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.