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.