Judgement and Open Dialog (((Acceptance ./L

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote:

>

>

> 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.

>

 

Well, I had no idea who said, " Don't you think? "

So my comment was indeed general.

Also, if you look carefully at what I said, it

cuts both ways. It is saying that in the end

the responsibility comes back to oneself. So

*even if* someone makes a comment that

seems " judgemental " , then as I said: " the very

impulse to so place blame is evidence to oneself

that the spirit of discord already lies within

oneself. "

 

Perhaps you can see from this that I was not

picking on any particular person at all, and

that my comments were indeed of general intent.

 

And do you see the irony of *your* remark?

 

What is the root of discord?

*Is* there a lot of name-calling, blame placing

on this list?

*Is there* significant discord on this list?

 

What I am trying to say is that the moment

someone is categorized as good/bad, stupid/

not-stupid etc. the seed of discord is already

sown.

 

Focusing on others as a problem goes nowhere,

in my view.

 

 

Bill