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:)
--- On Thu, 9/30/10, DP <wookielife...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
From: DP <wookielife...@yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
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, iÂ decided to share an experience i am having right now..
> To begin, I was struck when youÂ wrote that what really bothers you is that
> people attack you aboutÂ what the "truth" is when it comes to religion.Â I
> have said before here that, in my view, there really is no such thing as
> "the" truth or even "a" truth.Â Its simply one's perception of it--beit Â a
> person, idea, theologyÂ or event.Â The need to be right or somehow prove
> that one person's perception is correct and therefore, another's is wrong, is
> at theÂ 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.Â Its okay to have opinions, beliefs, values
> and moral constructs.Â Â I think the danger of egoÂ in this is when one
> insists their viewiint is the only correct one.Â
> IÂ 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.Â Such mattersÂ cannot be analized in some logical
> frame.Â If you have faith-- thenÂ logic has little to do with it, and
> perhapsÂ useÂ yourÂ 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, IÂ 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. Â After calmly making it clear to him that
> I will no longer be a part of his self-created dramas, but wishÂ him well--
> the followingÂ events have unfolded..
> I received an e-mail from a man claiming to be an ordained minister, Â and
> friend of this man.Â Telling me that ****Â was in a serious car accidentÂ
> and has been taken to a local hospital..Â Stating thatÂ the eventÂ details
> were still unclear, but reassuring me this man is alive.Â Etc., etc..Â He
> offers his e-mail if I have questions or concers.. as if I must certainly
> beÂ anxiouslyÂ awaiting any information on this tragic event.Â Â
> Certain that this is more of the same IÂ do not reply or respond.Â For
> people with this type ofÂ psychological disorder which is to a large
> degreeÂ attention-seeking,Â grandiose ideation, and other symtoms.Â 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.Â
> Though it is the only appropriate and sane respomseÂ or treatment.Â
> I received a second e-mail a day later stating that the car was totally
> destroyed, andÂ he had retrieved the personal belongings (and cell phone)Â
> of our "friend", and encouraged me tio call him with support. He is being
> transferred to another hospital.Â Â Reminding me to keep jim in ourÂ heart
> and prayers. And soÂ and so on.
> Again, I do not respond, and suspect thatÂ the person writing the e-mails is
> indeedÂ my "friend" himself.
> This morning, i received a third e-mail from this minister friend of the
> man.Â Starting out with telling me that the man in the hospital had toldÂ
> 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 manÂ Etc., Etc.Â It escalated
> into a temper tantrum on-line with capitalizedÂ angry retorts and
> profanity.Â (Ministers aren'tÂ Â 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.Â But this is out of my league. I care deeply about
> prople and ache for every child on the globe.Â Not knowingÂ me, its hardÂ
> for anyone here to knowÂ myÂ realÂ heart orÂ values. I am not being
> cruel,Â I am doingÂ the right thing for him and myself.Â
> This isÂ hard on two levels.Â First, thisÂ man is much "sicker" thanÂ I
> realized, and I am personally afraid.Â He has my address.Â I have blocked
> his numbers from my phones, and will keep all e-mails in a folder for
> evidence.Â But this man does own firearms, is emotionally unstable andÂ I
> got into this mess by just trying to be a friendÂ at an interfaith workshop
> and discussion group.Â
> It is times like this thatÂ having a family of attorneys is comforting. I
> have contacted friends who are MD's and a psychiatrist, and explained the
> events.Â I just want to be left alone, and let the medical personnel where
> he is sort this out.Â
> BUT~~Â what if its all a lie? If he is seeing all these doctors,Â they are
> going to pick upÂ onÂ this.Â But if he is just a neurotic man behind a
> computer screen, I have reason to fear.
> My point is-- sheezus--Â take a breath.Â Stand by your convictions if its
> important to you.Â Let go.Â The other option is surrender to listening to
> others views with a softened heart.Â We all have the right to have our on
> viewpoint, so long as it does not hurt self or others. Or maybe get a new
> --- On Thu, 9/30/10, DP <wookielife...@...> wrote:
> From: DP <wookielife...@...>
> Subject: [Zen] More about arguments and ego
> To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 12:51 PM
> 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.
> 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.
> 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."
> 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?