Guest guest Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Namaste Satsanghis: Here is my honest opinion as a fellow member (definitely not as a moderator). Our discussions during the past months with the focus to understand the nature of a jnAni has been diverting from its original purpose. Everything that we all want to hear has been repeated with various words and scriptural references. Instead of discussing the subject matter for our spiritual progress, we use our energy to engage in argument. Unfortunately the subject matter of our discussion, jnAni is a goal and it can never be achieved through a resolution based on argument. This is only my opinion and please do not engage in another argument with another critical analysis. I have taken time to think and next several paragraphs contain the summary of my thoughts. In general, in an argument we like to take positions that are usually opposite to each other. While engaging in an argument we tend to think that we are always more " right " than those who take a different position. Arguments arise when we are not willing to consider others' position as potentially being valid. This is what is known as the right/wrong paradigm. The right/wrong paradigm can produce three possible outcomes: (1) proven right, (2) proven wrong, or (3) avoiding to be wrong. While there may be a short term feeling of satisfaction when we think that we have convinced someone else is wrong, arguments rarely will lead us to long term gratification. Everyone in an argument wants to be " right " and tries hard to avoid being " wrong. " This may explain why no one is actually listening. It is inevitable that we like to choose one of these two options: We either feel obligated to forfeit our position, or we refuse to give in and will fight harder and harder. The first option leads to resentment because though we gave in, we are not totally convinced of the other position. The winner also feels at a loss because the winner also was not fully " convinced. " The second option leads to " polarization, " where two opposing parties find themselves in an egoistic self-fulfilling vicious cycle and take shelter at opposite end of the " pole. " The more one party insists on a position, it encourages the other party to fight harder to be right and to resist being proven wrong. After several cycles of this polarization, arguments escalate and can become hurtful. This is when people say and do things they later regret. There is certainly no winner here. In the world of " right/wrong, " there will be never any real winners. And if there can be no real winner, then why should we choose to get involved in a losing game? Problems are best resolved when we agree to discuss together in a creative capacity to find useful insights that can benefit all. Creativity is only possible when we conduct our discussion that avoids escalating patterns of polarization. Arguments can only be effective if and when we force ourselves not to get caught up and trapped in right/wrong paradigm. An agreeable resolution will become feasible when the " right/wrong " paradigm gets transcended. If this doesn't happen within a reasonable time, we should be wise to put off our discussion and observe silence for few days until we cool down. We should take this time to train our mind to agree to listen to each other's points of view and look for a resolution that provides more insights. How do we get out from the trap of the " right/wrong " paradigm? This is not easy and we need the will-power to invoke the divine nature and open our mind to listen. We must determine to take a stand that our care for the other members is much more important than the cheap payoff of winning the debate. We must be willing to reach for something more fulfilling than the predictable mediocrity of proving ourselves right. And we need to have the courage to be the one willing to make this change, even in the face of those who desperately want to prove us wrong! When one of us rise above the right/wrong paradigm, the length of the pole will become smaller and ultimately the argument will likely end. No matter how much someone else wants to " win, " if we refuse to enter into the world of right and wrong, we will not get trapped in any argument. But we should recognize the fact that we cannot rise above this paradigm and avoid an argument if we entertain the thought that the person is wrong. If we do, we will likely back in that right/wrong world again. This is tricky and it is a bit of a paradox. No amount of wanting an argument to stop will ever stop, if our inner mind silently engages in judging the other person's intentions. We must take a stand that we will no longer participate in any endeavor that tears down others' beliefs and thoughts. When those who want to fight can't find a willing partner, they will be left only to face themselves. The argument will slowly disintegrate we will no longer be engaging in the losing game of arguing. Here is a list of argument stoppers that we can employ: You may be probably right. What you have said is one way of looking at it. I am more than happy to take your point into consideration. I want to take little more time and I do plan to get back to you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I respect what you have said. Let's postpone and talk about this when both of us are calm. I am able to see the subtlety of your thoughts. I have come to the conclusion that arguing just isn't worth it. Let's respect each other's position and agree to disagree. Our opinions may differ but we can gain more by listening. I have come to the conclusion that we don't gain by arguing. Let me conclude this with a prayer: Sarve Bhavantu Sukinah, Sarve Santu Niraamayaah Sarve Bhadraani Pasyanthu, Maa Kashchid Duhkha Bhak Bhave Asatoma sadgamaya Tamasoma jyotirgamaya Mrityorma amrutamgamaya OM Shanti Shanti Shantihi Oh Lord! In Thee May all be Happy, May All be Free From Misery May All Realize Goodness, May None Suffer Pain Oh Lord! Lead Us From Untruth to Truth, Lead Us From Darkness to Light Lead Us From Death to Immortality, OM PEACE! PEACE!! PEACE !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Thank you, Ram. I know this was mainly directed towards this list but it has really helped me because i was wondering how to approach a situation in a relationship, I felt confused and it may have turned into an argument which i do not want, any sort of argument with this person. The practical advice is wonderful and reminds me of what my teachers have taught me.John MillerRam Chandran <ramvchandranadvaitin Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:59:22 AM Some thoughts on the ongoing discussions Namaste Satsanghis: Here is my honest opinion as a fellow member (definitely not as a moderator). Our discussions during the past months with the focus to understand the nature of a jnAni has been diverting from its original purpose. Everything that we all want to hear has been repeated with various words and scriptural references. Instead of discussing the subject matter for our spiritual progress, we use our energy to engage in argument. Unfortunately the subject matter of our discussion, jnAni is a goal and it can never be achieved through a resolution based on argument. This is only my opinion and please do not engage in another argument with another critical analysis. I have taken time to think and next several paragraphs contain the summary of my thoughts. In general, in an argument we like to take positions that are usually opposite to each other. While engaging in an argument we tend to think that we are always more "right" than those who take a different position. Arguments arise when we are not willing to consider others' position as potentially being valid. This is what is known as the right/wrong paradigm. The right/wrong paradigm can produce three possible outcomes: (1) proven right, (2) proven wrong, or (3) avoiding to be wrong. While there may be a short term feeling of satisfaction when we think that we have convinced someone else is wrong, arguments rarely will lead us to long term gratification. Everyone in an argument wants to be "right" and tries hard to avoid being "wrong." This may explain why no one is actually listening. It is inevitable that we like to choose one of these two options: We either feel obligated to forfeit our position, or we refuse to give in and will fight harder and harder. The first option leads to resentment because though we gave in, we are not totally convinced of the other position. The winner also feels at a loss because the winner also was not fully "convinced." The second option leads to "polarization, " where two opposing parties find themselves in an egoistic self-fulfilling vicious cycle and take shelter at opposite end of the "pole." The more one party insists on a position, it encourages the other party to fight harder to be right and to resist being proven wrong. After several cycles of this polarization, arguments escalate and can become hurtful. This is when people say and do things they later regret. There is certainly no winner here. In the world of "right/wrong, " there will be never any real winners. And if there can be no real winner, then why should we choose to get involved in a losing game? Problems are best resolved when we agree to discuss together in a creative capacity to find useful insights that can benefit all. Creativity is only possible when we conduct our discussion that avoids escalating patterns of polarization. Arguments can only be effective if and when we force ourselves not to get caught up and trapped in right/wrong paradigm. An agreeable resolution will become feasible when the "right/wrong" paradigm gets transcended. If this doesn't happen within a reasonable time, we should be wise to put off our discussion and observe silence for few days until we cool down. We should take this time to train our mind to agree to listen to each other's points of view and look for a resolution that provides more insights. How do we get out from the trap of the "right/wrong" paradigm? This is not easy and we need the will-power to invoke the divine nature and open our mind to listen. We must determine to take a stand that our care for the other members is much more important than the cheap payoff of winning the debate. We must be willing to reach for something more fulfilling than the predictable mediocrity of proving ourselves right. And we need to have the courage to be the one willing to make this change, even in the face of those who desperately want to prove us wrong! When one of us rise above the right/wrong paradigm, the length of the pole will become smaller and ultimately the argument will likely end. No matter how much someone else wants to "win," if we refuse to enter into the world of right and wrong, we will not get trapped in any argument. But we should recognize the fact that we cannot rise above this paradigm and avoid an argument if we entertain the thought that the person is wrong. If we do, we will likely back in that right/wrong world again. This is tricky and it is a bit of a paradox. No amount of wanting an argument to stop will ever stop, if our inner mind silently engages in judging the other person's intentions. We must take a stand that we will no longer participate in any endeavor that tears down others' beliefs and thoughts. When those who want to fight can't find a willing partner, they will be left only to face themselves. The argument will slowly disintegrate we will no longer be engaging in the losing game of arguing. Here is a list of argument stoppers that we can employ: You may be probably right. What you have said is one way of looking at it. I am more than happy to take your point into consideration. I want to take little more time and I do plan to get back to you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I respect what you have said. Let's postpone and talk about this when both of us are calm. I am able to see the subtlety of your thoughts. I have come to the conclusion that arguing just isn't worth it. Let's respect each other's position and agree to disagree. Our opinions may differ but we can gain more by listening. I have come to the conclusion that we don't gain by arguing. Let me conclude this with a prayer: Sarve Bhavantu Sukinah, Sarve Santu Niraamayaah Sarve Bhadraani Pasyanthu, Maa Kashchid Duhkha Bhak Bhave Asatoma sadgamaya Tamasoma jyotirgamaya Mrityorma amrutamgamaya OM Shanti Shanti Shantihi Oh Lord! In Thee May all be Happy, May All be Free From Misery May All Realize Goodness, May None Suffer Pain Oh Lord! Lead Us From Untruth to Truth, Lead Us From Darkness to Light Lead Us From Death to Immortality, OM PEACE! PEACE!! PEACE !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran wrote:> We should take this time to train our mind to agree to listen to each > other's points of view and look for a resolution that provides more > insights. Dear RamJi, my pranamsThank you for this insightful posting.I would like to add an extra dimension to your already complete text, if I may.I am almost certain that all these discussions would have been completely different if the people involved would have been face to face in a different kind of setting than just a computer screen.There are different forms of comunication, and each of those forms trigger different parts of the brain.The fact that many of the senses are not involved with the "other person" when responding a post or an email changes completely not only the input, but also the output or the form of our response.Ken Wilber, a renowned western philospher used to say that peope who read his books used to "hate" him and sent him letters of disgust telling him how boring his books and himself were. Then, while attending his talks they completely changed their impression, since they found an interesting, funny and insightful human being (we went so far as saying that his books were indeed boring!!).In my own life I recently have the occassion to experience this with a dear friend that while speaking on the phone everything goes smoothly, but the moment we started to comunicate by emails, misunderstanding of many kinds set in.I have the same kind of experience when I read something fom Swami Chinmayanada and when I see his DVDs, the same words but so different impact! Looks like the process of digestion is helped by how many indriyas are involved.I believe at the time of Bhagavan Adi Sankaracharya discussions where really different in format than today's "reply" and "send" buttons. It seems we are left alone in the realm of the buddhi and chitta only, the virtual sphere of thoughts and concepts.It would be nice to have this ongoing discussion, for those involved, around a table with good food in a nice environment. How would affect us the sound of the voice of the "opponent"?, his/her facial expression, his eyes, behaviour, etc..?I know that what we have is what we have (little or none possibility for putting all those involved in the ongoing discussion together), but nonetheless, is important to keep in mind that we are missing elements that add to the complete experience of... the "other"'s point of view.Behind every posting there is human being, trying its best, with the limitations she/he has, and in a way, also pushing hard the enveloppe to dissolve her/his Ego, in whichever form it was given to him.With that in mind, our whole relationship to the discussion may change. Not that we will change our conceptual/subjective point of view, but at least, there will be less involvement in being right or wrong.Thanks for your attention,Yours in Bhagavan.Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 "Mouna" <maunna wrote:> Ken Wilber, a renowned western philospher used to say that peope who> read his books used to "hate" him and sent him letters of disgust> telling him how boring his books and himself were. Then, while attending> his talks they completely changed their impression, since they found an> interesting, funny and insightful human being (we went so far as saying> that his books were indeed boring!!).It should read "He went so far as saying that his own books were indeed boring!!"Thxs,Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Dear Mounaji, What you say is very true. However I don’t agree with your implied conclusion. One point is that, in a face to face ‘confrontation’ (or even more so in a group context) it tends to be the more assertive characters who get to voice their opinions. Someone who is more retiring by nature may not get to say anything at all. At least via email, everyone gets to speak without interruption. The other point is that there is no time, when speaking, to think about the optimum way to express something whereas, when writing, you can think for as long as you like so as to come up with the most appropriate words. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Mouna Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:00 PM advaitin Re: Some thoughts on the ongoing discussions I am almost certain that all these discussions would have been completely different if the people involved would have been face to face in a different kind of setting than just a computer screen. There are different forms of comunication, and each of those forms trigger different parts of the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Professor Krishnamurthy is continuing with his wonderful work on Ulladu Naarpadu. Please see the most recent installment on verse four at the link below. ulladu-naarpadu-reality-in-forty-verses-verse-4 Namaste and love to all Yours in Bhagavan Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 "Dennis Waite" <dwaite wrote:>> What you say is very true. However I don't agree with your implied> conclusion. One point is that, in a face to face 'confrontation' (or even> more so in a group context) it tends to be the more assertive characters who> get to voice their opinions. Someone who is more retiring by nature may not> get to say anything at all. At least via email, everyone gets to speak> without interruption. The other point is that there is no time, when> speaking, to think about the optimum way to express something whereas, when> writing, you can think for as long as you like so as to come up with the> most appropriate words.Dear Dennis,I must say that I agree with you completely, and thanks for bringing up and complete the thought with the other side of the coin.Another proof that two brains, when in synthony and harmony, work better to a common goal than just only one pile of grey cells (...most of the time!...).All the best,Yours in Bhagavan,Mouna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.