Guest guest Posted May 10, 1999 Report Share Posted May 10, 1999 On Mon, 10 May 1999 12:36:52 Bruce Morgen wrote: >>Are these rhetorical questions or just an attempt at >>forcing certain thought patterns on others ? >> >They are exactly as you >receive them, Amanda -- >the writer's intent is >less important Not now. >than the >process that led your >question. Why restrict >that question to only >two possibilities, both >of which appear to be >heavily inferential -- >especially the latter >alternative of "forcing?" That was my intention. Let me explain: Despite the apparent taboo on this list to use everyday linguistic terms as I and You and They and Others, I shall proceed by using those terms to make my point clear. I understand the concept of non duality and also how a Bodhisattva, through enlightenment, will view the problems I presented of sacrifice and the concept of others in my mail as less than irrelevant. I tried to indicate that in the post by saying that I was aware of my ego drivenness and lack of non dualism. My post was intended as a sharing of personal thoughts and views to Deborah, it was not intended as arguments for or against anything. I however, again in my state if ego drivenness, perceived John's post as mildly patronizing, teaching from above to below, as showing off if you will. Piquing questions and trying to provoke reactions in others with the probably good intention of teaching a lesson or two. Why ? Because if you are fully non dual and possess full insight into the situation of others, then you should be aware of the doubts and fears that cause others not to see your point and hence it would be irrelevant to try and correct them by posing a series of questions to them. In addition, a fully enlightened, egoless being in my view does not feel the need to teach others, because that is a result of ego, but will instead leave them to gain their own insights on their own terms. Hence, piquing questions has no point, listening with compassion has. That was my point. In all egodrivenness. Best regards, Amanda. Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 1999 Report Share Posted May 10, 1999 On Mon, 10 May 1999 10:14:17 -0700 "Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat writes: >"Amanda Erhart" <mumblecat > > >On Mon, 10 May 1999 12:36:52 Bruce Morgen wrote: > >>>Are these rhetorical questions or just an attempt at >>>forcing certain thought patterns on others ? >>> >>They are exactly as you >>receive them, Amanda -- >>the writer's intent is >>less important > >Not now. > OK, what you see is what you see. >>than the >>process that led your >>question. Why restrict >>that question to only >>two possibilities, both >>of which appear to be >>heavily inferential -- >>especially the latter >>alternative of "forcing?" > >That was my intention. > Your "intention" was one of "forcing?" >Let me explain: >Despite the apparent taboo on this list to use >everyday linguistic terms as I and You and They >and Others, I shall proceed by using those terms >to make my point clear. > There is no such "taboo," but let us "proceed." >I understand the concept of non duality and also >how a Bodhisattva, through enlightenment, will >view the problems I presented of sacrifice and >the concept of others in my mail as less than >irrelevant. I tried to indicate that in the post >by saying that I was aware of my ego drivenness >and lack of non dualism. > >My post was intended as a sharing of >personal thoughts >and views to Deborah, it was not intended as >arguments for or against anything. > Intention understood. >I however, again in my state if ego drivenness, >perceived John's post as mildly patronizing, Yup. >teaching from above to below, as showing off >if you will. OK, what you see is what you see. >Piquing questions and trying to provoke reactions >in others with the probably good intention of >teaching a lesson or two. > John was only posing questions, any teaching or learning is entirely optional. >Why ? > >Because if you are fully non dual and possess >full insight into the situation of others, >then you should be aware of the doubts and fears >that cause others not to see your point and >hence it would be irrelevant to try and correct >them by posing a series of questions to them. > To be "fully non dual" is an ideal, a concept -- how is it that one who confesses to being "ego driven" and to a "lack of non dualism" can so confidently declare such an "if" and "should?" >In addition, a fully enlightened, egoless >being in my view does not feel the need to >teach others, because that is a result of ego, Therefore, Sri Ramana and J. Krishnamurti spent a lifetime of work as "a result of ego?" Moreover, the "egoless being" is yet another ideal/concept, is there really any such person? >but will instead leave them to gain their own >insights on their own terms. Hence, piquing >questions has no point, listening >with compassion has. > The perception of "piquing questions" is entirely yours, but nontheless entirely compatible with "listening with compassion." >That was my point. > OK. >In all egodrivenness. > Well noted. >Best regards, > >Amanda. > Much love -- Bruce http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucemrg.htm http://www.users.uniserve.com/~samuel/brucsong.htm m(_ _)m _ _________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 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.