Writing Papers

[Dots]

I've been thinking long and hard about the direction the Material should go in in order to serve everyone in the best possible way. Let me go back many years to see if there is a clue how to go about this,

When our children were small, a friend and I asked Dr Roles if it was possible to have a midday meeting; he was amenable but wanted us to make a list of what we thought we needed to know. Our list covered Octaves, the Law of Seven and the Law of Three, the Food Table and much else besides. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not suggesting that we go back to that, but for the new groups the questions should be asked of them what it is they think they need? Why are they there? What is their aim? (The question asked recently 'What do you understand by Self-Realization?' evoked an interesting paper). There will probably be quite a few different answers to those questions and papers could grow out of these with reference to all the riches we have been fortunate enough to inherit, but with judicious use of quotations - experience counts for a lot and it doesn't mean that the person producing that evidence or example is making claims, as we may so often feel. The initiative should come from the new people in the first place. All the questions that youth puts forward such as 'What is the purpose?', 'Is there a purpose?', 'Why are we here?' - the perennial questions, still prompt people. So there should be papers for the new group based around their needs arising out of their first meeting.

But for the 'Oldies' there should be something different. I suggest we don't get papers any more, but a single question every week, around which discussion can take place. For example 'How do we make practical in our daily lives one pointed attention?' or 'How do we 'let go' of something that we see as of the utmost importance to us and yet keep it close?' or 'How do we recognise that everything and everyone is of the same Oneness?' I'm sure there are even more relevant questions that we could all come up with. We have all been steeped in a living teaching and such shared questions and answers could open the way to be more practical in manifesting it in our lives. Feedback from the groups could provide further questions and answers.

[Rumpelteazer]

So there should be papers for the new group based around their needs arising out of their first meeting.

I agree. I think they should also be encouraged to try and put the ideas discussed into practice and come back the following week with more questions.

But for the 'Oldies' there should be something different. I suggest we don't get papers any more, but a single question every week, around which discussion can take place. For example 'How do we make practical in our daily lives one pointed attention?' or 'How do we 'let go' of something that we see as of the utmost importance to us and yet keep it close?' or 'How do we recognise that everything and everyone is of the same Oneness?' I'm sure there are even more relevant questions that we could all come up with. We have all been steeped in a living teaching and such shared questions and answers could open the way to be more practical in manifesting it in our lives. Feedback from the groups could provide further questions and answers.

This seems to me a great idea. I shall discuss it with the Cheltenham group this evening. Again, I think it should also involve the whole group in trying to put the things discussed into practice and coming back the following week with a greater understanding and some experiences. Our groups should be a way of helping all the members in their personal journeys towards self-realisation - not just a talking-shop.

I don't know how well this would work with less confident meeting-takers. We can sometimes get a situation where it's hard to get anyone to say anything. (We all share take it in turns to take the meeting.) That said, I think it would be very good for our group.

What do you think would be the best way of making this work? Should all the 'oldies' groups be discussing the same questions in any given week or should it be up to the individual group to decide the question? If the latter, should we agree the following week's question at the end of the meeting, or should the meeting-taker just announce the question at the start of the meeting so that it is a surprise for everyone and thus encourage more spontaneous comments?

[fiona]

The Cheltenham group discussed Dots' posting and were grateful for the comments and suggestions. We are going to study the paper on Self-Realisation next week, but will take one of the suggested questions, "How do we 'let go' of something that we see as of the utmost importance to us and yet keep it close?" the following week. Our feedback from that will, hopefully, prove useful.

[Mungojerrie]

The Cheltenham Group discussed one of the questions that dots kindly suggested:
'How do we 'let go' of something that we see as of the utmost importance to us and yet keep it close?'

We had reminded people of the question at the end of the previous week's meeting to give everyone a chance to reflect on it during the week. It seemed that all members had done so and some had brought a very carefully thought through discussion of the issues it raises. One member who had been unable to attend the meeting sent her contribution by email:

1. (by email) When I first read the question, I thought it seemed rather challenging, yet after contemplating it over the week I've come to the conclusion that it's actually rather simple. It reminds me of Dr. Roles telling us how much we complicate things. Looking back over my life, the things that I attached great importance to, whether they involved situations or relationships, often turned out to be quite transient. That experience helps to give transparency to anything that mentally tries to set itself up these days. A lot of those things, I must confess, have a materialistic base anyway. I don't beat myself up about attachments. The real important thing in my life is the Work, and as one member remarked last week, faith and trust are so valuable on our journey, as is practice, of course. These three aspects keep the Work close for me. I found a good reading in Good Company II, pages 90-91. The final paragraph reads, 'The company of a Realised Man is good enough to change the course of a wretched life into a holy life. The advice that "I need nothing" transforms the situation.'

2. If we think something is of 'utmost importance' then that implies a value judgement has been made. So we need to let go before it is of utmost importance.
If it is something like perfect health versus serious illness we need to recognise that if we become ill this may in itself provide an opportunity for growth.
The second part of the question, 'keep it close' could mean 'not indifferent'. Global warming is not in itself important - if it's going to happen it will happen. But we can be close to nature and we may all have opportunities to help protect our environment.
Whatever the Atman does, it is right. (But of course that doesn't include murdering someone.)

Someone asked if this was really about not having preferences, and the contributor agreed.

3. One person had found it difficult to see why you would want to keep something close if it was an attachment - surely you would want to get rid of it.

Another replied that we follow the way of the householder. If we work in a profession then we could either be attached to it or could work on being detached but would still need to be close to that work. For those of us who are retired we find other things to do and the same applies.

4. One person said "The most important to me is not losing my marbles. Second comes food. Third comes Radio 4." There was some discussion about whether she was really attached to Radio 4. What would happen if someone phoned during a favourite Radio 4 programme? What would happen if we removed her radio? Radio 4 is like stickiness. Are you stuck? One person felt there are different levels of attachment.

5. We need the caring to make us do something - otherwise it's easy to be lazy. There is a hierarchy of things we care about. Sometimes something becomes urgent and then we get on with it. Someone else remarked that "urgent" was different from "important" and didn't necessarily mean attachment.

6. An older member of the group said she has less questions as she gets older. Gradually the things that used to be important cease to matter. (These turned out to be mostly fears and worries.) Good meditation matters. She is now more attached to enjoyable things and not to worries.

7. One person said he felt that the attachments he now has are very deep. When young he really wanted to fall in love and have sex. These things are less important later. He doesn't get so angry now. He can enjoy being at a party and seeing a young man who is a complete prat. He doesn't need to criticise others. He feels more open to things around him and can enjoy just being on a bus among other passengers, observing what is going on. But other attachments are stronger - they may be related to one's Chief Feature and may be quite hard to pin down.

8. The "something" in the question could be "life". If someone came at me with a knife I would try to defend myself. But this is quite natural.

9. There was some discussion about whether we had become less attached through many years in the work. It was concluded by the oldest member of group saying she thought "we are all rather splendid". (But perhaps not everyone was convinced!)

10. Remembering "we have nothing of our own" is very helpful in avoiding attachments.

11. In relation to not getting caught up in other people's problems and becoming attached to solving them, someone suggested that we need a wider focus. Feeling oneself in the situation. Someone else reminded us of the story of the lantern.

In conclusion everyone agreed it had been a useful meeting and wanted to thank dots for her idea.