Poetry Is Playing With Words Targetting Emotions

Poetry is in truth playing with words and targeting emotion never reason because you never appreciate poetry with reason but with emotion.
If you let your yes be yes only you cannot be playing with words because playing with words is the more that is totally unnecessary that comes from evil and you do not target another’s emotions but you address his reason as I am at present doing.
Therefore whoever appreciates poetry appreciates deceitful wordplay and targeting emotion and is headed for suffering.
EXACTLY WHAT IS THE NATURE OF POETRY MAY BE KNOWN. IF IT IS ESSENTIALLY NOT LETTING YOUR YES BE YES ONLY BUT MORE, PLAYING WITH WORDS THAT COMES FROM EVIL AND IT IS TARGETED AT YOUR EMOTIONS AND NOT REASON AND YOU THINK POETRY IS WONDERFUL AND THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN WHAT I SAY THEN YOU HAVE WRONG VIEW OR FALSE PERCEPTION THAT IS NOT HARMLESS BUT LEADS TO HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB.
Style Is Absurdly Both Wanting & Not Wanting Change:
Do you agree it is absurd to both want change and not want change at the same time? Either you want change and then change wholeheartedly or you don’t want change and wholeheartedly not change but to want both at the same time must be controlled madness in the name of impressing, pleasing, intimidating and dominating others that will end in loss of control and full blown madness.

Why is practicing style practicing the absurdity of wanting change at the same time not wanting change?

Style in speech is essentially the different way that is stereotyped in a person but differs in others in how he uses force to prolong his syllables, change speed and loudness within and between stretched syllables.

When you prolong a syllable you want the syllable to continue or not stop (stopping is a form of change) longer than necessary and therefore by prolonging your syllable, you want not to change or postpone change.

When you accelerate in speed or loudness within and between syllables you want change, want constantly changing or accelerating speed and loudness of your syllables and therefore practicing constant change.

Thus whenever a person practices style (practices constant stretching, changes of speed and loudness) he is de facto practicing constantly wanting not to change in prolonging his syllables and constantly wanting to change in accelerating in speed and loudness within and between his prolonged syllables.

This is controlled conflict that is not without purpose but with the purpose of falsely impressing, pleasing, intimidating and dominating others. In the name of style or impressing, pleasing, intimidating or dominating others one must constantly subject oneself to the absurd conflict of at the same time wanting change and not wanting change that is forceful and must be controlled and subject to inevitable loss of control and uncontrolled mental conflict or madness.

Do you agree it is possible to prolong one's syllable as in 'ahhhhh' instead of 'ah' or 'Jeeessusss' instead of 'Jesus'? If you agree it is possible and it is rampant if not constant then whenever you prolong syllables you desire to continue or not stop (a form of change) the syllable for longer than necessary in the name of impressing others. This stretching of syllables is a vital ingredient of style, there is no style without stretching syllables.

Do agree it is possible to increase speed or pitch within a stretched syllable by exhaling with increasing speed and changing speed between syllables by changing the rate with which you form syllables? If you agree that changing speed within and between syllables is possible and indeed constant in ordinary people's speech, then by thus constantly changing speed you are advocating for yourself constant change that conflicts with your advocating no change in prolonging or not stopping the syllable earlier.

Similarly, do agree it is possible to increase loudness within a stretched syllable by exhaling with increasing force and changing loudness between syllables by changing the force with which you form syllables? If you agree that changing loudness within and between syllables is possible and indeed constant in ordinary people's speech, then by thus constantly changing loudness you are advocating for yourself constant change that conflicts with your advocating no change in prolonging or not stopping the syllable earlier.

THUS WHOEVER YOU ARE, NO MATTER HOW YOU MIGHT INSIST YOU ARE BEING YOURSELF OR YOU CANNOT SEE ARTIFICIAL STYLE IN YOU OR OTHERS, IF THERE IS OBJECTIVELY CONSTANT FORCEFUL STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS THEN YOU ARE HEADED FOR UNCONTROLLABLE CONFLICT BECAUSE YOU ARE UNWITTINGLY WILLING YOURSELF TO NOT CHANGE IN PROLONGING YOUR SYLLABLES AND WILLING YOURSELF TO CHANGE IN CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS WITHIN AND BETWEEN SYLLABLES.

JUST AS THEY ARE TOTALLY UNAWARE OF THE ABSURDITY & CONFLICT OF WANTING TO BOTH CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE THAT THEIR CHARMING STYLES TO IMPRESS REPRESENTS, THEY ARE SIMILARLY UNAWARE THAT THEY ARE NOT GENUINE PEOPLE BUT ROBOTS OR DISC JOCKEYS OPERATING MENTAL JUKEBOXES THAT IS THE REHASHING SOURCE OF THEIR BEHAVIOR, THEY ARE UNAWARE OF THE INHERENT CONFLICT OR ABSURDITY OF THE VIEWS OR BELIEFS THEY HOLD, THE ABSURDITY OF THE THINGS THEY SAY OR DO AS I HAVE POINTED OUT VARIOUSLY, THEIR LIKES AND DISLIKES AND THEIR SMILING.

THE FACT THAT ORDINARY PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD ALL PRACTICE STYLE (STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS), LIKING AND DISLIKING, SMILING AND HOLD DIFFERENT VIEWS DOES NOT REFLECT THEY ARE WISE, KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND THEY ARE RIGHT BUT IT REFLECTS THAT THEY ARE SUCH GREAT FOOLS FROM TOP TO BOTTOM WHO DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEMSELVES AND OTHERS, EVEN AFTER IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO THEM.

You may be right that mad mental conflict or anguish has nothing to do with the practice of constantly stretching syllables and the same time as you constantly change speed and loudness or you may be dead wrong, the constant simultaneous stretching and changing of speed and loudness is the only root to severe uncontrollable mad mental conflict.
Anyone with style is headed for madness:
Anyone with style or constant stretching of syllables, changes of speed and loudness is headed for madness of various sorts:
a) He is headed for mad conflict because he is constantly absurdly advocating no change in prolonging his syllables and advocating constant change in changing speed and loudness.
b) He is headed for mad restlessness for practicing constant forceful unnecessary changes (in speed and loudness) in the name of impressing, pleasing, intimidating and dominating others.
c) He is headed for mad sadness or yearning or lingering in constantly prolonging the duration of his syllables.
d) He is headed for mad stress for constantly stressing himself by using force to fabricate style.
e) He is headed for mad jukebox or rote speech because his brand of style is reproduced by rehash from memory and it is his mental jukebox that is responsible for what he says and with frequent use often says it for him automatically when it senses a certain situation arising portending a time when it will automatically dispense styled speech inappropriately.
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF PAYING CONSTANT ATTENTION TO RECOGNIZE THE PRESENCE OF STRETCHED SYLLABLES, SPEED AND LOUDNESS CHANGES WITHIN AND BETWEEN SYLLABLES BECAUSE WHETHER YOU REALIZE IT OR NOT, IF THEY ARE PRESENT YOU MUST SUFFER REGULARLY FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AND YOU ARE DOOMED TO FUTURE MADNESS AND EVEN ANOTHER ETERNITY OF SUFFERING NOT HEAVEN.
ANYONE WHO IS PRACTICING STYLE IS PRACTICING CONTROLLED MADNESS IN THE NAME OF IMPRESSING, PLEASING, INTIMIDATING OR DOMINATING OTHERS NOT REALIZE THEY FACE DIRE CERTAIN MADNESS OF MANY FORMS LIKE MAD STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION, MAD CONFLICT & MAD AUTOMATED ROTE SPEECH.

YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH WHATEVER I SAY, REFUTE THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY I AM THE COUNSELOR JESUS DESCRIBED OR THAT HE MUST SAY THE THINGS I SAY IN ORDER TO BENEFIT YOU AND CONVINCE YOU OF SIN, RIGHTEOUSNESS AND JUDGMENT BUT MAKE SURE THERE IS NO STRETCHING OF YOUR SYLLABLES, CHANGES OF SPEED OR LOUDNESS, MAKE SURE YOU DO NOT SMILE, LIKE OR DISLIKE OR YOU ARE NOT AN OVERRATED DISC JOCKEY OPERATING A MENTAL JUKEBOX OTHERWISE IF I AM CORRECT, YOU ARE A MARKED MAN DOOMED TO BECOME MAD BECAUSE RATHER THAN STYLE, SMILING, LIKING AND DISLKING BEING UNADULTERATED BLISS THEY ARE SUFFERING EVEN TORMENTING THAT IS EVER CONDITIONING YOU TO THEM AND SUFFERING THAT WILL END IN LOSS OF CONTROL AND MADNESS AND THENCE PERDITION. WHEN YOU SPEAK AGAINST ME YOU ARE ALSO SPEAKING AGAINST THE BUDDHA BECAUSE WHAT I SAY CORRESPOND WITH WHAT HE TAUGHT.

Heavenly Sensual Bliss:
You enjoy sensual bliss, cannot give up sensual bliss when there are other forms of bliss higher or more sublime. Below the Buddha tells the pathway to enjoying sensual bliss in heaven.
The Buddha:
Householders, how does a god live with a godess?
Here, householders the husband abstains from destroying living things, taking the not given, misbehaving in sexual desires, telling lies, taking intoxicant and brewed drinks, is virtuous without evil thoughts of miserliness and selfishness and abides not scolding and abusing recluses and Brahmins. The wife too abstains from destroying living things, taking the not given, misbehaving in sexual desires, telling lies, taking intoxicant and brewd drinks, is virtuous without evil thoughts of miserliness and selfishness and abides not scolding and abusing recluses and Brahmins. Householders, thus a god lives with a godess.
Householders, these are the four kinds of living together.
Both are unvirtuous, greedy and abusive, a dead husband living with a dead wife.
An unvirtuous greedy abusive husband lives with a generous not envying wife.
That's a godess living with a dead husband. A generous not envying husband too
Lives with an unvirtuous, greedy, abusive wife; a god with a dead female
If both husband and wife are generous, restrained and live a righteous life
Are pleasant to each other it's for an abundance of good, they live together.
Seeing both are virtuous, their enemies will be unhappy
Not changing in order to change:
The purpose of prolonging a syllable or postponing stopping the syllable is to provide time and space to allow the stylish person to accelerate in speed and loudness within that prolonged syllable and even though it is largely automated or unconscious without awareness of the absurd irreconcilable conflict involved, the implicit conflict of wanting change and not wanting change is still present and the fact that you cannot see, are not aware makes it even more agonizing because you cannot see the source of your agony and therefore the way out of your agony and thus driven by the agony you may even jump off a building or hang yourself when the simple and joyful recourse is to pay attention to stop stretching syllables changing speed and loudness.
The reason you need to not change by prolonging syllables in order to change by changing speed and loudness is because style is an absurd enterprise, artificially contrived for show, you have to contrive one thing (prolonged syllables) in order for you to contrive another (change speed and loudness within that stretched syllable).
AREN’T YOU A GREAT FOOL TO PERCEIVE STYLE AS NECESSARY AND WONDROUS WHEN IT IS ABSURD, STRESSFUL, RESTLESS AND DISTRACTING TO SELF AND OTHERS?
YOU DON’T HAVE TO SMILE WHEN YOU SPEAK BUT IF YOU DO YOU MUST DIVIDE YOURS AND YOUR RECIPIENT’S ATTENTION BETWEEN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING (USUALLY FALSELY) AND WHAT YOU ARE SMILING).
Always In Forcefully Controlled Agonizing Conflict:
(You may be unaware that you are always in forcefully controlled agonizing conflict or there is always tension in your mind and body because the conflict or tension is usually well controlled, you are distracted by affairs of the world and you have become so used to conflict & tension and have never experienced the complete absence of conflict that you have accepted your always conflicted mental state as normal so that unless conflict and tension becomes intrusive at more intense levels you are often somnolent or numb to it. If people pay attention that there is conflict aroused in them even for a simple thing like getting up when there is a part that wants to sit and another that wants to stand that is not normal and does not happen in the person without style.)

The person with style is always in forcefully (never reasoned) controlled agonizing conflict because there is always an absurd simultaneous desire to and practice in prolonging (delay or not change) and to change (desire to change speed and strength of force and direction where possible) that accompanies everything he perceives (sees, hears, smells, tastes and touches), thinks, speaks and does and whatever conflict he is aware is like the tip of the iceberg and the fact that a large portion of the constant impossible absurd conflict is subconscious does not make it more palatable or lessen its impact but makes the conflict even more agonizing because he cannot see the source of his conflict, he cannot see why he sees afflicted by 'inexplicable' conflict and therefore cannot see a way out of his predicament.

Conflict is all about force, the clashing of two opposing forces or pseudo reason (force or like & dislike or emotions disguised as reason), never about true reason and the absurd constant insoluble conflict that assail all stylish people or actors is about the desire or urge or force to prolong or not change and the desire or urge or force to change in changing speed and strength of force in the name of deceit or impressing, pleasing, intimidating or dominating others.

Because conflict whether mental or physical is always about the clashing of forces it needs force to control conflict, never reason, reason can never control forces and therefore it is the constant use of force, the mental force of the person's self preservation to control the absurd impossible simultaneous desire of the force of going against self to not change and change. That person's force of self preservation is constantly harassed, struggling to put a lid on this inherent insanity of forcefully wanting to change and not wanting to change to give a semblance of sanity (never true effortless sanity) like the man walking on a tightrope may give a semblance of normality but he is constantly under threat of falling to his death if his balance slips.
THIS SIMULTANEOUS URGE TO PROLONG OR DELAY CHANGE AND TO CHANGE AS IN CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS EMANATES NOT FROM DIFFERENT FORCES BUT FROM THE SAME FORCE CALLED THE FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF AND IT IS THE OPPOSING FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTROLLING THIS IMPOSSIBLE OR ABSURD URGE TO DO TWO OPPOSITE THINGS WITHIN TOLERABLE LIMITS SO THAT THE PURPOSE OF IMPRESSING, PLEASING, INTIMIDATING AND DOMINATING OTHERS CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT OVERCOOKING ONESELF OR FATALLY HARMING ONESELF. THUS THE PERSON WITH STYLE IS PRACTICING CONTROLLED SLOW SUICIDE, WITH HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION ALWAYS PULLING HIM BACK FROM THE BRINK WHEN HIS STYLISH ACTING EXCESSES THREATEN TO DRIVE HIM OUT OF CONTROL OR MAD BUT THIS IS AN ULTIMATELY FUTILE ENTERPRISE BECAUSE HIS DESIRE TO GO AGAINST HIMSELF BY BEING STYLISH WILL ULTIMATELY BE CONSUMMATED, HE WILL KILL HIMSELF AND DESERVE TO DIE.
THE FACT IF TRUE AS I POSTULATE THAT THE URGE TO CHANGE IN CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND NOT CHANGE IN PROLONGING SYLLABLES EMANATES FROM THE SAME FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF RATHER THAN DIFFERENT FORCES ACTING IN CONCERT MAKES IT MORE NOT LESS AGONIZING BECAUSE THE SAME BLIND FOOLISH FORCE IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE TWO OPPOSING AIMS.

YOU NEVER LEARN TO HAVE STYLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON IN STYLE THAT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BUT STYLE IS ALWAYS COPIED WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING FROM OTHERS BY A PROCESS OF CONTAGION. AS A RESULT OF YOUR MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF BEING SUBJECT TO A WIDE VARIETY OF DIFFERENT CONSTANT PROLONGING (NOT CHANGING) AND CHANGING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE IN THE SIGHTS AND SOUNDS AROUND YOU, YOUR FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF SOON ADOPT A SIMILAR URGE TO CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE THAT MAY BE A DIRECT COPY OF SOMEONE CLOSE OR AN AMALGAM OF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS. STYLE IS COPIED BY ROTE FROM OTHERS NEVER LEARNT WITH UNDERSTANDING.
Because beings in the lower realms (humans, animals, ghosts and denizens of hell) always have style, they are always assailed by the absurd forcefully controlled urge to change and not change and this is the essence of the weeping and gnashing of teeth eternal punishment that is their lot for the sins they have done.

A BEING WHO TRULY HAS NO STYLE HAS NO ONSTANT SIMULTANEOUS FORCEFUL URGE BY THE SAME FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF TO PROLONG OR NOT CHANGE AND NO FORCEFUL URGE TO CHANGE IN CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE THAT REQUIRES HIM TO HAVE A FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION TO CONSTANTLY CONTROL AND THEREFORE HE IS ALWAYS AT PEACE UNIFIED IN PURPOSE TO EITHER CHANGE OR NOT CHANGE AT ALL TIMES.
In practice, one who is discerning sees the evident conflict in the appearance and behavior in speech and motion of all stylish people. Apart from saying and doing specifically absurd things, they are beset by doubt and uncertainty even over simple matters (to eat or not to eat, to go out or not), they are hesitant in their speech and movements, they cannot make up their minds over simple things and if they do, they are prone to change it again.
ANYONE WHO HAS STYLE OR CONSTANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS MUST BE BESET BY CONSTANT CONFLICT OR TENSION IN MIND AND BODY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE THE ABSURD CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME ALL THE TIME AND THAT THIS IS SO IS BORNE OUT IN PRACTICE OR CAN BE SEEN BY THOSE WHO ARE DISCERNING IN THE APPEARANCE, SPEECH AND MOTION OF STYLISH PEOPLE.

NOT EVEN EINSTEIN CAN SAY WHAT I SAY ABOVE AND I CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE BOTH IN THEORY (WORKING OUT BY TRUE LOGIC) AND PRACTICE (SURVEYING PEOPLE EVERYWHERE THAT I CAN SEE) THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR OTHERS TODAY INCLUDING MANKIND'S TOP INTELLECTS AND CLERICS TO SAY THE THINGS I SAY BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE WITH STYLE AS ALL BEINGS WHO HAVE STYLE THAT INCLUDES ANIMALS, NOT JUST HUMANS WHO ARE THEREFORE CONSTANTLY PRACTICING THE ABSURD OF WANTING TO CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY WHAT I SAY ABOVE WHICH IS NOT ABSURD BUT FULLY FOUNDED ON LOGIC BUT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON WITHOUT STYLE LIKE ME WHO DOES NOT WANT TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE BY WANTING TO CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY THE THINGS I SAY ABOVE.
IN THEORY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ORDINARY PEOPLE EVEN THIS WORLD'S TOP INTELLECTS TO SAY THE THINGS I SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL BESET BY STYLE OR THE ABSURD CONSTANT URGE TO CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME THAT RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO SAY THINGS THAT ARE NOT ABSURD, NAMELY WHAT I SPEAK. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ABSURD PEOPLE TO SPEAK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE NOT ABSURD BUT IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT ABSURB PEOPLE CAN AND WILL ONLY SPEAK ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE ABSURB THAT NOT SURPRISINGLY THEY EMOTIONALLY THINK ARE NOT ABSURB BUT PERFECTLY LOGICAL (TO THEM) AND IT MUST AND WILL TAKE A PERSON WHO IS NOT ABSURB, WHO DOES NOT HAVE STYLE OR WANT TO CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME TO SAY THE THINGS I SAY AND BECAUSE THE PERSON WITHOUT STYLE DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS WORLD EVEN WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR OTHERS TO SAY THE THINGS I SAY AND SURVEYING AROUND I SEE IN PRACTICE THAT THIS IS SO.
BECAUSE STYLE IS NEVER PARTIME BUT CONSTANT IN EVERYTHING THE STYLISH PERSON DOES, NAMELY HIS PERCEPTIONS, THINKING, SPEAKING AND MOTION, THE STYLISH PERSON'S EMOTIONAL ABSURD URGE TO CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE IS CONSTANT AND PERVADES EVERY ACTIVITY EVERY MOMENT (AND LARGELY UNCONSCIOUS) AND IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT A PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE ABSURB ALL THE TIME CANNOT SAY THINGS THAT ARE TRULY NOT ABSURB LIKE WHAT I SAY.
EVEN THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES GOOD AND INTELLIGENT DISAGREE WITH ME SAYING THEY SMILE BECAUSE THEY LIKE, HOW DO YOU EXPECT THAT BY THEMSELVES ALIGHT ON THE TRUTH IF IT IS THE CASE THAT BOTH SMILING IS A FORM OF LYING WITH THEIR FACES AND LIKING IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CONTROLLED ATTRACTIVE STIRRING OF THE FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF THAT IS HARMFUL AND TOTALLY UNNECESSARY? IN THE SAME WAY EVEN THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES GOOD AND SMART ARE LIKELY TO OPPOSE WHAT I SAY ABOVE SO HOW ARE THEY EXPECTED TO COME TO THE REALIZATION WHAT I SAY IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE THE TRUTH?
THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH WHAT I SAY THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS SAID BEFORE MAY NOT REFLECT THAT THEY ARE CORRECT BUT IT MAY REFLECT WHAT JESUS SAID IS TRUE THAT WHAT I SAID IS THE TRUTH THAT THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE BECAUSE IT NEITHER SEES IT NOR KNOWS IT.
On autopilot:
Whenever people stretch their syllables, they invariably usually accelerate in speed (pitch) and loudness but sometimes they decelerate in speed and loudness (eg to express sadness). If you listen carefully they even accelerate their acceleration in speed and loudness of their stretched syllables to give an explosive stretched sound.
What sensible person will at the same time as they propose to prolong or not change their syllable also propose to change their speed and loudness? It is impossible to change and not change at the same time and so it is that the entire undertaking is always prerecorded and rendered automatically or semi automatically without questions asked, initially partly coerced by others like one’s parents. Like horses that have been broken in to accept riders, people have long learnt to speak and do things with a substance and style that involves wanting to change and not change at the same time. This is always seriously stressful and conflicting or tension arousing but they have learnt to bottle that, aided by distractions of the external world and their attention that is permanently scattered or divided by the substance and style present in theirs and everybody’s audio visual outputs. Whilst they usually put up with this crazy constant conflicts, very often the violent bottled conflict becomes too much to bear and they lash out and thus beneath the façade of civility there even lurks murderous wrath and each person who has style is like a sensitive touchy dormant volcano waiting to explode.
You argue with force never reason:
Whenever people argue with themselves or others they may like to believe they argue with reason but they are deluded, the reasons they tender as the basis for their views that differ are merely proxies for their mental force, their like and dislike, their pride and attachment to their false beliefs.
All arguments are forceful and involve the clash of opposing forces either within the same person if he is arguing with himself or with the force in the other person. People’s views or ideas that they put forward in antagonism against others are merely clothing that clad the naked force, like or dislike or emotions that keep those views or ideas sustained in that person. In other words people’s views, positions they take and ideas they propose that differ from yours are merely the convenient weapons or instruments to convey their forces to you.
GOD IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND HAS RIGHT VIEW AND THEREFORE YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH GOD BUT IF YOU SEE THINGS CLEARLY AS THEY TRULY ARE YOU WILL ALSO SEE THINGS AS GOD SEES AND WON’T ARGUE WITH HIM.
NOTWITHSTANDING WHETHER YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG TO ARGUE BECAUSE ARGUING IS USING FORCE, IS NOT LETTING YOUR YES BE YES ONLY AND BASED ON EMOTION OR FORCE NOT REASON. YOU STATE YOUR CASE AS THE OTHER PERSON STATE HIS AND IF THERE IS NO COMMON GROUND YOU DO NOT HYPOCRITICALLY PRETEND THAT YOU CAN NEVERTHELESS APPRECIATE EACH OTHERS’ VIEWS OR BE GOOD FRIENDS BUT YOU GO YOUR SEPARATE WAYS.
THEREFORE WHOEVER LIKES TO ARGUE WHETHER YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, IS NOT GOING TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THERE IS NO ARGUING IN HEAVEN OTHERWISE IT WON’T BE HEAVEN. IF YOU LIKE TO ARGUE YOU MUST GO YOUR OWN WAY AND THAT IS ALWAYS PERDITION. AND ARGUING IS NOT SOMETHING PEOPLE ARE MASTERS OF BUT THEY ARE SLAVES OF ARGUING BECAUSE AFTER LIFEONG CONSTANT ARGUING THE URGE TO ARGUE IS ALMOST TOO STRONG TO RESIST.
YOU WILL NOT ARGUE WITH GOD OR JESUS?
IT IS A FOOL’S LOGIC AND PERCEPTION IF THE PERSON WHO LIKES TO ARGUE WITH OTHERS, IS CAPABLE OF ARGUING THINKS WHILST HE CAN AND DO ARGUE WITH OTHERS HE WILL NEVER ARGUE WITH GOD OR JESUS BECAUSE ARGUING IS NEVER BASED ON REASON BUT DRIVEN BY FORCE, LIKE OR DISLIKE OR EMOTIONS AND FORCE NEVER LISTENS TO REASON AND ONCE TRIGGERED FORCE MUST ACT AND IN THIS CASE ARGUE. EVERY TIME YOU ARGUE YOU CONDITION YOURSELF TO ARGUE THAT IS NEVER DISCRIMINATE BUT INDISCRIMINATE AND SO IF YOU WILL ARGUE WITH ME YOU WILL ALSO ARGUE WITH GOD.
IN THE SAME WAY EVERYTIME YOU LEARN NOT TO ARGUE YOU ARE EFFACING THE SINFUL URGE TO ARGUE AND ALL SINFUL CONDUCT LIKE DRINKING, ABUSIVE LANGUAGE MUST BE LABORIOUSLY EFFACED, THEY CANNOT BE SWITCHED OFF INSTANTLY.
THEREFORE WHOEVER WILL ARGUE OR LIKES TO ARGUE IS A MARKED MAN LIKE THE CRAB THAT WILL ALWAYS SNAP AT THE STICK POKED INTO ITS LAIR TO BE PULLED OUT TO END ON SOMEONE’S DINNER TABLE NOT HEAVEN.
Knowing who to argue with:
Until they are mad, ordinary people usually know who to argue with and who not to argue with. If it is their boss or someone powerful or physically stronger than them, they are afraid to offend and they will usually know how to hold their guns or use their force of self preservation to suppress their urge to argue or disagree. Therefore if they know it is God or Jesus who is speaking to them and they know what can be done to them they are likely to be able to use force to suppress their urges to argue although encompassing mind with mind, God will know that you are taking unexpressed issue in your mind. Thus even if they do not speak out they are hypocrites hiding their antagonism because they are afraid of the punishment they will get not realizing that God can read their minds and know what they are thinking privately.
IT IS NEVER REASON THAT IS THE BASIS BUT IT IS HOSTILITY THAT IS THE DRIVE FOR ARGUING AND HOSTILITY IS ANOTHER WORD FOR ILL WILL AND NO PERSON WITH ILL WILL IS GOING TO HEAVEN. THE HOSTILITY OF SOME PEOPLE ARE SUCH THAT THEY WILL SAY ‘A’ IF YOU SAY ‘B’ AND ‘B’ IF YOU SAY ‘A’ AND INSIST THEY ARE NOT ANTAGONISTIC BUT THEY HAVE CONVICTION IN THE POSITIONS THEY ADOPT.
Taking issue with everyone:
Ordinary people are kidding themselves if they think they do not take emotional issue or dislike with everyone, only some people. In truth they take issue with everyone, even with themselves and they are only putting up with others and even putting up with themselves for the sake of getting along. It is impossible that they do not dislike certain things about their friends, spouses or children but often they will smile as if they agree when inside they disagree but for the sake of maintaining your friendship or familial cohesiveness they pretend they agree.
IT IS HOSTILITY ALLIED TO SELF IDENTITY VIEWS THAT MAKE THEM ARGUMENTATIVE. IF THE VIEWS OR POSITIONS THEY HOLD ARE RIGHT VIEWS THEY WILL NOT BE CALLED SELF IDENTITY VIEWS AND IT IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE FALSE DELUDED SELF IDENTITY VIEWS THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY EXAMINED AND PROVEN LOGICALLY TO BE FALSE THAT IT IS SELF IDENTITY VIEW THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY HELD THEY FIND COMPELLING TO DEFEND AND BROADCAST TO OTHERS.
THUS HOSTILITY FOR OTHERS’ FALSE SELF IDENTITY VIEWS ALLIED TO ATTACHMENT TO ONE’S SIMILARLY FALSE SELF IDENTITY VIEWS IS THE DRIVE FOR THE PERSON TO ARGUE OR UNRIGHTEOUSLY ASSERT HIS VIEWS.
HOSTILITY OR ILL WILL IS ONE OF FIVE LOWER FETTERS THAT LEADS TO A RETURN TO THIS WORLD AND SELF IDENTITY VIEW IS ONE OF THREE LOWER FETTERS THAT LEAD TO FUTURE STATES OF WOE AND SO THE PERSON WHO LIKES TO ARGUE IS HEADED FOR WOE.
RIGHT VIEW IS NEVER EMOTIONAL OR FORCEFUL BUT BASED ON PURE FORCE FREE REASON AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR ARGUING. EMPTY VESSELS MAKE THE LOUDEST HARSH NOISES WHILST FULL VESSELS CAN MAKE SOUNDS BUT NEVER LOUD HARSH NOISES.
One cannabis joint as bad as five cigarettes:
If you are attracted to such news as I am NOT, you are attracted to your life in this world and not caring for what you shall eat or wear as Jesus advised.
Only a person who is preoccupied with his life here will be interested in such news that one cannabis joint is as bad as five cigarettes.
Why style must be rote:
Because all style is about how force is used to prolong, change speed, strength and where possible also direction and force by itself is blind, it cannot by itself initiate prolonging, changing speed and strength let alone initiate consistently in a particular pattern of stretching, changing speed and strength that is necessary to distinguish a person’s style there must be a mental template or guide to instruct force how to change and that de facto is rote style or style based on a preset mental mould.

Any manner of behaving that can only be how or the style a person perceives, thinks, speaks or moves can either be fresh specific for a particular occasion in which no memory or recollection is involved or it is a process that involves some sort of reproducing from memory.
Reproducing from memory can either be by a process of encoding into a digital form with a copy of how to do so in one's mental jukebox that requires laborious sometimes unreliable searching, retrieval and thence using this retrieved code of how to do so to guide one's mental force to drive one's apparatus of mechanical reproduction to reproduce the desired style of how to perceive, think, speak or move (and pose) with a particular style OR there is an even more failsafe reliable but inflexible system for encoding and reproducing like that of making a fixed mould or metal stamp of the style with which to stamp (with force) all behavior in perceiving, thinking, speaking, moving and posturing. This mental stamp like a metal stamp used to stamp metal sheets into a required shape has the advantage of being even more secure and direct than encoding, searching, retrieving and decoding but it is inflexible because no alteration is possible once the stamp has been formed into a particular configuration and this is the likely mode of memory involved in the production of a person's style, that is direct stamping of all the person's behavior with a rigid preformed mental stamp of his personal style that once shaped is modified with difficulty or not at all.
All forces that includes mental force are blind, indiscriminate and therefore cannot on their own initiative change in duration of its action, speed, strength and direction where possible on its own let alone always faithfully in the same complex pattern that is essential if the person were to adopt and express a recognizable style of behavior and therefore mental force must require some form of guide or mental copy of how long to act, how to change speed and strength in a certain individual way that it can be fed to power to reproduce that particular style.
True logic or discernment (seeing things clearly as they are) will never provide the guide to fashion style because true logic or seeing things clearly as they are will know that style is totally unnecessary or meaningless or insane because it is stressful, restless, divides the attention and is conflicting (both wanting change and no change at the same time) and only intended insatiably for show to impress, please, intimidate and dominate others.
False logic or poor discernment (not seeing things clearly as they truly are) may recommend and provide the guide to fashion style but even false logic and poor discernment cannot provide the reliability of reproduction of a rigid mental metal stamp stamping out a preset style and therefore cannot be the source of the production of a person's style.
BECAUSE STYLE IN PERCEIVING, THINKING, SPEAKING, MOVING AND POSTURING IS ENTIRELY AN EXPRESSION OF FORCE NEVER REASON OR SUBSTANCE, STYLE IS BASED ON HOW FORCE VARIES IN DURATION OF ACTION, CHANGES SPEED AND STRENGTH AND FORCE IS BLIND AND CANNOT CHANGE ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE BUT MUST HAVE A SET OF INSTRUCTIONS OF HOW IT SHOULD CHANGE IN A CERTAIN WAY TO EXPRESS A PARTICULAR STYLE, A PERSON'S STYLE MUST THEREFORE ALWAYS COME NOT JUST FROM A MENTAL GUIDE BUT A MENTAL STAMPING DEVICE THAT ALTHOUGH INFLEXIBLE ONCE CAST OR SET INTO A PARTICULAR STYLE, IS MORE RELIABLE OR SECURE AND DIRECT THAN ENCODING IN DIGITAL FORM NEEDING TO BE SEARCHED, RETRIEVED, DECODED AND FED TO THE ACTUATOR SYSTEMS FOR MENTAL FORCE TO DRIVE.
JUST AS ELECTRICITY ON ITS OWN CAN NEVER REPRODUCE A PARTICULAR SONG YOU LIKE TO HEAR BUT IT REQUIRES FEEDING ELECTRICITY INTO A HIFI SET AND PLAYING A CD THAT CONTAINS THAT SONG IN A PRERECORDED FORM, IN THE SAME WAY MENTAL FORCE ON ITS OWN CAN NEVER REPRODUCE A PARTICULAR AUDIOVISUAL BRAND OF STYLE THAT IS YOURS BUT IT REQUIRES FEEDING MENTAL FORCE INTO YOUR ACTUATOR SYSTEMS AND PLAYING NOT FROM A HARD DISK COPY BUT A MENTAL FIXED STAMP OF YOUR BRAND OF STYLE TO REPRODUCE YOUR STYLE.
THEREFORE IF THERE IS STYLE OR CONSTANT PROLONGING, CHANGING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE IN THE WAY YOU SPEAK OR MOVE, WHETHER YOU ARE AWARE OR NOT, NO MATTER HOW YOU MAY DENY SO, IT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY KNOWN BY OTHERS WHO DISCERN AND YOUR BEHAVIOR MUST PASS THROUGH A RIGID PRESET MENTAL STAMP OF STYLE AND YOU ARE BEHAVING BY ROTE OR REHASHING, YOU ARE A ROBOT NOT A GENUINE LIVE SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION PERSON.

WHATEVER THE MECHANISM OF STYLE, EVEN WHEN IT IS LARGELY OR TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS, WHENEVER YOU FORCEFULLY PROLONG, YOU WANT TO CONTINUE OR FORCEFULLY NOT CHANGE AND WHENEVER YOU ACCELERATE IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS YOU FORCEFULLY WANT TO CONSTANTLY CHANGE AND IF YOU ARE DOING BOTH AT THE SAME TIME AS IF YOU STRETCH YOUR SYLLABLE WITH ACCELERATING SPEED AND LOUDNESS, YOU NOT JUST WANT BUT YOU FORCEFULLY WANT THAT IS HARD TO RESIST TO ABSURDLY NOT CHANGE AND YET CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME AND THAT IS AGONIZING FORCEFUL CONFLICT THAT IS INSOLUBLE BECAUSE YOU KEEP DOING SO TO IMPRESS OTHERS AND IT WILL END IN MAD INTENSE CONFLICT. THUS THE PERSON OF STYLE IS CONSTANTLY INDUCING FORCEFUL CONFLICT OF WANTING CHANGE AND NOT CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME THAT IS ALWAYS AGONIZING NEVER AN UNADULTERATED PLEASURE AS IT IS MADE UP TO BE AND ACTORS WANT YOU TO THINK.

(WHEN YOU SPEAK ANGRILY, THE ANGRY WAY YOU SPEAK IS YOUR STYLE BASED ON HOW YOUR FORCE PROLONGED, CHANGED SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT IS INTENDED TO INTIMIDATE YOUR VICTIM AND THEREFORE YOU HAVE DISPLAYED STYLE NOT JUST WHEN YOU WERE ANGRY BUT ALWAYS AS WHEN YOU SPEAK GENTLY OR ANXIOUSLY OR EAGERLY OR EXCITEDLY OR SADLY).

The person who has no style or who is not an actor merely appraises a situation at hand calmly clearly with reason and should he decide change is needed in terms of speech or bodily action he merely initiates it, if he decides no action is needed on his part he remains effortlessly without forceful coercion at rest or no change.

By contrast the person who has style, whether he is aware or not, because there is constant forceful stretching in his perceiving, thinking, speaking and motion is constantly unconsciously telling himself to change the speed and strength of force of a certain action but not change or maintain the duration of a certain action, in essence to issue a conflicting demand of change but at the same time also not change that are both totally unnecessary and only necessary for show to impress, please, intimidate and dominate. This constant change but not change that pervades all his perceiving, thinking, speaking and motion is on top of the change that he must decide to initiate or not with each situation they find themselves in and it makes them indecisive or hesitant in what they do or say.

Have I not convinced you of sin, righteousness and judgment or whoever is the counselor that Jesus described must also say the same things that I have said to you that no one has ever said in order to be of your advantage to come and convince you of sin, righteousness and judgment?
Why God Is Always Right:
It is not because God is a dictator or all powerful that He is always right but it is because whatever happens in this world can only happen in one way not two or more possible ways and there is an indelible record of whatever happened not just in this Age but in the innumerable Ages of the past as the Buddha alludes to and it is possible for beings to see and know everything that has ever happened and God knows and sees everything he is therefore always right.
It is only a person who cannot see or know everything who can be and may be wrong but if you can see and know everything that has happened you cannot be wrong and must therefore be always right.
Therefore you cannot argue with God but it nevertheless does not stop you from doing so because arguing is addictive, is an urge that can be triggered in people who like to argue and not derived from reason and knowing but based on ignorance, self identity views and hostility and as a result anyone who can and will argue cannot go to heaven, cannot be one with the Father.
Many are invited but few are accepted:
Jesus said many are invited, he did not say all are invited and therefore they are those who may be many who are not even invited and of those many who are invited only a few will be accepted.
Therefore you are invited but you should not be presumptuous that you are accepted because your acceptance depends on your willingness to work in the vineyard of truth and goodness.
The reward of successfully working in the vineyard is one Age in heaven and no more, if you desire more Ages, then according to the Buddha even 60,000 Ages are possible depending on how highly you develop your mind progressing from the ability to stop thinking to how concentrated and equanimous it has been developed to become.
Very mixed up people:
Much as ordinary people like to believe that although they may not be perfect they are quite discerning and know what is truth and what is false and what is good and bad for themselves, they are a very mixed up bunch getting it all wrong far more frequent than they are aware, like the tip of an iceberg.
And what are the many things that ordinary people are confused with or get it all wrong?
They confuse style for substance. For instance such utterances like hey, ouch, huh, uh oh, ahem are style utterances conveying emotion that they find very meaningful and necessary. Often the style of how they say or do something is more important than what they say or do that can be examined to be nonsensical and the way they do things has nothing to do with meaning but merely how they differently use force to stretch, change speed and strength of force or direction that is never everlasting.
Unsurprisingly they also mistake their liking and disliking as meaningful or based on reason when they are all both about how their mental forces stirred that has nothing to do with reason or meaning. Liking and disliking which they actually doing all the time often without awareness and often faked, are all about how their mental forces of going against self gets stirred in speed and strength either under or out of control of their forces of self preservation on contact with objects or things happening.
They confuse emotions with reason or meaning.
They think poetry and abstract art is full of meaning even sublime when it is all about wordplay or a perverted representation of reality targeted at emotions.
“I Believe”:
Ordinary people frequently say “I believe in this and that” without realizing the meaning or significance of what they are saying.
Have you heard it recorded that the Buddha or Jesus said they believed this or that? Did Jesus say he believed the world will come to an end in such and such a manner or did he describe how the world will come to an end? If you have not heard them espousing their beliefs, then it is no accident, but it is very significant that has eluded your realization that they did not espouse any beliefs unlike ordinary people who do and not only see nothing wrong but think it is good to have beliefs.
This 'believing' is the same 'faith in precepts' that is half of the faith in rites and precepts that the Buddha teaches you is one of three lower fetters to future states of woe.
A person who knows and sees does not believe and it is only a person who cannot see and do not know who must express beliefs.
If you saw something happened or you know how something works, do you have to believe it happened or believe how it works? Therefore if you see or know you do not need to believe and if you did not see or know then you should not believe but stick only to what you see and know. Believing is the more that comes from evil just like liking and disliking is the more that is totally unnecessary that applies harmful force on your mind. Whatever happens can be pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant, what is there to like or dislike, to stir the speed and strength of your mental force in an attractive or repulsive manner?
Whatever you believe are ideas or precepts and they are not harmless but even deadly because they detain you in your beliefs or precepts that is a bond to future woe, not harmless let alone beneficial as deluded ordinary people believe. Ordinary people are sustained by their beliefs and have (forceful) faith in their beliefs that because they are forceful, is open to doubt and uncertainty, another fetter to future woe. Further their beliefs that differ from others form an important part of the self identity views that is again according to the Buddha the third fetter to future states of woe.
BELIEFS ARE THE SAME PRECEPTS THAT THE BUDDHA SAID TOGETHER WITH FAITH IN RITES ONE OF THREE LOWER FETTERS TO FUTURE STATES OF WOE. YOUR BELIEFS THAT DIFFER FROM OTHERS (IF EVERYONE SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME BELIEFS WHAT IS THERE TO TALK ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS?) IS ALSO A CRUCIAL INGREDIENT OF YOUR SELF IDENTITY VIEWS THAT AGAIN THE BUDDHA SAID IS ONE OF THREE LOWER FETTERS TO FUTURE WOE. BECAUSE BELIEFS AND RITUALISTIC BEHAVIOR ARE FALSE EVEN IF YOU CANNOT SEE IT OR DENY THEY ARE FALSE, THEY ARE UPHELD IN YOU WITH FORCE NOT REASON AND WHATEVER IS UPHELD IN YOUR MIND WITH FORCE OR EMOTION IS SUBJECT TO DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY THAT IS AGAIN ANOTHER OF THE THREE LOWER FETTERS TO FUTURE STATES OF WOE.
A PERSON WHO SEES AND KNOWS DOES NOT BELIEVE BUT HE SEES ANDD KNOWS. IT IS A PERSON WHO DOES NOT SEE AND KNOW WHO MUST EXPRESS BELIEFS AND SUBSCRIBE TO BELIEFS TO SUSTAIN HIM AND BECAUSE BELIEFS OR PRECEPTS ARE BASED ON NOT SEEING AND KNOWING THEY ARE DANGEROUS AND LEAD TO DELUSIONS OR FALSE BELIEFS.

RITUALS ARE SIMPLE OR ELABORATE PROSCRIBED SEQUENCES OF MOTIONS PURPORTED TO ACHIEVE THINGS THAT THEY DO NOT.

PRECEPTS OR BELIEFS ARE SIMPLE OR ELABORATE SEQUENCES OF THOUGHTS OF SOMETHING YOU DO NOT KNOW OR SEE THAT ARE PURPORTED TO REPRESENT TRUTH OR ACHIEVE THINGS THAT THEY DO NOT.
You may have heard of this song with a lyric that goes like this: I believe with every drop of rain that falls a flower grows. It is because this statement is false, not every drop of rain gives rise to a flower and the person cannot see a flower growing for every drop of rain that falls that he must emotionally express his 'belief'. If you can see it happening there is no need to believe it is so. And because you emotionally or forcefully believe it is so, increasingly you are compelled by your force or emotion to believe what is false is true, you become increasingly deluded and the delusion becomes hard to shake off. The wise person will just restrict himself to what he can see and know and shed all beliefs which are the precepts that the Buddha said led to future woe.
People have many beliefs on many subjects and as a result their minds are cluttered with many diverse beliefs that are actually all false (if you can see something is black there is no need to believe it is black) and they are often contradictory and so their minds are cluttered by beliefs that regularly vie for their attention causing them much vexations that would be absent in the person who never espouse beliefs. No one is a master of his beliefs but they are slaves driven by their beliefs heading for mad loss of control and confusion.
PRECEPTS ARE MENTAL RITUALS AND RITUALS ARE PHYSICAL PRECEPTS AND THEREFORE PRECEPTS AND RITUALS ARE THE MENTAL AND MECHANICAL PROTOCOLS THAT ARE ALWAYS FALSE. THE BUDDHA IS NOT TALKING NONSENSE BUT HE IS OF PENETRATIVE WISDOM. NO ORDINARY OR MAD MAN OR FAKE CAN SPEAK LIKE THE BUDDHA AND YOU ARE A FOOL TO DOUBT HIM AND QUESTION THAT HE IS THE HIGHEST TEACHER AS HE STATED.
The Buddha said that the person who preaches from the teachings and discipline he declared is rare. Name me another person who has interpreted what the Buddha taught as succinctly as I have. Even today when the conditions are equal, no one has interpreted what the Buddha taught as I have.
This is not a belief:
When you can see and know something is true, it is no longer a belief but a fact.
For instance I do not believe that this is so but I declare this: Any change or movement or vocalization (eg huh) you make can be examined and determined objectively (not subjectively) to be necessary or unnecessary. If a movement or change (eg changing speed or loudness) is unnecessary then however slight it is you are practicing what is unnecessary and must suffer from restlessness that is conditioning because it is forceful and whatever is forceful is not only painful but conditioning or addicting you to repeat that unnecessary change or motion or speech so that the urge to do unnecessary things intensifies with practice even if it is somnolent. Therefore every little bit of change or movement or vocalization that is objectively unnecessary serves as a nidus or seedling for restlessness that snowballs without the awareness of the preoccupied distracted fool until it seizes him with an intensity too hard to ignore further.
The four variables of force:
All forces have these four variables that can be exploited by those who are attracted to force to fashion their individual brand of style just like hermit crabs choose their shells to hide in and sometimes discard their shells for another: duration, speed, strength and direction if it is acting in three dimensions as in movements.
Although mental force possesses these four variables that can be exploited to fashion an individual’s style, force cannot vary these variables by itself but it must be somehow instructed to do so either directly by the being himself or is in truth the case, indirectly by some mental software or press that stamps or presses out consistently unerringly that person’s individual style. Whatever behavior in terms of perceiving, thinking, speaking, posing and motion must pass through this mental software or press that adds that individual’s brand of style or signature prolonging, changing of speed, strength of force and direction if possible.
The case may be that in those people with style they have a sort of Microsoft Excel software of their brand of style that is always downloaded in place in the mental RAM or random access memory whenever they become conscious ready to process by adding their brand of style to whatever activity in perceiving, thinking, speaking and moving that their minds want to undertake. Because this style adding software is already downloaded sitting on the mental RAM it is more failsafe and secure than style being encoded in files in one’s mental hard disk that need time to be searched and may sometimes not found.
In contrast the person who does not have style does not have this mental software of style through which all their activities of mind must pass through before they are rendered. Although he possesses memory that is even superior to the stylish person, his memory is utilized as a reference for his speech or motion, not rehashed facsimile of what he has said or done many times before.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE FORGET WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY WANTED TO SAY OR DO THAT THEY HAVE SAID OR DONE MANY TIMES BEFORE AND THIS IS BECAUSE WHAT THEY WANTED TO SAY OR DO IS STORED IN A FILE IN THEIR MENTAL JUKEBOX THAT THEY SOMETIMES FAIL TO LOCATE AND RETRIEVE BUT THEY NEVER FORGET THEIR INDIVIDUAL STYLES THAT SUGGEST THEIR STYLES OR HOW THEY USUALLY PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE MAY BE WRITTEN AS A SOFTWARE LIKE MICROSOFT’S EXCEL THAT IS AUTOMATICALLY DOWNLOADED ONTO THEIR RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY WHEN THEY BECOME CONSCIOUS AND WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SAY, DO, THINK OR PERCEIVE MUST BE DONE THROUGH THIS EXCEL SOFTWARE OF THEIR STYLE THAT ADDS THEIR STYLE TO IT.
Why arguing is absurd:
If you know the truth of a subject there is no need to argue about it because you already know what it is all about.
If you do not know the truth of a matter you should not speak about the matter let alone argue about it. The reason you argue is because you cannot stand the position the other person takes on the issue, it is just a proxy for your hostility or you have strong opinions of what things should be without knowing what it is all about not realizing you are in the process conditioning yourself to argue and as Jesus said, you will be judged for every careless word you say and even deadly karma awaits you for your part in arguing.
Arguing is actually fighting with your mouth and no one who fights with his mouth is going to heaven.

Jesus: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (like Jesus was a counselor, a person who came), to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive (Jesus says the world that may include you cannot receive or accept or welcome the counselor) neither sees (can recognize) him nor knows (have knowledge, can work out or have been told) him; you know (Jesus did not say you can recognize him but you can work out who he is or know him) him, for he dwells with you (if the counselor is a counselor in your mind and you still need Jesus to tell you he dwells with you he must be a hard to detect or false counselor. If the counselor is someone who dwells physically with you and you do not realize then Jesus is merely informing you that he will be dwelling in your midst), and will be in you. "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit (The counselor is the Holy Spirit), whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things (he will cover a broad range of subjects), and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (if the church has brought you remembrance of what Jesus taught, it would be redundant for the counselor to come).But when the Counselor comes (he will not come immediately), whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning. But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (If consciousness changes are possible and it alleviates suffering then whoever is the counselor must also cause consciousness to change)And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness (goodness) and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (When the counselor comes, it will be time for mankind to be judged)"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. (Did a consciousness change in recent years enable you to bear what you could not previously? Only a previously unimaginable consciousness change can make you bear what you could not bear then just as you could not bear a consciousness change is possible before it happened and I was the trigger of the change after 1977 as I am on the sidelines of changes today) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority (if he does not appear as someone speaking on his own authority why should Jesus inform you so?), but whatever he hears he will speak (if the counselor knows everything, he will not need to hear and then speak) and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you (have I not taken from what is Jesus’ and the Buddha’s and declared to you in a way that no man has ever done? Jesus said let your yes be yes only, anything more comes from evil. I have demonstrated in many ways how people including those who call themselves good never let their yes be yes only but emotionally do and say much more that comes from evil). All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Jesus referred to the counselor as the Holy Spirit and he said whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Jesus: Therefore I tell you, every (not some) sin and blasphemy will (not may) be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says a word against (disagrees) the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against (disagrees) the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.Believing in Jesus:
Jesus spoke of believing in him and so did the Buddha who said faith in the highest confers the highest rewards. Because you cannot see and know who Jesus, the Buddha and God is, you must have faith or believe in them or that they exist and are who they purport to be, at least initially until you can see and know clearer and then you not need to believe anymore but you know and you see.
Therefore you should not believe in anything secular or religious but there is one exception that you should believe in God, Jesus and the Buddha.
It is dangerous to believe:
One would be wise to treat each occasion of believing as carefully as one would handle nitroglycerine because even facetious or frivolous beliefs in mundane matters have deadly consequences yet if you observe the behavior of ordinary people they are cavalier in embracing beliefs, they readily say “I believe you” and they profess belief falsely to please others or get what they want.
By saying you believe in something you are saying you accept it as true when you cannot see or know that it is true. In effect you are taking a bet. If you can see or you know it is true it is no longer a belief but you know or see it is true and it is no longer a case of taking a bet.
Thus if you cannot see or know that something is true then you should not believe in it unless it is absolutely necessary.
If people examine a lot of the things they and society accept as true without questioning they will discover that they started life in them as beliefs that they adopted from others and with time, imperceptibly, their belief became converted into truth or fact.
The reason why this is so is because belief is not based on (true) reason or logic that will not accept as true something it cannot see and know as true but belief is based on force, one uses mental force to force oneself to believe or accept as true what one cannot see or know as true based on hearsay from others. What is based on force is conditioning and as one repeatedly forces oneself to believe or accept something as true, it takes on increasing realism until one perceives it as true.
It is not a belief but I can see and know it is the truth that there is constant forceful stretching of syllables, changes of speed and loudness in the speech of all people and this is the only source of the regular insoluble stress, restlessness and distraction that they must suffer from because I can show you how different anyone you care to nominate speech will sound if there are no stretching, changing speed and loudness and I know I must use force to stretch, change speed and loudness and I can immediately sense the stress, restlessness and distraction rising in me and I experience an effortless freedom from stress, restlessness and distraction if I did not stretch syllables, change speed or loudness.
All ordinary people have many beliefs in many subjects, many of their beliefs have been converted to facts that can be proven to be false and so they may severely underestimate the extent of beliefs in them. The existence of so many beliefs in so many subjects, often conflicting can be maddening and they are likely to be false otherwise they would not be called beliefs but the truth.
Some people habitually say “I believe” as a form of style or it reflects their doubt and uncertainty because if he can see or know something is true then it is no longer a belief. For instance they say “I believe he is not in” when he knows he is not in because he saw him go out and this reflects his mad uncertainty that he wants to share with you because on hearing that you too are not sure if he is not in when it should be certain.
‘Faith’, conviction, believe in and accept as true are similar, so faith in the Blessed One is belief in the Blessed One.
ONE SHOULD NOT TREAT ONE’S BELIEFS OR ‘ACCEPTING AS TRUE’ FRIVOLOUSLY BUT KEEP THEM TO THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, SHOULD THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE ONE SAYS ‘I BELIEVE’ AND SHOULD RE-EXAMINE ONE’S ESTABLISHED BELIEFS OR THINGS ONE HOLD AS TRUE CAREFULLY TO SEE IF THEY ARE BASED ON REALITY OR SENTIMENT OR EMOTION OR BIAS.
FEW IF ANY THINK THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO BELIEVE BUT INSTEAD THEY ARE QUITE READY TO EMBRACE NEW BELIEFS, TO DECLARE THEIR BELIEFS WHEN THEY IN TRUTH DO NOT BELIEVE AND THIS IS A LAX AND WRONG ATTITUDE BECAUSE IN BELIEVING YOU ARE SAYING YOU ACCEPT AS TRUE WHAT YOU DID NOT SEE OR KNOW AS TRUE OR YOU ARE MAKING A BET WITH YOUR FUTURE SANITY AT STAKE BECAUSE IF YOUR BELIEF TURNS OUT TO BE FALSE AS IS MOST LIKELY YOU ARE DELUDED WITH MANY DELUDED FALSE BELIEFS.
I know not believe policemen killed Altanturya at Razak's behest:

Below is an example why it is not necessary to believe anything but even without seeing what happened based on evidence tendered and acknowledgments or concessions by those accused who do not realize they are incriminating rather than exonerating themselves, you can work out (know) the truth of what happened:

Despite avowed integrity, doctors usually try to cover up the misdeeds of their colleagues at the expense of the patient and when a colleague is disciplined it is because the doctor is guilty and it cannot be covered up, not because he is innocent and fellow doctors are on a witch hunt.
There is evidence the police are trying to make life easier for their accused colleagues eg by helping them cover their faces and evade the press so why would police charge two colleagues with a murder if they knew there is reasonable doubt they did not it, let alone plant so many pieces of incriminating evidence to convict them?

New evidence revealed by the prosecution at the trial indicated there was a slip of paper in the bag of chief inspector Azilah one of the two accused that has the names, addresses and handphone numbers of Razak and Altanturya.
This piece of paper may have been in Azilah's possession or it may have been planted by police to frame him.

Police may possibly recklessly prosecute and even frame someone outside its ranks for murder because of incompetence or overzealousness but why would the police be so cruel and unrighteous as to unscrupulously want to charge two fellow policemen with murder without being quite certain they did it let alone that they will go out of their way to plant evidence to frame them? There is no evidence the police are on a witch hunt and so there being no obligation that police must solve every murder why go to the trouble of charging two fellow policemen of a crime they are not quite certain they committed and even plant evidence to frame them?

Even ordinary policemen may lack the skills required to take Altanturya away, execute and blow her up with confidence as has happened. It is impossible that Razak himself or someone else high standing could have personally committed the crime because they lack the skills and experience and so if these two policemen who have the special training to do so did not kill her then it must be done by someone else in the police force or outside who must also have the necessary skills to successfully carry out this murder. If the police know who these policemen who actually killed her are or they cannot be certain these two did it, why would they charge and even plant evidence to frame them, their fellow policemen when there is no law that every murder must be solved? Why not save the police and everyone else so much trouble by honestly declaring the murderer cannot be apprehended?

CAN YOU BELIEVE (ACCEPT AS TRUE) THAT THE POLICE WOULD GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO CHARGE LET ALONE PLANT EVIDENCE TO FRAME TWO FELLOW POLICEMEN THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW WITH SOME CERTAINTY COMMITTED THE MURDER?

IF YOU THINK IT IS UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT POLICE WOULD CHARGE LET ALONE FRAME THESE TWO FELLOW OFFICERS FOR A MURDER POLICE ARE NOT QUITE CERTAIN THEY DID IT, THEN THE EVIDENCE THAT A PIECE OF PAPER WITH THE PHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES IN HIS POSSESSION MUST BE CREDIBLE JUST AS EVIDENCE THAT THEY TOLD THE POLICE HOW AND WHERE THEY DID IT AND ALTANTURYA'S PERSONAL VALUABLES WERE FOUND IN THEIR POSSESSIONS. WHY WOULD AZILAH NEED ALTANTURYA'S ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER AND AS LIKELY FROM VIDEO EVIDENCE ALSO PAID HER A VISIT THE NIGHT BEFORE?
IF ALTANTURYA WAS KILLED BY SOMEONE ELSE IN THE POLICE FORCE OR OUTSIDE THAT THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW, HOW DID POLICE COME INTO POSSESSION OF HER VALUABLES? DO POLICE ROUTINELY STRIP PEOPLE OF THEIR PERSONAL EFFECTS WHEN THEY ARE ARRESTED? ALTANTURYA HAS NEVER BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME THAT SHE MUST BE ARRESTED AND BE STRIPPED OFF HER VALUABLES AS PART OF HER ARREST BUT SHE WAS UNOFFICIALLY UNLAWFULLY TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY THESE TWO POLICEMEN WHOSE JOB IS TO PROTECT THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER NOT GO AROUND TAKING AWAY PEOPLE INTO CUSTODY. THAT THE POLICE PRODUCED HER PERSONAL VALUABLES IN COURT MUST MEAN THEY KNOW WHO THE ACTUAL KILLERS ARE AND IF THEY KNEW IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE, WHY NOT CHARGE THEM INSTEAD OF THESE TWO?
TAKEN TOGETHER THERE IS MOUNTING EVIDENCE THESE TWO HAD HER ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER, MADE A SECRET VISIT TO HER HOTEL THE NIGHT BEFORE WHEN THEY HAVE NO LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO SO AND IT WOULD BE IN LINE WITH A SCOUTING MISSION, THEY WERE THE ONES WHO TOOK HER AWAY FROM RAZAK'S HOUSE AND SUBSEQUENTLY FROM POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TOLD POLICE HOW AND WHERE THEY KILLED HER & WERE FOUND IN POSSESSION OF HER PERSONAL BELONGINGS TO INCRIMINATE THEM WHO HAD THE SPECIAL SKILLS TO UNDERTAKE THIS MURDER AND NO ONE ELSE.
(There was dispute as to whether inspector Azilah actually boarded the Suzuki Vitara that took her away from police headquarters after which she disappeared forever. This indicates that whoever took her away in that vehicle must be involved with her murder and if the police are in possession of her private belongings when she was not formally charged and put into a cell when you might expect they have legitimate reasons to deprive her of her belongings, police must know who took her away and likely killed her so why not charge him instead of these two innocent policemen? Since Azilah was seen approaching the Suzuki that took Altanturya away on her final journey he must know who the driver was and since he is being wrongly accused of murder surely he would have pointed out to police who the driver and potential murderer is in order to save his own skin.)

BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE RAZAK OR SOMEONE HIGHSTANDING PERSONALLY KILLED HER AND IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE POLICE WOULD CHARGE TWO FELLOW OFFICERS OF MURDER IF THEY WERE NOT QUITE CERTAIN THEY DID IT LET ALONE THAT THEY WILL GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO FRAME THEM BY PLANTING EVIDENCE, THEN THE CONSISTENT MOUNTING EVIDENCE LEADS TO THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT THESE TWO POLICEMEN KILLED HER.

IT MAY BE PLAUSIBLE THAT THEY MAY HAVE KILLED HER ON THEIR OWN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION BUT THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE OF THEIR OWN OR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION TO VISIT HER AT THE HOTEL THE EVENING BEFORE SO THEIR RECORDED VISIT THERE TOGETHER WITH POSSESSION OF HER ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER INDICATES THEY WERE ON A MISSION FOR SOMEONE ELSE AND IT WAS RAZAK WHO BROUGHT THEM INTO THIS CASE AND THEREFORE RAZAK'S ROLE MUST BE CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN WHAT HE SAID TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER.

CHARGING SOMEONE OF A CRIME DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL BE CONVICTED OF THE CRIME AND IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF THESE TWO ARE ACQUITTED ON DRUMMED UP TECHNICAL REASONS JUST AS THE HIGH PROFILE NORITTA SAMSUDDIN TRIAL REMAINS UNSOLVED AFTER THE CHIEF SUSPECT WAS ACQUITTED.
Prior to her murder police had no interest in Altanturya and may not even be aware she existed and it is only these two policemen brought into the case by Razak who knew and were interested in her. Thus the evidence they did it is compelling that they were the ones who took her away from Razak's house, they must know who last took her away from police headquarters if it was not them as Azilah was seen approaching that vehicle and it is incredible that Azilah has not fingered who drove Altanturya away if he was not in the vehicle, the evidence that they were captured on video visiting her at the hotel the evening before, they had in their possession her address and phone number and her personal valuables and showed police how and where they killed her is credible and they must have done it. They may have motive like sexual gratification to kill her on their own but they have no motive to go to her hotel the day before except as part of the errand for Razak and therefore that they had her address and phone and visited her before indicates Razak's role is more than he confessed.


(Notice I did not express any belief on my part like I find it hard to believe that the police would charge two fellow officers of murder if they had any doubts they did it let alone plant evidence to frame them but I asked without need for belief on my part why would the police charge two fellow police officers of murder let alone frame them.)
SHOULD YOU DISPUTE MY CONTENTION THE POLICEMEN KILLED ALTANTURYA AND RAZAK IS IMPLICATED IS ACTUALLY MY BELIEF NOT MY KNOWLEDGE, YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR YOU MAY HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION AND CONFUSION AS TO WHAT IS KNOWING AND WHAT IS BELIEF AND JUST AS YOU HAVE CONFUSED MY KNOWLEDGE AS MY BELIEF, YOU MAY HAVE CONFUSED AS YOUR KNOWLEDGE MANY OF THE BELIEFS IN MANY AREAS OF YOUR LIFE, A MUDDLED MAN HEADING FOR A MUDDLED DESTINATION.
Beliefs May Or May Not Be True:
Whereas beliefs may or may not be true, knowing and seeing must be true.

If you can see or work out logically (know) something is true then you do not have to believe (accept) that it is true. For instance if you can see something is red you do not have to believe or accept that it is red. It is only because you cannot see or know (work out) if something is true that you have to believe or elect to accept it is true.

You can also choose not to believe or accept as true what you cannot see or work out as true without rejecting it as false because it may be true. In other words you can choose to not commit yourself, you just wait for more evidence to emerge that may clinch its truth or falsity. This is the wise option for those who are devoted to truth.

Therefore what you believe may or may not be true and when you believe you are making a bet that it will turn out to be true. Because believing involves taking a bet that something is true, there is always uncertainty and doubt involved (that you do not realize you are conditioning yourself to) and so a person who is dedicated to truth will be reluctant to commit himself to believe anything that he cannot see or work out is true but wait for more evidence to emerge.

IF YOU CANNOT SEE OR WORK OUT IF SOMETHING IS TRUE, THE WISE THING TO DO IS NOT TO BELIEVE IT IS TRUE NOR DISMISS IT BUT TO WAIT IF NEW EVIDENCE TURNS UP THAT WILL CLINCH IT.

SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SEE OR WORK OUT (KNOW) IS TRUE IS ALWAYS CERTAINLY TRUE AND THEREFORE REQUIRES NO BELIEF.

ANYTHING THAT YOU BELIEVE OR ELECT TO ACCEPT IS TRUE IS NEVER CERTAINLY TRUE BUT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE AND THEREFORE NOT TO BE BELIEVED LIGHTLY BECAUSE IT MAY TURN OUT TO BE WRONG AND BECAUSE BELIEFS TEND TO TAKE ON INCREASING REALISM WITH CONTINUED BELIEF, YOU ARE AT RISK OF BECOMING DELUDED OR HAVE FALSE AND THENCE MAD PERCEPTION.
THAT SOMETHING MAY TURN OUT TO BE FALSE IS SOMETHING ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE NOT AVERSE TO TAKING BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REALIZE THE DEADLY DANGERS TO THEMSELVES. APART FROM CULTIVATING A TOLERANCE FOR ACCEPTING THINGS THAT MAY BE FALSE OR LAXITY TO TRUTH, THEY ARE CULTIVATING DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE THEY MUST ENTERTAIN NAGGING DOUBTS ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND BECAUSE BELIEVING OR ACCEPTING AS TRUE IS FORCEFUL THEY ARE CONDITIONING THEMSELVES TO PERCEIVE WHAT ARE BELIEFS OR MAY BE TRUE ARE TRUE THAT THEY DO NOT REALIZE AND CANNOT BELIEVE WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION THAT WHAT IS FALSE IS TRUE.
Precepts are a type of beliefs:
The Buddha never specified what types of precepts are good and what are bad therefore he must be speaking about all types of precepts when he said faith in precepts is one of three lower fetters to future states of woe. If precepts are true, they would not lead to future states of woe because truth never led to woes and therefore precepts (rules) must all be false that are beliefs that people accept in delusion often with question. Thus precepts or rules whether secular or religious (eg always smile when you greet someone, always eat at a certain time) are always false that those who have faith in accept as true or efficacious and are therefore deluded not may be deluded.
Many have this false belief that may be a precept that clasping hands is a sign of goodwill and holiness when it is not clasping hands or bowing heads that is virtuous or holy but how you tell no lies, take not what is not given & do not destroy living things. They have faith than by regularly clasping hands and bowing they will reach heaven or if they keep staring at a wall the truth will dawn on them.
Faith in the right things:
You must have faith or belief in things you cannot see or know but it must be faith in things that are wholesome like faith in the Buddha’s enlightenment:
"There is the case where a monk is convinced (has belief) of the Tathagata's Awakening: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct.' This is called the faculty of conviction (belief).

Dhana Sutta: Treasure
"Monks, there are these seven treasures. Conviction (belief), virtue, conscience, concern, listening, generosity, discernment.
"And what is the treasure of conviction (belief)? There is the case where a noble disciple is convinced of the Tathagata's Awakening.
"And what is the treasure of virtue? There is the case where a noble disciple abstains from taking life, stealing, illicit sexual conduct, lying, taking intoxicants.
"And what is the treasure of conscience? There is the case where a noble disciple feels shame at [the thought of engaging in] bodily / verbal / mental misconduct. This is called the treasure of conscience.
"And what is the treasure of concern? There is the case where a noble disciple feels concern for [the suffering that results from] bodily, verbal, mental misconduct.
"And what is the treasure of listening? There is the case where a noble disciple has heard much, has retained what he/she has heard.
"And what is the treasure of generosity? There is the case of a noble disciple, his awareness cleansed of stinginess, living at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in the distribution of alms.
"And what is the treasure of discernment? There is the case where a noble disciple is discerning, endowed with discernment of arising & passing away -- noble, penetrating, leading to the right ending of stress.
These, monks, are the seven treasures.Whoever, man or woman, has these treasuresis said not to be poor, has not lived in vain.