Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00292)

In a message dated 1/21/99 1:25:31 PM, peter.merriott@dial.pipex.com writes:

>Yes, I agree with you, we are all learners and everything we say is open
>to question.  The longer I study the more I feel like a complete beginner
>with less and less of value to say.  However, my question is... do we
question
>others to show up the igonorance of the personality or do we question to
>enable the 'light of understanding that resides within'.  I don't see it as
>my job to shake up and stir "the personality-ego" of others.  I do see it as
>important to recognise that behind the words and ideas of the person talking
>is a soul (a budding understanding), like myself, struggling along the
>path. It is that dimesion of the person I primarily wish to respond to.

We don't always question others to show up the ignorance of the personality,
but to draw out from them truths we need to know for ourselves and, at the
same time, help others clarify for themselves the truths they already know but
have not been able to express due to their wrong conceptions..  As Socrates
could have said "I know nothing... Therefore, as a midwife, I help you give
birth to what you already know, but which was blocked by wrong views--so that
we both may know".  His "method" was to ask questions of one who expressed a
wrong view until they were forced to contradict themselve's and, thereby, come
to a realization of their original error and arrive at a new knowledge.

>So I ask myself, how can I respond in such a way as to help that inner
>understanding, that inner light be more present in this persons life?  If I
>attack that persons ideas, motives and character this seems to me to have
>the result of aggravating and strenthening that very part of the person that
>I would like to see beyond.  The whole interaction becomes more personality
>centred than soul-full.  I have noticed that when I try to go beyond the
>words, to the understanding that this person is trying to articulate then
>there is more of a chance of that soul-full note coming through.  Then
>people are more likely to recognise and let go of their own ignorance in
>thier own time.

This is all well and good for serious students and teachers, but sometimes
there are those who present a contradictory view as a pure rationalization of
a wrong position, or as an outright lie--with an intent to proseletyze that
position or discredit someone else.  In that case, the questioner, in defense
or protection of others unable to defend themselves, or less knowledgeable,
may use more or less aggressive tactics that are designed to "expose" the
motive behind the promotor's or deniers wrong viewpoint.  This is specially
important when such rationalization and proselytizing is on public view.   It
could be perfectly valid, then, for the defending questioner to use stronger
methods of questioning, even personal provocations, if necessary, in order to
force the promoter of the wrong view to reveal his motives and/or his
ignorance of the position or of the person he is arguing against or
denigrating... Or, in the case of one who just appears to have an ulterior
motive, but is simply misconcieved, to clarify the issue, and bring out the
truth.

LHM