RE: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
DP, You can post here on whatever subject you want - within reason. This is a zen forum so in my opinion the posts should somehow be related to zen - but that's just my opinion. I think if you want to post, for example, on how to tear down a small-block Chevy V-8 engine there are more appropriate forums on which to do that. On the other hand you could relate the meticulous and detailed work involved in performing mechanical tasks to zen. I don't think anyone's ever been cautioned about posting on any religious topic. And to prove that I'll ask you: What is Liberation Theology and why does it interest you? .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DP Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:25 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego I find most of your comments helpful, but I do still have a problem with them overrunning the religious forum. It's at the point where the only religious discussions are negative. Which is sad, because people shouuld feel comfortable discussing,say, Liberation Theology. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com , billsm...@... wrote: DP, My comments are embedded below: I've thought some more about my problrm with getting into arguments on the internet. I think that the internet has fueled a certain type of ugliness in arguments, with its tendency towards short comments that snipe at miniscule errors in one's posts. I want to walk away, and yet I hate the idea of the bullies winning the argument. [Bill!] If you have a problem it is NEVER someone else's fault. The problem is yours. In the case above your problem is 'hating the idea that the bullies win the argument'. Throw that hate away. It takes two to argue, so don't argue with them. Just state your thoughts and feelings and leave it at that. If they don't 'get it' or if they feel they've 'won', that's THEIR problem. Don't make it yours. I find that in religious discussions the internet atheists (a specific term for these type of arguers, not all atheists) tend to crowd out people who want to sincerely discuss religion on particular forums, so I get frustrated. [Bill!] If you're not wanted somewhere, or are picked on as entertainment, just leave. Go somewhere else. Let them occupy that space and then they can pick on each other. But here's where the ego comes in. Obviously, there is ego involved in winning an argument, but there is also some ego in leaving. I feel like I'm saying i'm taking my ball and going home. [Bill!] Yes, there is ego involved. Ego = Self. Zen practice will soften and eventually dissolve your illusion of self. As well, i'm very insecure about my beliefs, and I feel like I'm somehow not worthy of my arguments. How does insecurity relate to ego, or is that a completely different question? [Bill!] How can you be insecure about your beliefs? Are you sure you really BELIEVE your beliefs? If you do really BELIEVE your beliefs than you can't be insecure about them. You are the sum of your beliefs. Insecurity DIRECTLY relates to ego and the illusion of self. If you have an illusion of self (maintain an ego) you are operating as an illusion. When this illusion is challenged or shown to be incorrect or distorted you can feel insecure. If you do not have an illusion of self there is nothing to challenge and nothing to distort. There is Just THIS!, and although that can be challenged it can't be shown to be incorrect or distorted in anyway - because it's so, so simple - it's Just THIS! Just YOU! Buddha Nature! .Bill! __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5493 (20100930) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5496 (20101001) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
I was specifically talking about the other forum, and I didn't want to imply anything about this one. And it's not people being censorious as much as the anti-religious people crowding out the others. Liberation Theology is a movement that originally started with Roman Catholic priests in Latin America that stressed an interpretation of scripture that provides support to people struggling under poverty and oppression. It was officially criticized by Pope John Paul II (with apparent influence by the current pope) for having MArxist influences. President Obama has been portrayed by rightwingers as believing in liberation theology, but I think if he actually was, it would be a good thing. I hope that clears it up. :) --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, billsm...@... wrote: DP, You can post here on whatever subject you want - within reason. This is a zen forum so in my opinion the posts should somehow be related to zen - but that's just my opinion. I think if you want to post, for example, on how to tear down a small-block Chevy V-8 engine there are more appropriate forums on which to do that. On the other hand you could relate the meticulous and detailed work involved in performing mechanical tasks to zen. I don't think anyone's ever been cautioned about posting on any religious topic. And to prove that I'll ask you: What is Liberation Theology and why does it interest you? .Bill! From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of DP Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:25 AM To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego I find most of your comments helpful, but I do still have a problem with them overrunning the religious forum. It's at the point where the only religious discussions are negative. Which is sad, because people shouuld feel comfortable discussing,say, Liberation Theology. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com , BillSmart@ wrote: DP, My comments are embedded below: I've thought some more about my problrm with getting into arguments on the internet. I think that the internet has fueled a certain type of ugliness in arguments, with its tendency towards short comments that snipe at miniscule errors in one's posts. I want to walk away, and yet I hate the idea of the bullies winning the argument. [Bill!] If you have a problem it is NEVER someone else's fault. The problem is yours. In the case above your problem is 'hating the idea that the bullies win the argument'. Throw that hate away. It takes two to argue, so don't argue with them. Just state your thoughts and feelings and leave it at that. If they don't 'get it' or if they feel they've 'won', that's THEIR problem. Don't make it yours. I find that in religious discussions the internet atheists (a specific term for these type of arguers, not all atheists) tend to crowd out people who want to sincerely discuss religion on particular forums, so I get frustrated. [Bill!] If you're not wanted somewhere, or are picked on as entertainment, just leave. Go somewhere else. Let them occupy that space and then they can pick on each other. But here's where the ego comes in. Obviously, there is ego involved in winning an argument, but there is also some ego in leaving. I feel like I'm saying i'm taking my ball and going home. [Bill!] Yes, there is ego involved. Ego = Self. Zen practice will soften and eventually dissolve your illusion of self. As well, i'm very insecure about my beliefs, and I feel like I'm somehow not worthy of my arguments. How does insecurity relate to ego, or is that a completely different question? [Bill!] How can you be insecure about your beliefs? Are you sure you really BELIEVE your beliefs? If you do really BELIEVE your beliefs than you can't be insecure about them. You are the sum of your beliefs. Insecurity DIRECTLY relates to ego and the illusion of self. If you have an illusion of self (maintain an ego) you are operating as an illusion. When this illusion is challenged or shown to be incorrect or distorted you can feel insecure. If you do not have an illusion of self there is nothing to challenge and nothing to distort. There is Just THIS!, and although that can be challenged it can't be shown to be incorrect or distorted in anyway - because it's so, so simple - it's Just THIS! Just YOU! Buddha Nature! .Bill! __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5493 (20100930) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5496 (20101001) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
Well, there are ways that politics and religion/spirituality intersect that are (for me) fruitful and interesting. The debate over Obama's old minister, for example, could have led to a mainstream introduction to Liberation Theology. Or we could talk about Creation Care, the Evangelical environmental movement. Instead, there are constant threads about keeping religion out of politics, and how atheists are smarter, more moral and more compassionate than religious people. The latest has been about how atheists did better than religiouis people on a quiz about religion. I thought the quiz was superficial, and that just because the atheists knew the answers they didn't know the intricacies of theology. Of course, I was ridiculed for even arguing that theology was complex. So yes, some hurt feelings and envy over the people who have the truth. but also frustration because I think that it's our emphasis on materialism (in all senses of the word) that causes a lot of the world's problems. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, mike brown uerusub...@... wrote: Hi DP, Could you elaborate on this a bit more: As well, I am frustrated that the section of the political forum dedicated to religion is dominated by the atheists. Thanks, Mike From: DP wookielife...@... To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 1 October, 2010 7:58:28 Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego  I appreciate your comments, and your story. That is strange, and yet not uncommon from what I've heard. OTOH, it's a valuable metaphor for how we experience the world. We ultimately really don't know. And perhaps what I feel is envy over their illusion of certainty (which they definitely present) And yet another part of it is that I feel that some of the issues in the world (this is a political forum that I'm talking about) need a spiritual outlook as well as a real world, material component. Certainly the idea of there is nothing more to this world, and when you die that's it seems to counter any sense of hope for the future, at least in my opinion. As well, I am frustrated that the section of the political forum dedicated to religion is dominated by the atheists. I guess if I *was* more secure in my beliefs I wouldn't let it bother me. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain healthyplay1@ wrote: *bows to all* àI wasn't going to comment on this thread, but after reading DP's posts on this, iàdecided to share an experience i am having right now.. àTo begin, I was struck when youàwrote that what really bothers you is that people attack you aboutàwhat the truth is when it comes to religion.àI have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as the truth or even a truth.àIts simply one's perception of it--beit àa person, idea, theologyàor event.àThe need to be right or somehow prove that one person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is at theàheart of our societal and global conflicts. àI think most of that is ego-driven, but to pretend or deny that humans don't have egos is equally foolish.àIts okay to have opinions, beliefs, values and moral constructs.ààI think the danger of egoàin this is when one insists their viewiint is the only correct one.ààIàagree with Chris-- great wisdom there when he suggests that when you do not respond to some flaming post or insult or complaint, you actually demonstrate greater emotional maturity, and they are aware you maintain your views, but are now moving on to the more important matters of your real life. àI also agree with Bill.àSuch mattersàcannot be analized in some logical frame.àIf you have faith-- thenàlogic has little to do with it, and perhapsàuseàyouràfaith that perhaps your message will resonate somehow via less tangible means. àNow, as I am now facing a problem that started with internet discussion, but has now become a real life threat, Iàmust caution others to beware those on-line who indeed may have psychiatric buttons you do not want to inflame. àThe man I've written about here who claims a lifetime of trauma , abuse, tragedy and drama is at it again. àAfter calmly making it clear to him that I will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but wishàhim well-- the followingàevents have unfolded.. àI received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister, àand friend of this man.àTelling me that àwas in a serious car accidentàand has been taken to a local hospital..àStating thatàthe eventàdetails were still unclear, but reassuring me this man is alive.àEtc., etc..àHe offers his e-mail if I have questions or concers
RE: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
DP, My comments are embedded below: I've thought some more about my problrm with getting into arguments on the internet. I think that the internet has fueled a certain type of ugliness in arguments, with its tendency towards short comments that snipe at miniscule errors in one's posts. I want to walk away, and yet I hate the idea of the bullies winning the argument. [Bill!] If you have a problem it is NEVER someone else's fault. The problem is yours. In the case above your problem is 'hating the idea that the bullies win the argument'. Throw that hate away. It takes two to argue, so don't argue with them. Just state your thoughts and feelings and leave it at that. If they don't 'get it' or if they feel they've 'won', that's THEIR problem. Don't make it yours. I find that in religious discussions the internet atheists (a specific term for these type of arguers, not all atheists) tend to crowd out people who want to sincerely discuss religion on particular forums, so I get frustrated. [Bill!] If you're not wanted somewhere, or are picked on as entertainment, just leave. Go somewhere else. Let them occupy that space and then they can pick on each other. But here's where the ego comes in. Obviously, there is ego involved in winning an argument, but there is also some ego in leaving. I feel like I'm saying i'm taking my ball and going home. [Bill!] Yes, there is ego involved. Ego = Self. Zen practice will soften and eventually dissolve your illusion of self. As well, i'm very insecure about my beliefs, and I feel like I'm somehow not worthy of my arguments. How does insecurity relate to ego, or is that a completely different question? [Bill!] How can you be insecure about your beliefs? Are you sure you really BELIEVE your beliefs? If you do really BELIEVE your beliefs than you can't be insecure about them. You are the sum of your beliefs. Insecurity DIRECTLY relates to ego and the illusion of self. If you have an illusion of self (maintain an ego) you are operating as an illusion. When this illusion is challenged or shown to be incorrect or distorted you can feel insecure. If you do not have an illusion of self there is nothing to challenge and nothing to distort. There is Just THIS!, and although that can be challenged it can't be shown to be incorrect or distorted in anyway - because it's so, so simple - it's Just THIS! Just YOU! Buddha Nature! .Bill! __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5493 (20100930) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com
Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
I find most of your comments helpful, but I do still have a problem with them overrunning the religious forum. It's at the point where the only religious discussions are negative. Which is sad, because people shouuld feel comfortable discussing,say, Liberation Theology. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, billsm...@... wrote: DP, My comments are embedded below: I've thought some more about my problrm with getting into arguments on the internet. I think that the internet has fueled a certain type of ugliness in arguments, with its tendency towards short comments that snipe at miniscule errors in one's posts. I want to walk away, and yet I hate the idea of the bullies winning the argument. [Bill!] If you have a problem it is NEVER someone else's fault. The problem is yours. In the case above your problem is 'hating the idea that the bullies win the argument'. Throw that hate away. It takes two to argue, so don't argue with them. Just state your thoughts and feelings and leave it at that. If they don't 'get it' or if they feel they've 'won', that's THEIR problem. Don't make it yours. I find that in religious discussions the internet atheists (a specific term for these type of arguers, not all atheists) tend to crowd out people who want to sincerely discuss religion on particular forums, so I get frustrated. [Bill!] If you're not wanted somewhere, or are picked on as entertainment, just leave. Go somewhere else. Let them occupy that space and then they can pick on each other. But here's where the ego comes in. Obviously, there is ego involved in winning an argument, but there is also some ego in leaving. I feel like I'm saying i'm taking my ball and going home. [Bill!] Yes, there is ego involved. Ego = Self. Zen practice will soften and eventually dissolve your illusion of self. As well, i'm very insecure about my beliefs, and I feel like I'm somehow not worthy of my arguments. How does insecurity relate to ego, or is that a completely different question? [Bill!] How can you be insecure about your beliefs? Are you sure you really BELIEVE your beliefs? If you do really BELIEVE your beliefs than you can't be insecure about them. You are the sum of your beliefs. Insecurity DIRECTLY relates to ego and the illusion of self. If you have an illusion of self (maintain an ego) you are operating as an illusion. When this illusion is challenged or shown to be incorrect or distorted you can feel insecure. If you do not have an illusion of self there is nothing to challenge and nothing to distort. There is Just THIS!, and although that can be challenged it can't be shown to be incorrect or distorted in anyway - because it's so, so simple - it's Just THIS! Just YOU! Buddha Nature! .Bill! __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5493 (20100930) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
*bows to all* I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but after reading DP's posts on this, i decided to share an experience i am having right now.. To begin, I was struck when you wrote that what really bothers you is that people attack you about what the truth is when it comes to religion. I have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as the truth or even a truth. Its simply one's perception of it--beit a person, idea, theology or event. The need to be right or somehow prove that one person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is at the heart of our societal and global conflicts. I think most of that is ego-driven, but to pretend or deny that humans don't have egos is equally foolish. Its okay to have opinions, beliefs, values and moral constructs. I think the danger of ego in this is when one insists their viewiint is the only correct one. I agree with Chris-- great wisdom there when he suggests that when you do not respond to some flaming post or insult or complaint, you actually demonstrate greater emotional maturity, and they are aware you maintain your views, but are now moving on to the more important matters of your real life. I also agree with Bill. Such matters cannot be analized in some logical frame. If you have faith-- then logic has little to do with it, and perhaps use your faith that perhaps your message will resonate somehow via less tangible means. Now, as I am now facing a problem that started with internet discussion, but has now become a real life threat, I must caution others to beware those on-line who indeed may have psychiatric buttons you do not want to inflame. The man I've written about here who claims a lifetime of trauma , abuse, tragedy and drama is at it again. After calmly making it clear to him that I will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but wish him well-- the following events have unfolded.. I received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister, and friend of this man. Telling me that was in a serious car accident and has been taken to a local hospital.. Stating that the event details were still unclear, but reassuring me this man is alive. Etc., etc.. He offers his e-mail if I have questions or concers.. as if I must certainly be anxiously awaiting any information on this tragic event. Certain that this is more of the same I do not reply or respond. For people with this type of psychological disorder which is to a large degree attention-seeking, grandiose ideation, and other symtoms. There is a bit of narcissisism, but his whole personality is more complex, and best left to be diagnosed by medical professionals. But I do know the worst thing you can do to such a person is ignore them. Though it is the only appropriate and sane respomse or treatment. I received a second e-mail a day later stating that the car was totally destroyed, and he had retrieved the personal belongings (and cell phone) of our friend, and encouraged me tio call him with support. He is being transferred to another hospital. Reminding me to keep jim in our heart and prayers. And so and so on. Again, I do not respond, and suspect that the person writing the e-mails is indeed my friend himself. This morning, i received a third e-mail from this minister friend of the man. Starting out with telling me that the man in the hospital had told him a bit of what i said to him.. and could not believe how i could be so horrible to such a wonderful, decent, giving man Etc., Etc. It escalated into a temper tantrum on-line with capitalized angry retorts and profanity. (Ministers aren't what they used to be) *sigh* At this point, I know I'm dealing with a very unbalanced individual who is indeed in psychic pain. But this is out of my league. I care deeply about prople and ache for every child on the globe. Not knowing me, its hard for anyone here to know my real heart or values. I am not being cruel, I am doing the right thing for him and myself. This is hard on two levels. First, this man is much sicker than I realized, and I am personally afraid. He has my address. I have blocked his numbers from my phones, and will keep all e-mails in a folder for evidence. But this man does own firearms, is emotionally unstable and I got into this mess by just trying to be a friend at an interfaith workshop and discussion group. It is times like this that having a family of attorneys is comforting. I have contacted friends who are MD's and a psychiatrist, and explained the events. I just want to be left alone, and let the medical personnel where he is sort this out. BUT~~ what if its all a lie? If he is seeing all these doctors, they are going to pick up on this. But if he is just a neurotic man behind a computer screen, I have reason to fear. My point is-- sheezus--
Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
I appreciate your comments, and your story. That is strange, and yet not uncommon from what I've heard. OTOH, it's a valuable metaphor for how we experience the world. We ultimately really don't know. And perhaps what I feel is envy over their illusion of certainty (which they definitely present) And yet another part of it is that I feel that some of the issues in the world (this is a political forum that I'm talking about) need a spiritual outlook as well as a real world, material component. Certainly the idea of there is nothing more to this world, and when you die that's it seems to counter any sense of hope for the future, at least in my opinion. As well, I am frustrated that the section of the political forum dedicated to religion is dominated by the atheists. I guess if I *was* more secure in my beliefs I wouldn't let it bother me. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain healthypl...@... wrote: *bows to all*  I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but after reading DP's posts on this, i decided to share an experience i am having right now..  To begin, I was struck when you wrote that what really bothers you is that people attack you about what the truth is when it comes to religion. I have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as the truth or even a truth. Its simply one's perception of it--beit  a person, idea, theology or event. The need to be right or somehow prove that one person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is at the heart of our societal and global conflicts.  I think most of that is ego-driven, but to pretend or deny that humans don't have egos is equally foolish. Its okay to have opinions, beliefs, values and moral constructs.  I think the danger of ego in this is when one insists their viewiint is the only correct one.  I agree with Chris-- great wisdom there when he suggests that when you do not respond to some flaming post or insult or complaint, you actually demonstrate greater emotional maturity, and they are aware you maintain your views, but are now moving on to the more important matters of your real life.  I also agree with Bill. Such matters cannot be analized in some logical frame. If you have faith-- then logic has little to do with it, and perhaps use your faith that perhaps your message will resonate somehow via less tangible means.  Now, as I am now facing a problem that started with internet discussion, but has now become a real life threat, I must caution others to beware those on-line who indeed may have psychiatric buttons you do not want to inflame.  The man I've written about here who claims a lifetime of trauma , abuse, tragedy and drama is at it again.  After calmly making it clear to him that I will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but wish him well-- the following events have unfolded..  I received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister,  and friend of this man. Telling me that  was in a serious car accident and has been taken to a local hospital.. Stating that the event details were still unclear, but reassuring me this man is alive. Etc., etc.. He offers his e-mail if I have questions or concers.. as if I must certainly be anxiously awaiting any information on this tragic event.   Certain that this is more of the same I do not reply or respond. For people with this type of psychological disorder which is to a large degree attention-seeking, grandiose ideation, and other symtoms. There is a bit of narcissisism, but his whole personality is more complex, and best left to be diagnosed by medical professionals.  But I do know the worst thing you can do to such a person is ignore them. Though it is the only appropriate and sane respomse or treatment.  I received a second e-mail a day later stating that the car was totally destroyed, and he had retrieved the personal belongings (and cell phone) of our friend, and encouraged me tio call him with support. He is being transferred to another hospital.  Reminding me to keep jim in our heart and prayers. And so and so on.  Again, I do not respond, and suspect that the person writing the e-mails is indeed my friend himself.  This morning, i received a third e-mail from this minister friend of the man. Starting out with telling me that the man in the hospital had told him a bit of what i said to him.. and could not believe how i could be so horrible to such a wonderful, decent, giving man Etc., Etc. It escalated into a temper tantrum on-line with capitalized angry retorts and profanity. (Ministers aren't  what they used to be) *sigh*  At this point, I know I'm dealing with a very unbalanced individual who is indeed in psychic pain. But this is out of my
Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
Hi DP, I guess if I *was* more secure in my beliefs I wouldn't let it bother me. I think you'e answered your own question. Why sign up for abuse and getting your feelings hurt defending something you are are not clear about? Perhaps this is where zen can help you. It may be time for you to devote time to meditation and self-inquiry to find within what you are clear about. Continue to study and learn about what theology beliefs feel right for you, if any. A sitting practice, walking in nature...quality music and learning how to be with silence. Even routine household /grooming chores done with no music, TV, conversation and the like. Five minutes? 15? What you can tolerat now, and let that expand over time. Instead of arguing on-line, read some quality material in whatever you are drawn to. Thoreau philosophy to zen sutras to Christian literature to poetry. Such a process is uncomfortable. Its easier to argue on-line than it is to truly go within to find clarity. Its hard work. The up side is that only a fraction of humanity have this opportunity. Most people are forced to simply focus on survivial. Others simply lack the intuitive quest to wonder about soul issues. They are caught up in power, $$, work, to do lists. Those, like you, who are conscious of such a question must recognize that its a luxury to have the awarebness to seek, but its coupled with a responsibility to find out what is there within you. Sylvia Bors (sp?) of Spirit Rock compares the mind to tofu. What we marinate our mind in determines who we are. Be a choosy gourmet there:) Kristy --- On Thu, 9/30/10, DP wookielife...@yahoo.ca wrote: From: DP wookielife...@yahoo.ca Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 4:58 PM I appreciate your comments, and your story. That is strange, and yet not uncommon from what I've heard. OTOH, it's a valuable metaphor for how we experience the world. We ultimately really don't know. And perhaps what I feel is envy over their illusion of certainty (which they definitely present) And yet another part of it is that I feel that some of the issues in the world (this is a political forum that I'm talking about) need a spiritual outlook as well as a real world, material component. Certainly the idea of there is nothing more to this world, and when you die that's it seems to counter any sense of hope for the future, at least in my opinion. As well, I am frustrated that the section of the political forum dedicated to religion is dominated by the atheists. I guess if I *was* more secure in my beliefs I wouldn't let it bother me. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain healthypl...@... wrote: *bows to all*  I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but after reading DP's posts on this, i decided to share an experience i am having right now..  To begin, I was struck when you wrote that what really bothers you is that people attack you about what the truth is when it comes to religion. I have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as the truth or even a truth. Its simply one's perception of it--beit  a person, idea, theology or event. The need to be right or somehow prove that one person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is at the heart of our societal and global conflicts.  I think most of that is ego-driven, but to pretend or deny that humans don't have egos is equally foolish. Its okay to have opinions, beliefs, values and moral constructs.  I think the danger of ego in this is when one insists their viewiint is the only correct one.  I agree with Chris-- great wisdom there when he suggests that when you do not respond to some flaming post or insult or complaint, you actually demonstrate greater emotional maturity, and they are aware you maintain your views, but are now moving on to the more important matters of your real life.  I also agree with Bill. Such matters cannot be analized in some logical frame. If you have faith-- then logic has little to do with it, and perhaps use your faith that perhaps your message will resonate somehow via less tangible means.  Now, as I am now facing a problem that started with internet discussion, but has now become a real life threat, I must caution others to beware those on-line who indeed may have psychiatric buttons you do not want to inflame.  The man I've written about here who claims a lifetime of trauma , abuse, tragedy and drama is at it again.  After calmly making it clear to him that I will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but wish him well-- the following events have unfolded..  I received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister,  and friend of this man. Telling me that  was in a serious car
Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
Hi DP, Could you elaborate on this a bit more: As well, I am frustrated that the section of the political forum dedicated to religion is dominated by the atheists. Thanks, Mike From: DP wookielife...@yahoo.ca To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 1 October, 2010 7:58:28 Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego I appreciate your comments, and your story. That is strange, and yet not uncommon from what I've heard. OTOH, it's a valuable metaphor for how we experience the world. We ultimately really don't know. And perhaps what I feel is envy over their illusion of certainty (which they definitely present) And yet another part of it is that I feel that some of the issues in the world (this is a political forum that I'm talking about) need a spiritual outlook as well as a real world, material component. Certainly the idea of there is nothing more to this world, and when you die that's it seems to counter any sense of hope for the future, at least in my opinion. As well, I am frustrated that the section of the political forum dedicated to religion is dominated by the atheists. I guess if I *was* more secure in my beliefs I wouldn't let it bother me. --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Kristy McClain healthypl...@... wrote: *bows to all*  I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but after reading DP's posts on this, i decided to share an experience i am having right now..  To begin, I was struck when you wrote that what really bothers you is that people attack you about what the truth is when it comes to religion. I have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as the truth or even a truth. Its simply one's perception of it--beit  a person, idea, theology or event. The need to be right or somehow prove that one person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is at the heart of our societal and global conflicts.  I think most of that is ego-driven, but to pretend or deny that humans don't have egos is equally foolish. Its okay to have opinions, beliefs, values and moral constructs.  I think the danger of ego in this is when one insists their viewiint is the only correct one.  I agree with Chris-- great wisdom there when he suggests that when you do not respond to some flaming post or insult or complaint, you actually demonstrate greater emotional maturity, and they are aware you maintain your views, but are now moving on to the more important matters of your real life.  I also agree with Bill. Such matters cannot be analized in some logical frame. If you have faith-- then logic has little to do with it, and perhaps use your faith that perhaps your message will resonate somehow via less tangible means.  Now, as I am now facing a problem that started with internet discussion, but has now become a real life threat, I must caution others to beware those on-line who indeed may have psychiatric buttons you do not want to inflame.  The man I've written about here who claims a lifetime of trauma , abuse, tragedy and drama is at it again.  After calmly making it clear to him that I will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but wish him well-- the following events have unfolded..  I received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister,  and friend of this man. Telling me that  was in a serious car accident and has been taken to a local hospital.. Stating that the event details were still unclear, but reassuring me this man is alive. Etc., etc.. He offers his e-mail if I have questions or concers.. as if I must certainly be anxiously awaiting any information on this tragic event.   Certain that this is more of the same I do not reply or respond. For people with this type of psychological disorder which is to a large degree attention-seeking, grandiose ideation, and other symtoms. There is a bit of narcissisism, but his whole personality is more complex, and best left to be diagnosed by medical professionals.  But I do know the worst thing you can do to such a person is ignore them. Though it is the only appropriate and sane respomse or treatment.  I received a second e-mail a day later stating that the car was totally destroyed, and he had retrieved the personal belongings (and cell phone) of our friend, and encouraged me tio call him with support. He is being transferred to another hospital.  Reminding me to keep jim in our heart and prayers. And so and so on.  Again, I do not respond, and suspect that the person writing the e-mails is indeed my friend himself.  This morning, i received a third e-mail from this minister friend of the man. Starting out with telling me that the man in the hospital had told him a bit of what i said to him.. and could not believe how i could
