ctong@leonardo.rutgers.edu (Chris Tong) (06/28/91)
I'm new to this group, so perhaps I'm not aware of some stipulation on
the group that posters should not proselytize. But I'm guessing there
is no such explicit stipulation.
So it is very interesting to me to speculate on the source of the
taboo against proselytization in this newsgroup. This taboo is
apparently so powerful, that the one thing everybody agrees on without
question is not to proselytize...
I believe such pervasive taboos (e.g., like taboos on sexuality, on
discussing death, on considering the possibility that the Self could
incarnate in human form, etc.), especially the unconsciously adopted
ones, are just the kinds of things that we who wish to transcend
ourselves need to become more conscious of.
Here are some points I believe are worth considering:
1. Everybody proselytizes, all the time. Everything we say to each
other in this newsgroup is intended to be heard by the other readers,
and to have some kind of impact on them. There are different styles of
communication: some people are more assertive, some less. But all of
us proselytize. The taboo against proselytization is not really so
much a negative moral judgment on the proselytizer (what could
possibly be the basis of such a judgement, after all?) but a
revelation of the fear of the one who might be proselytized to.
2. To me, the taboo against proselytization appears to arise from an
(unconscious but consensual) commitment to a format of communication
that only involves "communication of information". The thing other
newsgroups do. The thing computer scientists specialize in. There are
at least two things that are ironic, though, considering what THIS
newsgroup is supposedly dedicated to:
a. mere communication of information is just MIND, which is
precisely what everybody here is (presumably) interested in
transcending;
b. merely communicating information (dualistically) separates the mind
from the heart. I would EXPECT someone who is truly and successfully
practicing a spiritual way of life to have many strongly felt positive
things to say about their way of life, their Guru, etc.
It seems to me, in short, that the commitment to being a conventional,
materialistic, computer scientist represents a deeper commitment than
Self-realization for many people, despite a lot of talk about
practicing a spiritual life. Genuine practice would inspire in one the
boddhisattva attitude of love of and non-separation from others, and
thus commitment to their realization as well as your own.
In the ancient days, contending sects would openly, freely, and
(com)passionately "proselytize", having public debates between Gurus
in which the loser would become the devotee of the winner. It was most
definitely not mere communication of information. There was nothing
standoff-ish about these events; one's heart and very life was on the
line. And presumably, when they really worked best, the winner would
be transmitting a Revelation to the loser, and that (rather than the
mere verbal argument of the opponent) was the reason for becoming the
winner's devotee.
***********
The taboo against proselytization may very well originate from the
fear of being really penetrated by a view other than one's own. But
who is the one that is afraid of being penetrated and wishes to remain
separate? Surely not the Self! It is the ego!
Now and then there does seem to be an encouragement of expressing
one's "own" feelings about spiritual life (instead of one's Guru) in
this newsgroup. But one goes to a Guru because the Guru is wiser than
one's ego. The ego is notorious for its incredible facility at
creating (dualistic) hedges about itself. I would suggest that, just
as the taboo against proselytizing seems to arise from the
materialistic "computer science", anti-religion context in which we
all work, the "express your own feelings" arises from a Western
culture that has glorified the ego (not yet understanding its
limitations), and adolescently rebels against all authority (even True
Authority: true Spiritual Realizers). Again, there is an irony that
this newsgroup, which discusses ego-transcendence and God-realization,
should sometimes appear to be morely deeply committed to
ego-glorification than ego-transcendence.
***********
But really both of these things are to be expected. We (Self though we
are) are identified with being egos and, more specifically, computer
scientists, MOST of the time, despite occasional experiences of
Something Else. (I believe this is true of most readers.) Despite the
content of our messages, often the very WAY we communicate to each
other reveals our deeper commitment to being an ego. To me, it is very
sobering, and a motivation to really intensify whatever
ego-transcending way of life each of us is practicing.
***********
Wouldn't it be delightful, and freeing, and just like the Self Itself
if our messages to each other could be full of Love and Light and
Inspiration and Revelation (to the extent that words are capable of
transmitting that silently), rather than constituting egoic battering
rams?
Chris simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (06/29/91)
>From: ctong@leonardo.rutgers.edu (Chris Tong) >Subject: re: proselytizing >1. Everybody proselytizes, all the time. Everything we say to each >other in this newsgroup is intended to be heard by the other readers, >and to have some kind of impact on them. There are different styles of >communication: some people are more assertive, some less. But all of >us proselytize. The taboo against proselytization is not really so >much a negative moral judgment on the proselytizer (what could >possibly be the basis of such a judgement, after all?) but a >revelation of the fear of the one who might be proselytized to. I agree to some extent. However, there is a difference between A) expressing one's viewpoint in an open-minded fashion, with the intention of carrying on an intelligent discussion on an equal basis with others who may not share your viewpoint, and B) asserting one's viewpoint in a dogmatic, authoritarian, and egotistical fashion, with an attitude of superiority and an intention to shove one's opinion down the throats of others, without any willingness to consider their viewpoints or to carry on an honest discussion. It is a matter of respect for the experiences and opinions of others. I don't think anyone objects to type A proselytizing; but almost everyone seems to find type B offensive. I think that most people are referring to type B when they raise objections to proselytizing. I haven't seen much of type B in this newsgroup, which is one reason why I enjoy participating in it. I have run across quite a bit of it in some other newsgroups and, quite frankly, I found myself making extensive use of the "j" key and my KILL file. So far, I haven't had to do that in this newsgroup. >2. To me, the taboo against proselytization appears to arise from an >(unconscious but consensual) commitment to a format of communication >that only involves "communication of information". I disagree. I think the "taboo", as you call it, stems from a natural human reaction that happens when someone speaks in a condescending tone. Who needs it? When I hear that kind of thing on the television or the radio, I turn it off. When I encounter it on the news nets, I hit the "j" key. On the other hand, I am open and willing to discuss almost anything with another person who is willing to talk on a basis of mutual respect. I am not talking about the mere communication of information; I'm talking about honest discussion, free of the armor of condescension. >a. mere communication of information is just MIND, which is >precisely what everybody here is (presumably) interested in >transcending; I think you presume too much. I think that Mind is more than communication of information. I guess I don't understand what you mean by MIND. In my view, there is nothing other than MIND, no need to transcend, no independent ego-substance to do the transcending, and nowhere to transcend to. I am not interested in escaping from reality; to what? When you use the word MIND, do you mean conceptualization, ie. the thinking process, as distinct from the rest of experience? If so, then I would agree with you to some extent. >b. merely communicating information (dualistically) separates the mind >from the heart. I would EXPECT someone who is truly and successfully >practicing a spiritual way of life to have many strongly felt positive >things to say about their way of life, their Guru, etc. I wouldn't necessarily expect that in all cases. Many Buddhists work hard to overcome the tendency to judge experiences and ideas as "good" or "bad", "positive" or "negative". I wouldn't be surprised if such a person spoke without strong feelings of attachment or gushing enthusiasm. In fact, I might take it to be a sign of advanced spiritual progress. I try to be open to what people have to say about their experiences, and I usually find that I learn something by listening (or reading). It doesn't bother me when someone is enthusiastic and positive about something, and I like to hear about it, as long as it is an honest expression and not an attempt to beat something into my head. Plato wrote that the Delphic oracle proclaimed Socrates to be the wisest man on earth because he never claimed to *know* anything. Certainly, Socrates discussed many things and expressed many ideas; but he always remained open to further discussion. >It seems to me, in short, that the commitment to being a conventional, >materialistic, computer scientist represents a deeper commitment than >Self-realization for many people, despite a lot of talk about >practicing a spiritual life. Genuine practice would inspire in one the >boddhisattva attitude of love of and non-separation from others, and >thus commitment to their realization as well as your own. I think you're being too critical and judgemental. Raising an objection to hard-sell, type B proselytizing doesn't make someone a "conventional, materialistic, computer scientist" so-and-so. I would expect that an attitude of love and non-separation would preclude any tendency toward type B. Personally, I take type B proselytizing to be a sign of rigid thinking and a divisive elitist attitude; certainly not the attitude of a Boddhisattva. >In the ancient days, contending sects would openly, freely, and >(com)passionately "proselytize", having public debates between Gurus >in which the loser would become the devotee of the winner. It was most >definitely not mere communication of information. There was nothing >standoff-ish about these events; one's heart and very life was on the >line. And presumably, when they really worked best, the winner would >be transmitting a Revelation to the loser, and that (rather than the >mere verbal argument of the opponent) was the reason for becoming the >winner's devotee. Wouldn't it have been easier to arm-wrestle? All that arguing and toiling! What for? >Wouldn't it be delightful, and freeing, and just like the Self Itself >if our messages to each other could be full of Love and Light and >Inspiration and Revelation (to the extent that words are capable of >transmitting that silently), rather than constituting egoic battering >rams? Yes, it would. That is the point, I think. Type B proselytizing is an "egoic battering ram".
skumar@smdvx1.intel.com (Sitanshu Kumar) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun28.015626.9193@nas.nasa.gov> ctong@leonardo.rutgers.edu (Chris Tong) writes: > >I'm new to this group, so perhaps I'm not aware of some stipulation on >the group that posters should not proselytize. But I'm guessing there >is no such explicit stipulation. > >So it is very interesting to me to speculate on the source of the >taboo against proselytization in this newsgroup. This taboo is >apparently so powerful, that the one thing everybody agrees on without >question is not to proselytize... > >I believe such pervasive taboos (e.g., like taboos on sexuality, on >discussing death, on considering the possibility that the Self could >incarnate in human form, etc.), especially the unconsciously adopted >ones, are just the kinds of things that we who wish to transcend >ourselves need to become more conscious of. > >Here are some points I believe are worth considering: > >1. Everybody proselytizes, all the time. Everything we say to each >other in this newsgroup is intended to be heard by the other readers, >and to have some kind of impact on them. There are different styles of >communication: some people are more assertive, some less. But all of >us proselytize. The taboo against proselytization is not really so >much a negative moral judgment on the proselytizer (what could >possibly be the basis of such a judgement, after all?) but a >revelation of the fear of the one who might be proselytized to. > >2. To me, the taboo against proselytization appears to arise from an >(unconscious but consensual) commitment to a format of communication >that only involves "communication of information". The thing other >newsgroups do. The thing computer scientists specialize in. There are >at least two things that are ironic, though, considering what THIS >newsgroup is supposedly dedicated to: >a. mere communication of information is just MIND, which is >precisely what everybody here is (presumably) interested in >transcending; >b. merely communicating information (dualistically) separates the mind >from the heart. I would EXPECT someone who is truly and successfully >practicing a spiritual way of life to have many strongly felt positive >things to say about their way of life, their Guru, etc. if one feels strongly (or weekly) about one way of life, that is also a function of the ego, is it not? > >It seems to me, in short, that the commitment to being a conventional, >materialistic, computer scientist represents a deeper commitment than >Self-realization for many people, despite a lot of talk about >practicing a spiritual life. Genuine practice would inspire in one the >boddhisattva attitude of love of and non-separation from others, and >thus commitment to their realization as well as your own. only the ego can inspire or can get inspired, is it not ?? > >In the ancient days, contending sects would openly, freely, and >(com)passionately "proselytize", having public debates between Gurus >in which the loser would become the devotee of the winner. It was most >definitely not mere communication of information. There was nothing >standoff-ish about these events; one's heart and very life was on the >line. And presumably, when they really worked best, the winner would >be transmitting a Revelation to the loser, and that (rather than the >mere verbal argument of the opponent) was the reason for becoming the >winner's devotee. > > *********** > >The taboo against proselytization may very well originate from the >fear of being really penetrated by a view other than one's own. But >who is the one that is afraid of being penetrated and wishes to remain >separate? Surely not the Self! It is the ego! > >Now and then there does seem to be an encouragement of expressing >one's "own" feelings about spiritual life (instead of one's Guru) in >this newsgroup. But one goes to a Guru because the Guru is wiser than >one's ego. The ego is notorious for its incredible facility at >creating (dualistic) hedges about itself. I would suggest that, just >as the taboo against proselytizing seems to arise from the >materialistic "computer science", anti-religion context in which we >all work, the "express your own feelings" arises from a Western >culture that has glorified the ego (not yet understanding its >limitations), and adolescently rebels against all authority (even True >Authority: true Spiritual Realizers). Again, there is an irony that >this newsgroup, which discusses ego-transcendence and God-realization, >should sometimes appear to be morely deeply committed to >ego-glorification than ego-transcendence. > > *********** > >But really both of these things are to be expected. We (Self though we >are) are identified with being egos and, more specifically, computer >scientists, MOST of the time, despite occasional experiences of >Something Else. (I believe this is true of most readers.) Despite the >content of our messages, often the very WAY we communicate to each >other reveals our deeper commitment to being an ego. To me, it is very >sobering, and a motivation to really intensify whatever >ego-transcending way of life each of us is practicing. > > *********** > >Wouldn't it be delightful, and freeing, and just like the Self Itself >if our messages to each other could be full of Love and Light and >Inspiration and Revelation (to the extent that words are capable of >transmitting that silently), rather than constituting egoic battering >rams? > >Chris
ctong@leonardo.rutgers.edu (Chris Tong) (06/29/91)
>> >>Wouldn't it be delightful, and freeing, and just like the Self Itself >>if our messages to each other could be full of Love and Light and >>Inspiration and Revelation (to the extent that words are capable of >>transmitting that silently), rather than constituting egoic battering >>rams? >> >>Chris > > >Welcome to the group. You make an excellent point here and I'm glad >to hear it. There is however a place for critical thinking and writing >to exchange ideas. > >Roger... > Thanks! I agree. My intention was to suggest that head and heart should be used together and in an appropriate, synergistic manner. We should not merely TALK ABOUT spiritual practice in our message, while at the same BEING egos, but we should BE spiritual practitioners as well, writing to serve, and transcend ego: 1. As devotees of Consciousness, we should always be aware of (or at least be willing to have reflected to us) the real motivations behind why we post our messages and do our discriminative thinking (since those motivations often appear to be egoic and self-serving in nature); and 2. When we are truly practicing a spiritual life, we should be delighted to observe much of the time that the real motivation behind our critical thinking and communication of information is love and service, not ego. There is a reason for having a head AND a heart! But each should play its appropriate role. The open, feeling (but not emotionally reactive) heart is the instrument through which we (subjectively and ultimately Subjectively) feel the body, the world, and ultimately Consciousness Itself; when functioning appropriately, the head is responsible for (objectively) planning, analyzing, and problem-solving in a way that serves the purpose of the heart (and shutting up the rest of the time!:-). And that purpose is to feel so profoundly (to be so feelingly-aware) that finally one feels without limit, and (thus) one discovers one is the Self, completely non-separate. The head should never try to substitute for the heart! Chris