This is not about openness at a purely conceptual level.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is not about \u2018talking the truth\u2019. It is rather about ‘deeply being truthful\u2019. Of course, this is not incompatible with talking the truth. Far from! Only: it\u2019s not about that. In very special circumstances, it may even indeed encompass precisely not<\/em> bringing the truth.<\/p>\n For instance: you might tell a dying father that his dead son (same car accident) is OK.<\/em><\/p>\n The Openness that is meant here is a subconceptual<\/em> one: towards subconceptual mental processing [see: \u2018About \u2018Subconceptual\u2019<\/a>]. This is why I prefer to write it with uppercase.<\/p>\n In Eastern (Buddhistic) narrative this can be seen in \u2018emptiness\u2019 which is empty of concepts with the specific goal of being Open to the subconceptual.<\/p>\n Universally Open<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s not about being open to a few things, nor even to many things.<\/p>\n It\u2019s about being Open to everything because it originates within yourself. It is a way of perceiving [see: \u2018Eyes of Soul<\/a>\u2019] beyond every conceptually conceivable element.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, this is not \u2018meta-physical\u2019. No need to use a big term that ultimately means little. \u2018Physical\u2019 is good enough. \u2018Meta\u2019 gives the idea that one might be able to transcend everything without transcending oneself.<\/p>\n This being said, Openness may indeed be infinite. Nobody knows where it ends or even whether it ends.<\/p>\n >< Doctrinal religious organizations<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n of which there are many out of a lack of openness. Their diversity in appearances would be OK in case of transparent appearances.<\/p>\n However, I\u2019m afraid this is not the case, to a huge degree. Thus, they are prone to fight each other in order to keep their closedness.<\/p>\n In a doctrinal religion, the \u2018doctrine\u2019 may stand in the way, or it may not, to an individual believer. It can be \u2018normal\u2019 \u2013 or should one say \u2018normalized\u2019 \u2013 to such degree that one isn\u2019t bothered. It may seem like the only natural course.<\/p>\n In fact, has religion not always been primarily about Openness?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n For probably at least 100.000s of years, religious feelings were Open. Then: people trying to get some (more and more conceptual) grip on it. Then: organizations taking control in order to control individuals.<\/p>\n But with control of course comes closedness. It seems paradoxical and at the same time it\u2019s obvious, at least to me: Openness is principally open to any direction, including closedness.<\/p>\n Meditation<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n is a good way to attain this Openness, in individual freedom.<\/p>\n Of course, I know it may take quite some time \u2013 even years \u2013 to attain a \u2018top level\u2019 of meditational prowess,<\/p>\n which is not needed. You may \u2018go with your own flow\u2019, inviting meditation by Opening yourself to it. Then it may take over and open you further\u2026 if you let it. Again, this is a matter of Openness.<\/p>\n Where does it all go to?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In \u2018AURELIS flow\u2019: towards Open Mindfulness<\/a>.<\/p>\n