seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Nick, I take it that you didn't like my translation into Zen-style secular speak? 
Snoopy
Unknown Member
- Messages
- 5,419
- Reaction score
- 185
- Points
- 63
Good grief yes Chris. One particular thing I like about IO is not just what people say here but the way that they say it, whether it’s a ristretto from ciel or a banquet from AndrewX. Everyone has their own style of communicating; we aren’t automatons, software programs or dry academics discussing the minutiae of some arcane mathematical theory. (For reference to support my assertion: see every other post on this website).
s.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Nick, I take it that you didn't like my translation into Zen-style secular speak?
What is Zen style secular speak?
Satori seems to be the ultimate objective experience of Zen while secular speak would seem to be its ultimate degeneration into acceptable interpretation. I'm not sure how you relate it to politically correct or right speech
Ciel
in essence
Ciao Snoopy
- c -
- c -
N
Nick_A
Guest
Good grief yes Chris. One particular thing I like about IO is not just what people say here but the way that they say it, whether it’s a ristretto from ciel or a banquet from AndrewX. Everyone has their own style of communicating; we aren’t automatons, software programs or dry academics discussing the minutiae of some arcane mathematical theory. (For reference to support my assertion: see every other post on this website).
s.
You are enjoying a secular Interfaith site which is fine. I was curious if it were possible to include a transcendent Interfaith board as a part of an Interfaith site. Because of its nature it requires an intent for the sharing of truth rather than politically correct styles and observations. For you, how people say something is more important then what they say. On a transcendent board the intent would be to reveal sincere substance even if the style is not so exciting. Right speech then would be more important then impressive politically correct speech.
But I do thank you and others for answering my question and concluding that Trancendent Interfaith cannot exist with secular Interfaith on the Internet that is dependent on language. They each flourish using different qualities speech. Where secularism thrives on image, transcendence requires inner verification. The quality of speech reflects these two different mindsets.
As to what "right speech" is from a Buddhist/Zen perspective:What is Zen style secular speak?
Satori seems to be the ultimate objective experience of Zen while secular speak would seem to be its ultimate degeneration into acceptable interpretation. I'm not sure how you relate it to politically correct or right speech
Lecture on Buddhist Precept of Right Speech
NickA, am a bit perplexed by your frequent allusions to "secular" as you first of all use that term disparagingly in reference to any view that disputes your own, religious or otherwise and secondly as you use it so generically, it is unclear what you'd specifically define that term to mean. If you find this Buddhist exposition on right speech to be too "secular," perhaps you should clue us in as how you're defining that.
earl
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I think you and I agree that passion without humility is not effective and I think this applies to all political extremists.
N
Nick_A
Guest
As to what "right speech" is from a Buddhist/Zen perspective:
Lecture on Buddhist Precept of Right Speech
NickA, am a bit perplexed by your frequent allusions to "secular" as you first of all use that term disparagingly in reference to any view that disputes your own, religious or otherwise and secondly as you use it so generically, it is unclear what you'd specifically define that term to mean. If you find this Buddhist exposition on right speech to be too "secular," perhaps you should clue us in as how you're defining that.
Draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper. Imagine that it connects before at the extreme left and after on the extreme right. The line itself connects everything between before and after. This is our secular life.
Now imagine a vertical line that intersects it in the middle and creates a cross. This vertical line represents the line of "being" and it can be drawn to intersect any point along the horizontal line. This line connects the slow vibrations of the life force within matter furthest from God and the rapid vibrations of God well beyond our comprehension This vertical line represents the objective quality of the moment itself defined by distance from God. The higher along the line of being that the horizontal line intersects produces a greater quality of the moment.
Transcendent Interfaith concerns itself with the vertical line pf being while secular Interfaith concerns itself with the horizontal line of our reactions to the impressions of daily life. In biblical terms, the horizontal line represents the domain of Caesar and the vertical line of being is the expression of God, The truly intelligent person is able to Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Secularism has become so dominant that those attached to it only recognize the domain of Caesar and debate how it can be made better or worse. Those that respect transcendent Interfaith know that as the quality of the moment grows in a person, it produces a quality of understanding that automatically effects the quality of human life along the horizontal line for the better. The fact that this is forgotten ancient knowledge doesn't make it false but only forgotten in a quickening secular technological age.
My concern if explorations of the line of being within ourselves that determine the quality of a moment could ever be incorporated into an Interfaith site together with the quality of speech necessary to further and sustain it as described in both the Christian and Buddhist teachings. I see it is unwanted, seen as restrictive and boring, and impossible. I have my answer. No harm, no foul
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
As to what "right speech" is from a Buddhist/Zen perspective:
Lecture on Buddhist Precept of Right Speech
NickA, am a bit perplexed by your frequent allusions to "secular" as you first of all use that term disparagingly in reference to any view that disputes your own, religious or otherwise and secondly as you use it so generically, it is unclear what you'd specifically define that term to mean. If you find this Buddhist exposition on right speech to be too "secular," perhaps you should clue us in as how you're defining that.
Good article, Earl. Speech being likened to an 'energy leak' is something I had never heard before, but it is so true.
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
Thanks for this Nick. It helps me understand what you're on about.
What sort of politically incorrect, transcendent things would you like to talk about? How does vertical, transcendent being-ness differ from horizontal, secular being-ness in terms of the relative political correctness of one's speech?
Chris
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Where you inserted "(political correctness)" into my quote, it was actually referring to "right speech." However, defining "right speech" and holding people to it is political correctness, like I said earlier. (post #9)"Right speech" is tailored to fit a given individual situation, whereas "political correctness" seeks to shape all situations on a broad scope by regulating speech.
N
Nick_A
Guest
It isn't as much a matter of topic as of attitude. Transcendent awareness includes the awareness of human evolution into a higher quality of being. It is what separates Man from the rest of organic life on earth which is complete in its evolution. A horse serves its purpose. Man serves the same purpose as the horse but has the potential to serve a higher conscious purpose. Man has the potential to transcend one level of being and become another.
None of this has any value for secularism which only concerns itself with conditioning the collective level of being as it is. It openly frowns on higher awareness. Christianity knows this as the world's condemnation and Plato described it as unwanted. From Plato's Cave Analogy:
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
Socrates is describing the natural collective societal response to one becoming open to transcendent realities.
I know this to be true so it would be naive to think it would be any different on a web site. However I also know that there is a minority that are open to this idea of the relativity of human "being," but it requires the intent to respect it rather than the normal intent to ridicule it if people that are aware of it to any degree can become able to share on it.
Where political correctness deals with conditioning the "right " way to be, Right Speech is concerned with the quality of "NOW." As conditioned beings, we don't experience it but rather dream it. Right speech as described in Earl's link concerns itself with reacting to the conditioned world but right speech as it pertains to those wishing to be more real and less conditioned has to express honesty as well. For example it would be politically incorrect to express selective prejudice say against black people but acceptable against whites. This is normal for the selective morality furthered by political correct speech. However right speech amongst people interested in reality is unafraid to listen to a person revealing an honest prejudice regardless of what it is against. There is no should be this way or that but rather what IS. To Know Thyself requires being free of imagining oneself.
We are so conditioned that we do not know what "NOW" is since our lives are the result of the habitual conditioning of the past and anticipation of the future. People with transcendent awareness find it beneficial to admit being a chicken in order to become open to returning to their origin represented in this classic analogy as an eagle. It is meaningless and insulting to secularism but like Plato's cave analogy, just another indication of the human condition unnecessarily attached to the earth and how it denies human conscious evolution.
I've even read the secular perspective describe this as anti chicken. Yet those having become aware even theoretically of Man's possible conscious evolution or the change of being alluded to in Christianity as re-birth for example can begin to appreciate and share on the meaning of this story. It couldn't be done on a secular board that would consider it demeaning but could on a transcendent board that is more open to the reality of the human condition...
Politically correct speech concerns itself with subjective interpretations of a better barnyard while Right Speech between people with transcendent awareness even if just theoretically concerns another with allowing another to experience the necessary reality that furthers understanding.
Christian love for example from the secular perspective is different than from the transcendent perspective. Yet discussing it would require a psychological atmosphere that would include Right Speech since the transcendent perspective is politically incorrect. Mixing the two would be meaningless since it would spawn the usual sarcasms and ridicule etc that have become conditioned.
This thread is about whether people are open to respect the potential of Right Speech necessary to further understanding experiential transcendent awareness. It seems clear to me that people view it as an obstacle to creativity rather than a necessary aspect of shared transcendent awareness necessary to further transcendent Interfaith. The bottom line is that they cannot realistically coexist on the same site in a meaningful way that would allow a board being dedicated to it. As I said, no harm no foul. Live and learn.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Quite an interesting conversation.
A quick observation...passionate communication (speech, writing, etc.) is the most effective communication (noted by J. Watson in developing Behaviorism psychology). However, it is also the most prone to error, and the error is usually hidden from view until after the passion subsides. How else does one rile a mob into a lawless anarchic frenzy to dispatch vigilante justice? ( I can prove this with a *false* accusation levelled with a threatening glare and pointed finger at any hapless male victim..."CHILD ABUSER!" )
Might does not equal right. Volume does not confer correctness. Because a majority holds an opinion does not mean that opinion is valid, unless everyone jumping off a bridge can somehow be construed as valid. Then again, even lemmings have their role to play in the grand scheme of things... ...mindlessly hurtling themselves onto the rocks of their passions.
(In case there is any wonder, I am no fan of PC, and what I am seeing in this thread about "right speech" is just a variant of PC)
A quick observation...passionate communication (speech, writing, etc.) is the most effective communication (noted by J. Watson in developing Behaviorism psychology). However, it is also the most prone to error, and the error is usually hidden from view until after the passion subsides. How else does one rile a mob into a lawless anarchic frenzy to dispatch vigilante justice? ( I can prove this with a *false* accusation levelled with a threatening glare and pointed finger at any hapless male victim..."CHILD ABUSER!" )
Might does not equal right. Volume does not confer correctness. Because a majority holds an opinion does not mean that opinion is valid, unless everyone jumping off a bridge can somehow be construed as valid. Then again, even lemmings have their role to play in the grand scheme of things...
...mindlessly hurtling themselves onto the rocks of their passions.(In case there is any wonder, I am no fan of PC, and what I am seeing in this thread about "right speech" is just a variant of PC)
N
Nick_A
Guest
Hi Juantoo
People open to transcendent human potential could discuss this idea while secularism would find it repulsive and not politically correct since it makes no sense from a secular perspective.
Transcendent Interfaith begins with awakening to see that we are eagles having been conditioned by society to become as chickens. It doesn't matter if one calls themselves Christian, buddhist, Hindu, or whatever. We are all chickens in the same barnyard with the potential for a conscious individualty beyond our comprehension. This is the "hell" Simone is referring to. The right and wrong of the exoteric expressions of these paths becomes secondary to the collective question as to how to be less of a chicken and more like the individuality of a human being represented by the eagle.
I agree. Right Speech like anything else of quality becomes degraded into a tool of manipulation. However, Right Speech has the "potential" to reflect the desire to be free of inner lies. It is really a shock to learn how much we are dominated by inner lies denying us a realistic conscious experience of human meaning and purpose. This is why intent becomes so important. A person has to be honest with themselves and determine if their goal is self justification and manipuation or being open to experience the human condition.
People open to transcendent human potential could discuss this idea while secularism would find it repulsive and not politically correct since it makes no sense from a secular perspective.
Transcendent Interfaith begins with awakening to see that we are eagles having been conditioned by society to become as chickens. It doesn't matter if one calls themselves Christian, buddhist, Hindu, or whatever. We are all chickens in the same barnyard with the potential for a conscious individualty beyond our comprehension. This is the "hell" Simone is referring to. The right and wrong of the exoteric expressions of these paths becomes secondary to the collective question as to how to be less of a chicken and more like the individuality of a human being represented by the eagle.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Perhaps, but then I would need to see M. Weil's comment in context to understand the gist with which it was intended before I could agree or disagree. However, as to the follow on comment I would say that being "open to transcendent human potential" is a loaded term that could be construed to mean most anything and used to include and exclude any whom the person doing the quoting might desire. As for matters of heaven and hell, theologians argue over them, secularists deny them, philosophers dance around them, fanatics invoke them and the average joe ignores and avoids them. All of whom are right and politically correct within their own given contexts...just ask. And all of whom are wrong and politically incorrect outside of their given contexts...just ask their adversaries.
Nick A, I'm far from a fan of "poltically correct speech," but "right speech-" a term from the Buddhist perspective, reflects, as do all Buddhist practices and views the "transcendent" in the sense that Buddhsim points to transcending the delusional views of the self. It is far from "secular." However, it is often said in Buddhism that the Buddhist precepts including that of right speech are the natural way an enlightened person would act, which should always reflect a compassionate awareness of the interdependence-the interbeing-of all things. Buddhism is always about encouraing one to be fully aware of all their actions and how these affect others as well as affect and reflect the state of one's awareness. Jesus' chief teachings seemed to focus more on the "spiritual health" of all, but he also certainly preached caring for others in other than spiritual ways. You mentioned the image of the cross earlier-speaking of both its vertical and horizontal axes. That is a good symbol for the uniting of heaven and earth. The cross is that integration, the integration of the transcendent and the immanent, the material and the spiritual. If we're not walking our talk in this material form, we haven't really "transcended" our self-imposed limitiations. earl
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
You do it by dropping the chicken mask, not by crafting an eagle mask. Both masks are unreal.
N
Nick_A
Guest
Quite true. This is why the authentic paths initiating from a conscious source begin with the realization of ones nothingness. We can imagine anything but the realistic experience of ourselves as in opposition to ourselves is the beginning. A person coming to experience the human condition in themselves and what is lost from its acceptance as part of what Plato called the "Beast;" his term for society, can lead to awakening to the psychological possibility of more including the gradual experience of human conscious potential.
N
Nick_A
Guest
This sounds good but is not experiential. It is nice to express as part of secular Interfaith but is it your experience?
It is not a matter of a mask but what we've become. Try and take it off and you will see that it sticks like glue. We are our personality or as you say "mask." We have the potential to do it but as of now the mask rules us. Transcendent Interfaith seeks to experientially verify the truth of ourselves rather than create acceptable imagination normal for politically correct secular expression. This is why it requires Right Speech as opposed to the consolations of politically correct speech that furthers the dominance of the mask.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
With all due respect...authentic? By whose standards? Conscious source? Whose consciousness? Realization? Whose? This is the fraught"ness" I am attempting to expose.
Saying, or even agreeing, that one is "open-minded" does not make it so. In practice, it really means being open to those in agreement...which necessarily means being closed-minded to those who disagree.
Genuine open-mindedness is not only being receptive to thoughts that agree, but being receptive even to those thoughts that disagree. Being receptive does not mean being in agreement, it means allowing for that expression to exist and seeing it in its rightful context.