Friends, I made up a little mnemonic to help me better answer certain e-mails, to better engage others with "prudence, learning and experience" (per St. Teresa) and "genuineness, caring and concern" (per Carl Rogers?).

It is this: Stop. Drop. Roll.

You recognize it as what to do if you are on fire.

My take is that, when asked for advice, or when giving advice, however solicited or not, that especially in e-mail, lacking invaluable nonverbal cues, to avoid misunderstanding (which is EASY, the misunderstanding not the avoidance, that is), I will:

STOP and not give my kneejerk, boilerplate answers. Stop the default, textbook response, interpretations or commentary.

DROP my own agenda, which may involve me processing my own garbage and projecting my own issues into another's situation, which might just involve the "need", on my part, to be consulted or considered knowledgeable (see the Litany of Humility, for instance), which might result more in transference dynamics and not legitimate journeying as fellow pilgrim, as kindred sojourner, or what have ya.

ROLL around in the other person's FIRE and feel their joy or their pain or their energy upheaval. Wait a day or so to respond, to prayerfully ponder, to empathize.

Then, prayerfully and empathetically respond.

I think of the lyrics to that Nickel Creek song: "My greatest fear is that you will crash and burn and I won't feel your fire" (from "When You Come Back Down").

Thus we can avoid giving easy answers to complex problems. We can avoid inadvertently minimizing another's feelings, grief, pain, struggles or joys. We can avoid trivializing transformative life events of another. We can avoid invalidating
another's real problems by giving too casual a response, or too cursorily dismissive an answer. Quite often, others want to simply be well listened to and it is best we stay in a non-directive, interrogatory mode. I think it was Rogers who taught us GCU's? or genuineness, caring and concern, something the Carmelites have
identified in John of the Cross' letters (was it maybe Kevin Culligan OCD?).

Thus, once another is convinced of the depth of our caring, our response will be somewhat healing, however on or off the mark we are academically.

Anyone else have some little rubrics such as this, which we all might benefit from?

Angel, let me help you with your wings,
jb

That was REALLY good! I agree, I agree. I wish I could take credit for these little ditties I'm going to post...but I can't..they came from a dear monk friend of mine who lived them every day of his life.

1) To walk in the way of Christ is to take no offense..nor give offense.

2) The love of Jesus passes beyond all dogma or doctrine to connect the hearts of the believers.

3) If we could bring the love of Christ up off the pages of the book, no longer leaving them to be ink on paper, but rather a real true love that we show others in every way, the whole world would run to the arms of Jesus.

Man...I miss him..he was a wonderful brother in Christ.

JB, WOW, that was wonderful! I take it that it was addressed specifically to me, although you didn't mention it. So thanks a pile.

I admit that ALL my responses were knee-jerk. I had done it with the same light-heartedness that I had in other forums - like fun intellectual debate in a 'Cafe', not profound thoughts carefully considered and cut out to suit an extremely sensitive audience. It wasn't even until things went wrong that I realised that it wasn't one of those Brad/JB exchanges I was participating in!!! So forgive me guys for spoiling all the fun for the rest of you. It has been a great learning experience. By the way I never felt called to be a 'guru' at any time in my life, so there was no hidden agenda there. If I had wanted to slip into that role I would definitely have spent some time reading up about Kundalini before writing my responses. I'm guilty of knee-jerk reactions yes. But my compassion is real and having undergone a long training in another field (which is not counselling, psychotherapy or psychiatry), the techniques of looking for a solution without beating around the bush too much, just slipped through without my notice. Sadly it turned out to be pretty much the same unhelpful treatment they had got from others.

Another thing JB, I read it in a Ken Wilber book quite some time ago (I can't remember the name now because it was a German translation): He says that an over-emotional reaction can mean that it is either righteous indignation because my integrity has been violated or that the other person has touched a truth in me that I'm not aware of/deny. His advice is to stop and verify if the whole thing is projection from the other person, part projection + part truth or unpleasant truth that I deny/resist. Didn't someone mention the Johari window the other day?

JB as to what you wrote:

ROLL around in the other person's FIRE and feel their joy or their pain or their energy upheaval. Wait a day or so to respond, to prayerfully ponder, to empathize.

Apart from zen teachers who didn't discuss philosophies but asked me to get back to my breath repeatedly, the one spiritual guide I had opportunity to observe closely was Dom Bede Griffiths. I know for certain he helped everyone who came to him without having to roll in the energy upheavals of the other person. The healing came not just because of the few minutes he spent with each one when they went to meet him, his great compassion for each one, but also the active participation in the atmosphere and daily routine he had established in his Ashram. He had not set up special rituals for those who called their problems Kundalini imbalance or by any other name - and people from all sorts of traditions and no traditions came to him. Despite his openness to all religions and integration of Hindu rituals in Mass (we even chanted the Gayatri mantra everyday, considered the oldest and highest Hindu prayer) and daily reading of religious scripture from other religions, he kept the atmosphere in his ashram totally Christ centred. He did not take Christ to other religions, he brought all religions to Christ. That is the message I tried to convey and ended up doing it so poorly. A Christ centred holistic healing borrowing from the wisdom of science and other religions.

I understand your concept of empathy, but how much empathy am I likely to have if I must have undergone every single thing that the other person has before I am permitted to feel empathy? Is empathy real only if I can say : I know exactly how you feel because I have been through the same thing? Isn't it empathy if I say 'I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but I can think of parallels and since you haven't found a real solution despite your long search, why not try something that has worked in other somewhat similar situations?'

I'll close with that and not get into a running argument again.

Thanks once again for the advice. I find it very helpful indeed.

Friends All, I wrote: Friends, I made up a little mnemonic and, in fact, it is something I made up a couple of months ago. You may have noticed that I often segue into pedantic modes from sharing modes and, as they say, we teach best what we need to learn the most, eh?

Thanks, y'all, for your kind comments and, yes, perhaps even some teachable moments, here and there, for us all.

Priya, I like the nuances you teased out regarding empathy. Without pausing to reflect on it (which of course shouldn't be necessary for every light-hearted exchange), my first intuition is that there are many routes to solidarity and that for one awake to our solidarity, compassion quickly ensues. It might be instructive to identify what some of those routes are, empathic and active-listening, for sure, not being the only ones. Thanks for these thoughts and for continuing to share, with us all, your rich personal heritage of having companioned with Dom Bede Griffiths. He thus continues to gift us as you minister what you recieved. Namaste, Priya.

Namaste, all
jb

JB, I prefer the Duck & Cover approach to handling advice via email.

1)Duck the question if you can.
2)Failing this, be sure to CYA and use a Hotmail account.

I hope you found this advice helpful.

Brad FOUND those keys to the liquor cabinet

Feel those wheels, rumblin' neath the floor
Penny a point, ain't no one keeping score

'Cause, now, you can get anything you want at Shalomplace Res tau rant (kinda like Aquinas Cafe), exceptin' Phil

jb gutherie

<cranking up the speakers with Alice Cooper blaring SCHOOL'S OUT FOR SUMMER, Terri's disco ball twirling in the colored strobe lights>

Richard Rohr has a saying, too: Before speaking, ask three questions: Is it true? Is it loving? Is it necessary?

I think he's on to something, myself. As long as I can meet at least one of those criteria, I say it Heck, if we had to meet all three criteria, Creedence Cassettes (publishers of hundreds of Rohr tapes) would go broke. Don't get me wrong; I like Richard. I also value our Shalomplace Cafe exchanges and am willing to run the risk of them "going wrong" sometimes. It's one of the safer places to argue on the Internet, promise! Besides, if loving Brad is wrong, I don't wanna be right

OK - now I'm not meeeting ANY of the criter

Richard Rohr has a saying, too: Before speaking, ask three questions: Is it true? Is it loving? Is it necessary?

That�s good advice, as is your Grab, Squeeze and Lift technique (oh, wait�that�s the Heimlich Maneuver). I mean your Stop, Drop and Roll technique. I have to admit that very few words would come out of my mouth if I first asked those three questions. In reality I think many of us do this:

1) Can I trust the person to whom I�m talking?
2) Can anyone else hear us?
3) Will the other person view me as being an intimate friend or just a gossiper?

Hey, don�t laugh. Sometimes it�s just as important to be aware of what we sometimes do, as well as to know the ideal.

JB: I followed that link you supplied and found it to be very interesting. I like hearing about your experiences as a CEO. Tell us more! You sound very much like the beloved skipper of the Seattle Mariners: firm but fair. Players always say that Lou is no push-over, but neither is he mean. He tells it to you straight and doesn�t play games. He tells you exactly what he expects and is as quick to praise as he is to scold. I get the general feeling that this is your modus operandi with a HECK of a lot more crafty psychology thrown in. (I�m sure when Lou is throwing bases he�s also playing master psychologist with the intent to motivate his players. I couldn�t be as simple as having a temper tantrum.)

This was a fun thread to read. I'm trying to think of how to incorporate it into the Agreement for participating on the forum , and even of crafting a few new icons to insert into discussions: can't quite come up with the "roll" but it will be an animated .gif.

There's also some sage advice here, too. One that's helped me is to ask if I'd actually say to the other what I'm writing or thinking of writing if s/he and I were meeting face-to-face.

Brad, I think you should post JB's opener on the MFI OS X Talk forum. How do you think it would go over? That's the place, folks, where one of the most active (and obnoxious, imo) members constantly discounts others and when called on it says that one shouldn't take offense because "it's only words." (Of course it's not Brad.)

What do you think about that, forum friends? Are words "only words"? Methinks that somewhat naive--as though words convey no energy or intentionality and produce no effects in the one who reads them. If you're not sure, just say something ugly to your spouse and when s/he becomes upset, say, "Hey, it's only words. You don't have to accept them as truth."

To be continued . . .

Phil

OH oh oh! I just gotta respond here (um, partly because I'm jumpin up and down here and partly because I won't be here this next week---softball tournament in Santa Fe--ya'll wanna go with me?!?)

Speaking from personal experience...they are NOT just words. The bible tells us that the power of life and death is in the tongue. Cases in point..I don't know if any of you have ever darkened "chat room" doors, but I started out online that way and made some wonderful friends. I've even grown so close to a few that I've traveled to see them. However, many many times words are thrown in haste and hatefulness and it has even ended up causing divorces (I know this seems incredible, but it's true), severed friendships, anxiety attacks bad enough for the ER...just things such as that. Granted that is chat, but the same has happened on another forum or two I've been on...people getting hurt BADLY. Online we don't have the advantage of "face to face"..no body language is visible..there are no "clues" to the tone of the post. Of course, if you are friends, or know each other well that is a different thing, but just the strictly "board" type of posting can be hard to "read"...if you know what I mean.

Well gee, this is kinda starting to sound like a soapbox ...ahem...but anyway, I think to say "it's only words" is a cop out and an easy way to shirk responsibility for ones actions.

Side note: Wish us luck for the Softball tournament. It's a first for our little school to have a 14 and under summer league team go compete at a national level so we're in for some big surprises I'm sure...lol.

Brad, I think you should post JB's opener on the MFI OS X Talk forum. How do you think it would go over? That's the place, folks, where one of the most active (and obnoxious, imo) members constantly discounts others and when called on it says that one shouldn't take offense because "it's only words." (Of course it's not Brad.)

Well since Sparky and Craig have been posting lately I think you should do it. My position on this is that, yes, words do have the power to hurt. But we run into a problem where people use this to not take responsibility for their own reaction to things. If I call you a bleep-bopping ignoramus it is still your choice whether to become offended or not. It�s taken me YEARS to learn to not let others manipulate me with words. I�m not perfect yet but I�m getting better. The other part of the equation is that what is offensive or what is uncivil is highly personal and highly context sensitive. Haven�t we all heard stories of people being fired because someone tells a slightly off-color joke and is overheard by a female co-worker who then freaks out? This is an extreme example but the principle is that if you simply set your goal to avoid offending people or being always civil then you let the lowest common denominator decide what is offensive or what is uncivil. If you ask me we all need to learn a healthy dose of �sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.� The nuancing that must be done here is that children should not have to live by this rule. They are too young to have developed the maturity to differentiate between words and actions. They define themselves to a much greater degree by what others around them say and think about them. Yep � we do this as adults too. But at some point we must leave behind our somewhat simplistic approach to words and learn that indeed words need never hurt us. Onward and upward.

Hey guys

Before the theme 'giving advice was the only thing that went wrong on the forums' is developed ad infinitum, I would like each one to also consider if the heavy handed response was fully justified despite the frustrations one may have had following advice and not finding the solution that one was looking for? Doesn't the observation that the experience with me was merely a repetition of the experience with other people from mainstream relgious traditions and the mainstream medical traditions, reveal something? It is one thing to say that the advice was inappropriate in the present circumstances (after all even specialists have met with the same response) but quite another to imply that giving advice was a terrible crime. Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts are trained to expect and deal with all sorts of reactions to benign suggestions. I do not have such a training. I have not done anything more than express my difference of opionions, yes unwittingly advice and coach in a specific context, but it was done without maliciousness in a blunt and direct fashion.

Hey guys

Priya: Forgive me for not having a clue as to what you�re talking about, but then I�ve been away lately and figure I must have missed something and it�s not your fault. Even though I don�t know exactly what happened, my advice would be to be to try to not draw any broad principles or rules from whatever it was that did happen. Every case is different. That�s one reason the Supreme Court won�t touch a lot of cases that are sent to it. It�s not that they�re not important; it�s that they don�t want to set any broad precedents by passing judgment on some of those very strange and unique occurrences that pop up every now and then. It�s very messy but it works. Try just moving on and see what happens.

Brad

Thanks for responding. There is more than one reason for me to believe that this whole thread had something to do with what happened with the nature of exchange in the Kundalini forums. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, what about getting specific about what exactly is being discussed here? Who said what and when, that merits all the comments on this thread in the first place. That is the only way that the people concerned can make this discussion a truly learning experience.

Since this whole discussion triggered of a soul-search in me, apart from reflecting, I was going through Gandhi's commentary on the Bhagavadgita. He says that all action carries with it some evil as there is no purity in this world. So if I wait to act/get involved until I can do it perfectly, then I may end up waiting forever. The only ones who 'do' everything 'perfectly' are the ones who do nothing at all.

So having done things imperfectly, it is time for me to get back to my breath and move on.

Hi Priya,
To be honest, I didn't follow too much on the Kundalini board because I don't have any experience with it at all. I was posting about experiences away from this board. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was commenting on participation involving you.

The only thing I can really say is that sometimes things get out of hand in exchanges on boards and I think our personal responsibility is just to sit back for a minute, realize there truly is another person behind the monitor on the other side of the conversation. They have real feelings and maybe even need the companionship of those posting, simply because they are alone or, like me, fairly isolated from having contact with many folks. We have a saying around our house here that we should always behave with "common courtesy" to everyone..and I just apply that to forums, emails, chat...whatever online thing I'm doing.

Again..I wasn't addressing anything to you, my apologies if it came across that way.

Blessings,
Terri

Another side note: We're on our way so I'll look forward to reading when I get back this week end.

Terri, best of luck in that softball tournament. I hope you all don't get too cold outside.

Priya, since JB was the one who started this thread, then maybe he can say if it's an indirect way of speaking to you about the heated discussions on the kundalini forum. My suspicion is that it wasn't, as "right speech" is a very appropriate topic for a forum on Christian spirituality.

Brad, I totally agree with this: but the principle is that if you simply set your goal to avoid offending people or being always civil then you let the lowest common denominator decide what is offensive or what is uncivil. If you ask me we all need to learn a healthy dose of �sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.� Your nuance about children is a point well-taken.

I think there are also other contexts where the "names will never hurt me" emphasis just doesn't work very well, and Terri alluded to one: married life! It's just almost impossible for intimacy to be restored for awhile after some hurtful things are said. And even though one tries the "sticks and stones" approach in the interest of not getting hurt, there is the issue of not feeling especially drawn to someone who speaks hurtful words, or has such a lowly, negative opinion.

-----------

Shifting the emphasis a bit, I'd like to point out a couple of Gospel texts which take a different approach to this topic. We might consider them in the "spirit" of the Buddhist teaching on Right Speech.

"I assure you, on judgment day people will be held accountable for every unguarded word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." (Mt. 12: 37)

and, "Say 'yes' when you mean yes, and 'no' when you mean no. Anything beyond that is from the evil one." (Mt. 5: 37)

What Jesus is calling our attention to is the fact that our words have not only the power to produce reactions/responses in others, but that they are formative in our own minds/souls. The words we speak/write carry something of our intentionality and consciousness, and the effects they produce in the outer world are part of the karma (spiritual consequences) we create for ourselves. We see this, for example, in negative, critical people, who look around one day and see that they have no friends (the converse is true, of course).

The power of speech/communication is a sharing in the formative power of the Word, through Whom God made/formed the universe. It is one of our most distinctly spiritual attributes, especially given that we can communicate in the context of conscious intelligence and freedom.

One problem that arises on the Internet is that people can throw out words while hiding behind a mask of anonymity. Sometimes this can be a positive thing in that people who are usually meek will feel freer to speak up, and so I don't want to begrudge anyone the right to have such a nickname. At other times, however, it makes it all too easy for people to be mean and nasty. Jesus' point would seem to say that even in such cases, the karmaic judgment will still be at work, as such words are attached to their author regardless of his/her Internet monniker.

Just a few thoughts . . . What do you all think of this?

Phil

I think there are also other contexts where the "names will never hurt me" emphasis just doesn't work very well, and Terri alluded to one: married life! It's just almost impossible for intimacy to be restored for awhile after some hurtful things are said. And even though one tries the "sticks and stones" approach in the interest of not getting hurt, there is the issue of not feeling especially drawn to someone who speaks hurtful words, or has such a lowly, negative opinion.

Yes, I think that�s a good point. We should definitely distinguish somewhat between the speech we use with intimates and the speech we use in public or business situations. Political speech, for instance (while needlessly uncivil and corrupting if you ask me) requires a certain amount of direct confrontational language as does the court room. And in business speech, while I may want to stay on good terms with a supplier or a customer, there are times when I must simply talk directly, clearly, and truthfully with full knowledge that the other party will indeed flip out. I have my own interests to protect.

In ANY situation �right� speech is going to enhance the ability to communicate and solve problems if there is, in fact, a solution to said problem or a willing listener on the other end. But the world is not perfect and one of the first things we should learn is not to be manipulated by the words of others. Only then can we even begin to apply the techniques of right speech for ourselves. Others may learn by example but even then I have a certain respect for the speaking styles of other people even though they might not be the same as mine or what I think is ideal. Goodness knows that Patrick Henry was a rude SOB as far as the British were concerned.

"I assure you, on judgment day people will be held accountable for every unguarded word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." (Mt. 12: 37)

If true, then God will have a very clever bit of judging to do. For words NOT spoken when some injustice is being done (Nazi Germany) could be quite damning. And words spoken in great anger, haste or rage may be exactly the right words for the moment when in the cause of justice, truth or fair play. I think there is a time and a place for outrage, and I have no problem doing so in language � written or spoken. But I hope to choose that time and place and not be egged on by the speech of others. And I hopefully will then know to try to see behind the seemingly harsh words of others and wonder if perhaps they are trying to communicate something important that requires a different tone of voice � or maybe they�re just venting. I just don�t see one size fitting all here, Phil.

I just don�t see one size fitting all here, Phil.

Oh, neither do I, and I don't see Jesus' words suggesting any such thing either.

He's simply saying that words ARE important because they're formative and a sharing in the creative power of the divine. It's not at all a matter of "what words," but of the "spirit" of the words, as you're pointing out. Sometimes silence is the better part; sometimes it's copping out. Sometimes the angry outburst is the creative use of words; sometimes it's being an egocentric brat! Context figures significantly here, as does the intent in which words are spoken.

The point about judgement is that those who twist their words to manipulate and taunt have twists that develop in the subtle levels of their human nature, where their subtle/psychic energy becomes distorted because of their manipulations. This is as causal as getting a sunburn when you stay out in the sun too long, or getting sick when you eat food you're allergic to. It's just the way things are set up, and it doesn't en matter that those who violate these laws believe them or not. They're part of the lawful universe we live in. Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, and the Jewish and Hindu sages have called our attention to this in different ways. Maybe you share with us your understanding from the Buddhist standpoint, which I've only read in passing.

I have been gifted with much peace by John XXXIII's famous motto, multa dissimulare, translated let a lot of little things go by and by my Dad's saying, There's a lot more peace in this world than most people seem willing to accept.

pax tibi,
jb

Hi all....

I have enjoyed reading all of your posts about the power of words. I like the stop drop and roll idea... but for me stop look and listen... then talk works better... not that I always follow it. (Grin)

Words do have incredible power. They can empower others or limit them, but more importantly maybe they can either affirm or discount the worth of another. This is not to say that we should always agree, but perhaps should take a minute - stop to listen to what the other person is saying, asking, needing. Sometimes this is communicated non-verbally which is one way discussions like these can be hard..... we can't see each other. Then as we respond, we should try to respond not out of our own needs/wants/desires but in response to their needs/wants/desires.

Ok.... that's what I think I/we should do.... the ideal maybe... which I fall terribly short of over and over again.

The listener has an obligation as well... to stop, look, and listen. Sometimes what we hear is not what is being said, and we need to recognize that possibility before we go off getting all hurt and upset. Giving the benefit of doubt....

And finally... There is a brief prayer in the New Zealand prayer book that I have found to be most helpful..... let me share just a piece of it:

"It is night after a long day.
What has been done has been done;
What has not been done has not been done;
let it be."

I could add..

What has been said has been said;
What has not been said has not been said;
Let it be.

Tomorrow is a new day..... let us welcome it together in peace.

Wanda