Judgement and Open Dialog (((Acceptance ./L

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/16/2006 7:09:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

Nisargadatta writes:

 

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:19:59 -0000

" billrishel " <illusyn

Judgement and Open Dialog (((Re: Acceptance ./Len

 

Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002

wrote:

>

> 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

>

 

No, I wasn't placing blame. What I said is true and

stands on its own. I wasn't applying what I said to

any particular person, including " Len " .

 

And there are those " you " statements again.

 

Not interest in what you are selling, sir!

 

It is very simple, and I do hope you get the message

this time.

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

How disingenuous to judge someone's words and then deny responsibility by

claiming it to be a general comment. Bobs angry rants are admirable in

comparison.