Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Serrao
This reminds me of a documentary I saw once on television.
It was about a tibetan monk who was mistreated by the chinese.
All this monk tried was to not hate.
The interviewer said that the chinese deserved to be hated.
And the person who was being interviewed answered: The mind of a yogi is difficult to understand.
Now that's moral and ethics; stay acting according to your moral, no matter what, and afterwards life just goes on...
|
This is how I read that. The reporter says something to the monk he's interviewing, and the monk doesn't afford him the dignity of an explanation, but rather, dismisses what he said and directly implies that the reporter is ignorant by positioning him against a 'Yogi'. The monk, in this case, would do well to consider ethically the way in which he utilised powerful social symbols to diminish the voice of the reporter. If I were in the capacity of a Monk, I would be highly conscious of the power inherent in my social position and take measures to equalise that imbalance between myself and the interviewer. I would be careful to address what he said with care and explain things as far as I was able.
This, to me, is where spiritual stuff seems oh so wise on the surface of it, but when you look at a conversation such as the example you gave, you see there is no deep consideration of a thoughtful nature, or on a personal level, and absolutely no content of explanation. I see no signs of wisdom in it at all. I actually see indicators to the contrary.