B
BC
Guest
I'm trying to put together a critique of the Four Agreements and need a
bit of help. As per Don Luiz's YouTube clip (below) where he urges one
to do it all from "the bottom of your feet to the tip of your mind", I
fear I may be putting the bottom of my feet too near the hole that
exists just below the tip of my (alleged) mind, but so be it.
This is mainly to ward off some of the Jesus-freak-like Four Agreements
freaks that have been bothering me lately. I felt I had to share what
I've already discovered myself through reading various religious and
other texts (the Bible, the Dhammapada, the Tibetan Book of the Dead,
Autobiography of a Yogi, The Sayings of Milarepa (Vol 1 and 2), the
Koran, Zen literature and other odd things).
I'm also available for spam and other forms of abuse at:
bvconway@shaw.ca
Put THE FOUR AGREEMENTS in the subject line so I'll know you're not
trying to increase my penis size or sell me designer drugs.
Don Ruiz - atop The Pyramid of the Moon in Mexico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztDiDC-ahvU
Pyramid of the Moon - recent archaeological evidence (2004)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041203084345.htm
The Four Agreements -main site
http://www.miguelruiz.com/
REVIEW OF THE FOUR AGREEMENTS
B. Conway
1. Be Impeccable With Your Word
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to
speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your
word in the direction of truth and love.
2. Don't Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a
projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to
the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless
suffering.
3. Don't Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want.
Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid
misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you
can completely transform your life.
4. Always Do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different
when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply
do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is tempted to compare Four Agreements with The Four Noble Truths of
the Buddha:
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
1. Right View Wisdom
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech Ethical Conduct
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort Mental Development
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
Buddha aside, the four agreements can be viewed as a restatement or
recodification of eternal truths, but translated down from their
ethereal heights to fit daily living only. I think all that might be
missing is: brush your teeth before you go to bed, stop pulling your
sister's hair and look both ways before you cross the road. Other than
this, it is apparent his heart is in the right place and that despite
technical difficulties with the text itself, he may, inadvertently
perhaps, be making an important contribution to the world, simply by
raising consciousness. Injecting the words "truth" and "love" into any
conversation is always a sure winner, remembering of course that bona
fide scamps also use these words:
There is nothing in these Four Agreements that has not been said before,
and there are many things left out.
Repetition of already-stated or already-oft-stated-truths can indeed
improve us, as can adherence to the original ones. The repackaging of
original truths, it might be pointed out, is a good way to make money.
(Capitalists take heed). As with the 70 per cent of Americans who
believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is obvious
that the field is rich with potential "believers".
To put them in written form obviously appeals to those who have never
read, say, the Bible, Autobiography of a Yogi, Patanjali's Yoga System,
The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Sutra of Hui Neng or the Four Noble
Truths. I gather that all the truths contained in these hallowed tomes
have now been supplanted by the Four Agreements
- almost as if these other tomes have been pronounced "not good enough",
or "not a code for daily living."
We now have then a self-contained and codified universal philosophical
system for daily living called The Four Agreements. It is worthwhile
stating that The Four Noble Truths are a code for daily living - in this
world, and the next. The Four Agreements appear to be limited to this
world - truths to help you argue with your sister while she's making
tortillas (even if she is talking nonsense in a non-direct way, putting
in only a second-best effort, making assumptions and taking things
personally). For instance, they might not be helpful when you're on
your deathbed. There's nothing about breathing or the importance of
prayer or concentration. The scope appears to be limited to the
waking-state condition only, with prebirth and after-death, sleep,
dreams, unconsciousness and the moment(s) of death left out. I would
assume, contrary to Rule 3 in the Four Agreements, that the author does
not wish to bring up the after-death state since, for one it is a
difficult area for most people (and not that saleable), and, it is
already well-covered in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and many other
books (Autobiography of a Yogi for instance). Other than this, most
people will shy away from the topic as being unpleasant or morbid. It's
the "daily living" that is apparently of more importance.
Let's start with the statement on Miguel's website:
"The last years of this century have been characterized by our
extraordinary progress in science, technology and information."
- from the official site of Don Miguel Ruiz and Don Jose Ruiz
http://www.miguelruiz.com/
One could argue that the last few years of this century were also
characterized by a form of mass hysteria over the effects of Y2K, the
impoverishment of third-world countries through free-trade agreements ,
trickle-down economics (read: trickle up), Reagan death squads rampaging
through Central America killing doctors, nurses and priests, breakup of
the Soviet Union, dismantlement of the Berlin Wall, banking fees, global
warming and other noteworthy things, but the technological (material)
aspect of things appears to be foremost in his mind. He appears to
think mankind is doing OK on the visible side of things
(technologically), but is deficient in things invisible, like morality,
ethics.
Forgetting the last few years of the last century, in the first few
years of this brand-new century, we meet with wars of aggression,
largescale death, increased militarization, clashing cultures, reduction
of civil liberties, starvation, force 5 hurricanes, increased taxes,
deported jobs, rendition flights, torture, dangerous pharmaceuticals,
genetically modified crops, disappearing bees, destruction of the
environment in the name of progress, a dumbed down press in the service
of anti-libertarian totalitarian political systems, decreased freedoms,
H5N1 (avian flu), idiot TV programs, global warming, spam mail and
iPods.
Other than this, I think he's right - especially in regard to the
increase in information (some call it "useless chatter" or TMI: Too Much
Information) - mainly the internet - although certain governments are
now acting to "correct" this little problem.
As for the headlong advance towards technological utopia, if we nuke
ourselves first, we might not actually get there. Once we are there,
how will we know it? I expect there may come a day, perhaps a Tuesday,
as I wake up and put on my biosuit, power up my artificial liquid
generation system and urinate into a tube running down my leg into a
small titanium cannister located under my left testicle, turn on CNN -
beamed into my left eyeball - and take a sip of perfectly replicated
starbucks coffee out of a tube that runs down from the top of the helmet
around my neck and into a retracting
faux-rubber-high-tech-plastic-enamel coffee cup (bearing the insignia
World Space Federation), only then we would know that this spurious
utopia has finally been attained. And, for the progress-worshippers, we
may have thought we were there when we crossed over from the bronze age
into the iron age. We knew it then, but - not good enough. There's
more utopia to be had, the planet be damned. I expect they would have
holosuites too. (Imagine life without holo-suites, or iPods). Now
there's progress.
Don Miguel's teachings are a "translation" of the original teachings.
The four agreements are touted as a set of rules for social conduct that
if followed will "rapidly transform our lives to a new experience of
freedom, true happiness, and love". In other words, if you talk
straight (or impeccably), let threats and insults roll off you like
water, make no assumptions and do your best, you're on your way to
heaven.
Whether life consists of "agreements" at all, rather than simply
learning or karma or realization appears to be off the map according to
Four-Agreement adherents - not worthy of consideration. It is therefore
not learning, realization or karma that has brought us here - it is
"agreements". The very word is curious, and appears to make no sense.
Personally, I can't remember ever having made an agreement with myself.
I've left it open, making no agreements whatsoever, especially with
myself. This might explain my abject failure in life, if certain
yardsticks are applied, especially the monetary one.
One might argue, life is, rather than a series of "agreements", a series
of strong disagreements , or disequilibriums, (personal dialectics) and
that learning and personal evolution consists in trying to find a
balanced and intelligent way of dealing with them or trying to bring
them back to agreement, or equilibrium.
Don Jose Luis grew up in a long lineage of Toltec Teachers. His father,
the Nagual Don Miguel Ruiz, and his grandmother, Sarita, passed on their
Toltec Teachings to Don Jose, who carries on the family tradition of
teaching Toltec wisdom.
http://www.miguelruiz.com/
The reader is welcome to view Don Jose "teaching Toltec Wisdom" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztDiDC-ahvU
and absorb it "from the bottom of your feet, to the tip of your mind."
(I rather like his turn of phrase). I have no problem with angels,
since I've met a few myself (actually only one that appeared to me when I
was about 8 years old beside my bed), although I prefer not to talk openly
about
this for fear of padded rooms and people in white coats.
Maybe this should be added as a Fifth Agreement: You didn't see any angels,
OK?
One may be tempted then, to bypass Don Miguel and his translation of the
spiritual into the everyday, and look towards the original teachings.
The original teachings in their pristine glory would then enable us to
make our own translations, and compare them with his. Unfortunately we
do not find them (they are shrouded in secrecy). We might assume, in
violation of Rule 3, that they are buried in the interior of the big
pyramid, perhaps amidst the bones of sacrifice victims (see next paragraph).
More likely,
they do not exist in written form and were handed down orally, which, to
me, is an acceptable method of knowledge transference, sometimes more
reliable than the written form, if one is familiar with indigenous
methods in contrast with European methods (treaties, etc.). I assume
then that talking straight, letting the bad stuff roll off you, not
making assumptions and doing your best was so secret that it had to be
kept in a vault somewhere (or in someone's head) and that there is
something special about these times that requires they be released to
the general public.
The pyramid itself, on top of which Don Miguel delivers his sermon is
significant as a choice of locations and supposedly bears some spiritual
or other significance that relate to his teachings. The problem is that
the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, MX was indeed used for worship -
worship of human beings (extreme military rulers) as if they were
deities. In other words, the worship was based on an assumption - that
the rulers were not in fact human but heavenly or ethereal in some way.
Like the Divine Right of Kings, where European rulers claimed they had a
right, God-given to rule over lesser mortals (like you and me), worship
of humans as deities requires, if not an assumption, at least a
respectable - stretch of the imagination - (hear that creaking sound
....) to make it work (usually to the benefit of the ruler, if history is
any teacher).
This is not a place where I would want to worship, although it would be
a good place to contemplate brutality and death, as the following will
explain.
PYRAMID OF THE SUN EXCAVATIONS
"With the excavation of the pyramid nearly complete, one important
conclusion is emerging: combined with past burials at the site, the new
find strongly suggests that the Pyramid of the Moon was significant to
the Teotihuacano people as a site for celebrating state power through
ceremony and sacrifice. Contrary to some past interpretation, militarism
was apparently central to the city's culture".
"What we have found in this excavation suggests that a certain kind of
mortuary ritual took place inside the tomb before it was filled in. It
is hard to believe that the ritual consisted of clean symbolic
performances -- it is most likely that the ceremony created a horrible
scene of bloodshed with sacrificed people and animals," Sugiyama said.
"Whether the victims and animals were killed at the site or a nearby
place, this foundation ritual must have been one of the most terrifying
acts recorded archaeologically in Mesoamerica."
"All the human remains had their hands bound behind their backs, and the
ten decapitated bodies appear to have been tossed, rather than arranged,
on one side of the burial. The other two bodies Sugiyama describes as
"richly ornamented" with greenstone earspools and beads, a necklace made
of imitation human jaws, and other items indicating high rank."
In other words, what we do know of the reigning wisdom of the Toltecs,
is as follows:
- they were an extreme militaristic culture
- they practised terrifying and cruel human sacrifice
- the people worshipped their militaristic rulers as deities (wise?)
- their rulers were obsessed with conquering (killing)
However, amidst any extreme militaristic culture, such as the United
States of America today, it is possible for a subculture - like the Hari
Krishnas for example - or secret society to flourish outside the
confines of the politico-religious system. We can only assume (in
violation of Rule Number 3, if read literally) that this is the case. We
are rewarded in this assumption by Don Miguel's explanation under
"Toltec Tradition" (website) that this secret knowledge was maintained
in secrecy for thousands of years, and that - now - appears to be the
auspicious moment for its dissemination to the entire world. I would
have proposed he released it somewhere around March 2003, just before
the invasion of Iraq, or even 1991 prior to the first invasion of Iraq,
but this is only a personal opinion.
THE LIST ITSELF
The list in itself, as a recipe for complete happiness could be viewed
as incomplete and somewhat simplistic, or even sophistic. For instance
being true with your word(s), not taking things personally, not making
assumptions and always doing your best might be considered as but the
bare minimum necessary to produce happiness. Not doing stupid things
(like sniffing glue or killing people) might also help, among others.
There are broader statements that would lead one there more quickly: do
everything in moderation, pray often (develop an inner life), recognize
the impermanence of all "things" (objects, thoughts, ideas, the human
body, relationships), eat and drink moderately, get plenty of fresh air
and sunshine. Seek happiness. Or, the yogi's admonition: meditate
closely on death, and impermanence.
The Four Agreements cannot be viewed as revolutionary, or comprehensive,
since there exist other codes of conduct that have gained wide respect
throughout history, such as The Four noble Truths of the buddha (which
includes the Eightfold Path as the fourth truth) (see appendix), the
Sutras of Patanjali, the writings of Milarepa, Paramahansa Yogananda,
Sri Yukteswar, St John, Jesus Christ, the Sacred Circles of the
Algonquin and others. Any evaluation of comprehensivity (completeness)
is likely to be subjective, but can be surmised by comparison. For
instance, the Algonquin (as do many other indigenous groups such as the
Cree, the Ojibway ..., Lakota) stress: humility, concentration, close
observation, memory, wisdom, humour, connectivity, respect for the earth
and all creatures and the pursuit of a personal vision arrived at
through dreams or initiation rites (e.g. the vision pit). Patanjali,
and the Bible also stresses remembering and meditating on lessons
arrived at through dreams (not stressed as a source of knowledge in the
Four Agreements).
1. Be Impeccable With Your Word
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to
speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your
word in the direction of truth and love.
1. by impeccable I surmise they mean, scrupulous, or truthful.
Grammatically, impeccability in speech normally refers to adherence to a
standard - the King's English let's say, and delivered with a crisp
British accent. The wording here is intended to express a kind of
rigidity of speech that requires in all cases a complete match between
illocutionary intent and verbal locution.
The explanation appears to require an exact correlation between
illocutionary intent and locutionary utterances. It is not clear whether
all speech should comply with the rules, or some speech, and then only
in some situations. Read literally, as written, it clearly states that
all speech, in all situations should be restricted to speech which
displays integrity, and where illocutionary intent (the real meaning or
purpose behind what you're actually saying) coincides with actual verbal
speech. This would appear to disqualify locution which falls into the
category of, say, parable, irony, hyperbole, poesy, metaphor, synecdote.
Deliberate, misleading or even euphemistic speech then is considered
taboo. The admonition to "say only what you mean" would disqualify most
politicians and diplomats from their jobs. "We are greatly concerned
..." in diplomacy, for instance, has, as illocutionary intent, "We are
greatly pissed off." Rule Number One would limit you to the latter
locution, possibly causing wars and the like.
It would be useful here to touch on the subject of nonsense speech,
comedy, irony, hyperbole and such. This kind of speech cannot be
regarded as noble or displaying integrity, and yet it was integrated
closely with the spirit life of indigenous groups over thousands of
years. That is, nonsense speech can be used in the direction of truth
and love. One example might be the "heyoka" of the Lakota peoples whose
role in society as a sort of "trickster" (almost a high-priest type of
philospher, but appearing as a clown) was to turn speech and action
upside down. His job was usually to destroy any kind of "integrity" that
might be lurking, possibly to remind people not to be so uptight and
rational, or that humour is a form of wisdom superior to aphorisms or
written moral codes.
There are other examples where indirect, fuzzy or ignoble forms of
speech might prove useful.
Those being kept in secret prisons throughout the world, for example
would tend to choose their language carefully, using anything but direct
speech. Indirect speech can be used for self-preservation. Curious or
cryptic speech (koans) are used by Zen monks to rid the mind of the
trying-to-understand-the-mind-using-your-mind disease (rational
thinking). Yogis, catholic priests and others often mumble, in Latin or
otherwise to confuse the rational and bring out the intuitive. Rock
singers often don't make much sense, or you can hardly make out the
lyrics sometimes: "Play that funky music." can sound as if the bad F
word is being used, if you don't listen carefully.
I would rather advise people to choose their words carefully according
to the situation and the moment, taking care not to upset others by
using whatever manner of speech seems to fit, to elevate them in some
way through humour (humour is considered wisdom in some cultures) or
some other means. For instance, at funerals, you might speak less
directly with the next of kin than at the local baseball game,
especially if your team is losing).
Jesus often spoke in parables - a form of indirect locution purposefully
designed to limit understanding to a subgroup of initiates, and yet
whose purpose was to propogate truth, and love (a synonym for God, in
the New Testament). Mathematical truths are expressed in symbols (which
are substitutes for words, concepts - the symbols themselves being
somewhat obtuse, difficult to figure ,ect). A mathematician, speaking
directly, might say something like: "There is nothing more ordinary
than the fact that we all live in a four-dimensional space-time
continuum, that objects travelling near the speed of light become
shorter, that moving clocks run
slow (time itself slows down) and that gravitation is equivalent to
acceleration."
These are in fact direct statements that have been tested many times in
nuclear labs all over the world (they're true), but they cannot be
understood by everyone. Speaking directly, and simply, is relative. A
mathematician, expressing universal truths, may speak directly and
simply to his/her colleagues but this same speech might appear
deliberately confusing to a neophyte. Even the saying "God is love" is
cryptic (but direct) and not understood by everyone.
"You're a complete asshole!" is direct, and to the point, but disruptive
([aggressive communication]) and perhaps injudicious in mixed company.
- violating the truth and love directive, although the intent of the
speaker might be to lead one closer to truth. Truth has been known to
hurt at times, and love can take the form of tough love.
MORE SPEECH EXAMPLES
Example: "That guy plays a bad saxophone."
Explanation: The adjective "bad" can mean "good", or "bad" in street
vernacular. The speaker here is saying exactly what he means. The
listener, if violating rule number 3, may assume he's being criticized
by an inner city black person, when in fact he does not realize that the
word "bad" in negro parlance (called "Black English" in linguistics), means
"good".
Avoid using the word to speak against oneself.
This appears to be an admonition to avoid self-criticism. Properly
explained, it might be an admonition to avoid repeated and long-lasting
criticism which, it is reasonable to assume, might lead to some degree
of pyschological damage. "I am ugly and useless. I am ugly and
useless." However, one could argue, periodic self-criticism can be
useful as a catalyst for self-improvement, so that a requirement to
avoid it in all cases would not be advisable (convicted murderers, etc.)
with whom I would rather encourage speaking against themselves from time
to time.
Gossip (sometimes leading to banishment, etc.) is used in some societies
as a social corrective replacing more formal institutions such as
police, courts and jails. One could hypothesize that gossip is not
simply gossip, it has several variants - therapeutic gossip, malicious
gossip, social gossip, etc. Gossip by definition is about others. One
could surmise he's referring only to malicious gossip, but this is not
made clear.
"Gossip is not a trivial pastime: it is essential to human social,
psychological and even physical well-being. The mobile phone, by
facilitating therapeutic gossip in an alienating and fragmented modern
world, has become a vital 'social lifeline', helping us to re-create the
more natural communication patterns of pre-industrial times".
http://www.sirc.org/publik/gossip.shtml
Use the power of the word towards truth and love. Here, he implies that
"the word" (meaning speech in general) has power. Agreed. It might be
possible to argue that using the word towards love, and truth, is
impossible, until you've found it. To go about the streets speaking
truth and love could be viewed as an error, since there is a physical
movement of mouth and lips without a true innner comprehension to match.
The restriction might therefore read: find truth first, then talk about
it. This would reduce a large part of the planet to complete silence, I
would expect. It is also an appropriate response to the question: What
is truth (as that given by Jesus to Pilate).
Sometimes speech should be used for other purposes - for example to
warn, to admonish, to explain, to engage in dialectic or argument, or
simply for idle chatter (the real intent being to break up silence and
put the interlocutor at ease). Putting someone at ease could be
construed as working towards something positive - even truth and love.
To ensure that speech is useful, positive, open, helpful and relevant to
the topic at hand might be more helpful. It is worth pointing out that
there are pitfalls to avoid in speech, in addition to failing to use it
towards truth and love. A more complete social code would include some
guidelines on how to conduct conversation in general, such as learning
to listen effectively, not butting in on others (letting them finish a
sentence), not being snippy, abrupt or laconic, using a softened-down or
non-aggressive style of communication.
SPEECH DEFECTS
stay on topic
be open, positive and balanced
speak your truth quietly and clearly
speech defects would fall under several categories:
speaking too quickly
speaking too long (boring your listeners)
using repeated profanities
not speaking logically
tending to disrupt or cause division
showing anger or lack of control
being snippy or irritable
spreading rumours
using insults
speaking too loudly
focussing too much on trivialities rather than the important
lying or misleading
In other words, not using words for truth and love is only one defect.
There are many others which are not a subset of that one and should be
listed separately. On the other hand, anger, for example, or "holy
anger" as it is known in religious circles can be used to effect,
usually with an intention to teach, or to get the listener to learn a
specific lesson. In this case, what might be viewed by the listener as
a defect, actually conforms with Rule 1 - the requirement to use speech
in the direction of (truth and love). Similarly with insults, speaking
loudly, or even misleading the listener, in one way or another, such as
using irony, sarcasm or parables (e.g. Jesus). Insults are used in some
cultures as social correctives, also as humour.
"Move yer f -in car you idiot!" This kind of language usually serves
to move the listener rapidly in the direction of truth, though possibly
a little away from love. I would assume (contrary to Rule 3) that to
get the two working together takes a little practice.
The Japanese use a form of indirect speech, purposely saying something
slightly different than what they mean. The admonition to speak directly
would
not work in Japan.
2. Don't Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a
projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to
the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless
suffering.
"It's a philosophy of no regrets," Mrs. Bush said. "In one sense, [it]
is that whatever happens happens and you have to keep moving on and do
the best you can with whatever it is. But it's also a philosophy of
moving forward . a realistic view of life." --- George Bush
The above quote simply clarifies that not taking things personally can be
viewed as a personality defect. To me, one who takes things personally is
more human than one who either ignores or lets criticism roll off them.
A philosophy of no regrets, to me, is somehow abnormal and possibly
unhealthy.
Being immune to others' opinions and actions is not sufficient in itself
to alleviate suffering. It takes more (much more).
Perhaps I'm doing it all wrong, but I tend to weigh carefully the
opinons and actions of others since it acts as a useful mirror to my own
progress (or lack thereof). One could argue that the opinions and
actions of others provide a useful litmus test for progress-to-date, and a
catalyst to
personal improvement.
The real intent of "immunity to opinions of others" is to urge a form of
detachment or objectivity from the opinions and actions of others,
almost as if you are able to use your own internal witness to observe
and evaluate your own behaviour without this being overdone to the point
of detriment to one's own psychic or physical well-being. In general, it
would be more useful to evaluate intelligently the opinions and actions
of others, take what is useful and throw the rest away. Their emphasis
is on throwing it all away, as if it didn't exist, and not retaining the
negative or positive evaluations of others for one's own edification or
enlightenment.
I would rather say, observe closely the opinions and actions of others
(what they say and do) for clues to your own progress, but don't take
them too seriously or let negative impressions fester. After punishing
yourself, remember to reward yourself as well. Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you. Make sure your self-criticism is balanced
(not overdone) and useful for positive growth. Look both ways before
you cross the road, and stop pulling your sister's hair, etc.
The Zen monks might caution that, since everything is your own mind, or.
worded differently: there is nothing here that is NOT your own mind, the
opinions of others are simply your own head making noise. In the Zen
tradition, it is often suggested that you become the controller of this
mind, rather than letting "it" control you. The key word is control, as
in the harnessing of overactive thoughts that cause trouble, and pain.
That is - concentration (meditation). Try and keep things steady. To
what purpose one might ask. This is where a life vision comes in handy,
as Black Elk and others have explained.
3. Don't Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want.
Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid
misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you
can completely transform your life.
Not making assumptions at all is nonsensical. For instance, an adherent
to The Four Agreements "assumes" that The Four Agreements are valid.
People often assume they only have one life, not several. Some assume
they have several lives, not just one. To banish all assumption is by
definition impossible, and perhaps deleterious to future growth. Wrong
assumptions are deleterious in most cases, but can also lead you into
learning situations. Religious faith, for instance, is based on
assumption. The preamble (don't make assumptions) does not accord with
the explanation that follows. Not making assumptions does not relate
closely to the sentences which follow this - to the asking of questions,
or expressing what you really want. He seems to be onto another topic
there.
One expects, on reading "don't make assumptions" an explanation of
non-assumption-making. We are instead treated to a rehash of Step One.
Communicating with others as clearly as you can was already covered
under Number 1. The life transformation was supposed to have taken
place in step 2. In conflict resolution, the admonition is to "check
your assumptions" and not to not make them at all.
I'm tempted to rewrite this one. Do make assumptions. Check them first.
A more benign reading might interpret "don't make assumptions" as "don't
jump to conclusions about other people - or at least not too quickly".
Compare this to the indian concept which extends this to all creatures,
not just people. However, we all tend to do this - first glances often
give you a "whiff" of the other person. One might argue that this
"jumping to conclusions" about other people might not in fact be a
"conclusion" but an attempt on the part of the observer to analyze the
person, to conduct his/her absurdio ad reductum: their first whiff might
give them the impression the person is unlikeable, the person then
assumes (as part of a mathematical proof) that the person is rotten,
hoping to be proven wrong later on, ultimately proving that the person
is actually nice, or vice versa.
For instance, say you have a friend who:
- often butts in in conversations
- talks loudly and rudely, trying to drown out anything you say
- causes fights
- says the wrong thing at the wrong time
- spits food everywhere when they eat
- never honours appointments
- cheats on his wife
- smells
... etc.
You're going to "assume" that this person is unwholesome in some way.
Here, it is safe to say, that the act of assumption is not some kind of
sin or violation of a set of internal or external agreements, but a
normal human, or animal, reaction that is ultimately useful in
self-preservation.
4. Always Do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different
when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply
do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.
One is tempted to ask, do your best at what? Everything, it would seem,
including going to the toilet.
Say one decides to spend the rest of one's life on a desert island,
lounging in the sun, drinking Pina Coladas and doing the odd bit of
fishing, maybe a few walks on the beach, watching the seagulls. Perhaps
you simply need some time off to work out a set of "Agreements" and have
them passed on to future generations (much as Jesus, Milarepa,
Patanjali, Yogananda and others have done).
Such a life might be considered by some people as "not doing your best".
Others (Calvinists, for example) might criticize such a life as being
useless and lazy because it wastes time and doesn't earn money.
An evaluation of "best" is subjective (depends on the opinion of the
evaluator, and is not a universal).
Your best cannot change from moment to moment. Whether healthy or sick,
right now, you are already doing your best. Introducing an admonition
to "do your best" implies that "you ought to do better". This is
subjective, and negative. In my opinion, people are already doing the
best they can, without exception. Doing your best is a default, it
happens naturally, even when doing your second best. Your second best
effort, the one you gave last Friday (for example) was indeed your best.
Evaluating previous or current actions as second-best is an example of
negative thinking (which equates to not doing one's best at being a
positive thinker).
Crying over spilt milk. If others evaluate your efforts as D minus, or
second best, or lousy - simply ignore them (as per Step Two - being
immune to the opinions of others). This leaves only you yourself as the
rightful evaluator. I could have run a sub-four-minute mile, is an
assumption (maybe true, maybe not). If you are banned from all
assumption, you will have no way to assume you did your second best.
You will also be unable to assume that you did your best.
Additionally, saying to yourself "I could have done better" - is an
assumption (violating Rule 3).
If there's a smile on your face, your second best, was your best.
Whether or not we should avoid self-abuse might be addressed to Dr Ruth
perhaps, although I "assume" the author meant something else.
(Remember, it can make you go blind).
"Those who know most, do least." - Seng Ts'an (Poem on Trust in the
Heart)
In other words, rather than doing your best, learn the value of doing
nothing.
One could plausibly argue for an opposite set of agreements, a more
relaxed way (The Middle Way - as Buddha puts it) which is equally
viable:
1. Speak however you want (mumble if necessary) - but accept the
consequences
2. Take things personally, if it'll make you a better person
3. Make assumptions. Check and recheck them often.
4. Do your second-best (consistently) - and learn to lighten up
Or, restating already-written truths, I could come up with a set of my
own:
1. Develop a vision in life
2. Learn to observe closely
3. Meditate or pray often
4. Find the secret to true happiness
This being said, I wish to add that I personally believe in dreams, and
in visions, and in near-death experiences (I've had all three) and I am
aware of the spiritual and emotional value in focusing on these
experiences to gain wisdom, or to further oneself in some manner. That
dreams do teach is not in dispute. That truth and love are commendable
is not in dispute. I also believe that humor is a form of wisdom.
Going one step further, humor is wisdom, and that some portions of this
comment might be read with this in mind. Whether The Four Agreements, or
the Beatitudes, or The Golden Rule, or some other codification of wisdom
be proposed, I think it befits all reasonable people to look at them
intelligently and use them for self-improvement. If some think they can
be bettered somehow by these Four Agreements, so be it. But, I will not
be party to any philosophical system that urges me to speak directly,
not make assumptions, not take things personally and to be constantly
doing my best. This article, for instance, is not my best. It's about
my fourth best, and there it shall remain, possibly for time immemorial.
I consider my set of "agreements" somewhat sacred. They have been
buried in the sacredness of (what I call) my "alleged" mind for some
time, betimes passed down from one starry-eyed acolyte to another
(usually over several beers). I consider that NOW is the right time to
pass them onto the world, for better or worse.
CD's and teashirts will be out soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This article is my fourth best, so don't take anything personally
(or make assumptions). My best will come later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Protected by www.Spam-Stop.com {oG3QkV9InG8G1KEWas}
--
Protected by www.Spam-Stop.com {oG3QkV9InG8G1KEWas}
bit of help. As per Don Luiz's YouTube clip (below) where he urges one
to do it all from "the bottom of your feet to the tip of your mind", I
fear I may be putting the bottom of my feet too near the hole that
exists just below the tip of my (alleged) mind, but so be it.
This is mainly to ward off some of the Jesus-freak-like Four Agreements
freaks that have been bothering me lately. I felt I had to share what
I've already discovered myself through reading various religious and
other texts (the Bible, the Dhammapada, the Tibetan Book of the Dead,
Autobiography of a Yogi, The Sayings of Milarepa (Vol 1 and 2), the
Koran, Zen literature and other odd things).
I'm also available for spam and other forms of abuse at:
bvconway@shaw.ca
Put THE FOUR AGREEMENTS in the subject line so I'll know you're not
trying to increase my penis size or sell me designer drugs.
Don Ruiz - atop The Pyramid of the Moon in Mexico
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztDiDC-ahvU
Pyramid of the Moon - recent archaeological evidence (2004)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041203084345.htm
The Four Agreements -main site
http://www.miguelruiz.com/
REVIEW OF THE FOUR AGREEMENTS
B. Conway
1. Be Impeccable With Your Word
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to
speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your
word in the direction of truth and love.
2. Don't Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a
projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to
the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless
suffering.
3. Don't Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want.
Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid
misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you
can completely transform your life.
4. Always Do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different
when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply
do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is tempted to compare Four Agreements with The Four Noble Truths of
the Buddha:
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.
1. Right View Wisdom
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech Ethical Conduct
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort Mental Development
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
Buddha aside, the four agreements can be viewed as a restatement or
recodification of eternal truths, but translated down from their
ethereal heights to fit daily living only. I think all that might be
missing is: brush your teeth before you go to bed, stop pulling your
sister's hair and look both ways before you cross the road. Other than
this, it is apparent his heart is in the right place and that despite
technical difficulties with the text itself, he may, inadvertently
perhaps, be making an important contribution to the world, simply by
raising consciousness. Injecting the words "truth" and "love" into any
conversation is always a sure winner, remembering of course that bona
fide scamps also use these words:
There is nothing in these Four Agreements that has not been said before,
and there are many things left out.
Repetition of already-stated or already-oft-stated-truths can indeed
improve us, as can adherence to the original ones. The repackaging of
original truths, it might be pointed out, is a good way to make money.
(Capitalists take heed). As with the 70 per cent of Americans who
believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it is obvious
that the field is rich with potential "believers".
To put them in written form obviously appeals to those who have never
read, say, the Bible, Autobiography of a Yogi, Patanjali's Yoga System,
The Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Sutra of Hui Neng or the Four Noble
Truths. I gather that all the truths contained in these hallowed tomes
have now been supplanted by the Four Agreements
- almost as if these other tomes have been pronounced "not good enough",
or "not a code for daily living."
We now have then a self-contained and codified universal philosophical
system for daily living called The Four Agreements. It is worthwhile
stating that The Four Noble Truths are a code for daily living - in this
world, and the next. The Four Agreements appear to be limited to this
world - truths to help you argue with your sister while she's making
tortillas (even if she is talking nonsense in a non-direct way, putting
in only a second-best effort, making assumptions and taking things
personally). For instance, they might not be helpful when you're on
your deathbed. There's nothing about breathing or the importance of
prayer or concentration. The scope appears to be limited to the
waking-state condition only, with prebirth and after-death, sleep,
dreams, unconsciousness and the moment(s) of death left out. I would
assume, contrary to Rule 3 in the Four Agreements, that the author does
not wish to bring up the after-death state since, for one it is a
difficult area for most people (and not that saleable), and, it is
already well-covered in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and many other
books (Autobiography of a Yogi for instance). Other than this, most
people will shy away from the topic as being unpleasant or morbid. It's
the "daily living" that is apparently of more importance.
Let's start with the statement on Miguel's website:
"The last years of this century have been characterized by our
extraordinary progress in science, technology and information."
- from the official site of Don Miguel Ruiz and Don Jose Ruiz
http://www.miguelruiz.com/
One could argue that the last few years of this century were also
characterized by a form of mass hysteria over the effects of Y2K, the
impoverishment of third-world countries through free-trade agreements ,
trickle-down economics (read: trickle up), Reagan death squads rampaging
through Central America killing doctors, nurses and priests, breakup of
the Soviet Union, dismantlement of the Berlin Wall, banking fees, global
warming and other noteworthy things, but the technological (material)
aspect of things appears to be foremost in his mind. He appears to
think mankind is doing OK on the visible side of things
(technologically), but is deficient in things invisible, like morality,
ethics.
Forgetting the last few years of the last century, in the first few
years of this brand-new century, we meet with wars of aggression,
largescale death, increased militarization, clashing cultures, reduction
of civil liberties, starvation, force 5 hurricanes, increased taxes,
deported jobs, rendition flights, torture, dangerous pharmaceuticals,
genetically modified crops, disappearing bees, destruction of the
environment in the name of progress, a dumbed down press in the service
of anti-libertarian totalitarian political systems, decreased freedoms,
H5N1 (avian flu), idiot TV programs, global warming, spam mail and
iPods.
Other than this, I think he's right - especially in regard to the
increase in information (some call it "useless chatter" or TMI: Too Much
Information) - mainly the internet - although certain governments are
now acting to "correct" this little problem.
As for the headlong advance towards technological utopia, if we nuke
ourselves first, we might not actually get there. Once we are there,
how will we know it? I expect there may come a day, perhaps a Tuesday,
as I wake up and put on my biosuit, power up my artificial liquid
generation system and urinate into a tube running down my leg into a
small titanium cannister located under my left testicle, turn on CNN -
beamed into my left eyeball - and take a sip of perfectly replicated
starbucks coffee out of a tube that runs down from the top of the helmet
around my neck and into a retracting
faux-rubber-high-tech-plastic-enamel coffee cup (bearing the insignia
World Space Federation), only then we would know that this spurious
utopia has finally been attained. And, for the progress-worshippers, we
may have thought we were there when we crossed over from the bronze age
into the iron age. We knew it then, but - not good enough. There's
more utopia to be had, the planet be damned. I expect they would have
holosuites too. (Imagine life without holo-suites, or iPods). Now
there's progress.
Don Miguel's teachings are a "translation" of the original teachings.
The four agreements are touted as a set of rules for social conduct that
if followed will "rapidly transform our lives to a new experience of
freedom, true happiness, and love". In other words, if you talk
straight (or impeccably), let threats and insults roll off you like
water, make no assumptions and do your best, you're on your way to
heaven.
Whether life consists of "agreements" at all, rather than simply
learning or karma or realization appears to be off the map according to
Four-Agreement adherents - not worthy of consideration. It is therefore
not learning, realization or karma that has brought us here - it is
"agreements". The very word is curious, and appears to make no sense.
Personally, I can't remember ever having made an agreement with myself.
I've left it open, making no agreements whatsoever, especially with
myself. This might explain my abject failure in life, if certain
yardsticks are applied, especially the monetary one.
One might argue, life is, rather than a series of "agreements", a series
of strong disagreements , or disequilibriums, (personal dialectics) and
that learning and personal evolution consists in trying to find a
balanced and intelligent way of dealing with them or trying to bring
them back to agreement, or equilibrium.
Don Jose Luis grew up in a long lineage of Toltec Teachers. His father,
the Nagual Don Miguel Ruiz, and his grandmother, Sarita, passed on their
Toltec Teachings to Don Jose, who carries on the family tradition of
teaching Toltec wisdom.
http://www.miguelruiz.com/
The reader is welcome to view Don Jose "teaching Toltec Wisdom" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztDiDC-ahvU
and absorb it "from the bottom of your feet, to the tip of your mind."
(I rather like his turn of phrase). I have no problem with angels,
since I've met a few myself (actually only one that appeared to me when I
was about 8 years old beside my bed), although I prefer not to talk openly
about
this for fear of padded rooms and people in white coats.
Maybe this should be added as a Fifth Agreement: You didn't see any angels,
OK?
One may be tempted then, to bypass Don Miguel and his translation of the
spiritual into the everyday, and look towards the original teachings.
The original teachings in their pristine glory would then enable us to
make our own translations, and compare them with his. Unfortunately we
do not find them (they are shrouded in secrecy). We might assume, in
violation of Rule 3, that they are buried in the interior of the big
pyramid, perhaps amidst the bones of sacrifice victims (see next paragraph).
More likely,
they do not exist in written form and were handed down orally, which, to
me, is an acceptable method of knowledge transference, sometimes more
reliable than the written form, if one is familiar with indigenous
methods in contrast with European methods (treaties, etc.). I assume
then that talking straight, letting the bad stuff roll off you, not
making assumptions and doing your best was so secret that it had to be
kept in a vault somewhere (or in someone's head) and that there is
something special about these times that requires they be released to
the general public.
The pyramid itself, on top of which Don Miguel delivers his sermon is
significant as a choice of locations and supposedly bears some spiritual
or other significance that relate to his teachings. The problem is that
the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, MX was indeed used for worship -
worship of human beings (extreme military rulers) as if they were
deities. In other words, the worship was based on an assumption - that
the rulers were not in fact human but heavenly or ethereal in some way.
Like the Divine Right of Kings, where European rulers claimed they had a
right, God-given to rule over lesser mortals (like you and me), worship
of humans as deities requires, if not an assumption, at least a
respectable - stretch of the imagination - (hear that creaking sound
....) to make it work (usually to the benefit of the ruler, if history is
any teacher).
This is not a place where I would want to worship, although it would be
a good place to contemplate brutality and death, as the following will
explain.
PYRAMID OF THE SUN EXCAVATIONS
"With the excavation of the pyramid nearly complete, one important
conclusion is emerging: combined with past burials at the site, the new
find strongly suggests that the Pyramid of the Moon was significant to
the Teotihuacano people as a site for celebrating state power through
ceremony and sacrifice. Contrary to some past interpretation, militarism
was apparently central to the city's culture".
"What we have found in this excavation suggests that a certain kind of
mortuary ritual took place inside the tomb before it was filled in. It
is hard to believe that the ritual consisted of clean symbolic
performances -- it is most likely that the ceremony created a horrible
scene of bloodshed with sacrificed people and animals," Sugiyama said.
"Whether the victims and animals were killed at the site or a nearby
place, this foundation ritual must have been one of the most terrifying
acts recorded archaeologically in Mesoamerica."
"All the human remains had their hands bound behind their backs, and the
ten decapitated bodies appear to have been tossed, rather than arranged,
on one side of the burial. The other two bodies Sugiyama describes as
"richly ornamented" with greenstone earspools and beads, a necklace made
of imitation human jaws, and other items indicating high rank."
In other words, what we do know of the reigning wisdom of the Toltecs,
is as follows:
- they were an extreme militaristic culture
- they practised terrifying and cruel human sacrifice
- the people worshipped their militaristic rulers as deities (wise?)
- their rulers were obsessed with conquering (killing)
However, amidst any extreme militaristic culture, such as the United
States of America today, it is possible for a subculture - like the Hari
Krishnas for example - or secret society to flourish outside the
confines of the politico-religious system. We can only assume (in
violation of Rule Number 3, if read literally) that this is the case. We
are rewarded in this assumption by Don Miguel's explanation under
"Toltec Tradition" (website) that this secret knowledge was maintained
in secrecy for thousands of years, and that - now - appears to be the
auspicious moment for its dissemination to the entire world. I would
have proposed he released it somewhere around March 2003, just before
the invasion of Iraq, or even 1991 prior to the first invasion of Iraq,
but this is only a personal opinion.
THE LIST ITSELF
The list in itself, as a recipe for complete happiness could be viewed
as incomplete and somewhat simplistic, or even sophistic. For instance
being true with your word(s), not taking things personally, not making
assumptions and always doing your best might be considered as but the
bare minimum necessary to produce happiness. Not doing stupid things
(like sniffing glue or killing people) might also help, among others.
There are broader statements that would lead one there more quickly: do
everything in moderation, pray often (develop an inner life), recognize
the impermanence of all "things" (objects, thoughts, ideas, the human
body, relationships), eat and drink moderately, get plenty of fresh air
and sunshine. Seek happiness. Or, the yogi's admonition: meditate
closely on death, and impermanence.
The Four Agreements cannot be viewed as revolutionary, or comprehensive,
since there exist other codes of conduct that have gained wide respect
throughout history, such as The Four noble Truths of the buddha (which
includes the Eightfold Path as the fourth truth) (see appendix), the
Sutras of Patanjali, the writings of Milarepa, Paramahansa Yogananda,
Sri Yukteswar, St John, Jesus Christ, the Sacred Circles of the
Algonquin and others. Any evaluation of comprehensivity (completeness)
is likely to be subjective, but can be surmised by comparison. For
instance, the Algonquin (as do many other indigenous groups such as the
Cree, the Ojibway ..., Lakota) stress: humility, concentration, close
observation, memory, wisdom, humour, connectivity, respect for the earth
and all creatures and the pursuit of a personal vision arrived at
through dreams or initiation rites (e.g. the vision pit). Patanjali,
and the Bible also stresses remembering and meditating on lessons
arrived at through dreams (not stressed as a source of knowledge in the
Four Agreements).
1. Be Impeccable With Your Word
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to
speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your
word in the direction of truth and love.
1. by impeccable I surmise they mean, scrupulous, or truthful.
Grammatically, impeccability in speech normally refers to adherence to a
standard - the King's English let's say, and delivered with a crisp
British accent. The wording here is intended to express a kind of
rigidity of speech that requires in all cases a complete match between
illocutionary intent and verbal locution.
The explanation appears to require an exact correlation between
illocutionary intent and locutionary utterances. It is not clear whether
all speech should comply with the rules, or some speech, and then only
in some situations. Read literally, as written, it clearly states that
all speech, in all situations should be restricted to speech which
displays integrity, and where illocutionary intent (the real meaning or
purpose behind what you're actually saying) coincides with actual verbal
speech. This would appear to disqualify locution which falls into the
category of, say, parable, irony, hyperbole, poesy, metaphor, synecdote.
Deliberate, misleading or even euphemistic speech then is considered
taboo. The admonition to "say only what you mean" would disqualify most
politicians and diplomats from their jobs. "We are greatly concerned
..." in diplomacy, for instance, has, as illocutionary intent, "We are
greatly pissed off." Rule Number One would limit you to the latter
locution, possibly causing wars and the like.
It would be useful here to touch on the subject of nonsense speech,
comedy, irony, hyperbole and such. This kind of speech cannot be
regarded as noble or displaying integrity, and yet it was integrated
closely with the spirit life of indigenous groups over thousands of
years. That is, nonsense speech can be used in the direction of truth
and love. One example might be the "heyoka" of the Lakota peoples whose
role in society as a sort of "trickster" (almost a high-priest type of
philospher, but appearing as a clown) was to turn speech and action
upside down. His job was usually to destroy any kind of "integrity" that
might be lurking, possibly to remind people not to be so uptight and
rational, or that humour is a form of wisdom superior to aphorisms or
written moral codes.
There are other examples where indirect, fuzzy or ignoble forms of
speech might prove useful.
Those being kept in secret prisons throughout the world, for example
would tend to choose their language carefully, using anything but direct
speech. Indirect speech can be used for self-preservation. Curious or
cryptic speech (koans) are used by Zen monks to rid the mind of the
trying-to-understand-the-mind-using-your-mind disease (rational
thinking). Yogis, catholic priests and others often mumble, in Latin or
otherwise to confuse the rational and bring out the intuitive. Rock
singers often don't make much sense, or you can hardly make out the
lyrics sometimes: "Play that funky music." can sound as if the bad F
word is being used, if you don't listen carefully.
I would rather advise people to choose their words carefully according
to the situation and the moment, taking care not to upset others by
using whatever manner of speech seems to fit, to elevate them in some
way through humour (humour is considered wisdom in some cultures) or
some other means. For instance, at funerals, you might speak less
directly with the next of kin than at the local baseball game,
especially if your team is losing).
Jesus often spoke in parables - a form of indirect locution purposefully
designed to limit understanding to a subgroup of initiates, and yet
whose purpose was to propogate truth, and love (a synonym for God, in
the New Testament). Mathematical truths are expressed in symbols (which
are substitutes for words, concepts - the symbols themselves being
somewhat obtuse, difficult to figure ,ect). A mathematician, speaking
directly, might say something like: "There is nothing more ordinary
than the fact that we all live in a four-dimensional space-time
continuum, that objects travelling near the speed of light become
shorter, that moving clocks run
slow (time itself slows down) and that gravitation is equivalent to
acceleration."
These are in fact direct statements that have been tested many times in
nuclear labs all over the world (they're true), but they cannot be
understood by everyone. Speaking directly, and simply, is relative. A
mathematician, expressing universal truths, may speak directly and
simply to his/her colleagues but this same speech might appear
deliberately confusing to a neophyte. Even the saying "God is love" is
cryptic (but direct) and not understood by everyone.
"You're a complete asshole!" is direct, and to the point, but disruptive
([aggressive communication]) and perhaps injudicious in mixed company.
- violating the truth and love directive, although the intent of the
speaker might be to lead one closer to truth. Truth has been known to
hurt at times, and love can take the form of tough love.
MORE SPEECH EXAMPLES
Example: "That guy plays a bad saxophone."
Explanation: The adjective "bad" can mean "good", or "bad" in street
vernacular. The speaker here is saying exactly what he means. The
listener, if violating rule number 3, may assume he's being criticized
by an inner city black person, when in fact he does not realize that the
word "bad" in negro parlance (called "Black English" in linguistics), means
"good".
Avoid using the word to speak against oneself.
This appears to be an admonition to avoid self-criticism. Properly
explained, it might be an admonition to avoid repeated and long-lasting
criticism which, it is reasonable to assume, might lead to some degree
of pyschological damage. "I am ugly and useless. I am ugly and
useless." However, one could argue, periodic self-criticism can be
useful as a catalyst for self-improvement, so that a requirement to
avoid it in all cases would not be advisable (convicted murderers, etc.)
with whom I would rather encourage speaking against themselves from time
to time.
Gossip (sometimes leading to banishment, etc.) is used in some societies
as a social corrective replacing more formal institutions such as
police, courts and jails. One could hypothesize that gossip is not
simply gossip, it has several variants - therapeutic gossip, malicious
gossip, social gossip, etc. Gossip by definition is about others. One
could surmise he's referring only to malicious gossip, but this is not
made clear.
"Gossip is not a trivial pastime: it is essential to human social,
psychological and even physical well-being. The mobile phone, by
facilitating therapeutic gossip in an alienating and fragmented modern
world, has become a vital 'social lifeline', helping us to re-create the
more natural communication patterns of pre-industrial times".
http://www.sirc.org/publik/gossip.shtml
Use the power of the word towards truth and love. Here, he implies that
"the word" (meaning speech in general) has power. Agreed. It might be
possible to argue that using the word towards love, and truth, is
impossible, until you've found it. To go about the streets speaking
truth and love could be viewed as an error, since there is a physical
movement of mouth and lips without a true innner comprehension to match.
The restriction might therefore read: find truth first, then talk about
it. This would reduce a large part of the planet to complete silence, I
would expect. It is also an appropriate response to the question: What
is truth (as that given by Jesus to Pilate).
Sometimes speech should be used for other purposes - for example to
warn, to admonish, to explain, to engage in dialectic or argument, or
simply for idle chatter (the real intent being to break up silence and
put the interlocutor at ease). Putting someone at ease could be
construed as working towards something positive - even truth and love.
To ensure that speech is useful, positive, open, helpful and relevant to
the topic at hand might be more helpful. It is worth pointing out that
there are pitfalls to avoid in speech, in addition to failing to use it
towards truth and love. A more complete social code would include some
guidelines on how to conduct conversation in general, such as learning
to listen effectively, not butting in on others (letting them finish a
sentence), not being snippy, abrupt or laconic, using a softened-down or
non-aggressive style of communication.
SPEECH DEFECTS
stay on topic
be open, positive and balanced
speak your truth quietly and clearly
speech defects would fall under several categories:
speaking too quickly
speaking too long (boring your listeners)
using repeated profanities
not speaking logically
tending to disrupt or cause division
showing anger or lack of control
being snippy or irritable
spreading rumours
using insults
speaking too loudly
focussing too much on trivialities rather than the important
lying or misleading
In other words, not using words for truth and love is only one defect.
There are many others which are not a subset of that one and should be
listed separately. On the other hand, anger, for example, or "holy
anger" as it is known in religious circles can be used to effect,
usually with an intention to teach, or to get the listener to learn a
specific lesson. In this case, what might be viewed by the listener as
a defect, actually conforms with Rule 1 - the requirement to use speech
in the direction of (truth and love). Similarly with insults, speaking
loudly, or even misleading the listener, in one way or another, such as
using irony, sarcasm or parables (e.g. Jesus). Insults are used in some
cultures as social correctives, also as humour.
"Move yer f -in car you idiot!" This kind of language usually serves
to move the listener rapidly in the direction of truth, though possibly
a little away from love. I would assume (contrary to Rule 3) that to
get the two working together takes a little practice.
The Japanese use a form of indirect speech, purposely saying something
slightly different than what they mean. The admonition to speak directly
would
not work in Japan.
2. Don't Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a
projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to
the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless
suffering.
"It's a philosophy of no regrets," Mrs. Bush said. "In one sense, [it]
is that whatever happens happens and you have to keep moving on and do
the best you can with whatever it is. But it's also a philosophy of
moving forward . a realistic view of life." --- George Bush
The above quote simply clarifies that not taking things personally can be
viewed as a personality defect. To me, one who takes things personally is
more human than one who either ignores or lets criticism roll off them.
A philosophy of no regrets, to me, is somehow abnormal and possibly
unhealthy.
Being immune to others' opinions and actions is not sufficient in itself
to alleviate suffering. It takes more (much more).
Perhaps I'm doing it all wrong, but I tend to weigh carefully the
opinons and actions of others since it acts as a useful mirror to my own
progress (or lack thereof). One could argue that the opinions and
actions of others provide a useful litmus test for progress-to-date, and a
catalyst to
personal improvement.
The real intent of "immunity to opinions of others" is to urge a form of
detachment or objectivity from the opinions and actions of others,
almost as if you are able to use your own internal witness to observe
and evaluate your own behaviour without this being overdone to the point
of detriment to one's own psychic or physical well-being. In general, it
would be more useful to evaluate intelligently the opinions and actions
of others, take what is useful and throw the rest away. Their emphasis
is on throwing it all away, as if it didn't exist, and not retaining the
negative or positive evaluations of others for one's own edification or
enlightenment.
I would rather say, observe closely the opinions and actions of others
(what they say and do) for clues to your own progress, but don't take
them too seriously or let negative impressions fester. After punishing
yourself, remember to reward yourself as well. Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you. Make sure your self-criticism is balanced
(not overdone) and useful for positive growth. Look both ways before
you cross the road, and stop pulling your sister's hair, etc.
The Zen monks might caution that, since everything is your own mind, or.
worded differently: there is nothing here that is NOT your own mind, the
opinions of others are simply your own head making noise. In the Zen
tradition, it is often suggested that you become the controller of this
mind, rather than letting "it" control you. The key word is control, as
in the harnessing of overactive thoughts that cause trouble, and pain.
That is - concentration (meditation). Try and keep things steady. To
what purpose one might ask. This is where a life vision comes in handy,
as Black Elk and others have explained.
3. Don't Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want.
Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid
misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you
can completely transform your life.
Not making assumptions at all is nonsensical. For instance, an adherent
to The Four Agreements "assumes" that The Four Agreements are valid.
People often assume they only have one life, not several. Some assume
they have several lives, not just one. To banish all assumption is by
definition impossible, and perhaps deleterious to future growth. Wrong
assumptions are deleterious in most cases, but can also lead you into
learning situations. Religious faith, for instance, is based on
assumption. The preamble (don't make assumptions) does not accord with
the explanation that follows. Not making assumptions does not relate
closely to the sentences which follow this - to the asking of questions,
or expressing what you really want. He seems to be onto another topic
there.
One expects, on reading "don't make assumptions" an explanation of
non-assumption-making. We are instead treated to a rehash of Step One.
Communicating with others as clearly as you can was already covered
under Number 1. The life transformation was supposed to have taken
place in step 2. In conflict resolution, the admonition is to "check
your assumptions" and not to not make them at all.
I'm tempted to rewrite this one. Do make assumptions. Check them first.
A more benign reading might interpret "don't make assumptions" as "don't
jump to conclusions about other people - or at least not too quickly".
Compare this to the indian concept which extends this to all creatures,
not just people. However, we all tend to do this - first glances often
give you a "whiff" of the other person. One might argue that this
"jumping to conclusions" about other people might not in fact be a
"conclusion" but an attempt on the part of the observer to analyze the
person, to conduct his/her absurdio ad reductum: their first whiff might
give them the impression the person is unlikeable, the person then
assumes (as part of a mathematical proof) that the person is rotten,
hoping to be proven wrong later on, ultimately proving that the person
is actually nice, or vice versa.
For instance, say you have a friend who:
- often butts in in conversations
- talks loudly and rudely, trying to drown out anything you say
- causes fights
- says the wrong thing at the wrong time
- spits food everywhere when they eat
- never honours appointments
- cheats on his wife
- smells
... etc.
You're going to "assume" that this person is unwholesome in some way.
Here, it is safe to say, that the act of assumption is not some kind of
sin or violation of a set of internal or external agreements, but a
normal human, or animal, reaction that is ultimately useful in
self-preservation.
4. Always Do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different
when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply
do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse and regret.
One is tempted to ask, do your best at what? Everything, it would seem,
including going to the toilet.
Say one decides to spend the rest of one's life on a desert island,
lounging in the sun, drinking Pina Coladas and doing the odd bit of
fishing, maybe a few walks on the beach, watching the seagulls. Perhaps
you simply need some time off to work out a set of "Agreements" and have
them passed on to future generations (much as Jesus, Milarepa,
Patanjali, Yogananda and others have done).
Such a life might be considered by some people as "not doing your best".
Others (Calvinists, for example) might criticize such a life as being
useless and lazy because it wastes time and doesn't earn money.
An evaluation of "best" is subjective (depends on the opinion of the
evaluator, and is not a universal).
Your best cannot change from moment to moment. Whether healthy or sick,
right now, you are already doing your best. Introducing an admonition
to "do your best" implies that "you ought to do better". This is
subjective, and negative. In my opinion, people are already doing the
best they can, without exception. Doing your best is a default, it
happens naturally, even when doing your second best. Your second best
effort, the one you gave last Friday (for example) was indeed your best.
Evaluating previous or current actions as second-best is an example of
negative thinking (which equates to not doing one's best at being a
positive thinker).
Crying over spilt milk. If others evaluate your efforts as D minus, or
second best, or lousy - simply ignore them (as per Step Two - being
immune to the opinions of others). This leaves only you yourself as the
rightful evaluator. I could have run a sub-four-minute mile, is an
assumption (maybe true, maybe not). If you are banned from all
assumption, you will have no way to assume you did your second best.
You will also be unable to assume that you did your best.
Additionally, saying to yourself "I could have done better" - is an
assumption (violating Rule 3).
If there's a smile on your face, your second best, was your best.
Whether or not we should avoid self-abuse might be addressed to Dr Ruth
perhaps, although I "assume" the author meant something else.
(Remember, it can make you go blind).
"Those who know most, do least." - Seng Ts'an (Poem on Trust in the
Heart)
In other words, rather than doing your best, learn the value of doing
nothing.
One could plausibly argue for an opposite set of agreements, a more
relaxed way (The Middle Way - as Buddha puts it) which is equally
viable:
1. Speak however you want (mumble if necessary) - but accept the
consequences
2. Take things personally, if it'll make you a better person
3. Make assumptions. Check and recheck them often.
4. Do your second-best (consistently) - and learn to lighten up
Or, restating already-written truths, I could come up with a set of my
own:
1. Develop a vision in life
2. Learn to observe closely
3. Meditate or pray often
4. Find the secret to true happiness
This being said, I wish to add that I personally believe in dreams, and
in visions, and in near-death experiences (I've had all three) and I am
aware of the spiritual and emotional value in focusing on these
experiences to gain wisdom, or to further oneself in some manner. That
dreams do teach is not in dispute. That truth and love are commendable
is not in dispute. I also believe that humor is a form of wisdom.
Going one step further, humor is wisdom, and that some portions of this
comment might be read with this in mind. Whether The Four Agreements, or
the Beatitudes, or The Golden Rule, or some other codification of wisdom
be proposed, I think it befits all reasonable people to look at them
intelligently and use them for self-improvement. If some think they can
be bettered somehow by these Four Agreements, so be it. But, I will not
be party to any philosophical system that urges me to speak directly,
not make assumptions, not take things personally and to be constantly
doing my best. This article, for instance, is not my best. It's about
my fourth best, and there it shall remain, possibly for time immemorial.
I consider my set of "agreements" somewhat sacred. They have been
buried in the sacredness of (what I call) my "alleged" mind for some
time, betimes passed down from one starry-eyed acolyte to another
(usually over several beers). I consider that NOW is the right time to
pass them onto the world, for better or worse.
CD's and teashirts will be out soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This article is my fourth best, so don't take anything personally
(or make assumptions). My best will come later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Protected by www.Spam-Stop.com {oG3QkV9InG8G1KEWas}
--
Protected by www.Spam-Stop.com {oG3QkV9InG8G1KEWas}