being competent to facilitate it for others

3. Competency domains

The capacities above are developed. The following domains are the aspects of facilitation in which competence can be observed and assessed. [P] Each is given with an indicator of the kind of behavior through which it becomes visible. The indicators are proposed for operational development. They have not been validated as a measurement instrument. These indicators illustrate observable expressions of the domains; they do not yet constitute a validated scoring rubric or certification instrument. [P]

4. Four categories kept distinct

The model distinguishes four categories that should not be collapsed. [P]

• Capacities are developed through formation.

• Competencies are assessed in facilitation.

• Ethical requirements are set out in §12.

• Skills specific to a practice or repertoire are set out in §9.

A facilitator can hold strong capacities and still lack competence with a particular practice. A facilitator can meet written ethical requirements while their capacities remain underdeveloped.

Historical Status

The Formation Model's developmental premise has earlier documented antecedents. Khalighi reports teaching, from the inaugural 2022 facilitator training, that facilitators must first cultivate capacity within themselves, including the capacity to remain present with strong experiential states, and cautioning trainees against reproducing material before sufficiently embodying it. [H-T] Facilitator capacity was documented as a teaching concern by July 2022. [H-D] The Hollow Bone teaching was connected with facilitator integrity, including relational and sexual boundaries, in TFTP teaching by December 2023. [H-D] The written Facilitator Certification Code of Ethics existed by November 24, 2025. [H-D] It included:

• continuing facilitator development;

• honesty about facilitators' capacities and expertise;

• limits on clinical advice and on work beyond competence;

• referral;

• supervision, peer review, or consultation.

The present organization of the model belongs to the 2026 codification (§§3–4). This includes the capacity list, the practice-competence progression as a stated sequence, the competency domains with their indicators, and the separation of the four categories. [P] The underlying formation teaching is Khalighi's. The present formal organization is not projected back into earlier teaching.

Formation Before Facilitation

Conceptual familiarity is not embodied competence. [P]

• Reading about a breath practice does not establish competence to facilitate it.

• Understanding an archetypal exercise intellectually does not establish the capacity to steward what it may evoke.

• Memorizing a meditation script does not establish the ability to recognize when continuing it has become inappropriate.

The principle is that facilitation should not substantially exceed the facilitator's embodied competence. [P] This does not require the facilitator to have experienced every possible response to a practice, which would be impossible. Nor does personal experience establish how another person will respond. It requires that competence include familiarity with oneself while engaging the territory a practice can open. [P]

Personal experience alone does not establish facilitative competence. Experience ≠ competence. [P]

• A person may have meditated for decades without knowing how to facilitate meditation for others.

• A person may have undergone powerful breathwork without knowing how to respond when another participant becomes disoriented.

• A person may have extensive spiritual experience while lacking appropriate boundaries.

• A person may have facilitated many groups while continuing to reproduce unexamined patterns of authority.

For the same reason, formation is distinct from mastery of a repertoire. A facilitator can have a large repertoire and weak formation. A deeply formed facilitator can still lack competence to use a particular practice. [P] Familiarity with breathwork, ritual, meditation, somatic practice, archetypal work, energy practices, or any other repertoire does not by itself authorize a person to facilitate it. Competence with a practice requires appropriate knowledge, experience, and scope (§9). [P]

Embodied Presence

TFM holds that presence is not ordinary attentiveness alone. It is the facilitator's capacity to remain grounded in their own embodied experience while maintaining relational and environmental awareness. [P] Embodied formation may develop several capacities:

• bodily awareness and grounding;

• sustained attention;

• the capacity to remain present during intensity;

• awareness of one's own activation;

• the ability to maintain relational contact;

• the ability to notice when one's own capacity is diminishing. [P]

These are phenomenological descriptions of the facilitator's experience. They are not physiological claims, and TFM makes no claim here about nervous-system mechanisms. [P] Embodiment is not unique to TFM; its precedents are set out in §6.

The facilitator treats their bodily experience as information, not proof. [P] A tightening in the chest may be important, but it does not establish why it is occurring. A strong emotional response to a participant may reveal something about the interaction, or it may arise mainly from the facilitator's own history. The facilitator learns to notice internal experience without immediately converting it into an interpretation of someone else (§5).

Calmness is not competence. [P] A facilitator may be activated and still act responsibly. The relevant question is whether they can perceive, differentiate, remain within capacity, and act appropriately.

Perceptual Formation and Intuition

Formation develops the facilitator's sensitivity to several kinds of signal: [P]

• participants' verbal and nonverbal signals and embodied cues;

• relational shifts and group dynamics;

• environmental and container conditions;

• changes in engagement;

• signs that capacity may be changing.

This sensitivity remains bounded by epistemic restraint (§§5, 7). Formation does not give a facilitator objective perception of energy, trauma, unconscious content, archetypes, spiritual entities, nervous-system states, or a participant's meaning. [P] Where intuitive, energetic, symbolic, or spiritual perceptions occur, they remain facilitator experiences or provisional impressions unless independently established (§5).

The facilitator's formation includes the capacity to differentiate:

• what belongs to the participant, what belongs to the facilitator, and what may be relational;

• what is observed, what is inferred, and what remains unknown.

The live exercise of this differentiation is treated in §10. [P]

TFM permits intuition as part of facilitator experience. Formation makes intuition more disciplined, not more authoritative. [P] A maturing facilitator becomes better able to:

• notice an intuition and hold it provisionally;

• distinguish it from observation;

• test whether any intervention is warranted;

• avoid imposing it as a participant's meaning or as fact;

• release it when the evidence does not support it.

TFM does not claim that intuitive accuracy increases through training or that intuition is a validated mechanism. [P] How intuition is used as provisional information in live facilitation is set out in §10.

Service Orientation and the Hollow Bone

Section 7 placed Service Orientation / Hollow Bone among the standing commitments. This subsection sets out its formation function.

The function is the reduction of self-centered interference. It is taught in TFM under the inherited name "Hollow Bone"; its provenance is set out in §6. [P] The frozen formulation is:

The Hollow Bone is not the absence of self; it is the disciplined reduction of self-centered interference. [P]

In formation, the facilitator works to reduce the influence of: [P]

• performance and egoic display;

• personal agenda;

• compulsive intervention;

• the need to appear powerful;

• the need to produce transformation;

• projection and attachment to outcome;

• excessive cognitive control.

The purpose is not self-erasure but greater availability to the participant, the group, the intention, and the unfolding moment. [P]

The Hollow Bone is not:

• passive surrender;

• loss of discernment;

• obedience to intuition;

• transmission of unquestionable spiritual truth;

• exemption from preparation, competence, or ethical responsibility;

• evidence that the facilitator is a neutral channel. [P]

The governing formulation is receptivity without abdication (§7). [P] Khalighi's own understanding of the Hollow Bone includes receptivity to what he experiences as spiritual intelligence. [H-T] TFM permits that understanding. It does not permit receptivity to become an exemption from responsibility. "Spirit told me," "the field wanted this," "I was guided," and similar statements may describe the facilitator's experience accurately. They do not override the Governing Constraints of Safety / Integrity, Agency / Consent, Scope / Competence, and Capacity (§11). [P] A facilitator may receive an intuition and decide not to act on it. They may experience what they interpret as guidance and still recognize that acting on it would exceed scope, lack consent, or exceed the container's capacity. [P]

The facilitator remains responsible for judgment, consent, boundaries, safety, capacity, scope, intervention, and interpretation. [P] The Hollow Bone was explicitly connected with facilitator integrity in TFTP teaching by December 2023. [H-D]

Service Orientation also has a devotional aspect. Section 5 set out its methodological translation: service beyond the facilitator's self-interest. [P] For a particular facilitator, this orientation may be cultivated through religious devotion, contemplative practice, or secular commitment to participants and the integrity of the work. Methodological fidelity does not require belief in any deity, cosmology, energy model, or metaphysical doctrine. TFM is spiritually originated but methodologically pluralistic (§5). [P] Service is not self-erasure. It includes saying no, holding boundaries, and declining work that exceeds scope. [P]

Intentional Alignment

Intentional Alignment belongs to Phase 1 (Prepare). It is the facilitator's session preparation, not the ongoing developmental process of formation. It is described here because it is where formation meets a particular facilitation. [P] The practice is inherited; its provenance and Khalighi's adaptation are set out in §6.

Within TFM, Intentional Alignment functions as a process of becoming: [P]

• grounded and embodied;

• present and receptive;

• connected to purpose;

• aware of personal noise;

• less dominated by discursive thinking;

• oriented toward service.

For Khalighi personally, this may involve explicit connection to the Divine, the Great Mother, nature, or a devotional calling. [H-T] TFM does not require facilitators to adopt his interpretation. The methodological requirement is the functional capacity for disciplined preparation, receptivity, presence, and intention-led service. [P]

Alignment is not intention. Intentional Alignment concerns the facilitator's state and orientation. Intention concerns what the process is fundamentally in service of (§9). [P] A facilitator may hold a clear intention while being poorly aligned to steward it:

• intending a process concerning grief while personally avoiding grief;

• intending to cultivate participant self-leadership while unconsciously seeking admiration;

• intending a contemplative environment while entering the space rushed and preoccupied.

Intentional Alignment makes the relationship between stated purpose and actual condition a methodological concern. It does not guarantee congruence. [P]

The 80/20 Orientation

Section 8 is the canonical home of the 80/20 orientation. Its provenance is set out in §6: Khalighi reports learning the orientation from Sue Holmes in individual shamanic healing and adapting it to group facilitation. [H-T]

The 80/20 orientation is a pedagogical heuristic, not a measured attentional ratio. The numbers are not quantities, and they are not neurological, psychological, or empirical measurements. [P]

• The "80" names the embodied perceptual medium through which the facilitator perceives the group. This is the facilitator's predominant embodied participation, receptivity, and sensitivity, including their own experience of the emerging process.

• The "20" names the observational, stewarding awareness that extends across individual participants, collective conditions, pacing, safety, structure, and process. [P]

The 80 is therefore not a priority of inward attention over outward attention. It is the embodied medium through which the facilitator perceives outwardly at all. [P] In TFM's formulation, the orientation trains the facilitator to remain predominantly embodied and receptive while keeping sufficient observational awareness to steward participants, process, and container responsibly. [P]

The orientation also names two forms of drift that can be observed in training. [H-T]

• Excessive immersion. The facilitator becomes absorbed in their own experience, loses track of participants or collective conditions, or remains inward (for example, with eyes closed) for long periods.

• Excessive externalization. The facilitator becomes managerial, script-dependent, or over-monitoring, and embodied receptivity drops out.

These descriptions give the heuristic a practical use in formation and feedback. They do not turn it into a validated assessment instrument. [P]

Khalighi sometimes teaches the two modes through the symbolic language of Shakti and Shiva, or feminine and masculine principles, as immersive receptivity and witnessing awareness. [H-T] That language is a traditional and pedagogical symbolic framework. It is not an empirical claim about sex, gender, or psychology, and the structural function of 80/20 does not depend on it. [P] How the orientation operates in live facilitation is treated in §10.

The orientation does not make the facilitator's subjective presence into a causal certainty. The facilitator's state is part of the conditions of experience. What that state contributes in a given moment remains subject to observation, differentiation, and participant response (§§5, 10). [P]

Personal Material and the Wounded Healer

Section 6 set out the historical motif of the wounded healer. TFM adapts the motif in a specific direction. It does not hold that personal wounding qualifies someone to facilitate. It holds the opposite: unexamined personal material can distort facilitation. [H-U] [P]

Personal suffering does not confer competence, and experience of one's own healing does not confer scope. [P] The motif is not a romanticization of trauma. Its function in formation is to develop the facilitator's growing capacity to recognize:

• projection, identification, and personal agenda;

• rescue impulses and the urge to control;

• avoidance;

• attraction or aversion toward a participant;

• a need for validation;

• reactions a participant evokes in the facilitator because of the facilitator's own history.

Psychotherapy describes some of these reactions as countertransference. The term is noted here as a clinical comparator only. TFM training or certification does not itself confer training or competence in clinical countertransference work, and recognizing personal material in formation is not psychotherapy (§2). [P]

Projection and the Limits of Self-Knowledge

No degree of formation eliminates projection. This limit matters especially in a methodology that values intuition, embodiment, symbolic perception, and receptivity. [P] A facilitator may sincerely believe their personal material has been set aside while remaining influenced by it.

• The Hollow Bone does not guarantee freedom from projection.

• Intentional Alignment does not guarantee accurate perception.

• Experience does not guarantee objectivity, and spiritual practice does not guarantee ethical judgment.

TFM therefore does not rely on the facilitator's self-perception as its only safeguard. The architecture adds external constraints: [P]

• observable participant response;

• ongoing and revocable consent;

• the Governing Constraints;

• Three-Domain Capacity;

• the Live Facilitation Loop;

• epistemic restraint;

• support roles where used;

• feedback, supervision, and accountability structures.

The facilitator's development and the method's external constraints are intended to work together. Neither is sufficient alone. [P]

Relational and Ethical Formation

Relational formation develops the facilitator's capacity to remain in relationship with participants without:

• dominating or rescuing;

• collapsing boundaries;

• depending on participants' approval;

• treating a participant's resistance as an injury to the facilitator;

• claiming a degree of intimacy that exceeds the role. [P]

Bounded authority is set out in §11 and boundaries in §12.

Ethics in TFM is not only a written code applied after training. Formation develops the facilitator's ability to recognize the ethical consequences of their conduct as it happens. [P] Section 12 is the canonical home for:

• consent and safeguarding;

• touch, power, and dual relationships;

• sexual and romantic boundaries;

• referral and formal scope requirements.

Scope and Competence

Formation does not erase scope. [P] TFM certification does not establish competence in:

• psychotherapy, psychiatry, or medicine;

• trauma treatment or diagnosis;

• substance-involved facilitation (§2);

• other regulated professional practice.

Personal or spiritual maturity does not expand a facilitator's legal or clinical scope. [P]

A maturing facilitator becomes increasingly able to recognize: I am not the appropriate person to hold this. This recognition is a competency, not a failure. [P]

Intensity, Outcome, and Restraint

Intensity ≠ transformation (§5). [P] Formation reduces the facilitator's attachment to dramatic outcomes. A facilitator should not need any of the following as proof that the facilitation "worked":

• catharsis or tears;

• altered states or emotional breakthrough;

• visible release;

• participant praise;

• spiritual experience.

A facilitator's need for such signs, whether arising from identity or from performance, can distort intervention. TFM treats this as a methodological risk, not as a diagnosis of any facilitator. [P]

Formation also develops the capacity not to interfere unnecessarily. The facilitator develops tolerance for silence, uncertainty, not knowing, participants' autonomy, and processes that unfold differently than expected. [P] Non-interference ≠ passivity. The facilitator must act when safety, agency, capacity, scope, or process integrity require it (§7). How intervention choices are made is set out in the Decision Framework (§11). [P]

Facilitator Capacity

Formation meets a practical limit in Facilitator Capacity, one of the three domains of the Three-Domain Capacity model (§11). Facilitator capacity was documented as a teaching concern by July 2022. [H-D]

A well-formed facilitator can still reach the limit of what they can responsibly hold in a given moment. [P] Capacity can be affected by:

• fatigue, illness, or divided attention;

• emotional activation or personal triggering;

• insufficient familiarity with a practice;

• participant intensity or multiple simultaneous processes;

• environmental disruption, relational conflict, or the complexity of the container.

Formation does not produce unlimited capacity. It increases the facilitator's ability to recognize: [P]

• their current limits, fatigue, or activation;

• loss of clarity;

• insufficient support or competence;

• when another facilitator or support person is needed;

• when a process should be slowed, modified, stopped, or referred.

Khalighi reports teaching that a facilitator who becomes so activated or compromised that they can no longer responsibly steward the container should hand off stewardship rather than push through. [H-T] In the present formulation, a trained support person, such as a sentry, co-facilitator, or assistant, may temporarily take responsibility for the container while the facilitator regains sufficient capacity. [P] This is not necessarily a failure of facilitation. Continuing to lead after losing the capacity to do so may be the greater failure. The guiding question is: Can I presently steward what this process requires? [P]

Personal Practice and Methodological Pluralism

TFM treats ongoing personal practice as part of formation. [P] The practices need not be the same across facilitators. Depending on a facilitator's background, scope, and context, formation might draw on:

• meditation, contemplative practice, or prayer;

• embodiment, movement, or breath practice;

• relational work or reflective practice;

• personal therapeutic or other structured self-reflective work, where appropriate to the facilitator;

• ritual;

• supervision or mentorship.

This list names possibilities, not requirements. In particular, psychotherapy is not prescribed as a universal requirement of TFM formation unless a controlling TFM training standard separately requires it, and TFM formation is not itself psychotherapy (§2). [P]

TFM does not require facilitators to reproduce Khalighi's personal spiritual path or worldview. [P] The requirement is functional: the facilitator must develop the capacities and competencies the methodology requires. Different practices may serve formation provided they actually develop those capacities and competencies and remain consistent with any applicable TFM training requirements. [P] A self-selected personal practice does not satisfy Facilitator Formation merely because it is practiced. Whether formation has occurred is shown by the capacities and competencies set out in the Formation Model. [P]

Formation is therefore distinct from ideological conformity. Two TFM facilitators may hold substantially different spiritual or philosophical orientations while both demonstrating the capacities responsible stewardship requires. [P]

Training, Observation, Feedback, and Continuing Formation

Facilitation is an applied competency. Some of its aspects can be assessed only while a person is actually facilitating. [P] Examples include whether the facilitator:

• remains present when the planned sequence changes;

• can distinguish discomfort from danger;

• refrains from unnecessary intervention yet acts decisively when intervention is required;

• receives corrective feedback without defensiveness.

TFM training therefore includes experiential practice, actual facilitation, observation, and feedback. [P]

Other fields provide precedent for this approach.

• Experience alone. In psychotherapy, a large longitudinal study found no evidence that therapists' client outcomes improved with accumulated experience. On average, outcomes declined slightly as experience increased (Goldberg et al., 2016). [S] This does not validate TFM's training approach. It supports the general proposition that competence should not be inferred from time or experience alone. [P]

• Observed rating of competence. Structured, observation-based rating has been developed elsewhere. The Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Teaching Assessment Criteria rate teaching competence from observed teaching (Crane et al., 2013). [S] In multisite trials of MDMA-assisted therapy, video-recorded sessions were rated for therapists' adherence to the treatment model, and ratings were used alongside ongoing supervision (Wang et al., 2021). [S] These are cited as precedents for how competence can be assessed, not as models TFM has adopted. Their clinical and, in the second case, pharmacological settings differ from TFM, which is non-pharmacological (§2). [P]

Initial training is not the end of formation. [P] The following are distinct:

• initial training;

• competency assessment and certification;

• continuing formation;

• supervision, consultation, and peer review;

• remediation where relevant.

The Code of Ethics in use by November 2025 included continuing facilitator development and supervision, peer review, or consultation. [H-D] Team debrief and supervision are formation practices. They are not a phase of any facilitated process (§7). [P]

Certification indicates at most that a facilitator completed a defined training process and met the certifier's requirements at a particular time. It is not healthcare or psychotherapy licensure, evidence of clinical competence, proof of facilitator safety, or validation of TFM. Its treatment belongs in §14. [P]

Transmission Without Replication of the Founder

A methodology must be transmissible without requiring replication of its founder. [P] If competent TFM facilitation required Khalighi's personality, beliefs, intuitive style, language, ritual preferences, or relationship to the Divine, TFM would remain a personal teaching lineage rather than a methodology.

Facilitator maturity in TFM is therefore not defined as becoming more like Khalighi. [P] A facilitator may:

• use different language;

• choose different practices;

• work with different populations;

• hold different metaphysical beliefs;

• have a different relational style;

• never use shamanic, yogic, archetypal, or esoteric practices.

What must remain is the architecture and the capacities it requires. The Formation Model makes facilitator development more explicit, observable, teachable, and assessable. It applies to all facilitators, including the founder, just as the architecture constrains the founder (§7). [P] The model has not been psychometrically or independently validated (§16). [P]

Formation and Fidelity

Formation is necessary for fidelity but not sufficient for it. [P]

• A well-formed facilitator can still depart from the architecture.

• Procedural compliance without formation can also be inadequate. A facilitator could follow every step while lacking the presence, differentiation, and restraint the architecture assumes.

Fidelity is assessed against the architecture (§14).

Formation in Service of Stewardship

Formation serves one purpose: increasing the facilitator's capacity to practice Transformational Stewardship responsibly. [P]

• The facilitator develops presence in order to perceive more clearly, not to become impressive.

• They develop embodiment to gain available information, not to make bodily intuition infallible.

• They practice the reduction of self-centered interference to become more available, not to disappear.

• They develop competence to steward conditions responsibly, not to control participants' experience.

• They develop discernment in order to act responsibly within uncertainty, not to eliminate it.

The objective is not a perfect facilitator. It is a facilitator capable of using the self as an instrument without making the self the center of the work. [P]