A Thought on Making the World a Better Place.
Last night, I was out with my teenage son. On the way home we stopped at the grocery store. When we got to the front of the checkout line, I spoke with cashier in cheerful, joking way and called her by her name.
When we got to the car, my son told me that a friend who works in a different grocery store hated working the register because it was hard to stand in one place for so long and mostly because people were so lacking in courtesy and civility. He remarked that he liked how I was able to make people smile.
This was not something that came naturally to me. Once upon a time, notably when I was my son’s age, I was bashful with a deep-seated fear of initiating any interaction with strangers.
When I got my first post college job in inside sales, I was sent to a “customer service seminar”. The seminar included a brief unit on the value of a smile. The instructor suggested an exercise whereby the next time we were in a place like a mall or a supermarket, we should make a concerted effort to make eye contact with strangers and simply smile at them.
When I first started doing this, it required a deliberate effort but over time it has become nearly automatic. My favorite place to practice is the supermarket, late in the afternoon when people are on their way home from work. It takes little effort to observe people totally self absorbed, their minds multi-tasking as their worry mice gallop about and drenched in tension and stress.
I spot a subject and turn my gaze upon them but I do not stare. If they look at me and make eye contact, I smile. They almost always smile back and in this moment the set of their face changes and I can see their tension melt away. With a brief nod of acknowledgement, I turn away and move on.
I have no idea if the observed effect lasts more than a moment
but I suspect that it does.
There are smiles that make us happy,
There are smiles that make us blue
There are smiles that steal away the teardrops,
Like the sunbeams steal away the dew,
There are smiles that have a tender meaning
That the eye of love alone can see
But the smiles that fill my heart with sunshine
are the smiles that you give to me.
Lyric by J. Will Callahan, 1874-1946
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In comments following the last episode I posed a question about the role of semantics in these conversations. The question arose because I observed some of the sub-threads seemed to imply dissension or disagreement that was less perceptible to me than it was to the participants.
My observation was that the disagreement was rooted more in the choice of words and the subjective connotations applied than it was in material differences in the concepts being discussed. The English language is rich in idiom, subtle nuance of meaning and lends itself to metaphor. This affords writers a vast palette of colorful expression with which to weave wondrous images in fiction and poetry but can thwart clarity when discussing the types of topics that crop up here at LYR.
I live my life in pursuit of the “grandest version of the greatest vision I’ve ever had about who I am.”
This quote comes from an author that most would associate with a particular brand of contemporary spirituality. It could just as easily be applied to those with a wholly secular outlook or possibly even those with a very religious one. It does not define any “greatest vision”, it merely suggests that we each have one and it does not speculate upon where that individual vision originates.
The real power of this idea comes from the word pursuit. It is the power that is within each of us to create, co-create or re-create who we choose to be.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Asked on the previous thread:
What is left when the ego is let go?
11th verse of the Tao Te Ching
Thirty spokes converge upon a single hub
it is on the hole in the center
that the use of the cart depends
Shape clay into a vessel;
it is the space within that makes it useful.
Carve fine doors and windows
but the room is useful in its emptiness
The usefulness of what is
depends on what is not
This is a Gather forum for discussing religion and spirituality. Sharing our spiritual beliefs is one small step towards building a better world.
The discussion rules are the same as on earlier posts.
Facilitators: Ann M., Shira, Sy G., WM (Bill) H.
Episode 165
Photo Credits: Thanks to Boris G. for keeping this series supplied with great images
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 164
Og Mandino
Ann, I did not know that was a characteristic. I do think that reaching out without hugging, but my verbal contact, smile- and eye-contact might be just as worthwhile? I don't hug strangers, but I do like to reach out to them in small ways, like opening a door - I think a lot of people do that - well, maybe not a lot actually, but quite a few. If an actual stranger came up to me and started to hug me - well, if I were in my town, I would stiffen and look closely at them to see if I knew them; if I did, I'd hug them back. If not, I would be askance. If I were in Boston, I'd step away, for fear of sexual or physical assault. If I were in NYC, I'd run as fast as I could, for the likelihood would be much greater of sexual or physical assault.
I remember Og Mandino's books from way back. . . good to be in touch again.
From the article:
In the south of India lives a woman who has dedicated her life to helping others through the simplest of gestures -- an embrace. She is said to have blessed and consoled more than 26 million people throughout the world.
In Malayalam, Amma's native language, the name Amma means "mother" -- an apt name for the woman revered as a holy being.
When I started hugging him in his old age he would always initially stiffen but would then relax after a moment. he would never initiate such contact but I sensed that he had learned to appreciate it.
Nick's "Hugs" Story
(- ;
Shira: where I was going was exactly where you went with your last response to me--that our values (in that case, caring about our children) are based not on empirically and rationally justified "knowledge", but on emotionally justified beliefs.
Slim, your extended definition of knowledge can of course be justified etymologically, but that definition cannot be contrasted with "belief"--it overlaps with it. Since my original point was that putting the two in opposition in a "which is better" question is meaningless, that works for me.
I'm glad you brought this comment over. It is pertinent to today's topic as well.
It seems belief is much more emotionally charged judging by the reactions of those with strong beliefs expressed by anyone with strong opinions. What's sometimes true is that beliefs are not always believable by others and lead to all the brouhaha that results when immovable opinion meets opposition.
Knowledge is less emotional and usually based on facts. We know that there can be vested interests that color facts but knowledge should generally be objectively couched.
"Values" has become a loaded term for me. I feel that in Buddhism, there is really only one value-- minimize the suffering of sentient beings. Everything else should flow from that.
Categorizing "types" of values (such as "family values") doesn't really work, at least for me. It feels as if others are attempting to dictate morality.
I did not mean superficial political uses of the word (nor do I think one side of the political spectrum should get to call dibs on basic vocabulary and we should play along with them). Children came into the picture through Shira's example--but my argument, of course, is that preferring "knowledge" to "belief", or holding rationality and logic in high esteem are themselves values--things some of us consider important.
All of that rests on a bed of values, which are again beliefs which have two curious attributes: they are imperative, and one has great affinity for them. If one starts with a core value like Ann's, one can be said to have a positive attitude (or "share a value") with a secondary idea depending on how closely associated it is with the first (a left-brain function, not tied to emotion). "Don't step on ants" might be a test case as a related value for Ann's "core" value.
The Christians that I have read or talked to have the Golden Rule thing going on, but they also have the "prayer" or "listen to God" thing going on. It gets complicated, because although it's operationally defined, there don't seem to be external, or public, referents. But I can't figure out whether that is more "private" than, say, my own decision on whether to look out for ants when I'm walking down the sidewalk.
Re: "I feel that in Buddhism, there is really only one value-- minimize the suffering of sentient beings. Everything else should flow from that."
Would you allow adding "and promoting the betterment of the world or at least maintenance of it" ?
"promoting the betterment of the world or at least maintenance of it"
Are you referring to the physical, inanimate world or the world with all of its living inhabitants?
I mean both, including All which inhabit our home, Earth!
This is how persuasion works, of course. An "advertised" choice is selected if and only if it is paired with a value that is already accepted as desirable. Ad execs and politicians understand this and work it as best they can.
A psychology course I took many years ago posited that we have three sources of values. inner directed, other directed and society directed.
Society was any group large enough to be impersonel such as a particular religious faith or nationality (think patriotism). Other directed was about family and friends (peer pressure).
"If thoughts or choices do not appeal, they are quickly forgotten. That includes careful thought and "logical" choices, by the way."
That approach wouldn't get me far in science. A big part of training in the sciences is to recognize and ignore your emotional biases. Of course, this can never be done completely, but those nasty and rigorous "peer reviews" help a lot.
Descriptively speaking (to borrow a term from linguistics), I don't think all the different values that people can be observed as acting on can be derived from this principle. That doesn't diminish its value as a foundational philosophy-the source we reconnect with when we have to make a decision. As for a grand unifying theory of values, I don't expect to come up with one.
I have used the word "value" an internal concept here, the kind that "arises within". I think that's in line with what much of what "Western" philosophy was trying to weasel out of the mysteries of the universe and our existence in it. In fact, I don't think of "norms enforced by a social structure" as "values" at all, though certainly they can be referred to as "societal values". There is, in every society, a conflict between personal values and such societal values. When we call (modern) Western societies "individualistic" and Eastern ones "collectivistic", what we're saying is that it is in the West that the individual insists more on the integrity of his or her personal values and the right to live according to them, and it is in the East that compliance with societal norms and acceptance of the life path one is placed on by those norms is considered more important. So in that sense, I disagree. But of course, if you were thinking about the Catholic Church vs. the Buddha, then you are right--it's just that the tapestry of a culture is made from more threads than one.
(In the above, Bill's "family and friends" are considered parts of "society".)
Regarding science and the "appeal" of ideas, I think Nick might be referring to being pushed in a certain direction to the point that you want to investigate. For the investigation itself, the impartial and consciously bias-eliminating method is indispensable, but what gets you there in the first place, working on the problem, is the appeal of the ideas, based on underlying values. (As a crude example, why don't you specialize in biological weapons? It's science, and I'm sure there's funding available from various eager sources around the world.)
Ann, (smile) I see what you mean about not getting too far in science if carefully-reasoned thoughts are not adopted. But under what circumstances would they NOT be adopted? WM has provided one, it seems to me--conformity. New or unusual ideas in science might not take hold if the "standard" view is in conflict. A scientist who wants a new idea to be accepted will have to show her work--relying on the commonly-held values of other scientists that probably include things like following the data wherever it takes them.
Mistakes can happen in science, even following careful thinking. Why were X-ray machines built that allowed 1000x the lethal dose of X-rays to be delivered to patients? Why was DDT allowed to choke the environment and threaten a "Silent Spring?" I would say that the value of bug-free crops won over "safety" concerns in that last case. We continue to live and learn.
I have to laugh over your question about biological weapons. You are quite right that my emotions have caused me steer clear of that area of research. (You also may remember me saying that my husband quit his job at Boeing due to ties to the weapons industry).
My brother, however (yes, the psychopath) has a degree in chemical engineering and was accepted into West Point but never attended. I consider myself and the rest of us quite lucky that he isn't fabricating mustard gas or some relative thereof. (What's the saying? There but for the grace of God go I?)
The resistance to paradigm change is a very real and common problem in the sciences. Sometimes the proponents of an outmoded paradigm must retire or die before a better one is adopted. (For more info see that required-reading book for science grad students, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
But I find the field of science unique in its vigilante approach. It's really scary being in the business of "being right." This leads most of us to review our theories and data with obsessive rigor, and not hesitate to point fingers if we find a mistake in someone else's work.
(Hopefully Sy will chime in here at some point and add his experiences of self-policing in the sciences).
"A psychology course I took many years ago posited that we have three sources of values. inner directed, other directed and society directed."
It seems that the inner-directed values would correspond to Freud's Ego and the society-directed values (and/or parent-directed values) might correspond to his Superego. (Definitions here).
Bill, regarding the sources of values, I think it would be interesting to look at the question from a more evolutionary point of view.
Some of our values seem to be built into our brains (which are, of course, subject to physical evolution.) Self-preservation would be an example -- a lot of the machinery for that doesn't even require conscious attention. (Think of the fact that your eyelids flick closed to protect your eyes.)
Then you get the complex area of social ties. Some of that is determined by the brain. A lot of the give and take of infant nurturing, for example, seems to be universal in human societies, and for that matter, some of it looks a lot like other mammals.
Another set of values is societal, based on memetic evolution. In their purest forms, these values vary from society to society and a person can shed one set of values and pick up another with relative ease. (For instance, I can learn to take off my shoes before entering my Japanese friends' houses.)
But a lot of our values are tangled up in both kinds of evolution. The things we learn change our brain structure. Variations in brain development change how we adapt to what those around us are doing. We have a lot of DNA programming having to do with how we handle social behavior, and on the other hand, we have literally internalized the lessons of our socialization.
So my sense is that there are indeed inner directed and society directed values, but it's not nearly as easy as you'd think to tell which are which. Our feelings (this is "mine", this is "imposed on me") are not that reliable as guides, I suspect.
Is it possible that a behavior can be seen as rational when viewed collectivly while being perceived as emotional by the individual?
This discussion started on the previous thread. There was an idea presented there that not only assumed that "belief" and knowledge" could be neatly separated as categories, but that they could be ranked according to value. I've been examining the assumptions that view requires --what is supposed to be the difference between the two, and what on earth is meant when someone says "knowledge" is more important. (Is that "known" or "believed"?) ((Those kinds of questions is what "doing philosophy" mostly consists of, to my mind.)
What I think is that reason doesn't come into operation until there are goals and objectives, which depend on what is important to a person. Values in that sense (the deepest convictions about what matters and what "needs to be") must preexist a sense of rationality: without them there's no way to tell what action is "rational". (I can't get further than that, but then I don't expect to come up with a consistent philosophical framework.)
One can then see the emergence of a concept of creativity: a state of being perhaps "just a little bit crazy" in permitting novel connections among disparate ideas. The border between "creative" and "crazy as a loon" may have to do with the behavioral patterns that emerge and their acceptability to society.
And indeed my point throughout this conversation was that considering rationality important is a value that cannot itself be derived from rationality.
The difficulty with a statement like "all things are relative" is that it is self-deconstructive.
BUT ... in making such distinctions, such as those between the "subjective" (emotional ?) and the "objective" (rational ?) ... as a "Spiritual Being", I tend to place the "higher value" on the subjective ... yet as an ego living this manifested life, I must combine the "two" for full effectiveness in finding "my balance" ...
I say this in defense against those who are primarily rational to the point of completely rejecting the value I place on subjectivity ... (only one person here (on Gather) comes to mind). :-)
Of course, that has always been my point when I say that everything in the universe is relative and the only real distinctions of differences are the ones we humans place on things ... it is all in our mind in that regard, there is no "cut and dried" differences between "things" unless and except for those so assigned by us and believed by us to be so ... those concepts being but our arbitrary so-called facts (that some even think are truths) which we use to communicate what we prefer to believe to be our shared reality.
I make no dualistic dichotomies, only attempt to point them out to others ... such as the idea of (+/-) being better replaced with (+=-) ... IMnsHO
Thanks for your follow-up though.:-)
Re: "Waste no time and effort searching for peace and contentment and joy in the world outside."
I'd like to add that working and creating peace is also part of that effort. Smiling is part of it, speaking carefully and considering what you say is also important.
There are those fuddies who maybe more in the past felt there should be distance maintained between the servers and the served and treated "menials" as if they were robots without feelings. Many still have that attitude about people who help and serve them and workers and work often doesn't get the kind of appreciation they deserve, even "menials". I love it that you acted as you did to the person at the checkout, made her feel good and gave that example to your son.
Appreciation paid where it's due is a good thing and costs so little and makes the giver of it feel good too, a lot better that finding fault with everything.
I also appreciate the lovely opener, Bill.
Re: "Waste no time and effort searching for peace and contentment and joy in the world outside."
I'd like to add that working and creating peace is also part of that effort. Smiling is part of it. Speaking thoughtfully and considering what you say is also important.
There are those fuddies who maybe more in the past felt there should be distance maintained between servers and the served and treated "menials" as if they were robots without feelings. Many still have that attitude about people who help and serve them and workers and work often doesn't get the kind of appreciation they deserve, even "menials". I love it that you acted as you with the person at the checkout, made her feel good and gave that example to your son.
Appreciation paid where it's due is a good thing and costs so little and makes the giver of it feel good too, a lot better that finding fault with everything.
"Happiness is a perfume you cannot pour on others without getting a few drops on yourself." Cool, Mr. Mandino!
Best regards, Frank
I have participateed in several leadership training programs over the last few years where the emphasis is on the concept of "servent leader". We are taught to empower those we are responsible for, not subjagate them.
I'm hoping this gets a lot of attn and inspires feedback.
Someone expressed way back the trepidation of losing ego, wondering what would be left, if it would make the individual an automaton or what?
Let's bat this around, folks.
We tend to define ourselves by what we do but is that really who we are?
Think about meeting someone for the first time at a social gathering . Instead of asking "what do you do?" ask " Who are you?'. Most will be stumped beyond offering their name.
Or contemplate this, "describe your authentic self".
How would you answer that question Bill?
Sy, That is actually a good answer. I am sure I would learn more about who you really are than I would from you telling me your job title. That is probably one of the great things about meeting someone through a medium like Gather, it de-emphasizes occupation as our most defining characteristic.
I am a human being in search of "grandest version of the greatest vision I’ve ever had about who I am.” My secondary Gather ID is seeker561 (the number is random) and that should not be interpreted as though I believe some part of me is lost or missing. I am exactly where I am supposed to be on the road to whereever it is I am going but I have a deep seated feeling that I am capable of offering more.
Are you familiar with the concept of "intrepid warrior"?
Sounds like a Buddist koan, really. I guess I'd say that we are the sum total of our genetics, our experience, and what we accomplish based on these.
Yes, that's true but I'm hoping that humanity, all of us are working at it. The fear is that we become nebbishes without our egos but I believe most can relinquish say 30-50% of their "egos" and our world would be a better place.
"Authentic self" is something good to ponder and those who have had peak experiences, whether while engaged in sex or in a Spiritual Awakening, may be most clued but maybe unable to really articulate.
Those who know don't speak and those who speak may not know. But some things can be generalized: 1) A feeling of compassion and interconnectivity with fellow humans, a commonality of our humanity 2) a large feeling of embracing Being 3) more positive feelings than negativity
(with maybe prophets engaged in bringing about reforms).
That's off the top of my head.
The more ego is relinquished, the more Ego is enhanced, meaning the one attained by the Spiritually Awakened that is less self-involved and more directed toward Humanity's welfare at large.
Are you all experiencing frustration with waiting for the damn computer and growing beards waiting for it to behave ? Suggestion: take the opp to meditate, enhance your endorphins and frustrate frustration! Any time frustration rears its impatient head, take a deep breath and a moment to chill, meditate. Omm!
I like this, Frank. You same to be saying that as one relinquishes their ego, it's replaced by the "ego" that belongs to humanity, not to self.
the conviction of my being a permanent, timeless witness has remained as steady and self-evident to me as the view I have of the sun rising every morning, crossing the sky, then setting in the west. I seem to be hardwired to experience my self and the world in this way. Yet despite the undeniable evidence of my own eyes, I know that the earth sets and rises, not the sun. Gotama did for the self what Copernicus did for the earth: he put it in its rightful place, despite its continuing to appear just as it did before. Gotama no more rejected the existence of the self than Copernicus rejected the existence of the earth. Instead, rather than regarding it as a fixed, non-contingent point around which everything else turned, he recognized that each self was a fluid, contingent process just like everything else.
To me, "letting go of the ego" isn't about denying its existence or doing without it, but rather, seeing it as one among many ways of relating to the world. Someone in a link that libramoon shared talked about changing the OS he was running by changing his assumptions. (In his case, he wanted to see the world as a dream, while being able to go about his ordinary life.)
Me, I try to get mindfulness of the moment to be my default state -- with occasional success. And the thing about mindfulness is that the ego ceases to put its imprimateur on those experiences, for as long as the mindfulness lasts.
It being an ego that is unbalanced and thus unhealthy, which desires so much a peace of mind, that it is willing to completely forgo itself, that is most likely to "let go" of itself ... finally "making room" for it's Self.
But, the true benefit to be gained, is not to seek a complete separation from the ego self, because it cannot be achieved while still living, it being an un-natural goal, but to use the self as the tool for spreading the transcendent message of the Self ... IMnsHO.
Did you note that I wasn't saying to deny or doing without any ego but but more about attaining the consciousness that transforms (ego) into (Ego) that becomes less self-involved and more altruistic and concerned with wider issues. Not to recognize that difference is to misunderstand my comment.
I think your comment said what I did but with the non-recognition of that big difference.
In my mind, the Buddhist way is surely an outstanding way of living, and the Urantia Book, which I value very highly, says much the same for the Philosophy, but does also say (in the opinion of the Spiritual revelators), that that view does stop just short of the personal relationship with Deity (in the sense of any "arrangement") (Hierarchical) of a vast number of specified spiritual beings ... (as I recollect my reading of the U-Book) ...
With more clarification then, as for myself, I also "fall short" of "recognition" of the mentioned "Spiritual Hierarchy" (such as the U-Book and the Christian Bible so "specify")~(along with Hinduism and so many "other" belief systems), as personally, I have finally had to "transcend" a relationship of Spiritual "Beings" (such as "Christ" and "Others") to just the relationship with my Soul AS IT RELATES TO ONLY GOD (not God and gods specifically), meaning, to the entirety of the UNIverse ... that in part of course because during my awakening, actually, at the "completion" of the initial sequence of events, I had a very distinct and strong "feeling" of specifically being "Accepted as a Cosmic Citizen" (whatever that may mean)(Generic Spirituality, unrelated (at least for now) with Religion) ...
IMnsHO
(Don't ask me for any more details-- I'm not enlightened!)
What we actually have is an occurance of bi-directional causation. Feeling good may cause us to smile and smiling can cause us to feel good or at least better.
We have also mentioned "energy bubbles" of a personal nature ... there has been much written over the years suggesting that we do have in fact a sort of energy "aura" that extends beyond our physical body ... it is my contention that it is a factor of our DNA/RNA which I claim is an "Intellectual Spiritual Energy Transceiver" ... our connection to other through the UNIversal "ONE"ness of GOD ...
That our "normal" egoic "fallen nature" is often too dualistic (+/-) as in our "brain use is not balanced because too many men are primarily Left brain dominate with an excess of objective Logic ... contrary to women who most often are Right brain dominate and more subjectively emotional ...
Esoteric knowledge (bordering on wisdom), mainly from the "East" concerning the "Chakras and their relationships" which when fully energized through the connective rising of the "Kundalini" energy into the "Crown Chakra" resulting in Enlightenment (the perfected hu-man) ... that matching the "Western" view of esoteric Judaism concerning Kabala and the "Tree of Life" in full blossom ... both representing in actuality, the "Energization" of additional strands of our DNA ... effectively transcending the "old" energy field (bubble) to that of the "new" ... that involving the (re)-Balance of Left and Right Brains ... re-connecting us to the Spiritual Realm that which connection we "lost" during "The Fall" (Adam and Eve sent out of Eden, story) ...
I mention this in part because Sy is involved in Genetics ... sees value in Fractals (which are an essential part of Sacred Geometry) and I have read deeply into that field from the esoteric side (with admitted little understanding of the exoteric side of orthodox science) from such authors as Drunvalo Melchezidek and Gregg Braden ... maybe some of this will "plant a seed" resulting in wisdom for others down the road of time ... :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIFY9h8DImg
Imagine
I nominate "Imagine" as the anthem of LYR, at least one of them.
NPR's Morning Edition show (FM 89.3) ran a long interview with a guy who interviewed Lennon a few days before he got gunned down when he was ready to talk and did about everything and anything. Neat long interview that ran in Playboy. Check it out.
Where the 50s song is about personal self-interested amative love, Lennon's song could be the anthem for evolutionary enlightenment-- more conscious re: connectivity with humankind, no?
I'd edit one line, "The Brotherhood of Man" > "The Unity of Humankind". Other than that, it's beautiful and perfect!
I really enjoyed the story of the interview and think you will too.
I think this is a large city related cultural tendency, since I have found the same to be true in London, Paris, other US cities (except of course California, where NOT smiling appears to be a misdemeanor).
I think it is less about the size of the city then the population density. Houston is now the fourth largest city but is still mostly a one story city, We don't live on top of each other like NY or Chicago or other older cities of the northeast and midwest.
I can understand why you feel that way but I'm disappointed you'd say it.
I would want that you might experiment and conquer your hesitation (fear?) and if anyone reacts negatively, so what? If they become encouraged to approach you, take the opp to give them some feedback why you smiled, pay a compliment. If they get too friendly, I would think you know how to handle that misunderstanding or cash in on an opp.
(- ;
We all have certain primitive reflexes buried in our reptilian brains. In some of us these are very close to the surface. Direct eye contact can be very dangerous and provocative when encountering certain wild animals and among some populations may be seen as threatening.
While I encourage each of us to find some way to "reach out and touch someone" in a positive and affirming way, I do not recommend that anyone behave in a way that would invite danger.
I haven't lived in NYC for awhile but I'd like to believe there are many who can still react positively even there to a smile without unpleasant consequences.
When you can act in a way where you conquer your initial fear and then do figure out how to act in a decisive and effective way, it's a big step in developing your spirituality and doing the right thing. If handle the situation initially with an appropriate friendly comment or question Socratically, you shouldn't encounter any hostility or negativity but we can't expect to prevail in every case. Neither should we be too timid.
But I do smile at people, make eye contact with cashiers, and enjoy what an old friend once termed "gems of petty conversation." Somewhere I read that our psychic "envelope" extends for 10 feet around us, which I imagine as bubbles of energy surrounding everyone, which touch, and intertwine as we pass people, so that we are constantly affecting people all around us even without speaking, looking, touching or even acknowledging.
Finally, having been a cashier, I agree with your son's friend, that people can be abominably rude and insensitive to "the help," and standing on your feet, even for 4 hours, HURTS!
That is a great turn of phrase.
"I imagine as bubbles of energy surrounding everyone..."
The question this poses is to me is the "energy bubble" that surrounds us inert or is it adjusted by our consciousness. How much control, if any, do we have over whether we are projecting "good vibes" or "bad vibes".
I think it is for most of us.
"Shape clay into a vessel;
it is the space within that makes it useful."
I don't think this means that the emptiness is useful. The emptiness represents potential usefulness. It is what we choose to fill it with that makes it useful, to carry water or store some grain.
If we allow our space to fill up with clutter, it is not available for us to use in a deliberate manner.
"It's difficult for me to sit still, and just be, because my mind's habit is to go to dark places. Even when I was practicing yoga, my mind was full of "how would I teach this pose" rather than being in the pose."
It's much the same for me. After two years of daily mediation attempts, I realized that this method of practice was simply not for me. Fortunately, I've heard more than one Buddhist master say that it's not necessary to mediate in order to be a good Buddhist.
There's an Association of Buddhist Psychotherapists in Boston. They would tell you that a good therapist must create space in their mind in order to listen deeply to clients.
I read a story once where people's spirits were so refreshed by singing together that it influenced their physical selves to the point where they actually needed less nourishment. I loved the idea!
There are a number of communal activities that seem to have these kinds of effects, dancing and drumming also come to mind.
The monk was filling the tea cup and the acolyte was taken aback when the monk kept pouring after the filled cup was overflowing.
This was to show that a filled cup could no longer receive anything more and would need to be emptied before anything could be added.
Those around for the Civil Rights Movement remember that the singing is a big part of their demonstrations and success in winning supporters.
If it becomes too uncomfortable, it's allowed to flex and become comfortable but restraining from impulse and knee-jerk reacting, especially to your wandering monkey-mind is a main part of meditation.
What's helpful is to be motivated by the positive, training self-discipline of mind and body and to foster mental health and your endorphins. If you can't see those as important, meditation may not be for you but don't give up too easily!
As for that "bubble" that extends around us ... I cannot attest to the "size" of it, but surely to the importance of the "energy" inherent with it ... especially as associated with wild animals that are generally very wary of human interactions.
I take hikes (more like leisurely walks) in the forests every day of a minimum of two hours in duration where I come across countless wild animals, most often Whitetail deer, when I am consciously looking out (a very large bubble?)and about for them, I often see them "high-tailing" off in the distance ... and when I am self-engrossed in my thinking (a very small bubble?) I most often see them out of my peripheral vision standing very closely to the side of the trail simply observing me go by ... (?)
And even to this day I am so often surprised (very pleasantly) by smiles that I so readily seem to receive from strangers, most often women and children ... it sure makes life seem more worthwhile ... :-)
Jerry, We have spoken many times in this space about the essential conflict between seperation and connection. Do we build walls or do we build bridges? My sense of you is that you are a bridge builder and I suspect that attitude projects into your "energy bubble" as described above.
PS ... except for the first comment by me above which was entered away from home in northern Alberta Canada ... I have not been on Gather for 10 days due to traveling.
Adrian, if you are reading, I almost came by to see you ... We, (wife and I) were about an hour towards Anchorage from Haines Junction, headed for the Kenai (Homer) when the snow got pretty serious and I decided that another 2,000 miles or so round trip from there was more than I wanted after already logging well over 1500 miles by then ... so we turned around, went back to the info center at Haines Junction and made Ferry reservations for the 5 day sail to Bellingham... then found there was no room for our truck ... so kept on driving northeast through the Yukon, Northwest Territories, B.C., and Alberta, driving everyday, just getting home a couple hours ago ... 10 days, 4,000 miles ... great country, lots of wild animals, but so good to be home finally.
All that time and effort going to waste, IMO, unless you get turned on my mad faces.
Everybody looks better--best--when they're smiling, no?
Do we need further proof of the interconnectivity of humanity, all nations included? If we think of design and one element affecting all the other elements, causing imbalance and disharmony of the whole when causing imbalance, here's proof positive of the interconnectivity of All, and disruptions of something like currency rates is a big factor in the design of the Family of Man.
Will wars be resulting or a spur better ways of humanity learning to resolve disharmony? Let's hope our better minds will prevail.
Hello all!
Today 10/10/10 is when a lot of folks are set to do something good for Earth, a good time to think about the four areas of consciousness and get with the program.
1) Personally: Get the house and affairs in order; health check--everything OK?
2) Interpersonally: Do something nice with somebody--family member or otherwise
3) Attn to non-human sentient being or environment
4) Attn to the cosmos--needing your attn?
Anything the more significant the better you can do but even thinking of plan of action would be useful.
Get with the program, Earth needs our help!
Ancient Indian Proverb
Passed by on my FB feed and I thought it was worth sharing.
Here is a link: Night Two of God in America
I was also depressed to revisit the Scopes trial and realize (again) that the arguments made back then are precisely the arguments being made today... on both sides. I suppose it is understandable that the Biblical literalist arguments are the same, since the Bible is the same now as then. But evolutionary theory has changed, expanded into many other fields (notably philosophy), and ramified mightily. And yet none of that growth is reflected in the arguments leveled against ID and its ilk. Too bad!
Conservatives and especially religious ones seem to believe that truth is immutable once they've made up their minds, right or wrong. They have the habit of seeing "truth" graved in stone, starting with the 10 Commandments.
.
"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
-Spoken by Abraham Lincoln, quoted by Joseph Lewis
While they did a good job of examining Lincoln's conflict, I thought they deftly skirted the issue of the nature of Lincoln's faith or lack thereof.
sprothero: #godinamerica giving the lie to Lincoln as a secular man. He was one of our most deeply theological presidents.
Hard to tell exactly what a tweet means of course
His writing over the course of the Civil War showed that he came to understand that God's will superseded the will of humankind. His second inaugural address makes that clear. ("The prayers of both [sides] could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.")
I would be careful about infering too much from the public remarks of a politician. The first thing taught in a public speaking course is to consider your audience and frame your remarks accordingly. Lincoln certainly was aware of the divide between his own beliefs and those of the general population.
We are all familiar with this quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”
I offered the smile anecdote, not as prescription but as an example of the sort of simple, inexpensive, pro-active action we might take “towards building a better world.”
The self is not something ready-made, but something in continuous formation through choice of action.
John Dewey
There is no act that reflects the image of our creator more than the act of creation itself.
I feel that all the time, Bill, but I often feel the opposite, too--that people leave comments that they're in full agreement with each other when it's quite clear to me that they mean very different things by the words they're using.
If you meant the "knowledge" and "belief" discussion, I can assure you that my views are quite different from Slim's on that matter (and I suspect from yours, too), and it's all about the concepts. My intention was to examine what we mean by those words so we can see where those meanings might be in conflict with our stated conclusions. That is a necessary part of such philosophical discussions, exactly to get past idiom and metaphor, and look at the concepts being discussed. When you do that, you might find that people who use different terms agree, but you might also find that people who use the same terms mean completely different things.
Please take a moment to follow the above link to the next episode.