posted December 14, 2009 04:05 PM         

quote:

---

Praising a virtue isn't going to get you into trouble. Berating someone else for lacking a virtue you yourself do not yet possess is what gets us into hot water.

---

Okay. But what if you are speaking in general; not directing it at an individual, but just speaking what you think is true without pointing fingers? You may be "berating" yourself, as much, if not more, than others. Also, don't you find that, when you are ready to listen, -- when you are listening with an open mind and a contrite heart, and not trying to justify your ego, -- then, something which would, at any other time, sound "berating", actually sounds lofty and humbling, in the most fantastic way? I do.

quote:

---

That's exactly my point. Being mean and snobbish and condescending will almost invariably inspire a negative and ultimately unproductive response.

---

Naturally. But, if you are expressing sympathy, understanding, and tolerance, and not criticism alone, then, are people still justified in seeing it as snobby and condescending? Do you think most people can even understand a nuanced thing like sympathetic criticism? Or will they just see the criticism, and think the sympathy is a smokescreen? Also, can people understand that, when you are speaking on behalf of an ideal, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are holding them up to idealistic expectations, and judging them for being less than godly? Can they humble themselves enough to see a truth which humbles them? And not shoot the messenger, who is just as humbled by the message as they are?

Netflix.

quote:

---

Hypothetical examples aside, possibly we should first agree on what these virtues might be?

---

For present purposes, that's unnecessary, isn't it? Useful only for illustrative purposes, and possibly liable to confuse, -- certainly to complicate, -- the matter. We may all disagree on what constitutes a particular virtue, but still be able to understand the definitions of hypocrisy we are applying to the belief in, professing of, and/or practice of a hypothetical, would-be virtue. Rather than risk disagreeing on more than one thing at a time, perhaps we should leave it in the abstract?

posted December 14, 2009 04:56 PM         

You might be. But if the listener is guilty of whatever sin you are busy condemning, chances are they will take it to heart, no matter how vague your criticism.

Also, don't you find that, when you are ready to listen, -- when you are listening with an open mind and a contrite heart, and not trying to justify your ego, -- then, something which would, at any other time, sound "berating", actually sounds lofty and humbling, in the most fantastic way? I do.

Yes, I do find that to be so. Very, very slowly I'm training myself to listen objectively, to not take personal offense. One by one, I'm dismantling my hot buttons. This isn't a matter of controlling unpleasant emotions - I can 'turn off' and go cold and hard as well as any scorpio - its a matter of finding and disentangling the root cause of the unpleasant emotion.
Several years into it and I've made some progress. I welcome it .. I'm truly, sincerely grateful when something or someone gets under my skin. I appreciate the red flag, if you will. It points out the spot where I should begin digging. But I've been working on this intensely. Please remember your audience. The general population isn't always capable of this. In fact, the general population is usually not capable of this.

Naturally. But, if you are expressing sympathy, understanding, and tolerance, and not criticism alone, then, are people still justified in seeing it as snobby and condescending? Do you think most people can even understand a nuanced thing like sympathetic criticism? Or will they just see the criticism, and think the sympathy is a smokescreen? Also, can people understand that, when you are speaking on behalf of an ideal, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are holding them up to idealistic expectations, and judging them for being less than godly? Can they humble themselves enough to see a truth which humbles them? And not shoot the messenger, who is just as humbled by the message as they are?

Gosh, those are good questions. Essential questions. Considering your ample experience here at LL (and no doubt elsewhere) I'm interested in how you would begin to answer them.
What's your intent? If it's simply to be understood, the problem will always lie with the listener and you will spend the rest of your days banging your head against the brick wall of their ego and their nafs. If your desire is to help others, regardless of admiration or gratitude, then the problem lies with you and the first step towards that Teacher's Certificate is to pull the plank out of your own eye and concern yourself with what your audience needs to hear, rather than what you need to say.

For present purposes, that's unnecessary, isn't it? Useful only for illustrative purposes, and possibly liable to confuse, -- certainly to complicate, -- the matter. We may all disagree on what constitutes a particular virtue, but still be able to understand the definitions of hypocrisy we are applying to the belief in, professing of, and/or practice of a hypothetical, would-be virtue. Rather than risk disagreeing on more than one thing at a time, perhaps we should leave it in the abstract?

posted December 14, 2009 10:14 PM         

quote:

---

You might be. But if the listener is guilty of whatever sin you are busy condemning, chances are they will take it to heart, no matter how vague your criticism.

---

That's the point. I want them to take it to heart. The more general, or "vague", it is, the more likely they are to receive it. Our business as teachers is to illuminate these universal experiences in the language appropriate to them. We should try not to get tangled up in unneccessarily limiting specifics. You are right, when you say that we should expect people to respond defensively. But they should not then expect us to condone their defensiveness, but to remain firm in defense of the truth.

quote:

---

But I've been working on this intensely. Please remember your audience. The general population isn't always capable of this. In fact, the general population is usually not capable of this.

---

Why is it that, when you say this,
nobody notices, or, if they notice,
they believe and admire you for it,
while, if I were to write those words,
I would be branded "arrogant"?

quote:

---

concern yourself with what your audience needs to hear, rather than what you need to say.

---

I can only teach what I am called to teach, shura. Anything else would be pure invention. It wouldn't come from personal experience. I can only diagnose those ailments which I have suffered myself, and prescribe those remedies which I would prescribe for myself. Just because someone doesnt resonate with my teaching, or just because someone is offended, or misundestands, doesnt mean I am at fault. We cannot judge the effectiveness and truthfulness of a teaching by the fact that it has no detractors.

“The longer a man's fame is likely to last,
the longer it will be in coming.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer