Trying to be too smart:

Quote: YOU can probably tell by having to dodge all the strollers in the streets, but statistics have confirmed that Australia is now in the middle of its biggest baby boom in more than three decades.
When people try to be nice not good they use graphic language like having to dodge so that you can physically imagine yourself doing so, which even if you do not realize, involves mental work.
Anyone whose speech requests others to do mental work like imagining themselves dodging strollers is stressing others with debt not merit.
If the baby boom is marginally higher, it may not be detectable by a increase in prams on the streets. Instead an increase in prams (assuming there is actually one) may be a fad, people do follow trends and if they see it as fashionable pushing prams, they too might imitate thus boosting the number of prams on the street.
Therefore an increase in number of prams does not mean a baby boom and you are dicing with false logic to translate an increased number of prams into a baby boom.
If you have not ascertained there are indeed an increased number of prams, then you are lying to say that.
IT IS FALSE LOGIC (NOT PERCEPTION) TO EQUATE AN INCREASED NUMBER OF PRAMS TO A BABY BOOM AND IT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY TO TIE THAT TO THE MATTER AT HAND THAT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THERE IS A BABY BOOM AND IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO BE NICE, TO BE TOO CLEVER OR TO IMPRESS.
The target of the message:
When someone told me ‘if what you write is enlightening, why do you need to correct it?’, the target of what he is saying is not my correcting myself but what I write is not enlightening.
Thus if he were to mean what he said, he should dispense with the jazz and say directly what you write is not enlightening rather than indirectly that troubles me to answer the question he posed. Thus a lot of people think they mean what they say and say what they mean when it is the opposite. They try to hint, cast aspersions and snipe which is never the way to heaven but the way to perdition.
EVERY STATEMENT HAS A PURPOSE (INTENTION) OR MEANING, IF IT HAS NO MEANING OR INTENTION, YOU MUST BE MAD.
YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ASKING IF YOUR WORDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ENLIGHTENING, WHY DO YOU CORRECT YOURSELF?
ARE YOU TAKING ISSUE WITH MY CORRECTION OR TAKING ISSUE WITH MY WRITING BEING NOT ENLIGHTENING?
IF YOU ARE TAKING ISSUE WITH MY WRITING BEING NOT ENLIGHTENING, THEN YOU HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION THAT IT IS LINKED TO MY CORRECTING IT, IF YOU FIND IT NOT ENLIGHTENING THAN IRREGARDLESS OF WHETHER I CORRECTED OR NOT IT IS NOT ENLIGHTENING. DO YOU MEAN THAT IF I DID NOT CORRECT IT THEN IT WILL BE ENLIGHTENING?
IF YOU CONSIDER MY WRITING UNENLIGHTENING EVEN IF I DID NOT CORRECT IT THEN YOU ARE FALSE TO ASK ME THIS QUESTION AS IF MY CORRECTION IS PROOF IT IS UNENLIGHTENING.
WHETHER SOMETHING IS ENLIGHTENING OR NOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS NEED FOR CORRECTION OR NOT AND YOU HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC TO LINK THE TWO AND BY SO DOING YOU DO NOT SAY WHAT YOU MEAN THAT IS THAT WHAT I SAID IS UNENLIGHTENING (OR EVEN HINTING I AM NOT THE COUNSELOR).
IT IS HOSTILITY OR DISLIKE NOT REASON THAT IS THE BASIS OF WHAT IS A VERBAL ATTACK IN COUCHED OR INDIRECT TERMS AND IT REFLECTS ILL WILL THAT THE BUDDHA SAID IS A FETTER TO THE LOWER REALMS.
Dodging prams:
I had a reply that appear to say it may not be false logic and a baby boom is genuine and reflected in the increase numbers of prams on the street that appears to be case because Australia’s flat landscape is eminently suitable for pushing prams compared to the cobbled streets of China.
It is not Australia’s record baby boom that I am denying but it is whether the boom in prams on the streets in such that you have to dodge them.
I don’t ever recall dodging prams whilst I was in Australia many decades ago and I would not imagine things would have changed so much.
Can you in all honestly testify that the number of prams on the streets in Australia is such that you have to dodge them as you have to dodge traffic in cars & bikes? When was the last time anyone dodged a pram if not here, then in Australia?
If you cannot, then even though there is an appreciable increase in the number of prams prowling the streets it is not to such an extent that you have to regularly dodge them, the person who said it is uttering something false to exaggerate how great the baby boom is that it is reflected in the prams prowling the streets.
Falsifying to exaggerate:
Saying ‘you can probably tell by having to dodge all the strollers in the streets, but statistics have confirmed that Australia is now in the middle of its biggest baby boom in more than three decades’ is essentially falsifying to exaggerate.
The person is falsifying ‘you can probably tell by having to dodge all the strollers in the streets’ to exaggerate the message that ‘statistics have confirmed that Australia is now in the middle of its biggest baby boom in more than three decades’.
The major crime is not exaggerating but falsifying. If you let your yes be yes only you state what statistics say but exaggerating is the more that comes from evil and even order to exaggerate or perpetrate the evil, you falsified.
That ‘you can probably tell by having to dodge all the strollers in the streets’ is a concoction or falsification because most if not all people will not be able to tell that Australia is experiencing booming birth just from observing the number of prams on the street nor do they have to dodge prams on the street as if prams are in epidemic numbers as cars are.
The baby boom in Australia may be the biggest but it is not that big that you have to dodge prams on the street.
Just because you see many more MPVs around than in the past does not mean there is or must be a boom of car buying but it may reflect a trend of people who used to buy other cars like hatchbacks jumping on the bandwagon to buy MPVs. In other words rising numbers of MPVs does not necessary mean booming car sales.
What I say that it is falsifying to exaggerate may be wrong or right and if you disagree, you may be right or wrong. We cannot be both right but either one is right or both are wrong. If you happen to be wrong then that is wrong view that according to the Buddha is not harmless but leads to hell or the animal womb.
If you say or read what was quoted and you do not know whether it is false or true, then you are a person or fool who does not know what he says or hears.
If you say or read what was quoted and believe it is true, then you are deluded if it is false.
If you know it is false and nevertheless accept it or like it, you are a person of malice.
THUS EITHER THE PERSON IS NOT FALSIFYING OR EXAGGERATING, PEOPLE DO HAVE TO EVADE PRAMS ON THE STREETS AND THEY CAN TELL FROM THE INCREASING DODGING THAT AUSTRALIA IS HAVING ITS BIGGEST BABY BOOM OR IT IS HOCUS POCUS.
You must falsify to exaggerate:
There is no other way other than falsify to exaggerate.
If your intention is to exaggerate the qualities of something or what has happened, you must always falsify or fake.
If whatever you tell about something or what has happened is true then it is merely expanding on what it is or has happened and not exaggerating. For example if your car is good and you factually list its qualities that is not falsifying to exaggerate nor is it boasting.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXAGGERATE BY TELLING THE TRUTH BUT IN ORDER TO EXAGGERATE A PERSON MUST ALWAYS FALSIFY OR CONCOCT AND THEREFORE TO EXAGGERATE IS A SIN, IS NOT LETTING YOUR YES BE YES ONLY AND THE MORE THAT COMES FROM EVIL, NEVER GOOD.
IF YOU LET YOUR YES BE YES ONLY THEN YOU JUST SAY THAT STATISTICS CONFIRM THAT AUSTRALIA IS EXPERIENCING ITS BIGGEST BABY BOOM. IF YOU MUST TRY TO BE MISCHIEVOUS, YOU SAY THE MORE THAT MAY BE OR IS UNWARRANTED THAT COMES FROM EVIL THAT YOU PROBABLY CAN TELL BY HAVING TO DODGE THE STROLLERS ON THE STREET.
How to exaggerate:
You exaggerate by falsifying or by speaking or saying with a false style or by a combination of both.
You can tell a person is exaggerating by the dramatic expressions on his face, gesticulations with his hands and the enthusiastic stretching of syllables, changing speed and loudness that accompanies what he exaggerates or he attributes more to the object or what happened than is warranted.
A person who does not exaggerate speaks without style in stretching, changing speed and loudness and no dramatic facial and hand gestures and what he says has basis that can be verified.
EXAGGERATING IS USUALLY IF NOT ALWAYS ACCOMPANIED BY STYLE TO IMPRESS AND MAY BE ACCOMPANIED BY SUBSTANCE THAT CAN BE EXAMINED AND PROVEN TO BE UNTENABLE.
Truth & Necessity:
Something said or done can either be true or false, necessary or unnecessary.
Necessity and truthfulness or factualness are two separate things that must not be confused with each other.
Something may be true but unnecessary eg what you say about your new car may be true but unnecessary in the context of what is said.
Something may be true and necessary eg what you say about your new car is true and necessary to elaborate on the matter at hand.
Everything that is false is always unnecessary and falsity is only necessary with the purpose of deceiving, impressing, pleasing, intimidating or dominating others. In other words, everything said or done that is false is always unnecessary and only necessary for unsavoury reasons or purposes.
It does not matter whether what you say or do or a part of it is true or false but if it is unnecessary then you are practicing what is unnecessary and headed for madness because if you did not perceive it as necessary you would not have said or done it.
Whether something said or done is necessary or not is objective and applies universally to everyone and even if you cannot determine it, those who are discerning and God can determine whether something (or how) you said or did is necessary or not.
Whatever that is said or done can only have style and substance. Style may or may not be present and when it is present, it is how say or do it and that can only be how you use force (never reason) to prolong syllables or units of motion, change speed, loudness (strength of force) and direction where possible.
Any accompanying style that can be objectively demonstrated is always false with the purpose of deceiving, impressing, pleasing, intimidating or dominating others.
The substance of whatever is said or done can be examined and broken down into components or ideas conveyed that may be separately true or false, separately necessary or unnecessary.
For instance the statement ‘you can probably tell by having to dodge all the strollers in the streets, but statistics have confirmed that Australia is now in the middle of its biggest baby boom in more than three decades’ has three separate ideas that the writer wants to communicate to you, namely that it is possible to tell from the number of prams on the streets that Australia is having its biggest baby boom in three decades, that the number of prams on the streets are so great that you have to dodge them and that Australia is having its biggest baby boom in three decades.
You can dispute with me whether it is possible to tell that there is a baby boom just from the numbers of prams prowling the streets or the numbers of prams on the streets are so great that you have to dodge them but they are totally irrelevant or unnecessary in the context of what is said that statistics show that there is the biggest baby boom in Australia in three decades.
If it is unnecessary for you to tell me (thereby troubling yourself and me) that you can tell the baby boom from the number of prams on the streets and it is so great you have to dodge them in conveying the message that Australia is experiencing its biggest baby boom in three decades, then you are headed for madness for perceiving and thereby practising what is unnecessary as necessary.
WHATEVER YOU SAY MAY BE BROKEN DOWN INTO SEPARATE COMPONENTS OR IDEAS THAT MAY EACH BE TRUE OR FALSE, NECESSARY OR UNNECESSARY. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER A COMPONENT OF SOMETHING SAID OR DONE IS TRUE OR FALSE, IF IT IS UNNECESSARY OR IRRELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU SAY OR DO, YOU ARE HEADED FOR MADNESS AND THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU SAID IT UNNECESSARY, YOU EVEN THINK IT IS NECESSARY OR RELEVANT REFLECT THAT YOU ARE A FOOL WHO DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS SAYING OR YOU ARE DELUDED AND THERE IS NO WAY OUT OF YOUR IMPENDING MADNESS FOR YOU.
THE BUDDHA SAID HE WILL ONLY SPEAK IF SOMETHING IS TRUE AND BENEFIT OTHERS NOT JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS TRUE. AND HENCE YOU SHOULD ONLY SPEAK SOMETHING IF IT IS NOT JUST TRUE BUT NECESSARY OR RELEVANT TO THE CONTEXT.
Speak for yourself not others:
Notice the writer did not say he probably or certainly can but he said YOU can probably tell by having to dodge all the strollers in the streets that Australia is now in the middle of its biggest baby boom in more than three decades.
If it is difficult if not impossible for others to tell just by seeing the number of prams on the street that Australia is having its biggest baby boom in three decades or they do not have to dodge prams then what he said is false that misleads others that they cannot tell but he is so smart he can tell. It reflects he is not certain of what he said that he said ‘probably’.
Why did he not say you certainly can tell?
Why did he not say “I certainly can tell”? It reflects he is not certain of what he says and if you are not certain of what you say you should not say it for fear of falsity. If he said, “I probably can tell” he will be acknowledging that he is not certain of what he said but like all people who shirk responsibility for what is their falsity, he suggests you and not him that probably can tell.
IF YOU AGREE THAT THE KEY IDEA THAT HE IS TRYING TO CONVEY IN SPEAKING IS THAT STATISTICS SHOW AUSTRALIA IS EXPERIENCING ITS BIGGEST BABY BOOM IN THREE DECADES THEN HOW RELEVANT OR NECESSARY IS IT & HOW CERTAIN IS HE THAT WHAT HE ADDITIONALLY SAID IS TRUE THAT YOU CAN ‘PROBABLY’ TELL FROM THE NUMBER OF PRAMS ON THE STREETS AND HAVING TO DODGE THEM THAT THIS IS SO? IF YOU AGREE WHAT HE SAID MAY NOT BE TRUE, MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO HIS MAIN MESSAGE, THEN HE IS PRACTICING WHAT IS UNNECESSARY, DICING WITH FALSITY AND HEADED FOR CERTAIN INSANITY IF IT IS UNNECESSARY AND FALSE.
Not looking at the coffin:
Quote: It was made known to visitors of certain Chinese zodiac signs and biological ages (Dragon – ages seven and 31; Rabbit – age 20; Rat – age 35; Tiger – age 57, and Pig age 60) that they should not look at the casket.
I know there is no basis for this instruction which is a form of superstition calculated consciously or unconsciously to falsely perpetrate the notion that those who issue them are experts to be respected and obeyed and if they did not know that what they say is true and yet they say it and it turns out to be false, they are going to be mad (mad perception) to believe what is false, meaningless practice not looking at the casket just because you were born in certain years of the zodiac and they have grave karma for fostering similarly delusions in others who obey them because those who obey will become similarly deluded and thence mad and headed for even another eternity of perdition.
Why do people believe them or accept as true what they do not know is true? If you do not see or know whether something is true you have no right to believe it unless it is absolutely essential unless you want to court insanity.
The reason why people believe such superstitions is because they are attached to their lives here and they want to preserve it, they are fearful that if they do not obey they will be stricken with bad luck or whatever misfortune can befall them and thus they force themselves not to look not realizing that by so doing, they are mindlessly conditioning themselves to do things they do not understand or may be meaningless namely not look at coffin because I am a dragon.
A person who has risen above his life here is not fearful; the most that can happen is he loses his life and whatever misfortune that may or may not befall him as a result of looking at the coffin does not interest him because he is not attached to fortune in this world. As Jesus said, do not fear those who can take your life but fear Him who can destroy your soul in hell. The Buddha said that no matter how many people will circum ambulate and curse him to go to hell the man who is virtuous is headed for heaven. Thus if this life means nothing to you, you are ready to leave it at any moment then whatever misfortune or deprivation of life here is of no concern to you but you are headed for eternal bliss in heaven.
You are cultivating a myth that Lim Goh Tong is such a powerful man that looking at his casket can bring misfortune.
YOU HAVE TO USE FORCE NOT REASON TO NOT LOOK AT A COFFIN AND BECAUSE YOU DID NOT DO SO BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO LOOK AT THE COFFIN BUT YOU WERE TOLD WITHOUT KNOWING THE REASON WHY OR WHETHER IT HAS BASIS OR NOT, YOU ARE FORCING YOURSELF TO DO SOMETHING MEANINGLESS THAT WILL CONDITION YOU TO DO SO THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.
The sub-prime sins:
Nowadays I am not interested in economic matters but recently I read a free article in the Economist that said that wicked greedy bankers in such big banks as Citigroup and Merrill Lynch indiscriminately lent money to people who can poorly afford to take mortgages and who do not understand the terms and hefty penalties for default and then these loans are repackaged or chopped into pieces like minced meat and given triple AAA ratings by conniving rating agencies like Moody that lulls the unwary institutions and bankers all over the world to purchase them thinking they are ‘rock solid’ when they may not be worth the paper they were written and now the bad or potentially worthless paper in the hands of people all over the world may be much greater than admitted and threaten to blow the financial system out of the water.
Thus in recent years the bankers were making hefty profit not by due diligence but by being wicked and ‘august’ rating agencies were not doing their jobs (not for the first or last time) and everyone was living way beyond their means. In other words the actual wealth in the system is actually way below what has been trumped up to be, China thinks it has the money it deposited in US treasuries and uncle Sam will not default but the money may no longer be there and the US is spending way beyond what it truly has, wealthy though it may be, and it may be insolvent should foreigners withdraw their lollipops from the overgrown US baby.
You can multiply the current value of Microsoft or Google share with the number of shares existing and get an impressive value for what they are worth and how wealthy you are owning their shares but if everyone tries to dump that share at this current value they will never get the price they want but much less. Thus this is an illusory wealth and yet bankers lend money based on the value of the shares you hold that can become worthless pieces of paper.
Why it is an excuse and attack:
Although whether something said (eg what the Buddha taught) is enlightening or not is not a subjective matter but it is objective and verifiable that it is new, not said before and confers benefits to those who listen, understand and put to practice to experience the fruits of the teaching, in practice because people have poor discernment, are prejudiced and resenting or dismissive, they may subjectively find what is in truth novel and enlightening without merit.
In the context of a prejudiced dismissive person with opinions to the contrary, it does not matter whether what I said is enlightening or not but he has already made up his mind right or wrong that he finds it unenlightening and so his tendering of my need for correction as an indication that what I say is not enlightening MUST BE just an excuse and mode of concealed general (not specific) attack on me. If you are launching a general attack on me regarding what I say as unenlightening then you cannot mean what you say if you ask me a question that requires me answering it that my need for correction indicates what I write is unenlightening.
The fact that he and others see nothing wrong, think he has the right to say so reflects advanced false perception and logic that what is an excuse and disguised verbal attack is based on reason.
The person who means what he says goes straight to the point that he finds what I say unenlightening because it is just a personal matter. By saying so, he clearly states his position for the other person to perceive. Just because you find what I say unenlightening (and many cohorts agree) does not mean there cannot be some who find it enlightening and so you should only speak for yourself instead of questioning me or wanting me to doubt myself.
SOMETHING SAID THAT IS EMOTIONALLY ENLIGHTENING IS SUBJECTIVE AND UNPREDICTABLE AND EVEN THEN IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER IT NEEDS OR NEED NO CORRECTING.
SOMETHING SAID THAT IS ENLIGHTENING BY REASON AND UNDERSTANDING IS OBJECTIVE AND UNIVERSAL, APPLIES TO EVERYONE AND STANDS ALONE AND DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER IT NEEDS CORRECTION OR NOT.
THE EXISTENCE OF CORRECTION REFLECTS A FAULT IN THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION OR FORMULATION OF WHAT IS ENLIGHTENING, NOT THE NATURE OF WHAT IS SAID THAT IS ENLIGHTENING.
WHEN YOU EXAMINE SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO ITS ENLIGHTENING WORTH, YOU EXAMINE WHETHER IT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE AND WHETHER IT IS INSIGHTFUL, GIVES YOU INSIGHT ON THINGS THAT ALLEVIATE YOUR SUFFERING OR INCREASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THINGS ARE ABOUT.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU DISMISS EMOTIONAL ENLIGHTENMENT, WHATEVER THAT IS SAID IS ENLIGHTENING OR NOT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE NATURE OF WHAT IS SAID WITH REGARD TO NOVELNESS AND INSIGHTFULNESS, NOT WHETHER IT NEEDS CORRECTION OR CLARIFICATION.
WHAT IS THE PERSON TRYING TO TAKE ISSUE, MY WORDS BEING UNENLIGHTENING OR MY CORRECTING WHAT I SAID? IF YOU AGREE IT IS LIKELY IF NOT CERTAINLY MY WORDS BEING NOT ENLIGHTENING THAT HE IS TSRGETING THEN IT DOES NOT TAKE CORRECTING TO MAKE WHAT I SAY UNENLIGHTENING BUT IT IS AN EXCUSE TO INDIRECTLY ATTACK ME. THIS IS CONTORTED LOGIC THAT BECAUSE IT IS FORCEFUL, IT CONDITIONS AND WARPS THE MIND INCREASINGLY THAT IF NOT CORRECTED LEADS TO INSANITY THAT YOU CAN AGAIN SCOFF NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE SURE IT WON”T LEAD TO INSANITY BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE EMOTIONAL DEFIANT AND STICKING YOUR NECK OUT FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT KNOW BUT YOU EMOTIONALLY DEFEND.
The person who is innocent and does not know he is innocent will be tricked to experience guilt unfairly but the person who is innocent and knows he is innocent knows he is blameless, he is being made a victim of another’s verbal attack. Attacking others is addictive, based on emotion or force, never reason and if you will attack me here, you will attack others elsewhere and you are a fool if you think you will not attack God. Attacking others get increasingly virulent and illogical as it conditions and the person with the sharp tongue is going to become mad attacking others and have his throat cut.
Looking forward to Deepavali:
As kids people probably look forward to their ethnic festivals with more eagerness or attraction (it is a form of liking or stirring of their mental forces attractively at the thought of the festival) than they do as they grow old.
Nevertheless if you must like your festivals be it Deepavali, Hari Raya or Chinese New Year then with their passing you must feel sad that is conditioning and you are headed for suffering.
LOOKING FORWARD TO AND PARTAKING OF FESTIVITIES IS A FORM OF LIKING. LIKING AND DISLIKING IS WHAT BEINGS IN THIS WORLD FROM ANIMALS TO HUMANS PRACTICE AND LIKE AND IT IS A BOND TO SUFFERING NOT THE GATEWAY TO HEAVEN.
THERE IS NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT, IF YOU MUST LIKE, YOU MUST SUFFER SADNESS OR SHARP HURT AT THEIR PASSING OR LOSS, IF YOU DID NOT LIKE THEN YOU WILL NOT GET HURT. ANYONE WHO SAYS HE CAN LIKE WITH IMPUNITY WITHOUT EXPERIENCING HURT IS LYING OR DENYING. DO NOT THINK YOU ARE SO GOOD FOR LIKING OR GETTING HURT FOR LIKING BUT LIKING IS NEITHER GOOD FOR YOURSELF OR OTHERS THAT YOU ENCOURAGE TO LIKE AND YOU ARE HEADED FOR TORMENT NOT SAFETY.
Force Not Reason:
There is constant forceful stretching of syllables, changes in speed and loudness in the speech of every being here and they are the only roots of the stress, restlessness and distraction that torment them and threaten to drive them up the wall. If they are beings guided by reason then once told, they would see that this is so and even if they were to forsake themselves to stress, restlessness and distraction they should be able to sometimes stop stretching and sometime stretch on demand but reflecting that they are mindlessly driven by mental force that is not in their control, they always mindlessly stretch, change speed and loudness even after I have demonstrated to them many times how they do so.
If your stretching of syllables, changing of speed and loudness is guided by reason you should be able to tell me this is how I stretch, this is how I change speed and loudness but most people are unaware and at best can only partially point out where they stretch, change speed and loudness.
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT CHOOSE AT WILL TO SOMETIMES STRETCH AND NOT STRETCH, THEY AUTOMATICALLY STRETCH, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS IN EVERYTHING THEY SAY AND THEY ARE NOT AWARE THEY ARE DOING SO BECAUSE THEY CANNOT POINT OUT PRECISELY HOW THEY STRETCH, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND IT IS FORCE THAT IS NECESSARY TO STRETCH, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS, IT IS MINDLESS BLIND EXCESSIVE FORCE THAT DRIVES WHAT PEOPLE SAY, DO, PERCEIVE AND THINK WHICH ARE THEMSELVES NOT LIVE SPECIFIC FOR THE OCCASION BUT PRE-RECORDED AND REHASHED. WHATEVER IS REHASHED IS FALSE AND NOT GUIDED BY REASON.
NO ONE WHO CAN CHOOSE TO STRETCH AND NOT STRETCH WILL PERSIST WITH STRETCHING BECAUSE HE WILL EXPERIENCE AN INCOMPARABLE FREEDOM FROM STRESS FROM NOT STRETCHING TO EVER WANT TO RETURN TO STRETCHING.
IF IT IS TRUE THAT REASON GUIDES MEN THEN IT WOULD HAVE INSTANTLY GUIDED THEM TO SEE THEY ARE DOING SO AND THEY WOULD HAVE STOPPED STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS TO EXPERIENCE A PREVIOUSLY UNIMAGINABLE FREEDOM FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION.
IT IS BECAUSE IT IS BLIND FORCE OR ILL WILL THAT DRIVES THEIR FORCEFUL INDISCRIMINATE STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND FORCE IS CONDITIONING OR ADDICTIVE AND HAS MOMENTUM THAT TAKES TIME TO STOP IF EVER THAT NOT ONE OF THEM HAVE STOPPED STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS EVEN TO THIS DAY.
Thinking is a handicap:
(If you have not experienced the bliss and superiority of existing effortlessly without thinking, just seeing and doing, then you may think that thinking is the most wonderful thing in the world when it is a handicap)
Thinking is a handicap, a trap, it is mostly if not entirely rote, antagonistic and unrelated to the matter at hand and always a suffering not the boon or wondrous thing it is made out to be by deluded men who cannot help thinking. People may think they are the masters of their thinking but they are deluded because it is their thinking that has added force, forceful prolonging, changing speed and strength of force that is dictating and enslaving them causing them much distress like sleepless nights.
Those who see and know everything do not need to think and it is because ordinary people do not and cannot see and know everything not because they are blameless but because their mental force directly or through their emotions indirectly make them only see and perceive what they like and avoid seeing or perceiving what they do not like to see or perceive, that they need to think and then it is at most second best. Because they are prevented from seeing everything by their likes and dislikes, they must resort to thinking, a poor substitute and even evil instrument to perpetrate deceit of self and others.
It is a myth that people are reasonable or beings of reason but beings here, even those who are very intellectual are slaves of force, likes and dislikes and emotions that propel whatever they want to perceive, think, speak or do that is never live specific to the occasion but painstakingly pre-recorded to be rehashed for the occasion at hand with them only acting as voyeurs ‘enjoying’ their fabrications and overrated disc jockeys who decide that rote pieces of behaviour to initiate or switch to and often their mental parrots carry out behaviour for them without their approval, often they have no control over what and how they think, perceive, say or do.
Whatever reason people here possess (some of them even probably have no reason at all) are at best rudimentary or it is not reason at all but different ways of explaining why things happen that may be false that they did not work out by themselves but they copied from others often without questioning. A lot if not the entirety of what people call their reasoning is their searching of their mental jukeboxes for recordings to explain situations that may arise that puzzles them or require an explanation and as soon as they have retrieved and replayed their recorded explanation they satisfy themselves that they have explained or reasoned out what happened when they have merely found a convenient pre-recorded explanation or excuse that may be false and copied from others.
Because beings here are deficient or even absent in true reason (whatever true reason some may have may only be restricted to secular matters of material interest to them eg make money or make fame as great discovering scientist) and they have strong mental force or ill will, self identity views and they desire or crave existence, they are restricted to the lower realms until such a time they develop some true reason that enable them to see their suffering is not blameless but entirely blameworthy and they resolve to develop true good conduct and exit out of this world of torment and death to the deathless first in heaven then permanently in enlightenment.
IF YOU HAVE TRUE REASON AND CAN SEE THINGS CLEARLY YOU WOULD NOT BE EXISTING HERE AND IT IS BECAUSE BEINGS HERE HAVE HYPERTROPHIED FORCEFULNESS (ILL WILL) AND DEFICIENT OR ABSENT REASON OR SEEING THINGS CLEARLY THAT THEY ARE HERE.
PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD MAY BE STUPID OR CUNNING EVEN VERY CUNNING IN A CONCEALED WAY BUT IN TERMS OF DISCERNMENT, THE ABILITY TO SEE THINGS CLEARLY AS THEY ARE OR WISDOM, THE ABILITY TO ADD TOGETHER WHAT THEY DISCERN TO COME TO WISE OR TRUE CONCLUSIONS, THEY ARE VERY POOR OR IMPOTENT.
(Though unknown to you, it is possible to see and hear without thinking without having to force yourself not to think and rather than dumb you see better and respond better to what you see than if you were to continuously think that distracts your attention. Not only is not thinking a pleasant abiding here, it leads to two eons or Ages in heaven according to the Buddha. So the wise man will practice cessation of thinking rather than practice making money or acquiring knowledge about this world eg astronomy or science like genetics)
When people scold others ‘you unthinking idiot’ they do not mean he is capable of not thinking but he does not think in relation to the matter at hand and when they advise others to stop thinking it is not that they should truly stop thinking but to stop thinking about a particular matter which is itself an impossibility. True cessation exists but is unknown to foolish beings trapped in thinking, who are slaves never masters of their thinking.
True unthinking is not a dumb state but an incomparably superior state of existence that is more direct, liberates the person from thinking, is less suffering and enables the person to see more.
IF YOU ACCEPT THINKING AS INEVITABLE AND WHOLESOME WITHOUT RESERVATIONS YOU HAVE WRONG VIEW.
IF YOU REALIZE THAT THINKING IS NOT NECESSARILY COMPULSORY TO A CONSCIOUS BEING, THERE IS RIGHT AND WRONG OR MISGUIDED THINKING AND EVEN RIGHT THINKING IS STRESSFUL AND INFERIOR TO A CESSATION OF THINKING TO JUST PERCEIVE & DO OR NOT DO, YOU HAVE RIGHT VIEW.
A problem of transmission or refinement or falsity:
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER I AM THE COUNSELOR JESUS WAS DESCRIBING OR NOT OR WHETHER I CORRECTED (I ACTUALLY JUST CLARIFIED) MY COMMENTS REGARDING WHAT THE MOSLEM CLERIC IN AUSTRALIA SAID BUT WHAT I SAY STAND ON THEIR OWN MERITS AS UNIQUE, NEVER BEFORE SAID AS IN THIS INSTANCE WHAT I SAY THAT THERE ARE CONSTANT FORCEFUL STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS IN THE SPEECH OF EVERYONE THAT IS THE ONLY UNNECESSARY AND CORRECTIBLE ROOT TO THE INSOLUBLE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT THEY MUST SUFFER FROM. I CAN DEMONSTRATE TO ANYONE WHO REQUESTS HOW DIFFERENT THEIR SPEECH WILL SOUND LIKE WITHOUT STRETCHING OR SPEED AND LOUDNESS CHANGES AND I CAN EXPERIENCE FOR MYSELF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION RISING IF I WERE TO PERSIST TO STRETCH MY SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS.
ALL BEINGS HERE SUFFER FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT PERIODICALLY THREATEN TO TEAR THEM ASUNDER (AND FINALLY WILL) AND IN THE PAST IT IS UNTHINKABLE THAT THERE CAN BE NOT JUST A PERMANENT CURE BUT IT IS FREE, BY MERELY PAYING ATTENTION TO STOP STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS. IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT YOU CANNOT SEE YOURSELF STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS OR REFUSE TO EXAMINE YOURSELF AND MAKE EFFORT TO CORRECT YOURSELF
THUS ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT WHAT I SAY IS UNENLIGHTENING JUST BECAUSE I SAID I CORRECTED MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE AUSTRALIAN MOSLEM CLERIC IS ATTACKING ME BASED ON FALSE PREMISES AND ASKING FOR JUDGMENT. IF YOU DID NOT THINK MY SUPPOSED CORRECTION OF THOSE COMMENTS NEGATED THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF EVERYTHING I SAID, WHY DID HE POSE THAT QUESTION OVER MINOR COMMENTS ABOUT THE CLERIC? THUS HE DOES MEAN WHAT HE SAID, HE MEANT TO ATTACK EVERYTHING I SAID AND HE HAS FALS LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT MY CORRECTING MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE CLERIC EQUALS EVERYTHING I SAY IS WRONG.
The fact that something said needed correction does not necessarily mean it is unenlightening but it can mean there was a problem of transmission or problem of refinement in its conception.
Only if the ‘correction’ contradicts or significantly differs from the original does it mean it is false and therefore not enlightening because the original must be false if the correction is true. Thus Einstein’s theory of gravity is a refinement of Newton’s theories and does not render Newton’s laws false because they can still be used to send a space probe to Jupiter and beyond.
There may be a glitch in the transmission or conceiving or formulation of what I said and if I correct it afterwards, it is not because what I said originally is false but it was said imperfectly or errors of formulation.
Only if what I say subsequently significantly differs from what I said previously would what I say previously be rendered false if what I subsequently said turns out to be true. If I said A is the cause of B and then I corrected myself that A is not the cause but C or D or Z is the cause then what I said earlier that A is the cause is false.
Further, just because I get it wrong with subject A does not mean my unique views never before stated by anyone in this world on subjects B, C, D are also wrong but they should each be individually examined on their own merits to determine if they are enlightening.
Thus just because what I said about subject A is not enlightening does not mean what I say about B must be unenlightening. Just because what Einstein said about religion or sex is false does not mean what he said about relativity is false.
Thus the question ‘if what you say is enlightening, why does it need correction’ is false or wrong, it is only relevant on a certain subject if my subsequent view on that subject significantly differs from the original (eg first I said it was good then I said it was bad or neither good nor bad). If my correction is a development of the original or the original was presented less succinctly, then the correction does not reflect that the original view is false. Just because I am false in matters of architecture does not mean I must be false in matters of virtue.
In the context of that offending question, I said that the Australian iman was right to say that scantily dressed Australian women were asking to be raped and they are not blameless if they are raped but he should not have emotionally derided women as showing off their meat. Actually what I said subsequently was not a correction (I wrongly called it a correction) but it was an elucidation or clarification of what I said earlier. A correction implies what I said earlier was wrong but if what I said originally was compared to what I said ‘in correction’, it was not a correction of an error or going back on what I said but a making clearer what I said.
Even though you do not know that the logic behind your question ‘why do you need to correct what you say if it is enlightening’ is false or untenable or you perceive it as valid, it does not absolve you of motive or ill will for saying it. If you do not know the meaning or implication of what you say, you must have foolishly copied it from others and you are therefore a robot, not as smart or discerning as you like to think. If you do not know the meaning of what you say and yet you say it, you are a fool who does not know what he is saying and headed for woe not heaven. If you know what you say is faulty or false and yet you say it to attack me, you are a man of ill will or malice and that too is not the way to heaven. God is not hard up for you to go to heaven.
THUS EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT KNOW THAT WHAT YOU SAID (IF WHAT YOU SAY IS ENLIGHTENING, WHY DO YOU NEED TO CORRECT IT) IS BASED ON WRONG PREMISES, BECAUSE IT IS FALSE, IT IS NOT REASON OR TRUTH THAT IS ITS BASIS BUT IT IS FALSE OR LIKE AND DISLIKE OR EMOTION THAT IS ITS BLIND BASIS AND IT IS INTENDED EITHER CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY TO ATTACK ME.
IF WHAT I SAID SUBSEQUENTLY DOES NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL IS NOT THUS RENDERED FALSE BUT IT IS JUST A FAULT OF TRANSMISSION OR FORMULATION OF WHAT I SAID ORIGINALLY. JUST BECAUSE A PERSON IS WRONG ON SUBJECT A DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ALSO WRONG IN SUBJECT B. JUST BECAUSE I MA A POOR FOOTBALLER DOES NOT MEAN I MUST ALSO BE A POOR THINKER AND SO YOU MUST INFER THAT BECAUSE I DID NOT ENLIGHTEN YOU ON SUBJECT A, I AM TOTALLY UNENLIGHTENING ON EVERYTHING.
WHETHER SOMETHING IS ENLIGTHENING DEPENDS ON ITS NATURE (AND NOT ON ITS VULNERABILITY TO CORRECTION OR CLARIFICATION) BUT IT IS CRUCIALLY PREDICATED ON WHETHER IT BREAKS NEW GROUND, IT HAS NEVER BEEN SAID BEFORE BY ANYONE (EG THAT THERE IS CONSTANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS IN THE SPEECH OF EVERYONE AND THAT IS THE ONLY ROOT TO THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT MUST REGULARLY BESET THEM) AND IT CONFERS INSIGHT AND ALLEVIATION OF SUFFERING TO OTHERS.
EVEN THE MOST ENLIGHTENING TEACHING IS IN VAIN IF IT FALLS ON DEAF OR RESENTFUL OR MISAPPREHENDING EARS AND IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT YOUR EARS ARE DEAF, RESENTFUL OR MISAPPREHENDING BUT NOTHING CAN BE DONE FOR YOU EXCEPT FOR YOU TO WANDER ON, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IS POSSIBLE EVEN FOR ANOTHER BILLIONS OF YEARS AS ANIMALS BUILDING UP A PILE OF SKELETONS THAT THE BUDDHA SAID IS AS HIGH AS A MOUNTAIN, WEEPING AND GNASHING YOUR TEETH (AS JESUS SAID) AND THE NEXT TIME YOU RETURN HERE AS A HUMAN MAY BE EVEN ANOTHER ETERNITY OR BILLIONS OF YEARS.
(My error was not that I corrected what I said previously that implied it was wrong but I clarified it or expanded on it but in his haste to use the opportunity to swipe at me he failed to ascertain that my correction was actually not a correction but a clarification, I was not going back of what I said or admitting what I said earlier was incorrect and he seized on it to imply that just because I supposedly corrected that, everything I said in the past must be not enlightening. If this was an isolated episode of being not enlightening, why would he seize on it to attack me? It is not my comments about the Moslem cleric that he is hinting is not enlightening but what he implies is that just because I said I need to correct what I said regarding the cleric, everything else I said is now suspect, not enlightening)
Tuareg:
Tuareg is the name of a people in (?Saharan) Africa not associated with any glamour but now that it is the name given to a four wheel drive vehicle made by Porsche, there will be some who do not even know the origin of Tuareg who begin to perceive glamour and class (forms of liking) with the name.
It reflects that liking and disliking are frivolous or whimsical, different people can develop different likings, what is liked by someone may be indifferent or even hated by another.
As genuine as you think your association of class or liking for the word ‘Tuareg’ is because it is a name associated with Porsche, it is false or subjective and you are deluded to treat your likes and dislikes with such importance.
Inevitably your friends and loved ones will have different likes and dislikes that will clash with yours and it is maddening and you must devote much energy to fake you like the same things as they like or hide your likes that they don’t like from them or you will clash over differing likes.
Thus the world of like and dislike is mad and you are a fool not to give up your likes and dislikes and recommend it to others.
INTRINSICALLY THERE IS NOTHING GREAT OR LIKEABLE OR DISLIKEABLE IN THE NAME OF PORSCHE OR MERCEDES BUT MOST PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE LIKING AND DISLIKING PEOPLE HAVE CONDITIONED THEMSELVES TO FALSELY PERCEIVE THEM AS LIKEABLE OR ‘WOW’.
THUS LIKING AND DISLIKING ARE FALSE, SUFFERING AND MINDWARPING BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HIDE IT FROM OTHERS AND YET IT IS THE THING BEINGS IN THIS WORLD WILL NOT GIVE UP AND EVEN THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE GOOD TICK ME OFF SAYING, “I SMILE BECAUSE I LIKE SOMEONE”.
When is something unenlightening?
Something is unenlightening if you already know it or you do not know it but the new information is worthless or unbeneficial.
Correction implies that what is corrected is incorrect but just because I say it is incorrect does not mean it is incorrect and so you must examine it for yourself to determine it is incorrect.
I may be incorrect to say correction and what I said earlier may be correct and I am just clarifying it.
Just because I am incorrect in one instance does not mean I must be incorrect in every other instance.
What I say may not be totally the truth but if it is closer to the truth than you or anyone else, I am more correct or enlightening that everyone else.
THUS THE ONLY CRITERIA WHETHER SOMETHING I SAY IS ENLIGHTENING OR NOT DEPENDS ON WHETHER IT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE BY OTHERS OR NOT AND WHETHER IT ACCORDS BENEFITS (EG FREEDOM FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION BY STOP STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS), IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A NEED FOR CORRECTION NOR IS ITS ENLIGHTENMENT VALUE DIMINISHED BY CORRECTIONS IN OTHER SUBJECTS.
Haste:
Haste is a product of force or emotion or dislike and like, never reason. Reason has no force to cause haste but only force or dislike has force to cause haste.
It is correct logic to think that whatever is corrected is false and therefore not enlightening but in the haste to attack me, he does not realize that I did not correct everything I said elsewhere and what I said subsequently about the cleric was not a correction but a clarification (the word just failed to register in my mind) and thus driven by haste to use the opportunity to tick me off, he did not examine to see I did not correct myself but clarified myself and my correction was not directed at everything I said, he used my acknowledged correction of what I said to imply that because what I say is correctable, it is not enlightening.
Smitten by a girl (a form of like) the fool is driven by haste to throw caution to the wind to court her only to find she is a wicked person.
Driven by hurt for what I said which may not be hurtful but he is sensitive or resentful, he is seized by haste to find some excuse to attack me.
In his haste to deliver a riposte (an attack) for pent up hostility to what I have said not particularly here but elsewhere, he thinks he has successfully and correctly debunked me not realizing that instead he has unwittingly exposed his hypocrisy, illogic, harmfulness and created karma that will end in pain for himself.
What he said renders hypocritical whatever pretentions of friendliness he may have or conveyed.
It is illogical to think that just because I corrected what I said about the cleric everything else is similarly correctible, false and thus unenlightening.
He does not say what he means because he did not say that everything I said is unenlightening.
He does not mean what he said because he cannot mean that only what I corrected is unenlightening but he means everything I said is unenlightening.
He is un-righteously creating doubt and uncertainty in me by asking me to question my enlightening-ness when he should say he finds what I say unenlightening in which case it is just his opinion that may be wrong. Casting doubt in others is creating karma for yourself.
His motive is to attack me, to deprecate me and that incurs karma.
RUSHING, THE FOOL PUT HIS NECK INTO A NOOSE HE THINKS IS A LAUREL OF GLORY.
So you think you can reason reasonably?
The ability to reason or use thinking or more specifically logic which is essentially using what you know reliably as true (facts) to arrive at a true conclusion of what has happened or may have happened may be more apparent than true in most ordinary people including those who are well educated and think they are erudite.
A person who thinks he can reason reasonably or even perfectly must make sense in whatever he says or does, that is, whatever he says or does must be understandable by others who similarly have reason. How can a person who can reason reasonably or even perfectly issue statements or do things that do not make sense, harms himself and others and can be proven false?
If you can reason reasonably, how can you say, “If what you say is enlightening, why do you have to correct it?” It is false in at least two counts.
No matter how he may deny when confronted and even deny to himself his motive, it may be objectively known, if not by you then by God and those who discern what he was trying to get at.
If it is not my correcting what I said about the Australian Moslem cleric that he is taking issue with but he is taking issue generally with everything I say that he deems is not enlightening, then he does not say what he means and therefore what he said is false or gives a false impression of what he intended because it is not the correction of what I said about the cleric that he is after but it is a broadside against everything that I say.
UNLESS IT IS MY (ALLEGED, ACTUALLY I CLARIFIED) CORRECTION OF WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE CLERIC THAT HE FOUND UNENLIGHTENING, IF HE MEANT EVERYTHING ELSE I SAID IS UNENLIGHTENING, HE DID NOT SAY WHAT HE MEANT AND IS THEREFORE A LIAR.
A person who does not say what he means but resorts to innuendos that he can subsequently deny is not a man of truth but a man of deception and deception ensues from force or emotion that has nothing to do with reason. If you think emotion has something to do with reason you may be right or have false perception that will end in mad perception.
Because I only corrected (actually clarified) what I said about the cleric, I did not correct everything else I said, you have false logic to think that just because I corrected what I said about the cleric, everything else I said must also be false and correctible.
HOW IS IT THAT A PERSON WHO CAN REASON REASONABLY WELL JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT BECAUSE I CORRECTED WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE CLERIC, EVERYTHING ELSE I SAID MUST BE FALSE AND THUS UNENLIGHTENING?
If a person is not emotional, is not jumping to conclusion and seizing the opportunity to attack me, he would have examined what I said and discovered the truth that I did not correct but I merely clarified what I said earlier and thereby not make a fool of himself by seizing on a red herring to attack me.
JUST AS IN THIS INSTANCE THE PERSON WHO IS WELL EDUCATED AND HAVE PRETENSIONS TO BE A PERFECTLY CAPABLE REASONING PERSON HAS COMMITTED A SERIOUS ERROR OF REASONING, IN THE SAME WAY IN MANY INSTANCES WHERE THEY THINK THEIR REASONING IS IMPECCABLE (AND FELLOW GOATS ASSURE THEM IT IS SO), THEY ARE SOMNOLENT OF EVEN GLARING ILLOGICALITY.
No reason:
People who are emotional and have style (they both go together) always render whatever and however they (selectively) perceive (see, hear), think, speak and do by rote rehashing from their mental jukeboxes and that is called faking it. No man of true reason will fake it even for a moment and therefore if you are a sophisticated robot or parrot you are not a man of true reason but faked reason.
(You always have to use force to fake and press pause or ‘suspend’ on your reason to fake and thus each time a person fakes eg tell a lie, he must use force to force it through and suspend his reason and each time you do so, you become better and better at using force and suspending reason until you become a perfect robot of force or emotion and hopeless instrument for reason. If you refute what I say above, eg you say you must use reason to fake, you do not need force to fake, you may be right or deluded)
What is this faked reasoning that is so realistic robots are deceived they possess true reason?
Stylish emotional people have a library of explanations to what can happen in this world and to them that they may not have synthesized themselves but copied by rote from others and because they can explain things happening by these pre-recorded explanations that they have forceful faith, they think they have genuine reason.
They confuse their liking and disliking, their styles as meaningful and because they are deluded they are meaningful, so long as things happening are stylish or stir their likes and dislikes they are deemed meaningful even full of meaning. For instance they watch ballet and are told by note what each scene depict and what the story is about they think all the dancing on stage is meaningful when it is meaningless and what the Buddha called a practice of insanity. (The Buddha said singing is crying and dancing is insane in the practice of the noble ones, you may think the Buddha is wrong and a fool to say so but you may be the one who is the fool).
Because you perceive style (how someone says or does something) as meaningful, even more important than what is said or done, you consider your stirred like or dislike is meaningful, if it turns out that style and likes and dislikes have nothing to do with meaning but are instead false and harmful, you are deluded and no deluded man can have true reason except in his delusion again that he can.
Style has nothing to do with reason, does not require reason present and in fact it is best that true reason is absent to perpetrate style but style merely requires the use of force to prolong, change speed, strength and direction where possible in the name of pleasing, impressing, intimidating and dominating others. Pleasing, impressing, intimidating and dominating others are false reasons for doing something and thus all people who have style cannot have true reason but they are deluded to find their style so meaningful when it is harming themselves, creating stress, restlessness and distraction that will make them mad and kill them.
Liking, disliking and emotions have nothing to do with reason but they are merely the stirring in prolonging, speed and strength of their mental forces of going against self under or out of control of their forces of self preservation. Thus anyone who perceive liking and disliking is a reasonable basis for action on their parts is deluded and cannot have true reason.
Ordinary people are kidding themselves if they think they do not like nor dislike. They are liking and disliking all the time often without realizing and thus anyone who bases his actions on his likes and dislikes is basing his action on force, specifically the stirring of his mental force not reason and is deluded if he thinks he can reason reasonable.
So long as fellow goats assure you that your doing things based on like and dislike is perfectly reasonable and you get what you want in life and think you are going to heaven thereafter, you may be fooled you are a reasonable man of reason.
You don’t need reason to have sex and procreate, just copy others and you have procreated and become a father.
You don’t need reason to eat, just copy what others do in eating and obey your hunger (an emotion) to eat.
Thus because you can procreate, eat and drive a car, say things that others tell you is marvellous, witty or intelligent, you think you are a man of reason when you may be a robot faking it to meet situational demands, dictated to by your mental force, your likes and dislikes and headed for a cliff.
(People don’t even work out live that 6 times 6 is 36 but they memorize that and regurgitate that or they consult their calculator to work that out. It may be true you can work out that six times six is thirty six but remember you usually do so by rote, rehash or calculator not because you worked it out then.
People do have some reason but it is for basic things related to this world or for selfish ends eg they can calculate the returns from selling this stock to buy that stock instead of holding this stock which again may be based on false assumptions because the stock that is rising that you want to switch to may be dangerous, being manipulated and you may end up losing everything.
But just because you can crawl don’t delude yourself that you can fly. Just because you can add one plus one, don’t think that whatever you say to must have similar correct logic. Most people are cocky or proud, they think they do not need anyone else to teach them what is right or wrong, true or false, they know better than you because they can add one plus one and can crawl. The wise person has far better reasoning than the average man but he is not enamoured by reasoning and he can shut off all thinking if necessary to just perceive and do).
WHAT I SAY WILL NOT GO DOWN WELL WITH SOME PROUD PEOPLE AND IT IS NOT THEIR REASON THAT IS STIRRED (REASON HAS NO FORCE THAT CAN BE STIRRED) BUT IT IS THEIR DISLIKE OR EMOTION OR RESENTMENT & DERISION THAT IS STIRRED AND THUS STIRRED THEY WILL SCRUTINIZE WHAT I SAY FOR EXCUSES OR ‘EVIDENCE’ TO DEBUNK WHAT I SAY. YOU MAY THINK THAT APART FROM YOUR DISLIKE THAT IS STIRRED BY WHAT I SAID YOUR REASON THAT WHAT I SAY IS WRONG IS ALSO ‘STIRRED’ BUT YOU MAY BE DELUDED BECAUSE EMOTION AND REASON CANNOT COEXIST AND AS SOON AS YOU DISLIKED WHAT I SAID OR ARE UPSET BY WHAT I SAID, YOU HAVE AFFIRMED YOURSELF AS A MAN OF FORCE NOT REASON. WHEN PEOPLE BECOME INTENSELY EMOTIONAL THEY CANNOT THINK PROPERLY AND SO IT IS THAT IF YOU ARE UPSET BY WHAT I SAID, YOU CANNOT THINK PROPERLY.
A TRUE MAN OF REASON IS NOT STIRRED BY WHATEVER IS SAID BUT HE MERELY CLEARLY SEE THAT WHAT IS SAID IS TRUE OR FALSE AND WHY IT IS TRUE OR FALSE.
A MAN OF POORLY DEVELOPED REASON HAS FULLY DEVELOPED FORCE AND IS A GOAT AND WILL BE DETAINED IN THIS WORLD. AS JESUS SAID, ONLY SOME ARE CHOSEN OUT OF THIS WORLD TO GO TO HEAVEN AND THOSE WHO ARE SAVED MUST HAVE WELL DEVELOPED REASON BECAUSE ANYONE WITH WELL DEVELOPED TRUE NOT FOR SHOW REASON MUST BE A SHEEP, CANNOT BE A GOAT BECAUSE YOU NEED FORCE TO BE A GOAT.