[Dave]

I understand that true spiritual work and actual Arvut are realized specifically in the ten, and I am not suggesting that we try to do spiritual work with the general public or expect mutuality from people outside the spiritual environment.

My question is more about inner direction.

Is there spiritual value in trying to extend the tendency toward Arvut outward in a hidden, measured way, while still keeping the ten as the only place of actual spiritual work?

For example, in the ten, I aim for Arvut as purely as I can. With my family, maybe I cannot expect mutual Arvut, but I can still make a hidden effort to relate with more bestowal, patience, responsibility, and care. With acquaintances, the level is even lower. With the public, lower still, and always with normal boundaries, not making myself naïve or vulnerable to being used.

So I am not asking whether I should replace the ten with outside relationships. I am asking whether this expanding “direction,” from the ten outward into life, has any value for spiritual advancement if it remains rooted in the work of the ten.

Or is the correct view that these efforts may be good human behavior, but they do not really contribute to spiritual growth?

Just to clarify, I agree that the ten is the place of spiritual work. My question is whether my conduct outside the ten can become part of the same inner intention, if I consciously relate it back to the ten and to bestowal, or whether I should treat it as completely separate from spiritual advancement.

I think the question really centers around how “gray” vs “black and white” my environment is outside of the ten.

What I mean is this: if I hold the idea that the only real spiritual work is in the ten, then it can start to feel like everything outside the ten is just black, background, or almost irrelevant (0 vs 1). It reminds me of The Wizard of Oz, where the world turns from black and white into color. The ten feels like the place where life turns to color, and everything outside feels like motion, noise, or background activity.

Another analogy would be a mother who has a baby. She can be at work, doing normal things, talking to people, handling responsibilities; but inwardly, everything is still somehow connected to the baby. The baby becomes the center of gravity. Everything else has less volume, less noise, less importance. In that same way, I yearn for and strive toward the work in the ten as the most important thing in life.

But I am trying to understand whether we should think about this in a binary way, like zero and one: the ten is one, and everything outside the ten is zero. Or whether there is a kind of gradient.

Using quantum superposition only as an analogy, reality does not always seem to fit neatly into simple zero-or-one categories. There can be shades, tendencies, probabilities, and hidden states that are not fully actualized in the same way. So I am asking whether my relationship to the outer environment is spiritually a zero, or whether it is more like a progressively dimming gradient.

In other words, the ten is the actual place of spiritual work. But as I move outward; family, acquaintances, society, the public; is it all spiritually zero? Or can there still be some value in quietly tending toward Arvut, bestowal, and responsibility in these outer circles, as long as I understand that the root and actual work remain in the ten?

Does that kind of inner orientation support spiritual advancement, or is it simply good corporeal behavior with no spiritual effect? Or, indeed, is that a core mechanism of the work as a whole?

[Dave]

Hi Gianni, I’d like to ask for guidance about a disturbance in our ten around preparation for Congress.

We had been planning for some friends to gather in person for Congress, while the rest would join remotely. At first, it seemed like we were moving forward, but over the last several days the issue has reached a head. Two friends have now left the ten chat altogether. We have reached out and are making efforts to reconnect with them, and we are planning to address this in a YH this weekend.

Part of the tension seems to be around how the in-person gathering was planned. Some friends felt that things moved ahead too quickly — Airbnb, travel plans, etc. — before the whole ten had really caught up or felt included in the decision. On the other hand, some friends did not express a strong opinion at the time, and practically, at some point a decision had to be made. So I can see both sides.

Now it turns out that only about four of the twelve friends can actually be there in person. I brought this to another teacher, and he suggested that if the in-person gathering is creating disturbance or separation, we might consider canceling the in-person gathering and putting all our effort into creating one inclusive remote experience for the whole ten. That would be a hassle for the friends who already made plans, but it could also be a gesture toward restoring togetherness.

At the same time, we know physical gathering is highly valued and can bring a lot back to the ten. So the question is not simple.

Coincidentally, in the advanced class today, the topic was making decisions in the ten. The main points I heard were that a decision is a means for connection, that we should reach decisions together with one heart, that voting or technical agreement is not the main thing, and that sensitive decisions should be approached only after warming the hearts and strengthening the bond.

So my question is: practically, how should we approach this now? Should we continue with the in-person gathering for the few friends who can attend and do our best to include everyone remotely, or should we seriously consider canceling the in-person gathering so that the whole ten can participate in one shared form together? More importantly, how do we make this decision in a way that repairs connection rather than deepening the disturbance?

[Dave]

Hi Gianni,

I’ve been trying to understand how to orient myself to the morning lesson.

In most learning environments, there’s some visible structure: topics, progression, or a sense of what we’re building toward. In the morning lesson, I’m not seeing that clearly, and I sometimes find it difficult to follow.

Is the lesson meant to be understood in a structured way like a curriculum, or is it intentionally non-linear and more about internal states than conceptual progression?

If it’s the latter, how would you recommend approaching it so that I’m working with the system correctly rather than trying to impose a structure that isn’t there?

Thanks,
Dave

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by Dave.

[Dave]

Overall, I really appreciate the intention behind the Graduate Environment as a one-stop shop. Having the schedule, recordings, forums, and inspirational content centralized is genuinely valuable and aligns well with how I use KabU.

One area where I experience consistent friction is with recorded lesson playback. Currently, recordings are browser-based (via Vimeo), and if I don’t finish a lesson in one sitting, I often lose my place when the browser tab refreshes or the session expires. When that happens, I have to manually scroll and search to find where I left off, which interrupts continuity and makes it harder to return to the lesson.

Hosting recordings on YouTube (maybe unlisted?) instead could significantly reduce this friction. YouTube automatically tracks watch progress, allows seamless continuation across devices (PC, phone, TV), and offers much better usability on non-desktop devices. Right now, cross-device continuity doesn’t really work, and browser playback on TVs or other devices can be clunky and hard to navigate.

From a learner’s perspective, YouTube has already solved many of these usability and integration challenges. Leveraging that platform for recordings would make it easier to resume missed lessons, improve continuity, and reduce barriers to staying engaged, especially for students who move between devices.

[Dave]

We had a friend who was struggling with some group dynamics and left for about a month. The very day he came back, several members of the ten arrived late to our ten meeting because they had just been in a private side meeting together. It also became clear that there’s a side chat among them. Not long after this, that same friend ended up leaving again.

At the retreat, Tony said: the path will hit you square in the place it hurts the most. That’s exactly how this feels. My biggest fear is that the path could turn into just a social club, and when I see these dynamics, it goes straight to that fear. Sometimes it feels like a kind of social hierarchy in the ten, a “first string” and a “second string,” like a high school sports team.

What weighs on me even more is when I see the friends just move on so quickly from this, almost as if nothing was learned. In those moments, I feel the selfishness of it, and then I realize that feeling itself is within me. The friends are like a mirror, and if I feel selfishness in them, it’s because I’m equalizing with those feelings that are also in me. That leaves me feeling selfish for even wanting things to be different. It becomes heavy, like something I can’t overcome in myself.

I haven’t brought this up in the ten, choosing instead to keep it as inner work. I’m trying to follow the guidance I’ve heard: not to let criticism pass my lips, but to judge myself, lower myself, and raise the friends above me. My focus has been: love covers all crimes, anything but leave, there is none else besides Him. And it is I who must love the friends, not the friends who must love me. It is I who must give importance to the friends, not get importance from them. I’ve been praying to bring my heart into the ten, not my mind, and to annul myself before the friends even when my perception makes it difficult.

I don’t want to blow this out of proportion or stir conflict. And I wonder: is this even appropriate to bring up here in the forum? But I also can’t deny that it weighs on me. I’m trying to use it as material for connection, and I’d welcome any feedback.

[Dave]

I was joking with a friend that if you don’t hate the friends sometimes you’re not doing it right. He said love is just love, always smooth, never mixed with hate, and that he never feels hate at all. That stopped me and made me wonder if that is really love or if it is just the will to receive playing with its own idea of others.

From what I can tell real love only shows up outside that bubble. It is not that we should go looking for hate or conflict, but love only becomes real when there is resistance, when I feel the gap between myself and others and have to rise above it. My experience has been totally different from his. I feel that friction all the time, always needing to pray to rise above it. Is it normal to feel that friction? Correct discernment? What to do about it?

• This reply was modified 9 months, 2 weeks ago by Dave.
• This reply was modified 9 months, 2 weeks ago by Dave.

[Author]

Replies