Loving Kindness

The Buddha spoke of loving kindness and said it is the way to one eon or Age or eternity in heaven.
Hence love and kindness must be two different but related things.
Loving is the passive feeling (not emotion) of pleasantness you engender in the presence or contact of another by your appearance and manner that is free from ill will or hostility or force radiation that can be perceived by all others.
Kindness is what you say or do, how you say or do to others that is true and beneficial, does not cause them stress, restlessness or distraction.
Thus love is the feeling of pleasantness your presence creates in the other person and that can only come about if you do not radiate force, your appearance (poses), speech and deeds do not convey force or forceful changes namely prolonging, unnecessary changing direction, speed and strength of force. Kindness is the saying and doing of things that are true or genuine that creates pleasant feelings in the other person.
Puggala Sutta: Persons (excerpt)
"Here, bhikkhus, a certain person abides with his heart imbued with loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides with his heart abundant, exalted, measureless in loving-kindness, without hostility or ill-will, extending over the all-encompassing world.
"He finds gratification in that, finds it desirable and looks to it for his well-being; steady and resolute thereon, he abides much in it, and if he dies without losing it(Jesus said he who endures till the end will be saved), he reappears among the gods of a High Divinity's retinue.
"Now the gods of a High Divinity's retinue have a life-span of one aeon. An ordinary person [who has not attained the Noble Eightfold Path] stays there for his life-span; but after he has used up the whole life-span enjoyed by those gods, he leaves it all, and [according to what his past deeds may have been] he may go down even to hell, or to an animal womb, or to the ghost realm. But one who has given ear to the Perfect One stays there [in that heaven] for his life-span, and after that he has used up the whole life span enjoyed by those gods, he eventually attains complete extinction of lust, hate and delusion in that same kind of heavenly existence.
"It is this that distinguishes, that differentiates, the wise hearer who is ennobled [by attainment of the Noble Path] from the unwise ordinary man, when, that is to say, there is a destination for reappearance [after death, but an Arahant has made an end of birth].
The Buddha said it is loving kindness to all as to oneself that is the key (and nothing else) to existence for one eon or Age in heaven. There are higher characteristics of a being like discernment (ability to see things clearly as they are), wisdom (knowing what is the correct things to say or do), the ability to be conscious but not thinking (cessation of thinking), neither perceiving nor not perceiving, concentration (the effortless passive unification and focussing of the mind) and equanimity (relinquishment, neither liking nor disliking) and although these are higher than loving kindness and accords that being more blissful and extended existence in the heavens they are not required for a being to become an angel for one eternity or Age in heaven.
As simple as this criteria of loving kindness to all (Jesus said you should love your enemies), it is almost impossible to achieve in beings trapped here because their perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing has a constant style that demands the constant use of force to prolong, change speed, direction and strength of force that harms others as they harm themselves with stress, restlessness and distraction. What beings here call their loving kindness is a FALSE loving kindness in style or how they say or do things that is for show and basically involves their use of their force of self preservation to momentarily modulate their force of going against self to speak and do things in an apparently for show soft gentle way that nevertheless has objectively detectable prolonging, changes in speed and strength of force that still stresses, make restless and distracts.
LOVING KINDNESS IS THE MOST BASIC OF THE HIGHER QUALITIES A BEING CAN POSSESS NAMELY DISCERNMENT, WISDOM, CESSATION OF THINKING, NEITHER PERCEIVING NOR NOT PERCEIVING, CONCENTRATION AND EQUANIMITY AND IT IS THE ONLY REQUISITE FOR GOING TO HEAVEN FOR ONE EON. AS SIMPLE AS TO LOVE AND TO BE KIND TO ALL IS, IT IS BEYOND THE REACH OF MOST BEINGS HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL IMBUED WITH AN INDIVIDUAL STYLE THAT NECESSITATES THEY CONSTANTLY USE FORCE THAT IS NEVER LOVING OR KIND BUT PERSECUTES THEMSELVES AND OTHERS WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT THEY CONVENIENTLY IGNORE AND REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE.
GOING TO HEAVEN MAY BE AS SIMPLE AS MERELY CULTIVATING LOVING KINDNESS BUT IT MAY THE HARDEST IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE THING FOR BEINGS TRAPPED IN THE LOWER REALMS BECAUSE THEY ARE DRIVEN BY FORCE AND DELUSIONS THAT ARE NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO PLACATE.
Why are aging, sickness & death celestial messengers?
The Buddha has referred to aging, sickness and death as celestial messengers.
Why are aging, sickness and death celestial messengers?
Aging, sickness and death are celestial messengers because they are not necessary conditions of existing as deluded beings in this world might accept as natural and blameless when they are indications that existence at least in this world is far from blameless, fraught with danger and suffering and existence first in this world and even in the heavenly realms should be abandoned for no further suffering.
This world is a creation not standalone or immutable as ordinary people may not realize they subconsciously accept as fait accompli. As Jesus demonstrated, death is not inevitable; a dead person can be restored to life and even complete health, God willing. Thus aging, disease and death (with its grotesque, rotting, smelly final falling apart of the body that humans especially females hold so dear is a messenger to abandon this attachment to your body and life here).
Aging and disease does not exist in heaven although death still occurs in the sense that there is a passing away from heaven after the alloted span that may range from thousands of years to even 60,000 eons or Ages. Only nirvana or the unchanging or changeless offers no further death.
THUS IF YOU ARE HEEDLESS, YOU DO NOT DENY YOURSELF AS JESUS COMMANDS YOU BUT YOU ARE TOTALLY ABSORBED IN THE PURSUITS OF THIS WORLD, YOU ACCEPT AGING, SICKNESS AND DEATH THAT ARE CELESTIAL MESSENGERS DESIGNED OR CREATED INTO THIS WORLD OF EXISTING THAT ALL IS NOT WELL AS BLAMELESS PART AND PARCEL OF EXISTING AND THUS NOT HEEDING THESE CELESTIAL MESSENGERS YOU UNDERTAKE ALL SORTS OF SINS AND END IN HELL AND GET PUNISHED SEVERELY.
IF YOU ARE HEEDFUL, YOU BECOME AWARE OF AGING, DISEASE AND DEATH AND REALIZE THAT EXISTENCE IN THIS WORLD IS UNSATISFACTORY, EVEN TOTALLY BLAMEWORTHY, BECOME DISENCHANTED AND DO NOT PARTAKE IN THE SINS OF THIS WORLD AND DO NOT END UP IN HELL.
Not Well, I Will Have To Think About It:
Well and fine are interchangeable hence when people say, “Well, I will have to think about it or well, tell me how you arrive at the conclusion” they are saying everything is well or fine.
But when they say well or fine they mean the opposite, the 'well' denotes hesitation or reservations apart from being unnecessary because if all is well or fine why not just say, “I will have to think about it”?
Thus the well and fine are meaningless or they are false, they denote the opposite, what the person wants to say is it is not fine or well, he will have to think about it.
Therefore here as in many places people without thinking think they mean what they say when they mean the opposite of what they said or what they say is false. They did not invent this method of speaking but they copied it from others and they are therefore also robots who always rehash what they say from their mental jukeboxes that they copied from others without questioning or examining the logic for correctness.
Why Ordinary People Are Hypocrites:
If you never say or do what you mean or mean what you say or do, you are a hypocrite.
Although people may not like it or they are resentful, which is nothing more than the stirring in speed and strength of their forces of going against self out of control of their forces of self preservation on reading it that has nothing to do with reason or truth, it may be or is the truth that it is NOT SELDOM but they NEVER say or do what they mean and NEVER mean what they say or do, even supposedly good ones. Why is that?
They are hypocrites in general and in specific.
They are hypocrites in general because whatever they say or do has a characteristic consistent style that must mean they are rehashing what is stale and non specific to meet the specific requirement of a situation and if you are rehashing what you say or do, you cannot be genuine anymore than a robot can be genuine but it does and say what it has been programmed.
They cannot mean their style which is meaningless because it is merely the use of force to prolong, change speed, direction and strength of force that is only for show.
Because they mean to impress, please, intimidate or dominate with their accompanying style, if they do or say what they mean they must state each time they speak or do something that they mean to impress, please, dominate or intimidate. Because they never say that, they even deny to themselves and others, they say they are merely expressing their individuality or they ‘like it that way’ they do not say or do what they mean.
Further the accompanying unnecessary use force to prolong, change speed and loudness that is intended to impress stresses, make restless and distracts, so in order to say what they mean, they must state to you that they mean to stress, make restless and distracted you. Because they are not even aware they do so let alone admit or state so, they cannot say what mean to say or do.
How are all ordinary people hypocrites in specific?
They tell lies in particular instances.
They are sarcastic often without realizing they are sarcastic. When you are sarcastic you say the opposite of what you mean. For instance you say he is a genius when you mean he is an idiot.
They often joke and try to give things a spin to make it humorous or casual. A joke is never the truth and the truth is never a joke and so those people who like to tell and appreciate jokes, who like to give everything a spin to make it funny cannot be saying what they mean or meaning what they say except in their delusion they can and do.
To tell a lie or speak falsely is itself a sin, to think it is funny, it is a joke that is good for yourself and others is even worse, compounding your sin.
I am not being deprecatory or in danger of falsity in saying that ordinary people who all have styles that can be objectively demonstrate in whatever they say or do, NEVER not often do not mean what they say or do or say or do what they mean.
I am a noble person by the Buddha’s criteria:
Because I have abandoned sensual desire, ill will, sleepiness and laziness, restlessness, anxiety and uncertainty, I am endowed with virtue (not killing even insects, telling lies, stealing, taking intoxicants), concentration, discernment, knowledge and vision of release beyond training I am a noble person according to the criteria of the Buddha.
"When someone has gone forth into homelessness -- no matter from what clan -- and he has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five, what is given to him bears great fruit.
"He has abandoned sensual desire, ill will, torpor & lethargy, restlessness & anxiety, uncertainty. These are the five factors he has abandoned. He is endowed with the aggregate of virtue, concentration, discernment, release, knowledge & vision of release of one beyond training. These are the five factors with which he is endowed.
Another generalization that is not necessarily true:
Friends who were present said that the anguish of Kate on announcing the disappearance of her daughter was so dramatic it could not possibly be faked. Even professional actors on screen could not fake it with such realism it was said.
This may not necessarily be true and here again there is an unconscious generalization in which there may be specifics of the situation that renders it false or inapplicable.
In a film even though the actors are professionals at faking, the child dying is not really dying and not really the daughter whereas in this case, even if Madeleine was not really kidnapped, she is dead and the anguish may be genuine because her daughter is dead.
Similarly many said the distress of the girl in the mysterious disappearance in the outback of Falconio is so real it cannot be faked when it may be real but not because of the ordeal but because she spent the night in pitch darkness alone fearing creatures like snakes that may lurking and she may be anxious that she may be found out as faking the disappearance.
Even my senile mother was a far more accomplished actress than I realized. I noticed vitamin capsules stuffed in crevices around the house and so one day I confronted her by asking her to open her mouth after she had taken her capsule. She was quite delighted to show her empty mouth but then I asked her to raise her tongue and there it was hidden under her tongue. Even I cannot do that. She was faking she took the capsule with some water and after I left she took it out and threw it away because she believed old people should not take supplements.
Again she deceived me when I gave her a sleeping tablet because she was disturbing the peace ranting to herself at night. She feigned putting the tablet and swallowing with a gulp of water but then I notice her hand reaching for a towel as if to wipe but she slipped it under it. Suspecting, I lifted the towel and sure enough the pill was there. What happened was she held the pill between the crevice between her fingers and went through the motion as if putting it in her mouth and swallowing it that even I cannot do if I wanted and secretly slipped it under the towel that she disguised by faking she was wiping her fingers.
Inciting others to become falsely perceiving:
It may be that the McCanns are innocent, they were not being framed by the police but the police are incompetent and have wrongly suspected them in their child’s disappearance but by speaking with forceful conviction a scenario whose realism become increasingly real in his mind when he is only speculating not necessarily without selfish motive (because if what he postulates is true, he is innocent), he does not realize he is setting himself well on the path to future mad perception.
He cannot be certain that there was a kidnapper let alone the kidnapper was hiding behind the door as he opened to inspect the kids but by speaking with such forceful conviction as if it must be, he is conditioning himself to be certain what he cannot certain and that is courting with future mad perception.
The wise person never say the intruder MUST be behind the door, he says there may have been a intruder behind the door and he does not frequently revisit this speculation that will reinforce it as real when he cannot be certain it was what actually happened.
Not only is he flirting with future mad perception by saying he believed the intruder was hiding behind the door, he is inciting and promoting others to similarly flirt with future mad perception by believing there is an intruder behind the door when there may not have been and he thus has debts.

McCanns: How Madeleine was taken
Gerry McCann is certain the kidnapper of daughter Madeleine was hiding only feet away as he checked on his children in their holiday bedroom.
The heart specialist believes the predator may have entered the family villa through patio doors more than an hour before the alarm was raised, leaving the bedroom door ajar.
When Gerry called in, the abductor lay low in either the bathroom or the McCanns' bedroom.
He then escaped with four-year-old Madeleine through a window.


A close family source said: "Gerry is firmly of the view (you use force not reason to be firm and you are forcefully believing what may not be true is true and that is dangerous flirting with false perception) that the abductor was already hiding in the apartment when he went to check on Madeleine.

What happens when people learn new things:
People in this world change as they age and they ‘learn’ (actually copy) new things eg a person who has not played golf learns to play and become increasingly skilful at playing golf. People go to medical school to learn and train to become doctors in their own individual ways that have similarities and differences with their colleagues.
So what happens when people learn new things they have never learnt before?
Whenever ordinary people learn to say or do new things, they less frequently understand why they should say or do the things in a particular way or sequence, they never learn to do or say the new thing live with understanding why it should be so but they usually if not always observe others doing or saying it, get the hang of it or parrot like mirror image copy it into their mental hard disks, keep practicing saying or doing it until it becomes second nature and what new thing they say or do is rehashed from a copy that they keep refining in their mental hard disks. Hence they are robots who perceive the new things they want to say or do from others, keep encoding and perfecting the encoding it into their mental hard disks to reproduce by rote from their hard disk in a way they hope will impress and please others.
What they never do is understand the basis of why they do certain things eg why they put their left hand above the right on the grip because the right hand is controlling or guiding and the left is the drive for the power of the golf swing. They never understand why they should keep their feet apart at the right distance and how weight must be transferred to their left foot which is the anchor or fulcrum around which the swing is centred which is why the ball is placed ahead of the left foot because that is the spot of focussed maximal impact of the head of the club in its swing.
They never swing a golf club live specific for the occasion but they memorize how to swing in general and when they prepare themselves to hit the ball, they are dispelling potential distractions, conjuring up memory of how to hit the ball and then press the start button to automatically execute the swing that is a rehash of a recording in their mental hard disk.
The person who is not a robot, although he exists is never seen in this world, examines and understands the mechanics of a golf swing, understands why he should and should not do certain things to hit a golf ball with his club and when he executes the shot, it is not a facsimile of a recording in his mind but freshly synthesized for that particular shot based on an understanding of why he should place his hands on the grip in a particular sequence, why the ball should be in front of his left foot, why his feet should be apart, why he should balance his body with the weight leaning on his left side of his body namely left shoulder and left foot.
In the past when I hit golf balls in a robotic fashion, I did not quite understand why I was doing certain things so it was hit and miss, sometimes on some days the swing seems to click and you hit the ball very well and on other days everything seems not quite right. Nowadays, although I have abandoned golf, when I pick up a club alone by myself, I understand why I grip in a certain way, why I shift my body weight to the left side (left shoulder, hip and leg), why I keep the left arm straight and how the right hand is the guide not the drive for the swing and why the ball should be more towards the left foot. Thus understanding there is harmony in my swing and it feels right or smooth. However I have no interest in golf anymore and this is merely a point of passing interest. I do not suffer from stress and restlessness anymore so that I need to let off steam hitting balls nor do I need to impress anyone with my golfing prowess or elegance.
If you are not a robot, you remember what you learnt eg about hitting a golf ball and understand why you stand and hit it in a particular way and you may access that memory to guide you to make a shot but there is no copy of how to hit the ball in your mental jukebox that you activate to execute the shot. If you are a robot, you have recorded a copy of how to hit the ball and when you want to do so, you search, find and press the play button and your mental jukebox will automatically execute rigidly without modifications possible except if you rerecord or reprogram it.
IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DO CERTAIN THINGS IN A CERTAIN WAY YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH IT WITH GREATER EVEN UNERRING CONSISTENCY. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING, YOU ARE MERELY DOING WHAT YOU ARE TOLD OR APING OTHERS THEN IT BECOMES HIT AND MISS, ON SOME DAYS EVERYTHING CLICKS AND YOU HIT THE BALL ‘SWEETLY’ ON OTHER DAYS YOU JUST CANNOT DO SO BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.
Heading For Certain Madness:
Why is it that the person who asked me, “Why are you so rude?” is headed for certain madness, even if it is true I am so rude? If I am not rude but she did not like me because I did not say or do things that pleased and impressed her, she has slandered me by complaining to others about me and that is additional grave karma.
(If they can hate Jesus without reason, what makes you think they cannot also hate me for no reason and thus wrongfully accuse me of being rude for no reason or just because my behaviour does not conform to theirs or is not to their liking or they can perceive I am not suffering whilst they are suffering and resentful or jealous?)
Whenever a person asks another, “Why are you so rude?” and she means what she is asking, she is asking him to give her the reasons for his rudeness.
It is impossible that she meant to ask me to give her the reasons why I am so rude but what she probably if not certainly meant was, “I cannot understand why you are so rude”.
If you perceive that “why are so rude” is the same as “I cannot understand why you are so rude” then you have advanced false perception and logic that will end in uncontrollable or mad false perception and logic.

Therefore she could not have meant what she said and she did not say what she meant. If you do so, you are flirting with future madness when you uncontrollably always say what you don't mean and don't mean what you always say.

Even if she said she cannot understand why I am so rude, it is totally out of context because we were not engaged in a discussion about my rudeness but what went before was a routine impersonal service provider client transaction.
It would not be inappropriate or out of context but merely a change of topic on her part if she were to say that she finds me so rude but it is inappropriate and out of context to suddenly say, 'why are you so rude' because we were not engaged in a conversation in which I have acknowledged my rudeness so that it would be appropriate or understandable for her to ask me (in that context) why are you so rude or she cannot understand why I am so rude.
What is there to understand or not understand why I am so rude? If you truly believe you cannot understand why I am so rude you must be lying or mad because it is not difficult but quite plain why people should be rude. She need not tell me that but if she will only trouble herself a little she should surely come up with some answers as to why I should be so rude. She is obviously not mad at least not yet and therefore the purpose in her telling me she cannot understand why I am so rude is to tick me off indirectly, it was a missile to carry a warhead and that warhead is that I am rude. Again if you think that 'you cannot understand why I am so rude' is the same as 'you are rude' you have advanced false perception that will end in mad perception.
IF YOU TRULY PERCEIVE THAT YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY I AM SO RUDE WHEN IT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU WILL ONLY TROUBLE YOURSELF TO THINK, THEN YOU ARE ENGAGING IN SELF DECEPTION THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.
IF YOU THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO TELL ME UNSOLICITED THAT YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY I AM SO RUDE WHEN IT IS UNNECESSARY OR THERE ARE ULTERIOR MOTIVE OTHER THAN WHAT IS PLAIN, THEN YOU ARE ENGAGED IN WHAT IS UNNECESSARY OR MEANINGLESS THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.

WHY DOES SHE WANT TO CONFIDE IN ME UNSOLICITED, OUT OF CONTEXT THAT SHE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY I AM SO RUDE? DOES SHE THINK I WILL BE ABLE TO HELP HER UNDERSTAND WHY I AM SO RUDE OR IS THERE A MOTIVE THAT BELIES THE MEANING OF WHAT IS SAID? SURELY SHE MUST HAVE A MOTIVE FOR SAYING I OTHERWISE SHE IS MAD. BECAUSE SHE IS NOT MAD (YET) HER MOTIVE MUST BE THAT SHE IS MERELY USING THE STATEMENT AS A MISSILE TO CONVEY A WARHEAD THAT IS TO TICK ME OFF OR SCOLD ME IN AN INDIRECT WAY SUCH THAT IF CONFRONTED SHE CAN DENY SHE WAS ATTACKING ME, SHE CAN ARGUE THAT SH IS MERELY ASKING ME A QUESTION 'WHY ARE YOU SO RUDE', IT IS I WHO IS OVERSENSITIVE IN PERCEIVING HER INNOCUOUS QUESTION IS NASTY.
THIS IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND SARCASM, TELLING OTHERS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU MEAN, EG YOU ARE SO SMART WHEN YOU MEAN YOU ARE A BIGHEAD SO THAT IF THE PERSON TAKES ISSUE YOU CAN ALWAYS DENY AND SAY HE IS SEEING SLIGHTS WHERE THERE ARE NONE (ADDING INSULT TO INJURY).
WHEN SHE ASKED ME, 'WHY ARE YOU SO RUDE?' SHE CANNOT MEAN TO ASK ME TO GIVE HER THE REASONS WHY I AM SO RUDE BUT SHE PROBABLY IF NOT CERTAINLY MEANT SHE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY I AM SO RUDE AND APART FROM BEING OUT OF CONTEXT WITH THE CONVERSATION RATHER THAN A CHANGE IN TOPIC OF CONVERSATION, WHY SHOULD SHE TELL ME SHE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY I AM SO RUDE? IF SHE TRULY BELIEVES IT IS BEYOND HER COMPREHENSION WHY I SHOULD BE RUDE SHE IS MAD BECAUSE IF SHE WILL ONLY GIVE THE MATTER A LITTLE THOUGHT SHE WILL HAVE A GOOD IDEA WHY I SHOULD BE SO RUDE WITHOUT TROUBLING TO ASK ME THE QUESTION. THUS HER MOTIVE IN ASKING ME, WHY ARE SO RUDE' IS TICK ME OFF IN AN INDIRECT WAY, 'YOU ARE SO RUDE' WITHOUT ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY THAT SHE CAN DENY AND EVEN ARGUE THAT I AM SEEING SLIGHTS WHERE THERE ARE NONE.
Thus the fool may be thrilled or delighted and congratulate herself how fine she has developed the art of killing others softly or strangling others with a hand in a velvet lined glove so that she may deny responsibility if confronted, but she is engaged in immaculate self and other deceit that she does not realize will end in her ultimate mad perception that shit is food and food is shit.
Thus, even if I am truly rude as she accuses me, by her deceitfulness she is doomed to insanity. In the same way, even if the McCanns are innocent, by their conduct in looking after their kids and their emotional attacking the police they are doomed to grave suffering themselves.
A Loving Feeling Is Very Rare Experience:
As simple as experiencing pleasantness in the company of another is, it may be a very rare experience in this world.
Often tension and not loving kindness that may or may not be apparent to the people involved characterises or describes the coming together of two person, even lovers.
What people mistake as loving kindness sometimes is the thrill or excitement or stirring in speed and strength of their mental force in a way to be attracted to the other person as their loving kindness.
If people are not experiencing tension just by the presence of another or they are turned off or disgusted by the presence of another, they are experiencing thrill or excitement or lust or attraction for the other person and this is not passive tireless, blissful loving kindness but its fake, emotional attraction.
AS SIMPLE AS LOVE AS A PLEASANT FEELING IS, IT MAY BE VANISHINGLY RARE IN THIS WORLD.
DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE PRECIOUSNESS OF LOVE BEING JUST A PASSIVE PLEASANT FEELING BECAUSE IT MAY BE VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN BY PEOPLE UNDER THE RULE OF FORCE OR LIKE OR DISLIKE OR EMOTIONS IN THIS WORLD.
Kate McCann as hot lips:
Friends of the McCanns have painted Kate as a perfect parent and how the husband is very involved but the story below belies the image that they have never admitted.
Kate McCann 'renowned for alcoholic binges' at university
Last updated at 11:00am on 23rd September 2007
Kate McCann was nicknamed 'Hot Lips Healy' during her carefree student days at Dundee University.
Kate Healy, as she was then, was 'renowned for alcoholic binges and dance till you drop nocturnal activities', according to her year book of 1992.
However friends say Kate, was one of the most popular students in the medical department and have spoke of their shock at the allegations made by the Portuguese police.
One former classmate, now a doctor, said: "Kate was great fun, always up for a laugh and a party (this is not a virtue but addictive conditioning sin). She was certainly more interested in going to the pub than she was in her studies. Although she seemed to pass her exams with ease."

Her light-hearted attitude to her studies is illustrated, friends say, by the yearbook entry written by her colleagues at Dundee.
It reads: "Kate 'Scouser' Healy-chops 'ferried' over from Merseyside five years ago and rapidly became the most prominent member of the H.G. Girlies.
"Renowned for frequently indulging in alcoholic binges and 'dance till you drop' nocturnal activities, she immediately led the rest of her fellow colleagues astray.
"Hot Lips Healy maintained a consistent Friday night appearance in the Union throughout the whole of first year."
Love, discernment and wisdom:
Love is simply the absence of unnecessary intimidatory force changes in a person’s fabrications namely his perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing that is reflected in his appearance, postures, speech and motion that automatically generates a passive feeling of pleasantness in himself and all those who come into contact with him. Just because all those who come into contact with him experiences a pleasant feeling does not mean they must all love or like it but there are many who hate the pleasant feeling of love and hate the sight of the person even though his appearance generates a pleasant feeling in them. Just because a person’s appearance and behaviour generates a pleasant feeling of love in you does not mean you must unnecessarily trouble yourself and him to like him and if you do so you are harming yourself and the liked person by stirring force in your mind and transmitting force to him.
Discernment is merely superior perceiving (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching) to perceive things clearly as they are, not as you (emotionally or forcefully) like or dislike them to be. Thus if you have discernment, you will see clearly as it is that there are constant stretching of syllables, constant changes in speed and loudness in the speech of everyone here, even the vocalizations of animals.
Wisdom is merely superior reasoning or logic (one of the only four forms of fabricating that includes perceiving, speaking and doing) that enables one to arrive at the right conclusions about a situation and therefore say or do the right thing in that situation.
Discernment or the ability to see things clearly is crucial in providing the accurate raw data or perceptions upon which the mind can work on to get the right conclusion and therefore act wisely. It is impossible for a person with poor discernment to be very wise because his perceptions are poor so how can he get the crucial right data to formulate right conclusions.
Again loving kindness is crucial in the development of discernment or seeing things clearly as they are because only a mind free from the constant harassment of force and experiencing pleasantness can see clearly. But just because you are very loving kind does not necessary mean you must also be very discerning and wise. Just because you are very discerning does not mean you must be very wise, able to integrate what you discern well to get wise conclusions and act in speech and deed according to the wise conclusions.
YOU CANNOT BE VERY DISCERNING IF YOU ARE NOT VERY LOVING KIND, YOU CANNOT BE VERY WISE IF YOU ARE NOT VERY DISCERNING (SEE THINGS CLEARLY AS THEY ARE) BUT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE VERY LOVING KIND DOES NOT MEAN YOU MUST BE VERY DISCERNING AND JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE VERY DISCERNING DOES NOT MEAN YOU MUST BE VERY WISE. LOVING KINDNESS PRECEDES DISCERNMENT THAT IN TURN PRECEDES WISDOM.
Just because you are discerning, you can see stretching of syllables, changes of speed and loudness in your speech and that of everyone else does not mean you will be wise to make the conclusion that these are the only sources that can be eliminated to the stress, restlessness and distraction that beset all ordinary people.
Just because you are discerning, you can see stretching of syllables, changes of speed and loudness in your speech and that of everyone else does not mean you will be wise to make the conclusion that these ingredients are the only basis for the different styles of everyone here. What people call their styles in speech is little more than the way that differs from others but is consistent in them with which they always stretch their syllables, change speed and loudness.
Just because you are very wise does not mean you will and can effortlessly suspend thinking when it is not necessary. Wisdom is a necessary prerequisite to the stopping of all thinking even though conscious but suspension of thinking does not automatically follow wisdom.
Just because you can suspend thinking when conscious does not mean you can develop neither perceiving nor not perceiving although suspension of thinking is a prerequisite to neither perceive nor not perceive.
Just because you can neither perceive nor not perceive does not mean you will be perfectly equanimous and disenchanted but neither perceiving nor not perceiving is a crucial prerequisite to equanimity and disenchantment with existence.
It is not discernment but wisdom or good reasoning that enables a person to arrive at the conclusion that Kate McCann’s seemingly compelling hysterics when announcing Madeleine's disappearance is not necessarily because Madeleine is genuinely kidnapped but it may be because she is grieving for her devastating accidental death and the reason why professional actors are less convincing on screen is because they are grieving for tragedy that did not occur, the child whose loss they grieve are not the actor’s child and it is not truly lost.
THUS THERE MAY BE A HIERARCHY OF LOFTY QUALITIES OF A BEING WITH LOVING KINDNESS AT THE BASE, ACCORDING A BEING ONE EON AS A FORMED BEING IN HEAVEN AND NEITHER PERCEIVING NOR NOT PERCEIVING ACCORDING EVEN 60,000 EONS IN FORMLESS BLISS AS A BRAHMA. HOW HIGH YOU PENETRATE UP THE HEAVENLY REALMS DEPENDS ON HOW HIGH YOU DEVELOP THE DESIRABLE QUALITIES OF DISCERNMENT, WISDOM, SUSPENSION OF THINKING, NEITHER PERCEIVING NOR NOT PERCEIVING.
The seven factors of awakening:
Whoever you are, whether Christian, Muslim or Buddhist, whether a lowly being here or in heaven, the truth may be that you are asleep and ignorant not in bliss but in relative or absolute suffering and in danger of future suffering far graver and extended that you can imagine.
The suffering of beings here may be compared to a tangled ball of threads wherein they can see no head or tail or a way out of their tormenting entanglement and in this case the only way out of the suffering is to search, however hard for the head or end of the thread at the surface that will enable you to unravel the tangled mass and escape woe.
In the same way, if you are suffering and in danger of grave future suffering there is only one way out and that is according to what the Buddha described, namely the seven factors of awakening that must occur in sequence of one factor leading to the next, never from the last leading to the first but the first leading to the second, third, etc.
According to the Buddha, all beings are trapped in existence, asleep and suffering either in an absolute sense (in the lower realms) or relative sense (in the higher realms) and the only recourse is to awaken oneself and there is only one way to awaken oneself.
Thus if you are suffering from stress, restlessness and distraction and you find them disagreeable, you must pay attention to the right things (arousing mindfulness as the first factor) namely how you speak and do things.
After you have become mindful about how you speak or do things, you must arouse analysis of qualities or examination of how you speak as the second factor of awakening to detect the presence of stretching, changes of speed and loudness that initially you can only detect poorly haphazardly only when it is blatant but increasingly through persistence as the third aroused factor of awakening, you can detect consistently even in subtle amounts.
Once you have persistently analysed by paying attention to how you speak, you will become aware of and be able to put to a stop significant proportions of the formerly mindless forceful stretching, changing speed and loudness to experience an appreciable release from suffering so that rapture or pleasant feeling that is not of the flesh of the mind and body as the fourth factor of awakening is aroused.
Once the being has experienced rapture or pleasantness that is not of the flesh for a sustained period, his mind and body becomes calm or less restless and serenity as the fifth factor of awakening is aroused.
Just as the turbid suspension of muddy water settles if it is allowed to stand or remain still, in the same way, turbidity of the mind settles and the mind becomes concentrated, concentration as the sixth factor is aroused.
It is in the nature of things that a mind that is concentrated, pure, becomes equanimous, neither likes nor dislikes and equanimity as the seventh and final factor of awakening is aroused.
Thus without developing in sequence mindfulness, examination of things, persistence, rapture, serenity and concentration you cannot develop true equanimity and you are a fool if you try to force yourself to neither like nor dislike because this state automatically arises at the end of the development of the seven factors of awakening.
THEREFORE WHOEVER YOU ARE, UNLESS YOU ENJOY SUFFERING STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, YOU MUST PAY PERSISTENT ATTENTION TO EXAMINE FOR AND MAKE SUSTAINED EFFORT TO ERADICATE THE MINDLESS AUTOMATED STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR STYLE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A STYLISH PERSON WHO STRETCHES SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS NOT TO SUFFER FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT ALSO CONDITIONS AND DESTROYS HIS MIND AND HE IS HEADED FOR THE CLIFF NOT HEAVEN.
The Buddha:
"[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress, on that occasion his mindfulness is steady & without lapse, then mindfulness as a factor of awakening becomes aroused. He develops it and goes to the culmination of its development.
"[2] Remaining mindful, he examines & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains mindful in this way, examining, & coming to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a factor of awakening becomes aroused.
"[3] In one who examines, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, unflagging persistence is aroused. When unflagging persistence is aroused in one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then persistence as a factor of awakening becomes aroused.
"[4] In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor of awakening becomes aroused.
"[5] For one who is enraptured, the body grows calm and the mind grows calm. When the body & mind of an enraptured monk grow calm, then serenity as a factor of awakening becomes aroused.
"[6] For one who is at ease -- his body calmed -- the mind becomes concentrated. When the mind of one who is at ease -- his body calmed -- becomes concentrated, then concentration as a factor of awakening becomes aroused.
"[7] He oversees the mind thus concentrated with equanimity. When he oversees the mind thus concentrated with equanimity, equanimity as a factor of awakening becomes aroused.
Like and dislike likened to a golf swing:
Golfers who have lost their right arms can develop quite a competent golf swing by just using their left arm but the swing is usually less controlled or consistent and less powerful because as the golfer tries to drive harder, the absence of control by a right hand makes it very erratic.
In one who is right handed swinging correctly the left arm provides the power for the swing whilst the right arm and hand provides the control of that swing and when the swing of the left arm is under the proper control of the right arm the golfer experiences a liked or attractive swing.
The power of the swing provided by the left hand can be compared to the force of going against self that powers all fabrications in the minds of beings whilst the forceful control provided by the right hand can be compared to the control provided by the force of self preservation in the person’s mind.
IF A GOLF SWING POWERED BY THE LEFT HAND (FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF) IS WELL CONTROLLED BY THE RIGHT HAND (FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION) IT IS EXPERIENCED AS LIKE IN THAT GOLFER.
IF A GOLF SWING POWERED BY THE LEFT HAND (FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF) IS POORLY CONTROLLED OR OUT OF CONTROL BY THE RIGHT HAND (FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION) IT IS EXPERIENCED AS DISLIKE IN THAT GOLFER.
WHENEVER A PERSON’S FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF STIRS IN SPEED AND STRENGTH WELL UNDER THE CONTROL OF HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION ON UNDERTAKING SOMETHING EG ON SEEING A PERSON OR WRITING AN ESSAY, THE PERSON EXPERIENCES LIKING FOR WHAT IS DOING OR THE OBJECT HE IS SEEING.
WHENEVER A PERSON’S FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF STIRS IN SPEED AND STRENGTH POORLY OR OUT OF TCONTROL OF HIS FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION ON UNDERTAKING SOMETHING EG ON SEEING A PERSON OR SWEEPING THE FLOOR, THE PERSON EXPERIENCES DISLIKE FOR WHAT IS DOING OR THE OBJECT HE IS SEEING.
I saw Madeleine in Morocco:
Quote witness: I saw Madeleine in Morocco.
Comment: This statement is careless and fraught with karma apart from being the path to future mad perception.
Unless the person has asked the girl are you Madeleine and she has confirmed she is or there is documentation that she is, then you can only say that you saw a girl that looked like Madeleine in Morocco.
By saying so, you are presumptuous and may mislead those gullible to think so apart from conditioning yourself to perceive what may not be true is true.
Nanny says Kate screamed they have taken her:
Reports say nanny contradicted Kate by saying she did yell they have taken her that may indicate either she is presumptuous or she is unwittingly exposing her complicity by being too eager to want others to believe in a kidnapping.
She believed Kate’s grief is genuine but she too may be fooled that just because it is genuine she is innocent because there may be a genuine basis for her anguish if Kate knew Madeleine was dead, forever gone.
Apparently the prosecutor has told police that unless they find the body, there will be no prosecution, so just because they are not prosecuted does not mean they are innocent.
Kate McCann DID scream 'They've taken her' claims new nanny witness
By DAN NEWLING - Last updated at 00:31am on 25th September 2007
The first eyewitness account of the frantic moments after Madeleine McCann disappeared can be revealed today.
Nanny Charlotte Pennington confirms that Kate McCann did scream: "They've taken her, they've taken her!"
The mother's precise words have become a pivotal issue in the case, with Portuguese police questioning why she would automatically assume Maddie had been abducted.
Mrs McCann's family have countered this by insisting they recall her shouting: "Madeleine's gone."
Kate McCann: 'She was a 'broken woman' in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance
Miss Pennington, however, one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.
The 20-year-old Briton, who tended children for the Mark Warner holiday complex in Praia da Luz, firmly believes the McCanns are innocent.
Speaking publicly for the first time yesterday, she described Mrs McCann in the aftermath as "a broken woman" who was shuddering and unable to move.
"We are trained to comfort people in this type of situation but she was just inconsolable," she said.
Miss Pennington is considered a vital witness by Portuguese detectives with whom she spent more than four-and-a-half hours giving a statement
First do no harm:
If you agree that love is about benefiting the other person and making him or her happy then before you talk about loving or making the other person happy you must do the other person no harm and that is impossible if your appearance, postures, speech and motion transmit unnecessary forceful prolonging, changes in speed, direction and strength of force that creates harmful stress, restlessness and distraction in the one you love.
Therefore whatever else love may contain, it must include behaviour that does not harm by causing stress, restlessness and distraction and that mandates you do not use force to prolong, change speed, direction and strength of force in order to project your style that is for show to impress, please, intimidate or dominate.
Whatever else the love experience may be, it must include the passive or force free feeling of pleasantness that comes from contact with a loving person whose appearance, postures, speech and motion does not stir one's mental force, does not causes one stress, restlessness and distraction.
Anyone who says that love defies definition, is indefinable, is mistaking emotion or passion for love and has wrong view that leads not to heaven but hell or the animal womb because whatever is true, can happen is knowable and can be defined such and such is love.
On the other hand if you believe it is possible to both love the other person and impart harmful stress, restlessness and distraction on him then you may be right or you may be entertaining something absurd or that makes no sense that you can nevertheless love the person whilst you are killing him off with stress, restlessness and distraction.
YOU WANT TO TALK BIG ABOUT LOVE BUT FIRST DO NO HARM TO THE OTHER PERSON BY NOT BOMBARDING HIM WITH UNNECESSARY FORCE CHANGES LIKE USING FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS WHICH KILLS HIM WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION MAKING YOUR BIG TALK ABOUT LOVE HYPOCRITICAL AND NONSENSE (MAKES NO SENSE). AFTER YOU HAVE ACHIEVED DOING HIM NO HARM YOU MAY THEN COME TO A REALIZATION THAT LOVE IS ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE, IT IS THE PLEASANT EVEN EXTREMELY PLEASANT PASSIVE FEELING FREE FROM ALL FORCE ENGENDERED BY THE PRESENCE OF THAT LOVED PERSON AND WHAT HE SAYS OR DOES TO YOU.
THE TRUTH MAY BE THAT LOVING KINDNESS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP OF THE LADDER OF WHOLESOMENESS THAT LEADS TO DISCERNMENT THENCE WISDOM THENCE CESSATION OF THOUGHTS THENCE NEITHER PERCEIVING NOR NOT PERCEIVING, CALMNESS, CONCENTRATION AND EQUANIMITY.
YOU THINK YOUR MIND IS QUITE CONCENTRATED BUT IT MAY BE LIKE A FLICKERING CANDLE COMPARED TO THE INCANDESCENT SUN THAT IS GOD’S MIND.
You cannot be whiter than white:
You cannot be whiter than white. If you believe it is possible to be whiter than white then you may be right or you are deluded believing there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that is never there.
Similarly you cannot love another person more than not stressing, making restless and distracting him and that can only happen if your appearance, poses, speech and motion does not transmit the unnecessary use of force to prolong, change speed, direction and strength of force. If you think there is more to love, it is indescribable, out of this world, etc then you may be right or deluded believing there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that is not there.
Eons may come, eons may go:
Eons (lasting billions of years) may come and eons may go but through it all nirvana which exists unchanged & unchanging, free from all suffering and it is possible for a being to unbind himself from the unsatisfactory, suffering even to tormenting intensities world of individual existence to return to the unchanging centre.
In the centre of every rotating disc or wheel there must be a paradoxically un-rotating centre because if the centre rotates it is no longer the centre but part of the rotating disc. Even if the disc is imperfect and wobbles, the centre moves in location with the disc but still never rotates. This infinitesimal or vanishing point that must be at the heart of every rotating disc may be compared with nirvana that the Buddha described that in the midst of ceaseless ultimately meaningless false changing there lies an unchanging changeless true heart.
PARADOXICALLY AT THE HEART OF EVERY EVEN FURIOUSLY ROTATING DISC, THERE MUST BE A HEART THAT DOES NOT ROTATE OTHERWISE IT WOULD NOT BE THE CENTRE BUT JUST A PART OF THAT ROTATING DISC, SIMILARLY WELL HIDDEN, AT THE HEART OF THE REALM OF ENDLESS CHANGE CALLED EXISTING THERE MUST BE AN UNCHANGING HEART CALLED NIBBANA.
Then, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is that sphere where there is neither earth nor water nor fire nor wind; neither sphere (realm) of the infinitude of space nor sphere of the infinitude of consciousness nor sphere of nothingness nor sphere of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world nor the next world nor sun nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming nor going nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support (mental object. This, just this is the end of stress.
Nibbana Sutta: Total Unbinding (3)
There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned.

Dvayatanupassana Sutta: The Noble One's Happiness
"See how the world together with the devas (angels) has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is(actually) quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration the truth, they are completely stilled and realize deliverance.
"Forms, sounds, tastes, scents, bodily contacts and ideas which are agreeable and charming, all these, while they last, are deemed to be happiness by the world. But when they cease that is agreed by all to be unsatisfactory. By the Noble Ones, the cessation of the existing body is seen as happiness.
"What others call happiness that the Noble Ones declare to be suffering. What others call suffering that the Noble Ones have found to be happiness. See how difficult it is to understand the Dhamma. For those under the veil (of ignorance) it is obscured, for those who cannot see it is utter darkness. But for the good and the wise it is as obvious as the light for those who can see. Even though close to it, the witless who do not know the Dhamma, do not comprehend it.
"By those overcome by attachment to existence, those who drift with the stream of existence this Dhamma is not properly understood. Who other than the Noble Ones are fit to fully understand that state, by perfect knowledge of which they realize final deliverance, free from defilements?
(Style or stretching syllables, changing speed & loudness, liking and disliking, smiling and laughter are called happiness by ordinary people, even those who call themselves good and wise but I call it suffering, stress, restless and distracting. To not have style, not like and dislike, not smile and laugh I call happiness. Hence by the Buddha’s definition, here as in many other places, I am a noble person and if you speak against or disagree with a noble one, you are headed for perdition according to the Buddha because you have wrong view and the destination for wrong view according to the Buddha is not heaven but hell or the animal womb)
IT IS NOT THE COMMISSIONING OF MIRACLES THAT QUALIFIES ONE AS A SAINT AS THE CHURCH TEACHES BUT I THINK JESUS SAID HE WAS AUTHORIZED BY HIS FATHER TO PERFORM MIRACLES NOT WITHOUT REASON BUT FOR A PURPOSE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS WORLD IS NOT SACROSANCT OR IMMUTABLE. WHAT QUALIFIES A PERSON AS A SAINT IS HIS BEING VIRTUOUS (NOT STEALING, KILLING, TELLING LIES, INDULGING IN INTOXICANTS AND ILLICIT SEX), DISCERNMENT AND WISDOM.
Who is the greatest in heaven?
Jesus did not say he who performs the most miracles is the greatest in heaven but he said he who would be greatest shall be the servant to the rest. Thus the church is misleading people to seek miracles as a sign of holyness.
The Buddha said there are three miracles, the miracle of pyschic powers, mind reading (clairvoyance) and teaching and of the three, the miracle of teaching is the highest.
What is the difference?

This smiling, seemingly affable man in all likelihood murdered his wife in New Zealand.
So what is the difference in his demeanour compared to the McCanns that makes him almost certainly his wife’s murderer and the McCanns impossible as ‘accidental’ murderers and cover-up liars?
For one who discerns the smiling face above is a mask or lie to impress others how wholesome and friendly he is not. If everything pleases him, he is your greatest friend but if things go wrong he is your greatest fiend not friend.
In the same way the McCanns may not have done it, but you have wrong view if you think they are honest people incapable of deceit.
Baby brings couple luck:
It was said in conjunction with a couple winning the prize of a car and some gold that the birth of a baby brought them luck.
As a result they are likely to perceive the child as lucky that is not without danger as they may make future bets based on what the baby thinks is good and thereby lose a lot of money, whilst they also encourage others to believe that things and children can bring luck or misfortune.
Did God or some reliable authority state your winning the prize is because the baby is lucky? If you have not proof that the child is indeed the source of the fortune, you are dicing with future mad perception to attribute your windfall to him.
Similarly if you perceive the birth of a child brought bad luck you may abuse and victimize her accruing karma whilst reinforcing false perception in you.
The person who lets his yes be yes only accepts his good fortune and accepts his new child and does not jump to the unwarranted conclusion that baby brings luck.
Even worse than me:
When you ask me ‘why are you so rude’, you are implying I am bad but assuming what you conclude is true that I am rude, you are no better because you are also bad to me.
BY ASKING ME ‘WHY ARE YOU SO RUDE’ YOU ARE NOT JUST DISHONEST IN GOING BY AN INDIRECT WAY TO SLAP ME TO SAY I AM RUDE BUT YOU ARE ASKING ME A DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANSWER. IF YOU THINK THAT IS A SIMPLE AND PERFECTLY POSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANSWER WITH FULL COMPOSURE, WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE ON THE RECEIVING END OF SUCH QUESTIONS. YOU EXPECT ME TO TAKE IT ON A CHIN AND SMILE AND ACT AS IF I APPRECIATE YOUR AS IF CONCERNED QUESTION WHY AM I SO RUDE OR JOVIALLY DISMISS IT AS MISTAKEN?
THEREFORE YOU ARE DELUDED IF YOU THINK YOU ARE BETTER THAN ME BECAUSE YOU ARE WORSE, WHEREAS I MAY HAVE BEEN NASTY TO YOU BY BEING RUDE, YOU ARE NOT JUST NASTY BY ACCUSING ME OF BEING RUDE BUT YOU ARE ALSO ASKING ME A DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION TO ANSWER AND YOU EVEN EXPECT ME TO MAINTAIN MY COMPOSURE. WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE ON THE RECEIVING END OF OTHER PEOPLE’S FOOD MIXED WITH SHIT AND SEE IF YOU CAN REACT WITH COMPOSURE AS YOU EXPECT ME TO BE GRATEFUL TO YOUR VEILED QUESTION.
All rotating discs must have a centre:
Everything that revolves no matter how crude that disc or revolving object is, must revolve around a centre that must not revolve even though it is part of that the disc because if the centre was to revolve it cannot be the true centre but there must be something within it that it revolves around that is then the true centre, not the centre that also revolves.
THEREFORE, JUST AS EVERY ROTATING DISC NO MATTER HOW CRUDE MUST HAVE A CENTRE THAT DOES NOT REVOLVE AMIDST ALL THE ROTATING AROUND IT, EVEN SO IN THIS WORLD OF CONSTANT CHANGE THERE MAY BE OR MUST BE A CENTRE THAT REMAINS UNMOVED, UNCHANGED THAT MAY BE WHAT THE BUDDHA IS DESCRIBING.
JUST AS THE ROTATING SPEED IS MAXIMAL AT THE EDGE AND PROGRESSIVELY SLOWS DOWN UNTIL IT STOPS WHEN THE CENTRE IS FINALLY REACHED, IN THE SAME WAY THE CHANGE IS THE MOST FRANTIC IN THE LOWER REALMS AND MORE SLOW AND ORDERLY TOWARDS THE HIGHER REALMS IN HEAVEN UNTIL IT FINALLY STOPS WITH NIBBANA.
Provoking me:
Although I may have been rude, I was not specifically rude nor did I challenge her nor camouflage my rudeness and pretend it was good for her.
By asking me a question, why I am so rude, you are always challenging me to give an answer, to either admit I am rude and therefore tacitly apologize or to refute or argue.
If the person just tells me I am rude, she is not necessarily challenging me to reply but just giving me a piece of her mind.
It cannot be possibly my rudeness pleased her but it upset her and therefore she is sick if she thinks her question can be driven by concern for me for my rudeness and the apparently sedate way she asked why I am so rude is driven by her goodwill, by a genuine desire to understand what motivates my rudeness.
There are many in this world who have learnt how to ask others questions they know are difficult or sensitive or personal not because they are concerned for you but to see you squirm or embarrassed like ‘why are you not married?’, ‘why you don’t have children’, ‘when are you going to marry?’, etc because they like to make and see others suffer.
When you are pulling the trigger you may not experience any pain apart from the rifle’s recoil and the explosion of the shot but it is the pig that will feel the full impact of the bullet and pay for it with its life. Wait until it is your turn to have the role reversed to become the pig and see if you will be so cavalier about pulling the trigger. You are upset that I unceremoniously told you to get out, wait until you are at the receiving end of others veiled concern for you.
You may say you behaved such because I provoked you by being rude. I certainly did not use foul language like ‘sob’ or four letter words, but by asking me why I am so rude, you have demonstrated objectively not just that you are no better than me but you are worse, you want to poison me and cause me unnecessary trouble as to compose a reply to your unnecessary question because surely if you will trouble yourself a little you can work out for yourself without asking me, why I am so rude.
FACED WITH THIS SITUATION MOST ORDINARY PEOPLE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CORRECTLY DISTRIBUTE BLAME AND THEY ARE LIKELY TO WRONGFULLY FEEL GUILTY AND SO YOU CAN SEE SUCH A PERSON IS WICKED, SOWING DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY, WRONG GUILT IN OTHERS. IT IS BECAUSE I CAN REASON CLEARLY THAT I KNOW THAT I AM NOT TO BLAME, SHE IS ENTIRELY BLAMEWORTHY AND WORSE THAN ME EVEN IF I WAS RUDE TO HER.
Very easy to ask, much harder to answer:
It is very easy to ask questions, even gently as if concerned or friendly, especially if you are the type who like to put others in an awkward position like ‘do you wear underwear or bras, do you take a bath every day, how much money do you make’, ‘do you sleep with your wife’ but wait until you become a target for others’ relentless facile questions accompanied by a smile as if they are your greatest and concerned benefactors and see if in that position you won’t get a heart attack.
Humiliate yourself or make my day:
Rather than being unkind to people, even I may actually sometimes underestimate how venomous the usually hidden intentions of some people are because by nature I am not proud and therefore may fail to fully understand why people who may be proud have an even irrational urge to shame others. Also I do not go around looking for a fight and therefore do not realize there are people including women who actually actively either consciously or unconsciously go around looking for verbal or physical fights.
Thus it is only now that it has dawned on me what may have been the true motivations for this woman to ask me out of the blue, “Why are you so rude?”
She may have been irked or disliked the way I treated her that is basically the usual way I treat other patients but it did not meet her expectations and just as the character played by Clint Eastwood might coolly say to the thug who is tempted to draw his gun, 'make her day', she is challenging me to by foolishly getting sucked in to argue with her because she may have a sharp tongue honed from much previous verbal combats and sizing me up as easy meat, she thinks she can cut me down to size verbally or give me a dressing down and get the cheap thrill of verbally conquest.
Few if any people will admit they are rude and then give the reasons why they are rude in this situation and what is to be expected is that they will get angry and deny they are rude or ask in what ways they have been rude that will give her the excuse to launch into a dressing down discourse of the many ways I have been rude to give her the perverse pleasure of shaming me.
Outwardly her intention appears to be politely to request for me to admit I am rude and then trouble myself to give her the reasons why I am rude thereby humiliating myself because being a proud person herself she presumptuously thinks that everyone who is forced to confess to being rude must be shamed and that is pleasure to her but this unlikely to be her real intention because surely she knows what she is proposing is a pill too bitter for others to swallow and the usual recourse for the other person is to engage her in a argument and that may be what she is relishing because she is confident in her skills at verbal combat just as Mike Tyson is confident he can beat most if not all people to a pulp if they were foolish enough to challenge him to a brawl.
What I did in reply was not what she would usually expect because I told her curtly to 'get out' instead of being drawn to defend myself and thus in a huff and being a very proud person she had to retaliate by first with holding payment for my services and then still simmering with vengefulness she lodged a complaint through her company not immediately but some months later that may reflect hesitation like a tug of war between an urge for revenge and the absurdity of making a mountain out of a molehill.
A person who is not looking for a fight would just bear whatever rudeness and make a quick exit never to return or if she is in such a huff, she may angrily say as a parting note, “I find you very rude!” and therefore by asking me “Why I am so rude” she is expecting an answer and that can only mean hoping for and relishing an argument in which she can point out to me the many ways I am rude and therefore give her satisfaction for humiliating me.
People everywhere are being rude be it driving or in business transactions or even with their loved ones (eg son to mother) and unless you are looking for a fight you don't go around telling them they are rude or asking them for explanations for their rudeness because you must be very stupid if you cannot work the reasons why people might be rude and it serves little useful purpose because they are not going to alter their behaviour just because you tell them they are rude or they tell you why they are rude. Instead you tell others they are rude if you want to scold them, you want to make them angry or shamed and to vent your anger at their not behaving according to your taste. And when you are asking them to tell you why they are rude, unless you are a great fool, you must realize you are issuing a challenge to them to defend themselves. If she thinks I am street fighter, I have a sharp tongue, she would think twice before provoking me thus and it is because she thinks I am easy meat, someone she can verbally beat to a pulp that she elected to challenge me to defend my conduct.
UNLESS YOU ARE VERY STUPID, THE REASON YOU ASK SOMEONE WHY HE IS SO RUDE IS TO EXTRACT AN ANSWER AND THAT MEANS POTENTIALLY IF NOT CERTAINLY VERBAL COMBAT AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU, IF YOU HAVE A SHARP TONGUE, TO DRESS HIM DOWN COMPLETELY ON THE MANY WAYS YOU THINK HE IS RUDE.
It is relatively easy or much easier for her to maintain her cool because she is the person who is attacking who only need to compose and issue the questions and then point out shameful rude things the other person is alleged to have done but it is much harder for the other person to remain calm because he is under fire and should he lose his cool in the midst of argument to become really rude (as is likely), then he would not only have been made to suffer by getting thus angry but his rudeness under fire would have vindicated her.
It is a generalization or unconscious mental rule that has some truth women have sharper tongues, talk more and engage in gossip and backbiting more. What people with sharp tongues that like to use to attack others that it is now largely involuntary, driven by an urge that they find hard to resist not realize it is possible for their tongues to be cut or for them to contract a fungating cancer of the tongue wherein they have a foul putrid mass that prevents them from closing their mouth, talk and swallow not just for one day but even years as they slowly starve to death as a social pariah.
IT IS ONLY NOW THAT IT HAS DAWNED ON ME WHAT MIGHT HAVE TRANSPIRED ON THAT DAY. SHE MAY BE A VERBAL STREETFIGHTER LOOKING FOR A VERBAL FIGHT. SHE DID NOT LIKE THE WAY AND WHAT I SAID TO HER THAT IS THE USUAL WAY I CONDUCT MYSELF AND SHE WAS LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO GET ME TO ENGAGE HER IN AN ARGUMENT IN WHICH SHE WAS CONFIDENT SHE WOULD WIN AND GIVE HER THE THRILL OF CONQUEST BY SHAMING ME WITH A LIST OF ALL THE WAYS WHY SHE THINKS I AM RUDE. HER PURPOSE IN ASKING ME THAT QUESTION IS NOT FOR ME TO CONTRITELY GIVE HER THE REASONS WHY I AM RUDE BUT SO THAT I WOULD BE SUCKED IN AS IS THE USUAL COURSE EVENT LIKE SOMEONE WOULD ASK, 'WHY DO YOU THINK I AM RUDE' AND THEN SHE CAN OPEN FIRE TO SCOLD ME BY GIVING ME HER LIST OF GRIEVANCES.
Her conduct is truly wicked because not only has she created unnecessary emotional suffering for herself and others by thus complaining instead of just accepting the alleged rudeness of others as a fact of life, she is trying to sow the seed of doubt and guilt in me that perhaps I was indeed rude to her. As I have said, the way I treated her is the usual way I treat others and I certainly did not use four letter words, utter obscenities or made lewd jokes to her so she may asking for too much in thinking I am rude to her. Perhaps she expects I should show eagerness or delight or dramatic concern in the way I talk to her. A lesser person whose memory of the episode is vague would be shaken to entertain doubt that perhaps she has a point, maybe I was rude. Thus she would have unfairly sown emotional doubt and guilt that is not only suffering but addictive and that person may never exit that emotional doubt and uncertainty and guilt that she has un-righteously sown and that is wicked and karma accruing.
I CANNOT BE RUDE:
A person’s way of speaking can only be harsh and therefore rude if it contains constant forceful stretching, changes of speed and loudness and because I do not do so, you have advanced false perception if you think the way I speak can be rude.
What a person say can only be rude if it is insulting, sarcastic, contains foul words, off colour or lewd jokes and because I do not indulge in such practices you must be very hard to please if you consider what I say rude.
Just because I did not oblige you with a discourse of why you should be experiencing giddiness which you may not understand even if I tried does not mean I am rude or do not care. If your giddiness though distressing is not life threatening and the correct explanation will not make any difference, I have no obligation to waste my energy trying to explain to you and I am not rude or not caring for not doing so but instead you expect too much of others.
IT IS A DELUSION IF MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY DO NOT WANT TO HURT OTHERS, WHATEVER HURT THEY DO TO OTHERS IS UNINTENTIONAL BECAUSE OFTEN THEY INTENTIONALLY WANT TO HURT OTHERS, ENJOY SEEING OTHERS SUFFER AND OFTEN THEY ARE MISGUIDED, THEY THINK THAT THE SOFT GENTLE MELODIC WAY THEY SPEAK, THEIR SMILES AND EXPRESSED LIKING IS GOOD FOR OTHERS WHEN THEY HURT OTHERS.
Wanting controlled tension not easefulness:
If people think they love easefulness they are engaged in immaculate self deceit because they loath true easefulness and cherish controlled tension.
If you watch people caught in traffic jams or waiting for the traffic lights to turn, they may arch their backs back and rest their heads on their raised joined palms or fold their arms stiffly across their chests, rest their arms on the sill or tap their fingers on the wheel. Rather than easeful they are stoking and controlling their innate restlessness and tension. A truly restful posture would be to let the arms rest by their sides without clenching or motion but the reason why people never adopt such truly easeful positions is because there is a lot of force or innate tension that prevents them, not because resting their heads on their hands is easeful but it itself stirs tension that then cause to shift to another controlled tense position like wrapping their arm over the window sill or tapping the steering wheel.
THUS IT IS A MYTH THAT PEOPLE LIKE TRUE LOVE OR THE FEELING OF PLEASANTNESS OR EASEFULNESS BUT THERE IS CONSIDERABLE RESIDENT CONSTANT TENSION THAT PREVENTS THEM ADOPTING BODY POSTURES THAT ARE TRULY NEUTRAL AND EASEFUL AND FROM LIKING THE PLEASANT FEELING BUT THEIR RESIDENT TENSION FORCES THEM TO ADOPT UNNATURAL AND TENSION STIRRING POSTURES LIKE HOLDING THE BACK OFTHEIR HEADS IN THEIR HANDS AND HATE TRUE PLEASANTNESS.
Making others happy?
Anyone who is stressed, restless and distracted (cannot concentrate) is not enjoying himself here but suffering.
Therefore, whether you realize it or not, if you demeanour, speech and motion contain forceful stretching, changes in speed and strength of force that causes stress, restlessness and distraction in your loved one you cannot be making her happy except in your abiding delusion you can.
Thus, whatever else you might like to talk big about what love is all about, you must make your loved one happy and that means you must not make her stressed, restless and distracted and that means you must not have forceful stretching, changes of speed and strength of force in your speech and motion that can be imparted on her.
THEREFORE A CRUCIAL IF NOT MAJOR PART OF LOVE IS SAYING AND DOING THINGS WITHOUT FORCEFUL STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT DOES NOT IMPART STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION ON YOUR LOVED ONE SO THAT SHE EXPERIENCES AN EFFORTLESS PLEASANT PASSIVE FEELING IN YOUR PRESENCE.
No straight lines in this world:
However straight a line may appear, it may ultimately be curved, the only difference is that the radius is extremely long and whatever is curved is curved around a centre that is not turning like the curved line is.
Hence whatever motion and indeed activity in this physical world is curved to greater or lesser extent and whatever is curved is rotating around a centre that does not rotate or move and just as ordinary people absorbed in this world are unaware this so, in the same way they are unaware that at the centre of this world of becoming that is constantly falsely changing there is a heart that remains unchanged, unchanging from all beings big and small originate and to which they must return if they are to make a final end to suffering and fruitless vexations.

LOVE

If you experience a feeling of pleasantness in the company of another person that has nothing to do with attraction or liking or stirring of the speed and strength of your mental force, you have passive effortless love for that person.
If in addition you say and do things that generate a pleasant feeling in yourself and the other person and that can only be if there is no use of force to prolong, change speed and strength of force and what is said and done is true and beneficial, that too is part of the love experience.
THE PASSIVE EXPERIENCE OF PLEASANTNESS IN THE COMPANY OF THE PERSON AND THE COMMUNICATION OF WORDS AND DEEDS THAT ARE TRUE, UNDECEPTIVE, BENEFICIAL AND FREE FROM FORCE MAY BE WHAT LOVE IS ALL ABOUT.
Not Love:
If the thought or presence of a person does not give rise to a passive feeling of pleasantness (but gives rise to unpleasant or neither pleasant nor pleasant feeling) or what you say or do to him and what he says or does to you give you an unpleasant or neutral feeling, then you have no love for him or her.
As soon as force intrudes into the picture in the form of liking or disliking or emotions (excitement, lust) or using unnecessary force to prolong, change speed and strength of force, it is no longer love but passion that tires, stresses, make restless and distracts, conditions you to further repeat and degrades your mind.

What Is Love & Compassion?

The wrong views of the Dalai Lama:
Quote: “In the animal world there are fights but in general they live in peace but man does not, we are dissatisfied, we want more and more and that generates stress. If we are full of annoyance, we do not sleep whilst positive emotions like love and compassion not only bring peace but they are also good for the health.”
It is always hazardous to make comparisons between humans and animals unless you can see and know that it is true. The Buddha never made such comparisons but the fact that he said that he cannot think of anything more tormenting than hell and the animal womb indicates that the animal world is a lower destination so how can animals be better or more harmonious than humans?
For one who sees correctly animals are all beset by vocalizations and movements that have constant stretching, changes in speed, direction and strength of force, they can be just as violent as humans so how can they be better than men? Nevertheless just like humans there are individual variations in goodness and badness, discernment and delusion and the fact that animals are less destructive may be because consciousness constraints applying on them are more restrictive limiting their capacities for wretchedness.
By painting a positive picture of animals in general it may lull people to view the animal world positively or desirable when the Buddha said it is a destination of punishment and suffering. It is not that one should look down on animals but animals are not to be viewed as models for behaviour. Mankind has more capacities and avenue for greed because of his cognitive endowments and position as ruler of this world, given the opportunity to exist as humans these same animals may behave just like their human counterparts are doing.
There are no positive and negative emotions and all emotions are false and harmful to the mind and others who receive. The fact that he referred to love and compassion as positive emotions is an unwitting acknowledgment that what he calls love and compassion is emotional; based on force not reason and he may be mistaking lust and desire for love and compassion. Unadulterated love and compassion is a force free reasoned based concern for the welfare and happiness of another person and does not harm or make use of the other person in anyway.
Except for fear, all emotions are based on or derived from like and dislike which all about the stirring in speed and strength of the person’s mental force of going against self that has nothing to do with reason and everything to do with force that causes stress, restlessness and distraction.
Liking is nothing more than the stirring in speed and strength of the force of going against self under the control of the force of self preservation. Like for material object is greed, like for sexual objects is lust, like for self and objects one identify with is pride. Even though it is under the control of the force of self preservation, like still exerts force on the mind causing stress, restlessness and distraction.
Dislike is nothing more than the stirring in speed and strength of the force of going against self out of control of the force of self preservation. Dislike that is diffuse is anger, focussed on a target is hate. Even though it is under the control of the force of self preservation, like still exerts force on the mind causing stress, restlessness and distraction.
Fear is the only emotion caused by the rising in speed and strength of the force of self preservation with a fall in speed and strength of the force of going against self causing the person to withdraw from the source of one’s fear.
Compassion according to the Buddha is never about emotion but an understanding (understanding is never about force but reason or seeing and knowing) by the Buddha on the plight faced by beings ignorantly trapped not just in this world but in existence even in heaven because it is not permanent, as he said, no matter how long, even 60,000 eons or Ages, depending on what he has done, he can go down even to hell or the animal world.
WHAT IS LOVE AND COMPASSION?
THERE IS TRUE AND FALSE COMPASSION. TRUE COMPASSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMOTION (THAT IS DERIVED FROM FORCE) AND IT IS AN UNDERSTANDING BASED ON SEEING AND KNOWING, OF THE PLIGHT OF PEOPLE TRAPPED IN EXISTENCE WITH SIN (LOWER REALMS) OR WITHOUT SIN (IN HEAVEN) AND THEN POINTING THE WAY PERMANENTLY OUT OF BONDAGE THAT EXISTS WHERE THEY ARE COMPLETELY IGNORANT ABOUT.
THUS IT REFLECTS TRUE COMPASSION ON MY PART TO POINT OUT TO OTHERS THAT THERE IS A CAUSE FOR THEIR STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AND IT IS THEIR CONSTANT USE OF FORCE TO STRETCH, CHANGE SPEED, DIRECTION AND STRENGTH OF FORCE AND THERE IS A WAY PERMANENTLY OUT OF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION BY PAYING ATTENTION TO DETECT AND MAKING SUSTAINED EFFORT TO ELIMINATE ALL UNNECESSARY STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE IN ONE’S SPEECH, MOTION, THINKING AND PERCEIVING.
WHAT IS TRUE LOVE? THE BUDDHA SAID THAT CONTACT WITH OBJECTS AND OTHERS RESULTS IN PASSIVE FEELINGS OR SENSATIONS (NOT FORCEFUL EMOTION) THAT CAN ONLY BE PLEASANT, UNPLEASANT OR NEITHER PLEASANT NOR UNPLEASANT THAT LASTS AS LONG AS CONTACT AND ENDS WITH CONTACT. LOVE IS THAT PLEASANT PASSIVE FEELING EXPERIENCED BY A BENEVOLENT BEING ON SEEING THE OTHER LOVED PERSON HAPPY AND SECURE, NOT SUFFERING.
THUS THE DALAI LAMA EXHIBITS CONFUSION IN HIS THINKING REGARDING THE NATURE OF EMOTIONS, LOVE AND COMPASSION.
Love is a feeling and compassion is helping others:
Love is just a passive pleasant feeling for the loved person and because it is force free it is not stressful, restless nor distracting for the lover and the loved. Thus if after ‘loving’ the person you experience exhaustion, stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate, it is not love but lust or possessiveness.
If you let your yes be yes only love is a pleasant feeling for the other person and not doing or saying things that harm the person but doing or saying things that benefit him or her but if you do not let your yes be yes only but you perceive more, it is emotional, indescribable, earth shaking and out of this world experience.
Compassion the reason based willingness to help others in trouble or suffering by doing or saying things that benefit them or help them get out of suffering.
Working out the nature of love:
If love is true and exists it must be fully understandable and clearly definable. Only something that is simple and straightforward (not complicated and convoluted) can be fully understood and defined. Hence love must be something simple, straight forward and easy to understand. Love must be free from force because force has no meaning, is not understandable and merely acts blindly as directed and has strength, speed and duration. Anything that has force cannot be understood because force has no meaning and is harmful to the person and its target. Thus true love must be free of force and because like and dislike and emotions are derived from force, it must be free from like or dislike and emotion.
Because love is true and exists (otherwise Jesus is speaking of something false when he said if you love him) it is understandable and definable.
Love is about a relationship or interaction between beings and therefore if love exists and is true it must be something that can be communicated between two beings.
What are the things that can possibly be transmitted between beings?
Force can be transmitted between beings. Because force is blind, it only has speed, strength, direction and duration and only acts as directed, it is harmful to self and the other person, love cannot contain force or has anything to do with force.
Feelings that are passive that can only be pleasant, unpleasant, neither pleasant nor unpleasant and lasts as long as contact can be transmitted on contact between beings and because it is passive, free from force, it does not tire, stress, make restless or distracted the person and his recipient. Love must be good and pleasant otherwise Jesus and the Buddha will not recommend it to you. Therefore feeling of pleasantness must be a prime candidate as the basis if not entire nature of love.
Apart from force or passive feelings only thoughts (speech) and deeds by body can be transmitted between beings and although thoughts, spoken words and deeds do contribute to love, these activities cannot be at the heart of love because thoughts, speech and deeds are varied and variable, not constant. Thus thoughts, speech and deeds that are true or genuine and benefit both parties and have a minimal transmission of force in being constant in speed and strength without prolonging play an important part in constituting love but they are not love itself which is essentially a passive feeling of pleasantness experienced and shared in the company of each other.
BECAUSE LOVE IS SOMETHING BETWEEN THE RELATIONSHIP OF PEOPLE TO BE TRUE IT MUST BE SOMETHING TRANSMISSIBLE BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THAT CAN ONLY BE FORCE, FEELING OR SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF WHAT IS SPOKEN OR DONE.
BECAUSE LOVE IS SUPPOSED TO BE TRUE, GOOD AND WONDERFUL, IT MUST BE SHORN OF FORCE AND WHAT IS SHORN OF FORCE MUST BE PASSIVE AND ONLY A FEELING OF PLEASANTNESS CAN BE PASSIVE AND WONDERFUL. THIS FEELING OF PLEASANTNESS MUST BE GENERATED BY SPEECH AND ACTIONS THAT ARE TRUE AND GOOD AND FREE OF UNNECESSARY FORCE THAT CAN ONLY COME ABOUT IF THE SPEECH AND ACTIONS ARE FREE OF UNNECESSARY FORCEFUL PROLONGING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE.
HENCE LOVE CAN ONLY BE AND IS THE PASSIVE EFFORTLESS MUTUAL EXPERIENCE OF PLEASANTNESS THAT HAS NO STRENGTH OR DEPTH (BECAUSE IT HAS NO FORCE) THAT OCCURS BY ITSELF ON CONTACT IN THE COMPANY OF TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUALS AND IS IN ADDITION GENERATED BY THE EXCHANGE OF WORDS AND DEEDS THAT ARE TRUE AND BENEFIT BOTH THAT CAN ONLY OCCUR IF THE WORDS AND DEEDS DO NOT CONVEY UNNECESSARY FORCEFUL PROLONGING, FORCEFUL CHANGES IN SPEED, DIRECTION AND STRENGTH OF FORCE.
Because ordinary people are constantly liking and disliking, constantly using force to prolong, change speed and loudness in whatever they perceive, think, speak and do it precludes them from loving and they have never experienced true love except in their delusion that they can and have done.
To ordinary people who wax lyrical about love, it is something mystical, indefinable and exhilarating and they have found and experienced it but the truth may be that true love is simple, a mutual feeling of pleasantness free of stress, restlessness and distraction shared in the company of each other and they have not experienced it.
Working out the nature of compassion:
Compassion is simply helping or assisting others.
(If compassion is just or mostly an emotion or feeling in your mind, how can that help others? You can transmit your emotion of ‘compassion’ to others but because it is emotional, it stresses, make restless and distract so what kind of compassion is this that harms others? Therefore true compassion cannot be a mood or state or emotion of the mind and you are deluded if you perceive so)
False compassion is something much talked about, preached, hyped or exalted by those who are goats in sheepskin and is driven by emotion and false or faulty reasoning that is often for show to impress and harms self and others rather than truly help.
True compassion is something that is little talked about, not exalted by those who are true sheep and is guided by reason shorn of emotion that beings including animals are suffering and need help, is not for show to impress and truly completely benefits self and the recipient. The truly compassionate person just helps others in words and deeds without any fuss and does not beat his drum about his helping others nor wax lyrical about compassion in general or particular.
The for show emotional compassionate person cannot find enough and right words to describe compassion and keeps talking about it and if you examine what he has said and done in the name of compassion it is found seriously wanting and even harmful to himself and others.
The wise person just helps others and do not talk much if anything about it.
The foolish person talks much or preaches much about helping others but does little or even does misguided things that do not help but harm himself and others.

The true Buddha seldom spoke of compassion and what is important to him are virtue (not stealing, lying, killing, no intoxicants), discernment (seeing things as they truly are), wisdom (perceiving, thinking, doing and saying the right things and a vast store of right knowledge), concentration and equanimity (neither liking nor disliking).

Compassion is not part of the noble eightfold path declared by the Buddha (namely right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration)

Compassion is not one of the seven treasures the Buddha described which are conviction, virtue, conscience, concern, listening, generosity, discernment.

Thus although you must be compassionate, help others, you must just do and not beat the drum about it and it must be based purely on true reason not emotion and false reasoning.
It is impossible for a person who likes to smile, laugh, crack and appreciate jokes to be compassionate because smiling and joking are false and stresses self and others so what compassion or helping others is he talking about?
It is impossible for a person with style or who always uses force to prolong, change speed, direction and strength of force in whatever he perceives, thinks, speaks and does to be compassionate because his style or constant use of unnecessary force that is for show is harmful to himself and others, so what compassion or helping others is he talking about?
Still it does not stop deluded people and hypocrites from talking about and waxing lyrical about being compassionate.
Compassion is a nice big word for helping others and helping others is what you do without thinking or being conscious about it and you do not go about talking about helping others and how wonderful it is but you just do it, you just be compassionate. Anyone who is constantly beset by stress, restlessness and distraction cannot be truly compassionate because he must harbour resentment, even lashing out against himself and others.
The Buddha: "'This Dhamma (teaching) is for one who is modest, not self-aggrandizing.' There is the case where a monk, being modest, does not want it to be known that 'He is modest.' Being content, he does not want it to be known that 'He is content.' Being reclusive, he does not want it to be known that 'He is reclusive.' His mindfulness being established, he does not want it to be known that 'His mindfulness is established.' Being endowed with discernment, he does not want it to be known that 'He is endowed with discernment.' Enjoying non-complication, he does not want it to be known that 'He is enjoying non-complication.'
Thus the true noble person is compassionate but he does not want to be known to be compassionate. Hence if you want to be known to be compassionate you are a hypocrite beating your own drum and the drum of compassion that may not be the real thing.
A Buddha cannot love but can be compassionate:
It is impossible for a Buddha to love because he said he has cut all ties and attachments to feelings but it is possible for a Buddha to be compassionate, to understand the plight of beings trapped in suffering and existence and point the way that exist out of suffering and endless existing.
WHAT I SAY HERE AND EVERYWHERE ELSE MAY BE RUBBISH BUT NO OTHER MAN TODAY OR IN THE PAST CAN AND WILL SAY WHAT I SAY. IF WHAT I SAY IS TRUE, MAKE SENSE THEN IT INDICATES I AM AN EXTRAORDINARY PERSON THAT NO OTHER MAN CAN IMITATE AND SO IF YOU SPEAK AGAINST ME (DISAGREE) YOU ARE SPEAKING AGAINST AN EXTRAORDINARY EVEN UNIQUE MAN.

The Everlasting Consequences Of Stress & Emotions

Not that they are capable on their own to do anything about it but whatever intense stress or emotional conflict a person experiences is not only suffering for the duration it lasts but they are never forgotten and conditions to more easily experience similar stress and intense emotions in the future apart from degrading that mind.
The turmoil that has gripped Japan’s prime minister in which he initially vowed he would not resign amidst scandals involving his ministers but has now suddenly resigned and has been admitted to hospital for stress related ailments is killing him and everyone who interacts with him has a share in killing him no matter how good they think they are to him. His mind thus warped by such intense mental force or emotion or stress, stress or emotions of the same intensity will flare up again and again in the future with increasing easiness under self and other provocation so that unless he assiduously detoxifies himself by practicing seclusion and calming meditation to neutralize whatever stress, restlessness and distraction that flares up as soon as possible, he pays attention to not stretch his syllables, not change speed and loudness (something possible but most ordinary people think they have much better things to do), he is doomed as he is to be like as the Buddha said, a fly attracted to a fire to then fall and be burnt to return here again and again spilling his blood that is greater than the four great oceans.
REMEMBER THIS: IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXIST WITHOUT STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION OR INTENSE EMOTIONS EVEN HERE. EVERY TIME YOUR MIND IS ROILED BY INTENSE STRESS OR EMOTION OR SADNESS, YOU ARE NOT ONLY SUFFERING BUT HAMMERING ANOTHER NAIL INTO YOUR FUTURE COFFIN OF AGONY BECAUSE UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING TO NEUTRALIZE THE TENDENCY TO STRESS AND EMOTION IT REMAINS TO HAUNT AND THEN KILL YOU OFF.
Japanese PM admitted to hospital
Outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been admitted to hospital, a day after announcing his resignation.
Doctors said Mr Abe was being treated for a stomach complaint probably caused by extreme exhaustion and stress.
'Extreme fatigue'
Mr Abe had been facing growing calls to quit since his party lost upper house elections in July, and opinion polls showed he was increasingly unpopular.
But there has also been speculation that health problems were partly behind his decision to step down.
"I hear that the doctor diagnosed him as suffering from extreme fatigue," Chief Cabinet Secretary Kaoru Yosano told reporters after Mr Abe was admitted to hospital.
It is unclear whether he will be able to continue his duties until a successor is chosen, or whether a temporary head of government may have to be appointed.
Mr Abe's decision on Wednesday triggered surprise and criticism.

Positive as an attitude:
Quote: "In fitting with the approach that characterised his life and work, he (Pavrotti) remained positive until finally succumbing to the last stages of his illness."
Comment: What is referred to as positive is his attitude which is a standardized approach to things that occur to him, not a specific live response to a situation. Because ‘being positive’ is a standardized or generalized attitude it is false and harmful because it is based on emotion not reason. Being positive is equal to being optimistic. One should neither be optimistic or pessimistic but if one wishes to escape suffer one should approach everything that occur with equanimity, neither liking nor disliking, neither optimistic nor pessimistic.
Again being positive is being optimistic which is a form of anticipating or liking and here as everywhere else, what boils down to ordinary people’s lives is an endless litany of like and dislike that though it may be alluring at times, can and do frequently become tormenting that they then hide from the prying eyes of others.
Don’t Need To Tell You That:
Quote: Last night Gerry McCann maintained his and his wife's innocence, telling the News of the World newspaper that they did not kill their daughter. "We're entirely innocent," Mr. McCann said. "I don't need to tell you how things don't stack up. I know 100 per cent that Kate did not do anything. I know that's true from what I did that night. And in terms of what Kate knows about me, I was away from her for just 10 minutes."
Comment: If as you say, you don’t need to tell me that and yet you do so, you are generating emotional or forceful conflict in yourself by saying so and it does not matter whether he is innocent or not he is conditioning himself to intense emotional conflict that will become uncontrollable.
The reason he said that is to say it is a no brainer, you should know that or you must believe what he says. Leave others to know what if they want to know, don’t tell others what to do.
It is always an excuse never a genuine reason why the couple should behave so defensively and also attack the police as incompetent and trying to frame them. If a person is truly innocent, why should he be outraged because it is difficult if not impossible to frame someone perfectly in a fair court of law just as it is impossible not difficult to commit a perfect crime.
As a result of lifelong falsity or deceitfulness and emotionality a person can become agitated when faced with false accusations of wrongdoing but it is possible to differentiate between the emotional upset of someone who is wrongly accused (eg the drug dealer in the Australian Tony Falconio case) and someone who is correctly accused.
Gerry McCann was reported to have said the change in chain of events have made life unbearable for them. This may be to court sympathy or it may be that there are some people who when confronted with their wrongdoing, would rather commit suicide, even with their spouse and children than admit to wrongdoing which is a shame too strong for their deluded domineering minds to bear.
IF A PERSON LETS HIS YES BE YES ONLY AS JESUS COMMANDS YOU THEN HE JUST STATES ONCE THAT HE IS INNOCENT AND THE REST IS UP TO THE POLICE TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST YOU AND ADDRESSING THE CASE BUILT, YOU SHOW WHY YOU ARE INNOCENT. YOU DO NOT LAUNCH COUNTER ATTACKS TO SAY THE POLICE ARE FRAMING YOU WHICH IS SCURRILOUS UNLESS YOU CAN BACK UP WITH EVIDENCE POLICE IS FRAMING YOU.
Cross species affinity:

Yet again we see another example of animal kinship across species that surpasses even many human familial relationships. As the Buddha said all animals that may include even tiny insects are valid beings waiting for their turns to become a human that may only come once in an Age or eternity and if you do not make the most of it, you may rue in regret even another eternity.
How easy is it for you to use a hammer to bang in a nail?
How difficult would it be if you were to be forced to pull out that nail with your bare teeth?
As easy as it may be for you to get angry, upset, stressed or restlessness, you should remind yourself that each time you get angry, upset, stressed or restless you are hammering another nail into a coffin of future suffering that you must use your bare teeth to pull out if you want to exit that coffin. If you remind yourself thus you will think twice even many times before you allow yourself to become angry, upset, stressed or restless.
As Jesus said, even the man who calls his brother you fool is in danger of the fire of hell which is even more painful that having to use your teeth to pull out a nail that you defiantly hammered in.
The abandoned monkey who has found love with a pigeon
Last updated at 18:39pm on 13th September 2007
Comments (14)
They're an odd couple in every sense but a monkey and a pigeon have become inseparable at an animal sanctuary in China.
The 12-week-old macaque - who was abandoned by his mother - was close to death when it was rescued on Neilingding Island, in Goangdong Province.
After being taken to an animal hospital his health began to improve but he seemed spiritless - until he developed a friendship with a white pigeon.
Scroll down for more...

The macaque nestles his head against his feathered friend
The blossoming relationship helped to revive the macaque who has developed a new lease of life, say staff at the sanctuary.
Now the unlikely duo are never far from each other's side, but they aren't the only ones to strike up an unusual friendship.
Earlier this year a pig adopted a tiger cub and raised him along with her piglets because his mother couldn't feed him.
And in 2005 a baby dear named Mi-Lu befriended lurcher Geoffrey at the Knowsley Animal Park in Merseyside after she was rejected by her mother.
Strike back:
Quote reporter: "They (the McCanns) are going to have to strike back because the mood among some people now seems to be 'surely the Portuguese police are working on something'."
Comment: Even journalists who are supposed to be responsible and neutral speak of striking back or using force to attack. What he said is fraught with karma because it encourages people to use force to strike back when what is needed is to use reason to appraise the situation.
There is a fine line between the police attacking the McCanns and rightfully undertaking their duties to solve the disappearance of the little girl and it is advanced false perception to think they are framing the McCanns.
Mini adult:

Even though she is still tiny she (the missing girl) is already a mini adult with pretentious airs and ‘graces’, tilting her chest forwards and to the left, neck arched to opposite side and hand scratching in a ‘cute’ way a smirking smile of pretence.
Her parents are responsible for moulding her into the actress she is but she herself is not blameless, is capable of mischief and annoying behaviour and even when she was born she was of her Father who is not God.
Blind lass to receive her degree:
It is improper or disrespectful to call a girl a lass and fraught with karma but you should call her a blind girl or lady.
It is emotion not reason that causes people to feel defiantly they are right to call a girl a lass. Insist on doing so and you may weep and gnash your teeth even for another eternity.
Jesus said the Holy Spirit will in that hour teach you what you ought to say. This may be frivolous or it may be what you ought to say, call a girl properly a girl not a lass.

Why a teacher in the mind is not possible:
Even when those who call themselves good and intelligent read what I say with reasons why it is improper and disrespectful to call a girl a lass, they may stubbornly refuse to alter their habit of calling a girl a lass, what more that a counsellor existing in the mind whose voice people cannot be sure they are hearing can teach you what you ought to say (namely call a girl a girl).
It is difficult if not impossible for a counsellor in the mind to teach that person discretely many things and what he ought to say because even when it is spelt out to them repeatedly in words, they don’t understand or misunderstand.
EVEN WHEN I TELL PEOPLE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS DON'T CALL A GIRL A LASS THEY WOULD NOT LISTEN WHAT MORE THAT A COUNSELOR WHOSE EXISTENCE IN A PERSON'S MIND IS QUESTIONABLE CAN TEACH SO.
THE BUDDHA WHO IS THE HIGHEST BEING HAD TO COME IN ORDER TO TEACH, JESUS THE SON OF GOD HAS TO COME TO TEACH, SO IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT THE COUNSELOR TOO HAS TO COME IN PERSON IN ORDER TO TEACH.
Why Police Cannot Frame McCanns:
If it is true police possess fluid, blood and even hair samples that is DNA specific to Madeleine, it is impossible that police are framing the parents because Madeleine has already disappeared and her body is yet to be found so where can the police go to get significant samples of fluid, blood and hair to frame the parents?
If the McCann's accusations of police victimizing them were based on reason or truth (they did not do it) why did they not realize that it is impossible for the police to frame them because police have no contact with Madeleine to obtain specimens to plant in the car? Instead their accusations are wild, based on emotion to assume that it is credible to prove their innocence when it exposes them as irresponsible frauds.
There have been many people even highly intellectual ones who have been drawn in to side with Madeleine's parents. Why have they not similarly come to a conclusion that allegations of police frame up hold no water?
As simple as what I postulate is, why has no one else pointed this out? Even the police did not tell the public that it is impossible for them to frame the McCanns because they cannot obtain from Madeleine who has disappeared and whose body has yet to be found?
There are actually many things in life in which it is not only possible to believe (accept as true) but to know (work out with impeccable logic) what has happened and it reflects that the father of humans, even those who call themselves smart and good is not reason but force and its mental derivatives like and dislike and their offshoots the emotions.
Caught up emotionally in the swift counter accusations of police incompetence and trying to frame them to solve the case, the average person is likely to be confounded as to confess inability to tell which is true, the police or the McCanns or they might venture to say they believe or accept as true either the police is right or the McCanns have been unfairly made scapegoats. Yet in this situation (as in many situations in life) a person who is not emotionally stirred can collate or put together all the information at hand to know (not believe) who is telling a lie, the police or the McCanns.
Mr McCann was unrighteous to say he need not tell you that the police case against them did not stack up because whether they did it or not, the police against them does stack up or is logically valid or it is possible they did it.
Apparently more than a million dollars has been collected in the find Madeleine fund and so much is now at stake if they are found guilty or not because they stand to gain as trustees of this fund.
You may see how wicked and how much trouble the couple has caused others if in truth they did it but not only covered up but stubbornly refuse to climb down. If indeed they did it, they are in for horrendous karma for causing so much trouble to so many people.

Getting it all wrong:
It is because ordinary people are guilty of the same, faking they are happy and wholesome to please and impress others who are looking and they have denied they are dishonestly doing so but they are indeed enjoying themselves, being themselves that they have this perverse perception of what is false and stressful as true and good and therefore the person pictured to do so is good and cannot have killed their children.

There is no need at all to do what Mrs McCann & her husband are doing above even if they truly loved each other or the baby but all the smiling and expressed delight is for show to impress onlookers they are enjoying themselves and wonderful people when it is stressful, restless and distracting. Anyone whose behaviour is constantly churning up stress, restlessness and distraction must hate himself and hate others including the one she is seen so lovingly to adore that she often hides from others and even from herself but no matter how it is repressed, there is a murderous impulse to lash out at others that may occur privately in moments of loss of control and so if you watch actors in private they take it out on their children, their possessions (cars, Hi Fi, etc).
Rather than such pictures showing them to be wholesome people, like a coin must have two sides, a person who puts on a show like they are must have sharp long concealed fangs that no matter how they try to hide and not use must occasionally be unleashed to bite at even their loved ones. This is the reason why in moments of passion in bed even supposedly pretty or dainty female goats can bite or claw at their lovers even to cause bleeding.
TO ME THE PICTURES ABOVE DO NOT PROVE THE MCCANNS ARE WHOLESOME BUT THEY ARE LYING, PUTTING ON A SHOW THEY ARE CHARMING AND WONDERFUL PEOPLE WHEN THEY MUST SEETHE WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT CAN DRIVE THEM UP THE WALL TO DESIRE TO COMMIT SUICIDE OR HOMICIDE. A PERSON WHO BEHAVES LIKE THEM AS ABOVE MUST HAVE VIOLENT URGES AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT SURPRISING IF THEY DO ABUSE THEIR CHILDREN AND ACCIDENTALLY OVERDOSED MADELEINE.
IT IS NOT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL ERROR BUT A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR TO PERCEIVE THAT THE PICTURES PROVE THE MCCANNS ARE LOVELY PEOPLE INCAPABLE OF HARMING OTHERS BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE THAT THEY MUST POSSESS AND HIDE IRRATIONAL URGES TO HARM THEMSELVES AND OTHERS. JUST AS YOU SEE THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH HERE YOU WILL SEE THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH IN MANY OTHER (IF NOT ALL) PLACES AND YOU ARE IN DANGER OF BEING CONNED BY OTHERS.
BECAUSE IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR TO SEE WHAT IS BAD (SMILING, JOKING AND PUTTING ON A SHOW YOU ARE HAPPY) IS GOOD OR WHOLESOME YOU ARE HEADED FOR THE DESTINATION OF WRONG VIEW NAMELY HELL OR THE ANIMAL WOMB.
NEVERTHELESS IT IS NOT A BEING’S LIVE OR TRUE PERCEIVING THAT MAKES THEM SEE WHAT IS BAD (PUTTING ON A FALSE SHOW) IS GOOD BUT IT IS THEIR PROGRAMMED SEEING OR PERCEPTION AND SO LONG AS THE PERSON REFUSES TO ERASE HIS PROGRAMMED SEEING, HE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE WHAT IS BAD IS GOOD AND BECAUSE IT IS FIXED PROGRAMMED SEEING, HE IS A ROBOT HEADING FOR THE DESTINATION OF ROBOTS NAMELY THE GRAVEYARD OF FAILED ROBOTS.
An incompetent crook can still correctly prosecute you:
As the saying goes, it takes a thief to catch a thief and therefore you have serious false perception that will end in mad perception if you think that just because one of the chief inspectors involved in the case is guilty of torture, incompetence and dishonest, he MUST fail to correctly prosecute the McCanns.
It is not goodness or devotion to truth that is necessary to catch a thief just as it does not need a good cat to catch a rat but it is suspiciousness (not accepting what potential criminals say is true) and a will to attack or prosecute that means that sometimes or usually you prosecute wrongly but occasionally you prosecute correctly. No matter how incompetent or stupid a policeman is, if he can add one plus one and come up with two he can smell a rat if what the McCanns told him does not add up.
Even if a policeman is very crooked, he has his pride and pride in his police force to defend and if you give him an opportunity to prosecute you correctly, eg your story you think is so convincing about a kidnapping may be suspect to him and you foolishly leave traces of biological material of the dead girl in your hired car, then it is not impossible than for once he will prosecute you correctly not grievously.

SUSPECT: Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral, who is leading the hunt for Madeleine McCann, is to be questioned over the torture of Leonor Cipriano
I agree he looks suspicious, a brute but that does not mean he cannot correctly prosecute you if you give him a chance just as even a stupid cat can sometimes catch a rat, otherwise how will it survive in this world?
THUS THOSE WHO TOUT EVIDENCE OF THE INCOMPETENCE AND NASTINESS OF THE POLICE PROSECUTORS AS SUPPORTING THE BELIEF THE MCCANNS ARE MALIGNED ARE FLIRTING WITH FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.
I Can No Longer Be Lonely:
I now no longer can be lonely because alone by myself either meditating or not, my mind is imbued with a calm clearly thinking steadiness with few but rational thoughts, often extended periods of the absence of thoughts so that I do not miss the company of others, I desire no company from others nor court others’ approval for my views or behaviour and so I am truly free not beholden or dependent on anyone.
I can be alone in a dark place but I have no fear of ghosts as I did in the past.
Most if not all ordinary people are lying if they say or think they are independent of others or they do not suffer from loneliness. I fear no loneliness as I did in the past, but now I seek seclusion and have abandoned most of the things I held dear in the past and it is difficult for others to hurt me in words or deeds because I know it is they who are wrong not me.
JOYFUL IS THE MAN WHO CAN NO LONGER BE LONELY FOR PAINFUL IS THE MAN WHO CAN BE LONELY. NO ONE IS A MASTER OF LONELINESS BUT LONELINESS CREEPS UP OR SUDDENLY SEIZES THE VULNERABLE FOOL WHO DOES NOT REALIZE HE IS HEADED FOR MORE SUFFERING.
Judge each case by its merits:
Do not take into consideration the record of Portuguese police or the inspector in charge, how good or bad the McCanns are, they alone cannot cause the disappearance of the child or find out who did it but you focus on the evidence presented and the circumstances of what is known to decide what actually happened.
Instead if you are prejudiced against the police (instead of examining objectively what they present) or prejudiced for the McCanns (they lost their child and now police blame them) you become emotional and it is difficult for you to decide what actually happened when the evidence is sufficient to know not believe what happened.
A PERSON WHO JUDGES EACH CASE BY ITS MERIT IS A LIVE SPECIFIC TO THE OCCASION PERSON WHILST A PERSON WHO JUDGES ALL CASES BY PRESUMPTIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ARRIVING AT A CORRECT CONCLUSION IS A ROBOT WITH PROGRAMMED THINKING TRYING TO TUCK AND FIT REALITY INTO HIS PROGRAMMED EXPECTATIONS.
Why people are lonely:
Just as people take to alcohol to drown their sorrows, an important reason people fear loneliness and crave company is because they seek the distraction of others’ company to avoid confronting the unpleasant truth about the meaninglessness and sinfulness of their lives. They dread being alone because they dread the emptiness that may permit uncomfortable thoughts and sadness to well up.
Further because their attachment to others is based on force, the forceful attraction or stirring in speed and strength of their forces of going against self towards others and it is conditioning, they have conditioned themselves to seek the company of others that is irrational so that whenever they are deprived of the company of others they feel deprived and therefore lonely.
Loneliness is not a sign of virtue, the Buddha never complained about being lonely but loneliness is blameworthy, based on emotion or force to be attracted irrationally to the company of others, to find distraction in the company of others to avoid seeing the unpleasant truth and even if you think it is not a sign of sin, loneliness is conditioning that will end in doom like depression or anguish or panic.
At the heart of loneliness:
Going against self causing oneself insoluble stress, restlessness and distraction is at the heart of a person’s loneliness and irrational seeking others and activities (sports, music, hobbies) for company and diversion that becomes addictive.
Because the way and what a person perceives, thinks, speaks and does has unnecessary force and substance, he is constantly hurting himself and he cannot find solace in himself but must not only hate himself but deny he is hurting himself or deny he hates himself which means he must avoid confronting or coming face to face with himself that is more likely in vacant moments (alone) and less likely when he is distracted in the company of others or immersed in activity (eg sports, jogging, listening to music) but it is all in vain to try drowning your sorrows in the company of others or in activities because others are also punishing you with audio visual stimuli that stresses, make him restless and distracted.
BECAUSE ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE THEIR OWN WORST ENEMIES BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSTANTLY SAYING AND DOING THINGS WITH STYLE THAT DEMANDS THE USE OF FORCE THAT CAUSES ACCUMULATING INSOLUBLE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, THEY CANNOT BEAR VACANT MOMENTS THAT MAY FACILITATE SELF CONFRONTATION BUT THEY SEEK THE SOLACE AND DISTRACTION OF OTHERS’ COMPANIES AND DIVERSIONS THAT TOO PROVIDE NO ANSWERS AS THEY SIMILARLY WILL KILL HIM OFF.
IF A PERSON TRULY DOES NOT GO AGAINST HIMSELF, DOES NOT SAY OR DO THINGS WITH A STYLE THAT IS DESIGNED TO FALSELY DECEIVE, PLEASE, IMPRESS, INTIMIDATE OR DOMINATE OTHERS, HE DOES NOT SUFFER FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION, HE DOES NOT NEED TO HIDE FROM HIMSELF AND HE DOES NOT SUFFER FROM LONELINESS WITHOUT NEED FOR EFFORT.
Not interesting but true:
When I emailed a newspaper columnist saying that if it is true police has bodily fluids, blood and hair that is DNA specific to Madeleine they cannot be framing the McCanns because the girl is missing and they cannot access her to get specimens to incriminate her parents she replied:
Quote: A very interesting point - but as you will agree , we know very few facts indeed. Most of the stuff about DNA found in the car is leaked. so it's hard to know what to make of most of it. But I agree...
Ordinary people may see nothing wrong with the reply but it is an inappropriate reply because what I say is not an interesting point but it is the truth that if it is true police has bodily specimens, they cannot have framed her parents. Reflecting the mentality of ordinary people they must have reservations and argue and so it is she expressed reservations by saying “we know very few facts indeed. Most of the stuff about DNA found in the car is leaked. so it's hard to know what to make of most of it”.
DESPITE HER PROFESSED AGREEMENT SHE EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS OR DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY WHICH IS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE I QUALIFIED WHAT I SAID THAT IF IT IS TRUE POLICE HAS BIOLGICAL MATERIAL TRACEABLE TO MADELEINE THEN THEY CANNOT HAVE FRAMED THE MCCANNS AND SHE HAS FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WHAT I SAY IS MERELY AN INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH THAT WILL ALWAYS HOLD, EVEN IF THE RUMORS THAT POLICE HAVE BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE FALSE.
To be alone is to be with yourself:
To be alone is to be with yourself and thus if you are not comfortable to be with yourself because you loathe yourself for saying and doing things that hurt yourself you must be uncomfortable to be alone. Thus it is people are not comfortable to be with themselves because they are their worst enemies that they are not comfortable with being alone and they seek the company of others or diversions or going overseas for holidays to escape from themselves.
If you never go against yourself, never force yourself to say or do things to please, impress, intimidate or dominate others, you never have a forceful style that necessitates you exist as a robot and necessitate you constantly use harmful force to prolong, change speed and loudness, why should you be uncomfortable with yourself and therefore be uncomfortable with being alone?
WHETHER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO HARMS YOURSELF BECAUSE IT IS UNNECESSARY (BUT NECESSARY TO DECEIVE, PLEASE, IMPRESS, INTIMIDATE OR DOMINATE OTHERS), FALSE OR INDUCES STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IN YOURSELF IS OBJECTIVE, CAN BE DETERMINED BY GOD AND THOSE WHO DISCERN EVEN IF YOU AND YOUR FELLOW FOOLS CANNOT.
IF WHAT YOU SAY OR DO HURTS YOU, YOU MUST HATE YOURSELF NO MATTER HOW YOU CANNOT SEE OR DENY BECAUSE IT CREATES STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION AND CONFLICT AND ANYONE WHO HATES HIMSELF CANNOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH HIMSELF BUT HE MUST BE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIMSELF AND SEEK SUCCOR EXTERNALLY WHICH IS NOT A TRUE SOLUTION BUT AN ESCAPISM THAT DOES NOTHING TO YOUR CONTINUED HURTING YOURSELF BUT DELIVERS YOU TO THE HANDS OF OTHERS WHO WILL NOT ONLY ALSO KILL YOU WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION BUT WILL INCREASINGLY CONDITION YOURSELF TO SEEK SOLACE THAT IS NEVER THERE IN OTHERS.
IN THE SAME WAY IF WHAT YOU SAY OR DO HAS YOUR OWN BRAND OF STYLE THAT DEMANDS THE USE OF FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE THAT STRESSES, MAKE YOU RESTLESS AND DISTRACTED YOU MUST SUFFER AND HATE YOURSELF SO THAT YOU ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH YOURSELF BUT MUST SEEK ILLUSORY SOLACE IN OTHERS AND ACTIVITIES THAT ADDICTS YOU TO KEEP DOING SO WHILST NOT SOLVING YOUR PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU STILL KILL YOURSELF WITH YOUR STYLE.
Cat A Stranger Unafraid Of Me:
Normally cats are wary of strangers but this handsome adult male cat who is likely if not certainly the father of that cute female kitten I used to have, with whom I have no relationship with although I have seen it around occasionally in the distance, displayed unusual total trust in me.
As I turned the corner to scrub the rear wheel of my car I saw this handsome male cat parked beside the front wheel looking ahead without even once casting a wary eye back to see what I was doing behind his back. It did not budge or bat an eyelid when I hunched right in front of him scrubbing the front wheel and seemed to appreciate when I touched and stroked its head and body. When it was time to hose the car, I lifted it out of the way but as I let him down he lunged forward at an aging female cat just in front of him so that it scampered away (I think she may be a concubine of another dominant male cat in the area). Thus it is not that the male cat is without aggression but for some reason it felt totally at ease with me and even permitted me to lift it up out of the way.
By contrast this attractive adult female cat would be drawn to incrementally approach but watch me interact with my cats from a distance, it would enter my shop house to eat even when I was at the entrance washing the car and it even carted her litter into my shop house but because it chased off my cats I evicted her. Whenever I approached her she would move out of reach and so the behaviour of this adult male cat in being totally trusting me is unusual.
NORMALLY CATS ARE WARY ABOUT STRANGERS AND THE FACT THAT THIS WORLDLY WISE ADULT MALE CAT PERMITS ME TO COME CLOSE TO HIM, LET ME STROKE HIM AND EVEN LIFT HIM UP WITHOUT SNAPPING OR SWIPING AT ME REFLECTS HIS CORRECT JUDGMENT THAT I AM BENIGN, EVEN ANIMALS CAN SEE THAT I AM IMBUED WITH GENUINE GOODWILL THAT IS OF AN UNUSUAL NATURE BECAUSE IT IS RARE THAT ANIMALS WILL NOT RUN AWAY BUT WILL PERMIT A STRANGER TO TOUCH THEM.
Nothing interesting or boring:
When she said I had an interesting point there she is saying what I said is attractive or likeable or stirs her mental force in speed and strength in an attractive way.
What I said may be true or false, correct or incorrect but there is nothing interesting or boring about it and it is a person’s false perception that he cannot believe will end in mad perception to think it is interesting or boring.
Quote: A very interesting point - but as you will agree (it is presumptuous or false to say I will agree, I may or may not agree), we know very few facts indeed (speak for yourself not others; say “I know very few facts). Most of the stuff about DNA found in the car is leaked so it's hard to know what to make of most of it.
WHEN PEOPLE SAY SOMETHING IS INTERESTING THEY ARE EXPRESSING LIKING OR ATTRACTION THAT IS BASED ON FORCE NOT REASON AND WHEN THEY SAY IT IS BORING THEY MEAN IT IS DISLIKEABLE OR UNATTRACTIVE AND THAT TOO IS BASED ON FORCE AND NOT REASON AND THE FACT THAT THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAID ‘INTERESTING’ OR ‘BORING’ IS MEANINGFUL OR LOGICAL REFLECTS THEIR ADVANCED FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WHAT IS BASED PURELY ON FORCE IS MEANINGFUL WHEN THERE IS NO MEANING, ONLY A TRANSIENT STIRRING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF THEIR MENTAL FORCES THAT DISTURBS, WARPS & CORRODES THEIR MINDS.
Always only controlling:
Ordinary people all use the considerable strength and endurance of their forces of self preservation to control the tension, stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate that inexorably rises as a result of their incessant use of force to prolong, change speed and strength of force in whatever they perceive, think, speak or do in the name of impressing, pleasing, intimidating and dominating others.
Different people have different capacities to endure or tolerate the inexorable build up of tension, stress, restlessness and distraction but no matter how tough a goat you are you will finally reach a limit to your endurance and must beat a retreat to isolate yourself from others or seek respite from sleep, smoke or alcohol.
In truth stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate rises immediately a person uses force to stretch, change speed and loudness but at lower levels, being distracted by worldly pursuits and controlled well by his force of self preservation he is relatively unaware and may even think he is at the top of the world when he has never known a world that is possible that has an absence of stress, restlessness and distraction.
At moderate levels of intensity of stress, restlessness and distraction, goats may even get a kick out of it, they derive a masochistic pleasure filled with pride that they are tough and can stomach it, it is only when they struggle to control their stress, restlessness and distraction at higher levels do they become alarmed.
Because tension, stress, restlessness and distraction are conditioning, they have memory, with repeated practice or experience they can rise rapidly to intense levels out of proportion to provocation and be hard to shake off and the fool who is constantly subjecting himself to stress, restlessness and distraction in the name of getting along with others, of pleasing and impressing others is headed for mad stress, restlessness and distraction that can arise for seemingly no reason at all and be hard to shake off.
BECAUSE ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY UNNECESSARILY USING MENTAL FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED, DIRECTION AND STRENGTH OF FORCE, THEY ARE CONSTANTLY CHURNING UP STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT MUST BE CONTROLLED AND SUPPRESSED FULL TIME BY THEIR FORCES OF SELF PRESERVATION THAT AT LOW LEVELS THEY ARE USUALLY UNAWARE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IS PRESENT IN THEM. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION HAVE BUILT UP A HEAD THAT THEY START TO BECOME UNCOMFORTABLE AND SEEK REDRESS BY WHICH TIME IT IS TOO LATE AS THEY ARE WELL SEIZED BY STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION WHICH ARE NEVER HARMLESS BUT WARPS AND CORRODES THEIR MIND PROGRESSIVELY.
Snatching pole:
Quote headline: Kimi snatches pole. England gets a hiding.
It is reflects a predilection to force that the person selects forceful words like snatch instead of takes and hiding instead of England suffers a bad defeat not realizing that he is in the process conditioning himself to use forceful words and increase his propensity for force that will end in agony and eternal punishment.
When are you going to get married?
When people ask another either in a joking fashion or as if full of concern, “when are you going to get married” they may think they mean what they say but they never mean it here as in many other places.
Their true purposes for asking the question may be to impress you they are concerned for your marriage status or to laugh at you in a ‘friendly’ manner at your lack of marriage or they want to exert psychological pressure on you to marry just to appease them.
Unless they state their intentions above which they often will deny to themselves, they cannot mean what they say and they are hypocrites.
They may delude themselves they are doing good when whether others marry or not is none of their business and should someone force himself to marry because of your teasing and he should suffer misery you have debts on your hands.
The Son of man:
It may not be a coincidence that the Buddha had not one or more but only two deputies who were both heavenly born on the same day to two different Brahmin families and there is the Holy Trinity comprising the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit who must also be a son because Jesus said all beings are sons either of light or darkness of the Father.
It is impossible that men are Jesus’ father but Son of man implies Jesus is the Son of or in regard or concerning men and so there must another or more sons who are not of man.
In one place the Buddha mentioned that the Powerful One or Father has two sons whom he called Tissa and Sanankumara:
Subrahma and Paramatta Brahma,together with sons of the Powerful One,Sanankumara and Tissa:They too have come to the forest meeting.Great Brahma, who stands over 1,000 Brahma worlds,who arose there spontaneously, effulgent:Prestigious is he, with a terrifying body.And ten brahma sovereigns, each the lord of his own realm -- and in their midst has comeHarita Brahma surrounded by his retinue."
In Aramaic, Jesus is Yishua and in Arab Jesus is Isa so Tissa that the Buddha mentioned may be Jesus.
There are many instances that indicate the counsellor Jesus spoke of is a physical entity who will come.
Amongst these is the fact that he said, if I do not go, the counsellor will not come to you. Because Jesus’ going is physical, he actually came to this world, the coming of the counsellor must also be physical.
Jesus also said the counsellor will dwell with you and he will not speak on his own authority but what he hears he will speak. If the counsellor is a spirit who comes in the mind of men, he does not need Jesus to tell you he dwells in your mind nor that he will not speak on his own authority. Only if the counsellor is a person who will dwell physically amongst you, who will speak as if expressing his own opinion is it understandable that Jesus should tell you that he is not speaking on his own authority but what he hears he will speak. Thus if what he speaks is what he hears and you speak against him, you are also speaking against God and will not be forgiven.
Specifics & Generalities:
All ordinary people including those who are supposed to be very intelligent and good are very good at generalities but very poor or even incompetent at specifics, which is why they miss even glaring conclusions that are possible in certain cases.
For instance that police are incompetent and frame people to solve crimes is a generality that they did not invent themselves but they copy from others and they apply it indiscriminately in the case of Madeleine's disappearance not realizing that there may be specific circumstances of this case that render this generality false. The specific or unique circumstance of this case is that police has no contact with Madeleine, she has disappeared and her body has not been found so how can police plant evidence based on material extracted from her? Based on reports that police have found body fluid, blood and hair evidence in the car so called intelligent people have already accused the police of planting evidence to solve their case.
Again it is a generality that a lone gunman driving a four wheel drive could have perpetrated the crime in the Australian outback in the case of the disappearance of Tony Falconio but the specifics of the case make it impossible any lone gunman as alleged by the girl could have done it because the couple's van was found many kilometres away from the scene of the crime which necessitates that the lone gunman must AT THE SAME TIME drive two vehicles, his and the couple's to do that.
What are generalities that form the basis of people's reasoning and perceptions?
They are such things like blacks are dirty and stupid, whites are clean and smart. All chinks (Chinese) are wogs or daggos (whatever that means), all Chinese are pigs and Malays are clean, all men only want sex, all women secretly want to be raped (therefore he did not rape her but she was asking for it). These are assumptions that they copy from others and use as rules for their reasoning or coming to conclusions. They are rote and blind and although in some or many cases they may lead to the correct conclusions this is coincidental or lucky rather than as a matter of course. For instance it may turn out the McCanns are judged as innocent, not because they are innocent because the police and judge failed to recognize that you do not need to recover the body and if police found DNA evidence in the car it cannot be planted because police cannot get the evidence to plant it or it may turn out the McCanns are innocent because it was only rumours not fact that police has bodily fluid, blood and hair evidence of Madeleine in the car.
The fact that people deal in generalities that they usually if not always did not invent themselves but copy from others is again evidence they are robots in their perceptions and reasoning rehashing from what they copied rather than attend to and examining live each case specific to its particular merits. They appear competent at reasoning or coming to the truth but it is a sham or hoax, they are fakes who resort to rehashed generalities to explain things rather than work out what happened INDEPENDENTLY in each case.
THUS THE FACT THAT EVEN THOSE WHO ARE INTELLIGENT AND EXPERTS JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON THAT THE MCCANNS COULD BE FRAMED BY POLICE INDICATES THEY ARE ALL ROBOTS WITH ROBOTIC REASONING BASED ON GENERALITIES THEY COPIED FROM OTHERS THAT ARE REHASHED FOR THIS OCCASION THAT HAS FOUND THEM OUT BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THIS CASE FOR POLICE TO FRAME THE MCCANNS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE BODY TO EXTRACT SAMPLES TO PLANT.
A very intelligent person is merely a superior robot who has a bigger store of data recorded in his mental hard disk that he copied by rote from others and who can retrieve faster and more appropriately for the situation at hand from his hard disk relevant information. If his library of data is flawed or false but accepted as true by society he will be successful and worshipped in society or life but he is deluded in common with his deluded society. Whatever information or reasoning that is outside what he has programmed himself he is incompetent and all at sea because he is not a live person who can treat each case that arises on its merits but a fake dependent on his library of data and retrieval from it to function and impress others how knowledgeable and powerful a reasoner he is (not).
A person of truth resorts to few generalities and when he does he ensures they are fundamental and universally applicable whilst the person of falsity or the robot resorts to generalities all the time and try to explain things through generalities. Whenever something happens he takes snapshots of the event and refers to his mental jukebox for generalities to apply to the case. Eminent people have already reacted to accuse the police of framing the McCanns with the biological evidence not realizing that this is not possible if true because police has no access to biological evidence with which to frame them.
What basic or fundamental generalities does a person of truth rely on? He relies on fundamental assumptions such as black is black and white is white not black can be white and white can be black. Good is good and bad is bad not good can be bad and bad is good. There are things that are possible and things that are impossible, not everything goes. If two views differ they are either both wrong or one but not both are correct. Because God knows and sees all, God’s view is always right and if your view differs from God, you have wrong view that is not the way to heaven but hell and the animal womb according to the Buddha.
For instance people resort to generalities like 'how could a loving parent kill her own child' to prejudice them it is not possible the McCann could do it when it is a false premise because even loving parents can kill their children 'accidentally' and then try to cover up. Another false generality is how could people shown on past photos to be looking adoringly at her baby and smiling convivially in each others’ company be guilty of killing their children? If you perceive rightly that such conduct depicted by the photos are for show, they are actually stressful than pleasurable and the person who does what is depicted is a liar putting on a show for others and must seethe even with murderous impulses that are concealed, then rather than the photos vindicating, they are incriminating.
For Jesus’ description of the counsellor to be true, there cannot be anyone else apart from the counsellor he described who can fulfil that description otherwise Jesus is false or unrighteous to say that. It is impossible for others to fulfil that description Jesus gave because all beings trapped in this world are robots who always view and reason things by rote or rehashed no matter how they delude themselves they are dynamic real live people and it is impossible for pre-programmed robots with preconceived notions to say the things the counsellor will say.

Kidnapper must be lucky:
As a police expert said, most if not all child kidnaps are done outdoors and the kidnapper must be very daring to enter someone’s house to do so. It is possible for the kidnapping to have occurred but its success must depend on many variables that the kidnapper has no control over.
A child at that age if not sedated, can become hysterical and those with children will know that their screams can be very loud and piercing. It is unlikely that the child will go willingly especially if she is frightened by a stranger coming into her room at night so unless the kidnapper takes measures to incapacitate her immediately there is likely to be a struggle.
Permanent scowl and grin:
Look around and you may see people whose faces seem to be almost permanently glum or scowling or they readily grin or there is a permanent grin etched on their faces.
This is an indication that such forceful behaviours like scowling, being glum or grinning are conditioning or reinforcing and it reflects advanced conditioning that they and others do not realize will end in madness and torment that they now have a permanent scowl that was intended to intimidate and dominate others or a permanent grin that was intended to please (that they like you) and impress others (that they are happy).
GRINNING IS NEVER THE PLEASURE IT IS MADE UP TO BE BUT IT STIRS THE MIND (ONLY FORCE CAN STIR) AND IS FORCED TO IMPRESS OR PLEASE OTHERS AND THE PERSON EXEPRIENCES SERIOUS EVEN IMPOSSIBLE CONFLICT APART FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND INABILITY TO CONCENTRATE. GRINNING AND SMILING IS A FORM OF LYING WITH YOUR FACE, OFTEN EXPRESSED IN DENIAL. FOR EXAMPLE CONFRONTED BY AN UPSET OR UNPLEASANT NEWS THE FOOL SMILES OR GRINS TO SAY HE IS HAPPY WITH WHAT IS HURTFUL.
IF YOU YOURSELF IS KILLING YOURSELF (KNOWINGLY AND UNKNOWINGLY) WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT YOUR BEHAVIOR GENERATES YOU MUST BE INCURABLY LONELY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BE YOUR OWN FRIEND IF YOU ARE KILLING YOURSELF AND IT IS FUTILE TO TURN TO OTHERS OR SENSATE GRATIFICATIONS FOR SOLACE BECAUSE ALL OTHERS ARE ALSO BOMBARDING YOU WITH AUDIOVISUAL STIMULI THAT WILL KILL YOU WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION. THUS IF YOU KILL YOURSELF WITH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION YOU ARE AN INCONSOLABLY LONELY MAN WITH NOWHERE TO TURN TO. IF YOU DON’T KILL YOURSELF WITH STRESS (AND LIES), YOU CAN TURN TO YOURSELF AS A REFUGE AND YOU CAN NEVER BE LONELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE FOUND A TRUE FRIEND IN YOURSELF.
Careful with your conclusions:
Even if the McCanns are acquitted it does not necessarily mean they are innocent but the prosecution is incompetent or there is too much public pressure that influenced their decisions.
The police have not stated publicly precisely what genetic evidence they have found in the car the couple hired after the child’s disappearance. If it is true there is body fluid, blood and hair specimens due to Madeleine in the car then the case against the couple is almost certain because the police cannot frame them. However police and the judge may reason falsely that because they do not have the body (therefore she may still be alive) and the DNA evidence may be spurious or even planted by police, they do not have a certain case and give the couple ‘the benefit of the doubt’.
ONLY IF THE POLICE DECLARE THERE IS NO FLUID, BLOOD & HAIR EVIDENCE IN THE CAR TRACEABLE TO MADELEINE WOULD THE PARENTS’ INNOCENCE BE CREDIBLE AS TRUE.
EVEN IF THE POLICE ACQUITTED THE COUPLE IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THEY ARE INNOCENT. THERE IS A LOT OF PUBLIC PRESSURE AS THE INVOLVEMENT OF TONY BROWN BRITISH PM SHOWS.
The mother has admitted Madeleine was hard to control and would cry for hours every day. Children usually cannot be threatened with death to remain quiet so if the kidnapper frightened her, she is likely to scream because they are robots who automatically react with screaming if something is alarming. Thus the kidnapper is likely to provoke her to scream unless he immediately overpowered her.
Is the judge God?
Only if the judge is God is his decision to acquit the McCanns infallible. If you agree he is not God then he is fallible and whatever decision he makes may not reflect the truth. You should not have absolute faith or accept as true what he rules.
Police has little to gain because if convicted the McCanns can expect a few years in jail (may be more because they did not voluntarily confessed), if they dropped the case, although it may bruise their egos they save themselves a lot of trouble and brickbats from the prejudiced lynch mob public. There is much polarization with Portuguese press behind the police and the British press hostile.
Generalities are mental rules:
Generalities are rules or guides adopted by the individuals and existing in their minds to aid them on how to make sense of things happening and if a person did not have faith in these generalities he would not have adopted them.
Hence the person who perceive and reason according to generalities, who try to fit what is happening with generalities that he may or may not be aware exists in his mind has faith in precepts or rules that the Buddha said is one of three lower fetters to future states of woe not heaven.
Police still slandered:
The McCanns who are now advised by experienced lawyers have come with the explanation that soiled personal effects of Madeleine and her siblings were transported in the boot that may explain the positive tests by police. Depending on the nature of the fluids and hair that police found this may or may not explain.
Nevertheless, they and those who berated Portuguese police have slandered them by implying they maliciously planted evidence to solve the case. It appears that police are trying to solve the case and looking at all angles and the reactions of many including the McCanns who said that the police case does not stack up is slanderous and there is punishment as great as hell for slander.
DO NOT MAKE WILD ALLEGATIONS THAT THE POLICE ARE MALICIOUS. EVEN IF THE DNA EVIDENCE IS DUE TO SOILED EFFECTS OF MADELEINE, THE POLICE DETECTED THAT ON GOOD FAITH AND DID NOT PLANT THEM AND YOU ARE SLANDERING BY IMPLYING THEY ARE VICTIMIZING YOU.
EVEN IF THE DNA EVIDENCE IS SPURIOUS WHAT I SAID STILL HOLDS BECAUSE I SAID POLICE CANNOT HAVE FRAMED THE MCCANNS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO HER BODY TO FRAME THEM.
Where Is the body:
Quote: A close friend said: "The legitimate question to ask Portuguese police is: "Where is the body? Where's the evidence that Madeleine is dead?"."
Comment: Why is it that the person did not mean what he said?
He does not mean what he said because he knows police do not know where the body is and he is not interested in the police telling him where the body is but he is curtly or derisively (emotions) reminding the police that they do not have the body and therefore they have no case against her parents. If you think that ‘you have no case because you have no body to prove she is dead’ is the same as asking ‘where is the body’ you may be correct or you have advanced false perception that will end in your mad perception. Therefore here as many places else people think they mean what they say and say what they mean but they don’t. As a result they are hypocrites heading for woe not heaven.
The rationale behind this is again not specific to this case but it is based on a generalisation he deems infallible and wants you to similarly subscribe to as infallible that in order to prove a murder you must produce a body to establish that the person is dead. Because Madeleine's body has not been found she may be alive and because she may be alive you cannot charge anyone with her murder, therefore 'get lost'.
It implies that even if the McCanns did it, police must put up and shut up unless they produce the body. This is the wrong human view that it does not matter if I did it, prove that I did it when the right view is the opposite, it does not matter whether it can be proved but what matters is did you or did you not do it?
It was said by an expert that hair found in the car can be determined to be from a dead body or dropped off a living person because there are detectable differences in the growth patterns. Even if there is no reference DNA for Madeleine because she is now missing, if the DNA of the blood found was very similar to the McCanns and their children but differed from them, it must have come from Madeleine and not them and therefore Madeleine’s dead body was in the car.
If this is the case you do not need a body to confirm that she is likely if not certainly dead and her body was carried in the car.
If the bodily fluid, blood and hair in the car can be proven to come not from the McCanns but from Madeleine in quantities that cannot be due to spurious contamination then the McCanns have some serious explaining to do because she had already disappeared by then so how come so much material is in the car?
Further through indiscretions, the McCanns may have email or recorded spoken evidence what they knew happened to Madeleine that they did not tell and that would incriminate them even without a body.
WHEN SOMEONE ASKS, ‘WHERE IS THE PEN’ HE WANTS YOU TO TELL HIM WHERE THE PEN IS BUT WHEN HE ASKED ‘WHERE IS THE BODY’ HE DOES MEAN HE WANTS YOU TO TELL HIM WHERE THE BODY IS BUT HE MEANS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK OUT FOR YOURSELF AND EVEN THEN YOU CANNOT BE CERTAIN THAT IS WHAT HE MEANT LIKE ‘YOU HAVE NO CASE AGAINST MY FRIENDS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO BODY’. HE MAY MEAN MANY OTHER THINGS IF YOU CARE TO EXERCISE YOUR IMAGINATION OR FALSE PERCEPTION. IF YOU DO NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE AND HEADED FOR PERDITION.
Why did the McCanns React So Hysterically?
You could say the McCanns 'went ballistic' with outrage at suggestions by police they killed Madeleine during their interrogations and refused to answer many questions and afterwards Gerry McCann haughtily said he need not tell you that the police's case did not stack up.
By proffering an explanation for the presence of DNA evidence in the boot, they are now admitting police has a case to suspect them.
Police have a right to suspect the McCanns in their effort to solve the case. Just because you do not like being suspected for reasons best known to you does not mean you are entitled to launch a broadside against them and in so doing you are not only accruing karmic debt for attacking and slandering but you are conditioning yourself to emotional false perception that whatever people say or do that you do not like equals hostile when it is not hostile but not liked by you because it disadvantages you.
In this situation when confronted with evidence of wrongdoing a person who is innocent and righteous may be shaken and will express surprise by saying they are surprised by the presence of incriminating evidence but there must be explanation and they might even come up with the correct explanation that it may be because they kept Madeleine's personal effects in the boot.
A person who is innocent but unrighteous will be angered to hurl abuse at their accusers and even though they may be innocent by so doing they are incurring serious karma.
A person who is guilty when confronted by evidence that is compelling as in this case is to be expected to retaliate (counter accuse) to act as if they are innocent and detract from the matter at hand, namely the presence of hard to explain incriminating evidence. They may falsely perceive the police is attacking them when the police is presenting them with unpalatable facts and because they perceive they are being attacked they cannot resist launching emotional counter attacks.
THUS THE EMOTIONAL IRRATIONAL COUNTER ATTACKING BY THE McCANNS MAY REFLECT THEY ARE INNOCENT BUT UNRIGHTEOUS (LESS LIKELY) OR THEY ARE GUILTY AND STRIVING TO DETRACT FROM THE MATTER AT HAND.
The reason that the McCanns have now come to a more rational refutation of the case against them may reflect they have now employed experienced defence lawyers ('handlers') who can teach them what to say and work out plausible explanations for whatever the police can accuse them of.
Quote: Kate and Gerry McCann have challenged the Portuguese police to produce their daughter Madeleine's body to prove they killed her.
Without it, their lawyers believe, it will be extremely difficult for authorities in the Algarve to press charges.
The couple threw down the gauntlet as it emerged Portuguese prosecutors want to seize Mrs McCann's private diaries and her husband's laptop computer.
Comment: It is totally unnecessary to issue challenges to the police and it is driven by aggression which is a form of ill will to impress others you are innocent. Foolish people feel that if they are seen to throw police the challenge or dare they must be certain they are innocent when it may be all bluff that draw more suspicions.
Of what use is it to dare the police? You have false perception that will end in mad perception if you think you challenging is meaningful when it is mere bravado.
Quote: Mr McCann's sister, Philomena McCann, said the possibility that police might seize the toy was a 'disgrace', adding: "It would be extremely distressing for Kate because she has seen it as a symbol of her daughter since she went missing.
"Why on earth do they ask for the toys now? Why didn't they think of this before?"
Comment: You may not like the idea of the police confiscating your belongings but there is nothing disgraceful about this except in your advanced false perception and to unrighteously imply police are disgraceful. Do not ask frivolous questions, the police may have relevant reasons and circumstances may have changed so that they now want the item. The questions are therefore based on emotional hostility or derision not reason.
Reference DNA for Madeleine may be found on her favourite toy or in hair found at her home in UK or on her clothes and so police may have reference DNA to compare what they found in the car.
Quote: The 39-year-old doctors have strenuously denied ever harming Madeleine and are devastated the hunt for her has been overshadowed by an attempt to 'set them up'.
Comment: If the police have set them up why have they bothered to explain that the DNA evidence may be spurious therefore acknowledging police did not plant DNA in the car?
One slip and the game is up:
One slip by the alleged kidnapper and his game may be up. Even if he may have taken precautions to silence Madeleine it only takes a moment for a child to scream and that will alert adults nearby. Children usually cannot be threatened with death to remain silence because they may not understand the concept of death and so threats to remain silent will not work with children and unless the kidnapper made sure she cannot scream, one slip and his cover may be blown.