Right Speech vs. Politically Correct Speech

[Nick_A]

I dunno.

I sense a disconnect, whether intentional or not I am not prepared to suggest.

The whole subject strikes me as trying to tailor the audience to the message...rather than tailoring the message to the audience.

Put another way; a horse can be led to water, but it cannot be forced to drink.

Like many of my acquaintance, I don't care for preachy guilt trips and elitist demagoguery. I have enough well-earned (bought and paid for) guilt of my own to carry without the added burden of carrying the load (of cr@p) that some self-referent clique builder wants to pile on top. I've got a pretty good idea what is right and what is wrong, and I do the best I know how with what I have been given to work with.

Simple question, what gets us to heaven?;

what and who we know?,

or what we do with what we know?

The way I see it, this is the crux of the matter. If it is what and who we know; then most of us haven't got a snowball's chance in hell to begin with to get to heaven (or whatever lies beyond the veil).

If it is what we do with what we know; then there is a chance at getting to heaven for everyone and G-d is righteous and just after all.

No offense, but the "knowledge barrier" is irrelevent. Some of the most joyous, righteous and pure souls I have ever had the pleasure of knowing had the lowest IQ's. I'll spend eternity with them, be it heaven or hell, before I would spend eternity with a bunch of self-absorbed intellectuals...and I am a self-absorbed intellectual.

What's in the head don't mean sh!t, it's what's in the heart that counts.

One of the results of secularism is that it doesn't allow us to admit the condition of our heart but rather experiences the heart as an expression of our ego or personality.

Matthew 15

16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

When Peter asked that a parable be explained Jesus directly shocks him and it is the right speech for the moment. Peter is still thinking about rituals. Jesus explains that the crux of the fallen human condition is the heart. It is the heart that profits from transcendent awareness and the light of grace that touches it

 

[earl]

Trancendent speech has an aim. Its aim is to include transcendent awareness within it. This is why Right Speech is essential. As a whole,secularism has hardened us to the degree that we could not understand the Bible even though it includes transcendent speech.

Could you tell me what distinguishes unique Christian love from normal expressions of secular love? If you can you will understand the difference between secular and transcendent love. But how many in this day and age can do such a thing? The point is that secularism has become so dominant that it is only a minority that can sustain the transcendent tradition and it appears obvious that secular and transcendent Interfaith cannot exist unless where the "INTENT" is to become open to it. I've seen that the intent here is to deny it precisely as explained by Jesus and Plato.

So, what distinguishes "Christian" from "secular" love? How does that differ from Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim...etc.. love? earl

 

[Nick_A]

So, what distinguishes "Christian" from "secular" love? How does that differ from Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim...etc.. love? earl

Care to take a stab at the question?

Also are you referring to secular exoteric Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim etc. love or esoteric Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim...etc. love?

 

[earl]

OK, say 2 "exoteric" Christians, 1 esoteric Hindu, an avowed atheist, and a rabbi walk into a bar. They go up to the bartender, Joe, and say, "Joe tell us which one of us is the better lover." Help Joe out here. earl

 

[Nick_A]

OK, say 2 "exoteric" Christians, 1 esoteric Hindu, an avowed atheist, and a rabbi walk into a bar. They go up to the bartender, Joe, and say, "Joe tell us which one of us is the better lover." Help Joe out here. earl

So the bottom line is that you don't know. I'm not being critical because it is rare for people to consider such questions. We prefer to make a joke out of it. But to become aware of what is unique about Christian love can open one to see the difference between how secular and trancendent goods are valued.

Jacob Needleman describes the the expression of Christian love in his book "Lost Christianity" on page 221.

What does it mean to help another human being? No sooner is the question put that way, however than one is assaulted by clichés: feed the hungry, shelter the poor. But surely such actions can only be praised as "virtue" for abnormally egoistic human beings. Is it really an act of transcendent love to throw a rope to a drowning man? Has our understanding of the aims of social order become so distorted that we regard a natural human response to the other's suffering as a noble act of sacrifice? Surely the answer is yes, with the consequences that the Christian commandment to love has been reduced to demands relating to only one aspect of the whole human nature in ourselves and in others: the aspect we may term "the body," always remembering that under this term are also included the thoughts and emotions mistakenly identified as "the soul."

From all that has been discussed in this book, it is clear that the essential expression of Christian love is, in its roots, the commandment to transmit the teaching.

To love my neighbor is to assist the arising and unfolding in him of that which can harmonize the real elements of his nature. Such exalted love, of course has many aspects corresponding to the level of being of the individual on each side of the relationship. But clearly the manifestation of Christian love, so defined, is possible only to the degree that a man has transmitted the truth to the whole of himself

Exoteric Christianity properly called Christendom is unable to express Christian love simply because at the exoteric secular level it doesn't have it. This is why spreading the message becomes proselytizing. Yet a Christian that has this quality of love developed within from the transcendent essence of Christianity helps another in their awakening. This is the transcendent love of neighbor as oneself. The Christian has awakened to the value of the teaching. It is psychologically alive in him. His presence helps another to understand. Secular proselytizing in contrast is manipullation into a cause.

If you sense a similarity to a bodhisattva, I would agree. At the esoteric level, certain similarities become more evident and at the transcendent level they are actualized into a new quality of being referred to in the Bible as the "New Man."

Can you see that discussing transcendent love from a secular perspective just leads to bad jokes, sarcasm, ridicule and the whole nine yards including attempts at politically coprrect refutations. Yet when discussed by people open to the transcendent perspective, Right Speech assures a meaningful experiential dialogue.

 

[seattlegal]

Could you tell me what distinguishes unique Christian love from normal expressions of secular love? If you can you will understand the difference between secular and transcendent love. But how many in this day and age can do such a thing? The point is that secularism has become so dominant that it is only a minority that can sustain the transcendent tradition and it appears obvious that secular and transcendent Interfaith cannot exist unless where the "INTENT" is to become open to it. I've seen that the intent here is to deny it precisely as explained by Jesus and Plato.

Luke 6:27-36
27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.​

The part highlighted in blue describes the mechanism by which it (Christian love) is spread.

 

[Nick_A]

Luke 6:27-36
27 “But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. 29 To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. 31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32 “But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
​

The part highlighted in blue describes the mechanism by which it (Christian love) is spread.

Would you be able to explain this passage from both the secular and trancendent perspectives?

 

[seattlegal]

Would you be able to explain this passage from both the secular and trancendent perspectives?

It's the same for both (there is no partiality with God): hate is not overcome by hate. Hate is overcome by love. (Compare Dhammapada 1:1-5)

 

[earl]

It's the same for both (there is no partiality with God): hate is not overcome by hate. Hate is overcome by love. (Compare Dhammapada 1:1-5)

Indeed it is the same for both. Now, if by transcendent one means someone who has transcended most self-limiting boundaries, then theoretically that individual is capable of more selfless love than one who has not. But, of course, there are many true tales of purportedly enlightened eastern teachers that have engaged in the most egregious way toward their students. The point of my bar fable, (which I had an ending for but will forego for now), Nick A, is that labels of any sort-exoteric, esoteric, religious, or secular tell us nothing about the quality of love an individual is capable of in reality. earl

 

[Nick_A]

No it is not the same. I'm not being critical here because secularism has so conditioned us that most would deny that objective quality exists and rather that quality is a subjective human interpretation.

Even people calling themselves experts on the Bible have lost recognition of the relativity of quality. Consider John 21

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

The word love is used without the intended expression of relative quality. As a result the passage as translated is meaningless and Jesus appears as insecure.

A good discussion could be developed including the difference between self love and love of self by those open to the transcendent perspective. The secular perspective in contrast is limited to platitudes similar to what is expressed by SG. Where the transcendent seeks to vivify differences, secularism tries to make them the same. This is why they cannot be mixed and why the "world" must hate the message.

What good is it to speak of hate being overcome by love when we are incapable of it? The transcendent perspective begins with humility natural for the awareness of the human condition which is why it requires Right Speech rather than the domination of politically correct platitudes and sarcasms that contribute to preventing us from verifying the human condition that denies humanity the means to attain conscious freedom

 

[seattlegal]

Regarding Right Speech:

Abhaya Sutta

excerpts:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary.
Then Prince Abhaya went to Nigantha Nataputta and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Nigantha Nataputta said to him, "Come, now, prince. Refute the words of the contemplative Gotama, and this admirable report about you will spread afar: 'The words of the contemplative Gotama — so mighty, so powerful — were refuted by Prince Abhaya!'"
"But how, venerable sir, will I refute the words of the contemplative Gotama — so mighty, so powerful?"
"Come now, prince. Go to the contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: 'Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If the contemplative Gotama, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if the contemplative Gotama, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that "Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.' When the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up."


<...>


As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?"
"Prince, there is no categorical yes-or-no answer to that."
"Then right here, lord, the Niganthas are destroyed."
"But prince, why do you say, 'Then right here, lord, the Niganthas are destroyed'?"
"Just yesterday, lord, I went to Nigantha Nataputta and... he said to me...'Come now, prince. Go to the contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?"... Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up.'"
Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?"
"I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy."
"In the same way, prince:
[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
<...>
​

 

[juantoo3]

One of the results of secularism is that it doesn't allow us to admit the condition of our heart but rather experiences the heart as an expression of our ego or personality.

Perhaps, but one of the results of transcendentism is elitism and prejudicial presumption, no?

Exoteric Christianity properly called Christendom is unable to express Christian love simply because at the exoteric secular level it doesn't have it. This is why spreading the message becomes proselytizing. Yet a Christian that has this quality of love developed within from the transcendent essence of Christianity helps another in their awakening. This is the transcendent love of neighbor as oneself. The Christian has awakened to the value of the teaching. It is psychologically alive in him. His presence helps another to understand. Secular proselytizing in contrast is manipullation into a cause.

Can you see the presumption within the statement, though? I hold to a different set of parameters; far simpler to use, equally apt at discerning, and far more pragmatic and practical with less tendency to demogoguery, thereby less tendency for abuse (intended or otherwise).

The set of parameters I use is: "gauge the tree by the fruit it bears."

I suppose I should just toddle off and leave this alone, I certainly intend no offense or harm. I've already added my two cents, not only here but many times in the past. I can't help but get the feeling that the truly profound is generally wasted on those who imagine themselves profound. But then we are back at chickens and eagles, aren't we?

 

[Nick_A]

Perhaps, but one of the results of transcendentism is elitism and prejudicial presumption, no?



Can you see the presumption within the statement, though? I hold to a different set of parameters; far simpler to use, equally apt at discerning, and far more pragmatic and practical with less tendency to demogoguery, thereby less tendency for abuse (intended or otherwise).

The set of parameters I use is: "gauge the tree by the fruit it bears."

I suppose I should just toddle off and leave this alone, I certainly intend no offense or harm. I've already added my two cents, not only here but many times in the past. I can't help but get the feeling that the truly profound is generally wasted on those who imagine themselves profound. But then we are back at chickens and eagles, aren't we?

Transcendentalism is simply adding an additional psychological dimension on to the two dimensional surface of secularism. If you want to call this awareness elitism then I am an elitist.. However it is the world that hates this awareness rather then this awareness as in Christianity hating the world.

Jesus was an elitist in this way but did that make him guilty of prejudicial presumption? Becoming open to experience the "world" as it is such as how Plato described it in his cave analogy is not being prejudiced against the world but rather becoming open to human meaning and purpose secularism has become unaware of.

The set of parameters I use is: "gauge the tree by the fruit it bears."

A person could argue that Jesus was a devil since so many adverse forms of Christendom were produced that even resulted in the Spanish Inquisition. However we do not see the living inner growth of some that is the purpose of Christianity. Is Christendom the fault of Christ or the natural result of the secular degeneration of a couscous teaching?

I can't help but get the feeling that the truly profound is generally wasted on those who imagine themselves profound. But then we are back at chickens and eagles, aren't we?

Agreed. Secularism imagines itself profound while the person awakening to the additional vertical dimension of transcendentalism sees how far they are from what it offers. This breeds humility and the voluntary use of Right Speech in respect to another. Socrates was able to admit he knew nothing since all his secular knowledge could not answer the questions posed by a transcendent awareness that linked vertical levels of reality.

 

[Nick_A]

Regarding Right Speech:

Abhaya Sutta

excerpts:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary.
Then Prince Abhaya went to Nigantha Nataputta and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Nigantha Nataputta said to him, "Come, now, prince. Refute the words of the contemplative Gotama, and this admirable report about you will spread afar: 'The words of the contemplative Gotama — so mighty, so powerful — were refuted by Prince Abhaya!'"
"But how, venerable sir, will I refute the words of the contemplative Gotama — so mighty, so powerful?"
"Come now, prince. Go to the contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: 'Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If the contemplative Gotama, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if the contemplative Gotama, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that "Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.' When the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up."


<...>


As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?"
"Prince, there is no categorical yes-or-no answer to that."
"Then right here, lord, the Niganthas are destroyed."
"But prince, why do you say, 'Then right here, lord, the Niganthas are destroyed'?"
"Just yesterday, lord, I went to Nigantha Nataputta and... he said to me...'Come now, prince. Go to the contemplative Gotama and on arrival say this: "Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?"... Just as if a two-horned chestnut were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when the contemplative Gotama is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up.'"
Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?"
"I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy."
"In the same way, prince:
[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
<...>
​

As said before the key is "intent. The Buddhist parable of the burning house is a lie. Does that make it wrong? No it is a correct use of right speech.

Where politically correct speech seeks to manipulate towards a secular goal, Right speech in the spiritual sense has the intent of psychological freedom for another.

 

[seattlegal]

The parable of the burning house can be found in Chapter 3 of the Lotus Sutra, if anyone would like to read it.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I should probably have followed this discussion more closely. Did anyone ever come up with a definition of "transcendence" we can all agree on?

 

[Nick_A]

I should probably have followed this discussion more closely. Did anyone ever come up with a definition of "transcendence" we can all agree on?

I don't think it can be done. If the diagram featuring the transcendent unity of religions isn't understood, I don't know what can. Transcendence is the inner experience of the additional vertical dimension in relation to the linear horizontal direction of secularism. It is poison to secularism so it is denied in every conceivable way. Years ago I never understood why the world must hate Christianity and now it is clear it must be so.

It is unfortunate that negativity and the lack of interest could make it difficult for a meaningful discussion on the psychological unification of transcendent and secular understanding. It appears to be self righteous, elitist, and everything else. Fortunately IRL there are a minority of people I know of that do understand both the value and importance of acquiring the human perspective that appreciates secularism from a transcendent perspective. Such a person is able to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. I am not ashamed to admit that I learn from such people and grateful for the opportunity.

I've learned from this thread that both conditioned attitudes and objections to Right Speech will be an obstacle. The secular attitude will continually try to interpret the three dimensional perception of transcendence into the two dimensional perception of secularism. It cannot be done and just leads to frustration and denial. It is compensated for where political correctness encouraging what to DO is accepted as meaningful while ignoring what we ARE. There is simply no way to proceed without it being agreed upon that such discussions require a different mindset and Right Speech. Profound conceptions that take into consideration the fallen human condition and how to open to the transcendent reality at the basis of the great traditions will just be mocked and scorned as described by Jesus and Plato. Secularism and the imporetance of prestige cannot express the humility that is natural for transcendent awareness that recognizes our nothingness in front of it so must react negatively. Unless people really want to understand rather than argue I don't see how conceptions on the simultaneous connection between the domain of God and the domain of Caesar could begin to be shared.