Judgement and Open Dialog (((Acceptance ./Len

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn

wrote:

>

> L: What does " don't you think " mean? ... At this

> point, communication ends, I think.

> ~~~

> L. has a point.

>

> The question is not a open question (a true inquiry)

> but a rhetorical question, i.e. a statement in

> disguise. And like rhetorical questions in general,

> there is a summary curtness about it. It does not

> openly engage the other party, but rather cuts off,

> brings to an end, and with a tone of dismissal,

> effectively expressing judgement of the other.

>

> That being said, it is *very difficult* to cultivate

> open, nonjudgemental dialog. Apparently the difficulty

> lies in the prevalence of judgemental thinking in the

> first place. If there are labels of the other being

> formed in the mind (and with each label all the

> corresponding baggage) then those attitudes will

> sooner or later evidence themselves in the interchange.

>

> So if judgemental language is showing up in a dialog

> the root of discord is always going to be deeper than

> the words appearing on the surface.

>

> If there is discord arising from judgement, to place

> the blame on the other party is always astray from the

> real root. For to place blame is in itself to make

> judgement, so in the very impulse to so place blame is

> evidence to oneself that the spirit of discord already

> lies within oneself.

>

>

> Bill

 

 

And placing blame is what you´re doing, now.

I´wasn´t asking you a question, but explaining why I don´t see a

possibility to communicate with you as long as you don´t question

your image system. So, unless you have something relevant to say,

which shows some interest in challenging your beliefs, there will be

no communication betwen us. It´s as simple as that.

 

Len