--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- braaahmaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now this is a nice post that someone can respond to, > which I'll do > > > > > > Yes, I tink everyone goes through that process when > > experiences are > > discussed. Though, to my memory, few have been > > discussed recently and > > none have been criticized. Thus the puzzlement about > > Peter's and Jim's > > recent assertions this morning. The assertions seem > > like old snakes > > rattling round in the cage, memories of some past > > scars, not current > > events. > > I get your point. But I still see some of the recent > posts as implicitly hostile.
Again the operative words are "I still see". Can you acknowledge the possibility that the hostility that you are seeing is in your head not on the paper. Perhaps you have some old issues with some posters and you see them -- the old issues -- every time the poster writes. Is that at least a possibility? > > > > It is a quandry when someone speaks of their > > Enlightenment Experience, > > and it doesn't ring true. > > It does present a problem. Where do you start to > respond! I like Dana Sawyer's post regarding my posts > regarding enlightenment experiences in another > newsgroup. He said I was lying. I loved it! > > > > Or simply garbles up some > > apparently > > internalized advaitaspeak. That does nothing to > > further knowledge and > > understanding. > > Agree > > > > > Politeness and kindness move one towards no comment, > > just stone > > silence. Not wanting to even raise quite polite and > > civil points > > because they are often backlashed with chilly > > responses, not on the > > point of inquiry, but why the questioner is > > personally fucked up, > > angry, resentful and/or hostile. > > I find it difficult to talk to someone who is > simultaneously being insulting. Am I being insuling in this exchange? If so just point to it Peter. > You appear to miss the point. Personal attacks and citing motives of othes are not adequate, or often even interesting, responses to a point of "fact" - a quesion about some assertion. And stylized example of what often goes on at FFL, IMO: A: The sky is Red B: Can you provide some evidence that the sky is red. A: You only asked becasue you are hostile and angry. B: ok I am sorry you feel that way, but can you provide some evidence that the sky is red? A: Shut up fuck face, you angry, resentful son of a bitch! A second issue, covered in other posts is that what you INTERPRET as hostility and insults are possibly just in your mind, not intended, not on the paper. When reapeated asked for you to cite examples of your sightings of hostility, you never do, to my recollection. Just try it. You may be amazed. But the main point stands. Even if there is hostility, citing that does not answer the request for clarificatipon about a point of fact. For some, its a diversionary tactic. It does not further the flow knowledge. > > > > And yet, silence can at times, by some, be > > interpreted as acquiesence, > > a mild support for what is said. And in cases where > > blather exists, > > the blather continues. > > > > I ask the opposite, and inverted, question of > > Peter's: why not more > > questioning of experience postings? Not hostility > > and personal > > attacks. Those are tedious, immature and silly. But > > it appears fair, > > productive, even noble, and certainly part of the > > spirit of this list > > to ask for clarification of experiences. And to > > raise other points of > > view. To contrast one's own experience or those of > > others with the > > Experience poster's. And to discuss how some > > traditions view such an > > experience -- which may not always be "the highest > > of all things" -- > > and may deflate a sensitive and insecure poster a > > bit. > > Absolutely. There's no problem talking about > experiences at all. I don't see anyone as getting > deflated due to sensitivity. I just don't enjoy the > personal aggression (I know, I know) because another > agenda is being played out. I'd rather talk about what > we're talking about! Yes, lets stick to knowledge and not discussions of what others' states of mind or motives may or may not be. It is not relevant to points of fact of points of concept being discussed. Lets all, if we have a supposition about anothers motives or state of mind, fine. But just keep it to yourself and contine the discussion on points of KNOWLEDGE. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Ever feel sad or cry for no reason at all? Depression. Narrated by Kate Hudson. http://us.click.yahoo.com/CQDrNC/ubOLAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
