Coming To The Truth

IF EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD SUFFERS FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT THEY HAVE NO ANSWERS TO BUT MERELY TRY TO MANAGE, THAT WILL UNFAILINGLY INTENSIFY WITH AGE AND THEY ARE HEADED FOR CERTAIN RUIN AND MADNESS, WHAT GREATER ADVANTAGE CAN THERE BE THAN IF SOMEONE WAS TO COME ALONG TO ALTER THE CONSCIOUSNESS STATUS QUO IN A WAY THAT AUTOMATICALLY ALLEVIATE THEIR SUFFERING AND IN ADDITION HE MIRACULOUSLY TELLS THEM THAT THERE IS A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THEIR NAMELY TO PAY ATTENTION TO DETECT AND MAKE EFFORT TO ELIMINATE THE UNNECESSARY CONSTANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CONSTANT CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT IS PRESENT IN THEIR SPEECH AND MOTION?
I WAS DEFINITELY THE TRIGGER OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGE AFTER 1977 AND UNLESS THERE ARE CO-TRIGGERS FOR THE CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS I MUST ALSO BE THE ORIGINAL TRIGGER OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS BECAUSE I DID NOT COPY OTHERS WHEN I SET OUT TO CHANGE MYSELF AFTER 1997 (COINCIDING WITH THE EAST ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS) BY REFUSING TO SMILE OR SAY THINGS TO PLEASE OR IMPRESS OTHERS LEADING TO THE GRADUAL AWARENESS AND STEADFAST PUTTING TO A STOP TO ALL STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS TO EXPERIENCE A PREVIOUSLY UNIMAGINABLE EFFORTLESS FREEDOM FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION LONG BEFORE I WAS AWARE THAT EVERYONE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WERE AGAIN CHANGING AS VISIBLE FROM THEIR DEMEANOR.
EVEN IF I WANTED TO COPY OTHERS FOR MY CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD TO SERVE AS TEMPLATE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MODELS IN THIS WORLD FOR NOT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, NOT CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT ARE THE REQUISITES THAT WHEN SUSTAINED (NOT IMMEDIATELY RESULTED IN), LED MY CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGE AND THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT I COPIED OTHERS. BECAUSE THERE IS STRONG FORCEFUL HABIT TO REVERT TO THE RUT OF MINDLESS STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS, ONLY A SUSTAINED PERSISTENCE IN NOT STRETCHING, NOT CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS WILL LEAD TO A RELENTING OF THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT STOOD IN THE WAY TO RELEASE TO EXPERIENCE EFFORTLESS UNIFIED CALM CLARITY OF THE MIND.
BECAUSE FREEDOM FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IS THE ENDPOINT OR GOAL OF CURRENT CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES AND THE CESSATION OF ALL STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS ARE THE ONLY PATHWAY TO THIS GOAL AND NOBODY ELSE I DISCERN HAS ACHIEVED THE CESSATION OF STRETCHING, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS WHERE I ALONE HAVE DONE SO, I AM FOREMOST IN THE RECENT CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES AND IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THE PERSON WHO IS FOREMOST IN NOT STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS, THAT IS PREREQUISITE IN ACHIEVING FREEDOM FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT ARE THE GOALS OF THIS RECENT CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES MUST BE TO ORIGINAL TRIGGER OF RECENT CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES.
IT MAY BE THE TRUTH THAT FOR ANY GIVEN CONTAGION OR MUTATION THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE CONTAGION OR MUTATION BECAUSE IT IS UNLIKELY IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR TWO INDIVIDUALS TO SPONTANEOUSLY TRIGGER AT THE SAME TIME A CHANGE THAT IS SO RARE IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE PAST. IF THAT IS THE CASE, BECAUSE I DID NOT IMITATE OTHERS, I MUST AGAIN BE THE SOURCE IN RECENT YEARS.
IT IS INDEED REMARKABLE THAT THE PERSON WHO TRIGGERED THE CHANGES IN 1977 NOT JUST AGAIN TRIGGERED UNPRECEDENTED CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS BUT HE ALSO SPEAKS WITH A PERSPICACITY NOT JUST ON SOME BUT MANY DIFFERENT TOPICS AND INTERPRETED WHAT THE BUDDHA AND JESUS SAID IN A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT WAY THAT NO MAN IN THE PAST OR PRESENT HAS DONE.
Unless there is additional information hidden in the New Testament or elsewhere, it must be possible for a reader to identify the counselor based on the description Jesus gave otherwise he will be indulging in a fruitless enterprise describing a counselor that nobody can come to know.
Just as it is possible for some but not all participants of a treasure hunt to find the treasure based on the instructions given, it must be similarly possible for some but not all readers to know the counselor based on the information Jesus gave.
It must be possible to know the counselor because Jesus said that even though the world cannot receive him because it neither sees nor knows him, you know him for he dwells with you.
It is unlikely if not impossible that there is additional information in the New Testament because you can now use the computer to do various word searches and there are no other mentions of the counselor except in the end of John’s Gospel in separated passages as if to make it less obvious.
It is unlikely if not impossible for the counselor to be a mental entity because what Jesus said in many places makes it unlikely if not impossible to be so. For instance it is to your advantage that Jesus goes or he will not come indicates it is a physical coming just like Jesus’ coming was physical. “But when he comes” indicates he will not come immediately but at a later date.
“I have yet many things to say to you, more than you can now bear” suggests that there will be a consciousness change in the future that will make you able to bear that will coincide with the coming of the counselor.
If the counselor comes in the minds of Christians and teaches them all things, bringing them remembrance what Jesus said and Jesus still has to tell you he dwells with you, he must be a hard to see or false counselor in your mind (apart from the fact that nobody has spoken of hearing the same voice in their minds teaching them all things and bringing them remembrance what Jesus said.
Because it is impossible for anyone other than the counselor to fulfill the criteria Jesus described (otherwise what Jesus said is false or unwarranted), whoever fulfills the criteria described by Jesus must be the counselor. Whoever convinces the world of sin, righteousness and judgment must be the counselor. If you are now convinced of sin, righteousness and judgment where previously you were not, the counselor would look foolish if he was to now try to convince you. Whoever takes from what is Jesus’ and makes it known to you, who brings you remembrance what Jesus said to you must be the counselor, especially if nobody in the past or present has done so in the way the counselor does.
No Mystery Why Everyone Changed:
(Reflecting their pretentiousness, no one has acknowledged the occurrence of consciousness changes that were blatant, cannot be mistaken after 1977 and in recent years, let alone try to explain why they have occurred)
The reason why consciousness changes spread to affect everyone is because it is a process of contagion that like all processes of contagion requires nothing of its victims; no action is required by its victims in order to achieve contagion except that they must be receptive to the agent of contagion (eg a virus) and be capable of passing it on.
No intelligence or discernment is required in the process but what is required for people’s consciousness to change by contagion is a capacity (that is universal) to sense force and force changes transmitted in the WAY people speak or move. If there are unique changes in a reduction of forceful stretching, changes in speed and loudness in one changed person’s speech, all beings here are able to sense the reduction in stress, restlessness and distraction impacting on them so that they are forcefully or emotionally stirred to also modify their behavior to reduce as much as possible their own endemic suffering but only as far as their continued urge to defile themselves and others will permit.
IT IS NO MYSTERY BUT ENTIRELY TO BE EXPECTED WHY UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES HAS OCCURRED NOT ONCE BUT TWICE IN RECENT YEARS. THE REASON IS BECAUSE IT IS THE IMPACT OF FORCE ON A BEING’S CONSCIOUSNESS THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON, THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE REASONING BY THAT BEING, BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY GENERATED THAT GOVERNS OR DETERMINES A PERSON’S WOEFUL CONSCIOUSNESS STATE. ALL BEINGS HERE IRRESPECTIVE OF INTELLIGENCE OR REASONING ARE CONVERSANT IN TRANSMITTING AND RECEIVING FORCE THAT IS THE INSTRUMENT OR AGENT OF DETERMINING THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS STATE. SHOULD A BEING COME ALONG WHO TRANSMITTED LESS FORCE AND FORCE CHANGES IN HIS APPEARANCE, SPEECH AND MOTION, ALL BEINGS IN THIS WORLD ARE CAPABLE OF SENSING THE UNIQUE FORCE CHANGES WHERE THERE WERE NONE IN THE PAST AND THE IMPACT OF THIS NOVEL REDUCTION OF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION TRANSMITTED BY THIS PERSON’S BEHAVIOR AUTOMATICALLY ALLEVIATED THE EXTERNAL APPLICATION OF FORCE ON THEIR MINDS THAT SERVE TO PROVIDE A TEMPLATE FOR THEM TO SIMILARLY CHANGE INTERNALLY TO EMULATE THOSE CHANGES BECAUSE NO BEING NO MATTER HOW SELFISH, WANTS TO SUFFER ANYMORE THAN HE HAS TO, TO GET WHAT HE WANTS FROM HIS MANIPULATION OF OTHERS.
BECAUSE IT IS A COMBINATION OF INTRINSIC & EXTRINSIC FORCE IMPACTING ON A BEING’S CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT DETERMINES HIS CONSCIOUSNESS STATE, ANY GENUINE EVEN BRIEF REDUCTION IN EXTERNALLY GENERATED STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION (WHERE THERE NEVER WAS IN THE PAST) ON INTERACTION WITH A PERSON WHO HAS CHANGED & SO DOES NOT TRANSMIT AS MUCH STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AS OTHERS WILL AUTOMATICALLY CAUSE THAT BEING’S CONSCIOUSNESS STATE TO CHANGE MERELY BY THE REDUCTION OF EXTERNALLY SOURCED STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION EXERTED ON HIS CONSCIOUSNESS.
WHETHER A BEING LIKES IT OR NOT, IS STUPID OR SMART, IS AN ANIMAL OR HUMAN, HE HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO CHANGE CONSCIOUSLY BECAUSE HIS WOEFUL CONSCIOUSNESS STATE IS NOT HIS ALONE BUT ALSO DEPENDENT ON THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION GENERATED BY OTHERS THAT IMPACT ON HIM AND SO, SHOULD THERE BE AN UNPRECEDENTED CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGE IN ONE PERSON SUCH THAT HE GENERATES LESS STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IN ALL OTHERS THAT COME INTO CONTACT WITH HIM, HE WILL AUTOMATICALLY SET IN MOTION CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES IN ALL WHO COME INTO CONTACT WITH HIM SIMPLY BY REDUCING THEIR EXTERNALLY GENERATED STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IMPACTING ON THEIR CONSCIOUSNESS.
THE REASON WHY THERE HAS NEVER BEEN CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES IN THE PAST IS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO OF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT DETERMINES A PERSON’S CONSCIOUSNESS STATE. NO ONE HAS EVER BEHAVED IN APPEARANCE, SPEECH AND MOTION IN A WAY THAT TRANSMITTED LESS STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION ON OTHERS’ CONSCIOUSNESS. AND SO IF SOMEONE WAS TO COME ALONG WHOSE APPEARANCE, SPEECH AND MOTION INDUCED LESS STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IN ALL OTHERS COMING INTO CONTACT WITH HIM, THIS REDUCTION IN EXTRINSICALLY GENERATED STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AUTOMATICALLY CAUSES HIS CONSCIOUSNESS STATE TO CHANGE BECAUSE HE HAS EXPERIENCED AN EXTERNALLY GENERATED REDUCTION IN STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION HE NEVER IMAGINED WAS POSSIBLE OR HAD EXPERIENCED BEFORE AND BECAUSE ALL BEINGS HAVE MEMORY, THIS NOVEL EXPERIENCE WILL SERVE AS A TEMPLATE FOR HIM TO ALSO CHANGE IN HIS OWN WAY TO REDUCE HIS OWN STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION BUT ONLY AS FAR AS HIS CONTINUED URGE TO DEFILE HIMSELF AND OTHERS WILL PERMIT.
On the other hand, consciousness changes do not yield so easily otherwise they would have occurred frequently long ago. When I started out to grapple with the stress, restlessness and distraction that beset me some time after 1997, I never imagined I would achieve the stress-free, restless-free and distraction-free state I enjoy today. It was only after painstaking application of myself despite and against great social pressures to put into practice insights that progressively came to me eg initially not smiling or saying things to impress or please others progressing to not stretching syllables progressing to the insight of speed and loudness changes that I became increasingly aware were not frequent but constant and occurring in everyone and making painstaking effort to eliminate them in my speech.
THUS CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES DO NOT COME WITH A PRIOR PROMISE THAT THEY WILL OCCUR IF YOU KEEP DOING SUCH AND SUCH BUT THEY ONLY YIELD AFTER MUCH EFFORT AND PROLONGED APPLICATION TO IDENTIFY CONDUCT THAT CAUSES STRESS THAT GOVERNS THE CONSCIOUSNESS STATE AND ELIMINATING THEM PROGRESSIVELY NEVER INSTANTLY. NEVERTHELESS, THE REDUCTION OF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION OF THE BEHAVIOR OF OTHERS (WHERE IT HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN THE PAST) AUTOMATICALLY CAUSES THAT BEINGS CONSCIOUSNESS TO CHANGE WITHOUT HIM DOING ANYTHING SIMPLY BECAUSE THE LOAD OF STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION GOVERNING HIS CONSCIOUSNESS HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE CHANGE IN OTHERS.
No One To Copy From Even If I wanted:
EVEN IF I WANTED TO COPY OTHERS FOR MY CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGES IN RECENT YEARS THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD TO SERVE AS TEMPLATE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO MODELS IN THIS WORLD FOR NOT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, NOT CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT ARE THE REQUISITES THAT WHEN SUSTAINED (NOT IMMEDIATELY RESULTED IN), LED TO MY CONSCIOUSNESS CHANGE AND THEREFORE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT I COPIED OTHERS. BECAUSE THERE IS STRONG FORCEFUL HABIT TO REVERT TO THE RUT OF MINDLESS STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS, ONLY A SUSTAINED PERSISTENCE IN NOT STRETCHING, NOT CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS WILL LEAD TO A RELENTING OF THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT STOOD IN THE WAY TO RELEASE TO EXPERIENCE EFFORTLESS UNIFIED CALM CLARITY OF THE MIND.
How can all ordinary people who are still stretching their syllables, changing speed and loudness (and therefore stylish) be the triggers of the recent consciousness changes that make it possible for them to permanently exit stretching, changes in speed and loudness where it was impossible in the past? It must take a person who can and have stopped stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness to trigger a consciousness change that permits it to occur.
My Claims To Exclusivity:
(All ordinary people harbor intense dislikes and they may react swiftly with revulsion or dislike beyond their control when they read about my claim to exclusivity such that they may not be able to bear to examine what I will say subsequently and instead they will blame me with more karma due for upsetting their pretentious ‘modesty’ by blowing my trumpet. If you did not harbor intense irrational dislike, why should my claim to exclusivity irk you so much you cannot bear to read it? A person without intense dislike will read what I say calmly and clearly thinking according to its merits.)
My claims to exclusivity are these:
No one in the past or present has made this fundamental discovery and declaration that the only reason why all ordinary people in this world are assailed by stress, restlessness and distraction is because there is constant unnecessary forceful stretching of syllables, changes in speed and loudness in their speech that is intended for show (to deceive, impress, please, intimidate and dominate) and these forceful changes have their equivalents in their motions, thinking and perceiving (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching).
No one in the past or present has ever said that there is a SIMPLE permanent cure to stress, restlessness and distraction if the person were to pay persistent attention to detect and persistent effort to stop all stretching of syllables, changes in speed and loudness. (If you think you are capable of speaking without stretching syllables, changes in speed and loudness, ask me and I will show you how there are incontrovertible objective stretching, changes in speed and loudness that you may never have realized STILL exists in your speech.)
No one in the past or present has made this declaration that like and dislike are the only two possible alternative reactions that always automatically occur in all ordinary people on contact with whatever happens to them and like and dislike are essentially the alternative controlled (liking) or control lost (disliking) stirring in strength and speed of their mental force of going against self. All their emotions like greed, lust, pride, excitement, envy, jealousy, anger, hate, sadness and shame are essentially like and dislike in fancy clothes.
No one in the past or present has ever triggered or set in motion consciousness changes that spread to affect every being on earth not once but twice after 1977 and in recent years as I have done.
What I say above is not boasting motivated by pride because what I say is factual and not accompanied by emotion.
The Buddha said beings in the higher, pure realms are detained by five higher fetters namely conceit, ignorance (not delusion), attachment to forms and the formless and restlessness (desire for meaningful passive changes as opposed to meaningless forceful change here).
Thus my claim to exclusivity may emanate from my conceit that is based on reality, not my boasting based on delusion and pride.
The Buddha said he is the highest teacher and the highest not because he is conceited but because it is the truth that he knows things beyond even Brahma and he can make Brahma not seeing him whilst Brahma cannot do anything to him.
No One Has Ever Said This:
I have said many things that I can claim no one in the past or present has ever said eg:
The reason why you can make an imitation of the way another speaks is because there are stable or consistent unique characteristics in the way he speaks and what he usually speaks and the unique way he usually speaks is essentially the way he always stretches his syllables, changes speed and loudness. Because it is impossible by chance for him to render the same unique characteristics in how and what he speaks each time he speaks, his speech must be produced from memory or by regurgitation like a tape recording and therefore he never speaks live specific for that occasion but he is always rehashing approximately by regurgitation from the past to meet the requirements of the present situation and therefore he is a robot, only a very sophisticated robot with a much more sophisticated library to recall from and he is a hypocrite because no one who is constantly saying or doing things by stale, impersonal, approximate rehash from the past can be sincere or genuine anymore than programmed speech produced by pressing a button from a recorder can be genuine.
The implication of what I am saying that I know is correct is that all ordinary people who speak with a stable imitable style are constantly speaking and behaving by memory to meet the demands of the situation and they are therefore essentially overrated disk jockeys who only select what recordings to play from their mental jukeboxes or they are de facto robots and hypocrites because their speech and behavior is never specifically intended for an occasion but rehashed to fool others that it is specific for the occasion.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON WHO SPEAKS LIVE FOR EACH OCCASION TO SAY THE SAME OLD THINGS THE SAME OLD WAY BUT IT IS TO BE EXPECTED THAT A ROBOT WILL SAY AND DO THE SAME OLD THINGS THE SAME OLD WAYS AS IT IS PROGRAMMED TO DO SO BECAUSE IT CANNOT BEHAVE IN ANY WAY THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROGRAMMED TO DO. NO ROBOT THAT NEEDS TO BE PROGRAMMED CAN SAY OR DO ANYTHING THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PROGRAMMED TO AND THUS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A ROBOT TO SAY OR DO THINGS IN A WAY IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROGRAMMED TO.
Why do people painstakingly practice reciting passages of Shakespeare or how to swing a golf club if they are not relentlessly committing to as faithful memory as possible what they want to say or do in the future when the situation demands and therefore they are unwittingly and willingly conditioning themselves to become robots (by memorizing what they should say or do to impress others)?
Why there is no greater advantage:
The Buddha: ' His heart thus knowing thus seeing is released from the fermentation of sensuality, becoming & ignorance. With release there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the task done. Just as if there were a pool -- clear, limpid -- where a man could see shells, gravel, pebbles and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting, in the same way he discerns, as it is actually present, that 'This is stress, this is origination of stress, the cessation and way leading to the cessation of stress.
The Buddha said that through dispassion he is released indicating that in the Buddha’s mind, all beings are bonded to existence and suffering and enlightenment is the final permanent release from suffering.
THUS IF IT IS TRUE THAT ALL BEINGS HERE EXIST UNDER CONSCIOUSNESS CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE TORMENTING THAT THEY ARE NOT AWARE EXIST AND CAN BE REMOVED, THEY ARE ALL SUFFERING FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT THEY DO NOT REALIZE CAN BE CURED BY NOT STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS (THEY ARE NOT EVEN AWARE HOW EXTENSIVE THE STRETCHING, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS IS IN THEIR SPEECH), THEN EVEN IF THEY DESIRE MATERIAL AND SENSATE PLEASURES, THERE CAN BE NO GREATER ADVANTAGE THAN IF SOMEBODY WAS TO CAUSE THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONSTRAINTS TO BE REMOVED AND POINT OUT HOW THEY ARE STRETCHING THEIR SYLLABLES, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS. IF I HAVE DONE THAT THEN I WILL HAVE SUPERSEDED THE COUNSELOR IN BEING AN ADVANTAGE TO YOU.
The Difference Between Excitement & Anxiety:
Excitement is essentially the intense or strong, rapidly changing stirring in speed and strength of a person's force of going against self that is still under the control of his force of self preservation on contact with a situation that arouses it eg the nude body of an attractive girl.

THEREFORE EXCITEMENT IS INTENSE LIKING. EXCITEMENT CAN BE FAKED OR GENUINE BUT EVEN IF IT IS GENUINE, DON'T CONGRATULATE YOURSELF AS GENUINE BECAUSE IT IS SUFFERING HEADING FOR FUTURE LOSS OF CONTROL AND INSANITY.
Nowhere is reason or truth involved and it is merely a controlled force reaction of the excited person's mind.

Anxiety or nervousness or panic is essentially an intense, rapidly changing stirring in speed and strength of the person's force of going against self OUT OF CONTROL of the person's force of self preservation or disliking on contact with a situation provoking it eg a man pointing a gun menacingly at you.
THEREFORE ANXIETY IS INTENSE DISLIKING.
Nowhere is reason involved in anxiety or nervousness.
At its extreme levels, excitement totters on the brink of loss of control and the excited person (actually his force of self preservation) struggles to control his excitement and he may recurrently lapse into loss of control to experience anxiety or nervousness.

This is the case if you observe people who are very excited or you reflect on occasions when you became very excited that you are walking a tightrope fearing loss of control when you may become even manic or irrationally or indiscriminately violent.

HOWEVER YOU MIGHT ADULATE EXCITEMENT, WHETHER IT BE FAKED OR GENUINE, EXCITEMENT IS CONDITIONING SUCH THAT WITH EACH EPISODE OF EXCITEMENT YOU ARE INEXORABLY CONDITIONING YOURSELF TO AROUSE EXCITEMENT MORE EASILY TO MORE INTENSE LEVELS THAT BECOME HARDER TO SHED AND YOU ARE HEADED FOR THE CLIFF, UNCONTROLLABLE EXCITEMENT.
How To Learn Not To Dislike:
Whenever anyone says (however softly with a smile), “Those bloody bird calls are a pain in the neck” they are expressing dislike that has nothing to do with reason or the situation at hand but everything to do with the optional or unnecessary arousal of their mental force in a manner with unabated acceleration in speed and strength in reaction (not response) to the calls of the birds.
If you learn to mindfully say, “The calls of the birds are harsh” you are merely expressing a reasoned statement based on reality that the calls of the birds are indeed or in truth harsh (to everyone) because they have violent stretching of notes, violent changes in speed and loudness in a mindlessly repeated cycles of a handful of notes.
“Those bloody bird calls are a pain in the neck” is an expression of dislike that creates additional stress in self and arouses similar dislike in the listener. Dislike has nothing to do with reason, is not necessary and merely worsens the suffering of a situation for self and others.
Often people say softly with a smile “Those bloody bird calls are a pain in the neck” to falsely impress that they are tolerant when they are piling up their agony because they are faking or expressing like for what they disliked.
“The calls of the birds are harsh” is merely a statement of reality that is universal for everyone that the birds’ calls are harsh that has nothing to do with dislike or emotions.
THE NEXT TIME YOU BECOME AWARE YOU HAVE JUST SAID WITHOUT THINKING “I LIKE THIS OR I DON’T LIKE THIS’, REMIND YOURSELF THAT YOU HAVE NOT MADE A STATEMENT OF REASON BUT MADE A STATEMENT OF FORCE OR EMOTION BECAUSE YOU HAVE MERELY SAID YOUR MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF (INVOLUNTARILY) UNDULATED UP AND DOWN IN SPEED AND STRENGTH ON THE OCCURRENCE OF SOMETHING OR IT ROSE UNABATED IN SPEED AND STRENGTH (DISLIKED) WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENED. IF YOU THINKING THAT WHAT YOU SAID IS REASONABLE, YOU HAVE ADVANCED FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION.
THE MAN OF REASON WHO NEITHER LIKES NOR DISLIKES MERELY SAYS WHAT HAPPENED WAS PLEASANT (AGREEABLE) OR UNPLEASANT (DISAGREEABLE).
Seeing things clearly right there, right there:
It may be the truth that ordinary people in many ways never practice what the Buddha taught that ‘whatever quality is present (at the moment) one clearly sees right there right there’.
Driven by strong likes and dislikes they selectively see in a situation at hand what they like and avoid things they dislike. If you observe people’s eyes, they often flicker rapidly sideways or upwards as they speak because they are (involuntarily) struggling to avoid seeing some things (eg their dishonesty). When people close their eyes they are avoiding seeing a matter at hand. Often they are seeing but their minds are elsewhere daydreaming or concocting what they can do to exploit the situation at hand.
People only want to see in the situation what they like to see and avoid seeing what they don’t like to see (eg the ugly side of life, pretense and falsity perpetrated by self and others), they see with a style that can be added force and prolonged gaze (a stare that others find offensive or provocative), their eyes dart restlessly sideways or upwards (because they are uneasy with what they see), they turn their eyes and even face away from what they are uncomfortable seeing. As a result they never see clearly whatever quality is present right there right there and they form faulty conclusions and become deluded.
Simple But Not Easy:
Quitting alcoholism is simply a matter of stopping drinking but it is easier said than done as most alcoholics will attest. The reason is that it is not reason that is behind their drinking but it is forceful emotion or like or urge that disregards the hangovers, the debilitation of their minds and bodies that is the mindless or blind drive to continued drinking.
Thus even though letting yes be yes only is blissful sanity now, later in old age and thereafter, it is the hardest thing for beings here because they are seized and driven by blind mental force to always say and do more with a style that comes from evil not good.
IT IS THE FORCE AND THE CONDITIONING OF THE MIND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REASON BUT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH MINDLESS ROTE BEHAVIOR THAT MAKES ALL SINFUL CONDUCT LIKE NOT LETTING YOUR YES BE YES ONLY VERY DIFFICULT TO EXIT. BECAUSE THERE IS NEVER FORCE IN REASON, IT IS VERY EASY TO CHANGE, BASED ON NEW BETTER INFORMATION FROM ONE VIEW TO ANOTHER VIEW THAT IS NOT HELD WITH EMOTION AND FALSE SELF IDENTITY.
All the sins are forms of likes and dislikes:
All the sins are nothing more than likes or dislikes.
Greed is nothing more than like or the controlled (by the force of self preservation) stirring of the speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self on seeing money or material goods (cars, watches, jewels).
Lust is nothing more than like or the controlled (by the force of self preservation) stirring of the speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self on perceiving sexual objects.
Envy is nothing more than like or the controlled (by the force of self preservation) stirring of the speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self on perceiving someone’s wealth, possessions, fame or status.
Pride that Jesus said is a sin but Christians see nothing wrong is nothing more than like or the controlled (by the force of self preservation) stirring of the speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self on being praised or like associated with oneself or one’s possessions (house, children, wife).
Boasting is nothing more than an irrational urge to make much and advertise (beating one’s own drum) as far more exalted than it really is driven, by a liking for objects and attributes that one identifies with as self.
Anger is nothing more than diffuse or ill directed dislike or the uncontrolled (by the force of self preservation) stirring of the speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self on the occurrence of matters that threaten one’s interests.
Hatred is nothing more than focused dislike or the uncontrolled (by the force of self preservation) stirring of the speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self targets on a person or groups of people.
Jealousy is nothing more than dislike for another person as a result of his possessions (eg his car, his pretty girl friend, wealth).
Shame is nothing more than dislike for self together with the deflation of one’s resident pride as a result of the coming to light of information that is embarrassing.
Sadness is nothing more than dislike for the losses of one’s likes that with regular experiences to intense levels becomes increasingly easy to experience to more intense levels that are harder to shake off and may descend into suicidal depressions.
Fear is the only emotion that is driven by the force of one’s self preservation. Whenever a situation arises that threatens, one’s force of going against self that is usually the drive behind an actor’s speech and deeds rapidly reduces in speed and strength to permit the force of self preservation to rise rapidly in speed and strength unopposed to pull the person away from the target of fear.
It is impossible for a person who has destroyed all mental force to be fearful and therefore a Buddha is passively, effortlessly, truly fearless.
THUS IF SOMEONE HAS GIVEN UP ALL LIKES AND DISLIKES, HIS MENTAL FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF IS NEVER STIRRED IN SPEED AND STRENGTH IN A CONTROLLED OR UNCONTROLLED WAY BY ALL EVENTS HAPPENING, HE HAS COME TO AN END OF ALL SIN.
A PERSON WHO HAS NOT GIVEN UP HIS LIKES AND DISLIKES IS A HYPOCRITE AND A FOOL INDULGING IN FRUITLESS VEXATIONS IF HE WAS TO STRIVE TO ELIMINATE HIS GREED, LUST, ENVY, JEALOUSY, ANGER AND HATE WITHOUT ELIMINATING HIS LIKE AND DISLIKE.
JESUS SPOKE OF DENYING YOURSELF, CARRYING YOUR CROSS TO GO WITH HIM. THIS IS A WORLD WHERE EVERYONE LIKES AND DISLIKES AND DEMAND YOU DO SO. THUS A PERSON WHO TRULY DENIES HIMSELF MUST DENY HIS LIKES AND DISLIKES AND WILL THUS DISTINGUISH HIMSELF FROM THE REST WHO WILL NOT BE PLEASED AND HE WILL THUS BE PERSECUTED & THUS HAVE TO CARRY HIS CROSS TO GO WITH JESUS.
Quote: Experts doubt Clovis were the first people of America.
Comment: Why doubt that the Clovis were the first people of America? If you are certain the Clovis are not the first people, simply state they are not the first and provide your reasons why they are not. If you cannot be sure, say “The Clovis may not be the first people of America’.
By saying you doubt, you are questioning or forcefully not accepting what others say and that will foster an attitude of refusal to accept in yourself and others who read whose final destiny is mad doubt that cannot be assuaged.
LEARN TO SPEAK WITHOUT EXPRESSING DOUBT, SAY WHAT YOU THINK IT IS OR MAY BE BUT DON’T DOUBT.
Quote:

I don't think Mr Blair can devise an exit strategy which can save Iraqis, Americans and Britons

Imtiyaz, Riyadh
Comment: If you say it IS not possible or it MAY not be possible for Mr Blair to device an exit strategy, you are merely expressing your view right or wrong, not challenging or questioning anyone.

Questioning or doubting others have nothing to do with reality but is fostering in you and others an attitude of antagonism, of not accepting what others say or do that will end in mad doubt and uncertainty. If you doubt that the food before you is food, that is mad doubt that you think is impossible to afflict you but you may be a fool because with each time you forcefully doubt, your doubt becomes more intense and harder to shake off.

If you are always doubting yourself and others and you are not even aware of it, aren't you a robot operating by rote from memory?

THERE IS AN EXIT STRATEGY THAT BENEFITS EVERYONE. THE AMERICANS SHOULD HAND OVER IRAQ TO THE ARABS EG EGYPTIANS, SAUDIS & LIBYANS AND LET THEM SORT IT OUT. IT IS THE ANIMOSITY BY MUSLIMS TO THE AMERICANS THAT IS FUELING THE VIOLENCE. WHY IS AMERICA SO KEEN TO STAY WHEN RESIDENTS HATE THEM?
Why 'I Don't Think' Is Doubting:
When you say "I don't think" it is with reference to others who think and therefore it is setting yourself up against others or doubting.

When you say ‘Blair cannot or may not be able to device an exit strategy’ you are merely stating your view not 'don't think' where others think.

DON'T SAY YOU THINK OR DON'T THINK, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO AND NOT LETTING YOUR YES BE YES ONLY.
IF YOU THINK IT IS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SAY YOU THINK OR DON'T THINK WHEN IT IS MEANINGLESS, MEANT TO PAD UP OR FOR SHOW TO IMPRESS, THEN YOU HAVE FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION OF WHAT IS UNNECESSARY IS NECESSARY.
Have you read Jesus saying, "I think this will come to pass" or "I don't think this will come to pass"? To say you think or don't think reflects hesitancy or uncertainty, is a form of doubting or setting yourself against others who think otherwise or it is for show to impress.

Except in exceptional circumstances like inebrition or insanity, how can anyone speak without thinking and therefore it is frivolous or unnecessary to say you think what you say.

Instead one should say it is MY VIEW that Blair cannot device an exit strategy which is not the same as I don't think Blair can device an exit strategy.

How can one not think when one speaks? One always thinks when one speaks.

Therefore it is false to say you do not (did not) think Blair can device an exit strategy because it is impossible for anyone to not think Blair can device an exit strategy. It is again a very different proposition to say it is my view that Blair cannot device an exit strategy.

IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO SAY I THINK IT IS SO AND SO ALTHOUGH IT IS REDUNDANT TOSAY 'YOU THINK' BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SAY SOMETHING WITHOUT THINKING BEFOREHAND. IT IS UNDERSTOOD YOU THINK WHAT YOU SAID.

IT IS PREPOSTEROUS OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO SAY SOMETHING THAT HE SAYS HE DID NOT THINK OF AS IS IMPLIED BY HIS SAYING I DO NOT THINK IT IS SO AND SO. WHAT HE IMPLIES THEREFORE IS NOT THAT HE DID NOT THINK BEFORE HE SAID IT BUT HIS VIEW IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT OTHERS EXPRESS AND THEREFORE HE IS ANTAGONIZING OR DOUBTING.
NOT MEANING WHAT YOU SAY:
WHEN YOU SAY YOU DO NOT THINK BLAIR CAN DEVICE A GOOD EXIT STRATEGY YOU (LITERALLY) MEAN YOU DID NOT THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID WHICH IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE YOU CANNOT HAVE MEANT WHAT YOU SAID BUT INSTEAD WHAT YOU MEANT TO SAY WAS THAT YOU DISAGREED WITH OR IS QUESTIONING THOSE WHO THINK THAT BLAIR CAN DEVICE A GOOD EXIT STRATEGY.

NOT ONLY ARE YOU DOUBTING OR QUESTIONING OTHERS ON THE MATTER BUT YOU ARE UNCONSCIOUSNESSLY NOT SAYING WHAT YOU MEAN (THAT YOU ARE DISAGREEING OR DOUBTING) AND NOT MEANING WHAT YOU SAY (YOU CANNOT HAVE NOT THOUGHT WHAT YOU SAID).

THEREFORE THE OCCASIONS WHEN PEOPLE ARE AWARE THEY DO NOT MEAN WHAT THEY SAY OR SAY WHAT THEY MEAN MAY LIKE THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG COMPARED TO ALL THE OCCASIONS THEY IN TRUTH DO SO.

Letting Your Yes Be Yes Only Applies To All Aspects Of Your Life:
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in WHAT you see, hear, smell, taste and touch.
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in HOW you see, hear, smell, taste and touch. This means there must be no style, no stretching, changes in speed and strength in how you see, hear, smell, taste and touch.
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in WHAT you say. This means you must not pad your speech (eg yes instead of yes, yes, yes or beat around the bush, you mean what you say and say what you mean)
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in HOW you say. This means no style or no stretching of syllables, changes in speed and loudness.
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in WHAT you think. This means you must not pad your thinking (eg fantasize, think repetitively on a subject, keep on visiting your proud moments)
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in HOW you think. This means no style or no stretching of syllables, changes in speed and loudness in your thoughts.
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in WHAT you do. This means no accessory or unnecessary movements that are for show to deceive, impress, please, intimidate or dominate.
You must learn and strive (by a process of effacement or scrubbing off) to let your yes be yes only in HOW you do things. This means no style or no linear or curved stretching of movements, no changes in speed and strength of force in your movements.
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE AND SCOPE FOR APPLICATION OF LETTING YOUR YES BE YES ONLY BECAUSE IT CAN BE AND MUST BE APPLIED TO ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR LIFE. UNLESS YOU WANT TO SUFFER NOW AND LATER, YOU MUST ENDEAVOR TO ALWAYS LET YOUR YES BE YES ONLY BECAUSE ANYTHING MORE IS FALSE AND COME FROM EVIL NEVER GOOD.
The Evil & Danger Of Sadness:
Sadness is what people like to generate (falsely) to impress others (eg they speak or sing in a sad way to impress others with their capacity to feel or how moving or touching people they are), what society encourages to experience and express because they tell you it is harmless and meritorious and it is also something that involuntarily seize ordinary people when they are deprived of their wants and increasingly for no apparent reason (mad sadness) because of loss of control.
SADNESS WHATEVER THE FORM, GENUINE OR FAKED TO PLEASE OR IMPRESS OTHERS IS EVIL AND HARMFUL BECAUSE IT IS PAINFUL AND CONDITIONS THE MIND SO THAT SADNESS BECOMES INCREASINGLY EASY TO AROUSE TO INTENSE LEVELS THAT GET HARDER AND HARDER TO SHAKE OFF AND ANYONE WHO DOES NOT PAY ATTENTION TO DETECT AND DRIVE OUT SADNESS WHEN IT ARISES IS HEADED FOR MAD SADNESS IN AN ACUTE CRISIS OR IN OLD AGE DEGENERATION.
Unwitting Admission Of Sin:
Because the various forms of sin namely greed, lust, anger, hate, envy, jealousy & pride are nothing more than like and dislike dressed up in fancy clothes for the occasion, anyone who routinely says he likes this or that, he does not like this or that is unwittingly or de facto acknowledging he is a sinner.
Have you read anywhere that Jesus or the Buddha said they liked this or that, disliked this or that?
If you say that your like and dislike is different from greed, lust, anger, hate, envy, jealousy & pride, you can like and dislike and nevertheless not harbor greed, lust, anger, hate, envy, jealousy & pride, that may be true or it is rooted on false logic and perception in which case the destination is mad logic and perception. If what you perceive and believe is wrong then you have wrong view and the destination for wrong view is hell or the animal womb.
Even if you do not believe in sin, because like and dislike is nothing more than the stirring in speed and strength of one’s mental force of going against self controlled by the force of self preservation in like and out of control by the force of self preservation in dislike, it is applying force on your mind that can be transmitted to those receiving your like and dislike to create stress, restlessness and distraction that not only is harming yourself and others but it is conditioning or warping your mind to like and dislike, to become more easily stressed, restless and distraction and you are headed for doom.
ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE POSSESS TWO MENTAL FORCES, THE FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF THAT IS THE DRIVE BEHIND ALL ACTIVITIES OF THE MIND (PERCEIVING, THINKING, SPEAKING AND DOING) AND THE FORCE OF SELF PRESERVATION THAT ALWAYS OPPOSES AND STRUGGLE TO CONTROL THIS FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF TO LIMIT ITS POTENCY AND BRING ITS ACTIVITIES TO A HALT WHEN IT BECOMES TOO STRESSFUL.
THE FORCE OF GOING AGAINST SELF CAN ACT DIRECTLY AS IN NAKED AGGRESSION OR VIOLENCE OR IT CAN ACT INDIRECTLY THROUGH LIKE AND DISLIKE OR ITS DERIVATIVES LIKE GREED, LUST, ANGER, HATE, ENVY, HATRED, PRIDE AND SHAME.
(Doesn’t what I say that the sins are nothing more than like and dislike and like and dislike has nothing to do with reason but it is all about the stirring in speed and strength of the person’s mental force that all ordinary people see nothing wrong, applaud and routinely admit to experiencing convince you of sin? If what I say is true then whoever is the counselor must also say that to convince you of sin, righteousness and judgment and if I have done so, I will have superseded him and rendered what Jesus said as false.)
Why Has No One Consulted Me?
It is true that all beings (not just humans) in this world suffer from stress, restlessness and distraction (inability to concentrate) that often rise to unbearable levels and this is only because there is constant forceful stretching, changes in speed and strength of force in their perceiving, thinking, speaking and motion that they cannot be aware of because if someone is aware of these changes he will put them to a stop to experience the incomparable difference, namely effortless freedom from the suffering of stress, restlessness and distraction.
I have declared a permanent cure for stress, restlessness and distraction, namely to pay attention to detect and to make persistent effort to stop stretching your syllables, change speed and loudness when speaking.
Since stress, restlessness and distraction are disagreeable, how come no one has voluntarily approached me (let alone stampede to my doorstep) to demonstrate to them what stretching, changing of speed and loudness sounds like?
SPEECH (OR MUSIC) WITHOUT STRETCHED SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS IS VERY DISTINCT FROM ITS COUNTERPART THAT HAVE CONSTANT STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND ORDINARY PEOPLE HAVE NEVER HEARD THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE EVERYONE IN THIS WORLD IS DISHING OUT CONSTANT STRETCHING, CONSTANT CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS.
THUS IF YOU ARE SUFFERING FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AND I HAVE DECLARED A CURE, WHY ARE YOU BASHFUL TO SEEK HELP? INSTEAD MANY ARE ANNOYED WHEN I CALMLY POINT TO THEM HOW THEY HAVE JUST STRETCHED THEIR SYLLABLES, CHANGED SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND AFTERWARDS THEY CONTINUE TO DO SO AS IF THEY CANNOT HELP STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS AS IF THEY ARE PROGRAMED ROBOTS.
THE REASON THEY DO NOT APPROACH ME FOR A DEMONSTRATION OF NOT STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRATIONAL (IF THEY ARE BEINGS OF REASON THEN THEY WOULD APPROACH SOMEONE WHO PROFESSES A CURE FOR THEIR WOES) AND INSTEAD (BLINDLY) EMOTIONAL (TOO PROUD, TOO PRETENTIOUS OR REFUSING TO CONFRONT THEIR PROBLEMS).
BY THEMSELVES, ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE (NAMELY THOSE WHO SPEAK WITH STYLE OR CONSTANT STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS) MAY NEVER CHANGE THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WORLD NOT JUST AFTER 1977 BUT IN RECENT YEARS, MAY NEVER HAVE DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS CONSTANT STRETCHING OF THEIR SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS AND HOW THESE ARE THE UNALIENABLE ROOTS TO THEIR STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION BECAUSE EVEN THOSE WHO CALL THEMSELVES GOOD AND INTELLIGENT ARE RECALCITRANT, RELUCTANT TO CHANGE EVEN WHEN IT IS POINTED TO THEM, WHAT MORE THAT THEY SHOULD STUMBLE ON IT SPONTANEOUSLY AND WORK WITH PERSISTENCE THAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO FINALLY SCRUB OFF ALL STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS TO THEREBY JOYOUSLY EXIT STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION.
THEREFORE, EVEN IF YOU MAY BE UNAPPRECIATIVE, IS IT NOT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE THAT I EXIST IN THIS WORLD TO CHANGE THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WORLD AFTER 1977 AND IN RECENT YEARS, I WAS THE STEADFAST, RESOLUTE PIONEER OF NOT STRETCHING, CHANGING OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS THAT IS INDISPENSABLE IN THE FINAL EXIT FROM STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION?
Window Media Player’s & The Vistas’ Cosmetic Changes:
The revamped Window Media Player now comes in ‘snazzy’ black, the bar on the top appears to bulge (to give an illusion of being more real) and glow and the title of the film being played and time lapsed glow.
But all these are cosmetic changes to make the player more attractive or impressive or for show and do not add anything to its performance.
The new window Vista has some meaningful improvements but a large part of its improvement too is cosmetic and I would say I prefer the old version in some aspects.

Going To Heaven Is Simple:

Going to heaven is actually very simple and it is people themselves who are to be blamed because they are stubborn, foolishly difficult or complicated, which is why they are detained by themselves and by others in this world of terrible suffering that leads to terrible suffering as they age and after they depart.
Going to heaven is as simple as obeying Jesus to let your yes be yes only, anything more comes from evil.
Letting your yes be yes only is not something that is only possible for you to apply occasionally or frequently in some aspects of existence eg in your speech only but letting your yes be yes only is a command that you MUST (learn to) apply constantly to how and what you perceive (see, hear, smell, taste and touch), think, speak and behave bodily.
In truth all ordinary people in this world never let their yes be yes only even occasionally but, driven or seized by their emotions, they always perceive (see, hear, smell, taste and touch), think, speak and do more, much more, that comes from evil, which is why they are detained in this world of suffering.
The reason why they never let their yes be yes only is because there is unnecessary forceful stretching, changes in speed and strength of force in the way they always perceive (see, hear, smell, taste and touch), think, speak and do things which consumes prodigious energy impacting as unnecessary stress, restlessness and distraction in themselves and others in contact with them (and they have debts not merit doing so), they also always perceive, think, say and do much more (substance) that comes from evil. For instance, if you stare (use more force to see than necessary, you prolong your gaze), you are not merely seeing but perceiving with force that is constantly changing in speed and strength that is more and comes from evil. Some people see with eyes that are constantly darting about or changing in direction (perhaps because they are dishonest or shifty, they are eyeing things to steal) and this too is not letting your yes be yes only, not just seeing but seeing with darting or constantly changing direction and movement.
The Buddha:
One would not chase after the past,
nor place expectations on the future.
What is past is left behind.
The future is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
one clearly sees right there,
right there.
Unvanquished, unshaken,
that's how one develops the mind.
The Buddha is not indulging in meaningless semantics above when he said one should clearly see right there, right there. What he means is that you see by letting your yes be yes only, without adulteration, without corruption or add-ons (like prolonged seeing and force as in staring or shifting directions as in darting eyes) what is present before you at the moment. Ordinary people often stare but their minds are elsewhere and they are not seeing right there, right there.
THUS IF OBEY WHAT JESUS COMMANDED, LET YOUR YES BE YES ONLY IN WHATEVER AND HOWEVER YOU PERCEIVE (SEE, HEAR, TASTE, SMELL AND TOUCH), THINK, SPEAK AND DO, SOMETHING THAT IS SIMPLE AND VASTLY LESS COMPLICATED AND STRESSFUL THAT SAYING AND DOING MUCH MORE, YOU ARE WELL ON THE WAY TO HEAVEN.
(You are STUBBORN if you emotionally maintain a course of action eg gambling or smoking or stretching your syllables that harms yourself and others. You are PERSISTENT if you rationally maintain a course of action eg paying attention to stop stretching syllables, to quit anger that benefits you and others. Persistence is the third factor in the seven factors of awakening, stubbornness is evil and the way to ruin)
Driven by emotions, driven by pride, shame, anger, hate, lust, greed and fear, people are seized to not just say and do much more that comes from evil but they in addition say and do so with an individual style that is nothing more than you they stretch, change speed and loudness in what they say or do.
Jesus said he who loves him is the one who obey his commands. You may think you are a pious Christian if you go to church every Sunday and do charity work but if you are constantly stretching your syllables, changing speed and loudness, are you obeying Jesus and therefore love him?
EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT, ALL BEINGS IN THIS WORLD ARE BEING CONSTANTLY BOMBARDED BY SIGHTS AND SOUNDS FROM OTHERS (INCLUDING ANIMALS) THAT HAVE CONSTANT STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE AND THE NETT EFFECT IS TO INDUCE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION IN THEM SO THAT THEY ARE MESMERIZED OR SEIZED AND THUS DRIVEN, IN COHORT TO THE SOMNOLENT CONSTANT FORCEFUL STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE IN THEIR OWN SPEECH AND ACTIONS, THEY HAVE COME TO SUBMIT AND ACCEPT AS (BLAMELESS) FACTS OF LIFE THE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION (CANNOT CONCENTRATE) THEY REGULARLY EXPERIENCE WHEN THERE IS AN INCOMPARABLY BLISSFUL WAY TO EXIST IF ONE PAID ATTENTION TO STOP STRETCHING SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS.
***
Jesus said the counsellor will bring your remembrance what he said and take from what is his and make it known to you.
Has anyone today and in the past take from what is his, his command to let your yes be yes only and made it known to you in a way I have done above? Does the demonstration that nobody in this world speaks without unnecessary stretching of syllables, changes of speed and loudness that stresses self and others not convince you of sin, righteousness and judgment (they are headed for insanity)?
The Buddha said that there are things that are possible and things that are impossible, for instance it is impossible for the Father or Satan to be a female, it is impossible for any being to be in two places at once.
It may be or is impossible for anyone to supersede the counsellor because that will render what Jesus false because someone other than the counsellor can usurp his role.
Where were you during the FA cup final of 1978?
By asking that question, you force the person addressed to at least briefly think about where he was at that time but the person who phrased the question did not mean what he said, is not interested in where all those who read were on that date. Thus he does not mean what he said, but what he meant was that I want you to join me to take a journey down memory lane to the cup final of 1978.
Just as the speaker is unconscious that he does not mean what he says (he is not interested in where you were that day as asked) and did not say what he meant (I want you to take a trip down the football memory lane) and that far from being harmless, it is deadly as he is conditioning himself and others to the false perception that what he says is what he meant that will end in mad perception and logic. It is controlled mad logic and perception to think that you are saying to another person that you want him to reminisce about the 1978 FA cup final when you asked him where he was in 1978. The destination of that with loss of control is madness.
Quote Keith Urban: Rehab (from drug abuse) made us (him and Nicole Kidman) stronger.
Comment: By saying ‘stronger’ he is acknowledging there is strength in his reversion to mental and physical health or the ties between him and Nicole. It is a forced or controlled reversion that is subject to relapse or loss of control. There is no conviction in his statement and he is not a master of his destiny because given the right or strong enough provocations from others or circumstances it is likely he will relapse.
ONLY A PERSON WHO HAS RENOUNCED ALL FORCE, HAS KILLED MENTAL FORCE THAT IS THE DRIVE OF HIS SPEECH AND ACTIONS, OF WHICH HIS EMOTIONS ARE MERELY ITS PROXIES (AND NOTHING MORE THAN LIKE AND DISLIKE IN FANCY CLOTHES FOR THE OCCASION AT HAND) HAS TRULY REFORMED AND SHAKENED OFF THE DUST & SINS OF THE PAST.
Quote: PM: People are starting to feel good about the economy
People are starting to feel good and confident about the country’s economic performance and current market developments.
Comment: He has no right to speak for the people, has he conducted a survey to determine what he said? Instead he is promoting himself and what he meant to say is join the people who are starting to feel good about the economy by feeling good yourself. If he said what he meant, he should say I want to promote myself as such a fine economic steward. What is the use of feeling good if it is not good? If the economy is good, you do not have to feel good. He is unconsciously dicing with future mad perception and logic to believe what he said is true and meant. He is actually indulging in self promotion than speaking the truth.
Self interest Disguised As Interest In You Is The Motive:
The bottom line of not saying what they meant is to disguise self interest as interest in you.

People will not admit their self interest or promotion but will make it appear they have your interest at heart.

Eg asking you where you were in 1978 implies interest in you but he is interested in you reading his article about the FA cup final. By asking you where you were, you are drawn by the apparent interest in you to read his article.

By saying people are starting to feel good about the economy, he is denying self promotion and promotion of his government as wonderful economic stewards by saying that people and not him who are feeling good about the economy.

THUS IF YOU PEOPEL EXAMINE THEMSELVES CAREFULLY, THEY SELDOM IF EVER MEAN WHAT THEY SAY OR SAY WHAT THEY MEAN AND AS A RESULT, THEY ARE HYPOCRITES.

Developing A Kind Heart?

Quote: Dagpo Rinpoche will explain how one can develop a kind heart through contemplating the four immeasurable thoughts of love, compassion (how can one separate love from compassion?), joy (joy is the fourth factor of awakening that cannot be developed in isolation) and equanimity (equanimity cannot be developed in isolation but is the culmination of the development of the seven factors of awakening) in his first teaching.
Comment: It sounds emotionally nice but what is stated above actually makes little or no sense. What is said is that you can develop a kind heart by thinking about the four thoughts that cannot be measured of love, compassion, joy and equanimity. Nothing beats developing a kind heart than to practice not harming all animals and humans through speech and actions by not killing, not beating, not berating, not stealing, not lying or deceiving. What is the use of contemplating the four immeasurable thoughts if you continue to persecute others through speech and action?
As the Buddha said, you cannot develop true equanimity by forcing or disciplining yourself nor by contemplating but true equanimity is the final result of the process of awakening that begins with mindfulness (to your daily activities that causes stress, restlessness and distraction eg stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness) leading to analysis of qualities (examination) leading to persistence leading to joy (joy is not something Dagpo can teach you but it is the automatic fruit of the acquisition of the first three factors of awakening) leading to calm of mind and body leading to concentration (unification of the mind) leading to equanimity.
Whilst there may be some use in contemplating about love, compassion, joy and equanimity (or rather being aware of one’s lack of), putting into practice love (concern for self and others), compassion (can you physically separate compassion from love? Are you guilty of not knowing what you say in speaking about compassion and love?).
Rather than developing a kind heart through meditating on thoughts of love, compassion, joy and equanimity, one develops a kind heart by practicing not killing (even mosquitoes or cockcroaches), not taking what is not given (not just stealing but asking for permission before you take a sweet from your friend’s table), not indulging in idle chatter, tale bearing and harsh speech (not just speaking angrily but all speech with stretching syllables, changes in speed and loudness is harsh).
Contemplating can only develop a kind heart if the person reflects on his speech and actions that he can see is harmful to himself and others and then he contemplates on how otherwise he should behave or speak (eg not stretching syllables, not changing speed and loudness). It is blind and courting insanity to imagine love, compassion, joy and equanimity as entities that one develops in isolation or separation from daily life.
The Buddha said great is the gain in concentration when it is perfected by virtue, great is the gain in wisdom when it is perfected by concentration. In other words you cannot have great concentration without great virtue and you cannot have great wisdom with great concentration. Therefore if you think of love, compassion, joy and equanimity as mysterious or elusive or desirable virtual entities in your minds that you must develop like you develop your biceps in a gym, then you may chasing the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, barking up a wrong tree. Get your basics right (true virtue or not killing, stealing, not lying, speech that is not harsh) allied with meditation to calm yourself, to stop all thinking, to reflect on your evil deeds and words and you will automatically develop great love, compassion, joy and equanimity.
EXACTLY WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE THOUGHTS OF LOVE, COMPASSION, JOY AND EQUANIMITY THAT YOU WANT OTHERS TO COMTEMPLATE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DEVELOP A KIND HEART MAY BE OBJECTIVELY KNOWN. IF THEY ARE IN TRUTH IMAGINED OR FALSE, BASED ON EMOTIONS THAT THEREFORE HAVE STRENGTH TO BE DEVELOPED THEN YOU ARE DELUDED AND MISLEADING OTHERS BECAUSE WHATEVER IS EMOTIONAL IS HARMFUL TO SELF AND OTHERS AND LEAD TO MADNESS.
TRUE LOVE, COMPASSION, JOY AND EQUANIMTY HAVE NO FORCE OR EMOTION IN THEM, IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN DEVELOP IN ISOLATION AND IS MEASURELESS IN THE SENSE THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION (EG COMPASSION ONLY TO YOUR FRIENDS OR HUMANS BUT NOT ANIMALS). IF YOUR LOVE, COMPASSION, JOY AND EQUANIMITY HAVE FORCE, THEY APPLIES FORCE ON YOUR MIND AND THE RECIPIENT’S MIND CAUSING STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION AND YOU HAVE DEBTS NOT MERIT.
THUS YOU MAY SEE THAT THE APPROACHES OF THE VARIOUS TEACHERS OF BUDDHISM IN THIS WORLD IN THE PRESENT AND THE PAST DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY FROM MY APPROACH. WHENEVER TWO APPROACHES OR VIEWS OR INTEPRETATIONS ABOUT WHAT THE BUDDHA TAUGHT EXIST, EITHER ALL OF THEM ARE WRONG OR ONLY ONE CAN BE CORRECT. THUS IF I AM CORRECT, THEY ARE WRONG OR ONE OF THEM IS RIGHT AND I AM WRONG.
Insight into Buddhism
RENOWNED spiritual master of Tibetan Buddhism, Venerable Dagpo Lama Rinpoche will be in Malaysia to give two “exceptional” teachings, organised by Kadam Tashi Choe Ling (KTCL).
Dagpo Rinpoche will explain how one can develop a kind heart through contemplating the four immeasurable thoughts of love, compassion, joy and equanimity in his first teaching to be held on March 10 and 11 at KTCL in Petaling Jaya.
He will also be conferring the Four-Arm Cherezig (Kuan Yin) initiation on March 11.
The second teaching/retreat to be held from March 13 to 18 in Sepang will be based on Dagpo Rinpoche’s commentary on the great lamrim treatise, “‘Lines of Experience” which includes all the essential teachings of Lord Buddha Shakyamuni.
He will explain the way to overcome sufferings and to attain stable happiness, not just for oneself but for all living beings. (The Buddha’s teaching is not directed at attaining stable happiness for self and others but it is the remainderless cessation of all desires, abandoning of all existence here or in formed or formless existence in heaven. Whoever teaches otherwise is not in accordance to what the Buddha taught that all is not self, all separate existence is suffering & unsatisfactory.)
How The Buddha Is Truly Honored:
The twin sala trees broke out in full bloom, though it was not the season. And the blossoms rained upon the body of the Tathagata and dropped and scattered and were strewn upon it. And celestial mandarava flowers and heavenly sandalwood powder from the sky rained down upon the body of the Tathagata. And the sound of heavenly voices and heavenly instruments made music in the air.
"Yet it is not thus, Ananda, that the Tathagata is respected, and honoured in the highest degree. But, Ananda, whatever a person, abides by the Dhamma, lives uprightly in the Dhamma, walks in the way of the Dhamma, it is by such a one that the Tathagata is respected, and honoured in the highest degree. Therefore, Ananda, thus should you train yourselves: 'We shall abide by the Dhamma, live uprightly in the Dhamma, walk in the way of the Dhamma.'"
In the same way you are a person of the world if you think that you worship the Buddha by marvelling at elaborate or ostentatious temples built in his name.













IN THE SAME WAY RELIGIOUS TEACHERS WHO MAKE MUCH ABOUT CULTIVATING LOVE, COMPASSION, JOY AND EQUANIMITY MAY BE GUILTY OF FOSTERING ATTACHMENT TO THIS WORLD THAT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE BUDDHA'S MESSAGE OF DISPASSION AND UNBINDING.
The Buddha said the essence of his teaching is 'This is stress...This is the origination...This is the cessation...This is the way leading to the cessation of stress' not this is love, this is compassion, this is joy and this is equanimity. When you have reached the end of stress, something that is possible but never tasted by ordinary people, everything else will fall into place.
Then, the Blessed One disappeared and reappeared among the Bhaggas. He sat down and addressed the monks: "Monks, I will teach you the eight thoughts of a great person. "
"'This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not self-aggrandizing.' There is the case where a monk, being modest, does not want it to be known that 'He is modest.' Being content, he does not want it to be known that 'He is content.' Being reclusive, he does not want it to be known that 'He is reclusive.' His mindfulness being established, he does not want it to be known that 'His mindfulness is established.' Being endowed with discernment, he does not want it to be known that 'He is endowed with discernment.' Enjoying non-complication, he does not want it to be known that 'He is enjoying non-complication.'
No where does the Buddha mention thoughts of love, compassion, joy and equanimity in the the eight thoughts of a great man. Unless you are accusing him of being incomplete, not the knower of all, these are the only eight thoughts of a great man.
Love, compassion, joy and equanimity are fabrications or concepts of the mind and are therefore all false or deceptive derived from ignorance not enlightenment or knowing.
If there is depth in your love, compassion, joy and equanimity, it must be emotional or force driven and therefore false and stressful to yourself and others because whatever applies force to the mind is stressful, restless and distracting.
IF THERE IS IN TRUTH FORCEFUL STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CONSTANT CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS IN THE TEACHER WHO TEACHES YOU HOW TO CULTIVATE LOVE, COMPASSION, JOY AND EQUANIMITY, HE IS EITHER A CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS HYPOCRITE BECAUSE THE CONSTANT FORCEFUL STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS HARMS HIMSELF AND ALL WHO COME INTO CONTACT WITH HIM SO WHAT TRUE LOVE, COMPASSION, JOY AND EQUANIMITY IS HE TALKING ABOUT OR KNOW?
IT DOES NOT STOP THEM FROM PREACHING ABOUT LOVE AND COMPASSION BUT ANYONE WHO SPEAKS WITH STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS (SOMETHING THAT CAN BE OBJECTIVELY PROVEN) DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE HIS STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS ARE MEANINGLESS (ONLY FOR SHOW) AND CONSTANTLY PERSECUTE OTHERS AND HIMSELF, SO WHAT COMPASSION AND LOVE IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

Driving Wearing Nappies

It seems astronauts wear nappies at launch to save them from having to ease themselves and this woman astronaut at the center of a love triangle was reported to have driven wearing nappies on a long distance journey to kidnap her rival for the affection of a space shuttle pilot.
She may have developed an obsession or fascination with wearing nappies that may even be intense and has nothing to do with reason or necessity but liking (just as her obsession with the shuttle pilot is). Surely she could have the time to stop by to ease herself however urgent her mission is to kidnap her rival, people think they do and say things based on reason but what they say and do may be mindlessly indoctrinated into themselves by themselves and society.
THE WOMAN ASTRONAUT HAS NO REASON TO WEAR A NAPPY DRIVING ON A LONG JOURNEY EXCEPT THAT IT IS A MINDLESS RITUAL THAT SHE MAY BE FASCINATED WITH (SHE HAS DEVELOPED A FETISH FOR WEARING NAPPIES) BECAUSE OF HER SELF IDENTITY (SHE THINKS HIGHLY OF BEING AN ASTRONAUT) AND HER FAITH IN RITUALS (WEARING NAPPIES FOR THE SAKE OF WEARING OR TO THINK IT DISTINGUISHES HER) BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW DESPERATE HER MISSION SURELY SHE COULD SPARE A FEW MINUTES TO STOP TO URINATE. THUS SHE HAS TWO FETTERS, SELF IDENTITY VIEWS (ATTACHED TO HER VANITY AS AN ASTRONAUT) AND FAITH IN RITUALS (WEARING OF NAPPIES) THAT THE BUDDHA SAID LED TO STATES OF FUTURE WOE.
MUCH AS PEOPLE LIKE TO BELIEVE THEY RECEIVED THIS STORY WITH REASON, THEY REACTED TO THIS STORY WITH EMOTION, THEY ARE EITHER DISGUSTED (DISLIKING) OR INCREDULOUS OR MOCKING (LIKING HER MISERY AND FOOLISHNESS) AND WHATEVER REASONS THEY PROFFER AFTERWARDS TO SUPPORT THEIR DISGUST OR MOCKERY ARE EXCUSES THAN TRUE REASONS FOR THEIR DISGUST OR MOCKERY.
Quote headline: Astronaut charged in bizarre love triangle.
Comment: By labeling the episode bizarre the person is not expressing his reason but expressing his disapproval or puzzlement or disbelief that are all about emotions never reasons. Whatever can happen can be believed so what is so bizarre about it except to express your dislike, disdain or making much fuss about?
A Side Of Kylie Seldom Seen:

The side of Kylie that the public see, aggressively confident and ‘fun loving’ and that she is grimly and forcefully determined to project at great cost to mental health is at odds with this picture where she is without her makeup and looking quite plain (even ugly), vulnerable, loss and in a scattered daze. For those who see, she is suffering seriously and laboring not truly enjoying herself and with age her burden becomes increasingly unbearable.
A PERSON WHO IS NOT ACTOR HAS NO SIDES. THE SIDE THE PUBLIC SEES IS THE SIDE HE IS WHEN ALONE BECAUSE HE IS NOT PUTTING ON A SHOW, NOT TRYING TO IMPRESS OTHERS.

This is the side the public wants to see and which she obliges at great cost in stress, restlessness and distraction and she does not realize will condemn her to mental torment and punishment. The reason why she is attractive or causes observers’ minds to undulate their mental force in a controlled manner is the constant stretching, changes in speed and strength of force in her expressions (smiles) and postures (right hip thrust prominently and the chest deliberately arched forward to exaggerate her assets.
Contrary to the accepted norms that her appearance is wholesome, it incites or provokes others with debts due to her not merit.
I spent many sleepless nights sewing crystals onto Kylie's outfits - there never seemed to be enough sparkle on these dainty clothes
Julien Macdonald, designer
Comment: It is not because Kylie Minogue’s appearance is naturally sparkling (she does not shine like the sun as the angels in heaven do) but it is because her appearance is artificially hyped up or falsified (to make her attractive or liked) by wearing a dress with countless crystals laboriously sown in with many sleepless nights spent by another person.
Even though the designer is herself far from blameless, those sleepless nights she spent sewing the crystals will condition her to override or disregard stress in a determined fashion in the name of worldly pursuits, will condition her to suffering and Kylie does not realize she has serious karma misrepresenting herself (as more sparkling than she actually is) and for causing the suffering the designer had to undergo in order that she could wear her dress.
Designer: "That night my heart stopped. Kylie had cut the dress. She did look fantastic though, and it made all the front pages, so all was forgiven."
Comment: The designer’s heart may have missed a beat or two but it could not have stopped and the person is falsifying to exaggerate the emotions felt.
Just as the person who spoke thus and those who heard see nothing wrong, do not realize the falsity being committed, they cannot see the falsity that is happening all around them. Beings in this world are lax, permissive and conniving with falsity. Such falsity is far from innocuous but even deadly, the bread and butter of truth. You want me to believe your heart stopped without you dying that night? If don’t, why do you say it except that it is out of mischief to exaggerate?
Hugging your wife for prosperity:
Quote: Married men, take note. Your wife is your “Prosperity God” and the more you hug her, the more prosperous you will get. Taiwanese feng shui master Yu Yang has this tip for those who wish to usher in good fortune during the Year of the Pig. Comment: Whatever the motivation for such advice eg to foster the aura of being an authority of what brings good fortune, the person who utters these words does not realize the horrendous karma not merit he is bestowing on himself.
If people want to hug their wives they will do so without you telling them and if they do so just because you tell them to do so, they are forcing themselves and doing it for show not because they mean it and therefore you are advocating them putting on a show for motive (good fortune). Starting a business hoping that it will succeed is a reasonable path to prosperity, harmony and the lack of civil unrest are essential for prosperity but it is absurd to believe that by merely hugging your wife you will somehow cause yourself to become more prosperous. If you believe hugging your wife will bring you prosperity you may be right or you may have false logic that will end in mad logic. Thus by encouraging others to have false logic, to have fantastical beliefs like hugging your wife will bring prosperity you may be encouraging others to become mad in future and you too will be doomed to madness.
PEOPLE NEVER PASSIVELY OR WITH REASON BELIEVE THAT HUGGING THEIR WIVES BRING PROSPERITY BUT THEY EMOTIONALLY WANT TO BELIEVE IT IS TRUE BECAUSE THEY CRAVE PROSPERITY SO THEY FORCE THEMSELVES TO HUG THEIR WIVES BELIEVING IT WILL BRING PROSPERITY AND INCREASINGLY THEY START TO BELIEVE IT IS SO.
YOU MAY BE PRESUMPTUOUS THAT THE WIFE MUST LIKE BEING HUGGED BECAUSE HUGGING CAN BECOME TIRESOME AND IF SHE DISCOVERS THAT HER HUSBAND HUGGING HER IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF FONDNESS BUT A DESIRE FOR PROSPERITY, SHE MIGHT BE UPSET.
Spirit Of Truth Not Emotion:
Jesus described the counselor as the spirit of truth not emotion. Reason is the process by which one who did not or cannot see what has happened can work out what has happened. No matter how intensely emotional you make yourself, how intense the force you exert on your mind, you cannot reason out what happened because reasoning has nothing to do with force or emotion and emotion or mental force prevents reasoning. You may recall that you cannot think straight when you become very emotional eg very angry or sad or fearful.
There are many deluded people who arouse mental force when they meditate to strive to break through or penetrate to see what they cannot see, thinking that by exerting force with their minds they will achieve enlightenment. But their very use of mental force when meditating detains them in suffering and delusion because the stirring of mental force banishes reason or seeing the truth that is essential to awakening. As the Buddha said, through dispassion or the cessation of all emotions that are derivatives of mental force, he is released. When he is released, he is automatically enlightened. Thus those who think that they can achieve enlightenment or freedom from suffering, can banish suffering from their force by mobilizing their mental forces are deluded, for a period when their forces of self preservation are ascendant, they may experience a measure of relief from suffering but as soon as their forces of self preservation flag or weaken they become engulf with worry, anxiety, uncertainty and sadness/depression.
TRUTH AND REASONING, THE INTRUMENT WITH WHICH TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH, ARE MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EMOTION, IF YOU THINK THAT THEY CAN COEXIST SIDE BY SIDE YOU ARE DELUDED. WHEN EMOTION RESIDE IN A MIND TRUE REASON IS THROWN OUT OF THE WINDOW TO BE REPLACED BY MAKE BELIEVE REASON OR RATIONALIZATION OR EXCUSES.
BECAUSE TRUTH (AND REASONING OR LOGIC THE PROCESS BY WHICH TRUTH MAY BE ARRIVED AT) AND EMOTIONS (DERIVATIVES OF MENTAL FORCE AND NOTHING MORE THAN LIKES AND DISLIKES IN FANCY CLOTHES) ARE MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE (IT IS EMOTIONS NEVER CALM CLEARLY THINKING REASON THAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO FALSIFY, TO EXAGGERATE AND TELL LIES) BY REFERRING TO THE COUNSELOR AS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND NOT THE SPIRIT OF EMOTION, JESUS IS SAYING THE COUNSELOR IS A PERSON OF TRUTH NOT A PERSON OF EMOTION AND HE MUST THEREFORE SPEAK THE TRUTH AND BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE REASONING THAT MUST BE EXCEPTIONAL, MUST (IRREFUTABLY) SET HIM APART FROM THE REST (AT LEAST IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO ARE DISCERNING), OTHERWISE HE WILL REDUNDANT. IF THERE ARE BEINGS HERE WHO ARE CAPABLE OF SPEAKING THE TRUTH AND REASONING OUT THE TRUTH LIKE THE COUNSELOR, HIS ROLE WILL BE DIMINISHED.
TRUTH IS WHATEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND FALSITY IS WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN BUT IS FABRICATED TO DECEIVE OTHERS. LOGIC OR REASONING IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH ONE WHO DID NOT SEE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED CAN WORK OUT OR DEDUCE CORRECTLY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THUS THE COUNSELOR IS THE SPIRIT OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, WHAT IS TRUE AND HE CAN DEDUCE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED FROM AVAILABLE INFORMATION THAT ESCAPE OTHERS.
JUST AS WHATEVER THEY SAY, DO, WHO THEY PERCEIVE (SEE, HEAR, TASTE AND SMELL) IS BY ROTE OR REPEAT FROM MEMORY AND THERE IS NO TRUTH IN WHAT IS CONSTANTLY BEING REPEATED BY ROTE TO MEET DEMANDS OF THE PRESENT, ORDINARY PEOPLE’S REASONING TOO ARE NOT FRESH SPECIFIC FOR THE SITUATION AT HAND BUT BY ROTE WITH WHICH THEY ADOPTED OR COPIED BY ROTE FROM OTHERS TO APPLY TO SITUATIONS THAT OCCUR. THUS ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE LITTLE MORE THAN VERY SOPHISTICATED BIOLOGICAL ROBOTS WHO FOOL THEMSELVES AND FELLOW ROBOTS THAT THEY ARE GENUINE PEOPLE CAPABLE OF SEEING THE TRUTH AND HAVE GENUINE REASONING WHEN THEY ARE FORCE OF EMOTION DRIVEN ROBOTS WHO CANNOT SEE THE TRUTH AND CANNOT WORK OUT THE TRUTH. WHAT THEY CALL THEIR REASONING IS THEIR SYSTEM OF EXPLAINING THINGS THAT THEY COPIED FROM OTHERS LIKE THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND.
MY CONTENTION THAT ALL BEINGS HERE, NOT JUST HUMANS ARE SOMNOLENT ROBOTS DRIVEN OR MOTIVATED BY EMOTIONS, DETACHED FROM THE REALITY THAT THEY SO CRAVE TO EXIST IN BY BEING ROBOTS REGURGITATING STANDARDIZED SPEECH AND MOTION AN SPOUTING REASON OR EXPLANATIONS THAT THEY COPIED FROM OTHERS FITS IN WELL WITH JESUS’ CONTENTION THAT THE COUNSELOR IS THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE FOR IT NEITHER SEES NOR KNOWS HIM.
WHAT MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO SAY OR DO THINGS IN THIS WORLD IS NOT REASON BUT THEIR LIKE (ATTRACTION FOR) AND DISLIKE (REVULSION) FOR WHAT THEY SEE, HEAR, TOUCHED, SMELT AND TASTED. THEY SWIFTLY LIKE OR DISLIKE WHAT THEY SEE, HEAR, SMELL, TOUCH OR TASTE AND THEN THEY CONCOCT ‘REASONS’ OR EXCUSES WHY THEY LIKE OR DISLIKE WHAT THEY SAY, HEARD, TOUCHED, TASTED OR SMELT. AND BECAUSE BOTH LIKE AND DISLIKE APPLIED MENTAL FORCE THAT IS CHANGING IN SPEED AND STRENGTH ON THEIR MINDS, THEY MUST EXPERIENCE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND INABILITY TO CONCENTRATE AS A RESULT THAT FURTHER IMPAIR THEIR ABILITY TO REASON OR THINK CLEARLY WHILST THEIR MINDS ARE BEING INEXORABLY WARPED AND DEGRADED BY THE INCESSANT APPLICATION OF FORCE TO EVEN VIOLENT LEVELS.
The seven factors of awakening:
Even though it will fall mostly on deaf ears and those who read are likely to misapprehend, if it is true that all beings here are as if asleep and suffering and the only way out of their suffering that often threaten to tear them apart is what the Buddha said, namely through the seven factors of self awakening, there is no other way, it is safe to say that no one before or after the Buddha has taught you that and no one before or now has expounded what the Buddha said the way I have.
And what is the first factor of awakening from suffering?
It is mindfulness, paying attention to the right things namely paying attention to forceful stretching, changes in speed and loudness or strength of force in one’s speech and motion.
It is no use just paying attention but one must examine one’s speech for stretching, changes in speed and loudness (analysis of qualities as the second factor of awakening) and in one who analyzes he becomes better at detecting stretching, changes in speed and loudness such that subtle changes become perceptible).
It is no use paying attention fitfully but one must be persistent (persistence as the third factor of awakening) to consolidate one’s nascent good behavior.
In one who is thus persistent, his conduct improves in a way that departs for his norm so that he experience rapture that is not of the flesh (rapture as the fourth factor of awakening) and it is in the nature of things that in one who experience rapture of his mind that is not of the flesh, he experiences calm (the agitations of his mind increasingly settles) and it is in the nature of things of one whose mind is calm to become concentrated (concentration as the sixth factor of awakening is activated) and it is in the nature of things that in one whose mind is concentrated or unified he becomes equanimous; he passively, does not need to force himself not to like nor dislike.
With equanimity he is released, free from suffering that previously tormented him.
IF IT IS THE TRUTH THAT ALL BEINGS TRAPPED HERE ARE ALL SUFFERING NOT ENJOYING THEMSELVES AND IF LEFT TO THEIR OWN THEIR DEVICES THEY ARE DOOMED TO INSANITY AND THE FACTORS OF SELF AWAKENING ENUNCIATED BY THE BUDDHA IS THE ONLY PATH OUT EVEN THOUGH YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND NOR CARE, THEN THE BUDDHA IS THE HIGHEST IN TEACHING YOU SO.
THERE IS ONE UNIVERSAL (APPLIES TO EVERYONE) CAUSE OF SUFFERING THAT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY THAT DOMINATES THE LIVES OF BEINGS TRAPPED AND IT IS THEIR OWN PRACTICE AND MAINTENANCE OF OTHERS IN THE PRACTICE OF THE CONSTANT USE OF MENTAL FORCE TO STRETCH, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS (STRENGTH OF FORCE) IN EVERYTHING THEY PERCEIVE, THINK, SPEAK AND DO IN THE NAME OF BEING STYLISH TO DECEIVE, IMPRESS, PLEASE, PERSECUTE, DOMINATE AND INTIMIDATE OTHERS CREATING STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND DISTRACTION THAT IS SO STABLE AND TIGHT THEY DO REALIZE A WAY OUT OF THEIR PREDICAMENT IS POSSIBLE BY PAYING PERSISTENT ATTENTION TO DETECT AND THEN CORRECT THEIR MINDLESS AUTOMATED STRETCHING OF SYLLABLES, CHANGES OF SPEED AND LOUDNESS.
BECAUSE WHAT I SAY IS TRUE, I CAN DEMONSTRATE HOW DIFFERENT THE SPEECH OF ORDINARY PEOPLE WILL BE WITHOUT CONSTANT STRETCHING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND LOUDNESS, I HAVE ACHIEVED CONSTANCY AND EVERYTIME I IMITATE THE SPEECH OF OTHERS, I AM AWARE I MUST EXERT MENTAL FORCE THAT CAUSES STRESS, RESTLESSNESS AND INABILITY TO CONCENTRATE TO RISE UP SUCH THAT IF I PERSISTED I WILL BE SEIZED TO BE UNABLE TO SHAKE THEM OFF.
BECAUSE WHAT I SAY IS TRUE, WHOEVER THE COUNSELOR IS MUST ALSO STATE THIS IF HE IS TO BENEFIT YOU.

Doubt & Uncertainty:

Doubt & uncertainty has nothing to do with reality nor is it part and parcel of existence but doubt and uncertainty is a false, woeful emotional condition of the mind that is present in the thinking, speech and movements of all ordinary people to an extent that they seriously underestimate. Doubt and uncertainty are false totally unnecessary forceful or emotional or disturbed states of the mind that have been implanted and nurtured foolishly by the person and by wicked others and are so entrenched that people accept them as natural and even beneficial or necessary (they have become deluded).

First you learn to question or doubt or forcefully disbelieve what others say or what is happening but very soon you become an addict unable to resist questioning or doubting whatever is present to you. Questioning or not accepting what is presented to you leads to uncertainty, a conflicted emotional state of mind that again heads you to question such that through innumerable lifelong cycles of reinforcement doubt and uncertainty becomes easily aroused to intense levels even to matters that shouldn’t arouse any doubt or uncertainty and the person is headed for final loss of control and uncontrollable doubt or inability to accept anything or what should be plain as true and uncertainty.

There are no different types of doubt and uncertainty. The doubt and uncertainty that people experience and raise in themselves and others in daily life without any alarm is the same doubt and uncertainty that the Buddha says is one of three lower fetters to future states of woe.

If doubt and uncertainty are true conditions of existence it would not be possible to escape it but because doubt and uncertainty are nothing more than false, conditioned, unnecessary emotional states of the mind, it can be totally and permanently eradicated.

Only a person who does not goes against himself, who does not apply force directly or through emotions or through constant forceful stretching, changes in speed and loudness in his speech and motion on his mind, who does not wickedly doubt others (are you sure, is that so, really??) can be truly effortlessly free of doubt and uncertainty. If you don’t, each time you experience doubt and uncertainty you are further conditioning yourself to them that will end in madness and thence perdition according to the Buddha.
If your charming smile and ‘effervescent’ laughter is faked, forced to impress others of your friendliness or enjoyment, then you must experience doubt and uncertainty.
If your style that is nothing more than your distinct way of stretching, changing speed and loudness in speech and motion is unnecessary & stresses you, you must experience doubt and uncertainty.
If you keep on questioning others, eg are you sure you want to buy that, I cannot believe this has happen (whatever can happen can be believed), this is incredible, insisting that others eat when they have declined, you must suffer doubt and uncertainty.

To the fool it is a question of semantics or the same but to the wise it is a difference between heaven and hell in saying “it did not happen” and “I doubt it happened”. With the former you are merely saying with certainty something did not happen but in the latter, you are sowing doubt as to whether something actually happened. The former leads to heaven and the latter is suffering and leads to perdition.
Again there is a difference between ‘deal in doubt’ and ‘deal not finalized yet’ or ‘setback to back’.

Tying It All Together:
If I remember correctly the judge pounced on Razak’s lawyer for bringing the good office of the deputy PM into the case when he read from the affidavit that Razak met DSP Musa in the deputy PM’s office the next day.
Does Razak meeting the deputy PM on official business (as stated in the affidavit) necessarily implicate the deputy PM? If it does not necessarily implicate the deputy PM, is the judge exhibiting inappropriate or overzealous behavior or false logic and perception to chide Razak’s lawyer for bringing the good name of the deputy PM into the case? Why should it appear as if it is taboo in the judge’s mind to mention the deputy PM’s name in this case if he has no preconceived notions?
In overzealously chiding Razak’s lawyer for bringing the Deputy PM’s good name into the case, the judge may have inadvertently given the discerning a window into his mind, his inclinations.
AN AFFIDAVIT IS A STATEMENT OF YOUR ROLE IN A CASE AND IF IT CAN BE SHOWN USING LOGIC TO BE IMPLAUSIBLE YOUR ROLE MUST BE GREATER NOT LESSER THAN YOU ADMITTED BECAUSE NO ONE WILL ADMIT GUILT GREATER THAN REALITY.
THUS BECAUSE IT IS IMPLAUSIBLE THAT TWO POLICEMEN WILL END UP MURDERING ALTANTUYA WHEN THEY HAVE MERELY BEEN TOLD TO GET POLICE TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER, RAZAK’S ROLE MUST IN SOME WAY BE GREATER THAN THAT OF HAVING AN AFFAIR WITH HER AND GETTING HELP FROM POLICE FRIENDS TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE FOR WHICH HE ALREADY HAS SECURITY GUARDS.
IF THE POLICEMEN WITH WHOM ALTANTUYA WAS LAST SEEN ALIVE WITH DENIED KILLING HER OR HAVE NOT IMPLICATED ANYONE, POLICE HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY CATEGORICALLY THAT THERE ARE ONLY THREE PERSONS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
IF YOUR INTENTION IS TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY THAT ONLY THE THREE THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED ARE INVOLVED IN THE CASE IF NONE AMONGST THE THREE HAS BEEN CHARGED WTIH ORDERING THE MURDER BECAUSE MURDERS DO NOT OCCUR SPONTANEOUSLY BUT MURDERS ALWAYS REQUIRE AN ORIGINATOR.
IF YOUR INTENTION IS NOT TO SPEAK THE TRUTH BUT FOR VESTED INTERESTS EG TO OPPOSE FURTHER INVESTIGATION THEN IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT YOU SAY THERE ARE NO OTHERS THAT ARE INVOLVED WHEN YOU HAVE NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH ORDERING THE MURDER.
IF IN TRUTH THE POLICEMEN CARRIED OUT THE EXECUTION, IT IS LIKELY THEY WOULD HAVE ADMITTED IN PRIVATE TO THEIR FELLOW POLICEMEN WHO ORDERED THEM TO DO SO AND KNOWING THUS, POLICE COULD NOT CHARGE RAZAK WITH ORDERING THE MURDER, NOR WILL RAZAK TOLERATE IT IF HE DID NOT DO IT BECAUSE IT IS PUNISHABLE BY THE DEATH SENTENCE.
RAZAK IS NOT A SACRIFICIAL LAMB BUT A SACRIFICIAL GOAT BECAUSE HE IS NOT AN INNOCENT LAMB BUT GUILTY GOAT EVEN IF HE DID NOT ORDER THE MURDER.
What The Judge Was Expressing Was Dislike Not Reason Based On Dislike Not Reason:
When the judge ticked off Razak’s lawyer for dragging the good name of the deputy PM into the case by saying that Razak met DSP Musa on official business at the deputy PM’s office the next day, he was merely expressing his dislike or emotional anger at the information tendered, never expressing a reasoned statement of truth. Just as his statement is an expression of dislike not reason or justification, the motivation behind his statement is blind reactive emotion or dislike never calm taking into account reason and therefore that statement is an statement of dislike based on dislike which is not what you would expect of a judge who should set aside all his dislikes and dislikes to assess all information tendered impartially to come to a conclusion based on reason not emotion what is true and what is false.
There may be those who are beset by doubt and uncertainty who think that perhaps the judge has some reason apart from emotion that they cannot think of themselves justifying his ticking off the defense lawyer. The truth is that for one who sees clearly, who knows what is possible and not possible that there cannot be any reason behind what the judge said but it is an expression of emotional dislike based on emotion for reasons best known to himself and not reason.
How does the judge know for sure the meeting did not take place as stated in the affidavit? How does he know the meeting has no relevance to the case? Even before the case has commenced, unless he is privy to police investigations, how can he be certain the deputy PM is not involved? Therefore he has no reason to say what he said except to prejudge it and it is based on dislike because he does not want to hear anything that might besmirch the good name of the deputy PM’s office.
The destination of this doubt and uncertainty that there may be a valid reason for the judge’s statement is according to the Buddha, states of future woe and if you think there is a valid reason for the judge’s statement when there is none, it is wrong view the destination for wrong view according to the Buddha is hell or the animal womb. Therefore those who are in doubt and are uncertain as to the nature and basis of the judge’s statement, who think that what the judge said has a valid basis are headed for perdition.
Quote Star: He (the judge) also chided Abdul Razak for dragging the name of the deputy prime minister into the picture.
ANYONE WHO ASPIRES TO BE A JUDGE SHOULD PREFERABLY HAVE NO LIKES OR DISLIKES OR IF HE HAS, SHOULD SET THEM ASIDE SO THAT HE CAN ADJUDICATE FAIRLY ON A CASE AT HAND. WHY IS HE SO CONCERNED OR OVER ZEALOUS ABOUT THE GOOD NAME OF THE DEPUTY PM? CAN HE BE CERTAIN HE IS NOT INVOLVED?
IF YOU DISLIKE MENTION OF THE DEPUTY PM’S NAME IN THE CASE THAT IS BASIS ENOUGH FOR YOU CHIDING RAZAK. ON WHAT BASIS OR REASON CAN THE JUDGE CHIDE RAZAK?
Why The Judge Has No Reason & Thus Right To Chide Razak’s Lawyer:
It is the right of defense lawyers in any case to tender whatever information and names whether it may be true or false they deem are relevant to the case and it is the duty of the judge to adjudicate, not tick them off or tell them what names they can mention or not mention.
Thus a judge is exceeding his bounds of duty perhaps because of his dislike or aversion to all mention of the name of the deputy prime minister (for reasons best known to him) or he may be trying to impress the deputy prime minister if he is following the trial with his concern for his welfare.
Even if the judge know for certain who ordered the murder and he knows the deputy PM has absolutely nothing to do with the case, he has no reason or right to tick off the defense lawyer. The only reason he does that is because he cannot resist his dislike or aversion at the mention of the name in this case and he is unaware that it his duty to be impartial as a judge.
He is ticking off Razak for dragging in the good name of the deputy PM when the case has not begun yet and there is ample evidence of some connection eg Razak and the deputy PM are close together, the policemen charged are his bodyguards and the C4 explosives can only be issued by the defense ministry.
Rather than an insignificant blip or mole hill, the judge’s action like a Freudian slip, unwittingly betray his penchants (emotional predilections) in the case.
Therefore anyone beset by doubt and uncertainty who thinks that perhaps the judge has some reason that they cannot work out for chiding the lawyer for mentioning the deputy PM’s name is entertaining the impossible or falsity, has wrong view that the Buddha said has two destinations, hell or the animal womb and his doubt and uncertainty is one of three lower fetters that the Buddha said led to future states of woe.
Why It Is A Mountain Not Molehill:
People in this world, even those who call themselves good will not reveal what is in their minds, will not tell you the unflattering thoughts they have about you even as they flatter & beguile you with their smiles and nodding approvals.
Therefore it is through inadvertent, unwitting slips that they expose their true thoughts and intentions and the act of the judge in chiding the defense lawyer far from being an accident or a blip, enables the discerning to glean what is his true intentions.
God or the Buddha does not need this because encompassing mind with mind, he can know what is in your mind and therefore you cannot escape punishment if you are guilty, even if you think you are not guilty but meritorious. This is delusion (thinking you are benefiting others when you are harming yourself and others) and the end point for delusion is insanity and if you think it is fun being insane wait for your turn.
A World Of A Difference:
There is a world of a difference between the judge telling the defence lawyer that the deputy prime minister has nothing to do with this case and his ticking him off for dragging the good name of the deputy PM into this case. In the former he is only making a reasoned judgment or assessment that the deputy PM is not involved but in the latter he is making an emotional sweeping statement that the deputy PM’s good name must not be dragging into the case, it is taboo to mention the deputy PM’s name. If he has been appointed guard for the deputy PM’s good name, then it is understandable he said so.

The judge is presiding in a case on an official basis and therefore he should set aside all personal prejudices, likes and dislikes.

In my mind the duty of a judge presiding over a court is to know the laws well as they apply to the case and to apply these laws to the data that is presented to him by the prosecution or defense in order to come to a fair judgment in accordance to the law. He should not join in the fray.
Jesus said you will be judged for every careless word you say and ordinary people severely underestimate the carelessness of their words.
Judge Has No Right To Say So:
Unless the purpose of the judge is to (indiscriminately) cordon off the deputy PM’s name from all negative mention he has no right to tick off the defense lawyer for dragging in the good name of the deputy PM unless he has seen events as they unfolded from start to finish that the deputy PM was not involved or he has reliable information that this is the case. Is the judge God or can he know with certainty that the deputy PM is entirely uninvolved in this case? If he isn’t God, has not seen with his own eyes or knows with certainty, then the judge has no right to tick off the defense lawyer and risk misleading the gullible.

Whereas the defense can employ the best lawyers to ask all the pertinent questions, the prosecution in this case is (if I am not mistaken) entirely dependent on evidence or investigations supplied by the police and a prosecutor who is government employed who may not ask all the pertinent questions that may be awkward to the accused and thus the prosecution in this case may be hamstrung and far from assured to be top-class. For instance if the prosecutor was Karpal Singh, you can expect more fireworks and questions that may be harder to answer.
A Foreboding Precedent:
Quote: In the Norita Shamsudin murder case, Norita’s friends testified in court that they first found her lying dead in her room but after two mysterious policemen handled the crime scene and left, she was found with her hands tied behind her back. Then her hand phone records were not even included as part of the trial evidence. The night she died she was believed to have made phone calls to VIPs on her hand phone. The Public Prosecutor never queried or questioned any of these issues. Just like Altantuya’s immigration records, Norita’s phone records may have been erased too.
Comment: A conclusion that can be drawn from what is said above is that the prosecution in Altantuya's case is heavily dependent on the quality of police work and also the public prosecutor prosecuting the case.
Why Najib Is In Denial:

If you observe Najib on TV you may perceive that he is carrying on as usual as if nothing has happened and conclude wrongly (wrong view that leads to woe) that he is therefore innocent but the opposite is the case that he is in denial and putting on a show as if nothing has happened when something serious that threatens to ruin the public image of respectability that he cultivates and desires and can potentially lead to prosecution.
Again rather than being admirable, being able to put on such a convincing show as if nothing has happened demands great grim or determined self control which is nothing more than using considerable mental force to deny or banish or refuse to accept awareness (not just thoughts) of what has occurred and mentally act as if nothing has happened that he and those who admire such stoicism do not realize will end in loss of control and insanity. If you deny with great mental will power what happened did not happen, in time you involuntarily perceive it as so and that is torment and insanity because the reality is something did happen, not did not happen.
Anyone who denies what happen did not happen, who acts happy when he is sad or angry is flirting with future certain insanity when what they act so convincingly is finally fulfilled; you truly believe what did happen did not happen and rather than bliss it is torment, separation from reality or truth.

Surely he is aware of rumors circulating of his involvement in the Altantuya case and any man who is innocent will have made a statement to declare his innocence and that those rumors are false. If he is emotional as all ordinary people are, he will publicly express his indignation at such scurrilous innuendos and demand them to stop.
Why has he not done so but instead carried on as if nothing has happened, preferring to ignore the serious allegations in rumors?

Surely he is aware of the serious allegations circulating privately. Would a man who is truly innocent not be indignant about such rumors and confront such rumors directly?
WHILST SOME GUILTY MEN WILL PUBLICLY DENY GUILT, AN INNOCENT MAN FACED WITH SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS WILL PUBLICLY DENY THEM AND THE FACT THAT A PERSON DOES NOT REFUTE THEM BUT CARRIES ON AS IF NOTHING HAS HAPPENED IS NOT INDICATIVE OF INNOCENCE BUT INDICATIVE OF DENIAL OR PRETENDING NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.
EVEN IF RAZAK SOUGHT DSP MUSA’S PRIVATE HELP IN HIS ALLEGED HARRASSMENT BY ALTANTUYA INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE POLICE DIRECTLY, SURELY WITH THE DSP’S CONNECTIONS IN THE POLICE FORCE, HE COULD INSTRUCT MORE APPROPRIATE ORDINARY POLICEMEN TO ATTEND TO RAZAK’S PROBLEM? WHY WERE HIGHLY TRAINED POTENTIALLY LETHAL (TRAINED TO KILL) BODYGUARDS INVOLVED IN A SIMPLE CASE OF HARRASSMENT WHERE RAZAK SAID HIS INTENTION WAS TO GET POLICE TO PATROL AND NOT HARM HER? DO YOU NEED A SLEDGE HAMMER TO CRACK A WALNUT?
ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE TASK WAS TO SECRETLY KILL SOMEONE AND DISPOSE OF ALL EVIDENCE, THEN YOU NEED HIGHLY TRAINED AND EXPERIENCED POLICEMEN WHO HAVE DONE IT BEFORE SO AS NOT TO BOTCH IT.
Jesus said which of you can by being worried, prolong your life by one cubit? Yet many, abetted by doctors (with karma) have become obsessed with reducing cholesterol as the panacea to their well being when if they eliminated their stress, they will have eliminated a cause that medicine says leads to high cholesterol.
Therefore if you are obsessed with addressing your high cholesterol or other maladies you may be barking up the wrong tree and have wrong view that as the Buddha said leads to hell or the animal womb not heaven.
Have we been conned about cholesterol?
by MALCOLM KENDRICK - More by this author » Last updated at 19:59pm on 24th January 2007
Conventional medical wisdom about cholesterol and the role of statins is now being challenged by a small, but growing number of health professionals. Among them is Dr Malcolm Kendrick. A GP for 25 years, he has also worked with the European Society of Cardiology, and writes for leading medical magazines:
When it comes to heart disease, we have been sold a pup. A rather large pup.
Actually, it's more of a full-grown blue whale. We've all been conned.
If you've got a raised risk of heart disease, the standard medical advice is to take a cholesterol-lowering statin drug to cut your chances of having a heart attack because, as we all know, cholesterol is a killer.
Indeed, many of you already believe that you should take statins for the rest of your natural lifespan.
Nearly everybody is in agreement about the need to lower your cholesterol level. The NHS spends nearly £1 billion a year on prescriptions for statins and possibly the same amount administering the cholesterol tests, surgery visits and the rest.
But is it all worth it? According to an article being published in the medical journal The Lancet this week, the answer is probably no.
A leading researcher at Harvard Medical School has found that women don't benefit from taking statins at all, nor do men over 69 who haven't already had a heart attack.
There is a very faint benefit if you are a younger man who also hasn't had a heart attack - out of 50 men who take the drug for five years, one will benefit.
Nor is this the first study to suggest that fighting cholesterol with statins is bunk. Indeed, there are hundreds of doctors and researchers who agree that the cholesterol hypothesis itself is nonsense.
What their work shows, and what your doctor should be saying, is the following:
• A high diet, saturated or otherwise, does not affect blood cholesterol levels.
• High cholesterol levels don't cause heart disease.
• Statins do not protect against heart disease by lowering cholesterol - when they do work, they do so in another way.
• The protection provided by statins is so small as to be not worth bothering about for most people (and all women). The reality is that the benefits have been hyped beyond belief.
• Statins have many more unpleasant side effects than has been admitted, while experts in this area should be treated with healthy scepticism because they are almost universally paid large sums by statin manufacturers to sing loudly from their hymn sheet.
So how can I say saturated fat doesn't matter when everyone knows it is a killer? Could all those millions who have been putting skinless chicken and one per cent fat yoghurts into their trolleys really have been wasting their time?
The experts are so busy urging you to consume less fat and more statins that you are never warned about the contradictions and lack of evidence behind the cholesterol con.
In fact, what many major studies show is that as far as protecting your heart goes, cutting back on saturated fats makes no difference and, in fact, is more likely to do harm.
So how did fat and cholesterol get such a bad name? It all began about 100 years ago, when a researcher found feeding rabbits (vegetarians) a high cholesterol carnivore diet blocked their arteries with plaque.
But it took off in the Fifties with the Seven Countries study by Ancel Keys, which showed that the higher the saturated fat intake in a country, the higher the cholesterol levels and the higher the rate of heart disease.
The countries he chose included Italy, Greece, the USA and the Netherlands. But why these particular ones?
Recently I did my own 14 countries study using figures from the World Health Organisation, and found the opposite.
Countries with the highest saturated fat consumption ? Austria, France, Finland and Belgium ? had the lowest rate of deaths from heart disease, while those with the lowest consumption ? Georgia, Ukraine and Croatia ? had the highest mortality rate from heart disease.
Added to this, the biggest ever trial on dietary modification put 50 million people on a low saturated fat diet for 14 years.
Sausages, eggs, cheese, bacon and milk were restricted. Fruit and fish, however, were freely available. I?m talking about rationing in Britain during and after World War Two. In that time, deaths from heart disease more than doubled.
Even more damning is what happened in 1988. The Surgeon General's office in the US decided to gather all evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease, silencing any nay-sayers for ever.
Eleven years later, however, the project was killed. The letter announcing this stated that the office "did not anticipate fully the magnitude of the additional expertise and staff resources that would be needed".
After eleven years, they needed additional expertise and staff resources? What had they been doing? If they'd found a scrap of evidence, you would never have heard the last of it.
Major trials since have been no more successful. One involved nearly 30,000 middle-aged men and women in Sweden, followed for six years.
The conclusion? "Saturated fat showed no relationship with cardiovascular disease in men. Among the women, cardiovascular mortality showed a downward trend with increasing saturated fat intake." (In other words, the more saturated fat, the less chance of dying from heart disease).
Even stronger evidence of the benefits of increased fat and cholesterol in the diet comes from Japan. Between 1958 and 1999, the Japanese doubled their protein intake, ate 400 per cent more fat and their cholesterol levels went up by 20 per cent.
Did they drop like flies? No. Their stroke rate, which had been the highest in the world, was seven times lower, while deaths from heart attacks, already low, fell by 50 per cent.
It's a bit of a paradox, isn?t it? That's one of the features of the dietary hypothesis - it involves a lot of paradoxes.
The most famous is the French Paradox. They eat more saturated fat than we do in Britain; they smoke more, take less exercise, have the same cholesterol/LDL levels, they also have the same average blood pressure and the same rate of obesity.
And you know what? They have one quarter the rate of heart disease we do.
The official explanation is that the French are protected from heart disease by drinking red wine, eating lightly cooked vegetables and eating garlic.
But there is no evidence that any of these three factors are actually protective. None. By evidence, I mean a randomised, controlled clinical study.
Every time a population is found that doesn't fit the saturated fat/cholestrol hypothesis - the Masai living on blood and milk with no heart disease, the Inuit living on blubber with low heart disease - something is always found to explain it.
One research paper published more than 20 years ago found 246 factors that could protect against heart disease or promote it. By now there must be more than a thousand.
The closer you look the more you find that the cholestrol hypothesis is an amazing beast. It is in a process of constant adaptation in order to encompass all contradictory data without keeling over and expiring.
But you don't need to look at foreign countries to find paradoxes - the biggest one is right here at home. Women are about 300 per cent less likely to suffer heart disease than men, even though on average they have higher cholesterol levels.
For years there was an ad hoc hypothesis to explain this apparent contradiction - women were protected by female sex hormones.
In fact, there has never been a study showing that these hormones protect against heart disease in humans.
But by the Nineties, millions of women were being prescribed HRT to stave off heart disease.
Then came the HERS trial to test the notion. It found HRT increased the risk of heart disease.
So what to do? Put them on statins; bring their cholesterol level down ? below 5.0 mmol is the official advice.
But, as The Lancet article emphasises, women do not benefit from statins. The phrase "Statins do not save lives in women" should be hung in every doctor's surgery.
But it's not just hugely wasteful handing out statins to women and men who are never going to benefit; it also exposes them to the risk of totally unnecessary side effects.
These include muscle weakness (myopathy) and mental and neurological problems such as severe irritability and memory loss.
How common are they? Very rare, say experts, but one trial found that 90 per cent of those on statins complained of side effects, half of them serious.
Only last week, a study reported a link between low LDL cholesterol and developing Parkinson's disease.
Statins are designed to lower LDL. In the face of anticholesterol propaganda, it is easy to forget cholesterol is vital for our bodies to function.
Why do you think an egg yolk is full of cholesterol? Because it takes a lot of cholesterol to build a healthy chicken.
It also takes a hell of a lot to build and maintain a healthy human being.
In fact, cholesterol is so vital that almost all cells can manufacture cholesterol; one of the key functions of the liver is to synthesise cholesterol.
It's vital for the proper functioning of the brain and it's the building bock for most sex hormones.
So it should not be such a surprise to learn that lowering cholesterol can increase death rates.
Woman with a cholesterol level of five or even six have a lower risk of dying than those with a level below four.
The Lancet reported that statins didn't benefit anyone over 69, not even men; in fact, there's good evidence that they may hasten your death.
The Framingham study in the US found that people whose cholesterol levels fell were at a 14 per cent increased risk of death from heart disease for every 1mg/dl.
Set up in 1948, the study screened the whole population of Framingham near Boston for factors that might be involved in heart disease and then followed them to see what happened to them.
It is still going today, making it the longest running and most often quoted study in heart-disease research.
A massive long-term study that looked specifically at cholesterol levels and mortality in older people in Honolulu, published in The Lancet, found that having low cholesterol concentration for a long time increases the risk of death.
This may be because cholesterol is needed to fight off infections or there may be other reasons ? but many other studies have found exactly the same thing.
Low cholesterol levels greatly increase your risk of dying younger. So the cholesterol hypothesis looks something like this:
There is no evidence that saturated fat is bad - and there are lots of 'paradoxes' where countries with a high cholesterol intake don't have a higher death rate from heart disease.
But there is an even more fundamental problem. The theory claims fat and cholesterol do things in the body that just don't make sense.
To begin with, saturated fat and cholesterol are talked of as if they are strongly connected. A low-fat diet lowers cholesterol; a high-fat diet raises it.
What is never explained is how this works. This isn't surprising because saturated fat doesn't raise cholesterol. There is no biochemical connection between the two substances, which may explain all those negative findings.
It's true that foods containing cholesterol also tend to contain saturated fats because both usually come from animals.
It's also true that neither dissolve in water, so in order to travel along the bloodstream they have to be transported in a type of molecule known as a lipoprotein - such as LDLs (low-density lipoproteins) and HDLs (high-density lipoproteins).
But being travelling companions is as close as fats and cholesterol get. Once in the body, most fat from our diet is transported to the fat cells in a lipoprotein called a chylomicron.
Meanwhile, cholesterol is produced in the liver by way of an incredibly complicated 13-step process; the one that statins interfere with.
No biochemist has been able to explain to me why eating saturated fat should have any impact on this cholesterol production line in the liver.
On the other hand, the liver does make fat - lots of it. All the excess carbohydrate that we eat is turned first into glucose and then into fat in the liver.
And what sort of fat does the liver make? Saturated fat; obviously the body doesn't regard it as harmful at all.
Recently, attention has been shifting from the dangers of saturated fat and LDL "bad" cholesterol to the benefits of HDL "good" cholesterol, and new drugs that are going to boost it.
But the idea that more HDLs are going to fight off heart disease is built on equally shaky foundations.
These lipoproteins seem to be cholesterol "scavengers", sucking up the cholesterol that is released when a cell dies and then passing it on to other lipoproteins, which return it to the liver.
Interestingly, the "bad" LDL lipoproteins are involved in the relay. The idea seems to be that HDLs can also get the cholesterol out of the plaques that are blocking arteries.
However, there is a huge difference between absorbing free-floating cholesterol and sucking it out of an atherosclerotic plaque which is covered by an impermeable cap.
• Extracted from The Great Cholesterol Con by Malcolm Kendrick, published by John Blake on January 29 at £9.99.
Statins: the truth
JEROME BURNE - More by this author » Last updated at 22:00pm on 29th January 2007
Those who are taking statins to lower their cholesterol may well be confused about whether it is worth it and how safe they are.
Last week an article in the medical journal The Lancet claimed the drugs don't benefit women or elderly men if they don't have a cardiovascular problem, while for younger men, taking statins only slightly reduces the risk of heart attack if they'd never had an attack.
Also see...• Have we been conned about cholesterol?• Statins won't prevent women getting heart disease, claim doctors• Are statins really the wonder-drug that everyone says they are?
And then Dr Malcolm Kendrick claimed in these pages that statins were useless because, he argued, heart disease isn't caused by raised cholesterol. He also warned they could have side-effects.
The medical establishment, however, insists that statins are important in combatting heart disease.
It argues that more of us should take statins -and that the benefits outweigh the marginal risk of adverse effects. To help you make sense of all this, JEROME BURNE addresses the vital questions...
Should I be taking a statin?
All the experts agree that if you've had a cardiovascular problem, such as a heart attack, taking statins is worthwhile because it does reduce your chances of having another one.
Statins are designed to reduce levels of lowdensity lipoproteins(LDLs) or 'bad' cholesterol - which fur up the arteries and lead to heart disease (although Dr Kendrick believes statins are effective for different reasons, most likely by reducing inflammation).
About four million Britons are taking statins. GPs are recommended to prescribe the drugs to anyone with a 20per cent risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next ten years.
Then last November researchers at Oxford University recommended mass prescription of statins - claiming that people as young as 35 with even just a one per cent risk of a heart attack or stroke could benefit, gaining an extra nine months of life expectancy.
Two million more people would then be taking the pills.
At this point sceptics point to the risk of side-effects - this is known as risks-benefits analysis. If your chance of having heart disease is very small then the risks of sideeffects from a drug to stop it should also be very low.
So if you have some risk factors for heart disease - such as being overweight, having raised cholesterol, or if you are a man over 55 - is it worth getting low-dose statins from your local pharmacy?
With The Lancet research suggesting the benefits of statins for women and older men are almost non-existent, we need to consider if the risks still outweigh the benefits.
The two widely-recognised risks are muscle pain and weakness (myopathy) and damage to the liver, but these are said to be very rare; a small risk far outweighed by the benefits. A study by Dr Jane Armitage of Oxford University, involving 20,000 UK volunteers, found 'no significant side-effects at all'.
But Professor Beatrice Golomb of the University of California San Diego disagrees.
She found that muscle symptoms are common with statin drugs.
"There's a multibillion-dollar industry ensuring that you hear all the good things about statins," she says.
"But no interest group ensuring that you hear the other side."
She is particularly concerned with the effect of statins on our moods and memory.
"It's common to find patients on the drugs who report trouble finding the right word or forgetting what task they are supposed to be doing," she says.
In a recent paper, Professor Golomb also described patients who were irritable, hostile and had short tempers while taking statins.
Some even had road rage or homicidal impulses. She has also dealt with patients who developed temporary amnesia and cognitive problems.
"After a couple of months of statin use," she says, "one top accountant could no longer balance a cheque book and was fired."
To find out how common these side-effects are and who's likely to suffer from them, Professor Golomb launched a website last autumn on which she's posted a questionnaire called the Statin Effects Survey. She wants patients to report their experiences of statins, good or bad.
She believes that data on sideeffects is lacking because trials are designed to show the benefits of the drugs, not to detect problems.
Her concerns are shared by Swedish physician and cholesterol expert Dr Uffe Ravnskov.
Writing in the British Medical Journal last year, he noted that two of the big statin trials deliberately excluded patients who had suffered side-effects in pre-trial tests, and then claimed that the number of side-effects reported was low.
Earlier this month American research suggested that statins, because they lower cholesterol, could put patients at greater risk of Parkinson's disease.
But it's not all negative. It was recently reported that statins could be a potential treatment for virulent flu strains such as H5N1, which has killed 148 people in Asia.
At one point it was also suggested that statins might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's disease, although this has not been proven.
More recently statins were found to slow smokinginduced lung damage.
How do I reduce the statin risks?
The official line is that patients should not stop taking statins. As Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said last week: 'There is overwhelming evidence that statins save lives by preventing heart attacks and strokes.'
But what if you are taking statins because you've had a heart attack and are worried about potential side-effects? Dr Peter Langsjoen, a researcher at East Texas Medical Center in Tyler, Texas, believes he has a simple and practical solution.
Ever since statins were launched, it's been known that they have also dampened production of a vital enzyme called CoQ10 (also known as Q10); like cholesterol, it's made in the liver. Q10 is found in almost every cell in the body and is essential for energy production in the muscles.
So giving patients a supplement of Q10 could reduce side-effects.
Several years ago Langsjoen published a study in which patients with high levels of cholesterol but no evidence of heart disease were given the best-selling statin Lipitor.
A staggering 71 per cent of them developed a problem with their heart muscle that goes with heart failure.
Giving them a supplement of 300mg of Q10 reversed the problem for over half of them.
Many people now take Q10 along with statins as a precaution. If you are on statins and feel they may be causing muscle-related problems or brain fog, Professor Golomb suggests asking your doctor about stopping the drug or reducing the dose.
"If he or she won't do that," she says, "you could agree to increasing the dose for a little while and observe what happens to your symptoms." What if I'm not in a high-risk group?
For those not at a high risk of heart attack there are plenty of diet and lifestyle options for improving the health of your heart. The first is exercise - universally recommended for reducing the risks.
Next, get your doctor to check your levels of an amino acid called homocysteine. High levels are a risk factor for heart disease, independent of cholesterol.
To reduce homocysteine, increase your intake of B vitamins with green vegetables, or look for a supplement containing B6, folic acid and B12.
You could also increase your intake of plant sterols, found in seeds, nuts, and beans, as well as soluble fibre found in oats barley and aubergines - these also lower cholesterol.
A small study in the American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition last year found that plant sterols lowered cholesterol more effectively than statins.
The B vitamin niacin has also been shown to lower LDL cholesterol, along with two other markers for heart disease - lipoprotein (a) and fibrinogen - and raise the supposedly beneficial HDL cholesterol.
Omega-3 fatty acids are also important for the heart. Many studies show they bring down cholesterol and reduce inflammation linked with heart disease.
Finally, try curcumin found in the spice turmeric. Curcumin has been found to reduce the stickiness of platelets in the blood and relax arteries.
Several trials are currently testing its effectiveness.