"There are a thousand hacking at the
Site Section Links
Men are easily swayed by a well designed psychological appeal to their prejudices, traditions, cherished beliefs, senses and emotions, but that is the way of advertising, of hucksterism, of mind control, of manipulation. But that is not the style of the still, small voice of reason. - MA
The Issue of Legitimate Truth Sharing Style
When you are trying to convey spiritual material to a person or audience, everyone understands that style of presentation is important. Delivery style matters. We are not talking here about superficial aspects such as dress, articulation, voice tone or timbre, organization, presence, setting, charisma, enthusiasm, titles, degrees or other means of implying authority, etc. When it comes to ultimate matters the reasonable man and seasoned truth seeker has learned to ignore and filter out all of these things that appeal to his social conditioning and listen for the truth that resonates with his inner core.
The issue is really one of respect for ourselves and our fellow man. Don't we all agree that we have no right to impose our beliefs on others, nor to inject them through some psychological advantage? Aren't we or shouldn't we all be fellow truth seekers? Which one of us is so advanced that we are beyond learning new aspects of truth?
We SAY that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Oh, but we can make a man think and believe the way we want him to, can't we? Well, yes, actually you often can, but when it happens isn't he less of a man? Don't we lose some respect for him?
The premise here is that the spiritually mature man is no longer amenable to or available for this attempt to override his spiritual sovereignty. He has internalized authority and has taken control with his will AND intellect. Why wouldn't we apply the Golden Rule in the case of our discussion or spiritual sharing style? Why wouldn't we treat others with this same kind of respect and behaving illegitimately if we don't?
What we are talking about specifically here is a popular style of preaching−even if it's just two people in discussion−by pronouncing deep or lofty sounding concepts called "truth speaking." These are proclaimed within the implication that they are unassailable eternal verities, and that the speaker has some mystical connection with God or "THE ALL", or some supra-normal revelation beyond mere insight that authorizes them to pronounce THE TRUTH. Isn't this like treating people as if they were baby robins with their mouths open while the mother superior disgorges her own partially digested meal of bugs and worms? This author considers these spiritual disgorgements to be empty pronunciamentos at best, and false and evil producing noise or attempts to deceive at worst.
In contrast to this is the legitimate spiritual style of appealing to a person's reason by stating a premise, and then proceeding to support that premise with information, logic and reason. This is now the only way that this author can be reached or moved. A further premise here is that a spiritually healthy and growing person always needs to get their mind involved beyond just opening it. Isn't it far more valid for the person to think about it, to weigh the pros and cons, to see how it fits with everything else they know?
The author will not patronize you further by his arguments but let you support this premise of proper style with the information and reason from your own experience!