To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/11/01 18:23
Subject: Re: [K-list] Re: [HarshaSatsangh] Re: What has happened to this
From: Myles McPartland
On 2000/11/01 18:23, Myles McPartland posted thus to the K-list:
Amanda,
Your words rang with truth! We are all One, even if we don't wish to admit it.
:-)
Love and Light,
Namaste
Myles McPartland
LI, NY
Wim Borsboom wrote:
> Dear Amanda,
>
> You wrote:
> > But in the time I have been on the net, I have yet to see an exchange
> > of viewpoints that, without there being a great degree of trust
> > between the "arguers", and one part actually asking the other part a
> > question, i.e. signalling a willingness to actively listen and absorb
> > the viewpoints of the other, managed to make one of the discussers
> > change her or his point of view.
>
> You could be right, the persons involved in the mutual cajolement do not
> usually change viewpoints, or so it seems. On the other hand though, the
> readers watching the exchanges do get something out of it. Very often in
> 'them' it seems that some transformation takes place or previous
> transformations firm up or get get affirmed. To see viewpoints stand up
> against each other makes the onlooker get the points (whatever) quicker. The
> analysis of a topic is done by two clear minded (in their own eyes at least)
> people and the listener will do the integration, maybe even at a cost to
> both "arguers' (positive meaning of the word.)
> As a witness to many arguments (positive meaning of the word again) I have
> observed that with myself often enough. If it would not have been for me
> standing long enough by the sidelines, I would not now feel comfortable and
> fearless inside the arena. The Tony's and the Wim's and the 'Lobsters' do
> serve that purpose, neither of 'these guys or gals' care much about winning
> or losing (each of them can not lose, you see, of that they are convinced.)
> It is the onlookers though that have the advantage, it is between and in
> them that the real dynamics of transformation takes place. Now it would not
> be good if the onlookers were politically or religiously taking sides,
> luckily we are all beyond adolescent behaviour and away from the growth
> preventive environment of peer pressure and group control.
> I know that what I am trying to say is somewhat debatable but I think that
> there is enough value in my 'windowdressing' to allow these kind of hot and
> energetic exchanges. To be honest, in all the years that I have been
> involved in this world I have never been afraid to start an honest 'this is
> what I stand for' exchange. The more I loved..., the more I re-covered the
> unconditional nature of love, the better I got at it, and the more the
> general benefits increased. So, even though Tony may want a time-out, I
> think he is a heck of a good player in this arena of truth about who we are.
> In any case, these type of exchanges happen because they have to happen,
> otherwise they would not happen. (AHA)
>
> > I believe this is even more true for lists where topics of religious
> > or spiritual subjects are on the agenda, because these subjects are
> > in the domain of belief (and personal experience) and beliefs are
> > difficult to argue one's way around. In addition (or perhaps because
> > of this ?), most people hold tightly onto their beliefs and the
> > harder they are questioned, the tighter the grip becomes.
>
> Try to take a bone out of a dog's snout !
>
> > Few people can attain anything by way of spiritual insight or
> > spiritual life or simply life, when being dragged in a leash.
>
> Funny though, often with me, (and I noticed that in Tony as well) after a
> cooling off period, the point that I was fighting started to make some
> sense. A tenuous start, some hesitating beginning of self integration. And
> as I was seeing that happen in me, I also started to observe that in my
> 'opponents'. You start to love your enemy, and you notice that it is
> reciprocal. Now there is a great guy who suggested that before. (Just forgot
> his name, he was from Judea or so :-)
> Truly though, this happens easier with searchers for the truth than
> preventers of it. Or maybe not, either way, one gets in a league with the
> other.
>
> > walker must walk the walk on her own two feet and there must be trust
> > or there will be no guidance and no walking (raising one's feet in
> > the air... :) ). In the end, everything but trust must remain. :)
>
> Trust, right, because we are after truth... philo sophia... hagia sophia.
>
> > I'm getting sentimental here, it's because I have a romantic ballad
> > on in the background as I write this. :)
>
> You think it was the ballad?
> I do not think so, love is just so 'frustratingly' unconditional it makes
> you bawl :...-( :-)
>
> > I admire the both of you, Wim and Tony. :)
>
> Thanks for your clarity, welcome and love, Amanda and all others.
> Wim.
>
>
> http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
/973128111/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.