To: K-list
Recieved: 2001/04/04 05:08
Subject: [K-list] Chips on our shoulders
From: Wim Borsboom
On 2001/04/04 05:08, Wim Borsboom posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Hillary and Fiona et al,
Fiona, you wrote:
> > Mother Church would never accept me for who I really am.
> > I believed I couldn't survive without church approval.
> > It has taken a long time to move beyond the Church
> > as my means of survival.
I wonder if you did fully, there still seems a sting left.
Hillary wrote:
> Just reading Thomas Merton's The Seven
> Storey Mountain (because my older sister sent it to me--I don't recommend
it)
> and he was recommending *Story of a Soul* about "little flower." She was
his
> favorite Saint. Of course he didn't move beyond the Church.
He had no reason to do it, though.
What is this thing that we have about 'the Church' or, for that matter ANY
institution. This thing that we seem to carry as a chip on our shoulder...
I'm not discounting or poopooing that you are trying to figure things out
about thorny issues, but as long as it is felt as an 'outside something that
aches you', it will stay thorny. So , keep figuring these things out...
but... for this to resolve itself something else has to get happen... we
have to stop our 'verbal self -incrimination'.
God is my witness (let me say it that way), have I ever been helped through
the church! Oh yes.
At one point when I went through Jesuit College when the Jesuits kept my
father and me sane, the miraculous graces through the Virgin Mary, the
mystical realities through monastic life, absorption in Christ and Christ
consciousness and the ultimate reality of being in human divine ecstasy.
And God is my witness too, have I ever been stung through the church! Oh
yes.
Two homophile rapes by clergy, one when I was seven, one when I was in
deepest depression in a monastery sick-ward when I had just turned 21, (That
meant in those days that I could not sue.) spiritual harassment, being
called the devil himself, etc, etc.
And if it had not been 'the Church' it would have been another institution
that I could have pointed my finger at and hold accountable... A
psychiatrist who treated(?) me, berated me when I finally was able to talk
about the rape in that monastery. "Well what do you think?" he reprimanded
me, "You could have expected that in such a place." And he blamed me for my
own rape, like a judge blaming a woman for being raped just by reason of her
being such an enticing woman...
And I did blow the whistle.
And that is what we have to do, we have to blow the whistle... to stop the
madness...
But for things to resolve personally, within oneself, something else has to
happen... one's own madness has to stop as well.
Although the thorns and stings and wounds and traumas, the pushes and pulls
of manipulations are instigated by outside influences which have to be
recognized and pointed at... to eventually let the suffering lose its sting,
to have your own suffering lose its strangle hold, one has to see the
suffering as one's own, as internal... but... NOT caused by you, not asked
for by you and not allowed by you. (As disabled you were made to be... and
powerless.)
Someone wrote to me off list so very succinctly: (I am not suggesting that
you, Hillary or Fiona subscribe to this.
"We do create our own problems by hanging onto the falsehoods... I am
responsible for myself... "
This is the crux of the problem, that statement is the very falsehood we
have to look through.
That statement, "We do create our own problems by hanging onto the
falsehoods... I am responsible for myself... " is a very popular and trendy
statement and where it is supposed to help with insight, it actually does
not. Actually, really, not...
The statement consists of two 'affirmations', two sentences almost fused
together although they should not be.
. The first part is what power- or fear-mongers want you to believe BUT
IT IS NOT TRUE. They 'work' you while you are under duress. (As I have
written about extensively before.)
. The second part is a very strange sentence. Only because we use it so
often, does it sound like it makes sense, but it does not!
Morally wrong.
When you say, "I am responsible for myself" to whom are you responsible?
Find out WHO told you that you are responsible for yourself? If you are so
responsible for yourself, why should another person than yourself figure so
strongly?
OK, maybe you answered, "Well I am responsible to myself for myself." Well,
whoever asked you about your 'responsible-ness', that person must have
wanted you to become self- conscious, narcissistically reflective, self
obsessed, reprimanding yourself in front of a mirror, talking to yourself by
answering your own questions, etc. That person must have wanted you to go
mad, because that is what maddened people do. They have been made mad by
people who say, "You create your own problems by hanging onto the
falsehoods...You are responsible for yourself... "
Now for the grammar.
You can be "responsible TO somebody while being accountable FOR what you
do."
That is how the use of those phrases was from the 14th century on until the
two expression got mixed up in the 17th century and cross-changed their
prepositions (chiasmaticly).
(Interestingly, let's just get side tracked a bit, the words 'respond' and
'spouse', the one you share your bed (sponde) with, drink to and with when
espoused, whom you carnally know and whom you are responsible to, both words
'respond' and 'spouse' derive from the same root 'spondere'= 'promise' with
a drink in the hand as a sacred libation.)
The dictionaries may say that 'responsible' and 'accountable' are synonyms
but it is only through the 17th century that those terms started to acquire
similar meanings through a bad application of language.
What happened?
It seems that bad language always comes from politicians. Around that time
in England and the rest of Europe there were heated debates on taxation, the
separation of church and state, the English civil wars and... Puritanism.
In Holland they even executed a statesman over similar issues, a mix up
about responsibility and accountability issues. Anyway the expression
"responsible for" was coined. (In Dutch 'verantwoordelijk voor'.)
Anyway, you can not really be "responsible FOR yourself", that is bad old
English, bad old Dutch, bad old French, no matter however many times over
the centuries you have been told that you are responsible FOR yourself. You
might want to 'account for yourself', OK, but 'being accountable' only means
that you have to give an honest account, it does not imply that something
went awry.
Judicial sentence.
The sentence "You are responsible for yourself" also carries a quasi
judicial sentence. Power mongers not only treat you badly, they also speak a
convoluted language forcing you to incriminate yourself by having you
believe that the 'sentence' will eventually set you free... hahaha. It only
gives powermongers the illusion that it is not their fault that you are
gullibly accepting their falsehoods. This way they easily shift the blame
from themselves to you.
Does all this matter?
By golly it does, such a self incriminating sentence that is also
grammatically and morally wrong confuses the hell out of YOUR mind and
brain.
How do they say it in the USA:
The U.S. Bill of Rights includes the privilege against self-incrimination.
Why being unduly hard on yourself?
Love,
\/\///\/\
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.