Before one enters a discussion, it is necessary to see one's motives
for such an act; a discussion can be just an ego trip where
participants pat each other on the head, acknowledging each other's
rightfulness, discussing only about minor issues. The opposite
possibility is a poisonous argument where participants feel personally
attacked if their view is opposed or questioned, and such discussions
can occasionally turn physically violent, to the point of murder.

In ancient India, and other cultures like Japan, AFAIK, there was a
custom of philosophical duels, where people entered discussions
gladly, because it was a great privilege to be defeated. How come?
Well, defeat was always voluntary, one would acknowledge defeat, and
one does that only if he feels that he has met his superior, and that
was a great thing, because it allowed one to grow from one's current
position of realization. Therefore it is easy to understand why the
defeated usually accepted the victorious party as his guru, accepting
his viewpoint as his own. If one wasn't willing to admit defeat
because of pride and arrogance, he lost a great deal of respect in his
environment, because such qualities make one unacceptable as an
intellectual, moral or religious authority. That's why there was
practically no preaching: there were discussions, in which the
arguments of both sides were displayed, and if a teaching was
victorious, it was spreading, and if not, it would be abandoned. Often
the entire philosophical schools were forgotten after a defeat in
arguments with an opposing school - nobody would, quite
understandably, voluntarily accept an inferior teaching. Such
dogfights were, obviously, means of eliminating inferior philosophies,
and through them a culture maintained a good spiritual health. If some
philosophy wasn't able to provide good answers to the questions, it
was extinct; today, all sorts of inferior philosophical systems exist
because this method of elimination is abandoned. Most of the cults and
religions that exist today wouldn't exist if they could be defeated
philosophically in such manner. In one such clash of philosophies
classical brahmanic hinduism was utterly defeated by buddhism. In
other clash buddhism was defeated by Sankaracarya's
atma-brahma-advaita vedanta, and was extinct from India.

What were the arguments that were used in such discussions? From what
I could put together, it was basically examples, pictures from either
sastra or experience, or simply logical deduction and induction. It
was the same kind of arguments that Jesus used to convey his point; as
long as everyone thought that the point is valid, it was accepted as
an argument. Often, two sides would just explain their view of the
world, and each would see if the other side has a better explanation -
some unclear points were argued, but the most important thing was to
feel convinced. 

The basic motive for abandoning one's view of the world was the love
of truth. Truth was given the highest value, and was cherished above
all other things - sathya paramo dharmah. People were taught to be
guided by their sense for truth, and if one felt the rightness of
something, it was accepted.

One doesn't have a philosophy to just brag with, it is seen as the
means of attaining the highest goal, it is just an instrument, and on
that path the instruments can be changed, the faulty ones can be
abandoned and better ones can be acquired. The basic principle that
has to be accepted before entering an argument is "the truth is most
important to me". One's view has to be subdued to the truth, and the
purpose of a discussion is to find the truth. 

What is the best way of "preaching"? You ask someone to talk to you
about God, religion or whatever. You let him explain his position, and
then you explain yours. You ask each other questions, like, "how does
your system explain this:...". Even if nobody wins, everybody will
benefit, because new things to think about will arise, new questions
will be asked, questions that will have to be answered. If they can't
be answered properly, there must be a problem somewhere, and that's
something to work on. There are always two really good questions:
"what is the highest goal", and "how much of that highest goal have I
attained". That's the reality check, simply those two questions. If
those questions are asked regularly, suddenly it will become very
difficult to pass a dysfunctional personality as someone spiritually
developed.

What I would like to know is, how many of this newsgroup's
participants would be willing to really test their philosophy? Defend
it, each and every part of it, and reject everything that they can't
defend, and accept something that makes more sense? I already tried to
start a discussion based on several starting positions, which could
evolve into an interesting exchange. I made a few deliberate mistakes
that were never seen, and I didn't feel like discussing with myself
and finding my own logical flaws - I expected others to do that. But
nothing happened, there was no discussion, nothing, zero, nada, zip,
vacuum. If I disregard a couple of guys who thought that the attempts
to verbally insult me will score them points and have the girls in the
audience cheer for them.
There were some people who said that they would want to prove me
wrong, if they had time, but as time passes nothing seems to happen,
except a few traditional flames between two groups of Prabhupada's
disciples, who indulge in name calling and dramatical statements.


So, shall we dance? ;)

-- 
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net