School Talk 58 - Dominion
(bringing a good mood to floundering town)
We said that we were going to talk about dominion. Somewhere long ago I read something that mankind has the idea of having dominion. It said that man was to have dominion over the earth, and that he was to work on it and multiply it and make it fruitful--but most of the time human beings haven’t done that. So it seems they started off by exploiting it. That was the first thing they did—you might say rape it a little bit.
So instead of taking dominion over it which was to be somewhat like a steward. they started out to exploit it; and unfortunately I think that’s probably still going on.
In the last few years, a certain group of people have started towards taking dominion over things, you might say—they’re called engineers. And they do real nice things. They make widgets like these that Leland’s working on, so some dominion has taken place; but there is still an awful lot of exploitation.
So perhaps we need to look and see that we live on earth, and it’s about the only place we know of where we are equipped to live very well. Anywhere else I’ve heard of doesn’t seem to be suitable. We’ve landed on the moon and a few other places, but have discovered that other planets aren’t very good places to start a garden because there is no way to live on it. So we are hooked with the planet earth; and anybody that has worked a little bit in one spot or another has found they can make it even more productive over the years. But some use other ways of doing that keeps the earth running downhill all the time.
There was a nice old farmer lived back in the hills of Kentucky where I grew up. They finally got people they called county agents to come around and try to help the farmers know how to manage their farm and improve the productivity of it. The county agent went out to see this old gent and the old man said, “Get off of my property.” “I’ve worn out four farms before you were born.” So he probably wasn’t too “hep” on dominion over the land. He was exploiting a piece of land and when he wore it out, destroyed it and exploited it to the end, he moved on and bought another farm. So finally, it seems, there’s not too many others to move on to anymore. So maybe we better begin to think of dominion over it.
Now all this dominion was obviously meant to be over things—not over people. And, of course, some decided that the easy way was to get dominion over people—it started off, as far back as we can go. Somebody was always trying to take dominion over somebody else. They told them what to do—what not to do—they worked them—they took their income—they did all sorts of things. So you might say they started exploiting.
Some found that they could control people by many different ways. You can control them with fear--which we see very rampant in today’s society. If we can put enough fear into people, why they’ll do what you tell them to do—maybe. If they don’t, we will take measure to see that they do. We will lock them up, shoot them, electrocute them or a few other violent things—we might give them a pleasant injection and let them go to sleep and forget it.
But anyway, dominion is the thing that man wants over another human being. At one time, I’ve read that some people had as many as several million people as slaves to build their things.
Then for many long centuries all women were chattels. They were under dominion of a man. They finally rebelled—thank goodness. They got that done, but it did take centuries upon centuries before it was achieved. For a time men accepted that they were to have dominion over women. And that still goes on in some parts of the world.
So instead of men thinking of dominion over things, he likes to think of dominion over people. Now there’s one person that we do have certainly the privilege of having dominion over, and that’s number one--me.
In posing the question, I might choose to exercise power to control other people, but there is another way of doing it. That is that I could have dominion over me instead of having ambitions and struggles and all sorts of power plays to control other people. I could say, “How about controlling me?” Now if I wanted to control me to produce well being in the world, I could begin to accentuate my feelings of love, compassion, tenderness and add, a little humor every now and then. In this endeavor, everybody could have a pleasant feeling.
I could, with my own efforts, contribute to a pleasant harmonious feeling within myself. You might say that is producing light, and people are very attracted to light. They live very well on light, and so we could produce light in the world instead of darkness.
I could also decide that my whole purpose in living was to have more than anybody else, and to begin to figure out ways to exploit others. I could use powerful suggestion. I could use influence. I could use any number of ways that I could take control of other people so I had more than they. If I had my mind twisted in such a way, I might think that my whole well being, my whole success would be that I had more power over other people than anybody else, and so I might work at seeing how I could control them. And we might see that if we chose that, we are issuing out a bit of darkness. We could take advantage of them because they didn’t know what was going on and weren’t aware of our deception.
Now darkness detracts from life, detracts from well being. Darkness detracts from about everything we could think of; and I could either be a black hole that sapped up all the energy around me and contributed very little, if anything. In this case I am purely taking.
However, I could, if conscious, begin to see that there’s some way or other I can make a contribution. I could have a bit of understanding for myself and others. I could begin to recognize that people are doing many things that maybe I don’t like--this has nothing to do with it. They, with what light they have which is sometimes very very little, do things we don’t like. It is a discovery we can make that we can’t expect anybody to act differently—they can only act on what light they already have. Anything anyone says and does feels right, proper and/or justified in anything they do.
We can certainly see that all the people who attempt to control others feel that they are right--that they are proper and that they’re justified. They’re doing all sorts of things to get other people “in line”—the justification coming out like---“it’s for they’re own good”--most especially we do it because it’s good, or it’s the right thing to do”. Have you noticed how many articles and notices around that have warnings about various things these days? If you use this, it will make you ill. If you do this, it will make you have cancer, if you do this, it will produce some illness. Sooner or later, everything that we have any dealings with or consume, I am sure, will be dangerous. People make up some very peculiar cause and effect relationships.
If you eat bacon and twenty years later you get cancer, why then the bacon or something in the bacon, no doubt, gave you the cancer.
I wrote an article several years ago as an experiment. It was broadcast here in Phoenix on a radio station that said that it had been discovered that everybody that had died in the last two years had at one time or another eaten pickles. So, obviously, there was a cause/effect relationship that if you had eaten pickles, it’s fatal. And you could go on from that to many other things that sound just as reasonable and logical as that. The young man that read it on the radio station put it in the middle of the program. He said the switchboard at the station was flooded with calls in less than fifteen minutes. So obviously those folks took it quite different than what I did. My purpose was to see the joke in these going’s on, but they took it serious. But its fact isn’t it? About everybody you know that’s died since you can remember has at one time or another eaten pickles, haven’t they? So, you know, it’s bound to have cause/effect relationship.
But we can start to see what can I contribute to life all around me. Now you know, there’s a few of us in this room, and all of us are capable, at this moment, of sitting upright; and therefore, we are alive and breathing. There are a few different things we can do to make us feel altogether different, is that right brother Perry?
I could get very abusive to you or get very serious and you would feel one way, is that right? I might crack a joke someway or other and you’d probably feel a completely different way, is that right? And if you get a little recognition, you feel pretty good. You can discover and find many things to make another person feel quite a bit better than they do at this moment, is that right, Burl? Can you do that? It isn’t any great problem, is it? No effort at all.
In that way, I’m taking dominion over me as to what I’m going to say and do. How I’m going to express--what I’m going to make visible. Obviously, if I express more of the time that I am pleasant and pleasing or making something worthwhile, everybody feels better around me—also, I feel better, is that right—I’m bound to. But if I set out to how I’m going to control or correct or change you, and I devise all the means of suggestions to set those ideals up--I put fears in you so that I could control you with fears--if you spend your effort and energy to this, you’re going to have terrible trouble.
If you eat pickles, you’re going to die. Also, you drink water; you’re going to die sooner or later. I pulled that one up in Salt Lake City one time. I said it’d been discovered that everybody that had died in the last two years had been drinking water sometime or other. A sweet little old lady back in the back row said, “Dr. Bob, what are we going to drink?” Well, I knew she was a nice member of the major church in Salt Lake City, so I said how about Jack Daniels. That stopped that show in a little while. But it would be the same difference.
Now we could build fear in people, huh? I picked up a little article a gentleman sent me in the mail this morning, and I read it. It was about doom coming down the road. We’re going to have the worst awful financial economic situation here. It’s just a matter of time. Well, as long as we’re ok today, let’s enjoy it. But at any rate, he’s got gloom and doom, and people listen to him as though he knows. They make him an authority. The man that wrote these things sends out a newsletter so to speak. He sends out eleven thousand of them every month. So there are 11,000 people that are bound to be feeling a little bit on the anxious side if they read, accept and believe his suggestions. Well, I read it and I feel I got nothing to lose regarding financial affairs. I have nothing to gain either. So what’s the difference—it won’t hurt me one way or the other. You know if you get a lot of money, why maybe you could have a loss as he predicts. That’s the way he was dealing and he was profiting from it. His suggestions were designed to increase fear.
Now fear is not a very healthy feeling, is it? More people who come to see you come to see you due to various fears more than anything else, is that right? That’s basic and the motion they’re trying to get rid of.
Then another good one is that we can suggest to people that they’re a horrible failure unless they are constantly getting richer—lots of money--gotta make it everyday.
Now we all have apparently food, clothing, shelter and transportation. Apparently most of us have even more food than we require, right Randy? That’s his prosperity sign there. So we all have food, clothing, shelter and transportation. We all have interesting things to do if we just look around--they’re there. We also all know some interesting people. So what more could you really want?
Now we could probably suggest people into wanting all sorts of things besides those I just mentioned, right? And we could put those people on a treadmill of “wants”. So what has it accomplished? I don’t know. We could probably make a few dollars off of it if we wanted to; but what have we really gained. When we stop and look at it, we have detracted. We’re trying to take dominion over other people and determine their course of action, and we’re not paying any attention to our own, is that about right?
Now I think that everybody who puts out a good mood--a good feeling to everything and everyone around them profits a bit. We put up a little thought in Lana’s restaurant as to how the business is run that there is delicious food, top mood, great service and consistency. It certainly keeps you busy, is that right? Now and then you want to turn it off because it works too well, doesn’t it?—you have too much business.
It works extremely well. So we could apply it to anything else with whatever our product or service might be or in whatever we do and say with those people we find ourselves around each day. We got to have a mood with it if it’s going to function real well. Now we don’t mean just any mood. We, of course, mean an “uppy” mood. But if we go into any place of business, whether it’s our’s or somebody else’s; and we sit around with a real cruddy mood for a few minutes, everybody gets up and leaves. They will do that right away. And you can go in with a real “uppy” mood and the place gets busy whether it’s yours or somebody else’s.
So people are attracted to what you might call light. Now we say some people are light hearted--is that a common phrase you hear from time to time? Well, not very much anymore because you meet very few of them? Now there are lots of heavy-hearted people--we hear it said that some people are black hearted. Because of what?……they’re trying to control anybody and everybody they run into. They’re trying to take dominion over other people—not over themselves.
Now I don’t care how other people behave, that doesn’t give me license to do whatever they’re doing, does it? Say somebody calls me dirty names. Does that give me a license to call them dirty names? Does returning those dirty names produce anything of value for me? Perhaps; we could re-evaluate and see that my “up mood” is more contributive to a pleasant mood and being a good guest than whatever they said or didn’t say—really, who cares?
I told people one time that nobody could say anything real about me as a total person. They can only tell how they feel when I’m the subject of the conversation based on whatever; and I could care less how they feel about it, ok? They can’t really say anything about me when it’s all boiled down—they don’t know how I feel, what my motives are or anything else about what I do or say in my life. But if I am all upset and/or retaliate to what the other person says, what am I going to get into Perry?
….struggle, fights, nuisances and all these unpleasant relationships, and I don’t need any of those. I just don’t need any—it doesn’t serve any purpose but to have a lot of dissension.
So we can begin to place light in the world. Now we don’t have to go out and tell people what we’re doing. We don’t have to be a missionary. We don’t have to be any of these things. It may not be to our advantage to tell people what we’re doing even if they would listen. But I can begin to take dominion over me, and actualize something that’s already in me. We all have a little dab of it. We all have a little dab of tenderness, right? We all have a little dab of compassion. We all have a little dab of humor. We all have a little dab of caring for other people. We all have a little bit of space in us that we could call love or understanding for other people. We can also have little affection possible within us.
Now I can begin to actualize those aspects in me simply because I’ve taken dominion over what I want to project or show what exists in me. Maybe I do it simply because I feel better—the motivation doesn’t make any difference. If I begin to project that, have I created a great contribution and given it to all mankind? It’s called wearing the cloak of invisibility. You do it, but nobody knows what you’re doing. Now you’re not out there trying to convert the world to you’re particular viewpoints. You’re not trying to make people see things your way. But you are really lighting up the whole world—you’re lighting up everything around you, and I might add that it lights up for a long ways.
Bill Nunn and I experimented one time of putting on a very good mood in the Cattleman’s Restaurant which we started from 35 miles out in the country and at the end of a dirt road on a horse lot. People came from all quarters of the earth, is that right? We had a little guest book and we had people’s names in there from Switzerland, from New Zealand, from Korea, from Japan, from all the countries in Europe and every state in the U.S. along with the Provinces of Canada and an awful lot of Mexico. So how far out does this good mood or this light radiate? It’s not just the ones we run into and talk to, but it' radiates way beyond. Maybe somebody picks it up and sends it on beyond that.
We also at one time took a whole town that was in the doldrums. It was in a great depression, right? The whole town, Bill. And we put on a little show and put on a good mood and kept going and pretty soon the whole town came alive. One day we left and the town died. It’s still dead. I was back there not too long ago. I found that it’s still dead--the buildings are falling down and a whole lot more. But as long as there was light put into it--and the light we’re talking about is not what you pay at the utility company—you just turn it on yourself. This “up” mood made all the difference. You could comprehend the difference in the whole community—the whole area, is that right Bill?
(That’s the way it works.)
That’s the way it worked. We’re not talking about some theoretical something. We’re talking about something that’s actually been applied many times over. What do I do? I put out light. I don’t let anybody take dominion over me. If they come in with sad, woebegone feelings, or emotions, they can keep them. I don’t care. Let them have it. Let them be disturbed.
But you know something? If you ignore it and start putting out light, they get a lot lighter in a little while. They will brighten up a bit. So you can begin to make a little contribution of some kind that nobody really notices it, but they will experience it and feel it and they will get along better with it. So it doesn’t matter what you do, you’re always either taking dominion over yourself or you’re trying to take dominion over other people. Now when you are trying to take dominion over other people, you have an awful lot of struggle. You have an awful lot of conflict. They resist it. You push a little harder. They push back a little harder. So that purpose creates feuds, and that purpose doesn’t do quite well for humanity.
Now we can take all the dominion we want over things. If we want to keep the equipment up nice or we want to keep the building clean or we want to keep the car washed and shined and detailed and all that good stuff, we can do that all we want—that’s dominion over things. Ok? If you want to take a plot of ground and increase its fertility, you can do that. If you want to breed crops and bring them up to where you got a specialized crop or new breed of cattle, you can do that. If you want to work on machines and make new ones that will be labor saving, that’s fine--they’re all nice and interesting devices.
We can take all the dominion we want over things. We can take all the dominion we want over animals as long as we don’t abuse them. We can take dominion over plants. Look at the people who have taken various scrubby plants and by selective care and breeding (one old guy said he just talked to them a lot) got a lot better produce. We now have better producing crops. Those are legitimate dominions that we can have over things. Now most of us aren’t farmers, but we have dominion over a given area of living space to say the very least. We have some dominion over that. And most of us have dominion over a cat or a dog. But back off on dominion over people.
Now that is a very easy trap to fall in because it is so easy to obtain. As we observe people around us we discover that most everybody wants to turn over their responsibility to somebody else to fix or take care of. They complain and we interpret it as an asking of--“You tell me what to do and I’ll do it”, but is that what they really need or want, or is it just idle conversation.
And also if we observe, we don’t really take very much self-dominion over our states of health. We turn it over to a professional and then if he doesn’t do what we feel is right, we sue him and sometimes get millions off of him. That’s slipping these days a little bit, thank goodness. That’s why I quit the trade of doctoring. Doctors have to look at everybody that walked into the office with wondering “when are they going to sue me”. I didn’t want to look at people that way so I just quit—it works a lot, better. I don’t think any extra bunch of people passed out in the world because I quit. So I guess it wasn’t doing too much anyway.
But, nevertheless, we don’t have to try to have dominion over people, even though there are all kinds of people wanting to give it to us, is that right?
You can have all kinds of people wanting to make you responsible for their state of being, is that about right? No matter what and where, there is somebody who says that somebody else better be responsible for my happiness, peace of mind and state of being. So they seem to ask you to tell them what to do and what not to do. Of course I’ve noticed that if it doesn’t work out to their liking, they then proceed to blame—you! They refuse to be responsible at all. “Well, you told me to do it and I went on and did it, and look what happened?” So it’s all your fault.
So when we begin to see that we can take dominion over this one, then we begin to look to see what attributes of me I will take dominion over and begin to express more than those that are less desirable.
Now I haven’t found any great value in trying to get revenge or to be greedy or even to envy others and especially be violent towards anyone, Have you? Sometimes we think it would feel good and maybe it does for a moment, but sometimes we go overboard and hurt them beyond measure, and that doesn’t feel good—then we feel crappy, and there’s often a price to pay for it both inwardly and outwardly, huh? Feels like it would be good, but it doesn’t work to anyone’s advantage.
Now you can take the liberty to try it out. You can work a few weeks at trying to get revenge at somebody or trying to take advantage of them. After all, they want somebody else to be responsible, let’s do it and take good advantage of this; and then we can probably make a few extra dollars, ok? But you’ll find it doesn’t work if you’re doing it as a conscious experiment--not just as an unconscious reaction. You can find out very well. I’m not really telling anybody to do this--but it’s only as an experiment or a way to find out for yourself what happens when you consciously try revenge or taking advantage of others. I’m pointing out some different well-chosen attributes that we could actualize or else choose to control within ourselves.
If we take dominion over these attributes within ourselves, we can change (we know because we’ve checked it out) not only our own life, but everything around us a bit—we change what we radiate. Now I’m not saying that that’s what anybody should do or not do, but I say it’s worthwhile checking out. Ok? Check it out. And when we start checking it out, we begin to discover what a joy there is in actualizing certain potentials that each of us have within,
Now whether you have ever treated anybody other than
“macho” or tough in your life, you also have a certain place of tenderness within you, right? You also have a certain amount of compassion for people who are having difficulties or troubles. You have a feeling of love for some people in the world--but it can expand until it’s for everyone. It doesn’t have to be localized. We all have at least some. Sometimes it changes in midstream to something other than love; but nevertheless, we know that that capability is there.
By the same token, we also know that we have capability of actualizing revenge, hate, greed, lust, and we can name of a whole slew of those. There’s plenty of room for all those things in us. So now we have the potential of using that which I choose in me rather than just reacting and taking on the suggestion of it from others. Now I can’t ask for you to do it. It’s none of my business. I can’t come and say, “Now you should do this,” and “you should do that,” and “you should do the other.” “You should treat me thus and so.” That is entirely your choice, but you might find that it’s to your advantage to do so in the long haul.
The point is that I’m only interested in taking dominion over number one, and figuring out what attributes do I want to actualize and use over and over until they become spontaneous. When it becomes spontaneous, then I don’t have to be paying a particular lot of attention--it will be automatic meaning I will just normally respond and act that way.
Now nobody will know what you’re doing. So you’re not missionizing them, but you will find that it is highly contagious—just like anger is highly contagious—just like revenge is highly contagious. Practically every feeling and emotion that we experience is very highly contagious--probably more contagious than any virus, the common cold or AIDS. They say AIDS is hard to catch and emotions are very easy to catch. So I emotions are much more numerous available out there to catch that contagion than any other kind, and it usually leads into having a whole bunch of other kinds of uncomfortable stuff.
Now we’ll take for a minute saying that we take dominion over how we’re going to treat this vehicle we walk around in called the body. We all know that when we stress ourselves, we get loaded down into heavy emotions that the body must adapt to in one to 72 hours, is that right? We know that, but there’s really no need to do that.
Now when the adaptation starts, about the only thing one can do is get out of the way. Lay the body down or set it down, or do some sort of activity that’s real quiet so that you are not interfering in that good adaptation going on. The body can heal and the adaptation can be over with in a few hours. It doesn’t take but just a few hours for it to get over with. So we can take care of the body fairly well. We know that the body needs exercise and nutrition and shelter and a few other simple things, and I think we all take care of that pretty well.
I’ve talked for a good half an hour. Now let’s have discussion for close to a half an hour.
Leland, you’re usually good at putting out a few words. So let’s have a viewpoint from you, my friend.
(It appears that to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, would be to attempt to have dominion over one’s inner state. That would mean specifically dominion over the not ‘i’s that are constantly sounding off—whereas to seek dominion over external things—control over external things is precisely to leave the Kingdom of Heaven)
Oh yes, to run off and try to change external things. So whatever you mean by Kingdom of Heaven. We’ll use your words, the Kingdom of Heaven which consists of those ideas we’re talking about--that everybody has some feeling or potential of tenderness, peacefulness, quietness, joy, love, and compassion. Now you used certain religious words, which I usually avoid like the plague, but we’ll use yours. I read somewhere that a man said that the action of human beings reveals the presence of God. Does that make sense to you all right? Now by the same token, actions of human beings also can reveal the devil.
Now I can be at the quiet liberty of which one I want to reveal. I have an invisible slide door to either side. If you want to use this one, you can see that one thing is revealed. When I push it over here, you see another. So that’s entirely up to me which one I want to reveal, is that correct? So it probably means about the same thing as the words you have about the Kingdom of Heaven.
You’re making notes there, do you want to wait a minute.
(Could I cover a slightly different question?)
Oh yeah, go ahead, sure.
(I know that you frequently mention that pain in human relationships is not merely to be tolerant of other people….)
That’s for sure.
(But we can have what you call a relationship of wisdom or agape……….)
(Now if we say that this wisdom is the recognition that whatever they did…)
or doing now..
(or doing now…)
or might ever do…
(or might ever do that they felt to be right, proper or justified at the moment of doing…)
(What I’m looking for is where I can just drop it off at that point—to make it a rather objective evaluation of the person’s behavior. But what happens is I think, “Well, they did the best they could, but it surely wasn’t much, you know.)
Well, who are you to say how much it was? So let’s say that the word you’re looking for Leland is impersonal.
(Yes, that’s right.)
So just be impersonal which doesn’t mean cold. Being impersonal is a pretty worthwhile thing.
You see, if I get taking personality into everything that I look at, I will justify one person for doing the same thing and I’ll give somebody else a hard way to go for the same action or word. So I see them all doing it, and I do know they are all doing what they feel is right, or proper, or justifiable—probably mechanical; but even at that, it is the only light they have. Granted, they don’t have much light, but that means if they had more, they would probably behave quite differently. If they had as much light as you do, they’d probably do almost identical the same thing you’re doing, ok? So I don’t see anywhere where we have any grounds to evaluate any of that. They’re doing the best they can do at the moment of doing, even if that’s damn little-- maybe they’re blaming you for something you didn’t do, but they’re just talking without listening to what they’re saying. It’s just mechanical. They’re doing all they can--maybe they’re trying to avoid responsibility and lay it on the institution--you know that’s a great and wondrous one--the institution as a whole is purely non-person, that right? And remember, all the people in the institution are doing all they can to maintain the institution. So it’s the institution that did it. It wasn’t me. I just did what they said. It’s like the guy who said, “I’m just enforcing the law, that’s my job.” So he feels absolutely no responsibility for what he’s doing, is that right? He’s just taking care of whatever the book, rule or law says.
So there’s four great professions running around the world and each one of them has jillions of devout servants doing their bidding. Is that right?
We have the healing art and there are all kinds of people pushing that? We have power politics and there are all kinds of people pushing that one. It’s just doing what politics calls for. What the law calls for. There are other people who are doing big business. They don’t consider, they’re just making the corporation grow or the business grow. They’re not saying, “Well, we’re using very exploitative methods, very powerful hypnotic suggestion to control people into buying our products.” They don’t ever say that. No, they’re just making the corporation a success.
And then, of course, there are other professions like theology; and they set up a standard of right and wrong, but it’s within that theology--the particular one they subscribe to. And that theology says that certain behavior is bad and certain behavior is good. Whatever theology is associated dictates the behavior expected. So now they’ve got to condemn one and get one to feel guilty until it is agreed to do it they’re way, but, you see, all of this is not because the man is bad if we remember the meaning of agape. They have a saying in theology—we hate the sin, but love the sinners. So you know, that gets the point across, right? I don’t see any reason to hate anything because the man is just doing what he feels right, proper and justifiable. Maybe if he’s around enough light, he might even change—you can’t ever tell. He might come out of it. He might do something altogether different—he might see things differently and thereby act differently.
Ok, Lana, you got one here Hon?
(Well, in a work relationship, someone is here and I really understand he is right, proper and justified….)
(But I am too!)
Right, it’s bound to be.
(So how do I get the job done? I mean it’s kind of learned that living is going beyond—I understand perfectly you can’t do anything, that’s all they can…)
That’s all they can do.
(I’m not able to get…)
Through to them? Hire somebody else honey. It’s very simple.
(When it’s your boss?)
I don’t care who it is, hire another boss. So what. There’s usually many ways to get around it. I’m not trying to give a “how to” as you well know.
Yes, there are times when there is a total disagreement; and so if the guy’s the boss--he’s paying you--so do it his way—that is until he goes out the door and then, do it your way. That answer your question—that’s simple—why make an issue out of it. While he’s there, do it his way. The moment he’s gone, go back to doing it your way. What’s the difference—you must have observed that it’s done all the time. Everybody does it—I think. Don’t you? You did. But, of course, if it was your Dad, you’d fight with him, huh?
(But I’d still do it when he wasn’t……..)
You went back and did it your way when he left. But you argued with him while he was there. So why not just go do it his way and be done with it; and then it’s over with. You know, he goes away quicker if you agree with him or them, is that right? The boss goes away quicker if you agree with him immediately. The old man goes away quicker if you agree with him, is that right—so it’s easy. Let him think….
(He’s controlling me.)
Right--by all means--because he wants to be in control; and if he doesn’t feel he is, he’s going to jump up and down and stomp his little feet and all sorts of other commotions that is totally unnecessary. You can just turn him on with light. Just agree that he’s absolutely right. Say you’re glad he brought it up and thank you. Then go on about your business and he’ll go away real soon feeling fine, and you go on and do things like you see as right or proper, is that right?
(Continuing with Leland’s thought—the way he brought up the right, proper and justified. I don’t have to agree with his motive or with what he’s doing in any way, right?)
Oh no, I don’t even know what his motive is. I figured that out a long time ago. People have probably many many many motives for everything they do, and I don’t want to have to go through the analysis. I think that would even strain a big computer much less a little lap model. So I don’t know if I’d go on with that. I think everybody has gobs of motives—mostly of which are unknown to anybody around them as well as to the doer. Now you run up and ask him why, he’ll tell you something; but it doesn’t mean anything. It can be a marvelous exercise to listen to all the chatter from self and others speculating what the motive was, when in fact there may be many motives, none of which has even been considered.
(It’s just his behavior.)
It’s just his behavior. You don’t have to agree with it, but I remember and know that that’s all he could be doing, so why get upset about it.
(And he might even become violent if the emotion persists.)
Well, if he bit my ear off, I’d probably kick him around a little bit to get him quieted down, but only long enough to get him off my ear.
(Even though you understand that fellow feels right, proper and/ justified for biting your ear, that doesn’t prevent you from acting on it?)
Well, it depends what my interest is, so that’s to be considered. If It’s survival, yes, I figure I’d go do it, but there are other kinds of acts to consider otherwise. Now I’ve lived in this world a considerable number of years, and I haven’t had anybody attack me long enough for me to have to fight back. One guy hit me in the head with a smoking stand. I had to go get a little patch in there. It’s silver and that’s more valuable than bone anyway. So I got a nice patch in there; but why bother—he was already gone as soon as I got the fog shook out of my head. He was long gone. So why bother with that. Another guy hit me in the back of the neck going down the street one time here in Phoenix--I didn’t get on my feet for a quite a spell, and when I did, I didn’t know who or where he was—he was long gone. Why worry a time or think about him. Most of the time if somebody got violent, they hit and leave—they hit and run, you know, they don’t stick around to keep doing it. But if they did, yes, you can always take care of that; but not with the idea of getting revenge, but merely protecting your life, ok?
Objectively. Slow him down the best possible way as soon as possible.
Linda, how are you doing today? All right?
(I just recently had a discussion with a nine-year-old lives in Dallas, Texas.)
(And he says to me. I seem to have trouble with power struggles with everybody—everybody I come in contact with, and I’m tired of it. What can I do?)
Right. He can them have the power and go on about his business. In other words he’s been conditioned that he’s supposed to have dominion over them; and as long as he tries that, he’s going to have power struggles, is that right? Now if he says, “Who cares what you do,” and goes on, then he’s not caught up in the power struggles any longer.
Ok, who else has got a word to say here? You can put it down or pick it up, challenge me or anything else. Yes, Miss Tina?
(When you were speaking about people a while ago, you said they are so willing to turn themselves over…)
Oh yes. OOOOOOOHHHH yes!
(So when you’re acting in the role as teacher for a certain subject, it seems to me that turning yourself over could be a good thing. If they did that, they might be more receptive to learn. Is that a time it is justifiable?)
Well, did they want you to teach them or did they want you to take charge of their existence. There’s a big difference. Well, naturally, if they come to you to find out about a certain subject, you teach them the subject; but that is not trying to control them or take dominion over them—that is to impart some information, is that right? But it wasn’t telling them what they should do or should not do, what they should believe and not believe, what they should live on and so forth. You don’t care.
Ok, that’s not trying to have dominion over them. You’re just trying to share information with them. In that case it is conscious sharing. But when you are called upon to teach a given subject; obviously, you would share with them some factual material that they can use; and if they want to make big letters, fine. If they want to make little letters, that’s fine too, right? And if they don’t ever want to practice anymore, that doesn’t matter either. There you go.
Ok, Perry before you leave, you can contribute your question.
(Some have questioned the reality. Maybe I understand another person can do whatever they want to do and they can justify it, but what would be an experiment to run to prove it to be true. I notice on the bottom of the little sticker it says, “Check it out.” Might you give us a method to check it out?)
Ok, would you feel it justifiable to go over and bop Joyce?
(I, personally, no, but I am sure that there are some people that might find it right or proper.)
Ah, you don’t know that, sir.
(That’s a what if?)
I imagine there is a possibility that one or two people might could bop her, but they feel justified in it. I’m asking YOU.
You couldn’t. Ok, then you try to go over there and bop her. You’re body won’t work to do that--it just won’t unless you justify it and say, “Well, I can prove that theory all wrong, I’ll go bop her one.
(Then I would have proven it wrong, right?)
You haven’t proven it wrong because you got around to justifying it. You hunted you up a new justification.
It’s like in hypnosis. I had a teacher who said that nobody would do anything under hypnosis that they wouldn’t do in any ordinary waking state. I agreed to that, except—and it’s still agreeing with his statement--but you can give the person a justification under hypnosis for doing something. As long as they have a justification, they’ll go ahead and carry out the suggestion. So there’s a person sitting on the ground and we could hypnotize him and say, “That person is a spy, and he’s selling secrets to Russia, and he’s got four pages of it in his briefcase, and we got to get it to protect our country. You go get the briefcase.” Now ordinarily he wouldn’t go steal the briefcase, but he would do the act under hypnosis. Under hypnosis, you can get the justification into the person a little quicker. If I told it to him in his ordinary state, he’d look at me and say, “He’s not a spy.” “He just lives in Mesa.” That would be the end of that show. He wouldn’t buy the justification. But if you get anybody to justify anything, they will do things that they ordinarily would never do. So if somebody sells you a justification for doing something, you can do things that you ordinarily wouldn’t do. And if you think of all the few little episodes you’ve been involved in your life that you’d rather not think about anymore, you see that you felt very very justified when you did it. Now the justification may have broken down one second after you got it done; and then you felt guilty or frightened or whatever it was, but while you were doing it, it felt extremely justified.
So when you look around, you will see that you couldn’t justify going down to the bank and laying a revolver up on the window and telling the teller to fill it full of money. You can’t quite justify that. You wish you could, but you can’t; and if you could, you’d do it, isn’t that right? If you could justify it, but I’ve talked to some people who really can justify it. I’ve talked to people who have justified about any crime you can come up with. They are all very justified in it. They tell you the justification in no uncertain terms. So, you see, any of us are potentially an excellent criminal if we find dome convincing justification. But if you can’t justify it, you can’t pull that one off. You could rob a bank. You could have all the attributes of a bank robber except you haven’t got a justification for it.
Now who knows that one day you or I might have a justification for it? If you’re family was starving and there was no way for you to get any funds or you couldn’t find any way to get any money, you might find a way to justify stealing to feed the family. Is that right?
I said it’s highly possible, I don’t know. Somebody asks what would you do if so and so happened. I don’t know. I don’t know if I can have a justification at that time. I never know what I would do under certain circumstances as they come into a present moment. I’ve heard people say I’d do so and so adding this and that—but do they really know? Have you ever intended to do something and when the time cam you found yourself doing something completely different? I don’t know what I’d do if any kind of these circumstances came along, do you? I, you and they will do whatever seems appropriate at that moment—whatever seems justifiable or right or proper at that moment.
(I agree with you 100% that the justification breaks down—real quick.)
Right after you do it, right? And then you feel guilt.
(All kinds of stuff. What about the right and proper—do they ever break down.)
No, not if you feel it’s right and proper. You might change your ideas about it eventually by getting more information.
It will break down in a manner of minutes because one little conditioning bit says, “Well, you got to have your way now and its fun and it’s this and this.” And as quick as you get it done, the justification disappears, and you’re all torn up and in guilt.
(This would relate back to then, having dominion over what justifications we use?)
Right. I’ve found, with many long years of working with it, that if I justified, I better leave that off because it’s going to get broke down. That justifier will run off and the accuser will be there in real quick order. If I feel its right and proper, fine, I’ll go ahead and do it, but if it’s just justifiable, you better think it over and not do it. You might as well let it go because if you don’t, it’s going to be hollering at you in a very short order. When you get it done, the justifier runs and the accuser comes up and screams at you and makes you feel terrible over whatever you’ve said or done.
So forget the justifying. We do observe that most people work on feeling justified, ok? And it just is not a good basis for action of any kind.
It’s like the famous feuds of the Martins and the McCoys. They fought for about 300 years over in the hills where I came from. Martin would kill a McCoy and then the McCoy’s, of course had to retaliate and felt justified in killing a Martin. This went on for 300 years; and finally a Martin Boy and a McCoy girl met at Berea College in Kentucky and decided they were very much in love and were going to get married. They went home and made peace with the whole outfit. They had a glorious big wedding and there hasn’t been a killing since. So love finally ended the problem in the long run, but they had continued this killing for years.
So if somebody feels justified in getting revenge, what will the person who had the revenge against him feel? One can observe it over and over that he would feel justified in returning revenge for that atrocity and then there is an infinite loop of revenge back and forth. It never ends. Sometimes it’s better just to forget the whole deal and go on—get a cup of coffee and forget it, huh?
(I just had a comment. “I heard one of your discussions recently in the new set. It finally dawned on me that people don’t know what’s right and go on and do wrong anyway.)
(It took a few years to see that.)
Oh yes, it took a while. Anybody could see all those jerks knew what was right and did wrong anyway. That’s what we’re taught from year one. And we’re still taught it every day by society. That’s why we set up great gobs of prisons and jails because it is believed that people knew what was right and they did wrong anyway. So let’s lock them up and punish them and then they’ll know better next time. The point, though, is that most of them are back in the same trouble before they even got back to where they called home anyway.
So, you know, I don’t think locking somebody up ever did anything, only let him be associated with some other people who knew more ways to commit crimes than he did. They call them correction institutions, but I hardly think that’s the proper description. Any other questions, comments?
Leland, you back in business here?
(Ok, the difference then, clearly between toleration and wisdom is that the person who tolerates thinks or says, “They should have known better”. He judges them as guilty of whatever he says.)
He’s thinking, I’m such a goody good two shoes, I will ignore it or tolerate it. That way he doesn’t have to look at his own behavior, beliefs, or ideals.
(Is it then, that the one who has agape has not formed any opinion or conclusion.)
No, he just says everything is going along all right. They’re doing the same thing I’m doing. They feel right, proper, and justifiable and that’s what I’m doing. I feel that everything I do is right or proper or I wouldn’t do it—couldn’t do it. And you see there’s an awful lot of people pat themselves on the back and talk how tolerant they are. Now I know this is bad behavior, but I will tolerate it because—“my wings are already sprouted a little”.
So I don’t want to be tolerated anywhere. If you don’t like it; holler at me, but don’t tolerate me. Toleration is the ultimate “put down” in my book. Is that about right? I’m tolerating you because I’m so good and you’re so bad, but I’m still putting up with you.
(One of my most difficult situations was a fellow that put a gun to his girlfriend’s head and threatened her, and he is a convicted felon. So they sent him to counseling with me. He proceeded to try to convince me that he was justified, and we started…)
….started from there?
(But then he got drunk and went out and tried to comfort a child and sexually molester her.)
(So, I suppose he can justify this?)
(So he’s now incarcerated.)
(Now I can justify putting him away.)
Oh, I expect that anybody who could justify those kinds of behavior would probably need to be quarantined for the well being of everybody around him—not punished, but quarantined.
Do you remember when they used to quarantine people because they had scarlet fever or because they had this disorder or that disorder in the house? The health officer put a plaque on the outside of the door. Nobody could come or go. Now that wasn’t to punish the people, but was to stop the spread of the infection, is that right? It’s called quarantined, and certainly I’ve seen a good number of people that I felt that everybody was better off (including that person) by being quarantined rather than turned loose on the street. I’ve worked with people that are almost identical to the one you just talked about and when they drink a little bit, they get crazy.
That reminds me of the story of the guy that went in the bar and sat down and said “Bartender, give me a drink; and while you’re at it give everybody else at the bar a drink.” “Make one yourself bartender.”
So the bartender poured one for himself and this went on for about four rounds; and the bartender said, “Say, you’re tab’s getting pretty big. You’d better pay up.” The guy said, “I don’t have any money.” So the bartender came from behind the bar and just beat him up and threw him out the door. You know, he felt very justified.
A few minutes later, the guy came fumbling back in, sat up at the counter and said, “Give me a drink bartender.” The bartender said, “I guess you want everybody else to have a drink.” The guy said, “Yes.” The bartender said, “I guess you want me to have one too.” The guy said, “No, you get mean when you drink.”
So you know this guy you’re talking about gets mean when he’s drinking, so it best to quarantine him. And I don’t think of it as punishment—don’t get me wrong. I don’t think any of us are goody good enough to say punish somebody, but I certainly think that society, of necessity, must quarantine certain people. Not only with ones that are violent, but also ones with certain disorders that are highly contagious. We don’t want them on the street with it. It’s not because they’re bad people or anything of the sort, but simply as a protection for a greater number of people. You could quarantine somebody, but not with the idea of punishment. I wouldn’t feel to punish this poor guy. I think he’s real sick.
(I had another one.)
(We had a grand baby born two month ago that didn’t have any faculty to breath. His heart wasn’t working properly. The doctor said his muscles weren’t placid. He couldn’t give it a name, but the end result was they were sustaining life when the child couldn’t. So we had a little bit of difficulty convincing the medical people to let go.)
(I’m wondering if I justified anything.)
No, I don’t think so. I think that’s common sense. I’ve seen one baby kept on a respirator and the pumps until the flesh began to fall apart. There’s nothing’s to gain by that. If the baby couldn’t survive, why keep it pumped up--you’re only kidding yourself and running up a big bill. I don’t see any reason for it.
(He died last night which is about a week after they took him off the respirator.)
Well, he could barely survive anyway, so I don’t see any value in the pumps. He didn’t have all his pieces. You did the best you could and that was it. So let’s don’t have any feeling one way or the other—it’s no matter of justification. It’s a matter of what I can see as being proper for the situation. It’s not proper for every situation, but for that situation, it seemed the most proper thing to do.
That’s not justification, that’s proper to the best of what light we have. That was very proper.
Ok, any other comments, questions. We’d better come to a halt here. Leland, go ahead.
(Freedom to experience apparently is what finally does away with the six not i’s.)
That’s what gets around it. I’m free to experience whatever may arise today. I’m going to experience it anyway; I might as well do it gracefully instead of with a big gob of resistance and emotions, right?
It’s going to happen anyway, so I might as well experience it freely. If it rains on me today, it rains on me today. So why not be free to get a little wet. What’s the difference?
If somebody comes up and calls me a dirty name, they are quite welcome because I’m quite free to experience it. I don’t let it bother me one way or the other, but if it did bother me, I’m going to experience it freely.
If I have a pain, I might as well experience it freely—it’s going to be there anyway, ok? There’s no use fighting with it. I know the pain’s there. I’m not going to sit around and say, “I don’t have pain.” “I don’t have pain.” “I don’t have pain.” I know I have it, but I’m free to experience it. So what. Ok? Does that answer your question?
(Would that be called taking dominion over self.)
That’s taking dominion over yourself. You are choosing what you’re going to express—what you’re going to act out in this world and not what conditioning or not i’s are having you to do or say. Ok?
That’s it for today.