Truth & Reason

Truth & Reason:
Truth is merely what really happened in a situation and therefore it is always objective, unalterable and there can only be one version of what happened. Because truth is merely what really happened, it can never be domineering or intolerant but cannot be compromised or it will not then be still what really happened.
Reason or logic is the process using reliable information or what is known that can happen to arrive at the truth or what happened if one did not or cannot observe what happened.
Reason is in addition the purpose that may be true or false, necessary or unnecessary behind what is done or said, how it is done or said. For instance the reason or purpose of style which is always false and unnecessary, consumes prodigious energy to create stress both for self and others is to please, impress, intimidate or dominate others.
Right view is merely the view that describes (without emotion that is totally unnecessary) exactly what happened. Because right view merely describes what happened without emotion, it can never be domineering or intolerant which require the presence of emotion or force but again right view cannot be compromised. Because what happened can only happen in one way that can be known by All Seeing God even if it is not known by anyone in this world, there can only be one right view and any views that differ from this view is wrong view. Anyone who has this view has right view and is in accord with all others who passively, unemotionally, calm and clearly seeing share this view that is the basis of Jesus’ statement that ‘they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us’.
The Buddha said that Great Brahma is all knowing and all seeing and there is nothing that He does not know.
The Buddha called himself the Knower of All and if there are things in this world that he does not know then he is guilty of falsity to call himself the Knower of All. He said the direct knowledge that he has as compared to the knowledge that he has taught is like the leaves in the Simsapa forest above compared to the few in his hand. He can recall all his past lives, he recalled 91 eons in the first watch of the night of his enlightenment, he knows where a person is destined after his death, he knows the ways that lead to heaven, hell, animal womb, ghost realm and hungry shades. He can instantly access heaven, dive through the earth and fly through the air.
Therefore if you have faith the Buddha speaks the truth then everything that can happen in this world can be known. Even if you & everyone on earth do not know the truth behind a certain matter there is only one truth and one correct view behind it that is knowable by God. Therefore in any situation where a diversity of views are offered to you, only one or none of the differing views is correct, you either embrace none or choose one (without deprecating the others) to believe that you think is likely because to do otherwise is to fake the impossible that you can appreciate differing views, it would be to accept conflict that will end with regular practice to intense levels in irresolvable intense conflict or madness.
Falsity is what did not happen. Because it did not happen, falsity must be fabricated and there can theoretically be an infinite number of differing accounts or views of what did not happen.
Wrong views are merely the theoretically limitless numbers of views that describe what did not happen in a situation.
IT IS ALWAYS (NOT SOMETIMES) A CRUEL HOAX THAT PEOPLE WHO EXPRESS DIFFERIMG VIEWS THAT THEY WANT OTHERS TO APPRECIATE AND EVEN CONVERT THEM TO MUST THEMSELVES HAVE FAITH IN THEIR VIEWS BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES CAN NEVER (NOT MAY) BE CERTAIN OF ANY VIEW THEY HOLD BECAUSE THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT RESULTS FROM THEIR CONSTANT APPLICATION OF FORCE ON THEIR MINDS VIA INCESSANT LIKES AND DISLIKES, INCESSANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS OF THEIR SPEECH AND THOUGHTS EVEN AS THEY EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS MUST MAKE THEM DOUBT AND BE UNCERTAIN OF WHATEVER & HOWEVER THEY SAY, DO, THINK AND PERCEIVE NO MATTER HOW THEY MAY DENY IT AND THEREFORE THEY ARE UNRIGHTEOUS TO EXPRESS VIEWS THAT THEY WANT OTHERS TO APPRECIATE AS TRUE & TO CONVERT OTHERS TO. A PERSON WHO IS NOT FREE OF DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY HAS NO RIGHT TO WANT OTHERS TO APPRECIATE AND CONVERT THEM TO HIS VIEWS.
ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY HURTING THEMSELVES WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION CREATED BY THEIR CONSTANT APPLICATION OF FORCE ON THEIR MINDS BY THE WAYS THEY BEHAVE WITH CONSTANT STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE, SO THEY MUST HARBOR DOUBTS & SUSPICIONS OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS TO WHOM THEY FORCE THEMSELVES TO BE FALSELY NICE TO, SO HOW CAN THEY COMPLETELY BELIEVE THEIR OWN VIEWS AND IT IS DISINGENIOUS AND WICKED THAT THEY WHO ARE IMBUED WITH DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO CONSTANTLY SUPPRESS, CONTROL AND DENY EVEN TO THEMSELVES, SHOULD TRY TO INFLUENCE OTHERS WITH THEIR VIEWS. IT IS LIKE THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.
ONLY A PERSON WHO HAS NO LIKES AND DISLIKES, NO CONSTANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES AND CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT STRESSES, MAKE RESTLESS AND DISTRACTS HIMSELF CAN BE TRULY CERTAIN OF HIS VIEWS THAT WILL BE BY AND LARGE CORRECT BECAUSE HE SEES EVERYTHING AS THEY ARE, NOT AS HE LIKES OR DISLIKES THEM AND ON THE OCCASIONS WHERE HE IS PROVEN WRONG, BECAUSE HE HAS NO MENTAL FORCE WITH WHICH TO BE ATTACHED TO HIS VIEWS, HE READILY ALTERS HIS VIEWS WITHOUT SHAME, HE APOLOGIZES EASILY FOR ANY MISTAKES HE MAKES.
OFTEN IT IS NOT THAT A PERSON HAS CONVICTION IN HIS VIEWS, HE CAN SWITCH FROM ESPOUSING ‘BLACK IS ALWAYS BAD’ ON ONE OCCASION TO ‘BLACK IS GOOD’ ON ANOTHER OCCASION (MAYBE BECAUSE HE IS FACED WITH A BELLICOSE BLACK MAN), BUT HE HOLDS AND EXPRESSES VIEWS THAT DIFFER FROM OTHERS BECAUSE HE HAS STRONG SELF IDENTITY VIEWS (FETTER TO FUTURE WOES ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA), HIS VIEWS ARE A TOOL TO ANTAGONISE OTHERS, TO MAKE OTHERS CONFUSED (THAT THERE ARE OTHERS WHO BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE) & TO DOMINATE OTHERS BY IMPOSING HIS VIEWS THAT HE DOES NOT CARE IS TRUE OR NOT ON OTHERS.
(People are often unaware they are expressing views that impact on others that are often mundane and far from being high minded. For instance you say you want to buy something and your best friend offers his view like “Are sure you want to?”, you say you want to go to Australia to study and he questions you not because it is valid but he does not want to miss you.)
No truth & Falsity:
Where there is nothing happening, nothing perturbing there is no truth and no falsity, no need for right and wrong views, this state (nirvana) exists, is not annihilation, is not conjecturable and is the ULTIMATE end of all stress, according to the Buddha.
Anyone who champions the view that there are many situations or things that are not knowable or have more than one differing equally valid explanations may be championing a view that does not reflect reality because the reality may be that even if you and everyone in this world does not know something, how or what happened on a certain occasion, it is knowable and there are beings eg God & the angels (according to the Buddha) who know or there is a permanent cosmic record of everything that ever happened not just in this eon but in all eons past.
That there are possible multiple explanations or views to what happened in a given situation is an abiding myth or delusion that is hard to shake off in many that is aimed to keep them in doubt and uncertainty so that they are bonded in falsity, in suffering and this world because if you believe there are possible differing views that are true, you cannot be certain of anything, you must have the shadow of doubt that perhaps there is something that is an equally valid explanation. Therefore belief in multiple differing valid explanations is a false belief with which people detain themselves and want others to subscribe to, to detain them in falsity and suffering.
Because truth is defined as what happened, it can never be false, does not belong to anyone but truth is what binds in accountability all those who exist, there cannot be more than one truth, there cannot be alternative truths anymore that something can both happen and not happen at the same time. If you believe this can happen you are flirting with insanity that will finally be consummated.
What is so intolerant or domineering about a view that can be objectively known (if not by you then by those who try it eg not stretching syllables) to accurately describe what happened in a certain situation or offer appreciable benefit? If you think so, you may have mad or bizarre logic or perception.
Direct Seeing & Reasoning:
There are only two ways by which to arrive at the truth or what really happened. One is what the Buddha called direct knowledge, seeing yourself what really happened and the other is to work out by reason or logic the truth.
(When Jesus spoke of the world neither seeing nor knowing the counselor, he may be speaking without the audience’s wit of the two only ways by which truth may be known, seeing for yourself or reasoning for yourself)
You can only see for yourself what really happened if you see what is happening in its entirety not in snapshots, without liking or disliking, without undulating or unabated rises of the speed and strength of mental force that make it impossible to see things clearly as they are.
Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves
Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few Simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "How do you construe this, monks: Which are more numerous, the few Simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the Simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the forest are far more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress. This is the origination of stress. This is the cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life and lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.
The other way of knowing the truth as to what happened is indirect, using reasoning or logic of what is possible and not possible (eg in normal circumstances an apple always falls downwards by gravity), to work out what really happened or the truth of what happened.
As they say, rubbish in, rubbish out. Thus if you saw things in snapshots with like and dislike, you may delude yourself you saw the truth of what happened but you merely saw falsely what you liked or did not like to see. If you have faulty logic, you have a faulty set of tools of what can and cannot happen in reality then the ‘truth’ that you will arrive at as to what happened will be similarly flawed.
An Acute Abdomen:
There may be those who do not know they have this wrong view or way of perceiving that in the case of a patient who presents with an acute abdomen (severe abdominal pains), different people are entitled to different views that it is appendicitis, gastritis, food poisoning, ectopic pregnancy, renal colic, etc and they are all equally right to hold their differing views because nobody knows what is the cause.
Without opening up the abdomen, no one is entitled to his different view precisely what it is but the right view is that the cause could be a list of possibilities (differential diagnosis) that can be whittled down via history, examination and judicious investigations. There can only be one cause to the patient’s condition that even though no one knows, is known by All Seeing God and knowable once the abdomen is opened up or a scope inserted. Short of direct seeing by opening up the abdomen or putting in a scope, the right view is that it could be a list of possibilities. It is wrong view or presumption to say it must be appendicitis, gastritis or any other cause.
How does one discern the truth directly or by reasoning in the example below?
Quote: Asserting one's correctness to the exclusion of the other view implies the need of supremacy or dominance of views. This leads to fragmentation - an obvious reason for strife and hardships and sufferings in this world.
Direct Seeing: Ordinary people always read with emotional like or dislike and most will sense the emotional baggage or accompanying rebuke that there objectively is present in the statement above to experience dislike or feel (emotional) guilt that maybe he has a point in what he says to prevent him from seeing directly the truth behind in the statements. Only a person who reads what is said in its entirety without being emotionally disturbed can grasp that the substance of what is said is not important but the substance is just a convenient vehicle to not just put down but put him down in a concealed or camouflaged way that will make him feel (wrongfully) guilty.
Because the accusatory finger pointing is indirect, when confronted, the perpetrator can (wickedly) deny his ill will and instead accuse the recipient of being too sensitive, seeing slights where there are none whilst a less certain person might be conned to feel he is at fault, the criticism is valid or above board and he is wrong to impute ill will. Thus he will experience conflict that with regular practice to even intense emotional level, he becomes an increasingly confused person heading for future states of woe (doubt and uncertainty according to the Buddha is one of three lower fetters to states of future woe) and the person who has a hand in instigating his confusion by feeding shit dressed as food has grave karma.
Working out by reason: Ordinary people always speak and write with a combination of substance & style. If the substance of what is written is reasoned to be logically untenable, then the message is purely a style or emotion message.
Style is essentially the added unnecessary force (emotions are proxies of mental force) in the delivery of the message that can only be either like or dislike, only their intensities vary. Therefore if the substance of message that is addressing the matter of asserting one’s correctness to the exclusion of other views is proven false then the true reason of the message is to express a dislike of and attack my asserting the correctness of my view that (de facto or logically not un-righteously as implied) excludes other views.
ASSERTING A VIEW OR EVEN THE CORRECTNESS OF A VIEW NEVER BY ITSELF IMPLIES A NEED BY THE PERSON FOR SUPREMACY OR DOMINANCE OF HIS VIEW BUT THE NEED FOR SUPREMACY AND DOMINANCE OF ONE’S VIEW ALWAYS STEM FROM A PERSON’S SENSE OF SUPERIORITY AND DOMINEERING IN EVERYTHING HE DOES OR SAYS. THUS YOU ARE ACCUSING THE PERSON OF BEING A DOMINEERING AND HAUGHTY PERSON. WHETHER A PERSON IS EITHER OR BOTH DOMINEERING & HAUGHTY CAN BE OBJECTIVELY ESTABLISHED AND IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THEN YOU ARE MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS TO LASH OUT AT HIM OR YOU HAVE BIZARRE PERCEPTION, YOU CAN SEE SUPREMACY AND DOMINANCE IN ME WHERE THERE IS NONE.
(As Jesus said, no one lights a lamp and place it under cover but they put it on the stand so that it can provide illumination for others, in the same way, I do not display my views that are unique as a result of conceit or a need for dominance or intolerance but so that they may provide light for others and even if there is conceit, domineering in my intent, because there are other reasons for asserting the correctness of my views, you have wrong logic to say it must imply a need for supremacy and dominance)
UNLESS YOU ARE VERY CERTAIN OF YOUR ACCUSATIONS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANYONE TO FOOLISHLY STICK HIS NECK OUT TO ACCUSE ANOTHER PERSON OF BEING DOMINEERING OR HAUGHTY & PUT HIMSELF AT RISK OF SLANDER AND GRAVE JUDGMENT BECAUSE HAUGHTINESS AND DOMINEERING IS NEVER PLEASURE BUT ALWAYS SUFFERING, SO WHY DO YOU BEGRUDGE HIM HIS SUFFERING UNLESS YOU ARE A RESENTFUL PERSON?
FRAGMENTATION IS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERING VIEWS ON A SUBJECT NOT THE ASSERTING OF ONE’S VIEW.
STRIFE IS AGAIN NEVER CAUSED JUST BY THE ASSERTING OF THE CORRECTNESS OF A VIEW BUT STRIFE ONLY ENSUES IF PEOPLE WHO ARE GIVEN TO AGGRESSION WHO CANNOT AGREE TO GO THEIR SEPARATE WAYS BUT TRY TO FORCE OTHERS TO ADOPT THEIR VIEWS OR THEY ATTACK THE VIEWS OF OTHERS.
IT IS BECAUSE THEIR OWN VIEWS ARE FALSE OR THE EMOTIONAL WAYS THEY HOLD THEIR VIEWS ARE FALSE, THEY IN ADDITION FORCE THEMSELVES FOR SO LONG SO WELL TO APPRECIATE OTHERS’ DIFFERING VIEWS THAT ARE ALSO FALSE OR MUST CONFLICT WITH THEIR VIEWS IN THE NAME OF PLEASING OR IMPRESSING OTHERS THAT THEY NOW ARE FORCED TO APPRECIATE OTHERS’ DIFFERING VIEWS AS IF THEY ARE TRUE THAT THEY NOW BECOME BESET BY CONFLICT AND CONFUSION THAT CAN ARISE RAPIDLY TO INTENSE LEVELS WITH NO WAY OUT AND THEY ARE HEADED FOR FINAL MAD CONFUSION.
IT IS BECAUSE MY VIEWS ARE CORRECT, I DO NOT HOLD THEM EMOTIONALLY (WITH PRIDE, SUPREMACY OR DOMINANCE), I DO NOT FORCE MYSELF TO ENTERTAIN DIFFERING VIEWS FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASING OR IMPRESSING OTHERS THAT MUST CONFLICT WITH MINE THAT I AM EFFORTLESSLY IMBUED BY CALM CLEARLY SEEING CONCENTRATION WITHOUT ANY CONFLICT.
Thus the substance of the message can be reasoned to be totally false and what remains is the style of the message that can only be either like or dislike targeted at the subject of the message, ‘asserting the correctness of my views to the exclusion of others’. Therefore the aim of the message is to convey dislike in an indirect way calculated to make me feel guilty of asserting the correctness of my views.
Nirvana:
If there is nothing happening then there is no truth or falsity of what happened (because nothing has happened) and that according to the Buddha is the end of all stress. There is a state called nirvana where there is nothing perturbing, no truth and falsity and that is the end of all strife.
The Buddha: "See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is (actually) quite different from that. It (mind or consciousness plus mental force and body) is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration the truth, they are completely stilled and realize deliverance.
Nibbana Sutta: Total Unbinding (1)
Now at that time the Blessed One was instructing, rousing, and encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk. The monks -- focusing their entire awareness, -- listened to the Dhamma.
Then, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is that sphere where there is neither earth nor water nor fire, nor wind; neither sphere of the infinitude of space, nor sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, nor sphere of nothingness, nor sphere of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming nor going nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress.
Nibbana Sutta: Total Unbinding (2)
It's hard to see the unaffected,for the truth isn't easily seen (so if you think you see the truth, you have right views, you may be presumptuous).Craving is pierced in one who knows;For one who sees, there is nothing.
Nibbana Sutta: Total Unbinding (3)
There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned.
Nibbana Sutta: Total Unbinding (4)
One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no desire. There being no desire, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.
Am I not teaching you about truth in a way no one has done before and am I not subject to ridicule even by those who call themselves good and smart? Therefore am I not in this sense the spirit of truth that the world cannot receive?
Did I ever express that my views are superior or ridicule views that conflict with them or insisted that you must have faith in my views, must adopt my views even if you do not understand and cannot see the truth in what I espouse? Did I ever say to anyone that you must worship my views, you must memorize my views or I will abuse or punish you if you cannot regurgitate my views slickly?
Therefore you are slandering me to say I am domineering and intolerant with regard to my views. (Slander whether carelessly or intended to lash out at a person is deadly, even leads to hell).
Whilst there are those who have such low esteem that they question the correctness of their own views, they change their views depending on which direction the wind blows, it is not surprising that I should believe my views are correct and assert my views when relating to others. It is only when I can be shown to gloat over my views and ridicule those views I reject, I threaten with excommunication or physical punishment differing views that I will be guilty of being domineering or relishing supremacy.
I am never infatuated with my views (I never keep thinking about the views I hold and liking or being attracted to them) or views in general which are merely unavoidable necessities in a world where there is a self and an ‘other’ (the external world to relate to or view) & I never wish to impose my views (I want others to see the truth in my views because it will benefit them).
Dying Unconfused:
The Buddha said the person whose release of his mind through goodwill is well cultivated dies unconfused and if penetrating no higher (the formless realms) is headed for heaven.
You can only die unconfused if there is no doubt and uncertainty in you because you effortlessly see everything clearly as they are. If there are two or more alternative paths in views, speech and action that can be taken by you, you must be vulnerable to confusion as to which path or view to take and therefore only when there is only one correct path or view that universally applies to all is there a permanent end to confusion.
Therefore one must endeavor to see everything calmly and clearly without confusion.
Casting Doubt & False Logic:
I took up the ringing phone and this insistent woman asked to speak to someone. I said he had gone out to which she replied with palpable surprise and disbelief, “Why is his handphone not on?”
By implication, because his handphone is not on, he must be in and she is casting doubt asking me to doubt what I say. All this is based on her false logic that she does not realize will culminate in mad logic that his handphone must be on if he is out. There must be many reasons why his handphone is not on and therefore to ask me “(If he is out) why is his handphone not on?” is mad logic. Again reflecting her entrenched attitude to pester, make others doubtful, she (automatically) pretended not to hear what I said that I did not know why his handphone is not on by asking “Har?” or “What!!??” as if she did not hear. Often people heard what you said but it is automatic pretense that they did not hear to make you repeat unnecessarily, to make you doubt what you said is audible when it is with grave karma attached.

If you keep pretending you did not hear when you did hear, you increasingly fail to hear things that you should hear, you become selectively deaf that may prove fatal one day.

Zidane’s Headbutt:
Although Zidane has a history of head butting opponents, it is impossible that he would do so in the world cup final without provocation and therefore even though it is inexcusable and he has serious karma for doing so, the person who provoked him does not realize that even hell awaits him for which winning the world cup is scant compensation. The Italian has a history as a hard man and what he did is line with his well-practiced habit of taunting and intimidating opponents that will send him to hell.

It seems the Italian pulled Zidane’s shirt and he sarcastically said he could have it after the match if he wanted it so badly. The Italian retorted by saying that he should give it to her sister who was a broad (to cover her chest).
It is never harmless to be sarcastic, you imply that the person is so in awe of your football skills he is trying to snatch your shirt away that will provoke the other person to retaliate. One speaking righteously says, “Stop tugging at my shirt”.
Zidane’s moment of ‘insanity’ is a warning that all sinful behavior is conditioning. It is because he has head butted under provocation many times in the past, his urge to repeat when provoked is now too intensely rising to violent levels for him to resist and he is headed for total loss of control either here or in the other world.

EVERY MOMENT’S EXPERIENCE OF ANGER, EMOTION, LIKE OR DISLIKE, MENTAL SUFFERING, STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IS EVERY MOMENT’S CONDITIONING OF YOUR MIND SO THAT IN FUTURE YOU GET BETTER AT THEM, THEY ARISE MORE EASILY TO MORE INTENSE LEVELS THAT BECOME INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO SHAKE OFF AND IF YOU DO NOTHING, YOU ARE HEADED FOR MAD ANGER, LIKE OR DISLIKE, STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AFTER WHICH YOU ARE LIKELY TO HEAD FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.

The working in the vineyard for the reward of one denarius or one eternity in heaven that Jesus spoke of and the effacement that the Buddha spoke of is essentially the hard work that is required to painstakingly reverse the emotional urge to defile oneself and others (with anger, like and dislike, stress, restlessness and distraction) until they no longer remain. You work in the vineyard by painstakingly paying attention to stop stretching your syllables, stop changing speed and loudness in your speech so as to whittle down and finally destroy the stress, restlessness and distraction that you persecute yourself and others with.

Jesus: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder (the brahmas are the owners or householders of heaven) who went out early in the morning to hire laborers (ordinary people) for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius * a day (one eternity or age in heaven), he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the market place; 4 and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. 5 Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7 They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' 8* And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, 12 saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' 13* But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you. 15* Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' * 16* So the last will be first, and the first last."
Quote BBC Headline: Spain suffers first bird flu case.
Comment: Many who read will see nothing wrong when it is false. Spain is likely to be largely unconcerned than to suffer because of a bird flu case. Spain is not a being and therefore cannot suffer.
The correct headline is ‘Spain has its first bird flu case’.
FALSITY IS MORE RAMPANT THAN PEOPLE CONCEDE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LARGELY ACCEPTED THE FALSITY IN THEMSELVES AND OTHERS WITHOUT QUESTION AND THEREFORE THE FALSITY THAT PEOPLE ARE AWARE IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG COMPARED TO THE TOTALITY OF FALSITY EXISTING.
Beside The Point:
The reasons something said in the course of a discussion is beside the point is due to (emotion driven) faulty perception or faulty logic that the point raised is relevant.
It is impossible for a Buddha or Jesus to speak beside the point and it is never accidental or harmless but speaking beside the point is conditioning, even cultivated because it is deemed stylish and leads to final mad or insane perception and logic. The reason why people speak beside the point on account of faulty perception is because they never listen without liking and disliking to the entirety of what is said to them, they only hear what they like to hear and refuse to hear what they do not like to hear, they take snapshots which result in inappropriate replies or they do not reason live for the occasion at hand but they lazily search their mental jukebox for an appropriate response and may sometimes miscue or they are distracted or they have motives to deliberately speak besides the point.