Starting to start

Quote Madonna in song: I am starting to start moving out.
Comment: Ordinary people might be fascinated by such a statement and that is liking or the stirring of their mental forces attractively that has nothing to do with reason or understanding.
Starting to start makes no sense, you can only start but if you force yourself enough you might soon start to perceive perhaps it is possible to start to start. Thus people are kidding themselves if they think they do not speak nonsense. They do it far more frequently than they realize.
The motive of saying that is to deceive or confuse or puzzle others and that is never guided by reason but driven by ill will to be mischievous.
(A PERSON WHO IS A ROBOT NEED MENTAL RULES OR ORDERS TO SAY OR DO THINGS. THEY CANNOT DO OR SAY THINGS WITHOUT ORDERS. IN A GIVEN SITUATION IT OCCURS IN THEIR MINDS: DO THIS OR SAY THIS OR DO THIS AND SAY THAT AND THEY OBEY AND CARRY OUT)
A computer does not know anything:
A computer cannot and does not know or understand anything, it merely carries out what it has been instructed to do, it does not understand what it is doing.
And thus if a person is a robot or jukebox operator, he cannot or does not know anything, he merely carries out what he has instructed or society has instructed him to do.
This may be or is the situation with most ordinary people who do not realize that their thinking is merely applying rules and they perceive there are rules in their minds and they are obeying those rules they are reasoning or understanding what they do when they are merely voyeurs and disk jockeys who are sometimes bypassed by their jukeboxes that automatically render the pre-recorded sequence for him without being ordered).
However sophisticated your Vista computer is, if you think it knows and understands you have false perception. In the same way no matter how sophisticated human robots are, if you think they understand and know you may be deluding yourself because even the very intellectual ones fall under the ambit of what Jesus described as seeing they do not see, hearing they do not hear.
An apparent contradiction:
Even though a modern computer can hold a vast library of knowledge in its hard disks that it can retrieve and render upon request by the user, it can conduct powerful and rapid searches and do rapid computations even faster than humans can, the computer itself never knows nor understands the knowledge it holds nor everything it does because there is no life in it and it just does whatever it is instructed to do by software.
In the same way even though a human with apparently sophisticated thinking can hold a vast library of knowledge in his mental hard disk that he can retrieve and render quite appropriately to the occasion upon request by the person himself or others, he can conduct powerful and rapid searches for relevant knowledge and do rapid replies to a current situation, this sophisticated impressive human being may never truly know nor understand the knowledge he holds nor everything he does because he just a voyeur and disk jockey with whatever and however he perceives, thinks, speaks and does rendered by rehash from his jukebox according to rules he and others have helped him set to trigger those activities and often the jukebox automatically does everything for him even without his instruction.
You hear people speak derisively of others as just a show, putting on an act and it is better to talk to a wall or teach a wall than trying to teach someone but even those who deride may fall in the same category because what they are trying to do is not teach someone but rewrite his instructions to conform to his. Just as the other person refuses the arduous task of rewriting his own software to conform with that of the person trying to ‘teach’ him, the person who is lamenting too will often refuse to allow his own mental software to be rewritten by others to conform to them and it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
If people truly know and understand what they are doing then surely they will know, can see and will be able to demonstrate to me every instance in which they stretched syllables, change speed and loudness and they can instantly switch from stretching to non stretching, changing speed to non changing speed.
Even if I give them ample time to study themselves and then tell me precisely how they have stretched, changed speed and loudness, they will severely underestimate and under demonstrate the occurrences of stretching, changing speed and loudness that they perpetrate all the time.
If you are not a robot then surely you can choose to just for one occasion speak to me without stretching or changing speed or loudness but like a record stuck in a groove, they cannot help themselves stretching, changing speed and loudness just like they always do that differ from others.
THUS WHEN PEOPLE THINK THEY KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THEY MAY BE DECEIVING THEMSELVES, MISTAKING THEIR SOPHISTICATED STORAGE OF INFORMATION AND SEEMINGLY APPROPRIATE RETRIEVAL OF INFORMATION THAT MAY BE THEMSELVES FALSE AS THEIR KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING.
Live & rote understanding:
Understanding or knowing something can be live or rote (faked live).
In live understanding, once something is understood in one instance it is understood in all instances, in rote or faked understanding, something may be understood as it occurs in some instances but not others or it has to be repeatedly understood laboriously for each instance or it will be understood in some instances but not others.
Again if the ability to understand is live, specific for every occasion then unless the concepts or ideas being communicated are exotic or novel, if they are actually familiar then the person whose understanding is live should immediately understand or grasp what he is being told. If he does not then his usual understanding is rote, his understanding in this new situation must be hammered into him repeatedly never with reason but with force until it sticks or is programmed or instructed in him.
Concepts or ideas like syllables, stretching, changing, speed and loudness are familiar to most people and they understand (at least approximately) what is meant in each case yet there are some contexts in which these occur in which they are even totally blind or refuse to see.
For instance musicians are frequently talking about pitch changes and surely they understand what is speed changes and they often deride some people as ‘tone blind’ yet although they can discern and understand speed changes elsewhere, they cannot recognize or understand the pitch changes they are talking about is nothing more than speed changes within the notes that are prolonged. Surely if you are familiar with speed changes elsewhere and you truly and fully understand speed changes, you should straight away recognize speed changes in your speech and music?
Thus the understanding, seeing and knowing of stretching, speed & loudness changes in ordinary stylish people are selective, fixed or mechanical and appears as if they must be programmed in them in each instance otherwise they will only recognize them in the occurrences to which they have been programmed.
Again if a person’s capacity to understand something new is live specific for the occasion and since true understanding is a function of reason that requires no force or repeated exposures, true understanding occurs immediately after contact and does not require repetition whilst forceful conditioning requires repetition (which is why humans require training workshops). Concepts like syllables, stretching, changing, speed and loudness are familiar to most people and so on being informed that there are constant stretching of syllables, changes in speed and loudness within and between syllables they should immediately with true reason see completely once and for all that this is so. Yet if I were to give ordinary people ample time, even months to examine their speech and then point out to me every instance in which they change speed and to demonstrate to me how distinctively different their speech will be without stretching, changing speed and loudness, they will be ALL unable to do so.
IF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS IS LIVE, SPECIFIC TO EACH INSTANCE, HOW COME YOU CANNOT IMMEDIATELY UNDERSTAND PERMANENTLY SUCH SIMPLE EVERYDAY CONCEPTS AS STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS? HOW COME YOU CAN SEE AND UNDERSTAND SPEED AND LOUDNESS CHANGES OR DIFFERENCES IN CARS AND STEREO SYSTEMS BUT YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND AND SEE THE SAME CHANGES IN YOUR SPEECH? IF YOU CAN SEE & TRULY UNDERSTAND, HOW COME YOU CANNOT SHOW ME?
THUS PEOPLE’S ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THINGS, EVEN IN THOSE WHO APPEAR VERY SOPHISTICATED, MAY BE AN ELABORATE DECEPTION, THEY ARE MERELY ROTE UNDERSTANDING CERTAIN THINGS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SITUATIONS THEY HAVE BEEN PROGRAMMED WITH AND FRESH UNDERSTANDING IN NEW SITUATIONS MUST BE LABORIOUSLY INSTRUCTED OR INSTALLED AS NEW SOFTWARE.
THUS IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND THEIR STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS, THEY MUST BE REPEATEDLY TOLD SO OR ORDERED TO SEE SO THAT THEY WILL SLOWLY INCREASINGLY FORCEFULLY PROGRAM THEMSELVES TO SEE STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS IN THIS PARTICULAR NEW SETTING AND THUS BEING INCREASINGLY ABLE TO SEE, THEY MIGHT INSTITUTE PROGRAMMED CHANGES NAMELY STOP STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT WILL REDUCE THEIR RESIDENT STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT WILL THEN ALLOW THEM TO INCREASINGLY TRULY LIVE SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND OR KNOW THINGS.
People always think by rules not live:
The fact that when confronted by something said or done to them that is out of the ordinary they get flustered and don’t know what to say or do so that they even hastily reject or turn away or ignore without thinking reflects ordinary people are faking live thinking and their thinking is driven by force and rule bound and because they have no ready answers that their mental jukeboxes can supply them and tell them what to do, they become flustered and repelled by the rude surprise it is to be expected that they would resort to rejecting or ignoring what is said or done to them.
For instance if a person (even very intellectual ones) were to hear for the first time what I say that there is constant stretching of syllables and changes in speed and loudness in the speech of everyone here and this is the only cause of the stress, restlessness and distraction they must regularly experience, it would take them by surprise, usually unpleasant or disliked that may reach even stunned or blanked reaction and because they have never heard this before, there is no mental jukebox rule to cope with this out of the blue statement, in their embarrassment (an emotion) they are likely to without reasoning or taking into consideration dismiss what I say as rubbish or at least oppose or they may choose to ignore or pretend not to hear.
A person who can reason specifically for any given occasion will not be flustered but if what I said is proposed to him he will use reason to assess the meaning of what I say and try to verify whether what I say is true eg is it true there is stretching of syllables, constant speech and loudness changes, is it true that if he stopped stretching, changing speed and loudness his stress, restlessness and distraction disappears? He will not dismiss out of hand or express reservations without evidence or ignore and may give a tentative answer like ‘what you say may be true, I will have to think about it’.
There is actually diverse evidence both theoretical (by reason) and in practice to say that all ordinary or stylish or emotional people must reason by rules never live specific for each occasion.
The Buddha said you have already shed your blood by having your neck chopped more than the four great oceans and yet you are here. No man who can truly reason instead of fake reason would have allowed his head to be chopped not even once let alone so many times. Of course you believe the Buddha is deluded to say that.
No man who can see the truth will appreciate and practice falsity. All ordinary people appreciate and tell jokes, tell lies or false things or nonsense or conflicting things often without knowing or believing what they say is truth when they can be examined and found to be false. How can a person who is able to see and understands what is true and what is false say without knowing what is false, nonsense or conflicting? If you cannot see the truth and you practice unknowingly falsity (eg by appreciating jokes), how can you truly reason? You need to be able to see well what is true and what is false to separate the chaff from the grains to provide true reason with the substrates to work on. On the other hand if you are muddled, cannot tell what is true or false you must fall on mental rules or reason by rules for you to decide what to conclude.
When people become very emotional, they become incoherent and cannot think properly if at all. A person’s mind is never subject to force part time but force is resident in his mind always and only the intensity of force aroused varies. The inability to think at intense emotion (eg anger or lust or excitement) only represents the extreme end of the scale. Even when emotional people appear calm they are still under the influence of force and their thinking or reasoning is accordingly corrupted.
Force is constantly forcefully stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness when the person speaks or thinks and that indicates the person’s thinking is inseparably contaminated by force and because force is blind and harmful, it means the thinking or reasoning too cannot be true but seriously contaminated or flawed.
No man of true reason will permit his mind to be subject to force that is not only painful but conditioning and will destroy that mind. Because ordinary people are constantly using force to fabricate style, to like and dislike they cannot be men of reason but crazy.
Ordinary people’s minds are beset by stress, restlessness and distraction to greater or lesser degree but never absent. Stress, restlessness and distraction are formidable even insurmountable barriers to accessing true live specific reason.
No person of true reason will practice style not even for a moment let alone constantly in what and how they perceive, think, speak and move. The reason is that style is false, has nothing to do with reason but is merely the use of force to stretch, change speed and loudness for show to impress, please, intimidate and dominate and it is harmful or stressful. Because ordinary people manifest style all the time, they cannot be beings of true reason.
Whenever you try to instruct another person even over simple matters, there is resistance and they don’t get it not because they refuse to accept it because it is false but their minds are forcefully switched off or elsewhere or there is forceful resistance to perceiving and understanding what is said to them. A person of true reason immediately sees and understands what is said to him to know whether it is true or false and you do not need to struggle and repeated tell or hammer into them. The fact that ordinary people need repeated telling, may fail to understand even simple things told them reflects they cannot think properly or specific to each occasion.
If people examine their minds carefully it is not they who are thinking but it is their emotions, likes and dislikes that is making their minds their playground to entertain often frivolous, silly, dingdong thoughts, arguing with themselves, thinking in the one of the many rote patterns, style and content that they have previously thought or reasoned in. Whenever something important that demands their consideration arises, they have to use force to disrupt this mental cacophony to present their minds with the ‘facts’ of the case as their minds see it and rather than reasoning live what the facts (that may be fiction) add up to in this case, they consult their mental jukebox of rules for explanations and having found an explanation or rule they delude themselves they have correctly reasoned specific for this case.
When people read that ordinary people only think by rules, they cannot examine live the facts of the case and work out specifically the meaning of a particular case, they may be stirred to think “Rubbish, what arrogant rubbish, if what I am thinking now is not examining live the facts of the case and working out specifically the meaning of a particular case, what is it!!!???”
What they do not realize is that they are deceiving themselves. Their remark, “Rubbish, what arrogant rubbish” is not based on reason but based on dislike and it is aimed at attacking the other person. It is not the first nor the last time that he will think “Rubbish, what arrogant rubbish”. “If what I am thinking now is not examining live the facts of the case and working out specifically the meaning of a particular case, what is it!!!???” is just a simple refutation or just saying the opposite of what I said and is just a matter of copying what I said, a form of rote thinking to then twist it around and state the opposite. This is no great feat of true specific reason. Thus irked they may search their mental jukeboxes for suitable rule driven ripostes to what I propose and so they may delude themselves that they have reasoned live specific for the occasion but what they have done is rehashed their “Rubbish, what arrogant rubbish”, copied to refute or say the opposite what I said “they cannot examine live the facts of the case and work out specifically the meaning of a particular case” and then driven by hostility consulted their mental jukeboxes for rules they may apply to this case to attack me.
Even a person like Einstein may read what I say “There are constant stretching of syllables, changes in speed and loudness in the speech of all people and this is the only source of the stress, restlessness and distraction that must regularly beset them” with a stunned or blank look (stunning or blanking is all about force, not reason. True reason cannot cause a person to be stunned or blanked). He may then smile (a force reaction to dismiss or refuse to accept) and because he is not a usually attacking person, he may just brush what I say (brush is based on force not reason) out his mind to attend with force on something else, or find an excuse of occupying himself with something else to ignore what he read.
It is not because what I say is false because I can show you that there is constant stretching, changing of speed and loudness of the speech of everyone and how each time I imitate them to do so, I experience stress, restlessness and distraction building up, the reason they get stunned or become blanked is because their mental force is shaken out of its usual rut by what I said that is out of the ordinary for them and because they do not possess live specific for the occasion reason but operate by rules reasoning, they are taken aback, do not know what to make of what I said and the easiest and automatic way out, as they have do so in other situations (eg some people are uncomfortably with intimacy and when someone hugs them, they push them away and retire into their own shell), they withdraw by looking for something else to occupy their minds like mindlessly picking up a book as if to read when it is just to avert their attention from what they are uncomfortable with.
As Jesus said, no man can serve two masters (reason or force), he must love one and hate the other. Because all ordinary people love force otherwise they would not use force to stretch, change speed and loudness, they like to like and dislike, they are slaves to force and not only cannot have true reason, they hate true reason.
Workaholic Wenger gunning to outstrip Fergie:
No live specific to the occasion thinker will issue this statement because it is false and presumptuous and it reflects the person is a rote rules only thinker.
Wenger is the long serving successful manager of Arsenal who are called the gunners and Fergie is the even longer serving successful manager of ‘bitter’ rivals Manchester United.
“Gunning” is just a play of words because Arsenal are the gunners. Just because Wenger is continuing and may serve longer than Fergie does not mean he is gunning to outstrip Fergie. Has he asked Wenger to ascertain his intentions?
Thus what he said is false and presumptuous and he has a axe over his head and is somnolent man of falsity.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A MAN OF TRUE LIVE SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION REASON TO ISSUE SUCH A STATEMENT AND THEREFORE HE MUST BE A HACKNEYED RULES ONLY THINKER.
When faced by a situation or words he has never heard or seen before an unemotional man of true reason is not flustered, not stunned or frozen into inaction but he mindfully collects all the information available regarding the situation, try to combine them together to make a rational conclusion what it is all about or not commit himself. He does not collect information to then consult his mental rules department for a ready explanation.
If you are a rules thinker you will be taken aback by the extraordinary happening, your mental force cannot help being stunned or alarmed or flustered and it is useless searching for a rules explanation because it is extraordinary and thus stirred and needing a response it is unsurprising but to be expected that he might emotionally reject out of hand what is proposed to him or seek to forcefully ignore.
How people can still think when distracted:
Whenever people are quite seriously stressed, restless and distracted they can still reason in a way that is not obviously different from their usual of reasoning.
It is impossible for a person whose mind is wracked by significant stress, restlessness and distraction to concentrate on matters at hand and he cannot therefore reason specifically for the occasion but must be just fake or rote reasoning and the fact they can still reason in a way that is no different from their usual way of reasoning reflects that their usual way of thinking or reasoning is similarly searching and retrieving previously recorded explanations rules reasoning.
Words are spoken thoughts or reason:
A person’s words are derived from his thoughts and reason and are essentially thoughts and reasoning that is ventilated physically.
Because what people say is seldom novel but have antecedents, always have a style that is typical of them and differs from others that require it to be memorized and regurgitate by rote, the thinking and reasoning that must mirror the stylish rote speech must be similarly rote rule bound rehashed to apply to an arising situation.
THUS BECAUSE WHAT PEOPLE SAY ALWAYS HAS A CONSISTENT STYLE AND HAVE BEEN SAID BEFORE THAT INDICATES IT MUST BE ROTE OR REHASHED, AND SPEECH IS MERELY SPOKEN THOUGHTS AND REASONING, THEIR REASONING TOO MUST SIMILARLY BE ROTE RULES ONLY THINKING OR REASONING.
Thinking along certain lines & apparent innovations:
There are instances of novel thinking not along established lines but they are few and far between and only restricted to specific instances in specific individuals not in all people all the time or even some people most of the time. Most so called new thinking are along already established lines of thinking and therefore still forms of copying or chop and recombine thinking perhaps chopping and borrowing one concept from another established field to apply in this field.
Only occasionally in some people is there truly unique never before thinking. If what appears novel or revolutionary thinking in some instances is examined they will be found to be offshoots or modifications of already established ideas, not truly breaking new grounds. Offshoots mean they have precedents and are the truly or falsely logical successor of what went before and is therefore a form of copying or rules or instruction thinking.
‘Thinking along certain lines’ is not truly free thinking but it means thinking guided by what has happened in the past in oneself or learnt or copied from others or retrieving ideas of the past to add or modify and the modifications or additions may not be revolutionary but borrowed from what is known in another field to be applied to this field.
Thus you may think the inception of flying planes in humans is revolutionary and a sign of live thinking but there are precedents in bird, wings and streamlining that is borrowed or copied from birds and the propulsion is borrowed from engines already established driving cars.
Jet engines replacing propellers may appear to be revolutionary but jet engines may have precedents from which it developed.
The use of lasers to cut the microcircuits of a chip is essentially the same as using a diamond tool to cut circuits that went before it and therefore not truly unprecedented.
It may be possible not to think along certain lines but to think in all directions but in rules thinking, thinking is artificially restricted to and developed along certain lines and path and whatever new discoveries may be apparently not truly new but rehashes of the same old things in new guises.
THERE MAY BE GENUINE NEW IDEAS BUT THEY OCCUR TO FEW PEOPLE & ONLY VERY RARELY IN THEM AND EVEN THEN IT MAY BE INSPIRED BY MODELS IN NATURE AND ONCE PUBLICIZED THEY ARE COPIED BY ROTE BY OTHERS. HOWEVER IF THESE INNOVATIONS ARE EXAMINED THEY MAY BE FOUND TO BE COPIED FROM IDEAS IN OTHER FIELDS OR COPIED FROM NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT TRULY NEW BUT DEVELOPMENTS ON ESTABLISHED LINES SOMETIMES ESSENTIALLY CHOPPING TO RECOMBINE WITH IDEAS FROM OTHER FIELDS AND THEREFORE A FORM OF COPYING & JUGGLING RATHER THAN TRULY LIVE SPECIFIC TO A SITUATION REASONING.
I have nobody to copy from:
As diverse and vast the repository of human knowledge is, it is just a library of principles or rules plus information or data to be transferred to or copied by humans and a lot of what is accepted as true may be false (eg Freudian psychoanalysis, id & ego etc) as I have demonstrated that human interpretation of what the Buddha and Jesus taught may be far off the mark. People are copying principles and rules from each other to believe and apply and reasoning based on such copied principles and data is not live specific to the occasion reasoning but rote ruled reasoning. And a lot if not the entirety of what humans know as knowledge may be copied from nature rather than human innovations without precedents eg human flight has precedents and is modelled on bird flight.
Thus the majority if not entirety of human thinking and reasoning is acquiring rules and knowledge already preset in place by others and these too are copied from nature, memorizing them by heart and attempting to apply them in all situations or walks of life.
Seldom if ever do stylish or emotional people gather the facts of a case and then try to fit them together to tell a story but they gather the facts (that may not be facts but they perceive as facts) and then they consult the rules in their minds to interpret the facts of the case according to the rules existing in their minds.
In order for you to tell or find the truth in a situation, you must first be able to see the truth or see things clearly as they are (discernment). Wisdom is the ability to organize or put together what you see clearly to tell you a story of what it is all about and so wisdom or true reasoning is higher than discernment, the mere capacity to see things clearly rather than as you forcefully like or dislike. Without the ability to see things clearly you cannot reason clearly or truly and if you cannot see clearly you are deprived of the possibility of reasoning clearly or wisdom and must resort to its faked substitute, the application of rules reasoning. Because stylish emotional people cannot see things clearly but according to their likes and dislikes, how can they have wisdom or the capacity to reason live to put together the facts of the case after dismissing falsity to come to a conclusion of what it is all about?
I have said many things that are truly without precedent, nobody has ever said it in the past and even today, nobody can or will say what I say. Because nobody has said what I said, I cannot be guilty of copying anyone and I cannot be rehashing from others. All people’s behaviour, dress, thinking, speech have similarities with others so that it is possible or the truth that they copied from others and that is rehashing that has nothing to do with reason but using force to encode and decode.
For instance people are talking about style and yet there is no definition of style. I have said the style in the way a person speak is essentially the way he uses force to stretch syllables, change speed and loudness within and between syllables and words that is consistent in him but differs in others. The consistency means it must be reproduced from memory and the person is therefore regurgitating what he says to fake specific response and he is a robot.
I have said the constant use of force to stretch, change speed and strength of force is the only cause of stress, restlessness and distraction that must beset stylish people and they will increasingly condition them and finally run out of their control and they face certain future madness.
I have said the only cause of sadness is the person’s incessant use of force to prolong that when their force of self preservation deserts them leaving their consciousness exposed, is experienced as sadness.
I have said the only cause of feeling hurt is the person’s incessant use of force to change speed and strength of force that when their force of self preservation deserts them leaving their consciousness exposed, is experienced as hurt. If you must like you must get hurt.
I have said the emotions apart from fear are nothing more than like and dislike in fancy clothes for different occasions. Like is the stirring in speed and strength of a person’s force of going against self under the control of his force of self preservation whilst dislike is the stirring in speed and strength of a person’s force of going against self out of the control of his force of self preservation. Fear is the emotion when his force of self preservation suddenly rises to much greater levels and his force of going against self suddenly drops in speed and strength pulling the person away from what he is doing or makes him run away.
Even nobody has said this: poetry is just playing with words and art and sculpture just playing with images and forms with a false perception that the products are sublime or beyond words, not because they are true but they are false and therefore indescribable.
There is nothing more fundamental that concerns all beings here than their suffering from stress, restlessness and distraction that often drive them to their limits of tolerance and what I say about stretching, changing speed and strength being the causes of stress, restlessness and distraction can be proven because I can demonstrate their presence in the speech of everyone here and I can demonstrate how different speech without stretching, changing speed and loudness sounds and if I tried to imitate the stretching, changing speed and loudness I experience stress, restlessness and distraction rising and therefore what I say is true that has never been said before.
I have changed the world’s consciousness by contagion after 1977 and again in recent years which is without precedent and therefore cannot have been copied.
THUS AS DIVERSE AND VAST HUMAN KNOWLEDGE MAY BE, THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY MANY DIFFERENT SETS OF PRINCIPLES OR RULES ACCOMPANIED BY DATA THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS TRUE THAT ARE MEANT TO BE COPIED AND APPLIED BY ROTE BY HUMANS IN SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS. THERE ARE VERY FEW GENUINE INNOVATIONS AND MANY INNOVATIONS ARE COPIED FROM NATURE OR ANIMALS. THUS THE REASONING OF ORDINARY STYLISH HUMANS MAY CONSIST OF COPYING RULES AND DATA FROM OTHERS AND REHASHING THEM AND THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REASON LIVE SPECIFIC FOR EACH OCCASION OR EXAMINING AND EXTRACTING THE FACTS OF A CASE AND PUTTING THEM TOGETHER TO TELL A STORY RATHER THAN CONSULT THEIR MENTAL RULE BOOK TO TELL THEM WHAT IT ALL MEANS.
The basis of people’s actions is like or dislike, not reason:
Everything that happens to emotional people, even top scientists, is an occasion for like or dislike and often they are not even aware they are liking or disliking.
Everything they say or do has accompanying expressed like or dislike that may be genuine or faked together with the substance of what they say or do that may be valid or false, nonsensical or conflicting. Often the conveyed like or dislike is the principal and even only basis of what they say or do.
Because like and dislike is all about the stirring of force that has no reason and is blind, how can people who are conveying like or dislike in what they say or do truly specifically reason?
Even scientists can be heard expressing their like for this theory as opposed to their dislike for a rival theory implying their like and dislike is based on reason or meaningful. How can someone who don’t know the nature of like and dislike, who are often unaware they are expressing like or dislike that is the major intention of what they say or do truly reason?
“Workaholic Wenger gunning to outstrip Fergie” is an objectively false statement and it is stated in such a way as to stir ‘wow’ or attraction for what he is proposing. Because wow or like is about force and nothing to do with reason, what he said that is false (did he ascertain Wenger is indeed gunning to outstrip?) with a false purpose, namely to stir thrill or liking.
If the facts that you supply your reason can be proven to be objectively false, then your reason has no hope of arriving at truth. A lot of what people express in their speech can be proven false and if these are the input for their reasoning then the product will always be false.
YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME THAT EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE IS AN OCCASION FOR LIKE OR DISLIKE AND THERE IS ALWAYS DISCERNIBLE ACCOMPANYING LIKE OR DISLIKE THAT MAY BE GENUINE OR FAKED IN WHATEVER PEOPLE SAY OR DO AND THEY ARE OFTEN UNAWARE OF THEIR LIKE AND DISLIKE, BUT IF WHAT I SAY IS TRUE AND LIKE OR DISLIKE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON BUT IS ALL ABOUT MEANINGLESS STIRRING OF MENTAL FORCE, THEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO REASON TRULY BASED ON THE SPECIFICS OF AN EVENT.
A rude surprise:
For example if in the course of a seemingly routine conversation someone unexpectedly turned on you by asking with such fabricated concern, “Why are you so rude?” the person who is a rules thinker may be taken aback and dumbstruck, may be agitated and his rules thinking will tell him to respond tit for tat so that his anger may be stirred to such intensity that he cannot resist verbally attacking the other person.
The person who is a genuine specific to the occasion thinker will calmly assessed the situation and know that the other person’s motive is to invite him to argue with her and thus knowing it is a fruitless exercise that will stress both he will choose the correct but unpalatable option of asking the person to get out.
TO GET SUCKED HIM TO VERBALLY ATTACK ANOTHER PERSON IS A COUNTER PRODUCTIVE FORCE DRIVEN REACTION THAT RULE BOUND TIT FOR THAT THINKERS MAY FIND IT HARD TO RESIST BUT A LIVE THINKING PERSON WILL ASSESS AND REALIZE THE EVIL INTENT OF THE OTHER PERSON TO PROVOKE HIM AND CHOOSE THE BEST OPTION TO TELL THE OTHER PERSON TO GET OUT.
Why people get stunned:
Nowadays things happening no matter how unexpected do not stun me but all people with style must get stunned that they seek to hide from others.
The reason why a person can get stunned is because he is somnolently totally dependent on a stream of instructions or rules telling him what to perceive, think, speak and do in order to function and this stream of rules or instructions is vulnerable to disruption because it must be accessed and retrieved and is powered by force that can be disrupted by something of sufficient gravity or force happening. Without the usual stream of instructions telling him what to perceive, think, say or do he is unable to perceive, think, speak or do live by himself and he is thereby paralyzed or stunned.
A person who is not dependent on rules or pre recorded instructions or software programs that must be accessed and retrieved but uses genuine specific live free of force reason to function has no instructions on which to depend that can be disrupted and therefore he cannot be stunned or paralyzed by power failure to be unable to perceive, think, speak or do things until power is restored.
A person who is just a company director depends totally on his staff and secretary to get things done and should anything happen to his staff he is helpless because he has never done anything by himself. A person who is a ‘hands on’ operator cannot be stranded because he does everything by himself obviating the need for a secretary or office boy.
Fear itself can cause someone to become stunned but fear is not being stunned and the two must not be confused with each other.
True reason has no force that can be interrupted and it is only force that has momentum that is vulnerable to disruption and thus if a person can be stunned it indicates his activities eg his reasoning is rule bound, rehashed driven by force that is vulnerable to disruption and so if something happens of sufficient intensity to disrupt the stream of rule bound rehashed reasoning, the person becomes stunned or paralysed until he regains his composure or power is restored.
Being stunned can occur without fear. The reason why a strong England supporter will become stunned on hearing the unexpected news that England lost and failed to qualify for the European championships is not because he is seized by fear but he is stunned is because he has forceful expectations of qualification, he expects things to go according to plans, his usual stream of perceiving, thinking including reasoning, speaking and doing things is mindlessly rehashed dictated by force and the happening of something that is of significant importance to him disrupts the usual flow of power and all his activities grind to a halt and he is powerless and don’t know what to do or think or say.
Only a presumptuous person has expectations and not only has he expectations but his expectations are driven by excessive emotional force or his expectations are emotional and when the emotional expectations is unexpectedly thwarted, he is stunned or there is a sudden power failure driving that usually drives his activities.
A person of true reason performs all his activities live specific for the occasion not rehash what was pre-recorded driven by excessive force and so even if he expected England to qualify, there is no emotional or forceful drive in his expectations that can be brought to a crunching halt and so it is impossible for him to be stunned.
THE FACT THAT A PERSON CAN BE STUNNED INDICATES HE IS A JUKEBOX OPERATOR REHASHING WHATEVER HE PERCEIVES, THINKS, SPEAKS AND DOES DRIVEN BY FORCE NOT GUIDED BY GENUINE REASON THAT CAN BE ARRESTED BY EVENTS OCCURRING. WHENEVER SOMETHING UNEXPECTED OCCURS THE USUAL STREAM OF FORCEFUL RULE BOUND AUTOMATED INSTRUCTIONS AS TO HOW TO PERCEIVE, THINK, SPEAK AND DO IS ARRESTED CAUSING HIM TO BE STUNNED UNTIL POWER IS RESTORED.
IN OTHER WORDS BEING STUNNED IS A SUDDEN SYSTEMIC POWER FAILURE IN A PERSON WHOSE REASONING IS NOT GUIDED LIVE BY REASON BUT INSTRUCTED BY RULES IN HIS MIND OR COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON RULES IN HIS MIND TELLING HIM WHAT TO DO THAT CAN BE INTERRUPTED BY THE OCCURRENCE OF SOMETHING HAPPENING OF SUFFICIENT INTENSITY TO DISRUPT THE USUAL FLOW OF POWER.
THE AROUSAL OF SIGNIFICANT FEAR EG THE SUDDEN SHAKING OF AN EARTHQUAKE CAN DISRUPT THIS USUAL FORCEFUL STREAM OF INSTRUCTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ACCESSED AND RETRIEVED TO TELL THE PERSON WHAT TO DO BUT FEAR IS A CAUSE OF BEING STUNNED, IT IS NOT BEING STUNNED ITSELF.
IF A PERSON’S REASONING OR ASSESSMENT AND GUIDING OF HIS ACTIVITIES IS LIVE AND TOTALLY BASED ON TRUE REASON, SINCE THERE IS NO FORCE IN TRUE REASONING OR RULES TO BE RETRIEVED THAT CAN BE INTERRUPTED AND SO HIS REASONING CANNOT BE PARALYZED BY WHATEVER IS OCCURRING AND THUS EVEN IF SOMETHING UNEXPECTED HAPPENS HE IS STILL REASONING, STILL KNOWS WHAT TO DO OR SAY.
IT IS BECAUSE A PERSON IS BEHAVING LIKE A COMPUTER THAT REQUIRES A STREAM OF INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHAT TO DO TO BE ACCESSED AND THEN ACTIVATED ORDERING WHAT TO DO OR SAY THAT HE CAN BE STUNNED IF SOMETHING DISRUPTS THE USUAL STREAM OF INSTRUCTIONS. WITHOUT THESE INSTRUCTIONS HE IS HELPLESS AS TO WHAT TO SAY OR DO. A PERSON WHO IS NOT OPERATING LIKE A COMPUTER IS NOT DEPENDENT ON A STREAM OF INSTRUCTIONS TELLING HIM WHAT TO DO AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO STREAM OF ORDERS THAT HE DEPENDS ON TO FUNCTION HE CAN STILL FUNCTION IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE INSTRUCTION DEPENDENT ROBOT IS CRIPPLED.
Swift reply means based on force not reason:
Whenever a person makes a swift reply sometimes even before what is proposed is finished, it means it is a force or (usually) dislike reaction and it cannot be based on reason. Even if a reply is delayed it can be still based on force or dislike because the person merely delayed its execution or it is a delayed rule reasoning reply.
It takes time to consider and compose a reasoned reply and thus if someone immediately delivers a reply it cannot be based on reason but on force or emotion. For instance even before I complete pointing out that a person is stretching his syllables, he has got angry and cut me off and that can only come from blind force or dislike never reason. Each time you do this you are bonding yourself to force that will end in agony and eternal wandering not heaven.
A person who will make a hasty unthinking reply based on dislike cannot reason specifically and on the occasion that he gives thought to a reply he is merely replying in a rote ruled reason manner and he is incapable of a specifically reasoned consideration of a situation.
Speculators causing oil price to rise beyond control:
According to Newsweek, the increased numbers of speculators and the money they wield is responsible for the crazy rise in oil price which should only be about $40-60 per barrel. Because there is too much money chasing oil, buying oil not because they need it but to sell on for profit, the price rises precipitously. As a result everyone suffer especially the poor whose livelihood may be wiped out by such greed motivated speculation.
Thus those who speculate in oil futures do not know what payback in suffering they have due as a result of recklessly causing suffering to others. Even if they bought the oil with their own money it is God who created the oil for everybody’s use and you are reckless and will be punished for generating artificial excessive demand for oil. If you borrowed money to speculate on the market that is even worse in terms of punishment.
IT IS ALWAYS MINDLESS FALSE RULES GREED DIRECTED THINKING THAT IS BEHIND SUCH SPECULATION NEVER LIVE SPECIFIC REASONING. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT POOR BUT ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY BUT IT IS INSATIABLE AS A RESULT MANY OTHERS’ LIVELIHOODS ARE RUINED. THEY DO NOT REALIZE IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO LIVE IN ABJECT POVERTY IN THE FUTURE.
GREED IS MERELY AN ATTRACTION FOR MONEY AND VALUABLES THAT IS ALL ABOUT FORCE NOT REASON. ONCE YOUR MENTAL FORCE IS STIRRED AT THE PHYSICAL SIGHT OR THOUGHT OF MONEY YOU ARE IRRESISTIBLY DRAWN TO DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO POSSESS IT.
SUCH SPECULATION IS NEVER WITHOUT EVEN INTENSE ANXIETIES OF LOSS & NEED EFFORT, IS STRESSFUL AND A TRULY REASONING MAN WILL SAY HE DOES NOT NEED THE MONEY, THINK OF OTHERS AND THUS NOT SPECULATE TO PILE UP EVEN MORE MONEY FOR HIMSELF.
Why is he stunned when his faculties are intact?
Nothing has physically happened to a person’s faculties (eg knocked unconscious, drunk or hands tied), they are still intact so why is the person stunned or forcefully frozen in inactivity by something happening (eg news of father’s death)?
It cannot be anything to do with his senses or faculties so the stunning must be a functional or instruction problem. Something has disrupted or interrupted the instructions that usually tell him what to do or say and without them he is lost and thus stunned.
If it is true that a person does not perceive, think, speak and do things directly but indirectly through a mental jukebox where he merely activates pre-recorded activities then it is possible that some disruption preventing the jukebox from functioning will cause stunning.
If a person operated live or directly, he does need to access a recording to do or say things, he can say or do things directly for that occasion then he cannot be stunned.
A MAN OF TRUE REASON CANNOT BE GUILTY OF ANY FALSITY:
IF A MAN WHO CAN TRULY REASON CANNOT FIND SUFFICIENT FACTS TO DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT IS TRUE HE WITHOLDS ANY CONCLUSIONS AND SO A MAN OF TRUE REASON CANNOT BE GUILTY OF FALSITY, CANNOT COMMIT A FALSITY. AND SO IF YOU CAN EXAMINE WHAT SOMEONE SAID AND FIND FALSITY HE CANNOT BE A MAN OF TRUE REASON BECAUSE A MAN OF TRUE REASON WILL ONLY STATE THINGS HE KNOWS AS TRUE OR HE REFRAINS FROM SAYING ANYTHING.
THUS THE OBJECTIVE PROOF THAT A PERSON HAS TRUE REASONING IS THAT WHATEVER HE SAYS IS IMPECCABLE, CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE FALSE BECAUSE A PERSON OF TRUTH WILL ONLY DRAW A CONCLUSION THAT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE HE REFRAINS FROM MAKING ANY CONCLUSIONS IF THERE ARE INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION.
Brazil shocked at woman’s jail rape:
Assuming what is said is true, Brazil (as a nation) is shocked (impossible) then what it is saying is not that Brazil is in fear but stunned or frozen into inactivity by the news.
STUNNING MUST NOT BE CONFUSED WITH FEAR. FEAR CAN CAUSE STUNNING BUT BEING STUNNED IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM BEING FEARFUL.
THUS IF YOU ADMIT YOU ARE STUNNED OR SHOCKED BY SOMETHING HAPPENING YOU ADMIT YOU ARE A ROTE OPERATOR WHO CAN ONLY REASON BY RULES OR INSTRUCTIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY EXAMINE ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS OF A CASE AND PUT THEM TOGETHER AND GET A TRUE PICTURE OF WHAT HAPPENED.
Why true reason cannot be stunned:
True reason never has force in it and therefore cannot be stunned into suspension.
Only something that has force can be disrupted by force.
False or rule bound instruction reasoning is force driven and can be stunned or suspended. Any reasoning that has conveyed force is tainted and no longer true reasoning. Reasoning that has style has force and is therefore not true reasoning.
Just as you can copy Elvis’ hairstyle, by interacting with someone, you can copy his thinking and reasoning style or how he uses force in a particular way to reason.
Thus a person with true reason cannot be stunned unless you knock him out physically.
A man of truth will always examine what he says to see if it is true and if he is not certain it is true he either refrains from saying it or he states it as ‘may be’, therefore he cannot be guilty of falsity.
If you say something without examining the meaning of what you say you must have copied it from others or if have examined it but you are not sure of its truth and you still say it then you are not a man of true reasoning.
The relationship between mental force and true reason:
True reason is like the man running on a smooth straight track without obstacles on either side or bumps on the ground.
True reason hampered by force is like the athlete forced to run on a sometimes bumpy sometimes soggy ground with encroaching obstacles on either side that make him twist and turn as he moves forward and because the obstacles are fixed he always has to twist and turn in a certain way that is characteristic in him and different in others and this is his style of thinking or reasoning.
So long as the obstacles on the ground and sides remain, so long as force attends true reason throughout its journey so long will true reason be compromised or tainted.
Until a person’s reason is truly freed from the constraints of force it is never true and you are deluded if you think you can be forceful, emotional, like and dislike and yet sometimes think truly and sometimes think falsely. A man of false emotional ruled instructional reasoning is a man of false emotional ruled instructional reasoning until he removes all force attendance in his thinking.
Crooked thinking:
People sometimes derisively refer to others’ thinking or reasoning as crooked or warped. Only force, mental force can warp and make reasoning crooked.
Thus the presence of force in a mind permanently warps or makes crooked a mind’s thinking or reasoning and until the present mental force is lifting the mind is permanently maintained in warp-ness.
People refer to evil’s people’s thinking as crooked but whoever is emotional, liking or disliking has crooked thinking. Crooked thinking is never part time but full time.
Power Overload:
Being stunned is merely the rapid rise in power in a mind as a result of something unexpected happening (eg news of father’s death) to a level that the system cannot handle and it disrupts the communication lines between a person’s instructions and his jukebox which is responsible for all the stylish person’s perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing which are thereby brought a halt until power is restored to normal levels.
A person of true reason does not depend on a mental jukebox to function, does not have one and there is no force acting or crimping his reason which remains intact whatever happens, he does not possess excessive mental force that can be stirred by an event occurring to overload the system and therefore he never experiences being stunned.
YOU CAN FAKED THE EXPRESSION OF BEING STUNNED TO IMPRESS OR DECEIVE OTHERS BUT EVEN IF IT IS FAKED YOU ARE HEADED FOR MADNESS BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCEFULLY WILLING YOURSELF TO BE STUNNED THAT BECOMES INCREASINGLY REALISTIC.
WHEN IT IS GENUINE, BEING STUNNED IS JUST A SUDDEN PRECIPITIOUS RISE IN POWER OF THE PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF CAUSED BY A SIGINIFCANT EVENT (EG NEWS OF FATHER’S DEATH) THAT DISRUPTS THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN HIS CONSCIOUSNESS AND HIS MENTAL JUKEBOX THAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE SUBSTANCE AND STYLE OF HIS PERCEIVING, THINKING, SPEAKING AND DOING TO CAUSE THE PERSON TO BECOME IMMOBILIZED BY FORCE.
ALTHOUGH ALL ORDINARY OR EMOTIONAL, LIKING AND DISLIKING STYLISH PEOPLE MUST GET STUNNED SOMETIMES, IT IS NOT COMPULSORY, ANYONE WHO DOES NOT POSSESS STYLE (NO STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS), DOES NOT LIKE OR DISLIKE OR ARE EMOTIONAL CANNOT BE STUNNED BY WHATEVER HAPPENS. STUNNING IS SUFFERING AND THOSE WHO CAN BE STUNNED ARE VULNERABLE TO SUFFERING HEADING FOR MORE SUFFERING.
The Buddha says you have a crooked mind:
The Buddha: Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind -- so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard.
If many or most men have straight minds the Buddha is mad to ask you to straighten it and it is only because he perceives that ordinary people’s minds are bent that he tells you to straighten it. And this so to one who perceives rightly, even those who are supposed to be intelligent, good and religious leaders who are supposed to represent the Buddha or Jesus can be demonstrated to have seriously bent minds.
Only force, a person’s mental force coupled with force applied by others impacting on him can bend a person’s mind that once bent is glacial or very slow to change if at all. A person’s mind is bent in a certain way that differs from others and is reflected in his personality, the way he perceives, thinks or reasons, speaks and does things. Thus if there is force present in a person’s mind, he cannot have true live reasoning but his reasoning must always flow in a meandering channel dictated by his mental force, his mental force and not his reason that is handicapped to greater or lesser extent is the boss.
Only force can make a mind fickle and unsteady, true reason has no force that can make a mind fickle or unsteady.
Sharpening their claws:
Just as butchers regularly sharpen their knives on a grindstone, in the same way stylish people keep their mental force in good nick or shape by regularly sharpening it by using it to stretch syllables, change speed and loudness.
A person’s style in speech and motion is partly deliberate because the fool is desirous of impressing others or attracting attention and partly involuntary. First you use force to practice style and then force seizes you to helplessly practice your style.
If you do not sharpen your claws daily by practicing style, forcefully stretching (prolonging), changing speed and strength of force then in time your claws will become blunt, you will no longer be wracked by emotions, likes and dislikes, sadness, hurt and cannot be stunned and thus liberated your mind becomes calm clearly thinking and you are headed for safety.
On the other hand if you keep your claws sharp you must harm others with debts to be repaid and those razor sharp claws will ultimately be turned back on you, you do not believe.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
THE PERSON WHO DOES NOT PAY ATTENTION TO DETECT FORCEFUL PROLONGING OR STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS IN HIS SPEECH BUT NEVERTHELESS BELIEVES HIMSELF TO BE VIRTUOUS, DESIRES TO BE FREE OF SUFFERING (FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, CANNOT CONCENTRATE, SADNESS, FEELING HURT, GETTING STUNNED, MAD ROTE BEHAVIOR AND VIOLENCE) IS A FOOL, HYPOCRITE AND CHASING AFTER A POT OF GOLD AT THE END OF A RAINBOW.
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF WORKING TO STOP STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNES. WHAT IS AT STAKE IS YOUR FUTURE INSANITY AND THEN DESTINATION IN ANOTHER ETERNITY OF SUFFERING.
No common sense, no initiative:
People can be heard decrying others’ lack of common sense or lack of initiative with an air of self superiority and if you watch employees in jobs that are quite menial, they are at loss at what to do if they have not done something before, they need to be told, even precisely what to do before they can do anything and even then they must be told repeatedly or programmed repeated to hammer the instructions into them.
In other words the people with no initiative, no common sense must be told specifically in each instance what to do or say before they can do or say it and they are displaying robotic behaviour.
However, what distinguishes them from their brethrens is relative than absolute. The less obviously robotic ones merely have more robotic options to select from and rather than wait for their superiors to program them in new situations, they can refer to their existing mental programs and adapt them to a new situation.
THUS THE EXISTENCE OF PEOPLE DERIDED AS WITHOUT COMMON SENSE OR INITIATIVE INDICATES THEY ARE ROBOTS WHO NEED TO BE TOLD OR PROGRAMMED AND IT IS NOT JUST THEY WHO ARE ROBOTS BUT THOSE WHO SNEER AT THEM DO NOT REALIZE THEY ARE MERELY SUPERIOR ROBOTS.
Calm in thought, speech and deed:
The Buddha: Calm is his thought, calm his speech, and calm his deed, who, truly knowing (there are those who do not truly know), is wholly freed, perfectly tranquil and wise.
The Buddha advocates calmness in thought, speech and deed as the way to release from suffering. You can only be calm if there is no force in your mind and that means no emotions, no likes and dislikes.
The only and simple way a person can truly become calm in speech and deed is if he achieves no use of force to stretch syllables, change speed and loudness. So long as you keep using force to stretch, change speed and loudness you cannot be truly calm and you are headed for suffering.
93. He whose cankers are destroyed and who is not attached to food, whose object is the Void, the Unconditioned Freedom -- his path cannot be traced, like that of birds in the air.
94. Even the gods hold dear the wise one, whose senses are subdued like horses well trained by a charioteer, whose pride is destroyed and who is free from the cankers.
95. There is no more worldly existence for the wise one who, like the earth, resents nothing, who is firm as a high pillar and as pure as a deep pool free from mud.
97. The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreate (that which is not created), who has severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), and thrown out all desires -- he, truly, is the most excellent of men.
Rules About Questioning Others:
People who see do not need rules but for those who do not see they need rules to guide them but even with rules, especially on the spur (emotion) of the moment they may disregard all the rules that they preach to others.
Unless the other person’s viewpoint that you question is wrong and the viewpoint that you want to convert him to by questioning him is true or beneficial to him then you are a fool to question and therefore sow doubt in him with serious karma for you.
Of course you may insist (you need force to insist) that your view that you want to convert to is true and beneficial but if you are deluded, it does not absolve you of karma.
For instance, a friend may have decided to buy a certain clothes and you don’t like it and you ask him, “Are you sure you want to buy it?”
The matter is frivolous and you are trying to impose your taste in style on him so that he will dress according to your taste and if that is suffering you have debts not merit talking out of his ‘awful’ taste in clothes.
If you cannot see or know the truth, you see liking & disliking as true and good when they are meaningless and stressful, then it is no point you follow the rules about questioning others because perceiving your questioning based on your liking and disliking you perceive your position is right when it is wrong.
IT IS NOT THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER QUESTION ANOTHER BUT WHEN YOU QUESTION ANOTHER, MAKE SURE HIS POSITION IS WRONG AND YOUR POSITION IS RIGHT. IF YOUR POSITION IS WRONG THEN YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVERT HIM FROM HIS WRONG TO YOUR WRONG THAT WILL CONFUSE HIM FURTHER WITH DEBTS NOT MERIT TO YOU.
THE WISE PERSON WILL ONLY QUESTION ANOTHER IF HIS POSITION IS WRONG AND HARMFUL AND HIS POSITION IS TRUE AND BENEFICIAL TO ADOPT.
YOU MAY POINT YOUR FINGER AT ME AND SAY I TOO QUESTION OTHERS BUT IF MY QUESTIONS ARE BASED ON TRUTH AND YOURS BASED ON EMOTION, RESENTMENT, THEN YOU ARE TRYING TO COMPARE CHALK WITH CHEESE.
Reasons why people question others:
You do not need reason to question others because when well developed, the urge to question, to take issue, to doubt others, to impress others with your ‘intellect’ is hard to resist. Just to question is reason to question itself.
Questioning others is part of self identity views that lead to future woe according to the Buddha. It is because a person is opinionated, full of views that he is attached to and want to ventilate that he will question others when they are at variance with his views.
People deliberately ask questions that are hard to answer or take much effort to answer because they (secretly) enjoy putting others in a spot not realizing they will have to pay dearly for many lives to come.
Questions can be merely words just to attack others eg “why are you so stupid?” is motivated by dislike to attack the person. He is not interested in the reasons why you are stupid but using the question to convey his attack.
People deliberately want to sow doubt and uncertainty in others that their questions introduce.
People ask questions falsely just to please others that they are friendly. Example, they launch into a fusillade of questions like “how are you, did you have a nice journey, how was the food, did you have any trouble, what do you think of this, what do you think of that?” not because they want to or are interested to know but because you are important to them for some reason and they are faking their concern for you.
The difference between questioning & doubting:
People often use questioning and doubting in an interchangeable fashion that reflects their muddled thinking.
Asking a question is very different from doubting others with serious karmic consequences and it is possible in each occasion for a discerning person to determine the person is asking a question or doubting another.
When you truly question someone, you want to know something that you truly do not know that the other person may have the answer.
When you doubt someone, you are trying to say he is wrong, by asking him ‘loaded’ questions, you want the person to consider his position and change to a position that you like.
A man of truth does not ask loaded questions or hint, he tells you straight in your face in his opinion you are wrong and why it is so, he does not question you wanting you to make the conclusion yourself.
Thus when you doubt someone you already know the answer you want and your question is dishonest or a ploy.
Why are you so stupid?
There is a genre or type of question that are similar to this representative question “Why are you so stupid”, eg ‘why are you so rude, so difficult, so greedy”.
It is unlikely if not impossible that a person fashioned that question himself but he heard others use it, liked it without being able to pinpoint exactly why he liked it (the truth is he liked it because it is a cloaked sarcastic attack on the other person) and then copied without knowing the exact meaning of what he is asking.
When you ask another person, “Why are you so stupid” you mean that you are stupid is beyond question, it is an established fact and you should tell him why you are so stupid. It is unlikely if not impossible that he wants to know the reasons why you are stupid and it is therefore a dishonest or false question that is calculated to not just tell you are stupid but ask a question that will be difficult if not impossible to reply.
IT IS DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OTHER PERSON TO REPLY WITH REASON WHY HE IS SO STUPID AND SO HE WILL HAVE TO RESORT TO EMOTION, TO ATTACKING THE OTHER PERSON OR SARCASTICALLY GIVE A REPLY. IF HE WERE TO USE REASON TO REPLY HE MUST EITHER ADMIT HE IS STUPID AND GIVE REASONS WHY OR IF HE DISAGREES, HE MUST CALMLY GIVE THE REASONS WHY HE IS NOT STUPID.
EVEN THOUGH GOATS MAY NOT REALIZE IT, THEY CAN SENSE VAGUELY IT IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO REPLY AND IT IS THRILL OF HURTING OTHERS IN A CLOAKED QUESTION THAT MAY HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF MERELY JUST WANTING YOU TO TELL HIM WHY YOU ARE STUPID.
THERE IS A GENRE OF QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE REPRESENTED BY ‘WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID’ THAT EMOTIONAL PEOPLE COPIED FROM OTHERS WITHOUT TRULY UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS MEANT BY THE QUESTION.
IT REFELCTS PEOPLE’S ADVANCED FALSE PERCEPTION THAT THEY DO NOT REALIZE WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION THAT THEY ARE GOOD AND MERELY TELLING OFF SOMEONE IN A GOOD NATURED WAY WHEN THEY ASK, “WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID” WHEN THEY ARE ASKING A QUESTION THAT THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE ANSWER THAT ALSO CHALLENGES THE PERSON TO GIVE HIM THE REASONS WHY HE IS STUPID, A TALL ORDER TO MOST IF NOT ALL.
Two true reasons for asking a question:
There are two true reasons for asking a question that does not lead to insanity:
You do not know something and want someone who might know to tell you.
You want to draw someone’s attention to a question whose correct answer will benefit him by providing insight that will lead to reduced suffering and show the way even to heaven.
Any other reasons eg to impress others with how sharp or critical you are, to attack others, to hint are false and leads to insanity whether you realize the false nature of your question or not.
Questioning & Doubting:
Questioning is open or positive and based on true reason whilst doubting is closed or negative and based on force or emotion or dislike.
Questioning others is asking a series of pertinent questions based on (true) unemotional reason to establish the facts of a case.
Doubting is rejecting or dismissing or scoffing and you need force and false reason not true reason to dismiss or refuse to accept.
Something that is proposed to you is either true or false. If you can see or know it is false then it is false, what is there to doubt or reject? If you can see or know it is true then you are foolish and courting madness to not accept what you see and know is true. If you do not see or know whether it is true or false then you just neither know it is true or false, what is there to doubt or not accept or reject?
Thus doubting is the forceful and unnecessary ‘more’ that is not letting your yes be yes only as Jesus commanded that comes from evil not good.
If you let your yes be yes only then something that is proposed to you is true, false or unknowable, what is there to doubt or use force to not accept or reject? Doubting is the unnecessary forceful more that comes from evil not good.
IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING PROPOSED TO YOU IS TRUE AND YOU USE FORCE TO DOUBT OR REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT AS TRUE (EG NEWS THAT YOUR FATHER IS DEAD) THEN YOU ARE COURTING FUTURE MADNESS BY FORCEFULLY REJECTING TRUTH THAT WILL FINALLY END WITH A TOTALLY INABILITY TO ACCEPT AND SEE WHAT IS TRUE.
IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING PROPOSED TO YOU IS FALSE THEN IT IS JUST FALSE AND IT IS ABSURB & TOTALLY UNNECESSARY TO USE FORCE TO REJECT OR DOUBT IT THAT WILL END IN YOUR FINAL INABILITY TO LEAVE THINGS AS IT IS OR INABILITY TO ACCEPT ANYTHING.
IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING PROPOSED TO YOU IS TRUE OR FALSE THEN YOU ARE FALSELY PRESUMPTUOUS TO DOUBT OR REFUSE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT IT BECAUSE THERE IS A RISK YOU MAY BE FORCEFULLY REJECTING WHAT MAY TURN OUT TO BE TRUE.
THUS DOUBTING IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, IS BASED ON FORCE, IS USING FORCE TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT AND WHATEVER IS BASED ON FORCE IS CONDITIONING SO THAT WITH REPEATED PRACTICE, THE PERSON’S DOUBTING IS EASY TO AROUSE TO INTENSE LEVELS THAT IS HARD TO SHAKE OFF, BECOMES MORE CHAOTIC OR IRRATIONAL AND HE DOES NOT REALIZE HE IS HEADED FOR INSANITY.
DOUBTING THAT IS FALSE AND FORCEFUL LEADS TO UNCERTAINTY, A CONFUSED DISTURBED EMOTIONAL STATE OF THE MIND THAT IN TURN CAUSES THE FOOL TO DOUBT THAT THEN CAUSES FUTRTHER DOUBT IN A VICIOUS TIGHTENING CIRCLE THAT WILL END IN MADNESS NOT BLISS.
THE BUDDHA IS CORRECT TO SAY THAT DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY ARE LINKED, THEY ARE NOT HARMLESS OR INNOCUOUS OR A PRIVATE MATTER BUT IMPACTS ON OTHERS TO MAKE THEM ALSO DOUBT AND BE UNCERTAINTY AND TOGETHER THEY ARE ONE OF THREE LOWER FETTERS THAT LEAD TO FUTURE EXISTENCES IN WOE.
If you cannot tell the difference between questioning and doubting when they are crucially very different things then you are undiscerning or have muddled thinking.
If you think doubting is not based on force but based on reason and justified then you may have false perception or wrong view that the Buddha said led to hell or the animal womb.
If you perceive doubting as totally unjustified, harmful to self and others and based on force that has nothing to do with reason then you have right view.
Doubt and uncertainty is not just present in a being’s thinking and speech but it is systemic, present in how the person sees (eg rapid oscillations of eyes sideways) and hears and reflected in the hesitancy or tentativeness of his movements. Sometimes people scratch themselves not because it is itchy but because a situation causes them to be doubtful and uncertain. There is doubt and uncertainty in the substance of what people say reflected in their penchant to use ‘perhaps’, ‘maybe’. ‘er’, ‘hmm’, ‘well’ and repeat themselves (eg “I, I think, think it is right” instead of ‘I think it is right’) when something is clearly true and doubt and uncertainty in the way people speak. There is such a thing called a smile of bemusement and that is a smile of puzzlement or doubt and uncertainty.
How come the Dalai Lama or no other gurus or cleric in any religion or medic teach you about this fundamental subject that applies to all beings that is the cause of much daily suffering and is conditioning them to greater woe and will send them to future states of woe?
I cannot believe:
Saying ‘I cannot believe’ is always, not may be expressing doubt.
If something that has happened is not true, why not say it is false instead of saying I cannot believe? If you won’t say it is false then perhaps it may be true. If it may be true why can you not believe what may be true?
Something happening is either true or false or you do not see or know, so what is there to believe or not believe or doubt?
You hear people, even great scientists who are supposed to be seekers of truth, who decry religion as emotional speak regularly of their doubts of this and that, that implies their doubts are meaningful when it is meaningless, it just a use of force to assert that you cannot accept what you do not know or see is true or false. If a person is supposed to be a competent logician and he does not know what he says is nonsense (eg I like this theory, I don’t like that theory, I doubt this and that), isn’t he like a fool who thinks himself wise?
A LOT OF PEOPLE INCLUDING THOSE WHO PRIDE THEMSELVES AS VERY INTELLECTUAL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY THINK THEY ARE TALKING REASON BUT THEY ARE TALKING FORCE, TALKING WHAT WHEN SCRUTINIZED IS MEANINGLESS.
True reason is like a mirror:
All beings possess true reason but the presence of mental force warps it to greater or lesser extent.
Just as modern telescopes’ mirrors can be adjusted in curvature to cancel out the fluctuating refractive aberrations caused by the earth’s unstable atmosphere, in the same way, a person’s true reason is like a mirror that in the absence of force is perfectly reflective to render an undistorted image of whatever is presented to it but the presence of force distorts the surface of this mirror in a complex way that is characteristic of each being. The severity of this distortion varies with the momentary intensity of force acting on the mirror but the pattern of distortion is largely unchanged and characteristic for each being, each being has a characteristic force signature acting on his true reasoning and only the intensity of force varies from moment to moment. This pattern of distortion by a mental force is stable and may be changed to become worse or be reduced in severity with effort and time or persistence in some beings. Thus some people’s crooked thinking may improve or become worse with age.
Because all ordinary people have significant mental force always present that is manifest in his forceful style of speech and doing things, his likes and dislikes and emotions, they cannot have true reason but their true reason is to greater or lesser extent distorted by their mental forces and that is always tormenting never a pleasure. In truth their reasoning is never live specific for the occasion but in general, by rules or instructions or orders rehashed for a particular occasion occurring. This is robotic reasoning that is identical with computer reasoning. It is their implacable mental force that clings on like an octopus or leech on their true reasoning that is responsible for converting them into rule bound ‘in general’ reasoners and the only way out is to eliminate their mental force (by not stretching syllables, not changing speed and loudness) that will enable their reason to revert to its undistorted state.
Ordinary people are motivated by greed (for gain, sensate pleasures) and that is about force not reason, they are never motivated by reason but reason designed to maximize their gains for their greed and therefore they are not genuine beings of reason but faked beings of reason who will not tell you what is on their minds.
Lies that do not add:
Razak is supposed to be an analyst, how come he did not analyze to see that what he said do not add?
In his own affidavit, he claims he contacted ASP Musa who then recommended the two policemen who are supposed to have killed Altanturya. He admitted he only asked them to patrol around the house and not harm her.
If this is the case, how come he was in frequent contact by phone with the two policemen both during and after the night she was taken away from his house? He does not know them directly but only through Musa so how come he is regularly contacting them especially when Altanturya has now disappeared and cannot be still pestering him?
Do the two policemen deny taking Altanturya from Razak’s house that night? If they do not deny so and they were acting illegally (there is no official order to arrest her) then they are responsible for her death in their custody even if they did not do it so why are they claiming to be framed?
Even if they do not implicate Razak, they must be held responsible for her illegal detention and death.
Lies can send you to hell that is far more painful and everlasting than death by hanging but the fool does not believe there is far more terrible consequences than admitting the truth and dying for it.

So much contact just to shoo her away?
If the policemen’s brief were to patrol the house and chase off Altanturya, why would Razak need to contact them so regularly during and after the night?
If instead their mission was to kill her, then it is understandable that Razak would want to monitor proceedings closely and be anxious about its success and therefore be in frequent contact.
YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING TERRIBLE TO SOMEONE WHO WAS ONCE YOUR LOVER AND YOU ARE EAGERLY FOLLOWING THE PROGRESS. WHAT YOU DO NOT REALIZE IS A PLACE IN HELL FOR YOU.
Why people must be in doubt and uncertain:
Anyone who appreciates falsity (eg liking and disliking, jokes, smiling that are false that people find meaningful) must experience doubt and uncertainty. If you do not have any doubt or uncertainty about what is false that you appreciate but you are totally forcefully certain that they are true and beneficial then you are already mad or it won’t be long before you are mad.
Only a person who can effortless see and know the truth about what is happening will have no doubt because he sees and knows the truth and does not force himself to accept what is false.
Anyone who is constantly going against himself to force himself to say or do things to deceive, impress, please, intimidate and dominate others must experience doubt and uncertainty in himself and what he does that is meaningless and makes him a slave of others.
Anyone who is constantly using force to prolong, change speed and strength of force that causes insoluble stress, restlessness and distraction that is killing him must experience doubt and uncertainty especially when he cannot see that he is killing himself.
In addition people deliberately wickedly doubt themselves and others. They ask people ‘are you sure’, ‘do you mean it’, ‘is that so’, ‘really’, ‘I can’t believe it’ that deliberately stirs doubt in themselves and sow it in others. They laugh or smile at what others say that is in truth discounting or doubting what others say that they want others to falsely perceive that they agree.
Forceful conviction cannot be sustained indefinitely:
IT IS THE VERY PRESENCE OF FORCE BACKING THE CONVICTION OF FORCEFUL PEOPLE THAT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOREVER BUT MUST PERIODICALLY WANE OR WEAKEN THAT IS THE PRIME CAUSE OF THE DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY THAT BESET THEM. IF YOUR CONVICTION IS BASED ON TRUTH AND SEEING THEN THERE IS NEVER FORCE IN YOUR CONVICTIONS THAT CAN WEAKEN TO GIVE RISE TO DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY.
Whether they can see it or not the truth is that people’s certainty about what they say or do, what they believe is true is with force not reason or truly seeing and knowing that it is true.
Ordinary people are all forceful people and therefore they believe and see and know with force.
No matter how forceful you assert and will yourself to believe and see what you say and do and accept is true, the force behind it cannot be sustained and whenever the force backing it slackens or inevitably weaken momentarily the emotional person is wracked by doubts that lead to uncertainty.
WHETHER WHAT YOU PERCEIVE AS TRUE IS GUIDED BY REASON, BECAUSE YOU SEE OR KNOW OR IT IS BACKED BY FORCE, MAINTAINED AND PROJECTED BY FORCE CAN BE KNOWN OBJECTIVELY.
IF IT IS TRUE THERE IS FORCE IN YOUR CONVICTIONS THEN BECAUSE FORCE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED INDEFINITELY BUT IT MUST PERIODICALLY WEAKEN, THEN WHENEVER THE PERSON’S MENTAL FORCE WEAKENS HE IS WRACKED BY DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY.
IF WHAT YOU SEE AND KNOW IS TRUE AND HAS NO FORCE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN IT THEN SINCE THERE IS NO FORCE, IT CANNOT PERIODICALLY WEAKEN TO CAUSE DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY.
I don’t mean to leave you behind:
Many are satisfied that what they say and what they hear is the truth when it is far from the truth, as demonstrated by the examples below.
Quote Shell sticker on back of car: I don’t mean to leave you behind.
The message will strike a chord in emotional people because they are fascinated or attracted to falsity and somehow vaguely they know the message is sly, not quite true which is what attracts them to it.
A person of true reason will never appreciate it because it is false and malicious in a disguised way.
It is not the superior Shell petrol that is responsible for you driving behind him and you may be using the same Shell petrol as him but it is just by chance that you happen to be behind him and therefore the statement is false and trying to make others perceive falsely that the reason he is driving behind is because of his petrol.
It is always pretentious or patronizing to say you don’t mean it. If you truly did not mean it then you would not have brought the matter up and it is because you do mean to be in front and you want to tell a lie and blame the petrol that you patronizing attribute your driving in front to your petrol.
The fact that someone has said it means he has considered the notion, in this case, that of leaving the other person behind because of a superior feat of driving or driving a superior car. After lifelong practice, emotional people automatically get a thrill at being first or beating another and therefore his ‘I do not mean to’ is a lie. Even if he knows his position ahead has nothing to do with his prowess, goats usually cannot help smirking or falsely entertaining that it is due to their superiority.
“LEAVING OTHERS BEHIND” COMES FROM AN URGE, FROM FORCE, NEVER REASON BECAUSE REASON WILL NEVER ADVOCATE SOMETHING THAT IS FOR SHOW AND STRESSFUL, DRIVING TO LEAVE OTHERS BEHIND AND WHAT COMES FROM AN URGE IS CONSTANT, INDISCRIMINATE, ENSLAVING. NO ONE IS A MASTER OF HIS URGE TO LEAVE OTHERS BEHIND AND THEREFORE THE FACT THAT HE HAS STATED HE DON’T MEAN TO LEAVE YOU BEHIND MEANS IT HAS OCCURRED TO HIM, SECRETLY HE IS TAKING CREDIT FOR IT EVEN IF HE REALIZES IT IS HIS PETROL THAT IS RESPONSIBLE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE HE DID NOT FEEL A THRILL OR DELIGHT AT BEING IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEREFORE HE IS HYPOCRITICAL TO SAY HE DID NOT MEAN TO.
I am not here to raise a white flag:
This is a statement of aggression (forcefulness) or attacking and is not letting his yes be yes only.
Not everyone knows what raising a white flag means and it is a styled way of saying ‘surrender’. Emotional people like to hint, they cannot call a spade a spade, they like to impress you with their speech. “Raising a white flag” is more ‘wowing’ than plain old ‘surrender’.
When you speak of ‘raising the white flag’ you force people to think of raising a white flag and what it means which is more work for them then if you said ‘surrender’. Thus you have karma troubling others to do more mental work that will also condition them to do more mental work.
A person of reason will say that Derby County’s position is very difficult but I will try my best to retrieve it and I am confident of doing that. “I am not here to surrender” is a rebuttal which is always based on attack or force not reason. A person of reason assesses the situation and realizes that objectively Derby County is in a critical condition and based on reality he will compose an appropriate statement.
IT DOES NOT NEED REASON TO REBUT, BUT YOU ALWAYS NEED FORCE TO REBUT. ALL YOU NEED IS SOMEONE TO PROPOSE SOMETHING AND YOU JUST SHOOT IT DOWN LIKE SAYING ‘BULLSHIT’, WHICH IS WHAT MOST ORDINARY PEOPLE, EVEN DEMURE WOMEN ARE VERY GOOD AT.
He might think his statement is full of meaning and appropriate but who in his right mind thinks he took on the job to raise the white flag? Obviously he was handed the job by Derby and he took the job to rescue Derby’s grave position and so it is not saying anything of reason but it is just stirring of emotion.
THUS IN MANY SITUATIONS PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE SPOKEN THE TRUTH OR THEY HAVE HEARD THE TRUTH WHEN THEY HAVEN’T. IT IS JUST THEY ARE INURED TO FALSITY AND ARE SWITCHED OFF, DRIFTING ALONG TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THEIR RETURNS IN POSSESSIONS AND SENSATE PLEASURES BUT NEVERTHELESS SOMETIMES ENTERTAINING THOUGHTS THEY ARE QUITE DEVOTED TO TRUTH AND FAIRNESS.
Not truly but forcefully certain:
Ordinary stylish people are never truly or with reason and understanding certain but they are always forcefully certain, there is force in the certainty of what they believe, say or do and because force cannot maintained in strength indefinitely but must periodically wax or weaken, everything their force backing their beliefs, deeds and speech slacken they become stricken by doubt and uncertainty.
If it is true there is excessive unnecessary force in your convictions, in what you say or do, then because force cannot be sustained forever but must periodically diminish because force is wearing and stressful, then with the diminution of force you must experience doubt and uncertainty of what you previously held and did with such forceful conviction or certainty.
If it is true there is no excessive unnecessary force in your convictions, deeds and speech but it is based on reason and understanding then there is no force in it to slacken and it is impossible for you to experience doubt and uncertainty.
In addition whatever is forceful induces stress, restlessness and distraction that is cumulative and so what conviction, speed and deed that is forcefully rendered cumulatively increases stress, restlessness and distraction that in time forces you to retreat for respite and that is when doubt and uncertainty start to haunt you.