Apologizing Is The Opposite Of Being Sorry

APOLOGIZING IS THE OPPOSITE OF BEING SORRY:
Suppose the pope had said calmly, unemotionally that he apologized sincerely (not deeply) or he was wrong to quote the emperor, would this gladden or sadden your heart?
When the pope said he was deeply sorry for the reactions that occurred in certain countries, did that sadden or gladden your heart? Did his deep sorrow stir disturbing or ‘touching’ emotions in you?
JESUS SAID LET YOUR YES BE YES ONLY, ANYTHING MORE COMES FROM EVIL (NOT GOOD).
IF YOU LET YOUR YES BE YES ONLY YOU APOLOGIZE BY SAYING UNEMOTIONALLY TO THE PERSON THAT WHAT YOU DID OR SAID WAS WRONG OR HARMFUL, ANYTHING MORE, TEAR JERKING, TREMBLY PAINED MIND AND HAND WRINGING BEING SORRY COMES FROM EVIL.
AN APOLOGY IN ITS UNSULLIED FORM IS A PAIN FREE REASON GUIDED DRAMA FREE SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF WRONG DOING. AN APOLOGY IS MERITORIOUS, GOOD FOR SELF AND RECIPIENT AND LEADS TO HEAVEN.
BEING SORRY IS A PAINED BLIND EMOTION DRIVEN DRAMATIC, EXPRESSION FULL CONDITIONED (REHASHED OR ROTE) STANDARDIZED & CONDITIONING ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WRONGDOING THAT CANNOT GUARANTEE IT WILL NOT BE REPEATED AGAIN BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE TOUCHING TO SELF AND OBSERVERS, IT IS NOT ATTENDED BY REASON (BLIND) BUT ATTENDED BY FORCE THAT MUCH AS THEY MIGHT INSIST IS ‘HEARTFELT’, IS ONLY FOR SHOW TO APPEASE THE OFFENDED. BEING SORRY IS SINFUL, BAD FOR SELF AND OTHERS BECAUSE IT APPLIES HARMFUL EMMOTIONAL FORCE ON ONE’S MIND THAT IS TRANSMITTED TO RECIPIENTS THAT ALSO HARMS THEM AND LEADS TO EVEN HELL.
AN APOLOGY HAS NO INTENSITY BECAUSE FORCE OR EMOTION IS ABSENT BUT BEING SORRY ALWAYS HAS INTENSITY BECAUSE FORCE AND EMOTION IS ALWAYS PRESENT. APOLOGIES CAN BE WRITTEN BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE TRANSMISSION OF FORCE BUT BEING SORRY IS IMPAIRED IF WRITTEN BECAUSE BEING SORRY IS FOR SHOW AND REQUIRES THE TRANSMISSION OF FORCE AND OTHERS OBSERVING THE DRAMATIC EXPRESSIONS.
BECAUSE BEING SORRY IS EMOTIONAL, IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION (CANNOT CONCENTRATE) AND BECAUSE APOLOGIZING IS GUIDED BY REASON WITHOUT EMOTION, THERE IS NO STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION DURING AND AFTERWARDS.
When you say, “I am sorry for disturbing you” you are conveying that you are experiencing real or imagined mental pain or dislike as a result of being aware you disturbed him. When you say unemotionally, “I apologize for disturbing you” you are conveying without pain or dislike that you realize you are wrong to disturb him. Because people are confused, not calmly clearly thinking, they believe and perceive being sorry and apologizing are synonymous, they think that when someone says he is sorry he has apologized when he hasn’t, he is merely conveying he feels mental pain or dislike as a result of being aware of his wrong conduct.
You often hear people saying, “I apologize, I’m sorry I did that”. This is strictly not apologizing but being emotionally sorry.
BY SAYING HE WAS DEEPLY SORRY THE POPE HAS INDICATED THAT HIS BEING SORRY IS EMOTIONAL BECAUSE ONLY FORCE OR EMOTION HAS DEPTH OR STRENGTH. BECAUSE BEING SORRY IS EMOTIONAL IT IS FALSE BECAUSE EMOTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE BLIND EITHER UNDULATING OR UNABATED RISE IN THE SPEED AND STRENGTH OF ONE’S MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF IN REACTION TO EVENTS THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON WHICH, APART FROM BEING FALSE IS ALSO HARMFUL TO SELF AND OTHERS BECAUSE IT APPLIES FORCE THAT STRESSES YOUR MIND THAT CAN BE IMPARTED ON RECIPIENTS (WHO CAN MENTALLY EXPERIENCE THE FORCEFUL CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS ACCOMPANYING YOUR BEING SORRY). FURTHER EACH TIME YOU EXPRESS BEING SORRY YOU CONDITION YOUR MIND & THAT OF YOUR RECIPIENT TO INCREASINGLY BEING EASIER AND MORE INTENSE TO BE SORRY THAT WILL END IN AGONY OR MADNESS AND YOU HAVE GRAVE DEBTS NOT MERIT.
BY SAYING HIS BEING SORRY IS DEEP, THE POPE HIMSELF CONFIRMS IT IS EMOTIONAL AND ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE HEARTFELT PAIN TO HIMSELF AND LIKE MINDED OTHERS, BECAUSE IT IS EMOTIONAL, IT IS BLIND, FALSE AND HARMFUL TO HIMSELF AND OTHERS AND HE HAS NOT APOLOGIZED FOR HIS REMARKS.
IT IS NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE INCLUDING THE POPE DO NOT BELIEVE IN SPEAKING THE TRUTH THAT BENEFITS OTHERS, THEY DO BELIEVE AND THEY THINK THEY SPEAK THE TRUTH THAT BENEFITS OTHERS, BUT THEY ARE DELUDED, THEY BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE EG THEIR EXCUSES (EG THESE ARE IN FACT A QUOTATION THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY REFLECT MY THINKING) ARE TRUE, THEY BELIEVE WHAT IS BAD FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS IS GOOD (THEIR DEEP SORROW AND THEIR INFLAMMATORY QUOTES) AND THUS DELUDED THEY CONVINCE THEMSELVES THAT THEY SPEAK WHAT IS TRUE THAT BENEFITS OTHERS.
BECAUSE THIS IS A WORLD OF PERVERSIONS OF WHAT IS BAD OR HARMFUL IS GOOD OR BENEFICIAL, IT WORSHIPS FORCE OVER REASON, IT WANTS AN EYE FOR AN EYE, BEINGS IN THIS WORLD BELIEVE WITH ABIDING DELUSION THAT A PERSON CAN ONLY TRULY BE CONTRITE OR HAS REPAID A WRONG HE HAS DONE IF HE IS VISIBLY PAINED & THEREFORE PEOPLE HAVE LEARNT HOW TO FAKE OR EXPERIENCE & EXPRESS BEING PAINED WHEN THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR WRONGS AND THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF BEING SORRY.
IT IS NOT SURPRISING BUT EXPECTED THAT AFTER LIFELONG REPEATED CONDITIONING, PEOPLE WHO CAN NOW EASILY EXPERIENCE INTENSE ‘MOVING’ BEING SORRY THAT THEY CANNOT HELP SHOULD BELIEVE IN DELUSION THAT IS HARD TO SHAKE OFF THAT THEIR PAINED BEING SORRY IS GOOD FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, THAT THEY CANNOT HAVE PROPITIATED WITHOUT EXPERIENCING MENTAL PAIN OR DISLIKE FOR THEIR WRONG.
BEING SORRY IS THE EASIEST THING FOR ORDINARY PEOPLE TO CONVEY AND INSTEAD NOT TO DO SO IS THE HARDEST THING FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE PRACTICED BEING SO SORRY SO MANY TIMES BEFORE IT IS OFTEN INVOLUNTARY AND ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS LOCATE THE ‘BEING SORRY’ JUKEBOX RECORDING, PRESS THE START BUTTON AND THEIR MENTAL FORCE WILL MINDLESSLY CARRY IT OUT WITHOUT QUESTIONS ASKED AND OCCASIONALLY THEY MAY GET OUT OF CONTROL TO CHOKE OR BECOME TEAR JERKING AND OTHERS APPRECIATE THEIR DRAMATIC SORRY. INSTEAD IT IS HARD IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER DONE IT BEFORE (THEIR APOLOGIES ARE ACTUALLY BEING SORRY), APOLOGIZING REQUIRES REASONED SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION ADMISSION THEY HAVE DONE WRONG WHICH THEIR PRIDE STANDS IMPLACABLY IN THE WAY.
(HAS ANYONE IN THE PAST OR PRESENT DEFINED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING SORRY AND APOLOGIZING LIKE I HAVE NOW DONE? IF I DID NOT DEFINE IT THUS WILL YOU HAVE REALIZED IT BY YOURSELF? IF MY DEFINITION IS TRUE & BENEFITS YOU, THEN WHOEVER IS THE COUNSELOR JESUS SPOKE OF MUST ALSO TEACH YOU THIS IF HE IS TO BE YOUR ADVANTAGE TO COME AND IF I HAVE DONE SO I WILL HAVE SUPERSEDED HIM)
Embarrassment is a form of disliking, It is nothing more than dislike or the unabated rise in speed and strength of one’s mental force in fancy clothes. Pretentious people upon hearing what I state above may become involuntarily embarrassed, they may experience intense dislike that may be associated with squirming (restlessness) and involuntary even profane mocking utterances that may be so intense they cannot concentrate on what they are reading. Thus they are slaves of their embarrassment that is never meritorious but pretentious and harmful because it applies force that stresses on his mind and he is a slave heading for woe.
Sorry For Yourself Or Sorry For Others?
Being an emotional man, the pope has reason to be sorry or mentally anguished for the mess he has created for himself.
It is likely he did not expect the furor; he knew what he was quoting was inflammatory but he thought he had carefully disclaimed responsibility by stressing during his address that the words are not his and he was speaking to a ‘friendly’ audience. Instead of acclaim and admiration he has found himself embroiled by negative attention even threats to his physical well-being, struggling to find viable explanations or excuses for his actions.
How do you separate the sorrow the pope must surely feel for himself and the sorrow he says he feels for the reactions of others? If it is physically impossible to do so, it may be convenient or self serving for the person who is experiencing intense being sorry for himself to perceive it as the deep sorrow for the reactions of others.
THEREFORE IT IS PRESUMPTOUS TO THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE THE POPE SAYS HE IS DEEPLY SORRY FOR THE REACTIONS AND HE INDEED EXPERIENCES DEEP SORROW, IT MUST BE FOR OTHERS BECAUSE IT CAN BE PROJECTED FROM BEING SORRY FOR HIMSELF.
THE CONFUSION SURROUNDING THE POPE ‘APOLOGY’ CAN BE PARTLY BLAMED ON THE POPE AND PARTLY BLAMED ON PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY AND EVEN THOSE AT THE HIGHEST ECHELONS ARE UNCERTAIN HOW BEING SORRY AND APOLOGIZING DIFFER. THE POPE WAS ASKED TO APOLOGIZE FOR HIS QUOTE BUT HE CHOSE TO BE DEEPLY SORRY FOR THE REACTIONS OF OTHERS.
The dire consequences of not apologizing:
If you have done wrong, you must apologize (for your own good). If your pride prevents you from apologizing, you risk dire consequences, even having your mind split into seven pieces.
The pope should apologize because what he quoted was false, has offended Muslims and is harmful to everyone, including himself because it caused him much distress and he is at risk of retaliation by Muslims.
All those who think the pope has already apologized (as the Anglican archbishop and even Iran’s head stated) are gullible because being deeply sorry is the opposite of apologizing. Far from apologizing he is either deliberately or unwittingly contrived to deceive others (that he has apologized when he hasn’t) and dishonestly not disclosed his position regarding the quote. Deception and dishonesty are not qualities a pope should have.
Quote: As the Elder proclaimed his virtues remorse filled the monk who had unjustly traduced him. Immediately, he fell at the feet of the Blessed One, admitting his slander and confessing his fault. Thereupon the Buddha said: "Sariputta, pardon this deluded man lest his head should split into seven pieces." Sariputta's reply was: "Venerable sir, I freely pardon this venerable monk." And, with joined palms, he added, "May this venerable monk also pardon me if I have in any way offended him."
When Vassakara saw the Venerable Maha Kaccana coming down from Vulture Peak he exclaimed: "He looks just like a monkey!"[14] Maha Kaccana is described as being especially handsome and graceful. News of the incident reached the Buddha. The Blessed One said that if Vassakara should go to the elder and beg his pardon all would be well but if he does not ask for pardon he would be reborn as a monkey in the Bamboo Grove in Rajagaha. As the chief minister of the kingdom, he must have been too proud to beg forgiveness from a mendicant monk. Thus, reflecting that whatever the Buddha says must be true, he made preparations for his next existence by planting trees in the Bamboo Grove and setting up a guard to protect the wild life there. It is said that some time after his death a monkey was born in the Bamboo Grove that would draw near when one called out "Vassakara."
***
Quote: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he told pilgrims.
"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.” (By saying it does not in anyway express his personal thought, he disowns the emperor’s views and implies that his views are not necessarily the same as the emperor’s but he won’t tell you what it is even when it will definitely clarify matters as he later said he hoped to. Why won’t he hit the nail in the head or let his yes be yes only, anything more comes from evil, as Jesus counseled and say he either agrees or disagrees with the emperor? This is evasiveness or dishonesty that is not a quality you or Jesus who regularly said “I tell you the truth’ expects a pope to have.)
Appeasing hearts:
The pope: "I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect."
Jesus or the Buddha never spoke of appeasing others’ hearts, they never taught you to appease hearts. Show me (my ‘show me’ is justified because I know you cannot show me but the emperor’s show me is wrong because I can show him he is wrong) one occasion when Jesus or the Buddha taught you to appease hearts. Appeasing hearts is never appeasing reason but it is appeasing emotion or falsity because emotion is nothing more than undulating or unabated speed and strength changes of one’s mental force.
How can a person who is devoted to telling the truth ever contemplate appeasing other people’s hearts? The thought of appeasing others’ hearts never crosses my mind and it is something I do not approve of in any circumstance. You should never seek to (emotionally) appease other people’s hearts because that is always dishonest, an invitation to say or do things that you do not mean to falsely (emotionally) please others or keep yourself in their good books, to get away with and therefore you should seek only to calmly clearly (with reason) state (not clarify) your position if you are an honest man as you like to believe.
THUS THE POPE DOES NOT REALIZE THAT BY HIS WORDS HE IS CONSTANTLY EXPOSING HIS TRUE NATURE WHICH IS DISHONEST (TRYING TO APPEASE OTHERS HEARTS) AND THOSE ON THE SIDELINE INCLUDING THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE SMART & GOOD DO NOT SEE AND KNOW THE POPE’S TRUE NATURE THAT HE IS EXPOSING. THEREFORE MUCH AS PEOPLE LIKE TO THINK THEY CAN SEE AND KNOW THE TRUTH, IT IS MAKE BELIEVE.
If you have unequivocally, let your yes be yes only clearly stated your position in the affair as demanded by others there is no reason for you to speak of ‘hope’ (which implies uncertainty or wishing) that your explanations will clarify the true meaning of your address. It is because there is doubt in your mind that you have done so that you speak of hope.
Why can it be said objectively that the pope is deceptive and dishonest, qualities that should not be present in a pope?
He has deceived even many high standing Christians and Muslims that he has apologized when examined carefully he has not apologized for his quote, but he merely said he was deeply sorry (that can mean he is distressed by or apologizes for) the reactions but this does not necessarily means he accepts the blame because if as he himself said, people misunderstood his quote and that they became outraged and thus it is not actually the pope’s fault that you became outraged but it is your misunderstanding of his message that is at fault and in expressing his deep sorrow, the pope may be merely expressing his distress for your outrage that is the result of your misunderstanding of his quote. He is dishonest because he has sought to distance himself without revealing whether he approved or censured the emperor’s views and that is evasive or dishonest.
POPE IMPLIES HE IS NOT TO BLAME:
THE POPE HAS STATED PEOPLE MISUNDERSTOOD HIS QUOTATION AND BY EXTENSION, AS A RESULT OF THEIR MISUNDERSTANDING THEY BECAME OUTRAGED AND THEREFORE IMPLICITLY HE IS BLAMING MISUNDERSTANDING BY OTHERS THAT IS NOT HIS FAULT FOR THE REACTIONS AND HIS ‘DEEPLY SORRY’ CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN APOLOGY FOR THE REACTIONS BUT IT MERELY EXPRESSES HIS DISTRESS FOR PEOPLE’S OUTRAGE AS A RESULT OF MISUNDERSTANDING.
YOU MAY SEE HOW THE POPE’S EXPLANATIONS IS AMBIGUOUS, FRAUGHT WITH MANY CONFLICTING POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. BECAUSE IN THIS CASE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A HONEST AND UNDECEPTIVE PERSON TO STATE HIS POSITION UNEQUIVOCALLY, THE POPE HAS ACQUITTED HIMSELF BADLY.
INSTEAD OF SAYING I AM DEEPLY SORRY OR SAD FOR THE REACTIONS, THE POPE COULD HAVE STATED CLEARLY 1) I APOLOGIZE OR SAY I AM WRONG FOR MY QUOTE, 2) I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY QUOTE, 3) I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR MY QUOTE BUT I APOLOGIZE FOR THE REACTIONS.
INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought” THE POPE COULD HAVE STATED CLEARLY “I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE EMPEROR’S VIEWS”.
THE POPE ALMOST ALWAYS NEVER SAYS WHAT HE MEANS. HE MEANS HE IS NOT TO BLAME BUT PEOPLE ARE TO BLAME FOR MISUNDERSTANDING HIM BUT THE DOES NOT SAY SO, HE MEANS HIS VIEWS WHETHER REALLY OR IMAGINED DIFFERS FROM THE EMPEROR AND THEREFORE OPPOSES THE EMPEROR BUT HE NEVER SAID THAT. THIS IS DISHONESTY.
IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE NOT TO BLAME THEN YOU SHOULD NOT FEEL DEEPLY SORRY OR APOLOGIZE, THUS THE POPE IS GENERATING CONFLICT, MAD PERCEPTION AND LOGIC NOT JUST IN HIMSELF BUT OTHERS WHO ACCEPT HIS ‘APOLOGY’ THAT HE MAY NOT REALIZE BUT WILL END IN MADNESS.
Why the pope strongly liked his quote:
The reason people quote is to draw attention to what they quote to either commend or criticize it. Nobody will quote what he disliked unless it is to criticize it and there is no indication the pope is criticizing the emperor and because ordinary people always either like or dislike, if he did not dislike he must like the emperor’s views. He was at pain to distance himself from the emperor’s view without criticizing it and there is evidence he liked what he quoted in his use of startling and astounding to describe the emperor’s view and therefore the pope liked, even strongly liked what he quoted because to be astounded by the startling brusque words is to be greatly pleasantly surprised or fascinated.
BECAUSE EMOTIONAL PEOPLE ALWAYS EITHER LIKE OR DISLIKE, IF THEY DID NOT DISLIKE THEY MUST LIKE, THE POPE MUST EVEN STRONGLY LIKE WHAT HE QUOTED BECAUSE HE NEVER SHOWED ANY INCLINATION TO CENSURE THE EMPEROR’S VIEWS BUT INSTEAD HE DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS BEING ASTOUNDED (GREATLY SURPRISED IN A LIKING WAY) BY THE STARTLING VIEWS.
IT MAY BE THAT THE POPE STRONGLY LIKED THE EMPEROR’S STARTLING BRUSQUE COMMENTS AND HIS MAIN PURPOSE IS TO QUOTE THE EMPEROR, WITH THE MESSAGE THAT VIOLENCE AND RELIGION ARE INCOMPATIBLE BEING AN ATTEMPT TO SANITIZE OR LEGITIMIZE HIS QUOTE. MANY ORDINARY PEOPLE LIKE TO SAY, ‘BY THE WAY YOU OWE ME $5 WHEN COLLECTING THAT $5 IS THEIR OVERRIDING OBSESSION. THIS MAY BE A SIMILAR ‘BY THE WAY’ SLEIGHT OF HAND PRESENTATION OF THE EMPEROR’S VIEWS THAT THE POPE FOUND INTRIGUING THAT HE WANTED TO SHARE WITH OTHERS THAT HE THOUGHT WAS CLEVER.
THE MESSAGE THAT VIOLENCE AND RELIGION DO NOT GO TOGETHER IS OBVIOUSLY TARGETTED AT ISLAM AND IF YOUR INTENTION IN SAYING THAT IS TO REACH OUT CONSTRUCTIVELY TO MUSLIMS, IT IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE AND PERVERSE TO QUOTE THE EMPEROR’S DAMNING VIEW.
IF ON THE OTHER HAND YOUR INTENTION IS TO USE THE QUOTE TO CASTIGATE ISLAM, THEN YOUR SUBSEQUENT MESSAGE THAT RELIGION AND VIOLENCE DO NOT GO TOGETHER MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IT DETRACTS FROM OR TRIES TO SANITIZE YOUR QUOTE.
The Pope did not apologize for others’ reactions:
It is absurd or impossible for anyone to apologize for others’ actions (in this case reactions) except if it is hypocritical lip service because the pope did not direct others to react nor can he meaningfully undertake that others will not react in the future.
In any case, it is clear from the pope’s expressed being deeply sorry that he meant he was deeply distressed by the reactions generated by his quote, he is not apologizing for his quote or the reactions.
Thus by not coming clean, not letting his yes be yes only, the pope has either intentionally or unintentionally deceived or confused many because even top leaders like Iran’s leader and the archbishop of Canterbury has said he has apologized when he hasn’t.
What is unnecessary when regularly practiced always becomes constant:
WHAT IS UNNECESSARY CANNOT BE DIRECTED BY REASON BECAUSE REASON WILL NOT DIRECT WHAT IS UNNECESSARY AND SO IT MUST BE POWERED BY BLIND INDISCRIMINATE BRUTE FORCE WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED WITHOUT REASON BEING IN ATTENDANCE. THEREFORE WHATEVER THAT IS UNNECESSARY OR SERVES NO PURPOSE BUT IS FOR SHOW EG STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS, THAT IS NOT ATTENDED BY REASON BUT IS DRIVEN BY INDISCRIMINATE NO QUESTIONS ASKED FORCE CAN OCCUR AT ANY TIME AND IT IS IN THE NATURE OF THINGS THAT WHATEVER THAT CAN OCCUR ANY TIME IN TIME WILL OCCUR ALL THE TIME OR CONSTANTLY.
ANYTHING THAT IS NECESSARY REQUIRES REASON TO BE IN ATTENDANCE AND CANNOT OCCUR AT ANY TIME BECAUSE IT REQUIRE PURPOSE TO OCCUR AND BECAUSE IT CANNOT OCCUR ANY TIME, IT CANNOT BE CONSTANT. WHATEVER IS REASONED AND THEREFORE TRUE, CANNOT BE CONSTANT. WHATEVER IS UNREASONED CAN, WILL BE AND MUST BECOME CONSTANT.
THUS FOR ONE WHO SEES CORRECTLY STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS, WHICH ARE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY BUT ARE FOR SHOW TO DECEIVE, PLEASE, IMPRESS, INTIMIDATE AND DOMINATE OTHERS ARE ALWAYS CONSTANT, NEVER OCCASIONAL OR EVEN JUST FREQUENTLY, WITHOUT THE AWARENESS OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FOOLISH ACTOR THAT THEY ARE OCCURRING.
THEREFORE THE FACT THAT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS ARE ALWAYS CONSTANT DENOTES THEY ARE FALSE, UNNECESSARY AND FOR SHOW, NOT ATTENDED BY REASON BUT BLINDLY DRIVEN BY MENTAL FORCE.
The force of self preservation in action:
Whenever people overdo themselves, they subject themselves to prolonged social discourse, heard or sang too much music or pushed themselves to keep watching TV or study, they experience stress, restlessness and distraction or inability to concentrate that if they observe themselves carefully, they always use force to try and dispel or struggle to dispel and usually after a while they succeed to appreciably reduce their tormenting stress, restlessness and distraction.
The force that they are using when they struggle to dispel the stress, restlessness and distraction that seize their minds is their force of self preservation whilst the force that drove their speech and conduct, that created this stress, restlessness and distraction is their force of going against self.
It is possible to speak and move with the minimal force required without stretching units of speech or motion, without changing speed and strength of force and this will result in a considerably saving in energy expended and lesser stress, restlessness and distraction generated so that the force of self preservation is not required to extricate oneself from painful stress, restlessness and distraction.

No matter how mildly one stretches one syllables or changed speed and loudness (and even when they are whispering, there are quite significant not mild stretching, changes in speed and loudness), because unnecessary force must be applied on the mind setting in motion the piling up of stress, restlessness and distraction that is self reinforcing because it is forceful and unnecessary, since you are wishing yourself to stretch, change speed and loudness and it is unnecessary it shall be automated so it becomes constant without being asked so that there is inexorable momentum to not just keep stretching, keep changing speed and loudness but to intensify them. Further, because the person has practiced stretching, changing of speed and loudness to even intense sustained levels his whole lifelong, he already owns mad stress, restlessness and distraction that can be triggered to seize him as a result of minor provocations.
An Example Of The Buddha Being The Highest Teacher:
The Buddha said:
[1] Words that the Tathagata (The One Who Thus Comes) knows to be untrue, unbeneficial & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] Words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[3] Words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial but disagreeable to others (eg you are stretching your syllables) he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] Words that the Tathagata knows to be untrue, unbeneficial but agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[5] Words that the Tathagata knows to be true, unbeneficial but agreeable to others (eg you are handsome or rich or clever), he does not say them.
[6] Words that the Tathagata knows to be true, beneficial, and 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."
Why does what the Buddha taught above prove he is the highest teacher?

Even if you and everybody in this world do not understand and appreciate the significance of what the Buddha is telling you above, never followed his advice above, he is the highest teacher because nobody else before and after has taught you that and if a person TRULY followed what he taught above he will be not only blameless, he is meritorious and has no debts to others and is not subject to judgment.

On what account can you or anybody blame a person who only speaks the truth that benefits others?

It is because you and everybody here never followed what he said above that you have great debts and need to be forgiven if you are to go to heaven.

Jesus did not teach what the Buddha taught above, not at least formally in this structured form but if it is true that a person who spoke as the Buddha taught above is totally blameless and meritorious then the Buddha is in this instance the highest teacher.

Forgiveness:
Acknowledgement of wrongdoing (apologizing) is insufficient but it must be followed by a request for forgiveness. Until the wronged party forgives (there are many vindictive people who do not forgive easily), the wrong still stands even if you have acknowledged your fault.

The reason why the person must request forgiveness is that the victim has been harmed and without his forgiveness or renunciation of compensation in suffering, there is retribution in suffering due in the future. When forgiveness is asked and given (not a foregone conclusion) then the misdeed is truly cancelled. If forgiveness is asked but the person does not forgive, then retribution will ensue but the person who refuses to forgive will not be forgiven his own sins.

There are many who swear undying vengeance for wrongs done on them and however long it takes, retribution will ensue. You hear of stories of a bride to be being fatally bitten by a cobra or a person who refused to go out on a certain day but an insect flew in and bit him to death. Such incidents may be the being that is the cobra or insect exacting retribution for offence occurring even many lifetimes ago.

To solemnly ask for forgiveness is very hard for proud people because they deem it a loss of face and they therefore prefer apology’s imposter, the pained being sorry.

Thus the Buddha asked Sariputta to forgive the monk and said that if the Minister begged the Elder’s forgiveness for saying he looked like a monkey, all will be well.

Jesus: And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (There may be those who will emotionally attack me for ‘harping mercilessly or un-forgivingly’ on the pope’s error possibly because they side with pope and cannot bear to hear criticism. If there is no emotion in my criticism and he is worthy of criticism as the Buddha said, then I am not being unforgiving or unjust in my criticism. How can a person be guilty of being unforgiving if the pope has not asked for forgiveness? If you want to accuse me of being unforgiving or nitpicking, make sure you yourself do not hold grudges, do not nitpick, do not emotionally want others to suffer, mentally inflict revenge on your offender without truly renouncing it totally afterwards. There are many who say they forgive but afterwards they keep thinking vengefully over the matter. They are not men of their promises)

IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT THE BUDDHA SAID, THE POPE WAS WRONG TO QUOTE THE EMPEROR BECAUSE IT WAS FALSE, UNBENEFICIAL AND DISAGREEABLE TO OTHERS AND THEREFORE HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE (SAY HE WAS WRONG) FOR QUOTING THE EMPEROR (NOT FEEL SORRY FOR REACTIONS) AND ASK FOR FORGIVENESS, NONE OF WHICH HE HAS DONE AND SO HIS OFFENCE STANDS AND JUDGMENT AWAITS.

PEOPLE ARE CAVALIER ABOUT SAYING HURTFUL WORDS AND THEN THEY ARE TOO PROUD TO ADMIT WRONG, LET ALONE ASK FOR FORGIVENESS BUT REFLECTING HOW SERIOUS EVEN TRIFLING MISDEEDS ARE, JESUS SAID THAT EVEN THE MAN WHO CALLS HIS BROTHER ‘YOU FOOL’ IS LIABLE TO THE FIRE OF HELL AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS, THE MINISTER HAD TO BE BORN A MONKEY FOR REFUSING TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS FROM AN ELDER HE UNRIGHTEOUSLY CALLED A MONKEY. BECAUSE WHAT A PERSON SAID OR DID HURTS THE OTHER PERSON, UNTIL HE HAS FORGIVEN YOU, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO RETRIBUTION.
IF YOU ARE CONSTANTLY HURTING OTHERS WITH YOUR EMOTIONAL WAY OF SPEAKING AND DOING THINGS THAT HAS CONSTANT FORCEFUL STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE STRESSING OTHERS AND YOU SAY HURTFUL THINGS WITHOUT ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS THEN AS THE BUDDHA SAID, EVEN A TRIFLING DEED DONE TAKES ONE TO HELL.
Blame The Emperor, Don’t Blame Me:
By saying "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought” the pope is acknowledging that what the emperor said is offensive but he is absolving himself of all blame for offending Muslims. Blame the emperor for saying what is offensive to you but don’t blame me in any way for quoting him because the pope never proffered any evidence that he accepted any responsibility for quoting the emperor; he never said ‘I am aware I am partly guilty for quoting the emperor’. Did the pope ask the emperor for permission to quote him and if he did not, how convenient of him to now shift all the blame on the emperor.

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE THAT THE EMPEROR’S WORDS UPSET MUSLIMS AND IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT IT WAS THE POPE WHO QUOTED THE EMPEROR, UNLESS WHAT THE EMPEROR SAID IS TRUE & BENEFICIAL, THE POPE IS LIABLE FOR QUOTING WHAT IS FALSE & UNBENEFICIAL THAT IS DISAGREEABLE TO OTHERS AND HE SHOULD THEREFORE APOLOGIZE (NOT FEEL SORRY) FOR QUOTING THE EMPEROR, NOT FOOLISHLY DISCLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EMPEROR’S VIEWS. ONLY IF WHAT THE EMEPEROR SAID IS TRUE, BENEFICIAL TO PEOPLE BUT DISAGREEABLE IS THE POPE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR QUOTING SOMETHING THAT IS TRUE, BENEFICIAL THAT IS DISAGREEABLE TO OTHERS.

To say that he was misunderstood, what he quoted was taken out of context is just an excuse because the quote does not apply in the context that it was taken from that violence and religion do not go together. If the pope was arguing that Islam is a false religion or should be abolished then the quote "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" has a context.

Can a man who quotes an emperor whose views are damning on Islam that he has never censured truly have the deepest respect for Islam? The Buddha spoke of things that are possible and things that are impossible. If you think this is possible and it is impossible it is wrong view and there are two destinations for wrong view: hell or the animal womb.

THE POPE WAS ASKED TO APOLOGIZE FOR QUOTING THE EMPEROR, NOT APOLOGIZE FOR REACTIONS OR FEEL SORRY. ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT HIS EXPRESSION OF DEEP SORROW FOR THE REACTIONS OF OTHERS & HIS EXPLANATION THAT ‘THESE ARE IN FACT NOT MY WORDS’ ARE APPROPRIATE ANSWERS TO A CALL TO APOLOGIZE HAS FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION AND LOGIC. THE CORRECT REPLY IS TO SAY “I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE IT IS WRONG TO QUOTE THE EMPEROR OR I DO NOT APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THE QUOTE IS CORRECT”.

Many do not realize they are deluded; they think they can choose when to answer appropriately to queries and when to be evasive when they are inexorably conditioning themselves to evasiveness every time they give inappropriate answers in order to be evasive that they want others to believe is appropriate. It reflects they are already well on the way to mad perception and logic that they do not realize that many answers they give are logically untenable.
Not an accident pope used ‘astounded’ instead of excited or thrilled or delighted:
It is likely that the pope carefully said ‘astounded’ in relation to the emperor’s words instead of saying we are ‘thrilled or delighted or amazed or excited’ because it would make his liking obvious. Why did he not use ‘dismayed’, disconcerted or outraged?
It is a fool’s logic that you can conceal your intent. A discerning person watching a video of the pope’s speech can tell from the way the pope said ‘startling brusqueness’ and ‘astounded’ whether he liked or disliked what he quoted.
Because astounded is to be strongly surprised, he must strongly like the quote if he did not dislike it.
Why Feeling Sorry Is Unnecessary:
If you have hurt someone with your words or deed, all that is required is that you are consciously aware how your words and deeds hurt, convey to him mindfully that you regret you are wrong and to ask for his forgiveness.
Where is there need in this process for being emotional, expressing being pained or sorry which is unnecessary but only necessary for show to impress the other person that also imparts your pain on him and if he is a masochist as ordinary people are, he will ‘enjoy’ seeing you real or imagined hurt, disregarding the stress he experiences in ‘enjoying’ seeing you hurt.
What has being sorry, experiencing and expressing pain for hurting someone with speech or deed got to do with apologizing, telling someone what you did or said to him was wrong?

WHAT YOU SAID OR DID HURT THE OTHER PERSON NOT YOU, AT LEAST NOT PRIMARILY BUT SECONDARILY. WHILST YOUR FIST MAY FEEL HURT WHEN YOU PUNCHED HIM, WHILST YOU WERE STRESSED WHEN YOU SCOLDED HIM, SURELY YOUR FIST IS NOT NOW STILL HURTING NOR DO YOU STILL EXPERIENCE THE STRESS OF SCOLDING NOW, SO WHY SHOULD YOU NOW EXPERIENCE PAIN WHEN YOU APOLOGIZE TO HIM BUT INSTEAD THE REAL OR IMAGINED PAIN YOU EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESS IS HYPOCRITICAL, LEARNT FROM A COMBINATION OF SELF AND SOCIETY COERCION THAT YOU REPRODUCED BY ROTE TO IMPRESS THE OTHER PERSON OF YOUR CONTRITION? THUS IT IS IMMACULATE SELF AND OTHER DECEIT IF YOU NOW PERCEIVE AND THINK YOUR PAINFUL BEING SORRY IS A GENUINE APOLOGY WHEN IT IS A REGURGITATED FOR SHOW MINDLESS STANDARDIZED FOR SHOW REACTION TO PERCEIVED WRONGDOING.

BEING SORRY IS A MEANINGLESS BUT EMOTION FULL REACTION TO PERCEIVED WRONGDOING BUT AN APOLOGY IS A MEANINGFUL EMOTIONLESS RESPONSE TO WRONGDOING.

IF PEOPLE OBSERVE THEMSELVES, THEY OFTEN CANNOT HELP IT FEELING SORRY FOR REAL OR IMAGINED SLIGHTS ON OTHERS (EG SORRY HE IS NOT IN). IF FEELING SORRY IS REASONED AND NOT ROTE, IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO EITHER FEEL OR NOT FEEL SORRY BUT PEOPLE HAVE TO FORCE THEMSELVES, USE FORCE IF THEY WERE TO REFRAIN FROM FEELING SORRY IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY USUALLY FEEL SORRY INDICATING IT IS NOTHING BUT BLIND EMOTION TENDERED AS AN APOLOGY.

JUST AS STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY TO CONVEY A VERBAL MESSAGE & THEY CONSUME PRODIGOUS ENERGY TO PRODUCE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION FOR THE PERSON THAT IS TRANSMISSIBLE TO THE LISTENER, AND CONDITIONS THE PERSON TO KEEP STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT PERPETUATES HIS STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, IN THE SAME WAY, BEING EMOTIONALLY SORRY IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY TO CONVEY AN APOLOGY BUT IT CONSUMES PRODIGIOUS ENERGY TO PRODUCE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION FOR THE PERSON THAT IS TRANSMISSIBLE TO HIS RECIPIENT, AND ALSO CONDITIONS HIM TO KEEP BEING SORRY SUCH THAT IN TIME BEING SORRY IS LARGELY INVOLUNTARY AND EASILY AROUSABLE TO INTENSE LEVELS SO THAT THE PERSON IS DELUDED THAT HIS BEING SORRY IS REAL AND REFLECTS HE IS SUCH A WONDERFUL PERSON WHEN IT HARMS HIMSELF AND HIS RECIPIENT.

If you believe you need to feel sorry, you need to experience emotional pain and express it to your target in order to apologize, you may be correct or you may be deluded because the emotional expression of being sorry when acknowledging your wrongdoing may be totally unnecessary, stressful to yourself and your recipient (even if he has the perversion that what is stressful is good for him), is conditioning you increasingly to being emotional that will end in madness.

Your yes cannot be anything more than just ‘yes’ therefore anything more is unnecessary but only necessary to deceive, please, impress, intimidate and dominate others. Because it is unnecessary it must be forced through a combination of foolish self will or coercion by society. Further, anything more than letting your yes be yes only is never free but energy has to be expended and stress created to not let your yes be yes only.

WHAT IS UNNECESSARY CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME BECAUSE NO REASON IS NEEDED FOR IT TO HAPPEN. WHAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME CAN HAPPEN ALL THE TIME AND WHEN YOU REPEATEDLY WANT WHAT IS UNNECESSARY TO HAPPEN, IT WILL FINALLY HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
WHAT IS NECESSARY CANNOT HAPPEN AT ANY TIME BUT IT CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THERE IS REASON FOR IT TO HAPPEN. WHAT CANNOT HAPPEN AT ANY TIME CANNOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME AND THEREFORE ANYTHING THAT IS MEANINGFUL OR TRUE, GUIDED BY REASON CANNOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
IT IS BECAUSE STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS, TELLING LIES ARE NOT NECESSARY BUT NECESSARY FOR SHOW THAT THEY CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME AND BECAUSE THE FOOLISH BEING UNDER TO COERCION OF SOCIETY PRACTICES STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND TELLING LIES REPEATEDLY THEY HAVE NOW COME TO HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
THUS IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNNECESSARY, THAT FOR ONE WHO SEES CORRECTLY, PEOPLE CONSTANTLY NEVER JUST FREQUENTLY STRETCH THEIR SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS WITHOUT AWARENESS THEY DO SO, EVEN THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES SMART AND GOOD.
Being Sorry Is Rote:
If you observe people conveying their being sorry, there is a consistency that differs from others. For instance one person always grimaces or winces in a certain way when he says he is sorry but never smiles sheepishly but another person will always smile sheepishly and not grimace or wring his hands. Some people even always have a beaming smile as if they are enjoying it when they say they are sorry.
Just as their expressions of being sorry are standardized and differ from others, their experiences of being sorry too are standardized and differ from others. The emotional being sorry one person experiences is always the same, only the intensity varies from occasion to occasion and it differs from the emotional being sorry another person experiences.
Thus much as emotional people like to believe their being sorry is genuine and heartfelt, it is a prerecorded impersonally regurgitated reaction to the recognition of wrongdoing.

MUCH AS EMOTIONAL PEOPLE LIKE TO BELIEVE (IN DELUSION) THEIR HEARTFELT EMOTIONAL BEING DEEPLY SORRY IS SUPERIOR TO A PLAIN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF WRONG DOING PLUS A REQUEST TO BE FORGIVEN, BEING SORRY IS AN IMPERSONAL REHASHED CONDITIONING BLIND EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE AND EXPRESSION IN RELATION TO WRONGDOING.

IN FACT AFTER LIFELONG ROTE PRACTICE, BEING DRAMATICALLY SORRY IS THE EASIEST MINDLESS THING FOR EMOTIONAL PEOPLE TO RENDER WHILST TO APOLOGIZE, TO SIMPLY, MINDFULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR WRONGDOING AND ASK TO BE FORGIVEN IS THE HARDEST THING FOR THEM TO DO.

AN APOLOGY IS A REASON RESPONSE TO HIS WRONGDOING AND BECAUSE THERE IS REASON PRESENT HE IS LIKELY NOT TO REPEAT WHILST BEING SORRY IS AN EMOTIONAL REACTION TO HIS WRONGDOING THAT HAS NO REASON PRESENT AND HE IS LIKELY TO REPEAT. WHATEVER IS EMOTIONAL IS FORCEFUL, HARMFUL (APPLIES FORCE ON THE MIND OF THE PERSON AND OTHERS) & CONDITIONING.
“I’m Sorry But I Didn’t Mean To Hurt You”
People often say reflexively without even awareness in the next breath that they say they are sorry or apologize that they did not mean to hurt you, meaning it was an accident.
Far from exonerating them, it devalues their apology or being sorry.
Whether it is true or an excuse that they did not mean to hurt you can be known and there will be further punishment for telling a lie.

THE REASON WHY YOU WILL BE JUDGED FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD AND THEREFORE EVERY CARELESS DEED IS BECAUSE FAR FROM YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION THAT CARELESSNESS IS BLAMELESS, CANNOT BE HELPED, CARELESS MEANS YOU CARE-LESS OR DON’T CARE. IF YOU DON’T CARE TO EXAMINE IF YOUR ACTIONS MIGHT HARM OTHERS THEN YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE OR JUDGED UNTIL THE DAY IF EVER YOU DEVELOP A CARE FOR NOT HARMING OTHERS.

Why It Is Not Double Standards:
Why is it not double standard but I am right to say “Show me” but the emperor is wrong to use “Show me”?
When the emperor said, “"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", he implies he is confident you cannot show him and thus you should trust him that what he said there is nothing but evil and inhumanity in Islam. Because it is wrong, he wants you to trust him and believe what is wrong that harms you.
When I say show me an instance when Jesus or the Buddha preached the appeasement of others’ hearts, I am right to say so because there is no instance where they taught so and if you believed me, it leads you to truth that benefits you that you should not seek to appease others’ hearts.
Not as brainless as you think:
Anyone who thinks what the Buddha said that words he knows are false, unbeneficial and disagreeable to others, he does not say them is a ‘no-brainer’ should examine his speech.
Whenever you are sarcastic, what you say is false (when you are sarcastic you mean the opposite of what you say), unbeneficial to others and even though they may not be consciously aware, they can sense from the way you say it or your laughter that you don’t quite mean what you say and therefore it is disagreeable.
When you are engaged in idle chatter, what is said is largely if not entirely false or trivial only to please each other, it is not only unbeneficial but stressful and people only fake that it is agreeable never truly experience it as so and because they have done it so many times before they find it irresistible to chit chat.
Why Being Surprised Is Always False:
Because whatever happens has reason, does not occur without reason, being surprised is never true but false and reflects a pretentious, presumptuous attitude or it is faked.
Because whatever happens must have a reason, why should you be surprised or puzzled but instead if you did not know the reason why it happened you should stop wasting your energy acting surprised but think rationally why it happened.
Hang Ups:
Hang ups are individually specific situations that arouse intense emotions that the person finds hard to control or suppress so that his agitations is visible to observers.
Their existence in a person indicates he is not a master of his emotions but he is a slave and whilst he can now still recover to return to a semblance of normality should the situation pass away or he withdraws himself from the situation, a time will come when he will be entirely engulfed and become mad.
Whilst hang-ups appear compelling, they can be eliminated if the person persistently eliminate emotion from his life by regular calming meditation, practicing non stretching of syllables, changes in loudness and speed that maintain emotions and he confronts his hang-ups rather than give way to them. For instance if a person instinctively violently turn away at the sight of something, he must use force to turn his gaze to the sight that so repels him until it no longer repels him.

Truth Is Not Reason Enough To Speak

Even Truth Is Not Reason Enough To Speak:
The Buddha will not speak what he knows is false.
The Buddha will not speak just because something is true.
The Buddha will only speak if something is true and benefits the listener.
If something is true and beneficial but is disagreeable to the listener, the Buddha has the sense of the right occasion to speak it.
If you think such standards only apply to aspiring Buddhas and you can get away flouting these rules, you may be a great fool because Jesus said you will be judged for every careless word you say and if you expect judgment to be a rap on the knuckle, you may again be a fool because Jesus also said that even the man who calls his brother ‘you fool’ is in danger of the fire of hell.
Therefore you should train yourself:
Every time you speak, you should reflect before, during and after you speak whether what you say is not just true but also beneficial to the listener.
Quote: The emperor's words were, the pope said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Do you know for sure what the emperor said is true?
The manner of the emperor’s speech is derisive and therefore it is wrong. Is it Allah the merciful or Allah the merciless? Even if every Muslim is merciless, is the teaching that Allah is merciful evil and inhumane? So how can you say ‘there you will find things ONLY evil and inhuman’? However imperfect Islam may be do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? The statement is always wrong because it is driven by ill will, is divisive & haughty (as if the emperor is so great others must show him or he will know the truth if it is shown him).
Can you say what the emperor said benefits the listener?
If you cannot vouch that what the emperor said is true and will benefit listeners, you are foolish to quote him because you risk misleading and dividing others.
Does what the pope quoted benefit the listener? Is his quotation likely to reinforce a positive or negative perception of Islam by listeners? Does it benefit Christians to reinforce a negative perception of Islam? Does it expose Christians unnecessarily to hatred and physical retaliation? Are Muslims likely to be pleased or be outraged by the emperor’s remarks? Even though the emperor is dead, is he likely to be even cursed by some Muslims as a result of this tale bearing? Even Muslims who are thus incited to violence are also victims of this tale bearing (with karma attached) because violence also stresses them and their attacking others or destroying property creates karma for them.
NOT ONLY IS WHAT THE EMPEROR SAID NOT BENEFICIAL TO ANY LISTENER (EXCEPT IF HE IS A FOOL) BECAUSE IT STIRS EMOTION TO EITHER LIKE OR DISLIKE THAT STRESSES AND CONDITIONS, IT IS FALSE AND DRIVEN BY ILL WILL & DERISION.
The Buddha said:
[1] Words that the Tathagata (The One Who Thus Comes) knows to be untrue, unbeneficial & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] Words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[3] Words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial but disagreeable to others (eg you are stretching your syllables) he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] Words that the Tathagata knows to be untrue, unbeneficial but agreeable to others, he does not say them.
[5] Words that the Tathagata knows to be true, unbeneficial but agreeable to others (eg you are handsome or rich or clever), he does not say them.
[6] Words that the Tathagata knows to be true, beneficial, and 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."
Quote BBC:
Stressing that they were not his own words (suggests he knows it is a bombshell), the pope quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire.
The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".
***
To say “I quote” twice is not a firewall, does not absolve or isolate the pope from the responsibility of what he quoted. Instead it achieves the opposite to reiterate his intention to quote. The fact that the pope referred beforehand to being astounded by the startling brusqueness of the emperor’s remarks confirms he understands what the emperor is saying but nevertheless thinks it wise, bearing in mind the uproar over the prophet cartoons, to say it.
Therefore it is false logic or perception to think that by reiterating as if to remind the audience that it is only a quote (and not your own words) you have successfully dissociated yourself from what you quote but it is the opposite, it incriminates you. The true way to dissociate yourself is not to quote at all or to declare before, “I do not agree with this but I quote:”
Adding Insult To Injury: To add afterwards that ‘violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul’ is not exoneration of what you harshly quoted (as the reporter seems to suggest) but instead it is more like rubbing salt into a wound, adding insult to injury. After telling someone his religion is rubbish, evil and inhuman, you think it is a balm, not ticking him off or rubbing salt into his wound to tell him that ‘violence was ‘incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul’?
Do American soldiers massacre civilians, raped and plunder in Iraq and Vietnam? What is Abu Ghraib? Have not Americans shot dead wounded combatants lying helplessly? Did popes wage wars in the past?
Is it an accident?
Even if the speech was written by another person it was written on your behalf and you are responsible if you read it without checking it beforehand.
Is the emperor God or the arbiter of truth that the pope deems the world should be informed of his startlingly brusque views? If he is not God or the arbiter of truth, is it because you like what he says or it strikes an emotional chord in your heart that you choose to quote him?
Why do I regularly quote the Buddha or Jesus? Is it because I am mad, I want to impress you or them or is it because I think what they say is correct or insightful? Unless the person specifically distances himself his intention in quoting another is usually to reinforce what he wants to say or he has affinity for what he is quoting.
The Pope Apologized For Others’ Reactions, Not What He Said:
Quote: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg (it is bizarre logic or mental calisthenics to be sorry for other people’s reactions rather than to be sorry for what he said. Does he mean that if nobody was upset, there will be nothing for him to be sorry about?), which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he told pilgrims.
"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.”
"I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect."
IT IS FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC (THAT WILL CULMINATE IN MAD PERCEPTION AND LOGIC) IF YOU THINK YOU CAN BE DEEPLY SORRY FOR THE REACTIONS OF OTHERS INSTEAD OF BEING SORRY FOR WHAT YOU SAY. THIS IS A FORM OF MENTAL CALISTHENICS OR TONGUE TWISTING THAT WILL END IN A TWISTED TONGUE. ARE YOU SORRY FOR WHAT YOU SAY OR NOT? IS BEING SORRY FOR THE REACTIONS IN SOME COUNTRIES THE SAME AS BEING SORRY FOR WHAT YOU SAY?
(IF YOU ASK ME, I WILL SAY WITHOUT RESERVATION OR HESITATION THAT THE EMPEROR IS WRONG TO SAY WHAT HE SAID)
The pope said he was sorry for the reactions to his speech, he did not say he was sorry for quoting the emperor; he distanced himself from what the emperor said but he did not condemn what the emperor said.
Whether his distancing is genuine or to placate public opinion he himself knows and as the Buddha said, you underestimate the fine witness that is yourself and God knows.
What mutual respect and sincere dialogue is he talking about when he quotes an emperor who speaks of Islam being nothing but evil and inhuman? The damage due to his indiscretion is irreparable.
He has tacitly conveyed to like minded Christians that he is at least not averse to derogatory remarks about Islam. He has alienated further Muslims who are already suspicious of the intentions of the west. He has put in danger the lives and properties of both Christians and Muslims.
Quote: “These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought”.
It is not because I say what is said above is an excuse or you deny it is so that it is thus but it can be determined objectively whether something said is an excuse. As the Buddha said, you underestimate the fine witness that is yourself.
If you keep proffering excuses that you obviously want others to believe, you must also increasingly compellingly believe that your excuses are true and this has only one outcome: mad perception. Even if you get away with your excuses, gullible people accept your excuses; you have an appointment with mad perception. The fact that ordinary people are unaware that many things they say or are said to them are excuses reflects they are already well on the path to mad perception & mad logic. You have debts not merit poisoning others with excuses you want them to believe are the true reasons for your actions.
Why The Pope Must Like What He Quoted:
Whether a person likes something cannot be denied because it can be objectively seen or known no matter how you try to hide it or fake you like when you disliked & vice versa.
Liking can be seen. If the pope’s mental force undulated in speed and strength when he quoted the emperor, he liked what he quoted. A mischievous glint of delight in the eyes, a whiff of a gloating smile and undulating rises in speed and loudness of his speech and bodily movements will indicate liking for what he is saying.
Liking can be known or deduced.
ORDINARY PEOPLE ALWAYS EITHER LIKE OR DISLIKE WHATEVER HAPPENS TO THEM, ONLY THE INTENSITY VARIES. IF THE POPE DISLIKED THE QUOTATION HE WOULD NOT HAVE PRESENTED IT OR HE WOULD HAVE STATED HIS DISLIKE OR IT WOULD BE QUITE PLAIN FROM THE WAY HE SAID THAT HE DISLIKED IT. BECAUSE HE DID NOT DECLARE HIS DISLIKE AND THERE IS NOTHING IN HIS DELIVERY THAT SUGGESTED HE DISLIKED, HE MUST LIKE THE QUOTATION.
IF THE POPE PUBLICLY DECLARED HIS DISLIKE FOR WHAT THE EMPEROR SAID IT WILL PLACATE MUSLIMS WHO ACCUSE HIM OF APOLOGIZING FOR THE REACTIONS RATHER THAN WHAT HE QUOTED. WHY HAS HE BEEN RELUCTANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT HE QUOTED? IS IT BECAUSE HE IS SECRETLY STUBBORNLY ATTACHED TO WHAT HE QUOTED?
Evidence The Pope Liked What He Quoted:
Quote Pope’s Speech: Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he (the emperor) addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
Comment: The pope is admitting to being astounded by the startling brusqueness of his quote. The pope did not say he was dismayed or distressed (expressions of dislike) but he said he was astounded (greatly surprised) by the startling brusqueness. You can be astounded or startled in a liking or disliking way and there is nothing to suggest the pope was unpleasantly surprised. Why should the pope be negatively or indignantly astonished by the brusqueness of the emperor’s remarks that is directed at others’ religion? If the emperor’s brusque remarks were directed at Christianity it is understandable that he might be astounded in a negative or disliking or outraged sense.
But who is this emperor that his startling brusqueness should astound the pope?
Is the emperor God or Jesus or a noted authority on truth and virtue that his startling brusqueness regarding Islam should astound the pope?
Or is it because the pope secretly likes what the emperor says so that he is exaggerating, making a mountain out of a molehill, describing as astonishing the startling brusqueness of a worldly (relatively minor) emperor to lend more emotional weight to the quotation than it truly merits?
ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN MY MIND THAT GOD CAN SAY WHAT THE EMPEROR SAID, EVEN IF IT WAS GOD WHO SAID IT, MUCH LESS A LARGELY UNNOTED EMPEROR, I WOULD NOT BE ‘ASTOUNDED BY THE STARTLING BRUSQUENESS’ AND THE FACT THAT THE POPE QUOTED THE EMPEROR, IN THE PROCESS HE WOULD BE FOOLISH NOT TO REALIZE HE RISKED OFFENDING AND ALIENATING MUSLIMS WHOM HE DECLARES HE SINCERELY WANTS TO ENGAGE IN MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE, AND HE SPEAKS WITH SUCH EMOTIVE TERMS (USING STARTLING & ASTOUNDING) BETRAYS HIS FASCINATION WITH OR LIKING FOR WHAT THE EMPEROR SAID. THE POPE’S USE OF THE WORDS ‘STARTLING’ AND ‘ASTOUNDING’ IS LIKELY TO UNFAIRLY INFLUENCE OR JOLT LISTENERS TO TREAT FAVORABLY AND WITH MORE ATTENTION WHAT THE EMPEROR SAYS.
IT IS DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE THE POPE’S INCENDIARY QUOTE AND HIS STATED MESSAGE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY AIMED AT ISLAM THAT VIOLENCE AND RELIGION DO NOT GO TOGETHER BUT IT IS EASY TO RECONCILE THE POPE’S MESSAGE WITH HIS INCENDIARY QUOTE & IT IS THAT THE POPE’S MAIN AIM WAS TO QUOTE THE EMPEROR & HIS SUBSEQUENT MESSAGE THAT VIOLENCE AND RELIGION DO NOT GO TOGETHER IS A COVER UP, A DEFLECTION, A NOT TOO CLEVER EXCUSE FOR QUOTING THE EMPEROR’S DAMNING OPINION OF ISLAM.
(The pope should not speak on the behalf of others in using ‘us’ because I am not astounded nor do I find the quotation startling.)
ANYONE WHO GOES AGAINST HIMSELF TO BE POISONOUSLY NICE NOT GOOD TO OTHERS MUST HARBOR HATE FOR HIMSELF AND OTHERS AND NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES TO HIDE HIS FANGS, EVERY NOW AND THEN HE MUST BARE HIS FANGS AND MAKE A FOOL OF HIMSELF.
WHY ‘TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT’ IS NO DEFENCE:
IT IS NOT PLAUSIBLE OR CREDIBLE AS SOME & THE POPE CONTENDS THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO OFFEND AND HIS QUOTE WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.
WHAT IS THE CONTEXT OF THE QUOTE?
Quote: He (the pope) added: "My intention was very different. I wanted to explain that religion and violence do not go together but religion and reason do."
SO ACCORDING TO THE POPE HIS INTENTION IN THAT PARAGRAPH (AS I WORKED OUT MYSELF WITH SOME DIFFICULTY) WAS TO EXPLAIN THAT RELIGION & VIOLENCE DO NOT GO TOGETHER.
WHAT HAS THE QUOTE "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" GOT TO DO WITH THE POPE’S INTENDED MESSAGE THAT ‘violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul’ EXCEPT TO FOOLISHLY OR INADVERTENTLY DELIVER A SEVERE DRESSING DOWN OF ISLAM? DO YOU EXPECT MUSLIMS WHOSE RELIGION YOU HAVE THUS DENIGRATED BY PROXY TO BE AMENABLE TO YOUR PLEA THAT RELIGION AND VIOLENCE DO NOT GO TOGETHER? IF THE POPE SEES NO IRONY, HE MAY HAVE AS PERVERTED A REASON AS THE JIHADISTS THAT HE DECRIES.
TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT THAT THE POPE WAS TRYING TO CONVEY THAT RELIGION AND VIOLENCE DO NOT GO TOGETHER, THE EMPEROR’S WORDS ARE NOT HELPFUL BUT SERVE TO ALIENATE MUSLIMS.
EXCEPT TO CENSURE WHAT THE EMPEROR SAID, THERE IS NO CONTEXT WHERE IT IS JUSTIFED TO QUOTE WHAT THE EMPEROR SAID. INSTEAD QUOTING THE EMPEROR MAY BE A DEVIOUS MEANS OF MAKING HIM DO YOUR DIRTY WORK OR TRYING TO BE TOO CLEVER USING THE EMPEROR TO SPEAK FOR YOU NOT REALIZING YOU WILL FALL FLAT ON YOUR FACE.
Tale bearing & divisive speech:
The Buddha said that divisive tale bearing leads even to hell or the animal womb.
If the pope did not bear the tale of what the emperor said, many people including me would not have known what the emperor said and it is not hard to determine whether the tale of what the emperor said divided or united people.
There is as it is already enough bad blood between Muslim countries and the West for any sensible person let alone a pope to add fuel to the fire by quoting incendiary remarks by a medieval emperor. If the emperor is merely a surrogate to express what may be the pope’s true opinion of Islam, then it is deceitful on top of divisive tale bearing.
Buddhist & Christian Concurrence:
Although there are differences between what the Buddha and Jesus taught, they are differences in extent because the Buddha teaches all the way to enlightenment which is higher than heaven whilst Jesus teaches the way to heaven.
In keeping with what Jesus said the righteous will shine like the sun, it is recorded in the Buddhist suttas that whenever angels approached the Buddha they light up even the entire grove with their radiance.
Jesus: Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Then a certain devata (female angel), in the far extreme of the night, her extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One.
Coming & Seeing Is Clearly Defined:
The Buddha: What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.
By saying such is form, feeling, perception and mental fabrication what the Buddha is saying is that they and everything that happens can be clearly defined that universally applies to everyone, so how can your coming be no coming and my seeing be no seeing?
Therefore what is said that ‘your coming is no coming and my seeing is no seeing’ is mischievous and false.
What has changed?
The difference today as compared to before is that everyone has mobilized his force of self preservation to better police his force of going against self to cut out the wasteful energy sapping and stress inducing excesses and act or put on a show more purposefully. There are a few who have actually begun to turn their force of self preservation against their force of going against self so that they may succeed in the future to eliminate their force of going against self to thereby stop stretching syllables, change speed and loudness.
The suffering today is more immediate. Because they have not relinquished their force of going against self and past excesses have warped their minds, people today are vulnerable to mad stress, restlessness, distraction, emotions, violence, mad rote behavior, mad perception and logic that can rise rapidly to intense levels triggered by minor insults.
People today have greater presence of mind compared to the past.
Massive surge in disappearance of Arctic sea ice sparks global warning
Arctic meltdown is speeding up... sea ice is vanishing faster than ever before... polar bears face extinction... and America's top climate scientist warns we only have a decade to save the planet
By Michael McCarthy and David Usborne
Published: 15 September 2006
The melting of the sea ice in the Arctic, the clearest sign so far of global warming, has taken a sudden and enormous leap forward, in one of the most ominous developments yet in the onset of climate change.
Two separate studies by Nasa, using different satellite monitoring technologies, both show a great surge in the disappearance of Arctic ice cover in the last two years.
One, from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, shows that Arctic perennial sea ice, which normally survives the summer melt season and remains year-round, shrank by 14 per cent in just 12 months between 2004 and 2005.
The overall decrease in the ice cover was 720,000 sq km (280,000 sq miles) - an area almost the size of Turkey, gone in a single year.
The other study, from the Goddard Space Flight Centre, in Maryland, shows that the perennial ice melting rate, which has averaged 0.15 per cent a year since satellite observations began in 1979, has suddenly accelerated hugely. In the past two winters the rate has increased to six per cent a year - that is, it has got more than 30 times faster.
The changes are alarming scientists and environmentalists, because they far exceed the rate at which supercomputer models of climate change predict the Arctic ice will melt under the influence of global warming - which is rapid enough.
If climate change is not checked, the Arctic ice will all be gone by 2070, and people will be able to sail to the North Pole. But if these new rates of melting are maintained, the Arctic ice will all be gone decades before that.
The implications are colossal. It will mean extinction in the wild - in the lifetime of children alive today - for one of the world's most majestic creatures, the polar bear, which needs the ice to hunt seals.
It means the possibility of a lethal "feedback" mechanism speeding up global warming, because the dark surface of the open Arctic ocean will absorb the sun's heat, rather than reflect it as the ice cover does now - and so the world will get even hotter.
But most of all, the new developments add to the growing concern that climate change as a process is starting to happen much faster than scientists considered it would, even five years ago when the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its last report.
"These are the latest in a long series of recent studies, all telling us that climate change is faster and nastier than we thought," said Tom Burke, a former government green adviser and now a visiting professor at Imperial College London. "An abyss is opening up between the speed at which the climate is changing and the speed at which governments are responding.
"We must stop thinking that this is just another environmental problem, to be dealt with when time and resources allow, and realise that this is an increasingly urgent threat to our security and prosperity."
Yesterday, Jim Hansen, the leading climatologist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York, issued a now-or-never warning to governments around the world, including his own, telling them they must take radical action to avert a planetary environmental catastrophe. He said it was no longer viable for nations to adopt a "business as usual" stance on fossil-fuel consumption.
"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," he said.
Early in his first term, President George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto Treaty that is meant to bind nations to lower emissions of warming gases. However, opinion in the US is starting to change, as evidenced by the huge success of the documentary on climate change, An Inconvenient Truth, narrated by the former US vice-president Senator Al Gore.
The two Nasa Arctic studies, released simultaneously, break fresh ground in dealing with the perennial, or "multi-winter" ice, rather than the "seasonal" ice at the edge of the icefield, which melts every summer.
Concern about the melting rate has hitherto focused on the seasonal ice, whose summer disappearance and retreat from the landmasses of Arctic Canada and Siberia is increasingly obvious. In September 2005, it retreated to the lowest level recorded. Such rapid shrinkage of the perennial ice has not been shown before. "It is alarming," said Joey Camiso, who led the Goddard study. "We've witnessed sea ice reduction at 6 per cent per year over just the last two winters, most likely a result of warming due to greenhouse gases."
Dr Son Nghiem, who led the team which carried out the Jet Propulsion Laboratory study, said that in previous years there had some variability in the extent of perennial Arctic ice. "But it is much smaller and regional," he said. "However, the change we see between 2004 and 2005 is enormous." Britain's Professor Julian Dowdeswell, the director of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, agreed the changes shown in the American studies were "huge", adding: "It remains to be seen whether the rate of change is maintained in future years."
The melting of the Arctic ice will not itself contribute to global sea-level rise, as the ice floating in the sea is already displacing its own mass in the water. When the ice cube melts in your gin and tonic, the liquid in your glass does not rise.
There are great volumes of land-based ice - the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, and mountain glaciers - which are subject to exactly the same temperature rises as the Arctic ice, and which have also started to melt. They will add to sea levels. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet would, if it were to collapse, raise sea levels around the world by 16ft (5m), submerging large parts of Bangladesh and Egypt - and London.
The melting of the sea ice in the Arctic has taken a sudden and enormous leap forward.
Two separate studies by Nasa, using different satellite monitoring technologies, both show a great surge in the disappearance of Arctic ice cover in the last two years.
One shows that Arctic perennial sea ice, which normally remains year-round, shrank by 14 per cent in just 12 months between 2004 and 2005.
The overall decrease in the ice cover was 720,000 sq km - an area the size of Turkey, gone in a single year.
The other study shows that the perennial ice melting rate, which has averaged 0.15 per cent a year has suddenly accelerated hugely. In the past two winters the rate has increased to six per cent a year - that is, it has got more than 30 times faster.
The changes are alarming scientists and environmentalists, because they far exceed the rate at which supercomputer models of climate change predict the Arctic ice will melt.
It means the possibility of a lethal "feedback" mechanism speeding up global warming, because the dark surface of the open Arctic ocean will absorb the sun's heat, rather than reflect it as the ice cover does now - and so the world will get even hotter.
"These are the latest in a long series of recent studies, all telling us that climate change is faster and nastier than we thought".
Sea levels are rising faster than predicted, warns Antarctic Survey
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 20 September 2006
The global sea level rise caused by climate change, severely threatening many of the world's coastal and low-lying areas from Bangladesh to East Anglia, is proceeding faster than UN scientists predicted only five years ago, Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, said yesterday.
Climate change is causing sea levels to rise around the world because water expands in volume as it warms, and because land-based ice, such as that contained in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, adds to the volume when it melts and slips into the sea.
The present prediction of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from its third assessment report in 2001, is that global sea levels will rise by between 9cm and 88cm by 2100, depending on a number of factors including how far emissions are controlled, with a best guess of about 50cm over the century.
Rises of this order will present a substantial threat of flooding, storm surge and even complete submersion of many of the world's populous low-lying areas,such as Bangladesh, the Nile Delta and even London.
But the new evidence, from a series of scientific papers published this year, indicates that this rate would be exceeded, said Professor Rapley, who runs the world's leading institute on Antarctic science - although he could not say what any new rate would be.
Professor Rapley was speaking at the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, at a meeting of the Climate Clinic, formed by Britain's leading green groups, with The Independent as media partner, to press for tougher political action on climate change. "We have learned in the last 18 months that the ice sheets are capable in selected areas of much more rapid changes and dynamic discharges than we previously thought," he said.
Last week, two American studies showed that the melting of the winter sea ice in the Arctic had accelerated enormously in the past two years, with a section the size of Turkey disappearing in just 12 months.
The global sea level rise caused by climate change, severely threatening many of the world's coastal and low-lying areas from Bangladesh to East Anglia, is proceeding faster than UN scientists predicted only five years ago.
Climate change is causing sea levels to rise around the world because water expands in volume as it warms, and because land-based ice, such as that contained in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, adds to the volume when it melts and slips into the sea.
The present prediction of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, from its third assessment report in 2001, is that global sea levels will rise by between 9cm and 88cm by 2100.
Rises of this order will present a substantial threat of flooding, storm surge and even complete submersion of many of the world's populous low-lying areas.
But the new evidence indicates that this rate would be exceeded - although he could not say what any new rate would be.
Last week, two American studies showed that the melting of the winter sea ice in the Arctic had accelerated enormously in the past two years, with a section the size of Turkey disappearing in just 12 months.
Only One Way To Be To Your Advantage:
Jesus: But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
Because all beings here are not enjoying themselves but they are all suffering even tormented by stress, restlessness and distraction, the only way the counselor can be to your advantage is if he says or does things that by yourself you are unable to achieve or undertake that alleviates your suffering and even guide you to heaven where previously you would have languished here.
Jesus spoke to you and performed miracles to prove that this world is not what it appears to be but he did not do anything to alleviate your suffering here because the time had not come then.
Thus if consciousness changes are possible and have occurred and they alleviate the mental suffering of all beings here, if by yourself you will not have thought of the things I taught and nobody will tell you what I told you, then what I said and did (changed the consciousness twice after 1977 and in recent years) are certainly to your advantage.
Jesus said the counselor is the Holy Spirit. It is understood that beings who come from the Father must be holy and therefore it is unlikely if not impossible that Holy Spirit is just a descriptive term but it is designating. That the Holy Spirit will also come just as the Son of man is indicated by Jesus’ warning elsewhere that those who spoke against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Jesus: Therefore I tell you, every (not some) sin and blasphemy will (not may) be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.Jesus said that all that the Father has is mine. The Buddha said he himself had been the All Powerful One for seven eons. Just as fathers hand over their businesses to their sons, so it may be that the Son too will one day inherit his Father’s throne.
Just as in a treasure hunt the location of the treasure is not revealed but the clues given will enable some but not all participants to locate the treasure, in the same way, Jesus does not need to name the counselor but a succinct description will enable some but not all to identify the counselor.
Jesus: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (like Jesus came), to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive (to receive is to welcome, the world will not welcome the counselor as they welcomed in a misguided way Jesus and the Buddha), because it neither sees (can visually recognize who he is) him nor knows him (have not been told by others or can work out themselves); you know him (you can work out who he is), for he dwells with you (he literally will reside in this world with you. If the counselor is a mental entity in your mind and you still need Jesus to tell you he dwells with you, he must be very elusive or false), and will be in you. "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit (The counselor is the Holy Spirit), whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things (he will cover a broad range of subjects), and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (if the church has brought you remembrance of what Jesus taught, there would be no need for a counselor to come).But when the Counselor comes (he will not come immediately), whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father (If you knew the counselor comes from the Father Jesus would not have to say so), he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning. But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (The counselor must irrefutably bring you advantage as no man has done)And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness (goodness) and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (When the counselor comes, it will be time for mankind to be judged)"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear (sustain, not understand) them now. (Jesus appears to speak of a consciousness change that wil make you able to bear) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (there are other sources of truth); for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak (if the counselor knows everything, he will not need to hear and then speak) and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you (if the church and Christians have glorified Jesus, there would be no need for a counselor to do so.

The Next Change:
Cinemas in the olden days used to have billboards that advertised ‘the next change’. There were ‘cheap matinees’ featuring old movies and midnight shows.
The next change in terms of consciousness changes will be for some but never all or many to finally come to an end of all stretching, changes in speed and loudness enabling them to not just experience a release from stress, restlessness and distraction but enable them to discern for themselves as they could not before that everyone in this world are great actors, putting on a show driven by ill will, being wickedly nice not good to each.
THE EFFORTLESS CESSATION OF ALL STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE IN A BEING’S SPEECH, MOTION, THOUGHTS AND PERCEPTIONS IS THE ONLY END POINT OR GOAL OF RECENT CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES THAT LOOKS LIKELY BEYOND THE REACH OF MOST BEINGS HERE AND WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THUS STILL DETAINED IN STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THEY WILL CONTINUE TO WANDER IN SUFFERING.
ONLY A BEING THAT TRULY DOES NOT STRETCH HIS SYLLABLES, CHANGED SPEED OR LOUDNESS IS NOT GUILTY OF DETAINING OTHERS IN THE TORMENT OF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT ENDS IN INSANITY AND HEARTBREAK.
A Forced & Reasoned Change:
If your consciousness change is the result of the reduction of external stress, restlessness and distraction impacting on your consciousness due to an alleviating change in the behavior of others, then it is a forced or mindless change.
If your consciousness change is a result of mindful change in your conduct eg not getting angry, not smiling to please or impress others, not stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness that reduce self generated stress, restlessness and distraction, it is a reasoned consciousness change.
One Cause & Cure For Mental Suffering:
It is only because there exist in ordinary people’s minds two mental forces that are constantly active, constantly opposing each other, stretching, changing speed and strength that the person has no peace, no release from conflict, stress, restlessness and distraction (inability to concentrate that at lower levels may convince the fool that he can concentrate if he wants when his concentration is like a candle compared to the incandescent light of a force free mind).
It is only because ordinary people are never directly responsible for their activities (perceiving, thinking, speaking and moving) but they are only indirectly responsible for what they say or do; they commit their individually distinctive substance and style activities to memory so that they only pay attention to select whatever they want to say or do to then pass it on to their mental force of going against self that will then carry out in their entirety what they want to say or do with no questions asked. Because once selected it is their blind mental force that is carrying it out, they or their consciousness has no direct control over what they say or do and should they desire to stop or switch tracks, there is always a lag and they have to do so indirectly by instructing their opposing force of self preservation to increase in strength to bring that speech or action to a halt.
If people pay attention to their behavior they may realize they sometimes do or say things against their will because their mental jukeboxes have jumped the cue. Just like a parrot that has been instructed to say certain things in certain situations, the parrot sometimes does not wait for the command but executes the speech or action by itself. Sometimes you might be pleased with yourself that your parrot has spoken for you without being asked but sometimes it can cause consternation because you fear losing control of your parrot.
If people pay attention they may realize they often do certain things without choice. For instance they see certain things they don’t like or are uncomfortable seeing and they automatically look away and they must use great force to turn their heads to look at what they refuse to look. It is therefore force and not reason that dictates what they see and do not see.
Often, when there is great emotion behind what they see and do, they cannot stop it immediately but there is a lag between their intention to stop and the coming into effect of the intention because it is not their consciousness or reason that stops it but they have to instruct their force of self preservation to do so and there is an inevitable lag between ordering and coming into effect.
When a person is very angry, he can be told to shut up but he will continue to argue or flare up again because his anger or force of going against self once aroused has not expended its energy. Therefore when a person is angry it is not his reason that is running the show but it is his force of going against self that is running the show and whatever reasoning he might proffer are excuses to justify his anger.
Consciousness or reason can never directly stop rote speech or actions that are or have become distressing or inappropriate because they are reproduced blindly by rote powered by the mental force of going against self but consciousness or reason can only indirectly stop them by directing his mind’s force of self preservation to rise in strength to stop them.
Normally the force of self preservation never confronts to destroy the force of going against self but it merely pulls in the opposite direct to resist and bring to a halt all acts of going against self.
Like a snake with two heads at each end, the force of self preservation always pulls in the direction that opposes the force of going against self. Though it is possible (under instruction by consciousness) for the head that is the force of self preservation to turn around to confront and do battle with the force of going against self to permanently destroy it, ordinary people neither have the awareness or the will to destroy their force of going against self.
THUS THE ONLY WAY FOR A BEING TO PERMANENTLY EXIT MENTAL CONFLICT, STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IS FOR HIS CONSCIOUSNESS TO PAY ATTENTION TO DIRECT HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION TO CONFRONT AND ATTACK HIS FORCE OF GOING AGAINST HIMSELF, SOMETHING HE HAS NEVER DONE BEFORE WITH THE AIM OF PERMANENTLY DESTROYING HIS FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF SO THAT HE CAN HAVE TRUE PERMANENT PEACE OF MIND.
THE WAY THIS IS ACHIEVED IN PRACTICE IS THAT THE PERSON MUST PAY ATTENTION TO DETECT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT ARE MANIFESTATIONS OF HIS FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF IN ACTION TO THEN INSTRUCT HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION TO APPLY COUNTER FORCE TO STOP THE STRETCHING, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS (SOMETHING HE HAS NEVER DONE BEFORE) SO THAT A TIME WILL COME WHEN THE URGE TO STRETCH, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS WILL FINALLY BE EXHAUSTED LIBERATING HIS CONSCIOUSNESS FROM CONFLICT, STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION.
Cars never increase or decrease speed without the input of engine power or brake force and therefore all stretching, changes of speed and loudness in speech require input of force and has nothing to do with reason, reason is not required to stretch syllables, change speed or loudness.
Imposters Accepted As Beacons:
Although they may appear deceptively similar, there is a world of a difference in a purported dialogue between Manjusri and Yuima, two luminaries in the pantheon of the ‘New Wisdom Schools’ that sprang up after the Buddha’s departure and what the Buddha said.
Can you tell what is false and what is true in both cases?
Quote:
Yuima: “Oh Manjusri, you are welcome indeed. But your coming is no coming and my seeing is no seeing.” (Without being asked, it is jumping the gun and being eager with ulterior motive like trying to impress to tell the other person that his coming is no coming and my seeing is no seeing. One should not speak for others or tell someone his coming is no coming but let him speak for himself. If you let your yes be yes only, your coming is your coming, anything more, your ‘not coming’ comes from evil apart from being a blatant denial of reality and trying to perceive more in someone’s coming than there is. If you believe your coming is also your not coming, you may be flirting with future mad perception and mad logic if in truth there can be nothing more in a person’s coming than just his coming. The Buddha taught Bahiya that in reference to the seen there will only be the seen, so how can it be that your seeing is no seeing?)
Manjusri: You are right. I come as if not coming; I depart as if not departing. For my coming is from nowhere and my departing is no wither. (It is never your coming as if not coming that truly distinguishes it meaningfully from others’ coming but it is if your coming is without stretching, changes in speed and strength of force that makes it free of stress, restlessness and distraction that truly distinguishes it)
Yuima: Because all sentient beings are sick I am sick, and when they all cured of illness I shall be cured. (Neither the Buddha nor God said that because all beings are sick, they are sick. It may be emotionally gratifying to say thus but it is all bravado and not based on reality)
Majusri: As I understand it when there is not a word to utter, not a sign to see, nothing to take cognizance of and there is complete detachment from every form of questioning, then one enters the gate of Non duality. O Yuima, what is your view? (The reason he asked the question is not to ascertain the other person’s view because he knows the answer he expects but he wants to put the other person to the test and that is deceitful. If there is complete detachment from every form of questioning, why does he want to test the other person?)
Yuima remained silent and did not utter a word. Thereupon Manjusri said, “Well done, well done indeed, O Yuima! This is the way to enter the gate of Non-duality”
(It is a common tendency amongst humans to want to give others the impression that they are privy to certain secrets or knowledge or physical or mental powers that others do not have; it may be a form of one-up-manship or intellectual snobbery that whereas others only see, I see without seeing. It may be a temptation too great to resist for some people, particularly if they are in positions of power who have entered a religion and failed to achieve its objective which is enlightenment in this case to rather than admit failure to tamper around with the religion to bend it around to their own liking. Can your ‘seeing is no seeing’ be in keeping with what the Buddha said that in reference to the seen there will only be the seen? )
Ogha-tarana Sutta: Crossing over the Flood
Then a certain devata (female angel), in the far extreme of the night, her extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One. On arrival, she said to him, "Tell me, dear sir, how you crossed over the flood."
"I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place."
"When I pushed forward, I was whirled about. When I stayed in place, I sank. And so I crossed over the flood without pushing forward, without staying in place."
The Buddha is not speaking without being asked but he is replying to a question. Further he was not speaking for others (eg your coming is no coming) but speaking only on his own behalf.
Unlike Manjusri & Yuima, he did not contradict himself by saying “I crossed the flood by pushing forward without pushing forward; by staying in a place without staying in a place”. What the Buddha is saying is that to approach crossing the flood of existence from a physical perspective that can only be either pushing forward or staying still did not work because when he pushed forward he was spun around or repulsed but if he stood still he sank or receded further from his objective of crossing over so he crossed over without pushing forward nor staying still. What the Buddha is saying is that you are barking up the wrong tree approaching crossing over the flood from a physical perspective. The reason is because crossing over is not something you can strive towards or wait for it to come to you but crossing over or unbinding will automatically occur once you are truly without passion, has cut all ties and have no considerations of self. Once a being is truly without passion and all considerations of a self, he has truly cut all ties, he is released or unbound or enlightened & has crossed the flood. The remainder-less cessation of all passions, cutting of all ties and all self consideration that is the key to enlightenment or crossing the flood has nothing to do with pushing forward or staying still and therefore the Buddha was not indulging in intellectual mischief or mental calisthenics when he said he crossed the flood without pushing forwards (moving) or staying still whereas Manjusri and Yuima were.
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out & relinquishment of all construings, all I & mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack of sustenance/clinging, released."
The Buddha said: 'This Dhamma is for one who enjoys & delights in non-complication, not for one who enjoys & delights in complication.
If you enjoys non-complication then your coming is only your coming and your seeing is only your seeing. If you relish complication then your coming is also your not coming, your seeing is also your not seeing and if you are fabricating, making believe that your coming is not coming, it will end in mad perception and logic.
Truth is whatever happened and falsity is whatever did not happen. What happened is that you came and what did not happen and is false is that you did not come and therefore the statement that my coming is no coming is false and mischievous. What has happened (your coming) cannot also at the same time not have happen (your not coming) and this statement suggests it is possible to contravene reality; you can come and yet not come. The only way your coming is no coming is to use your imagination to imagine that it is so and this is fabricating or falsifying because whatever did happen need no imagining.
Exactly what is the nature of your coming is no coming, seeing is no seeing can be known because the Buddha said that encompassing mind with mind he knows the exact nature of that mind. It (coming is no coming) can either be physically possible and a truly superior way of doing things or it is just delusion; you keep willing yourself to believe you can do something and yet not do it until you perceive with increasing realism that you can do what is physically impossible, you can see and not see, come and not come. If that is behaving like a zombie then you are courting future insanity.
Correction: It Is Derisive Not sarcastic.
Quote: Must tragedy occur before City Hall takes action?
Comment: When you are sarcastic you mean the opposite of what you say and this is not the case above because the speaker did not mean the opposite of what he said but he was derisive compared to the person who says, “City Hall should take action before a tragedy occurs.”
Projecting Style Into Whatever They Perceive:
The reason why what they read irritates people is because they project a phantom style that may their own or memory of others’ styles onto what they read and this projected style is what upsets them. Ordinary people automatically project style in what they read, they automatically project onto what I write and so they think I am stylish just like them.
Jukebox Performance Anxiety Causing Agonizing Doubt & Uncertainty:
Because their speech & actions, even the way they perceive are must always be reproduced by rote, no matter how many times they have done it before, there is performance anxiety that there might be glitches, they might be ‘caught with their pants down’ in embarrassingly failing to reproduce their desired amalgam of substance and style particularly for occasions that mean a lot that this can lead to agonizing doubt and uncertainty that even shakes the jukebox actor’s self esteem.
If the person’s behavior is live, for the occasion, has no style that must be incorporated, there is no performance anxiety regarding the failure to reproduce the desired speech or action for the occasion.
Thus rote behavior is a key contributor to doubt and uncertainty besetting the person through performance anxiety, fear that his behavior might unravel when he needs it most.
The Nature Of Doubt & Uncertainty:
Contrary to what people might perceive, doubt and uncertainty has nothing to do with reality but they are false emotional states of the mind.
Doubting is a forceful attitude of questioning, of refusal to accept what is said or done to them, what they see and hear. Although initially it may have a rational basis, eg they can see something said is false (but that does mean you must doubt it, you merely do not accept it) because doubting is forceful, it conditions the mind so that it arises rapidly to intense levels that cannot be shaken off even over trivial matters.
Anyone who questions must become hesitant or uncertain and the more he doubts the more hesitant or uncertain he becomes and this uncertainty too is forceful and conditioning and the person is headed for increasing torment.
There is no reason to doubt at all but it is the more that comes from evil. If you know or can see something is false, you do not accept or believe it, so what is there to doubt? It is only when you know something is false but you fake you believe it is true that you are cultivating doubt. If you do not know if something is true or false, you do not take any positions on the matter.
The Man Of Great Doubt Is A Man Of Little Faith:
Jesus rebuked John saying, “Man of little faith, why did you doubt?” when John became frightened and began to sink.
Therefore doubt and uncertainty that the Buddha said is one of three lower fetters to state of future woe is no stranger to Christianity but it the opposite of faith that is valued by Jesus. If you are a man wracked by doubt and uncertainty even over trivial daily matters, you are hesitant even over your movements and speech, you are a man of little faith.
Excuses are deadly:
Ordinary people severely underestimate the occurrences of excuses in their daily lives both perpetrated by them and others because many excuses have been accepted as valid by them.
Because excuses are not the true reason for what happened, if you accept them without question or awareness that they are false, you are flirting with future insanity when you totally or helplessly believe your and others’ excuses are true. Even though they now accept and see nothing wrong in their & others excuses, it is a forced never passive acceptance and there is subconscious resistance in the form of cynicism to everything. When you finally become mad, this ‘healthy cynicism’ abandons you and you then totally believe excuses are true.
In her eagerness to please me, this female petrol kiosk assistant apologized for not remembering my car’s registration number in writing a receipt because according to her, I had so many cars (three). Even if I drove one car she may not remember it because she has many customers and unless she is obsessed with the numbers of my cars, why should she remember it? She is merely saying it to please me, as if she has an interest in the numbers of my car and the only reason why she could not recall is because I had so many cars.
She is flirting with future madness and feeding her doubt and uncertainty in thinking she can remember what she cannot, to think that if I only had one car she would have remembered it.