You haven't. I carefully said that giving people the right to be offensive does not lead to more courageous behaviour.
No, actually you said. and I quote:
TT- You leap from claiming the right to be as offensive as you wish...
Which I never implied or claimed.
As you admit in your post above people have sometimes replied to you with abuse, taking your perceived offence as permission to be abusive back, a common result, and one which, as you have discovered, precludes further discussion.
It doesn't preclude further discussion it only slows things down while they get lost in their emotions. Eventually they either come to their senses or just decide they do not want to talk to me about the subject because it can't be manipulated in the direction they want it to go.
Everyone does have the right to express but it does not mean they have the right to be heard. The result of separation means that people have their own agenda and if that agenda doesn't like anything that doesn't meet the terms of that agenda, then there is no right to demanding someone listen to you. It should be commonly accepted that one be objective enough to allow freedom of expression without someone being invested in what it is that is being said to them.
Abuse is rarely a consequence to acceptance of expression. Generally one becomes abusive when someone or something threatens their freedom of expression and belief. And for someone whose beliefs are as stable as a house of cards, it doesn't take much to upset their fragile sense of self worth.
Those that have become abusive have become sensitized to the boundaries that they believe have been put onto them by the experiences of the past.
People with psychosis are stressed and frustrated with their experience of relationship, and it usually has begun early in childhood.
TT wrote:
Namaste means I recognize the God in you. In that vain (vein) the Golden rule is, that one speaks from God to God and illusions are cut away with the sword of compassion and wisdom.
I confess to having absolutely no idea what this bit means. I had thought that the Golden Rule is --Treat others as you would have them treat you-- which actually is what I am saying in the rest of this post.
Yeah, well when Joseph Campbell said, "Follow your bliss" a lot of people thought it meant
do what makes you happy. But what do people really want?
Happiness for most is temporary. Relationships, money, things of relative values, lose their luster after time and the search is on for something different.
True happiness comes from the expansion of consciousness where life is appreciated at deeper levels of comprehension and boredom doesn't creep in to corrode the shiny things we attach ourselves to.
What Joseph Campbell really meant was expand your consciousness permanently rather than temporarily, and then again, and again, and again, ad infinitum...
One would have to see the God within themselves to recognize it in another, and the highest one could hold another in is their highest relationship to God.
If you were suffering from a lack of self worth and feared any sign that was pointing to your inferiority even if it were imagined, you might treat others as if they were as paranoid as you were.
Compassion from the standpoint of an adult when dealing with the inexperience of a child is to raise their level of understanding so that they do not fall into the same illusion or hole as they did when they were struggling with the unknown.
The Golden rule was meant to lead one to the highest comprehension of themselves, and that same comprehensive being that is in everyone, The Sons and Daughters of God, equality at the level of the absolute and the soul.
Obviously there are different levels of conscious awareness and levels of perception where one would not treat the ego and its illusions with more illusions.
A simple example is that you would not treat a child with goo goo language in hope that it would treat you the same way. As a responsible adult you would treat a child like it was a real human being with the capacity to realize truth and reality, even if it destroys their illusions of fantasy.( by the way this does not mean taking the imagination out of children, it just means you don't lie to them because you believe they don't have the capacity to understand you)
As such if you become a grown up amongst grown ups. Your psychological approach may be more than their ego will accept and as such they will feel threatened and retaliate with the idea that they are being attacked.
1 Cor 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. This passage actually has to do with evolving from an adult with no spiritual knowledge of the Self/Soul, to Self realization or enlightenment.
In the science of Yoga, or
Union of spirit and the manifest, the most gracious thing one can do for someone who lives in a dream is to help them wake up rather than to let them sleep for the duration of their physical lifetime.
If they refuse to awaken then you walk away, but the wisdom of true compassion is not to join one in their suffering when you can see they are suffering from illusions, but to offer them a way out of their suffering.
Generally speaking this invariably gets the ego going and creates emotional expression.
