Conference hydra::dejavu

	From somewhere (I can't recall where)...

		"The mind, like the parachute must be open to work."

	Terry

    Still my favorite:
    
    "Hang out with it."
    
    l

    Yeah the mind must be open, and being detached and 
    observing the mind is a procedureal kind of thing...
    but...for myself I haven't really had a problem with
    not having an open mind for the last 10-15 years...    
    
    It's having Too Open Of A Mind...that's what. Maybe
    I am reaching limits here...and wanting to see how 
    others felt. But...if everything is an expression of
    the God/Goddess/All-That-Is, even the concepts that
    challenge one's ideas on saneness and reality, are a
    part of the ALL as well...correct, do you dismiss those
    concepts as unreal because they are challenging to ones
    idea of reality...or try and wrestle with these challenging
    new ideas in a reality duel to the death?
                                             
    -Arthur

    re: .3
    
    Either an open mind or a compassionate heart.  You are not alone in
    your response.
    
    
    By the way, Arthur, Happy Birthday!
    
    Mary

    A quote I read a long time ago tha's always stuck with me:
    
    	It must be terrible to be locked in the cage of a closed mind.

    re: .6 (::CROWE)
    
         Yes, especially when there is a realization that both jailor
    and jailed are one and the same.  
    
    
    Frederick
    

    " The mind is like a parachute, worthless unless it's open"
    
    Read that somewhere long ago and have since forgotten who said it...
    
    -j

re: .7 (Frederick)
    
         > Yes, especially when there is a realization that both jailor
         > and jailed are one and the same.  

	"The only way out of prison is to set your jailor free..."
 	(From a song I recently heard.)

	Terry

      I try to maintain an open mind because I find it can open up a whole
    new world for you.  The flip side of the situation is that when you
    decide on a certain coarse of action you will sometimes question the
    validity of your decision when you hear other ways of doing things. 
    This can lead people to think you are indecisive even though you are
    only seeking the best of all possible answers.
    
      I have a friend that is VERY religious and just about comes unglued
    when he finds that I am reading a book that is contrary to his beliefs.
    As an example I have been reading about the Moslem religion. Now, I
    have no intent of converting, I only seek to understand the religion.
    But to him my interest borders on blasphemy.  I feel that is his loss
    since he has chosen to close his mind to beliefs other than his own. 
    
      There is a big, wonderful world out there.  Why close your mind to
    it?  
    
    Ray

    I guess what I am trying to say is that it isn't for me
    and open and shut case of how I use my mind. I agree that
    one should have an open mind towards things, I have no problem
    with that. But...once you have an open mind towards things,
    discretion and wisdom at times can fall by the waysides, I have
    found, that an "OPEN" mind can tend to lean towards an excess of
    embracing everything that enters your particular perception center
    for the sake of being open to it because being open is NewAge or
    hip or something stupid like that.
    
    So for instance starting with an open mind....you embrace the idea
    of native american spirituality, than from there to being open about
    the effects of reservation life of the american indian, to wearing
    indian jewelry and having a personal power animal/plant, to be open
    about participating in the peyote cermony and sweat lodge, to going
    to hear Lynn Anderson talk about shamanism, to seeing the comparisons
    between native american spirituality and some forms of Mahayana
    Buddhism, to going to a Zen retreat, to eating bean sprouts, to
    becoming a vegetarian to wearing crystals, to being open about 
    pyramids, to constructing a copper pyramid for your office cube,to
    going on a whale watch...to talking to whales....to joining Greenpeace
    and becoming a rainbow warrior...to going to the rainbow festival...
    to .... 
    
    for the sake of openess
                                                                 
    
    see what I am trying to say.....being so open that there is point
    where one completely dissapears into the mist of newage concerns
    and soapboxes never to be seen again as any resemblance of who the
    orginal person was. Now did having an Open Mind do that?
    
    -Arthur

    re:                      <<< Note 1110.0 by EXIT26::SAARINEN >>>
                              -< On Being "Open" >-
    
�                                               How
�   far can you be Open before your brain falls out 
�   on the floor due to that swinging barn door in
�   the hayloft of your mind?

Arthur,


My feeling is that one cannot be too open about new ideas.

I know that I have knee-jerked many times in the past and
muttered under my breath "oh you [silly person], how can you
possibly believe *that*?"

But it seems clear to me that we are all seeking the same thing,
to varying degrees:  understanding, control, purpose, some
semblance of coherence in, and connection to, the universe that
we sense 'around' us.

We all work the same way that science does (Please all you
scientists out there, this is my model; it works for me,
and I think it's close enough for this note.  If you
want to discuss "scientific method,"  do it in the note on
"What's Wrong with Scientific Thinking."):  we receive/sense
data, and try to incorporate them into the model that we have of
reality.  When the data don't fit, we either:

   o ignore them (science chalks it up to instrument failure or
     any number of other reasons, uses statistics to prove that a
     significant number of data are "close enough," and proceeds
     smugly to the next experiment)
   o alter our model to incorporate the new data (which science
     does grudgingly when the data overwhelmingly require it; but
     even Einstein could not accept QM)

I think that the essense of learning is being able to adopt
new models that incorporate all the new data that comes in.

It seems to me that we all have models that differ from others'
models to varying degrees.  Our models depend on who we are,
where we have been, what we have done, and what we want them
to be.  Our models work for us, and enable us to make sense of
our lives.  When our models no longer work as well as in the past,
we seek help from the authorities recognized in our model:
priests, therapists, etc.   Sometimes our model differs so much
from our experience that we are forced to search out radically
different models.  To quote lots of other people, these models
serve as maps, and help to guide us, but *the map is not the
territory.*

Communication consists of discussing our maps and our  experience
of the terrain. Sometimes we come in contact with new map that
'explains' certain strange features that we've noticed in the
neighborhood.  Sometimes we hear of new terrain. Sometimes a new
map explains the terrain at a radically more comprehensive level,
and we are "transformed."  I suppose a metaphor might be finally
being able to understand the forest in spite of the trees.

The different maps/models work for those who believe in them.   I
don't think that it's the *ideas* that challenge one's belief
system; it's the *data*.  Most of us constantly bump into
'things' that aren't on our map.  People don't behave the way we
expect.  The economy doesn't follow the predictions. Things
disappear (and sometimes reappear.  Elsewhere). We suffer "time
lapses."  We mysteriously get sick (or well). Crystals seem to
affect us.  Events in our lives seem to correlate with celestial
events.  We go into trance and have access to information that is
seemingly foreign to our consciousness.   We have OOBEs.

If one's belief system explains all of one's experience in a
satisfactory way ("the work of the devil,"  "fawlty instruments," 
"subjective interpretation,"  etc.), then there is no reason to
change.

 (As an aside, it seems to me  that many people who believe in
 science believe:  "if it exists, we can measure it,  therefore,
 if we can't measure it, it can't possibly exist, and it's *all
 in your mind.*"  Of course,  our minds create the instruments
 that 'measure' the data, and our minds then interpret those
 measurements.  I think I've opined on the myth of objectivity
 in another note somewhere.)

So, what does it mean to have "one's brains fall out?"  To find 
a model that explains data in a way that a previous model could not?

Do brains falling out imply that the new model one that is held
in disregard by believers in the old model?    So what?
I think the important question is whether the new model helps one
live a more satisfactory life.  Whose life is it, anyway?
               
    
/bruce

re:                     <<< Note 1110.11 by EXIT26::SAARINEN >>>
                         -< more on being too open... >-
   
�    for the sake of openess
                                                                 
    
�    see what I am trying to say.....being so open that there is point
�    where one completely dissapears into the mist of newage concerns
�    and soapboxes never to be seen again as any resemblance of who the
�    orginal person was. Now did having an Open Mind do that?
   
   Arthur,
   
   I think that having an open mind is the tool, not the goal.
   Having an open mind allows one to examine alternatives
   and make choices. 
   
   My goal is not to stay the same as I origially was (as if that
   were even possible!),  but to evolve in ways that I feel
   most appropriate  (which is where the original person gets
   a say).
   
   Nobody else can decide for me...  It's *my* responsibility
   for what I do and what I become...  and anyway (my mush
   speaking here:), 
        *the journey is the goal*
   
   /bruce
   

re.-1  Good reply, Bruce....and by the way, your mush us right!

Great topic, I just started this new age stuff a while back and felt like
Arthur,,, Especially when I got my NEW AGE catalogue..whoa, where does one
start?  But, I found out that in sideof me was alittle voice(whispers) and
feelings that let me know what feels *right* for ME.  I don't think its a
case of doing everything just for the "doing" it.  I do have a openned mind
and with somethings say''''maybe, let me try that on for a while'''' Thanks 
to this wonderful notefile I have had an opportunity to try-on ALOT..:^)
I think everybody has thier own color(choice) that feels right and it works 
for them.  Of course,for me .....color me 'LAZARIS'.
   

cheers,

Meredith

    "Do you then be reasonable," said old Socrates to Crito, "and  do not
    mind whether the teachers of philosophy are good or bad, but think only
    of Philosophy herself.  Try to examine her well and truly; and if she
    be evil, seek to turn away all men from her; but if she be what I
    believe she is, then follow her and serve her, and be of good cheer."
    
    Isn't this a good advice from old Master Himself?  Truth will not make
    us rich, but it will makes us free.

        This sort of fits in here so I will go ahead and write it.
    
        I just spent another incredible four plus days with Lazaris.
    He tells us that the secret to metaphysics is REALNESS.
    What is REALNESS?
         Realness is being who we are...knowing what we think and what we
    feel.  The adult us, not the child or adolescent within.
    It is (in a very brief, capsulized form:)
    1. Being open to relativity (relativity is a trap, for it is also
    a way of avoiding responsibility)
    2. Being open to self-esteem (NOT false esteem...self-esteem is the 
    love we feel from our SELF...it is NOT validation.)
    3. Getting in touch with divinity.
    4. Getting in touch with humanity.
    
        Spending a couple of days with many, many hours of elaboration
    on these themes and beyond can not begin to do justice to this,
    however, where this fits in is in looking into oneself to see whether
    one is avoiding responsibility in their openness or whether they
    are embracing the responsibility.  Who decides?  Only you can decide
    where to set the limits.  No matter where one draws the line, it could
    be erased and redrawn elsewhere.  Integrity and character are
    significant inflences.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re:  .11  "Now did having an open mind do that?"
    
    Hi Arthur,
    
    ---  Absolutely!  ---
    
    Karen
    
    P.S.  More to come from a mind that's wrested with the same question...
    

    Hi Arthur,
    
    Here's the more to come that I mentioned previously.
    
    Thought I'd talk about openness from two perspectives:
    
    - personal experience
    - current readings and observations
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your main
    concern is being too open - to the point of losing your sense of self,
    or who you are, in all that you have embraced, particularly in the
    general context of spirituality.  You've also felt that this degree of
    openness has caused, at times, your wisdom and discretion to fall by the
    wayside...
    
    Having been through something similar myself, what began to help me was the
    question:  What's your purpose in exploring these things?  I think if
    you look at the purpose and what you're trying to accomplish in
    anything you do, you bring more of your "true self" to your endeavors. 
    If you bring more of your self, your actions can be more easily guided 
    by wisdom and discretion, because you have an idea where you want to go.
    
    So, why are you exploring all these spiritual things anyway?
    
    If somewhere in your heart you feel "compelled" to explore all that's
    out there, I think you're not alone.  There is something BIG goin' on,
    that we're all a part of and can play an important role in.  I believe
    we're in the midst of an incredible shift of consciousness that is
    being felt all over the world in all societies and cultures.  At the
    root of this shift is the impetus to heal and to make whole.  Part of
    this shift involves the realization of the inter-connectedness of all
    life forms, human, animal, plant, mineral, planets, stars, solar
    systems, galaxies, and other dimensions of existence.
    
    I believe this movement is being sourced from God/Goddess itself and
    has manifested in the proliferation of the books, workshops, personal
    experiences, etc. that we're seeing today.  This energy is moving
    people on a soul level, waking some up, and spurring others on to help
    this shift of consciousness occur.
    
    If you find it difficult to curb your desire to be involved and check
    out everything you can regarding this, I think it may be your natural
    response to the movement of this energy in your soul.  This may be a
    weird analogy, but it's what came to mind:  Nature induces sexual drive
    in animals to eventually give birth.  I think the dynamics here are
    similar.  People are being motivated to seek, explore, facilitate,
    heal, on a personal level and planetary level.  
    
    I believe we're seeing the mystic in each one of us being awoken in 
    many unique and wonderous ways.  It's just sometimes difficult to know
    which way is best to channel and direct this energy.
    
    You might try focusing in one or two areas for awhile.  Or just
    sitting the next few months out and go out and have a big juicy
    cheeseburger and a few cold beers, or take a class in art therapy, or
    something where it's a totally focused personal endeavor.
    
    Peace,
    
    Karen
      
    
    
    When I was first exposed to the "New Age", particularly
    the various spiritual concepts, I literally consumed mass quantities of
    books, workshops, lectures, healing art fairs - you name it - I did it. 
    But after a couple of years of this my brain felt like mush, and all
    the promises of the new age that I thought would be bestowed on me,
    (wisdom, knowledge, joy) through my sincere and diligent acquisition of 
    data were nowhere to be found.  I was crushed and angry.  Sure I had
    the data, I could throw the jargon around - but where the ____ did 
    a those
    things but I was
    convinced I had discovered the secret of the universe, I was one with
    God/Goddess, I could throw the jargon around, in short - I had arrived
    at the blissful state of unconscious self-deception.
    
    All of a sudden my new age world began to collapse around me
    (emotionally and mentally) - somewhere in my search for knowledge, I
    lost my self.  All that I learned couldn't help me deal with the 
    
    

    Please excuse the sludge at the very end of my note - I originally was
    going to get into more personal "stuff", but decided not to and forgot
    to clean the slate before hittin' the button.
    
    - Karen
    

    Re .12 (Bruce):
    
    Anent Kallis' Principle ("Keep an open mind, but not so open that
    your brains fall out"), it's still important to differentiate between
    what constitutes ideas.
    
>My feeling is that one cannot be too open about new ideas.

    Here's a new idea: Coherent radiation in the visible-light spectrum
    is carniverous.
    
    Is it accurate?  I rather doubt it.  I cannot reject it _totally_
    out of hand, but I intuit that it probably just ain't so.
    
>I know that I have knee-jerked many times in the past and
>muttered under my breath "oh you [silly person], how can you
>possibly believe *that*?"
 
    It depends upon what "that" is.  Without chasing oneself into the
    labyrinthine complexities of personal and concensus realities, I
    think we can agree that one can posit, say, a _model_ of a flat
    Earth, but believing it represents a close approximation to reality
    is to miss the point.  "Anything can be anything" is a way to make
    sure that everything becomes nothing.
    
    One school of thought has that time and space (hence, matter and
    energy) are but illusions.  If so, so are we, since we are at least
    in part bound by these.
    
    >............ When the data don't fit, we either:

   >o ignore them (science chalks it up to instrument failure or
   >  any number of other reasons, uses statistics to prove that a
   >  significant number of data are "close enough," and proceeds
   >  smugly to the next experiment)
   >o alter our model to incorporate the new data (which science
   >  does grudgingly when the data overwhelmingly require it; but
   >  even Einstein could not accept QM)
    
    Normally, it's a matter of statistice.  To take the most mundane
    example I can think of ofdf the top of my head, suppose I weigh
    myself this morning and note the scale says I weigh, oh, 200 pounds. 
    Then about midday, I go to a dime store that has a "no springs --
    honest weight" sign on it and drop in a penny, and the scale says
    I weigh 55 pounds.  Ordinarily, I'll assume I weigh still in the
    neighborhood of 200 pounds, and that the dime store scale is either broken
    or miscalibrated.  I _could_ believe that I learned unconsciously
    how to levitate, partially, or that I somehow lost 145 pounds without
    losing any bulk, but I suspecvt that's "opening" one's mind too
    far.  When in doubt, I'd check another scale.
    
>So, what does it mean to have "one's brains fall out?"  To find 
>a model that explains data in a way that a previous model could not?
    
    More or less to be so credible that nonwithstanding experience and
    judgement to accept a new model that doesn't work (e.g., that with
    the right mental attitude one can drink molten iron [as opposed
    to an iron-bearing chemical like haemoglobin]).  
    
    Re .18 (Karen):
    
    >question:  What's your purpose in exploring these things?  I think if
    >you look at the purpose and what you're trying to accomplish in
    >anything you do, you bring more of your "true self" to your endeavors. 
    >If you bring more of your self, your actions can be more easily guided 
    >by wisdom and discretion, because you have an idea where you want to go.
     
    Or, more likely, a better idea of who you are.  A relationship with
    what's outside you also heightens an understanding of self.  A better
    grasp of one helps the grasp of the other.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.   

    
    Re .18 (Karen):
    
    I, thank you, for sharing that.  I do *not* want to Jump-IN and
just do any and every 'new age' thing that comes along.  I feel the same
thing would happen to me.  So, I have been sitting back and 'choicing'
what feels right for me.  I think this is a better approach, but also
hope I don't miss something that I might have been better off jumping into.
How does one know except for those little whispers..??


Meredith E. (floating along slowly)

    Re .21  Meredith:
    
    I agree with you that taking a more relaxed approach of 'choicing' what
    *feels* right is the best thing to do.  It took some time for me to
    feel comfortable with this, because like you, I would also worry about
    all the things I might miss that could be of real benefit to me.
    
    What finally shifted for me was the degree of faith that I developed -
    faith that the cosmos was ordered and purposeful - that it is even  
    "user-friendly".  I can't pinpoint how this happened.  But the funny
    thing is, in retrospect, I can say that it seemed to evolve out of the
    chaos in my life.
    
    At one point I was so confused with all the searching I was doing that
    I just had to let go.  Without having anything concrete to hold onto,
    somewhere in my psyche I guess I decided the only thing I could do at
    that point was to just TRUST.  Trust in the Divine, the cosmos, and 
    probably more importantly, to trust myself and some of the
    information that I had collected during my search - that the dynamics of
    my life were like that of the cosmos - ordered and purposeful, IF I could
    just *allow* it to be.  That decision was probably the strongest act of
    FAITH I had ever done in my life.
    
    But guess what?  It was the turning point for me.  I have found that
    when I truly hook into faith, (and I mean just trusting in the unseen
    and/or Divine) that the most incredible things can happen. 
    Synchronistic events and little miracles occur.  You're lead to meet
    people and stumble on workshops, in some of the strangest most
    wonderous ways, and some of them wind up having a 
    profound impact on your life.  And even the ones that don't, have a
    positive purpose - no event in the cosmos is ever wasteful.
    
    I think when you have no other choice, when things get so bad, one of  
    the only things you can resort to is faith and trust, and when you truly 
    do - those "little whispers" become louder and clearer and may open up a 
    whole new world.  
    
    This is not easy to describe.  I hope it comes across okay.  
    But you're onto something Meredith.  Something important.  Keep
    listening.  Your note encourgares me to do the same.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Karen
    
    
    - Karen

re - 1
       Karen, what a wonderful reply, thank you.
   

>>     - those "little whispers" become louder and clearer and may open up a 
>>  whole new world.  

    Oh, you are soo right, and they sure have...8^)

    I use to think ...is that all there is???? Now, I have my 'new' world
    that has so much more than I could have ever dreamed possible.

    including this notesfile and reading others that feel albeit, alittle 
    different, but with just as much love and faith.

    Have a good Holiday, everyone.

    Meredith

    .22 Karen
    
    FANTASTIC!
    
    Yes it is not easy to describe and don't think i will even try.
    I came under circumstances that caused me to take on a similar attitude
    as you.  It does take an enormous  (quantum) leap in faith to give
    up control of one's environment and allow the process of life to
    just happen.  Funny thing is that it doesn't "just happen." or more
    appropriately more likely happens as we wanted it to in the first
    place.  You mention Faith and trust; If you combine INTENT with
    those two qualities, you will come up with a trilogy that will allow
    you to accomplish anything you want to in life.
    
    
    There  is much implied and very little said in the phrase:
    
    
    
    			"DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY!"
    
    Ernie
    

    Ernie,
    
    Thank you for bringing in the aspect of "intent" with trust and faith. 
    It is indeed a powerful trilogy - balancing intent, or mindful action,
    with faith and trust is what I've been working to understand more fully
    as of late.  
    
    Too many times in the past my actions have been made with little intent,
    (nevermind faith and trust), and I kind of be-bopped my way through
    life - oftentimes asking myself the same question Meredith has: 
    "Is this ALL there is?"
     
    It could be easy to interpret having trust and faith as simply sitting back
   opening up your arms and waiting for the cosmos to bestow wonderful gifts
    upon your person.  It doesn't quite work that way - and that's where 
    intent/mindful action comes in.
    
    Even this trilogy though, does not quarantee one a state of happiness
    and contentment at all times.  I say this from currently making my way
    (gingerly) through a major transition that I've found rather rough and
    painful.  (What transition isn't?)  But at least with the trilogy we've
    spoken about, the painful reverberations do not shake me to my core, as
    they use to.  (Still waters run deep)  At my depth, the waters are pretty
    calm - it's mostly on the surface that I'm navigating rough seas.
     
    Having faith and being open that I will be guided, I forge on.  Today I
    am just sitting back opening my arms to the cosmos, (I'm too tired for
    much of anything else).  Tomorrow, I will take mindful action (!).
    
    Peace and blessings,
    
    Karen
    

    re .25
    
    Reminds me of being woken abruptly one night by the notion that
    I had been spending my life waiting to "be discovered by God".
    
    Umm,
    
    l.

    re .26
    
    l, 
    
    Umm, yes, a Divine revelation that woke you up - abruptly - one night. 
    How appropriately delivered.  I love the living symbolism and message
    of your experience.
    
    Karen
              

    
    It's been my experience that when I do what others describe as
    'let go and let God' what I'm really doing is connecting with that 
    part of divinity that is within me. 
    
    So, Ernie, though you say "it does take an enormous (quantum) leap in
    faith to give up control of one's environment and allow the process of
    life to just happen", your subsequent statement - "Funny thing is that 
    is doesn't 'just happen'" is what I respond to. 
    
    To my mind, we're not giving up control of our environment. Rather, 
    we're making a shift in consciousness and recognising that by working 
    in harmony with all we've created, we actually have a greater measure
    of 'control'. Further, by acknowledging our responsibility for all of
    it - the good, the not-so-good, and the downright dreadful - we assume
    that part of divinity that is ours to claim, and our 'power' is 
    limitless.
    
    So, as a very ordinary human being, I still often - too often - see 
    myself separate from all-that-is-God, until I can make the connection 
    once more and feel the strength and peace and knowing of godliness.
    And then....
    
    
    
    

{From: "Think Upon These Things", by J.Krishnamurti, p.80-82}

An Open Mind

You know, it is very interesting to find out what learning is.  We learn 
from a book or from a teacher about mathematics, geography, history; we 
learn where London is, or Moscow, or New York; we learn how a machine 
works or how the birds build their nests, care for their young, and so 
on.  By observation and study we learn.  That is one kind of learning.

But is there not also another kind of learning - the learning that comes 
through experience?  When we see a boat on the river with its sales 
reflected on the quiet waters, is that not an extraordinary experience/  
And then what happens?  The mind stores up an experience of that kind, 
just as it stores up knowledge, and the next evening we go out there to 
watch the boat, hoping to have the same kind of feeling - an experience 
of joy, that sense of peace which comes so rarely in our lives.  So the 
mind is sedulously stored up experience; and it is the storing up of 
experience as memory that makes us think, is it not?  What we call 
thinking is the response of memory.  Having watched that boat on the 
river and felt a sense of joy, we store up the experience as memory and 
then want to repeat it; so the process of thinking is set going, is it 
not?

You see, very few of us really know how to think.  Most of us merely 
repeat what we have read in a book, (;^) (haha! - this guy is GOOD!!!), 
or what somebody has told us, or our thinking is the outcome of our own 
very limited experience.  Even if we travel all over the world and have 
innumerable experiences, meet many different people and hear what they 
have to say, observe their customs, their religions, their manners, we 
retain the remembrance of all that, from which there is what we call 
thinking.  We compare, judge, choose and through this process we hope to 
find some reasonable attitude towards life.  But that kind of thinking is 
very limited, it is confined to a very small river, or a corpse being 
carried to the 'burning-ghats', or a village woman carrying a heavy 
burden - all these impressions are there, but we are so insensitive that 
they don't sink into us and ripen; and it is only through sensitivity to 
everything around us that there is a beginning of a different kind of 
thinking which is not limited by our conditioning.

If you hold firmly to some set of beliefs or other, you look at 
everything through that particular prejudice or tradition; you don't have 
any contact with reality.  Have you ever noticed that village woman 
carrying heavy burdens to the town?  When you do notice it, what happens 
to you, what do you feel?  Or is it that you have seen these women going 
by so often that you have no feeling at all because you have become used 
to it and, so, hardly notice them?  And even when you observe something 
for the first time, what happens?  You automatically translate what you 
see according to your own prejudices, don't you?  You experience it 
according to your conditioning as a communist, a socialist, a capitalist, 
or some other "ist."  Whereas, if you are none of these things and 
therefore do not look through the screen of any idea or belief, but 
actually have the direct contact, then you will notice what an 
extraordinary relationship there is between you and what you observe. If 
you have no prejudices, no bias, if you are open, then everything around 
you becomes extraordinarily interesting, tremendously alive.

That is why it is very important, when you are young, to notice all these 
things.  Be aware of the boat on the river, watch the train go by, see 
the peasant carrying a heavy burden, observe the insolence of the rich, 
the pride of the ministers, of the big people, of those who think they 
know a lot - just watch them, don't criticize. The moment you criticize, 
you are not in relationship, you have already a barrier between yourself 
and them; but if you merely observe, then you will have a direct 
relationship with people and with things.  If you can observe alertly, 
keenly, but without judging, without concluding, you will find that your 
thinking becomes astonishingly acute.  Then you are learning all the 
time.

Everywhere around you there is birth and death, the struggle for money, 
position, power, the unending process of what we call life;p and don't 
you sometimes wonder, even while you are very young, what it s all about? 
 You see, most of us want an answer, we want top be *told* what it is all 
about, so we pick up a political or religious book, or we ask somebody to 
tell us; but no one can tell us, because life is not something which can 
be understood from a book, nor can its significance be gathered by 
following another, or through some form of prayer.  You and I must 
understand it for ourselves - which we can do only if we are fully alive, 
very alert, watchful, observant, taking interest in everything around us; 
and then we shall discover what it is to be really happy.

Most people are unhappy; and they are unhappy because there is no love 
in their hearts.  Love will arise in your heart when you have no barrier 
between yourself and another, when you meet and observe people without 
judging them, when you just see the sailboat on the river and enjoy the 
beauty of it.  Don't let your prejudices cloud your observation of things 
as they are; just observe, and you will discover that out of this simple 
observation, out of this awareness of trees, of birds, of people walking, 
working, smiling, something happens to you inside.  Without this 
extraordinary thing happening to you, without the arising of love in your 
heart, life has very little meaning; and that is why it is so important 
that the educator should be educated to help you understand the 
significance of these things.

    I have experienced much joy upon reading the last twenty nine notes
    in "On Being Open". I have had the fortunate experience of being
    "On the Path" for the past eighteen years or so. There was so litte
    of what is now called "The Human Potential Movement", or, now, "New
    Age", that I couldn't have had any idea where my openess would lead.
    I have found wondrous places, and a few dead-ends. It is the quality
    of Openess which allowed me to look, to experience, and to know.
    The reflections and advice I've read from Fred, Karen, Cindy, Steve,
    and others who are traveling a similar road to the one(s) I have
    been traveling are giving wonderful advice. Thank you all.
    
    Richard

    Karen,
    
    	I have just returned from a partial vacation (still had to work
    my part time job).  
    
    	You use the work faith.  I think a more appropriate word is
    confidence.  Being confident enough to know that you can accomplish
    what you want to accomplish.  The more open you are, the more aware
    of the situation you can become and thus the more confidence you will 
    have in doing what needs to be done.  
    	I am going through transitions also:  I am in the process of
    changing careers from technology to Counseling Psychology.  I don't
    find it rough and painful, in fact it is quite exciting.  There
    is a part of me that is reluctant to accept the changes and the
    possibility of venturing into the unknown.  this caused fright to
    rear its head once in a while but I have the confidence to continue
    moving.  Life continues to say " Here, would you like this?"  or
    " this would be nice how about trying this." And they are all positive
    choices.  There are a few things going on in my life that I got to
    keep  a very close watch on. AS long as I pay attention to them
    right up to the finish, they are more of a challenge than a pain.
    I think transititons are painful when we have expectations and get
    different results than we wanted.  This point may be a little difficult
    to explain, but you can get to where you want to be, but not
    necessarily by the means you expected.  So if you drop your
    expectations, open yourself up to all possible situations(but still
    choose carefully) you will get to where you want to be without the
    pain.  Pain is rather subjective anyway. 
    
    This is an interesting but ,in my mind, an important topic of discussion.  
There seem to be many ideas concerning openness in this note, but one them 
seems to permeate the entire file:  Let others think what they think, but let 
me think what I want to think. Is this enough to be considered open?  Many of 
us have beliefs different from the mainstream thoughts.  We tend to think of 
ourselves as "open" because we allow ourselves to explore ideas that are not
accepted by society at large.  Does this necessarily constitute openness?
Sure, we are open to ideas that are different from society in general, but is 
this really the meaning of being "open?"  I don't believe so. Many of us have 
discarded physical materialism as being antagonistic to the spiritual path, 
and many of us frown on the fundamentalist concepts of religion as a path to 
spirituality.  We may feel that these ideas might interfere with our pursuit of 
spiritual accomplishments.  My contention is that we have replaced physical 
materialism with spiritual materialism.  Instead of possessing material things 
and objects, we now possess spiritual ideas and concepts.  I must protect 
these new possessions against intrusion of contradictory ideas and I must find 
someone who has at least nearly the same ideas to give me moral support lest I 
lose these valuable possessions and my ego is destroyed.  I've got to beware 
that the label "spiritualism" doesn't become a banner to wave, or a medal to 
wear.  Now, after giving up so much to gain these new spiritual possessions, 
I must defend my new ideas and beliefs at all costs.  Is this being 
open?
	Perhaps if we can equate the concept of openness with surrendering, we 
can get an ideas of what it truly means to be open.  Surrendering to someone 
or something usually has a negative connotation.  The act of surrendering 
generally implies giving over one's will to someone or something else.  For 
christians, when something goes wrong it is the "will of God" that it happened 
the way it did.  It wasn't our doing. 
	I would like to discuss a new way of surrendering:  by opening our 
minds to life's situations.  Life's situations can be our Guru or a Guru can 
be an individual.  As with physical materialism, in dealing with spiritual 
materialism, We become preoccupied with what we **would like** to experience
in a spiritual way or learn from a spiritual leader.  To surrender one's self 
might mean giving up all preconceptions with life situations or even a 
spiritual teacher.  In this context, surrendering means opening oneself 
completely, trying to get beyond fascination and expectation.
	Surrender means also  that we must acknowledge the raw, rugged, 
clumsy, and shocking qualities of one's ego, acknowledging them and 
surrendering them as well.  If we can open, we then can begin to see that our 
expectations are irrelevant compared with the reality of the situations we are 
facing.


As explained in the book CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM by Ch�gyam 
Trungpa:


"... if we are involved with  spiritual materialsim, if we regard spirituality 
as a part of our accumulation of learning and virtue, if spirituality becomes 
a way of building ourselves up, the of course the whole process of 
surrendering is completely distorted.  If we regard spirituality as a way of 
making ourselves comfortable, then whenever we experience something 
unpleasant, a disappointment, we try to rationalize it: "Of course this must 
be an act of wisdom on the part of the guru, because I know, I'm quite certain 
the guru doesn't do harmful things.  Guruji is a perfect being and whatever 
Guruji does is right.  Whatever Guruji does is for me because he is on mey 
side.  So I can afford to be open.  I can safely surrender.  I know I am 
treading on the right path." Something is not quite right about such an 
attitude. It is at best simple minded and naive.  We are captivated by the 
awesome, inspiring, dignified and colorful aspect of "Guruji."  We dare not 
contemplate any other way.  We develop the conviction that whatever we 
experience is part of our spiritual development. "I've made it, I have 
experienced it, I am a self made person and I know everything, roughly, because 
I've read books and they confirm my beliefs, my rightness, my ideas. 
Everything coincides."	

 This conviction is generally applied to spiritual teachers and life situations 
alike.

"We can hold back in still another way, not really surrendering (being open 
ew) because we feel that we are very genteel, sophisticated and dignified 
people.  "surely we can't give ourselves to this dirty, ordinary street scene 
of reality."  We have the feeling that every step we tread should by a lotus 
petal and we develop a logic that interprets  whatever happens to us 
accordingly.  If we fall, we create a soft landing which prevents sudden 
shock.  Surrendering does not involve preparing for a soft landing; it means 
just landing on hard, ordinary ground, on rocky, wild country side.  Once we 
open ourselves, then we land on WHAT IS."

He finishes the chapter on surrender with:

"The basic act of surrender does not involve the worship of external power.  
Rather it means working together with inspiration, so that one becomes an open 
vessel into which knowledge can be poured."

CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM does an excellent job, in my opinion, of 
explaining what it means to be open, the difficulty in getting open, the self 
deception we bestow upon ourself to believe that we really are open, ruthless 
compassion which is a gesture of generosity which excludes no one.

Yesterday, while interviewing at Cambridge College for acceptance into the 
master's program, I had to take a writing sample.  I thought it was very 
interesting and applied to this topic.  It was several paragraphs arguing that
that the general concept of intellegence: ability to solve problems was 
completely wrong.  The author Wayne Daly(if I remember correctly) proposed 
that the measure of true intelligence is one's ability to be happy.  A truly 
intelligent person did not worry about solving problems, only dealing with 
them.  A happy person is able to deal with life situations as they came.  This 
type of person realized that problems are a part of the human condition and 
didn't not need to be solved, just handled. Does this mean that a happy and 
thus intelligent person is an open person?
	The several paragraphs on intelligence were part of a discussion of 
taking control of one's life.  He had stated that in order to take control of 
our own life, we must come to realize that we must learn to manage our own 
emotions.  Many of us don't believe that this is possible, but it can be 
learned.  This concept seems part and parcel to being open and happy. WE can 
feel what we want to when we want to.  No one else has to control our own 
feelings for us.


Ernie

                                        

Re: .31 (Ernie)

Wow, wow, wow!  I got so excited reading your note...wanting to reply, that
I had a hard time concentrating so that I could get to the end.

I have read CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM by Ch�gyam Trungpa...and
was very inspired by it too.

I can identify with the subject you mentioned of seeing life as more of a
challenge than a pain.  Yesterday morning, my car broke down twice.  This
was after making it to a 9:00 AM (Monday morning) appt. to get my picture
taken for a new driver's license, after surviving a two-day party over the
weekend, going to some concerts, and getting very little sleep.  I thought 
I could barely make it through a "normal" day, but then I spent my entire 
morning, sitting on the roadside waiting for tow trucks, walking to phones, 
in the heat.  But I looked at it as an adventure to be dealt with.  People
waved and smiled during those hours.  Some guy in a fruit truck stopped and 
gave me fresh strawberries (the juiciest strawberries I've ever had)!  Life 
can be very interesting if you're not busy complaining all the time.  We're 
so busy saying what's good and bad, and struggling to gain certain things 
and avoid others, that we really work ourselves into quite a frenzy.  I'll
probably never forget those strawberries!

>My contention is that we have replaced physical 
>materialism with spiritual materialism.  

I feel that way too.  A person can "dig holes" for themselves, WHEREVER
they go.  This can be a very startling realization -- when you think you're
on the right track just because of what you're involved in...and then you
discover that other people on that same track were seeing things in an
even different way...and all of a sudden, your awareness looks sort of puney.
Many people listen to songs and tap their feet, but aren't really feeling
the words.

>	I would like to discuss a new way of surrendering:  by opening our 
>minds to life's situations.  Life's situations can be our Guru 

Oh yehhhh!

>As with physical materialism, in dealing with spiritual 
>materialism, We become preoccupied with what we **would like** to experience
>in a spiritual way or learn from a spiritual leader.  

This seems like a game or drama to me.  Sure, we can dress up in costume
and ring bells and recite things...but I don't think that gets us anywhere
special.  I was very disillusioned by the rituals in a church, which seemed 
to make everyone feel holy for just those few minutes.  It seemed empty to me.
Life is still there when the rituals are over.  Why do we need to go back and
go back to feel holy and good and aware?  Why is it not something that we
feel we have IN US everywhere we go?

>To surrender one's self 
>might mean giving up all preconceptions with life situations or even a 
>spiritual teacher.  In this context, surrendering means opening oneself 
>completely, trying to get beyond fascination and expectation.

I recently went to a class in which many of the people were in total awe
of the teacher...yet, I know many of them weren't really relating with what
he said (because they told me), but they still felt in awe of him -- and saw
themselves as "lower".  I had respect and interest in his experiences, 
thoughts, and feelings...but I felt a natural bond with him (just like with
anybody), that did not put either one of us "above" the other.  I wouldn't 
want him following me around...so I hoped he wouldn't want me following him.
He makes mistakes too.  When some of my classmates learned of my feelings, 
they were shocked and confused, and some even seemed a little angry.

>	Surrender means also  that we must acknowledge the raw, rugged, 
>clumsy, and shocking qualities of one's ego, 

I think that pretending we're "above" those aspects of ourselves, is what
makes us handle them so poorly.  Accepting them doesn't mean letting them
fly loose either.

>that the measure of true intelligence is one's ability to be happy.  A truly 
>intelligent person did not worry about solving problems, only dealing with 
>them.  A happy person is able to deal with life situations as they came.  This 
>type of person realized that problems are a part of the human condition and 
>didn't not need to be solved, just handled. 

Sounds intelligent to me. :-)

Have you ever been thinking about something deeply while driving and forgot 
to signal?  Wouldn't it be nice if the person behind you gave you a break
and smiled and waved?  Have you ever screamed and felt hateful feelings at 
someone for forgetting to signal?  There are situations every day in life 
where we can see how WE are responding to the world around us.  THAT'S a 
good indication of where our head is at -- not the impressive list of new 
age courses we sign up for.  There are also ways to see how the things that 
we used to feel angry about, might have a very good explanation that a 
little patience and understanding could deal with easily.  Are most of 
these little things so important for us to get as angry as we do about 
them...or are we just mad at ourselves?

>He had stated that in order to take control of 
>our own life, we must come to realize that we must learn to manage our own 
>emotions.  Many of us don't believe that this is possible, but it can be 
>learned.  

It seems that our denial of being able to manage our emotions is an
indication that we do not like or accept ourselves -- and therefore, do
not want to claim responsibility.

Gee, I feel so high after this discussion, I think I'll go drive in traffic
and smile and wave at people. :-)

Jerri

    
    re: .31, .32
    
    Yeah!  I've been learning all this stuff the hard way lately.
    
    Thanks for putting it in a nice, neat, concrete form!
    
    :-)
    
    Guy

    Re: .31 Ernie
    
    Hi Ernie,
    
    Welcome back from vacation.  Thanks for your note.  I will reply in
    part, but appreciate all you had to say about "being open".
    
    Your comment on my use of the word faith - you think a more appropriate
    word is confidence.  I understand what you mean and don't disagree with
    your premise, however, faith describes my experience best.  The word
    faith emobodies the essence of confidence and adds an extra dimension
    to it for me.  
    
    It's an important word for me that gives me a certain good feeling -
    one that I lacked for the first 30 years or so of my life, because my
    relationship with God/Goddess during that time could best be described
    as "estranged".  Through an unusual -:) series of events, that no
    longer is the case.  One experience in particular I will relate:  I
    began to do absent healing through prayer/meditation several years ago. 
    At first I felt embarassed in praying to God, it just wasn't a
    comfortable feeling yet in my heart I wanted to feel close to God, so I
    kept doing my absent healing through prayer, (and feeling more
    comfortable as I went on).  
    
    One particular evening I began my healing prayers, not with the usual
    "Dear God," but quite spontaeously with "Hi Honey," in greeting a
    loving, intimate friend.  I laughed to myself and marveled at just how
    far I had come in feeling close to God.  By the way, I also felt that
    Divine presence sharing in the humor of the moment and laughing with
    me.  Needless to say, it was a very moving experience for me.  But
    that's an insight into why faith says it better than confidence for me. 
    It is just one way I "consciously" connect with the Divine within and
    without and the sanctity of life.
    
    Pain - ah yes!  I agree wholeheartedly with you about the empowerment
    that comes when life is seen as exciting and a challenge!  This
    "painful" transition I referred to caught me quite by surpise, and yes,
    part of it has to do with certain expectations I had and then turning
    to face the "unknown".  Although I realize all this, I don't want to
    intellectualize myself out of a meaningful experience, which I believe
    this pain offers.  But that's another one of my defensive tendancies -
    to intellectualize an experience to the point of preventing myself from
    feeling things I don't like to feel.  Trouble is, you can't keep pain
    out and expect to only let joy in.  It don't work like that.  So now I 
    just allow it to flow through me when it happens, whatever "IT" is and 
    try to be mindful to look for the gift in all experiences.
    
    By the way Ernie - Good luck in your career transition!
    
    Jerri (re .32) - You're right about being open during times of crisis
    (?) because if you are, you might just be offered the juiciest, most
    delicious strawberries you've ever eaten in your life!  I think that's
    one of the ways the Cosmos affirms our beingness at a particular moment
    - it is truly inspiring and life-giving!  It gives new meaning to the
    phrase "the incredible lightness of being".
     
    Carole - it's also at times like these that I hear very clearly the
    Great Mother asking "Child do you hear me?", and my answer is a
    resounding "Yes!  Thank you Mother/Father!"
    
    Smile,
    
    Karen
    

    Hi Karen,
    
    	I am enjoying your entries.  
    
    	You say "Trouble is, you can't keep pain out and expect to only
    let joy in."   I 'm not sure I know the meaning of "can't." (:'>
    This is a seldom used word in my vocabulary.  The operative word
    is "expect"  To expect joy over pain will generally fail because
    expectations are usually higher than life experiences give.  IN
    just allowing ourselves to be open to the pain and outcome of an
    experience not only changes our outlook (and emotions) but will
    actually allow the outcome to be more favorable and in line with
    our goals.  This may seem to be a paradox, and is, on an intellectual
    level. This does not imply that one sleeps while life goes on. 
    One must be on guard at all times to be open to all aspects of a
    situation.  Every situation is a guru; as long as we remain totally
    open to each and every situation.  This is difficult because it
    is nearly impossible to give up expectations and as long as there
    are expectations there will be pain.  There is much self deception
    to deal with because we tend to *feel* that if we understand something
    intellectually we are actually achieving it.  Our intellect deceives
    us because it supports our feelings about something.  We set a trap
    for ourselves in that we believe we are open because our intellect
    supports our emotions and the warm fuzzy feelings we get are because
    of the idea of openness and not actually the achievement of openness. 
    I better let go of this before I realize that i am being redundant
    and somebody realizes that I am just babbling on. (:'>
    
    
    Jerri,
     	That was beautiful.  "A Strange Thing happened on the way to
    the forum"  (Was this a name of a movie a long time ago?)  One
    shouldn't take getting to their goal so seriously that life passes
    them by.  And if we don't take ourselves so seriously we can get
    to our goal and have a good time getting there. Maybe not exactly
    when we *expected* to get there but get there never-the-less.
    
    
    Ernie
      

    re: .35 (Ernie)
    
           I liked your earlier entries, by the way.
    
           I don't agree with the statements here concerning expectations,
    however.  To say that expectations lead to pain is simply untrue.
    Pain is more "independent" than that.  Consider it this way...what
    if your expectations are low and you experience a less-than-desired
    outcome?  There is pain there.  What if your expectations are high
    and you have a similar outcome?  There is still pain there.  Is it
    really any more painful?  On the other hand, how much more time
    and how much more intense can the feelings of happiness and joy be
    when the expectations are high?  Even if they fail, did you not
    have a "good time" until then?  If the expectations were low and
    it failed, you would never have even experienced the "high."
    And if your life is set up this way, all you are accomplishing is
    the eventual anaesthetizing of your feelings...for not only do you
    not feel the pain, you never feel the joy, either.  One must
    be WILLING to experience pain in order to feel joy.  That does not
    mean one HAS TO experience pain.  But to say that we should strive
    for low expectations is very sad, for expectations is the stuff
    great dreams are born of.  That you experience pain simply means
    that your programming wasn't set up to accomplish what you said
    you wanted and that you now have to deal with that pain, especially
    if there is ever to be hope (expectation?) of avoiding it again.
    
    Frederick
    

    Re: .36
    
    I've experienced such a thing as being high without being attached
    to expectations.
    
    Jerri

    Ernie,
    
    Your babbling hits the nail on the head!  
    
    Yes, "expect" and "expectations" are the operative words.  What just
    occurred to me is that getting caught :-) in expectation, seperates us
    (to one degree or another) from the experience of the moment - and the
    openness to just being.  My statement about "you can't keep pain out
    and expect to only let joy in" is the jist of something I realized a
    while back.  And my experience has been that when you're able to be
    open to the pain (letting it flow), your outlook does change, which I'm
    sure alters the outcome to be more favorable.
    
    You've also encapsulated the "trap", (yes folks, I said it!) I have
    found myself in before:  "There is much self deception to deal with
    because we tend to *feel* that if we understand something
    intellectually we are actually achieving it..." - and the remainder of
    your paragraph!  Excellently expressed - I couldn't have said it
    better.
    
    Yo Arthur, (the founding father of this topic) - Ernie's so-called
    babbling in .35 about self deception is what I had wanted to further
    comment about to you.
    
    Pass the popcorn,
    
    Karen
    

    re: .37 (Jerri-rigged)
    
    
         Yeah, well, we all know what drugs can do, huh?
    
    Frederick
    ;-)
    
    

    
    Frederick
    	You make a good point, but does one continually have to
    re-experience pain for their entire life to know what joy is?  I
    think one experience in pain is sufficient  at least for normally
    functioning people. I work with the mentally retarded and with lower
    functioning persons what you state is sufficiently true.  Then again
    one client I have is retarded and has had a lobotomy from the old
    school of medicine and is never really in mental pain.  Any way,
    this is not to say that anybody in this forum who is subject to
    mental suffering is not intelligent. (gotta be careful here (;'>)
    As with physical pain, most of us have only to touch a hot stove
    once to prevent us from touching it again.  Why can't this be so
    for mental suffering?
    	Looking at what (I think) you say from another angle, Assuming 
    that we must continue to experience pain, does it have to be at the 
    same level each time:
         ----------        ----------   <------Joy
    -----|        |________|        |__________Pain
                                                  
    
    If we learn from past experiences perhaps a chart of our painful
    and joyful experiences might be more like:
    
    
    
    Joy |--------     |------     |-----|_____|---pain/joy one and the same?
        |       |     | pain|_____|
        |  pain |_____|
        |
    pain|
  
    
    You are assuming a great deal i think in your statement "And if
    your life is set up this way, all you are accomplishing is the eventual
    anesthesizing of your feelings."  No way Jos�!  One must be willing
    to feel pain to learn from the experience, not necessarily expecting
    to feel joy later on.  Many people utilize their painful experiences, not
    in learning from them but in a manner that gives them worth but
    denies them any learning. Many people even may prefer the suffering
    because that is all they know. How does this help them experience
    the joy of life? 
    	No I did not say we "should strive for low expectations" because
    that in and of itself is expectation.  I am only making a request
    to just experience situations without placing any physical, spiritual
    or emotional value to that experience.
    	  "That you experience pain simply means that your programming  
    wasn't set up to accomplish what you said you wanted and that you now 
    have to deal with the pain,  especially if there is ever to be hope of
    (expectation) of avoiding it again."  What you say about this is
    partly true; about the programming.  To rid oneself of expectations
    and be truly open to any situation means getting rid of the programming
    and becoming open to one's fullest potential.  When we expect
    to reach a certain goal, we program ourselves with certain ideas
    and concepts that we hope will get us to our goal.  The paradox
    is in thinking that if we give up our expectations we also give
    up getting to our goal; this is not so.  If we were not open to
    each and every situation and operated according to pre-programmed
    ideas we believe in, in effect, make it more difficult in reaching our 
    goals.  Yes, Frederick, what you say is what happens at an intellectual
    level.  Again, I am trying to describe an apparent paradox and am
    having a difficult (but fun) time doing so.  In surrendering to the
    experience (not surrendering of will)  one is put in the position to
    see all aspects of the experience and see the connection that will
    lead to their goal; once they get rid of their pre-conceived idea
    as to how they should (expectations)get there.  It is a true paradox
    and is difficult to explain but **you get what you truly give up.**
    
    	Like getting presents when one doesn't expect them; the joy is
    much greater, at least for me when I am being presented something
    when I didn't have the least idea that i would be receiving it. I
    think that the reward of joy would be much greater if i get out
    of life something i didn't expect.  I am in the process of
    accomplishing something at this time which came upon me totally
    unexpected.  on the other side, if I don't get it, then my pain
    will be non existent because i had no expectations.  I continue
    on feeling good about my self, and with the excitement of exploring
    other possibilities.  No way will by feelings anesthesize.  Life
    is much too exciting for me to become schizoid.  
    
    
    Ernie
                                                 
    
     

    Re: .39
    
    >Yeah, well, we all know what drugs can do, huh?
    
    You DOOOO???? ;-)
    
    I stopped doing drugs a long time ago...because they weren't really
    an improvement over my natural "high". :-)  But I wouldn't stop
    anyone else from doing it.
    
    Jerri

                                      
    Re.34 (Berggren)
    
    Karen,
    
    Perhaps a better word beyond faith and belief is *knowing*.  Given your
    experience with God/Goddess/ATI, you will never doubt again, and if you
    do, you will eventually realize that it is just that illusion of fear 
    and you will be able to dispel it with what you know to be the Truth.
    
    "Perfect Love casteth out Fear."  This has been my experience.
    
    Cindy

    re .42 
    
    Cindy,
    
    Yes!
    
    Karen
    
    
    

Another point on expectations.  The reason we tend to become anesthized is 
precisely because we continually fail to meet our own expectations.  After
failing so many times to reach those goals, those emotions we expected become 
more and more distant so we then start rationalizing and turn ourself off to 
them and the possibility of obtaining our preconceptions of joy.  
Desensitization is a technique of behavior modification therapy, but outside 
a controlled environment, we can react in several way toward this continual 
failure to meet our own expectations: Become despondent and depressed, since 
we did not get what we feel we deserved then we must not be worthy of 
possessing it.  The second is by becoming totally indifferent to the 
environment and the reality one is invoved with.  This is the schizoid 
attitude; to react (not interact) with situations in an inappropriate manner 
emotionally and intellectually for what the situation requires.

	I happened to see a reply while typing "next unseen" but now im not 
sure where it was located.   It asked the question: "what about being so open 
that your brains fall out?"  That is a good question and Ch�ygyam Trungpa 
speak to this in the section titled "Initiation" In CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL 
MATERIALISM.  If you mean by "until your brain falls out"  to naively accept 
anything that is offered, no.  Your brain will not fall out but someone might 
come along and steal it. (:'>   To me, being open means not having to hang on 
to a specific idea as if our life depended on it.  It means allowing the 
possibility that any and all beliefs i have are probably wrong because they are 
built on expectation, on what I want to be, not what is.  It means being 
unattached to a situation sufficiently to be able to see the whole picture; 
not placing a value on it as to whether the situation will make me more or 
less secure. 



Following are excerpts from CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL MATERIALISM concerning
oppenness and The guru.  Ch�gyam Trungpa proports that a guru can be an 
individual or can just be life experiences in general.


P41:
	"In order to be accepted by your guru as a friend, you have to open 
yourself completely. And in order that you might open, you will probably have 
to undergo tests by your spiritual friend and life situations in general.  All 
of these tests taking the form of disappointment.
...This seems to be the point; the impulse of searching for something in 
itself a hangup.  When the impulse begins to wear out, then our fundamental 
nakedness begins to appear and the meeting of the two minds begins to take 
place."  


P45:
	First you surrendered to your spiritual friend, then you communicated 
and played games with him.  And now you have come to the state of complete 
openness.  As a result of this openness you begin to see the guru-quality in 
every life situation, that all situations in life offer you the opportunity to 
be as open as you are with your guru, and so all things can become the guru.

p50:

	Q. When the situations of life start to become your guru, does it 
matter what forms the situation takes? Does it matter what situation you find 
yourself in?

	A. You have no choice at all.  Whatever happens is the expression of 
the guru.  The situation could be painful or inspirational, but pain and 
pleasure are one in this openness of seeing the situation as guru.


On initiation:


" We must approach spirituality with a hard kind of intelligence.  If we go to 
hear a teacher speak, we should not allow ourselvesto be carried away by his 
reputation and charisma, but we should properly experience each word of his 
lecture or each aspect of the meditation technique being taught.  We must make 
a clear relationshipwith the teaching and the man teaching.  Such intelligence 
has nothing to do with emotionalism or romanticizing the guru.  It has nothing 
to do with gullibly accepting impressive credentials, nor is it a matter of 
joining  a club that we might be enriched.  


	It is not a matter of finding a wise guru  from whom we can buy or 
steal wisdom.  True initiation involves dealing honestly and straight 
forwardly with our spiritual friend and **ourselves**.  So we have to make 
some effort to expose ourselves and our self-deceptions.  We have to surrender 
and expose the raw and rugged quality of our ego.
	Monetary  donations to a spiritual cause, contributions of physical 
labor, involvement with a particualr guru, none of these necessarily mean that 
 we have actually committed ourselves to openness.  More likely  these kinds 
of commitment are simply ways of proving that we have joined the side of 
"right."  The guru seems to be a wise person.  He knows what he is doing and 
we would like to be on his side, the safe side, the good side,  in order to 
secure our well being and success.  But once he have attached ourselves to his 
side, the side of sanity, the side of stability, the side of wisdom, then to 
our surprise,  we discover that we hav e not succeeded in securing ourselves 
at all, because we have only committed our facade, our face, our suit of 
armor.  We have not totally committed ourselves.
...Ego is very professional, overwhelmingly efficient in it's way.  When we 
think we are working on the forward moving process of attempting to empty 
ourselves out, we find ourselves giong backwards, trying to secure ourselves, 
filling ourselves up.  And this confusion continues and intensifies until we 
are totally lost, that we have lost ground, that there is no starting point or 
middle or end because our mind has been overwhelmed by our own defense 
mechanisms.  so the only alternative seems to be to just give in and let be.  
Our clever ideas, and smart solutions do us no good, because we have been 
overwhelmed with too many ideas; we do not know which ideas to choose, which 
ideas will provide us with the best way to work on ourselves.  Our mind is 
over crowded with extraordinary, intelligent, logical, scientific and cunning 
suggestions.  But somehow there are too many and we do not know which 
suggestion to take.
	So at last, we might really give up all these complications and just 
allow some space, just give in.  This is the moment when abhjisheka-sprinkling 
and pouring-really take place, because we are open and are really giving up 
the whole attempt to do anything, giving up our busyness and overcrowding.  
Finally we have been forced to really stop properly, which is quite a rare 
occurance for us.

	Q.  It seems that I cannot get away from trying to secure myself.  
What should I do?

	A.  You want so much to be secure that the idea of trying not to 
secure yourself has become a game, a big joke, and a way of securing yourself. 
You are so concerned about watching yourself and watching yourself watching, 
and watching yourself watching yourself watching, it goes on and on and on.  
It is a quite common phenomenon.
	What is really needed is for you to stop caring altogether, to 
completely drop the whole concern...You try to  secure yourself and having 
achieved security, you also attempt to secure that as well.
...If you really wnat to secure yourself completely, there is literally no 
limit to the efforts you can make.
	So it is necessary to drop altogether the idea of security and see 
the irony of your overlapping structure of self protection.  You have to give 
up the watcher of the watcher of the watcher.  In order to do this , yyou must 
one has to drop the first watcher: the intention of protection itself.


Ernie

    
    re: .40 (Ernie)
    
    I've really been experiencing the statement "you get what you truly
    give up" lately.   You hit the nail on the head.
    
    I really enjoyed the excerpts - thanks.
    
    :-)
    
    Guy

    Hi Ernie (.31),
    
    Just got back and am catching up here.  The references to
    'intelligence' brought to mind something I read recently
    that I liked:
    
    	True intelligence is the capacity of the mind to honor
    	the wisdom of the heart.  True wisdom does not
    	necessitate intellectual vocabulary.
    
    
    Best wishes in your new endeavors,
    
    Ro
    

    Thank you, Ro.
            
    	Following is some excerpts from CUTTING THROUGH SPIRITUAL
    MATERIALISM  on the hard way of opening ourselves to life's situations:
    
    
    On the hard way:

	It takes tremendous effort to work one's way through the difficulties 
of the path and actually get into  the situations of life thoroughly and 
properly.  So the whole point of the hard way seems to be that some individual 
effort must be made by the student to acknowledge himself, go through the 
process of unmasking.  One must be willing to stand alone, which is difficult.

	So the point we come back to is that some kind of **REAL** gift or 
sacrifice is needed if we are to open ourselves completely.  This gift may 
take any form.  But in order for it to be meaningful, it must entail giving up 
our hope of getting something in return.....That is really the hard way.
	The problem is that we tend to seek an easy and painless answer.  But 
this kind of solution does not apply to the spiritual path, which many of us 
should not have begun at all.  One we commit ourselves to the spiritual path, 
it is very painful and we are in for it. We have committed ourselves  to the 
pain of exposing ourselves, of taking off our clothes, our skin, nerves, 
heart, brain, until we are exposed to the universe.  Nothing will be left. It 
will be terrible, excruciating, but that is the way it is.

	Q. Must we have a spiritual friend before we can expose ourselves, or 
can we just open ourselves to the situations of life?

	A.  I think you need someone to watch you do it, because then it will 
seem more real to you.  It is easy to undress in a room with no one else 
around, but we find it difficult to undress ourselves in a room full of 
people.

	Q.  So it is really exposing ourselves to ourselves?

	A.  Yes, But we do not see it that way.  We have strong consciousness 
of the audience because we have so much awareness of ourselves.

	Q.  I do not see why performing austerities and mastering discipline 
is not the "real" hard way.

	A.  You can deceive yourself, thinking you are going through the hard 
way, when actually you are not.  It is like being in a heroic play.  The "soft 
way" is very much involved with the experience of heroism, while the hard way 
is much more personal.  Having gone through the way of heroism, you still have 
the hard way to go through, which is a very shocking thing to discover.  

	Q.  When you feel angry, should you just express that anger in order 
to be open?

	A.  When we speak of opening and surrendering as, for instance, in the 
case of anger, it does not mean we should actually go out and hit someone on 
the spot.  That seems to be more a way of feeding the ego rather than exposing 
your anger properly, seeing its real living quality.  This applies to exposing 
yourself in general.  It is a matter of seeing the basic quality of the 
situation, as it is, rather than trying to do something with it.  Of course, 
if one is completely open to the situation, without any preconceptions, then 
one would know which action is right and which is unskillful.  If a 
particular course of action would be clumsy and unskilled, then you would not 
take that fork in the road; you would take the road of skillful and creative 
action. You are not really involved with judgement as such, but you choose the 
creative way.

The chapter on the Open Way was so interesting that i found myself entering 
most of the chapter.  It may also be highly controversial, especially since 
all the previously entered text might not be complete enough to support this 
chapter. The book does a good job of supporting it.

The open way  page 97

	At this point, we should discuss the meaning of compassion, which is 
the key to and the basic atmosphere of the open way.  The best and most 
correct way of presenting the idea of compassion is in terms of clarity.  
Clarity which contains fundamental warmth.  At this stage of your meditation 
practice is in the act of trusting yourself.  As your practice becomes more 
prominent in daily life activities.  You begin to trust yourself and have a 
compassionate attitude.  Compassion in this sense is not feeling sorry for 
someone.  It is basic warmth.  As much space and clarity as there is, there is 
that much warmth as well, some delightful feeling of positive things happening 
in yourself constantly.  whatever you are doing, it is not regarded as a 
mechanical drag in terms of self-conscious meditation, but meditation is  a 
delightful and spontaneous thing to do.  It is the continual act of making 
friends with yourself.  Then, having made friends with yourself, you cannot 
just contain that friendship within you; you must have some outlet, which is 
your relationship with the world.  So compassion becomes a bridge to the world 
outside.  Trust and compassion for one's self brings inspiration to dance with 
life to communicate with the energies of the world.  Lacking this kind of 
inspiration and openness the spiritual path becomes the samsaric path of 
desire.  One remains trapped in the desire to improve one's self, the desire 
to achieve imagined goals.
	Compassion has nothing to do with achievement at all.  It is spacious 
and very generous.  When a person develops real compassion, he is uncertain 
whether he is being generous to  others or himself because  compassion is 
environmental (global? EW.) generosity, without direction, without "for me" or 
"for you." It is filled with joy, spontaneously existing joy, constant joy in 
the sense of trust, in the sense that joy contains tremendous wealth, 
richness.
	Compassion automatically invites you to relate to people, because you 
no longer regard people as a drain on your energy.  They recharge your energy, 
because in the process of relating with them you acknowledge your richness.  
So if you have difficult tasks to perform, such as dealing with people or life 
situations, you do not feel you are running out of resources.  Each time you 
are faced with a difficult task it presents itself as a delightful opportunity 
to demonstrate your richness, your wealth.  There is no feeling of poverty at 
all in this aproach to life.
	The main theme of the open way is that we must begin to abandon the 
basic struggle of the ego.  To be completely open, to have that kind of 
absolute trust in yourself is the real meaning of compassion and love.
	Perhaps this will put off a lot of people but I am afraid love is not 
really the experience of beauty and romantic joy alone.  Love is associated 
with ugliness and pain and agression as well as the beauty of the world; it is 
not the recreation of heaven.  Love or compassion, the open path is associated 
with "what is."

	Q.  I assume that being a Bodhisattva one must perform specific acts.  
But how does this idea of being totally open fit in with the need to perform 
specific acts?

	A.  Being open does not mean being unresponsive, a zombie.  It means 
being free to do whatever is called for in a given situation.  Because you do 
not want anything from the situation.  You are free to act in the way 
genuinely appropriate to it and similarly, if people want something from you 
that may be their problem.  You do not have to ingratiate yourself with 
anyone.  Openness means being "Who you are."

	Q.  Can one act with compassion and still get things done as they need 
to be done?

	A.  When there is no speed or agression you feel that there is room 
enough to move about and do things and you see things which need to be done 
more clearly.  you become more efficient and your work becomes more precise.

	Q. I believe, Rinpoche, that you made a istinction between the
    open path and the internal path.  Could you amplify what differences
    you see between the internal and the external?
    
    	A. Well, the work "internal," as you are using it, seems to
    imply struggle, turning back into yourself, considering whether
    or not you are a sufficiently worthy, functional, and presentable
    person.  In this approach there is too much "working on oneself,"
    too much concentration inward.  Whereas the open path is a matter
    of working purely with what is, of giving up altogether the fear
    that somethinbg may not work, that something may end in failure.
     ONe has to give up the paranoia that one might not fit into
    situations, that one might be rejected.  One purely deals with life
    as it is.
    
    	Q. How do you know when to abandon it?
    
    	A. You do not constantly have to manager yourself.  Yo must
    disown rather than attempt to maintain control, trust yourself rather
    than check yourself.    The morer you try to check yourself, the
    greater the possibility of interrupting the natural play and growth
    of the situation.  Even if what yu are doing is chancy, even if
    it seems possible that the whole affair will blow up and become
    distorted, you do not worry about it.
    
    	Q.  What happens when someone creates a situation and you do
    worry about it:
    
    	A. Worring does not help at all.  In fact it makes things worse.
    
    	Q. It seems tha process we are talking about requires some sort
    of fearlessness.
    
    	A. Yes, very much so.  It is positive thinking, the mentality
    of wealth.
    
    	Q. What if you feel the necessity for a violent act in order
    ultimately to do good for a person?
    
    	A. You just do it.
    
    	Q. But if you are not at the point of true compassion and wisdom?
    
    	A. you do not question or worry about your wisdom.  You just
    do whatever is required.  The situation you are facing is itself
    profound enough to be regarded as knowledge.  You do not need secondry
    sources of information.  You do not need reinforcements or guidelines
    for action.  Reinforcement is provided by the situation automatically.
    When thins must be conducted in a tough manner, you just do it because
    the situation demands your response.  You do not impose toughness;
    you are an instrument of the situation.
    
    Q.  What do yo do when you are afraid of someone, perhaps with reason?
     for me, this destroys compassion.
    
    A.  compassion is not looking down upon somebody who needs help,
    who needs care, but is general, basic, organic, positive thinking.
     The fear of someone else seems to generate uncertainty as to who
    you are.  That is why you are fafraid of that particular situation
    or person.  Fear comes from uncertainty.  If you know exactly how
    you are going to handle this frightful situation, then you have
    no fear.  Fear comes from panic, the bewilderment of uncertainty.
     Uncertainty is related to distrust in yourself, feeling that you
    are inadequate to deal with that mysterious problem which threatens
    you.  There is no fear if you really have a compassionate relationship
    with yourself, because then you know what you are doing.  If you
    know what you are doing,then your projections become methodical
    or predictable, in some sense.  Then one develops PRAJNA, knowledge
    of how to relate to any given situation.
    
    Q.  If I were already friends with myself, then I wouldn't be afraid
    of making mistakes all the time?
    
    A.  That's it.  The Tibetan word for  wisdom is YESHE, which means
    "primordial intelligence."  You are yourself at the beginning of
    any beginning.  You could almost call it "unoriginated trust in
    yourself."  you do not have to find th beginning at all. It is a
    primordial situation., so there is no point in trying to logically
    find the beginning.  It is already.  It is beginningless.
    
    

    re: .47  (Ernie)
    
         Okay, more or less...maybe less.  In reading that I thought
    to myself, Gosh, what if someone less involved read that.  Do you
    think they'd be turned on to spirituality after reading that?  No way.
    Who would get turned on to something that says "you will suffer, you
    will find pain, etc., etc.?"  You see, I find that very negative
    and unenlightened thought.  Once again, I will bring up the word 
    WILLING.  This word has been passed over before in a lengthy reply
    of yours so I will mention this word again.  To be WILLING does NOT
    mean that something WILL happen...it simply means that you are
    *ready* for it, should it occur.  To say that pain will happen is
    short-sighted, to be WILLING to experience pain is not.  There are
    many people who have chosen spirituality over the alternatives who
    have not experienced pain...but very likely were WILLING to have it
    and chose not to.
         I do not find it helpful to limit potentials...this reply was
    somewhat limiting.
    
    Frederick
    

    
    This is interesting stuff and I identify with it quite a bit.
    
    Frederick, for the most part I think I agree with you, but for some
    this may not be a limiting viewpoint.  Didn't someone say something
    once about a good guide being only one step ahead of the student?
    Perhaps these writings are one step ahead of certain individuals,
    and a few steps beyond others (which would render them a bit more
    incomprehensible to those individuals) - not to mention those people
    who might be well beyond the scope of these writings.  Are you saying
    that you are beyond all limits and can see all truths objectively?
    
    Guy

    re: Guy (.50)
    
         Of course I am beyond!  ;-0  (beyond what? is a better
    question....)
    
         Sometimes the words don't come out quite right, no watt eye
    mene?  What I was attempting to overcome was the limitations of
    the words *never* and *always*, etc.  (Didn't someone once say
    that we should never say never?  :-)  )  Reality is relative...
    it is gray, not black and white.  AND there are paradoxical 
    components within.  Anyway, I have already forgotten what this
    was about (I didn't re-read Ernie's reply before answering yours)
    so I'll let it go here.  And of course you are correct about people
    on their paths...(unless you aren't correct.)
    
    Frederick
    

    Reality is grey.  Grey is made up of lots of little black and white
    dots with some space inbetween.  What is is, what ain't aint.
    There aren't any absolute truths, just a lot of little truths
    which add up to you and I in the process of discovery.
    
    I have been wanting to say this for a couple of weeks now:
    
    Pain is the effect of resisting what is.  With the resistance
    there is a slight shift out of time, of not being fully here.
    In our avoidance and resistance to the here and now, we experience
    pain, resist what is and by this make it phenominal, real, and
    available to the senses.
    
    The here and now, successive moments of here and now are our
    experience of reality.  Everything gets created and destroyed
    nearly at the same time.  When we can be truely "here" we
    can disappear anything simply by not resisting it.  The Universe
    doesn't disappear for obvious reasons.  And we can eliminate
    what we deem inappropriate by acceptance.
    
    Easier said than done.
    
    L.

    Reply to the last few...
    
    Reality is Grey!?
    
    I'd rather think of it as every color in the visable and invisable
    light spectrum.
    
    Personally I like light pinks, beiges, sea-greens and light purples.

    
    
    I take pictures of stars as sort of a hobby.  Really, they come
    in all colors, pink, green, blue, yellow.  It is the looking
    and engagement with reality which give it color, texture, life.
    
    l.

Hi Frederick,
	This was just going to be a short response but ideas just seem to pour 
out and demanded to be transcribed into this reply. (:'>

	I am not sure in what context you would like the word "will" used?

passively:  I am willing to let it happen. 
actively :  I am willing it to happen.	(the use of "will" power to force it)

 	I use the word "intent." I am not sure the word "will" or "willing" 
applies in being open.  Intent may include will but if so, in the passive sense 
In the active sense, using "will" power to control the environment is another 
form of self-deception-not dealing with what is.  Being willing to accept what 
ever comes along, might end up being a game. A game which places our own power 
external to ourselve. Willing is a subtle form of dualism. It is based on the 
supposition that something external to us needs to be changed, manipulated.  
that the knower and the known are separate things.  There is a subtle belief 
that what we want to control is separate from ourselves.   How about allowing 
a situation to unfold, and being ready to take the action necessary for that 
situation with the intent of having the next situation more in line with our 
own goals.  Intent " includes self-trust, self-confidence, intending it to be 
and being open to the entirety of each situation.  Being open is the key as it 
allows us to choose the best action for each situation which then will get us 
to where we intend to be. 

Here is where the dichotomy seems to arise.  We don't have to do anything 
actively except open ourselves up to each situation in its entirety and we 
will be able to see what action we need to take and we will eventually get 
where ever we were going.  But to see a situation in its entirety, we must 
give up trying to get to a goal because the desire to get there is based on 
preconceptions which cloud our vision. When our attention is highly focused on 
the goal, we are not able to see the whole situation and the actions that we 
should be taking.   When we do manage to let go, let a situation unfold 
without our coersion, With total acceptance, Grace begins to take effect.  
conditions or situations come into being that provide us with a more direct 
means of attaining our goals.  now, since we are open to each situation and 
are operating with true compassion, we are able to see the entire situation 
and can take advantage of the opportunities that Grace provides.  Personal 
miracles take place.  The dichotomy is in the fact that we can only get to 
this place by giving up striving to get to this place. 


In Matthew 19:14 Jesus is quoted (red letter edition) as saying Suffer the 
little children and forbid them not , to come unto me, for such is the kingdom 
of heaven.  

Mark 10:15 Jesus is quoted as saying: verily I say unto you, whosoever shall 
not receive the kingdom of heaven as little children, he shall not enter 
therein.

"Suffer the little children," promote their natural curiosity, their openness, 
their fearlessness.  A young child is not afraid to explore the unknown.  He 
does not need will or will power because he doesn't yet know that things "out 
there," external to him are separate from him so he just experiences.  
It is not a matter of his believing he can or can't; he just does. A child has 
no preconceptions as to the outcome of a situation.  As a child, we are taught 
behavior and morality.  We should do this; we shouldn't do that.  Once we have 
established these set of beliefs, it takes will to change them; from one set 
of beliefs to another.  The reason it takes will is because an effort is 
involved in exchanging one set of preconceptions for another.  The established 
set of beliefs gives the ego something to hang onto.  
Jesus said that we must have the qualities of children to gain spiritual 
understanding.  If we have expectations as to what "heaven" is then we will 
never obtain it.  "Will" may be involved in giving up our preconceptions, but 
it is not necessary to effect spiritual understanding and the experiences 
associated with this state of being.  It is only necessary to be as open and 
receptive as a little child.  

	Jesus use of the word "suffer" puzzled me for a long while.  I had 
thought that Jesus meant force or punish the children into listening to Jesus.
The merriam-Webster dictionary has as one defines the word  'suffer': "2: 
EXPERIENCE, UNDERGO 4:  ALLOW, PERMIT syn endure, abide, tolerate, stand, 
brook, let, leave."
	In this sense, to suffer is to allow, to permit a situation to unfold.
To think that pain is not real because all is illusion is to play a mind game. 
Pain is real because of the ego's desire to maintain itself.  Joseph Goldstein
in "The Experience of Insight," Ch�gyam Trungpa in "the Myth of Freedom and the 
way of meditation", proclaim that pain is an excellent focus on meditation.  
" When there is strong pain in the body, the concentration becomes strong.  
The mind stays on it easily, without wandering very much."   Since meditation 
is the practice of letting go, opening up to situations, the dropping of 
attitudes and preconceptions will effect elimination of the pain and suffering 
in the context that it is usually understood.

Ernie

Here is the last set of excerpts fom "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism"
and is on ***Ruthless Compassion.*** 

(Yeah, Yeah, applaud, applaud,clap, clap--do I detect a loud roar in the 
background? (:'> )

Of course it may not be the last thing i have to say on openness  (Boo! hissss!
yecchh!! There's that noise again (:'> )

...Prajna is a very clear, precise, and intelligent state of being.  It has a 
sharp quality, the ability to penetrate and reveal situations. Compassion is 
the open atmosphere in which prajna sees.  It is an open awareness of 
situations which triggers actions informed by the eye of prajna.  Compassion 
is very powerful, but is must be directed by the intelligence of prajna,  Just 
as intelligence needs the atmosphere of the basic openness of compassion.  The 
two must come simultaneously.
	Compassion contains fundamental fearlessness, fearlessness without 
hesitation.  This fearlessness is marked by tremendous generosity, in 
contrast to the fearlessness of exerting ones power over others. This 
"generous fearlessness" is the fundamental nature of compassion and transcends 
the animal instinct of ego.  Ego would like to establish its territory, 
whereas compassion is completely open and welcoming.  It is a gesture of 
generosity which excludes no one.

...	This instinctive warmth, which is developed in meditation practice, 
also extends into the post meditation experience of awareness.  With this kind 
of true awareness you cannot divorce yourself from your activity.  To do so 
would be impossible. ... True awarness must be open rather than cautious or 
protective.  It is open-mindedness, experiencing the open space within a 
situation.  You may be working, but awareness could also operate within the 
context of your work, which then would be the practice of compassion and 
meditation.

	Generally awareness is absent in our lives;  we are completely 
absorbed in whatever we are doing and we forget the rest of the environment, 
we seal it off.  But the positive force of compassion and prajna is open and 
intelligent, sharp and penetrating, giving us a panoramic view of life which 
reveals not only specific actions and events but their whole environments as 
well.    This creates the right situations for communicating with other 
people.  In dealing with people we must not only be aware of what they are 
saying, but we must also be open to the whole tone of their being.  A person's 
actual words and smiles represent only a small fraction of his communication.  
What is equally important is the quality of his presence, the way he presents 
himself to us.  This communicates much more than words alone.
	To the conventional way of thinking, compassion  simply means being 
kind and warm.  This sort of  compassion is described in the scriptures as 
"grandmother's love."  you would expect the practitioner of this kind of 
compassion to be extremely kind and gentle;  he would not harm a flea. If you 
need another mask, another blanket to warm yourself, he will provide it. But 
true compassion is ruthless, from ego's point of view, because it does not 
consider ego's drive to maintain itself.  It is "crazy wisdom."  It is totally 
wise, but it is crazy as well, because it does not relate to ego's literal and 
simple minded attempts to secure its own comfort.
	The logical voice of ego advises us to be kind to other people, to be 
good boys and girls and lead innocent little lives.  We work at our regular 
jobs and rent a cozy room or apartment for ourselves; we would like to 
continue in this way, but suddenly something happens which tears us out of our 
secure little nest. 
...	What are we trying to secure?  Why are we so concerned with protecting 
ourselves?  The sudden energy of ruthless compassion severs us from our 
comforts and securities.  If we were never to experience this kind of shock, 
we would not be able to grow.  We have to be jarred out of our regular, 
repetitive and comfortable life-styles. the point of meditation is'nt merely 
to be an honest or good person in the conventional sense, trying only to 
maintain our security.  We must begin to  become compassionate and wise in the 
fundamental sense, open and relating to the world as it is.

Q.  Could you discuss the basic difference between love and compassion and in 
what relation do they stand to each other?

A.  Love and compassion are vague terms; we can interpret them in different 
ways.  Generally in our lives we take a grasping approach, trying to attach 
ourselves to different situations in order to achieve security.  Perhaps we 
regard someone as our baby, or, on the other hand, we might like to regard 
ourselves as helpless infants and leap into someone's lap.  This lap might 
belong to an individual, an organization, a community,  a teacher, any 
parental figure.  So-called "love" relationships usually take one of these two 
patterns.  Either we are being fed by someone or we are feeding others.  These 
are false, distorted kinds of love or compassion.  The urge to commitment-that 
we would like to "belong," be someones' child, or that we would like them to 
be our child-is seemingly powerful.  An individual or organization or 
institution or anything could become our infant; we would nurse it, feed it 
milk, encourage its growth.  Or else the organization is the great mother by 
which we are continuously fed.  Without our "mother" we cannot exist, cannot 
survive. ...

	However, there is another kind of love and compassion, a third way.  
Just be what you are.  You do not reduce yourself to the level of an infant 
nor do you demand that another person leap into your lap.  You simply be what 
you are in the world, in life.  If you can be what you are, external 
situations will become what they are, automatically.  Then you can communicate 
directly and accurately, not indulging in any kind of nonsense, any kind of 
emotional or philosophical or psychological interpretation.  The third way is 
a balanced way of openness and communication which automatically allows 
tremendous space, room for creative development, space in which to dance and 
exchange.
...	The fundamental characteristic of true compassion is pure and fearless 
openness without any territorial limitations.  There is no need to be loving 
and kind to one's neighbors, no need to speak pleasantly to people and put on 
a pretty smile.  This little game does not apply.  In fact it is embarrassing. 
Real openness  exists on a much larger scale, a revolutionarily large and open 
scale, a universal scale. ...In the Buddhist teachings the symbol for 
compassion, as I have already said, is one moon shining in one humdred bowls 
of water. The moon does not demand, "If you open to me, I will do you a favor 
and shine on you." The moon just shines.  The point is not to want to benefit 
anyone or make them happy.  There is no audience involved, no "me" and "them." 
It is a matter of an open gift, complete generosity without the relative 
notions of giving and receiving.  That is the basic openness of compassion: 
Open without demand.  Simply be what you are, be the master of the situation.  
If you will just "be," then life flows around and through you.

Q.  Isn't there considerable danger of self-deception involved with the idea 
of ruthless compassion?  A person might think he is being ruthlessly 
compassionate, when in fact he is only releasing his aggressions.

A.  Definitely, yes.  It is because it is such a dangerous idea that I have 
waited until now to  present it, after we have discussed spiritual materialism 
and the Buddhist path in general and have laid a foundation of intellectual 
understanding.  At this stage of which I am speaking, if a student is to 
actually practice ruthless compassion, he must already have gone through a 
tremendous amount of work; meditation, study, cutting through, discovering 
self-deceptionand gaining a sense of humor, and so on.   After a person has 
experienced this process, made this long and difficult journey, then the next 
discovery is that of compassion and prajna.  Until a person has studied and 
meditated a great deal, it would be extremely dangerous for him to practice 
ruthless compassion.


                                                        

Ernie (.56),

OK, I wasn't gonna reply to this but it bothered me and maybe I'm not 
understanding it.  Perhaps you can clarify what this means to you:

<<The fundamental characteristic of true compassion is pure and fearless 
openness without any territorial limitations.  There is no need to be loving 
and kind to one's neighbors, no need to speak pleasantly to people and put on 
a pretty smile.  This little game does not apply.  In fact it is embarrassing.>>
                                                        
Sounds like garbage to me.  Was Jesus playing games when he said Love 
Thy Neighbor?  Personally, I'll continue believing that His pattern is 
the one I choose to live my life by.  I'll continue to try to see the 
"Christ" in each person I meet with a 'smile' on my face and thoughts 
of 'love and kindness' in my heart.

Sorry but ugh to that guy's philosophy...wonder if it will survive 
2000 years!!

Ro

    

(This is not directed to any previous replies...just seemed like a good
place to enter this.)
    
I think it's valuable to avoid criticizing ourselves for "where we are",
when considering other (potentially more valuable to us) possibilities.  
If we can keep from rating everything to death, and just say..."There are 
endless possibilities, I think I'll try this one now"...and not berate 
ourselves for not trying that one sooner, or for staying in another one 
too long, then we are really free.  

If it is our behaviour to berate ourselves for where we are now, we might 
try to avoid that by believing that things cannot be any different than 
the way they are.  Such as, we see ourselves in a certain "process" and 
feel that this is "the only way we can do it". (Not necessarily that this 
is the way we really want to do it, but that this is the only way we CAN.)  
Then with no choices, we won't feel the overwhelming desire to berate 
ourself.  

There is another way to avoid berating yourself for where you are.  Just 
don't.  It's not necessary.  Okay, kick yourself a few times if you really 
want to -- if that would make you feel better about changing situations -- 
but it's not really necessary.  When we stop becoming so attached to our 
situations, it's easier to let go and try other things.  It's when we are 
attached that we make up rules...and then, must defend those rules.

If we do not see any way to change our situation -- if we feel that it's
out of our hands, or that it's something we *must* go through for one
reason or another -- then perhaps we are not really being open to the
many other possibilities that could help open up new views for us.  It 
really depends on whether we want any new views or not.

If we feel that we are doing things the way we *want* to be doing things, 
then why do some of us complain so much, and act as if we must endure 
processes that we would rather not?  If we are really doing what we want 
to be doing...which includes difficult challenges...then why do some of us
act so unhappy about it all?  Is *that* part of our movie too?  A script 
of struggle?

I think perhaps we can rewrite our scripts anytime we want -- and let the
old movie go.  Just one of many possibilities. :-)

Jerri

Ro,
    	It seems that you have read that passage out of context as so
    many of us do who are holding on or grasping at opinions.
    	"Garbage...?"  That sure is a loving accepting attitude (:'>.  
Actually, RAM DASS does the introduction to a book written in the same light, 
based on Buddha's teaching. " The Experience of Insight"  The "GAme"
    is in the belief that we must try to make our reality conform to
    our preconceptions instead of accepting things as they really are.
    
  By the way, It is the same Love as Jesus was talking about, both Jesus
    and Guatama Buddha talked about being open to anything and turn against
    no one.  I just think Guatama said it 
more clearly.  Loving Acceptance, No "I" or "Them".  Just doing what needs to 
be done, for them, or me with no concept of "for myself" or "for them".  Just 
do what needs to be done at that moment.  If I am doing anything for any good 
feelings or any other kinds of pats on the back, then it isn't true compassion. 
If I refuse or give compassion to someone  because of the way he or she makes 
me feel then  I am not being open to all the possibilities of that situation. 
With ruthless compassion, we refuse no one, no one can drain our energies, 
because what really drains our energies is the fantastic efforts required to 
maintain our images of ourself; our preconceptions as to how we believe we 
should be.  The energies we use in defense of our ego is what actually drains 
us, not dealing with others.  When we can accept ourselves as we truly are,  
we then are able to have compassion toward any and all; not just a select few 
and refuse those who we erroneously believe are draining us of our energies.

THIS IS WHAT JESUS THE CHRIST WAS REALLY TALKING ABOUT 	WHEN HE SAID LOVE ONE 
ANOTHER AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF.  To truly love yourself you must be open and 
accepting of all your faults.  You must have compassion for yourself; rid 
yourself of preconceptions as to how you *should* be and accept yourself in 
total as you are. and simultaneously you open to others as they actually 
are, not as you would want them to be.  If we are in total lovingkindness to 
ourselves, then we can be totally open to being compassionate to others 
no matter what we believe they are doing to us.  LOVING ACCEPTANCE OF ALL-even 
those who want to hang us on a cross.   

	There is a story about Guatama Buddha during one of his lives.  While 
he was meditating on a mountain top he came across a mountain lion down on a 
ledge with her cubs.  She was too injured to be able to catch food and keep her 
strength to feed her cubs.  So Guatama flung himself off the cliff where he 
was onto that ledge and killed himself so that the mother could be nourished 
and feed the cubs.  This is ruthless compassion.  No "I" no "them," no "It."
Ruthless love and compassion does not give a da*n about the ego, which is only 
an illusion anyway.
	Did Buddha pat himself on the back before he took action?  Did Jesus 
pat himself on the back before he allowed himself to be nailed up?  no!  Both 
of them just acted in the most appropriate way for the situation.  Both of them 
demonstrated ruthless love and compassion.  Actually, Jesus demonstrated 
either directly or indirectly all three of the following levels of love, 
simultaneously.

	Here are three levels of love: 

1. The first is Businessmans's love.  The first level is loving someone for 
   what we can get back.

2. The second kind of love is a well wishing  towards all beings, a 
universal lovingkindness, wishing happiness and joy to all beings everywhere. 
That is an unconditional and unlimited kind of love.  But it still deals with 
concepts, the concepts of man, woman, being.  These concepts are not ultimate 
realities.  

3.  What we are is a  collection of elements arising and passing away in every 
moment.  There is third kind of love, higher even than universal 
lovingkindness.  This is love is the natural harmony which comes from the 
breaking down of  barriers arising around the concept of self. No "I," no 
"other."  IT is love born of wisdom and at this level, "love" and "emptiness" 
are the same experience.  There is no concept at all of "I am loving"   It's 
free of the concept of I, of self.  

****************************************************************************

When you experience the highest level of love, you express all other levels as 
well. Look around at the highest teachers you know. THey are full of love and 
light, but not with any thought that they should be that way; it's just a 
natural expression of the Dharma.

*****************************************************************************


Ernie

                                             

    Reply to .59, Wagner,
    
    You forgot EROS in you list of loves. EROS is not just the little cupid
    type angel flitting around. EROS is real desire, sexual and otherwise.
    EROS is the buring fire type love/desire which can't be quenched.

    .60
    	  I maintain that eros can still fall under one of those three
    classifications.  How do we go about *Attempting* to quenching this desire? 
    Since it is a desire it must be fulfilled, right? Or at leat attempted
    to be fulfilled if what you say is true that it cannot be.  And in
    attempting to fullfill this eros, We do it in one of the aforementioned
    ways.  (Actually behaviorist would reduce eros to "scratching an
    itch.")  It is bartered through favors and expectations in an attempt
    to fulfill that desire,  It is given freely and openly as in the
    sixties "free love" and Tantra is a demonstration of sexual love
    without any boundaries, without the "I" and "you," without boundaries
    between the selfs.  This "EROS" very well may be real, but it is
    still a desire. and like all desires, is only temporarily fullfilled.
     Satisfaction is never permanent.  Thus the never ending frustration
    in trying to re-fulfill that desire.
    
    In being able to be open to all and reject no one, a joyousness prevails.
When we can be open to ourselves and allow ourselves just to be with all our 
imperfections a happiness permeates all that we do. (Jesus' command to love 
ourselves)  
	One of the aspects of enlightnement, is rapture.  Rapture is intense 
interest in the situation.  Some describe it as a zestful joy.  A joyous 
interest in what is happening.  Rapture is a spaciousness in the mind born of  
detachment, free of grasping or clinging or identified involvement.  
	When we are in this state of complete openness, happiness and joy 
permeates everything we do.  We don't have to force a smile when we don't want 
to.  We don't have to force "thoughts of love and kindness" when we aren't 
really in the mood.  We don't have to be artificial to those who we think are 
draining our energy.  When we have no preconceptions about ourself we love 
ourself and that love permeates all our interactions with every one;  All 
inclusive. No one is rejected on some ground or other.  When one contains 
rapture born of enlightenment, This joyousness is unavoidably transmitted to
others around you.  

Pleas excuse me for patting myself on the back but...

	I "Suffered" through Orientation last saturday.  I have been 
officially accepted into the graduate program at Cambridge College in 
Cambridge Ma.  And I don't even have a Bachelor's Degree.  I was accepted on 
life/work experience.  Financially, it isn't going as well as I had hoped.   
DEC won't pay for it until I prove to them that the degree and area of study 
is useful to them since I am changing careers and going outside the expertise 
of our business group.  This may take several months or longer.  I applied for 
a GSL loan as an alternative, but don't know if I will get the entire amount or 
any of it.  Never-the-less, I am very excited about it and am impatient to 
start classes.  It will be an intense year.  I have a seminar, a practicuum in 
which I will counsel at least three people three hours a week for the entire 
year, an independent study which must be completed by graduation and consist 
of a minimum of 35 page report, two classes on theory or technique each 
semester and two saturday workshops every semester.  
	One of the key points of discussion in our first seminar was "rolling 
with the punches."  (Is this the same as "being Open?")Well, I am very 
experienced with this technique of survival (:'>.  LIfe is exciting once one 
learns the rules of the game. Well, maybe I learned only 99% of them so far 
(;'>


Ernie
           

    reply to .61, Wagoner,
    
    My point is that you didn't list sexual love. Again bringing up the
    spirit/sex dialogue.

    Hi Ernie,
    
    Hmmm, seems we've disagreed on this before, but I'll try some 'ruthless
    compassion' in replying.
    
    >>	It seems that you have read that passage out of context as so many
    of us do who are holding on or grasping at opinion. <<
    
    How come when I express my beliefs, it becomes 'an opinion' (which of
    course it is).  However, when you write or quote something it is
    'truth'.  A truth which you seem to indicate we should all accept or
    else we're clinging to some false 'ego' concept.  I wish you wouldn't
    presume to go inside my head and believe you know what I'm thinking.
    
    >>"Garbage...?"  That sure is a loving accepting attitude (:'>.  <<
    
    One person's trash is another person's treasure.  Are you judging my
    'attitude'?  ;')  Am I considered loving only if I accept someone
    else's truth?
    
    >>Actually, RAM DASS does the introduction to a book written in the same
    light,  based on Buddha's teaching. " The Experience of Insight"  The
    "GAme" is in the belief that we must try to make our reality conform to
    our preconceptions instead of accepting things as they really are.<<
    
    I like RAM DASS but that doesn't mean I accept everything he says as
    gospel.  I have no guru.
    
    
  <<By the way, It is the same Love as Jesus was talking about, both Jesus
    and Guatama Buddha talked about being open to anything and turn against
    no one.  I just think Guatama said it 
more clearly.  Loving Acceptance, No "I" or "Them".  Just doing what needs to 
be done, for them, or me with no concept of "for myself" or "for them".  Just 
do what needs to be done at that moment.  If I am doing anything for any good 
    feelings or any other kinds of pats on the back, then it isn't true
    compassion. >>
    
    Umm, and where did I say I tried to see the Christ in people because I
    expected a reward or it made me feel good.  I do it because that is my
    way of being, because I believe it is the pattern Jesus showed us. 
    Yeah, I don't always succeed but I don't beat myself up for that
    either.  I just keep plugging away being me.  Perhaps we do agree on
    this point; we just present it differently.

>>THIS IS WHAT JESUS THE CHRIST WAS REALLY TALKING ABOUT WHEN HE SAID LOVE ONE 
ANOTHER AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF.<<
    
    I suggest this is your interpretation, I think only Jesus can say what
    he really meant!!!
    
    >>  To truly love yourself you must be open and 
accepting of all your faults.  You must have compassion for yourself; rid 
yourself of preconceptions as to how you *should* be and accept yourself in 
total as you are. and simultaneously you open to others as they actually 
are, not as you would want them to be.  If we are in total lovingkindness to 
ourselves, then we can be totally open to being compassionate to others 
no matter what we believe they are doing to us.  LOVING ACCEPTANCE OF ALL-even 
those who want to hang us on a cross.   <<
    
    I agree but that doesn't sound like what I read in the excerpts from
    the book you were quoting initially.

    

>>When you experience the highest level of love, you express all other levels as 
well. Look around at the highest teachers you know. THey are full of love and 
light, but not with any thought that they should be that way; it's just a 
natural expression of the Dharma.<<
    
    That's true.  They showed love, kindness, and compassion.  The quote
    I disagreed with seemed to say the exact opposite.  It said there is no need
    to be loving and kind to one's neighbors, etc.  You seem to be
    justifing what this guy said in ways contradictory to what he was
    suggesting.
    
    Anyhow, I stated up front in my message that maybe I wasn't
    understanding it.  I still choose not to like what he said.  It is my
    right to discern the wheat from the chaff for myself.  So let's leave
    it that we disagree, ok?  ;')
    
    Love,
    
    Ro
                                          
    

    .62  Because it can be argued that sex is an instinct.  or at least
    nearly at the level of instinct.  It is something our physical body
    requires for progeneration.  Maybe I didn't mention it because love
    based on sexual desire is only remotely connected with openness
    which is true compassion. Sexual desire can be aligned with closedness
    or selfishness also which is not love.   I wasn't speaking of love 
    explicitly but ruthless compassion, which is at the apex of and
    includes all forms of love. 
    
    "again bringing up the spirit/sex dialogue"  I don't understand
    where you are trying to go with this; would you please elaborate?
    We may conceptualize(intellectualize) a spiritual/sexual tie, but
    this is not necessary for openness and the ruthless compassion that
    follows.  That is not to say that the spirit does not exist, it
    just doesn't need to be dealt with to obtain the compassion and
    joy that flows with it. 
                           
    So please explain furthur, if you would.
    Ernie

    Sorry Ro,           
    	I meant to use the word "you" in the general sense.  
    As to truth, I never said anything about truth.  I can say only
    what works and why it works.  As to truth, there are no truths only
    concepts.  And concepts are only ideas. Ideas are not what is. If
    nothing is permanent then there can be no truth as truth is based
    on the concept of permanence.  The concept of A truth is to try
    to grasp onto something in an an attempt to keep it from changing
    on us; to experience something that never changes.  Since nothing is 
    permanent, then there can be no truths- only experiences. Even the
    word "love" is  an individual concept and  changes with
    perspective.  To conceptualize love is to attempt to render it
    permanent and thus a truth.  I contend that there are not many truths,
    there is no truths; only ways of experiencing. To experience is
    to refrain from concepts, preconcepts.  I maintain that what
    I have described is a way to experience continuous joyousness and
    happiness by being open and *all inclusive*; If you or anyone else
    has an *effective* method of eliminating continual disappointment,
    failure, anger, etc. then by all means please describe these methods to
    me. This is an effective experience for me.  As for what Jesus said,
    and don Juan said  and Buddha said, and many others, it is all the
    same;  out side the form of literal interpretation.  I don't have
    the bible with me today to be able to explore some of Jesus' passages
    and show how they align with other masters.  I will risk getting
    a little scientific and say that if there is a common thread of
    an idea that permeates different sources then it is highly probable
    that that idea is supported at least metaphorically by those sources.
    
    	Neither intellect nor emotions are the means to the end.  We
    are no better off if we hang on to our ideas than to our emotions
    or feelings.  We can become attached and cling to either.  If we primarily
    interpret the universe through our intellect we tend to change our emotions
    to align with our ideas, in order that we maintain those good feelings
    about ourselves.  If we primarily interpret the universe with our
    emotions we tend to change (or exclude) ideas that don't jive with our
    emotions.  we tend to refuse those ideas which don't support our
    good feelings.  No one way is better than the other and actually
    ends up being worse if we depend on only one or the other of our 
    faculties.  For this reason it is necessary to become unattached to
    both our ideas and our emotions and become aware of the interaction of our
    emotions and thoughts as a system.  This enlarged awareness is the
    key.  To be able to see the entire forest instead of the individual
    trees enables us to see the necessary path out of the forest or any 
    situation.  To be able to see the entire forest, we must be prepared
    to face what ever is in that forest.  We cannot just look at this
    part(emotions) or that part (ideas) and expect to see everything
    that we need to see.
                                                   
    Ernie
    

    Re:<<< Note 1110.64 by REGENT::WAGNER >>>

  >  .62  Because it can be argued that sex is an instinct.  or at least
  >  nearly at the level of instinct.  It is something our physical body
  >  requires for progeneration.  Maybe I didn't mention it because love
  >  based on sexual desire is only remotely connected with openness
  >  which is true compassion. Sexual desire can be aligned with closedness
  >  or selfishness also which is not love.   I wasn't speaking of love 
  >  explicitly but ruthless compassion, which is at the apex of and
  >  includes all forms of love. 
   
    My opinion is that the premise of "openness" you are speaking of is
    really based upon closedness. Why? Because sexuality is based upon
    openess of the _most_ immediate kind. To me the issues you are speaking
    to are mirrored. A spirit focus that includes ruthless compassion is
    one that seems quite immature to me. Perhaps I haven't quite caught the
    gist of your writing. But let me say this, what is more immediate, a
    willingness to mix ones physical energies or your description of
    ruthless compassion? One seems most immediate and the other is
    airy-fairy, more a mental condition than an actual open practice. To me
    there can be no real openness until we open up our sexualities. And IMO
    there can be no real start on the path of openness until we start to
    open our sexualities. [This also includes my reality tunnel which tells
    me that there is no spirit. There may be something to the metaphor but
    it isn't spirit.]
    
    I've seen this type thing many other places. There seems to be a
    willingness to suffer pain gladly for another but a deep seated fear of
    sharing our sexualities. This mode is amplified in spirit focused
    metaphors. I question your premises, which determine your programs, not
    you as a person Ernie.
                    
  >  "again bringing up the spirit/sex dialogue"  I don't understand
  >  where you are trying to go with this; would you please elaborate?
  >  We may conceptualize(intellectualize) a spiritual/sexual tie, but
  >  this is not necessary for openness and the ruthless compassion that
  >  follows.  That is not to say that the spirit does not exist, it
  >  just doesn't need to be dealt with to obtain the compassion and
  >  joy that flows with it. 
   
    I'd be glad to attempt to explain this...
    
    To me spirituality and sexuality are one in the same, although perhaps
    different sides of the issue. We seem to like the idea of commingling
    our spirits but despise commingling our genetics and bodily fluids. My
    guess is that such attitudes come from philosophies that deem the body
    dirty. I think those philosophies are immature in that they reflect
    the adolescents view of sex. "Oooey-gooey. I ain't gonna' do THAT!" And
    because of the time binding and non-locality nature of information this
    immaturity has been transmitter to us across time.
    
    I'm doing some writing now on body focuses. My readings indicate that
    until body concerns are cleared up other forms of relations, spirit or
    mental, will suffer.
    
    Thanx for listening. 
    
    

    Thanks you too, Ernie,
    
    <<I maintain that what I have described is a way to experience
    continuous joyousness and happiness by being open and *all inclusive*;
    If you or anyone else has an *effective* method of eliminating
    continual disappointment, failure, anger, etc. then by all means please
    describe these methods to me. This is an effective experience for me.>>
    
    I believe there are others ways to find what you describe.  For me,
    what works is being a student of A Course in Miracles.  It has enabled
    me to see things differently.  It works for me because it gives
    concrete steps which enable me to be 'open and *all inclusive*', to
    recognize the Christ consciousness in others.  If I take the brief
    moment to see/hear out of love rather than fear, then I can eliminate
    'disapppointment, failure, anger, etc.' because I see only love for
    that is what we are.
    
    >>	Neither intellect nor emotions are the means to the end.  We
    are no better off if we hang on to our ideas than to our emotions
    or feelings.  We can become attached and cling to either.  If we primarily
    interpret the universe through our intellect we tend to change our emotions
    to align with our ideas, in order that we maintain those good feelings
    about ourselves.  If we primarily interpret the universe with our
    emotions we tend to change (or exclude) ideas that don't jive with our
    emotions.  we tend to refuse those ideas which don't support our
    good feelings.  No one way is better than the other and actually
    ends up being worse if we depend on only one or the other of our 
    faculties.>>
    
    Hooray, we agree!!!!  In fact, I think I've been saying this all along.
    
    ;')
    
    Ro
    

    .66             
    "Because sexuality is based upon openness of the most immediate
    kind."   I don't doubt that this can be so, but is not necessarily
    so.  The idea of openness and compassion is to take the action that
    is necessary for the situation and if it is a sexual situation then
    one must be aware enough to take the appropriate action.  Nothing
    I said denies one's sexuality.  I generally agree with what you
    are saying but please be carefull about the broadness of your
    statements. Sexuality does not necessarily lead to increased
    enlightnement.  Of course, then  again, everything is spiritual
    in nature according to my belief and even sex and can be used for
    enlightenment.  The key is in our approach to the physical/sexual/spiritual
    aspects of our lives.  If we close ourselves off to any aspect, and
    become selfish and self centered then enlightnement is not possible.
     That does not imply that we either completely abstain and dis
    acknowledge those aspects that don't fit our images, or blindly
    throw ourselves into physical and sexual indulgence.  No moral,
    or religious preconcepts as to how we should be reacting, but being
    aware enough to act in the manner appropriate for the situation.
    
    "To me spirituality and sexuality are one and the same thing." 
    To me they are just concepts which end up enforcing duality. Tantra
    doe not deem the body dirty.  The body just is.  In tantra, one
    can use sex as a means for getting past the He, She duality and
    just be an experience which leads to enlightenment (spiritual or
    other).  
    
    "My readings indicate that until body concerns are cleared up other
    forms of relations, spirit or mental, will suffer."
    
    Yes, and where do these "concerns" come from?  Preconceptions, right?
    striving to be what we are not.  Afraid to be what we are because
    of others telling us we should'nt be.  If we can be open to what we are:
    physical, sexual beings, then we can deal fully  with our
    sexuality. Instead of denying it and striving to be what we believe
    ourselves to be, Then even those aspect of our lives can be part
    of a joyous existence.
    
    "..which determines your programs,.."  That may be so, but I think
    that by becoming completely open to all aspects of a situation (even
    sexual ones) we eliminate any (structured) programming.  this allows
    us to instill a GOTO ... every other line for every part of the program.
    this may seem chaotic to the advanced programmer(some one who is
    clinging to his or her beliefs), but it sure makes life exciting.
    Or how about a recursive procedure in which a recursive procedure
    which has a choice command is placed inside a recursive procedure
    with "CHOICE" command in which... Do we need to really care where
    we end up anyway?
                     
    
    Ernie