Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: RE: re: proselytizing
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.221201.9103@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 28 Jun 91 22:12:01 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Siemens Corp.Res. Inc.,Princeton, NJ
Lines: 120
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


>From: ctong@leonardo.rutgers.edu (Chris Tong)
>Subject: re: proselytizing

>1. Everybody proselytizes, all the time. Everything we say to each
>other in this newsgroup is intended to be heard by the other readers,
>and to have some kind of impact on them. There are different styles of
>communication: some people are more assertive, some less. But all of
>us proselytize. The taboo against proselytization is not really so
>much a negative moral judgment on the proselytizer (what could
>possibly be the basis of such a judgement, after all?) but a
>revelation of the fear of the one who might be proselytized to.

I agree to some extent.  However, there is a difference between A) expressing
one's viewpoint in an open-minded fashion, with the intention of carrying
on an intelligent discussion on an equal basis with others who may not
share your viewpoint, and B) asserting one's viewpoint in a dogmatic,
authoritarian, and egotistical fashion, with an attitude of superiority
and an intention to shove one's opinion down the throats of others, without
any willingness to consider their viewpoints or to carry on an honest 
discussion.  It is a matter of respect for the experiences and opinions
of others.

I don't think anyone objects to type A proselytizing; but almost everyone
seems to find type B offensive.  I think that most people are referring
to type B when they raise objections to proselytizing.

I haven't seen much of type B in this newsgroup, which is one reason why
I enjoy participating in it.  I have run across quite a bit of it in some
other newsgroups and, quite frankly, I found myself making extensive use
of the "j" key and my KILL file.  So far, I haven't had to do that in
this newsgroup. 

>2. To me, the taboo against proselytization appears to arise from an
>(unconscious but consensual) commitment to a format of communication
>that only involves "communication of information".

I disagree.  I think the "taboo", as you call it, stems from a natural
human reaction that happens when someone speaks in a condescending tone.
Who needs it?  When I hear that kind of thing on the television or the
radio, I turn it off.  When I encounter it on the news nets, I hit the
"j" key. 

On the other hand, I am open and willing to discuss almost anything
with another person who is willing to talk on a basis of mutual respect.
I am not talking about the mere communication of information; I'm talking
about honest discussion, free of the armor of condescension.

>a. mere communication of information is just MIND, which is
>precisely what everybody here is (presumably) interested in
>transcending;

I think you presume too much.  I think that Mind is more than communication 
of information.  I guess I don't understand what you mean by MIND.  In my
view, there is nothing other than MIND, no need to transcend, no independent
ego-substance to do the transcending, and nowhere to transcend to.  I am not
interested in escaping from reality; to what?

When you use the word MIND, do you mean conceptualization, ie. the thinking
process, as distinct from the rest of experience?  If so, then I would
agree with you to some extent.

>b. merely communicating information (dualistically) separates the mind
>from the heart. I would EXPECT someone who is truly and successfully 
>practicing a spiritual way of life to have many strongly felt positive
>things to say about their way of life, their Guru, etc.   

I wouldn't necessarily expect that in all cases.  Many Buddhists work hard
to overcome the tendency to judge experiences and ideas as "good" or "bad",
"positive" or "negative".  I wouldn't be surprised if such a person spoke
without strong feelings of attachment or gushing enthusiasm.  In fact, I
might take it to be a sign of advanced spiritual progress.

I try to be open to what people have to say about their experiences, and
I usually find that I learn something by listening (or reading).  It doesn't
bother me when someone is enthusiastic and positive about something, and
I like to hear about it, as long as it is an honest expression and not
an attempt to beat something into my head.

Plato wrote that the Delphic oracle proclaimed Socrates to be the wisest
man on earth because he never claimed to *know* anything.  Certainly,
Socrates discussed many things and expressed many ideas; but he always
remained open to further discussion.

>It seems to me, in short, that the commitment to being a conventional,
>materialistic, computer scientist represents a deeper commitment than
>Self-realization for many people, despite a lot of talk about
>practicing a spiritual life. Genuine practice would inspire in one the
>boddhisattva attitude of love of and non-separation from others, and
>thus commitment to their realization as well as your own.

I think you're being too critical and judgemental.  Raising an objection
to hard-sell, type B proselytizing doesn't make someone a "conventional,
materialistic, computer scientist" so-and-so.  I would expect that an
attitude of love and non-separation would preclude any tendency toward
type B.  Personally, I take type B proselytizing to be a sign of rigid
thinking and a divisive elitist attitude; certainly not the attitude of a
Boddhisattva.

>In the ancient days, contending sects would openly, freely, and
>(com)passionately "proselytize", having public debates between Gurus
>in which the loser would become the devotee of the winner. It was most
>definitely not mere communication of information. There was nothing
>standoff-ish about these events; one's heart and very life was on the
>line. And presumably, when they really worked best, the winner would
>be transmitting a Revelation to the loser, and that (rather than the
>mere verbal argument of the opponent) was the reason for becoming the
>winner's devotee.

Wouldn't it have been easier to arm-wrestle?  All that arguing and
toiling!  What for?

>Wouldn't it be delightful, and freeing, and just like the Self Itself
>if our messages to each other could be full of Love and Light and
>Inspiration and Revelation (to the extent that words are capable of
>transmitting that silently), rather than constituting egoic battering
>rams?

Yes, it would.  That is the point, I think.  Type B proselytizing is
an "egoic battering ram".