Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: skumar@smdvx1.intel.com (Sitanshu Kumar)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: proselytizing
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.221211.9160@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 28 Jun 91 22:12:11 GMT
References: <1991Jun28.015626.9193@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Microprocessor Component Group, Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 109
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

In article <1991Jun28.015626.9193@nas.nasa.gov> ctong@leonardo.rutgers.edu (Chris Tong) writes:
>
>I'm new to this group, so perhaps I'm not aware of some stipulation on
>the group that posters should not proselytize. But I'm guessing there
>is no such explicit stipulation.
>
>So it is very interesting to me to speculate on the source of the
>taboo against proselytization in this newsgroup. This taboo is
>apparently so powerful, that the one thing everybody agrees on without
>question is not to proselytize...
>
>I believe such pervasive taboos (e.g., like taboos on sexuality, on
>discussing death, on considering the possibility that the Self could
>incarnate in human form, etc.), especially the unconsciously adopted
>ones, are just the kinds of things that we who wish to transcend
>ourselves need to become more conscious of.
>
>Here are some points I believe are worth considering:
>
>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.
>
>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". The thing other
>newsgroups do. The thing computer scientists specialize in.  There are
>at least two things that are ironic, though, considering what THIS
>newsgroup is supposedly dedicated to:
>a. mere communication of information is just MIND, which is
>precisely what everybody here is (presumably) interested in
>transcending;
>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.

if one feels strongly (or weekly) about one way of life, that is also
a function of the ego, is it not?
   
>
>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.

only the ego can inspire or can get inspired, is it not ??


>
>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.
> 
>                         ***********
>
>The taboo against proselytization may very well originate from the
>fear of being really penetrated by a view other than one's own. But
>who is the one that is afraid of being penetrated and wishes to remain
>separate?  Surely not the Self! It is the ego!
>  
>Now and then there does seem to be an encouragement of expressing
>one's "own" feelings about spiritual life (instead of one's Guru) in
>this newsgroup. But one goes to a Guru because the Guru is wiser than
>one's ego. The ego is notorious for its incredible facility at
>creating (dualistic) hedges about itself. I would suggest that, just
>as the taboo against proselytizing seems to arise from the
>materialistic "computer science", anti-religion context in which we
>all work, the "express your own feelings" arises from a Western
>culture that has glorified the ego (not yet understanding its
>limitations), and adolescently rebels against all authority (even True
>Authority: true Spiritual Realizers).  Again, there is an irony that
>this newsgroup, which discusses ego-transcendence and God-realization,
>should sometimes appear to be morely deeply committed to
>ego-glorification than ego-transcendence.
>
>                         ***********
>
>But really both of these things are to be expected. We (Self though we
>are) are identified with being egos and, more specifically, computer
>scientists, MOST of the time, despite occasional experiences of
>Something Else. (I believe this is true of most readers.) Despite the
>content of our messages, often the very WAY we communicate to each
>other reveals our deeper commitment to being an ego. To me, it is very
>sobering, and a motivation to really intensify whatever
>ego-transcending way of life each of us is practicing.
>
>                         ***********
>
>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?
>
>Chris