To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/11/01 18:28
Subject: [K-list] Re: [HarshaSatsangh] Re: What has happened to this sat
From: Wim Borsboom
On 2000/11/01 18:28, Wim Borsboom posted thus to the K-list:
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.
1/9698/6/_/680797/_/973127807/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
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.