Taking criticism personally (or not)
Feb 06, 2002 11:19 AM
It seems to me that there are two levels of "taking things
personally" which should perhaps be distinguished in order to clarify
the situation. Now, if someone says something like "all Scorpios are
evil" or "everyone who likes Clinton is stupid" there is a very clear
choice before me. As a member of those categories, I can either take
it personally and feel the urge to defend myself/us, or I can shrug
it off. Normally I would take the latter approach. But when someone
says "Johnson wrote his books seeking to attack HPB for financial
gain, and to gain notoriety" or "he is an agent of the dugpas" do I
really have any option other than taking it personally? Don't see
any wiggle room in that. So in the sense of perceiving oneself as
the target of an attack, we don't always have a choice.
A choice one does have, in such a situation, is how we explain it.
My inclination, as you have repeatedly seen here, is always to look
for impersonal factors at work. To focus on "why is this happening
to ME?" does indeed lead right into that lower personality tangle.
Whereas to focus on "why does this kind of thing happen to people in
situations like this?" puts the attention on impersonal factors. Yet
you rather consistently argued that I ought to be looking to myself,
to my level of spirituality, my karma, in order to explain why Dallas
kept saying hateful things about me. It wasn't about him; it wasn't
about fundamentalism or Theosophy or the hassles facing any author
who writes critically about spiritual leaders; it was about me
personally. Care to rethink that?
Another choice one has is how to interpret the behavior of those who
have launched personal attacks on us. Do we look to personal factors
in them; that is their level of spirituality, their mental health or
lack thereof, their intelligence or upbringing or such? Or do we
look to social factors, that is what interests they perceive
themselves as serving and what support network they are connected to?
I majored in sociology so have some inclination for the latter
When we offer a fight, we empower
> the opposition.
Maybe the perception of others as "the opposition" is the main thing
that empowers evil forces. When we demonize others, we introduce
demonic energy into the situation.
When we are off balance, lost in the lower ego, we
> betray that which is highest in ourselves. We strike out against
the perceived threat, and the other does the same, and all sense goes
> out of the discussion. What a waste of a great opportunity to have
> meaningful discussion which may be of use to someone. It's the
> age-old pattern, the pattern of war. But we can indeed do better.
There is certainly an interesting mix of folks here, and I would hope
others might add to the discussion of how we can do better.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application