Workers worried pay or leave will be deducted if they are quarantined
If your pay or leave will be deducted then all the worry in the world will not do anything to stop it but instead, worry which is a disorganized useless stirring of your mental force is conditioning so that worry becomes more easily aroused to more intense levels that get harder to shake off and you are headed for intense torment from mad worry.
The reason why people are worried for their pay and leave is because they are greedy and calculating for self advantage, they are preoccupied with their lives here and loss is painful to them. Worry is not the way to heaven but return here where everyone suffers. You may escape suffering from having your pay or leave cut but somewhere somehow loss will catch up with you and your worry will turn to grief and thus foolishly entrapped in worry and grief you are headed for a return to this world not heaven.
WORRY IS MEANINGLESS, DOES NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE, IT IS MERELY A STIRRING OF YOUR MENTAL FORCE IN AN AGITATED MANNER THAT WILL NOT SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS BUT IS SUFFERING AND CLOUD THE MIND SO THAT A POSSIBLE SOLUTION IS MISSED EVEN WHEN IT IS THERE. THUS ANYONE WHO WORRIES IS A FOOL, A SLAVE NOT MASTER OF HIS WORRY, IS TALKING ABOUT NONSENSE HE THINKS IS SO MEANINGFUL. BECAUSE HE SEES WORRY AS SOMETHING MEANINGFUL OR UNDERSTANDABLE WHEN IT IS THE OPPOSITE, HE UNDERSTANDS FALSELY AND DOESN’T UNDERSTAND.
IF YOU AND EVERYONE HERE UNDERSTANDS TRULY, HOW COME YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WORRY IS MEANINGLESS, IS JUST A STIRRING OF MENTAL FORCE THAT IS USELESS, PAINFUL AND CONDITIONS OR ADDICTS?
The perverted logic of bankers and regulators:
It seems the first credit default swap or derivative was when Exxon Mobil opened a credit line with JP Morgan who although it extended the line did not want to assume responsibility (perhaps it had exceeded its margins of finance) and so it arranged to pay an European bank a commission to guarantee the loan against default.
If JP Morgan had exceeded its loans limit then it should not be allowed to lend further. If the cost of insuring was greater than any profit it gained from extending the line, then it is crazy to extend the line and so what it paid the European bank should be comfortably below its profit. Anyone who offers to guarantee someone else’s loans in exchange for a fee is a fool because it is likely the other person will under-report the risk, even severely so and if you did not do a conscientious independent risk assessment you are putting your head on the chopper board guaranteeing someone else’s loan for a fee.
From the regulator’s point of view surely it makes sense to encourage responsible lending if bankers must stand surety for the loans they make so JP Morgan should not be allowed by regulators to outsource its risks lest it did not disclose the full extent of the risks that it outsourced.
YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A FINANCIAL EXPERT TO KNOW THAT IT IS DANGEROUS FOR BANKS TO OUTSOURCE THEIR RISKS TO OTHERS, IT IS AN AVENUE FOR HANKY PANKY THAT CAN PUT THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AT RISK IF THE BANK OUTSOURCING CHEATED UNDER DECLARED THE RISK OR THE GUARANTOR OVER DECLARED HIS ABILITY TO PAY IN THE EVENT OF A CLAIM.
Subsequently banks looked for fresh fields to introduce their derivatives and they found a lucrative field for making money outsourcing risks in mortgage financing and as they like to say, ‘the rest is history’.
Soros recently said that derivatives should be outlawed and he is correct there because derivatives make no sense, they should not have been allowed to exist in the first place and it reflects the incompetence of regulators like Greenspan and Rubin that they were not only permitted to exist but flourished without regulation (market knows best).
(I think derivatives or outsourcing risk similarly infected the credit card industry and this may be the next ‘shoe to fall’.)
Insuring you and holding a licence to kill you:
Soros said derivatives was like holding an insurance policy on your life whilst having a licence to kill you and so if you are unscrupulous, you will kill the person to cash in on the insurance.
Usually in bankruptcy proceedings, creditors are likely to lose substantially and so they do not welcome bankruptcy but in the GM bankruptcy, some creditors wanted GM bankrupted because they hold derivatives on their loans to GM and should GM go bankrupt they stand to be paid in full for what they are owed. Thus, as Soros said these creditors with derivative contracts will kill off GM to get paid by their insurance or derivative on their loans.
It seems AIG ran into big trouble because it made big money standing surety for the derivatives but once they began defaulting massively it lacked the wherewithal to pay out the claims.
How can bankers and Greenspan be so stupid?
It is true they are quite incredibly stupid because they lack genuine understanding of what they are doing, merely rehashed shared delusions of how things should be not as they are, they do perceive in their deep dark delusions that perhaps there is something even in derivatives that escapes their understanding that renders them wonderful powerful solutions to financing problems.
On top of this level of stupidity or gullibility, it also helps one to close his eyes if there are inducements (self gain) and it is not your own money that is at risk. It is people’s money put in banks that is at risk should loans default and bankers stand to reap ‘fabulous’ bonuses for performing and central bankers and their political masters are reluctant to intervene because a booming economy is good for keeping politicians and their chosen reserves chairmen in power and further central bankers are chummy with these bankers and even get kickbacks.
THE GULLIBILITY OR STUPIDITY OR LACK OF GENUINE UNDERSTANDING EVEN OF HIGHLY EDUCATED & EXPERIENCED BANKERS MAY FAR EXCEED THE ESTIMATION OF ORDINARY PEOPLE AND IT IS THIS STUPIDITY THAT MAKES THEM PERCEIVE THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND DERIVATIVES THEY MUST STILL BE TRUE AND WONDROUS MODERN TOOLS FOR EFFICIENT ALLOCATION OF ASSETS AS GREENSPAN IS FOND OF SAYING.
ON TOP OF THIS GULLIBILITY AND SELF DELUSION, IT HELPS BANKERS AND REGULATORS THAT THEY STAND TO GAIN FROM THE LENDING OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY, THEY WANT TO KEEP THE ECONOMY ON THE BOIL TO CLAIM CREDIT AND THEY ARE CHUMMY WITH EACH OTHER.
The rationale of derivatives:
There is a rationale behind derivatives and rather than sophisticated and incomprehensive it is very simple and false. It is because buyers of derivatives fail to take into account the enormous potential risks they are accepting that they are foolishly attracted to derivatives.
The attraction for those who buy derivatives is that they get a fee that if there is no default, is money for nothing, pure profit but if the risks are seriously understated, there is default on a massive scale beyond estimated then the guarantor of the derivative is at risk of being bankrupted like AIG was.
In exchange for paying the guarantor a fee that must be significantly lower than the interest the bank earns lending to say GM, the bank absolves itself of all risks associated with the loan, should GM default, the guarantor will have to repay the loan to the bank and so provided the guarantor fulfils his obligations the bank in effect has lent money without risk to self for the price of the fee he paid the guarantor and this will encourage the bank to lend recklessly.
The later development of the parcelling together of many loans after they have been chopped up is pure deceit, like the action of the dishonest butcher who mixes rotten meat with good meat and flogs it off as premium meat.
THUS THE ENTICEMENT FOR BUYERS OF DERIVATIVES WHICH ARE SURETIES OR GUARANTEES OF LOANS IS THAT THEY GET SUBSTANTIAL MONEY FOR NOTHING PROVIDED THERE ARE NO DEFAULTS BUT IF THE RISK OF DEFAULT IS FAR HIGHER AND THE DEFAULT IS MORE WIDESPREAD THAN EXPECTED, HE IS AT RISK OF MASSIVE LOSSES EVEN BANKRUPCY.
FOR THE BANKER IT IS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY A FEE TO HAVE SOMEONE GUARANTEE ITS LOANS THAT GIVES IT A LICENCE TO LEND RECKLESSLY BECAUSE FOR THE PRICE OF A FEE PAID TO GUARANTORS THAT IS LESS THAN WHAT HE EARNS IN INTEREST FROM THE BORROWER, HE CAN LEND WITHOUT RISK OF LOSS FOR HIMSELF.
All it took was a few minutes:
According to an account, the Iranian girl who was shot in the heart was in a car near the scene of the demonstrations and feeling hot, she came out for a few minutes and in that time she was shot dead.
THUS IT APPEARS SHE HAD AN APPOINTMENT WITH FATE, SHE JUST HAD TO STEP OUT AND SHE RECEIVED A BULLET RIGHT IN HER HEART.
No risk lending:
By creating derivatives in which its buyers guaranteed the loans bankers made, they have created a no lose situation for themselves. By using a part of the interest they receive on the loan to pay derivative buyers to guarantee their loans, they set themselves up for a no loss no risk lending situation where they will definitely make money on the interest they received but foolish derivative buyers get a reward or fee but are setting themselves up for calamity if there is default.
HOW CAN REGULATORS NOT UNDERSTAND THIS AND ALLOW THIS TO PASS AS MARKET EFFICIENCY IN THE SPREADING OF RISK? IT IS NOT RISK THAT IS SPREAD BUT OUTSOURCED TOTALLY TO OTHERS.
What are the chances?
What are chances that you would be shot in the heart (of all places like the head) moments after you said it would be worth being shot in the heart in just the few minutes you stepped out of the car because you felt hot? Even if a marksman was to aim at your heart from the distance, there is a good chance he will miss your heart.
Thus it was similarly said that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have killed JFK, his gun was crude and the distance was considerable. However it may appear to be that if you have an appointment with fate then everything is possible.
World mourns Jackson’s death:
The writer thinks he wrote the truth, you think you read the truth but it is not the truth because it is not the world but many in many countries who mourn. It is not an accident but it is said on conscious or unconscious purpose because ‘world’ sounds more grandiose than ‘many’.
YOU AND HE THINKS IT IS JUST A HARMLESS MATTER OF WORDS BUT IT MAY BE DEADLY, A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL EVEN FOR AN ETERNITY OR A BULLET IN YOUR HEART FOR SAYING IT IS WORTH BEING SHOT IN THE HEART TO ATTEND A DEMONSTRATION.
Death is painful and usually confusing:
The Buddha never said that death is or can be painless or even pleasurable, he said that whereas ordinary people died confused (their mental forces stirred haphazardly), the noble ones died unconfused which is not to say they die pain free.
CONFUSION IS ALWAYS SUFFERING AND SO BY IMPLICATION THE BUDDHA IS SAYING THAT ALL ORDINARY STYLISH AND EMOTIONAL PEOPLE CAN EXPECT TO SUFFER AT DEATH BOTH FROM CONFUSION OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE AND PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PAIN (EG PAIN OF CANCER, MENTAL ILLNESS).
EVEN THE NOBLE ONES SUFFER FROM PAIN WHEN DYING BUT THEY DO NOT DIE CONFUSED. FOR INSTANCE IF THE NOBLE PERSON’S HEAD IS CUT HE SUFFERS PAIN BUT HE DOES NOT REBEL OR RESIST AND DIES UNCONFUSED AND HENCE YOU WILL BE WISE TO BUDGET FOR PAIN AND CONFUSION AT DEATH BY TIDYING UP YOUR LIFE HERE TO BE LESS ENGROSSED WITH YOUR WHEELING AND DEALING AND PASSIONS FOR THE SENSES THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN SEX BUT CAN BE GOURMET FOODS, THRILL OR LUST FOR SIGHTS AND SOUNDS AND TOUCHES.
Patrick:
There is nothing intrinsically special or attractive about the name ‘Patrick’, it is just a name amongst so many possible names but because your name is Patrick, if you are proud of yourself, you begin to like the name such that in time you perceive the name as special or attractive.
Similarly there is nothing special about ‘Doreen’ or ‘Daisy’ but because your girl friend or the girl you are crazy about is called ‘Doreen’ you soon perceive that name as wonderful, attractive and that is false perception.
BECAUSE PEOPLE PERCEIVE THEIR NAMES OR THE NAMES OF PEOPLE ‘SPECIAL’ TO THEM AS ATTRACTIVE OR WONDERFUL, THEY DO NOT PERCEIVE TRULY BUT THEY PERCEIVE FALSELY WITH FORCE (ATTRACTION IS THE ATTRACTIVE STIRRING OF MENTAL FORCE) THAT IS BLINDING AND THUS FALSELY PERCEIVING THEY UNDERSTAND FALSELY OR DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
IT IS POSSIBLE TO PERCEIVE A NAME SPOKEN OR WRITTEN AS JUST A GROUP OF SOUNDS OR LETTERS WITHOUT EVOKING LIKE OR DISLIKE BUT THIS IS NEVER EXPERIENCED BY EMOTIONAL PEOPLE AND THEREFORE THEY NEVER PERCEIVE TRULY BUT THEY PERCEIVE FALSELY WHICH IS WHY THEY NEVER UNDERSTAND TRULY BUT ALWAYS UNDERSTAND FALSELY OR DO NOT UNDERSTAND AS I FIND IN EXPERIENCE THAT EVEN THOSE WHO ARE HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL AND OLD STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR FALSELY UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAY.
Buffett lunch auction nears end:
Warren Buffet may make a lot of money capitalizing on his name by selling lunch dates with him for a lot of money but he and all those who see nothing wrong is headed for insanity.
THE TRUE PURPOSE OF HAVING LUNCH IS TO EAT NOT TO TALK. TO USE LUNCH AS AN EXCUSE TO GET TO KNOW BUFFETT OR EXTRACT SECRETS OF HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS, ETC FROM HIM IS A FALSE PURPOSE FOR LUNCH AND THAT IS THE WAY TO INSANITY. FURTHER YOU MUST TALK AS YOU EAT AND THAT IS PRACTICING DISTRACTION OR DIVISION OF ATTENTION THAT WILL END IN A PERMANENTLY PAINFULLY DIVIDED ATTENTION OR DAZE.
Arrest me, I am wearing black:
It seems there is an organized campaign for people to wear black T shirts with the above slogan that may be related to the Perak constitutional impasse.
Notwithstanding that the sellers of the T shirts will be sinfully opportunistically profiting from the enterprise, whoever wears the T shirt is issuing a challenge or provoking others and that is ill will which is a fetter to the lower realms (not heaven) according to the Buddha.
THUS THIS IS A DELUDED WORLD, EVEN THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE GOOD ARE DELUDED, THEY ARE FAR FROM GOOD THEMSELVES.
PROTESTING FOR WHATEVER CAUSE IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT A RETURN HERE TO SUFFER. IF YOU DON’T DENY YOURSELF AS JESUS COMMANDED, YOU PROTEST, YOU PROTEST VEHEMENTLY.
Headed for a bad destination:
His synchronised dancing with violent jerking motions are rehearsed and therefore reproduced robotically and because there is a copy of it in his mind, this copy dictates that he will move as recorded and there is a urge that with increasing practice to always move as he recorded himself in his mind and that is bonding oneself to torment.
He is a foolish man with much violent tendencies and headed for further torment after a life here that itself is torment.
GE’s Immelt says US economy needs industrial renewal:
Immelt is General Electric’s CEO and many reading it will deferentially think he knows what he is talking about when he is talking nonsense and exhibiting false logic.
IT IS NOT THE LACK OF INDUSTRIAL RENEWAL THAT BROUGHT ABOUT TODAY’S ECONOMIC CRISIS BUT IT WAS CRASS FINANCIAL EXCESSES AND UNFETTERED LENDING PRACTICES AND PLUNDER OF THE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE CAUSE AND JUST LIKE THERE IS NO CURE FOR CANCER, THERE MAY BE NO CURE FOR TODAY’S ECONOMIC WOES. IF THERE IS ANY CURE IT MUST BE DIRECTED AT THE CAUSE. THE CURE IS THE ELIMINATION OF THE CAUSE. IF USING FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES IS THE CAUSE OF SADNESS THEN THE CURE IS STOP USING FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, NOT DRUGS OR ECT OR WHATEVER AND SO WHATEVER CURE MUST BE DIRECTED AT FINANCIAL EXCESSES.
THUS WITHOUT BEING A FINANCIAL OR ECONOMIC GENIUS, YOU KNOW THAT IMMELT IS BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE PERHAPS WITH VESTED INTEREST BECAUSE INDUSTRIAL RENEWAL MAY BENEFIT GE.
Krugman: Not enough audacity
Krugman does not realize what he talks of is senseless and creates karma for him.
He may be lamenting the lack of courage in taking bold measures to resolve the health crisis.
Audacity is about bravery or courage which is about using force according to a plan to do something that you are not sure of or making a blind bet that it will pay off.
If you can see or are certain that what you do is correct, will resolve the problem there is nothing audacious about it and it is only when you are not certain what you do will work or it might bring even disaster if it failed that it is called audacious.
THE WISE PERSON WILL DEPEND ON SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING TO DO WHATEVER HE DOES, WHAT HE DOES NOT SEE OR UNDERSTAND HE DOES NOT DO. THERE ARE ACTUALLY MANY THINGS THAT CAN BE SEEN AND UNDERSTOOD THAT PEOPLE BLINDED BY EMOTION FAIL TO SEE EVEN RIGHT BEFORE THEM AND THUS SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY EYES THAT OTHERS FAIL TO SEE BLINDED BY EMOTIONS, I CHOOSE TO DO OR NOT DO SOMETHING NOT OUT OF AUDACITY BUT OUT OF UNDERSTANDING.
THUS THE PERSON WHO EXHORTS AUDACITY IS EXHORTING TAKING RISK, OF DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING, IS RECOMMENDING THE USE OF FORCE (AUDACITY IS BASED ON FORCE, ON PUSHING THROUGH ACCORDING TO A PLAN) INSTEAD OF SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM.
Audacity is a recipe for future disaster:
You may ‘save the day’ with an audacious move or action but audacity is based on force according to a plan of what to say or do that is programming so that there develops an urge to be audacious in the future, ‘a culture of taking risk’ that sooner or later will end in grief.
This is what has happened to the economy, the culture of risk taking or doing what you don’t understand eg derivatives, has finally backfired to cause calamity.
AUDACITY IS NEVER AN ANSWER TO ANY PROBLEM, IT IS A FORM OF GAMBLING AND WHOEVER GAMBLES HAS ALREADY LOST, EVEN IF HE WINS AT THE MOMENT. SEEING AND UNDERSTANDING IS NEVER ABOUT AUDACITY AND IT IS THE TRUE ANSWER TO ANY SITUATION.
Can know they say cannot know:
CAN KNOW EMOTIONAL PEOPLE SAY CANNOT KNOW, CANNOT KNOW EMOTIONAL PEOPLE INSIST THEY KNOW.
There are a lot of things that can be known, that based on information available can be known but emotional people perceive falsely as cannot be known or unknown and there are a lot of things people perceive falsely as known when it is not known, only believed. Thus they have muddled thinking.
BASED ON MANY THINGS THAT CAN BE SEEN AND KNOWN, THE PERSON TAKES ACTION BASED ON TRUTH NOT RISK OR GAMBLE BUT BECAUSE THE PERSON FALSELY PERCEIVE THAT MANY THINGS CANNOT BE SEEN OR KNOWN, THEY TAKE ACTION BASED ON AUDACITY OR BOLDNESS.
Why Michael Jackson was mad:
What useful work is Jackson doing above? Is he cooking a meal, brushing his teeth or writing something? If he is doing nothing useful then his flailing and shouting is for show, to impress others and stir emotion in himself and others.
THEREFORE IF YOU AGREE WHAT HE IS DOING USING FORCE ACHIEVES NO MEANINGFUL PURPOSE THEN HE IS PRACTICING INSANITY IN THE NAME OF IMPRESSING OTHERS. FURTHERMORE BECAUSE IT IS REHASHED AGAIN AND AGAIN AT EACH SHOW, IT IS REHASHED AND ROBOTICALLY RENDERED AND THEREFORE HE IS A ROBOT DOOMED TO ROBOT FAILURE. IT IS NOT HIM BUT A PROGRAM IN HIS HEAD THAT IS THE INSTRUCTOR OF WHAT HE DOES.
WHETHER A PERSON IS A ROBOT OR NOT OR WHAT HE IS DOING IS TRULY MEANINGFUL OR NOT IS OBJECTIVE, CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY ANYONE. IF IT IS TRUE THERE IS A PROGRAM OR PLAN IN YOUR HEAD THAT DICTATES WHAT YOU SAY OR DO, YOU ARE A ROBOT AND IN DANGER OF ROBOT FAILURE WHEN THE PROGRAM GOES BERSERK AND ACTIVATES ITSELF WITHOUT PERMISSION. IF WHAT YOU SAY OR DO DOES NOT ACHIEVE ANY MEANINGUL TASK, IT IS FOR SHOW AND CONTROLLED MADNESS THAT WILL END IN UNCONTROLLED MADNESS.
WIN-WIN:
IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE TO WIN, HE MUST GAIN FROM SOMEONE’S LOSS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN WITHOUT ANOTHER’S LOSS. IF SOMEONE SECRETLY STEALS $10 FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT AND GIVE YOU $1 YOU MAY BE LULLED BY HIS HYPE THAT IT IS WIN-WIN, YOU WIN $1 AND HE WINS $10 BUT IN TRUTH THE $1 IS STOLEN FROM YOU AND YOU ARE THE FOOLISH LOSER. FOR SOMEONE TO WIN A LOTTERY, MANY MUST LOSE THE MONEY THEY USED TO BUY THEIR LOTTERIES.
‘WIN-WIN’ HAS BEEN BANDIED ABOUT FREQUENTLY IN RECENT YEARS COPIED BY ROTE FROM OTHERS AND RATHER THAN TRUE IT MAY REFLECT PERVERSE LOGIC NOT WITHOUT PURPOSE BUT TO CON THOSE WHO ARE BEING TRICKED OR CHEATED THAT THEY ARE WINNING JUST AS THE CONMAN IS WINNING.
IF EACH CASE OF TOUTED ‘WIN-WIN’ IS EXAMINED IT IS LIKELY IF NOT CERTAINLY THAT IT IS A SCAM, THE PROPOSER IS THE TRUE WINNER AND YOU ARE THE SUCKER.
No brainer:
Where did your win come from? It must come from someone or something (eg earth or the forests and fisheries you and your ‘win-win’ partner plundered) and by definition that someone or something you won from must sustain some loss and so whoever perceives win-win as true, possible is deluded, has false perception that will end in mad perception.
It is possible for you to gang up with another to rob another and so it is win-win for you and your partner but still it is at the expense of another.
IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO WIN-WIN, JESUS WILL NOT ADVOCATE DENYING YOURSELF AND THE BUDDHA WOULD NOT RENOUNCE ALL EXISTENCE AS SUFFERING AND FALSE.
IF YOU NEVERTHELESS PERCEIVE IT IS POSSIBLE TO WIN-WIN, IT MAY REFLECT YOU ARE VERY DISCERNING OR IT MAY REFLECT THE DEPTH OF YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION THAT WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION. YOU ARE NOT MAD YET, YOUR PERCEPTION IS FALSE BUT NOT MAD YET BUT WHEN YOU GET THERE YOU WILL WEEP.
IF YOU THINK THE EARTH OR THE TREES AND FISHERIES ARE THERE FOR THE TAKING, FOREVER SUBMISSIVE TO YOUR PLUNDER, THEY CANNOT AND WILL NOT LASH BACK TO CAUSE YOU FAMINE AND EVEN CATASTROPHIC DISASTER, YOU MAY BE A FOOL. NOTHING IS FREE, YOUR WIN COMES AT A COST THAT IS FAR MORE PAINFUL & EVERLASTING THAN YOU DREAM POSSIBLE AND YOU ARE A LOSER NOT WINNER.
Winning is always deadly:
The Buddha:
Whoever, unknowing, makes acquisitions
-- the fool -- returns over & over
to suffering & stress.
So, discerning, don't make acquisitions.
May I never lie with my head cracked open again.
Jesus told Nicodemus, sell away your assets and follow me. Thus what the Buddha said above is absolutely true, whoever acquires (and winning is acquiring) is headed for having his head cracked open and if you think that is fun, ‘game on’.
You need force never reason to win:
If you think winning is based on understanding when it is irrational, based totally on naked force directly or indirectly on force according to a plan then you have false perception that will end in madness.
In order to win you need to exercise force, not reason.
There are many plans of how to win and you can copy others plans (others even teach you these plans) and carry them out in which you are then a slave or robot using force to carry out that plan either successfully or in failure.
And winning is based on desire, an attraction for possessing or acquiring that is another name for greed that is never satiable because it is addictive and after many cycles of activating greed it becomes compelling, automatically stirring to intense strength you cannot resist and takes longer to fade and you are headed for torment than bliss.
Winning is never based on true understanding but false understanding because true understanding means you are aware that acquiring is suffering and what you have acquired is a burden, the more you possess, the more you are torn apart by the disparate pull of all you own.
The half, totally and not blind man:
What is merit and demerit, fault and non fault, non-exalted and exalted (praised and valued) and counterparts of purity and impurity are fixed, universal, objective, applies to everyone. According to the Buddha, only the man with one eye that sees clearly what is merit and demerit, fault and non fault, non-exalted and exalted (praised and valued) and counterparts of purity and impurity is heading for future happiness.
29. Bhikkhus, these three persons are evident in the world.
The blind man, the man with one unimpaired eye and the man with unimpaired eyes.
Bhikkhus, who is the blind man?
Bhikkhus, this person is not clever to acquire wealth that is not acquired and to prosper on wealth already acquired He is blind to it. Further he hasn't the eye to know merit and demerit, the fault and non fault, the non-exalted and exalted and the counterparts of purity and impurity. This is the blind man
Bhikkhus who is the man with one unimpaired eye?
Bhikkhus, this person is clever to acquire wealth that is not acquired and to prosper on wealth already acquired . He hasn't the eye to know merit and demerit, the fault and non fault, the non-exalted and exalted and the counterparts of purity and impurity. This is the man with one unimpaired eye.
Bhikkhus, who is the man with unimpaired eyes?
Bhikkhus, this person is clever to acquire wealth that is not acquired and to prosper on wealth already acquired He is not blind to it. Further he has the eye to know merit and demerit, the fault and non fault, the non-exalted and exalted and the counterparts of purity and impurity. This is the man with unimpaired eyes. Bhikkhus, these three persons are evident in the world.
Both throws being unlucky, the blind do not have wealth and do not accrue merit,
The man with one unimpaired eye begets wealth righteously or otherwise
By theft, telling lies or cheating, the clever young man accumulates wealth
Partaking sensual pleasures comes to unpleasantness.
The man with one unimpaired eye goes to hell and wails.
The man with both eyes unimpaired is the best,
With wealth rightfully acquired, he rises with the Teaching
He gives with a pure mind and attains the non grieving state
Keep away from the blind and those with one eye unimpaired
Associate the man with unimpaired eyes. Of the three he is the best.
Good at making money but not merit:
There are many who fall into the category of what the Buddha calls the man with one blind eye. They have a good eye for making money and enjoying what their money buys but they are totally blind to making merit, to telling what is a fault (and subject to punishment and karma) and what is not fault, what is pure and what is impure.
Thus good at making money and enjoying it but blind to the karma he is accruing, he goes to destinations of woe after dying.
There are also many who are totally blind, not good at making money and therefore not enjoying the fruits of wealth and also blind to merit and demerit.
Few are they who are good at making money and also enjoying the fruits of wealth but also with an eye for what is merit and demerit, what is pure and impure, what is a fault subject to punishment and what is not.
Everything is either fault or no fault:
Whatever a person can say or do can be examined and determined to be at fault or not. If you are at fault, no matter how you may deny or refuse to see, you are liable for punishment and therefore heading for suffering.
And the vast majority of what people say or do is at fault, headed for suffering.
What is at fault?
Joking and laughing and smiling is at fault.
The use of force to stretch syllables, change speed and loudness that have equivalents in motion is at fault because it is meaningless for show and stresses self and others.
Telling lies, taking what is not given, gossip, idle chatter and divisive speech is at fault. Harming or injuring and killing anything is at fault.
Pride, jealousy, envy, greed, lust, excitement, confusion, liking, disliking, sadness, hurt is at fault.
Rehashing from memory (being a robot) instead of composing fresh specific for the occasion is at fault.
IN SHORT FEW ARE THE THINGS PEOPLE SAY OR DO ARE FAULTLESS BUT THEY ARE FAULTFUL AND THEY ARE HEADED FOR SUFFERING NOT SAFETY.
Acting weird and irrationally:
Quote: The influenza has become more and more serious but our ministers are still acting weird like this. It is not only the world is laughing, but swine are laughing at our ignorance, too!
Stirred by emotion, not guided by true reason the person launched into a diatribe that is falsification to exaggerate.
It is never genuine reason but force, through its proxy dislike or anger or denigration that motivated the person to say it and so it is that force can and always is the source of what people say or do, they are deluding themselves if they think it is genuine reason.
Genuine reason can never give rise to false statements and because the above statement is objectively false, it cannot come from genuine reason or understanding.
When people talk about acting weird, they are speaking emotionally to deride or dislike what people do are crazy. The ministers may be correctly said to speak IRRATIONALLY which accurately describes their speech as illogical, not WEIRD which is to deprecate their actions.
Can you see the world laughing, swine laughing as he said? If you cannot then he is falsifying to exaggerate with motive to deride and he has an appointment with mad perception.
HE HAS FALSE PERCEPTION THAT THE WORLD AND SWINE IS LAUGHING BUT HE IS NOT PERCEIVING MADLY YET EXCEPT ON OCCASIONS. WHEN YOU BECOME UNCONTROLLABLY MADLY PERCEIVING THAT IS TORMENT, I TELL YOU.
Krugman: Betraying the planet
It is no accident he chose ‘betraying’ instead of ‘not doing right by the planet’.
It is emotion not genuine reason that is the basis of his statement and driven by emotion or force, he uses emotional words like ‘betrayal’ to stir readers’ emotions.
EMOTIONAL PEOPLE HAVE A PREDILECTION THAT MAY BE UNCONSCIOUS TO CHOSE EMOTIONAL WORDS OR WORDS THAT CONVEY FORCE REFLECTING THEIR OWN FORCEFUL NATURES, IT IS MENTAL FORCE THAT IS THE PUPPET MASTER PULLING STRINGS IN THEIR MINDS. OFTEN FORCE DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY, IT IS THEIR FALSE PERCEPTION THAT FORCE IS INVOLVED. PEOPLE ARE NOT BETRAYING THE PLANET, THEY ARE HEEDLESSLY WRECKING IT, DOING WRONG TO IT. WRECKING THE PLANET AND DOING WRONG HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BETRAYAL OR EMOTION.
Sex sold at the food courts:
“Sex sold at the food courts” is a way or style of putting it or saying something that is false. It is not true sex is sold like you see mee soup or mixed rice sold, sex happens to be also transacted at food courts but it is not sold as is said which is to make it more salacious or attractive or emotional.
IT IS NOT GENUINE REASON BUT MORBID FASCINATION OR ATTRACTION WITH MATTERS RELATED TO ILLICIT SEX THAT DROVE THE PERSON TO PRESENT THE STORY AND THUS DRIVEN BY FORCE NOT REASON, HE IS MOVED TO PUT IN A WAY THAT FALSELY GIVES AN IMAGE SEX IS BEING SOLD LIKE FOOD DISHES AT FOOD COURTS. WHAT IS SAID IS AT FAULT AND THE PERSON IS LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT.
‘FOOD COURTS BECOMING AVENUES FOR VICE’ IS A MORE APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTION.
What do you mean by betrayal?
Betrayal can be clearly defined even if its original meaning has been corrupted so that it takes on new (false) meanings.
Betrayal is the act of delivering someone whose confidence you have gained, who trusts you to the arms of his enemies.
Can you see US lawmakers who voted against the environmental bill gaining the confidence of the earth and then delivering the earth to its enemies?
THUS EVEN THOSE WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY INTELLECTUALS, WHO ARE FETED BY SOCIETY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT OR DRIVEN BY EMOTION, THEY TALK NONSENSE.
Letting down not betraying the planet:
By voting against the environmental bill US law makers are letting down the planet not betraying the planet.
If Krugman’s speech was calmly, unemotionally, specifically composed for the occasion he would surely realize lawmakers who voted against are not betraying but letting down the planet.
Likely partisan in favour of the planet, he is upset (angry) with those who voted against and thus seized by emotion he is driven to use strong words like betrayal that is rehashed and does not fit this situation well.
Approximate speech:
Because people’s speech are rehashed, intended for many different occasions they must be approximate and never precisely tailored for an occasion.
Rehashers have a tendency to speak approximately or vaguely because approximate speech is more likely to fit many circumstances than precise speech.
Thus rote speakers have a tendency to say, “see you later” or “see you soon” without specifying the time span and sometimes such vagueness can be odd like I was told ‘see you later’ by someone wishing me goodbye when I will be away for months. The reason is because ‘see you later’ is a standard rehash statement and it appears appropriate and specific when it is spoken to someone who is going out for the day or evening but when it is rehashed when someone who is going away for months it appears odd as compared with the more specific, “see you when you come back”.
In the same way, “Betrayal” is used loosely by emotional rehashing people for many occasions that have similarity but when examined carefully, it is inappropriate to call an act of voting against a bill ‘betrayal’.
It is an attack:
The reason Krugman used ‘betrayal’ to describe the voting against the environmental bill by lawmakers is to attack, to use words to deprecate those who acted against his cherished earth.
WHETHER YOU ARE USING STRONG WORDS LIKE ‘BETRAYAL’ THAT YOU COPY FROM OTHERS USING IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT BECAUSE IT IS TRUE OR APT FOR THE OCCASION BUT TO ATTACK PEOPLE CAN BE KNOWN. IF YOU ATTACK USING WORDS YOU HAVE ILL WILL WHICH IS ONE OF FIVE LOWER FETTERS TO THE LOWER REALM ACCORDING TO THE BUDDHA.
The ten fetters:
According to the Buddha there are ten fetters that bind beings to continued existence that have spanned countless eons spilling their blood greater than the four great oceans.
The five lower fetters are doubt and uncertainty, faith in rituals and rules and self identity views that lead to future woe, plus ill will and sensuality (attraction for the objects of the sense like touch, smell, taste, sight and sound).
The five higher fetters that bind beings in heavenly existences are ignorance (once a person is enlightened, his ignorance dispelled, he no longer craves existence anywhere), restlessness (desire for change), conceit, attachment to formed and formless existences.
Speaking out of false understanding:
A person of true calm, clear understanding will not speak about a matter unless he sees and understands what the matter is about. If he does not understand a matter or it is not very clear to him, he refrains from making comments which would mean risking falsity and a person of truth does not risk falsity (the Buddha said you must always guard the truth).
THUS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON WHO TRULY CALMLY UNDERSTANDS TO MAKE COMMENTS THAT ARE LATER FOUND TO BE FALSE. IF HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING OR IT IS NOT CLEAR TO HIM HE DOES NOT SPEAK SO HOW CAN HE MAKE ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE LATER DISCOVERED TO BE FALSE?
IT IS ONLY A PERSON WHO FALSELY UNDERSTANDS, WHO SPEAKS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING A MATTER WHO IS LIABLE TO SPEAK WHAT IS LATER FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WANTING.
HENCE IF YOUR COMMENTS CAN BE PROVEN OBJECTIVELY TO BE FALSE, INAPPROPRIATE THEN IT MUST ISSUE FROM FALSE UNDERSTANDING OR NO UNDERSTANDING.
Thus because what Krugman said can be objectively proven to be inappropriate, lawmakers did not betray the planet but they may have let down the planet by not voting for measures that would conserve and secure the planet and all lives sustained by it, Krugman has objectively proven (to those who are discerning) that he speaks without understanding or he speaks out of false understanding for it is impossible for a person who speaks out of true understanding of the occasion to accuse lawmakers of betrayal.
KRUGMAN WAS SPEAKING OUT OF FORCE (NOT TRUE UNDERSTANDING), HIS IRE OR ANGER STIRRED BY LAWMAKERS VOTING AGAINST, IT DROVE HIM TO ATTACK THEM AS TRAITORS BETRAYING THE PLANET WHEN TRUE UNDERSTANDING WOULD HAVE TOLD HIM THEY HAVE LET DOWN THE PLANET. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF HIS STATEMENT IS TO ATTACK AND WHATEVER SUBSTANCE IN HIS STATEMENT IS SUBSIDIARY TO THE FORCE UNLEASHED.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON OF TRUE UNDERSTANDING TO SAY SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND TO BE FALSE OR INAPPROPRIATE TO THE MATTER AT HAND BECAUSE WHATEVER IS SPOKEN OR DONE OUT OF TRUE UNDERSTANDING MUST BE TRUE. ONLY SPEECH AND ACTIONS DRIVEN BY NAKED FORCE OR ITS PROXIES, LIKE, DISLIKE, SADNESS, HURT, CONFUSION OR FEAR CAN AND WILL BE FOUND WANTING OR FLAWED OR FALSE.
Too much force:
NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT IS HARMFUL TO YOUR CHEEK TO EXERT EXCESSIVE FORCE RECCURENTLY IF YOU DO NOT NEED TO USE SO MUCH FORCE AND ALWAYS IN THE SAME OLD (REHASHED) WAY, YOU ARE PRACTICING CONTROLLED INSANITY OR SELF HARM WHETHER YOU KNOW OR NOT.
IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PERSON YOU WILL REALIZE HE LIKES TO PROP UP HIS CHEEK AND CHIN IN THIS STEREOTYPED WAY WITH FORCE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE NECESSARY AND HE IS A ROBOT HARMING HIMSELF BY USING FORCE THAT IS EXCESSIVE, MORE THAN REQUIRED.
HE IS NOT LOOKING BUT STARING, USING FORCE TO PROLONG HIS GAZE WHICH IS SOMETIMES BLANK. USING FORCE TO STARE IS THE CAUSE OF SADNESS AND HE MUST EXPERIENCE SADNESS THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT EVERYONE MUST ALSO EXPERIENCE SADNESS BECAUSE A PERSON WHO NEVER USES FORCE TO PROLONG CANNOT EXPERIENCE SADNESS.
HE IS USING TOO MUCH FORCE PRESSING HIS THUMB ON HIS FACE AND THAT IS CONTROLLED MADNESS.
THE POSTURE OF HIS HAND ON HIS FACE TOO IS STEREOTYPED, HE ALWAYS PROPS UP THE SAME WAY AND THAT CAN ONLY COME ABOUT BY MINDLESS AUTOMATED ROTE AND HE IS A ROBOT.
Daily sex best for good sperm:
In other words, in the name of good sperm you must perform daily sex or you become a robot for producing good sperm.
Do you perform sex because there is a need for it or do you perform sex for good sperm?
IT REFLECTS HOW ABSURD PEOPLE ARE AND THEY ARE UNWITTINGLY ACKNOWLEDGING THEY ARE MERELY MECHANICAL ROBOTS THAT THEY FIND SUCH SO CALLED FACTS WORTHY OF ATTENTION AND THEREFORE PUTTING INTO ACTION. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO PUT IT INTO PRACTICE, HAVING DAILY SEX JUST TO HAVE GOOD SPERM, WHY BOTHER TO TALK ABOUT IT? PEOPLE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THEY ARE DEDICATED SENSELESS MECHANICAL ROBOTS.
So long as you keep in mind:
You may deny you are having frequent if not daily sex so as to have good sperm, so long as you keep that in mind, perceive it is possibly true, you have converted yourself to a half or full hearted slave or robot to the plan or program ‘daily sex best for good sperm’ and increasingly with conditioning, you may perceive it more and more as true when you did not see or know it is true, it is hearsay.
SO LONG AS YOU HALF KEEP IN MIND DAILY SEX BEST FOR GOOD SPERM, YOU ARE THEN NOT HAVING SEX BECAUSE YOU MEAN IT BUT YOU ARE HAVING SEX FOR GOOD SPERM AND THAT IS MAD.
YOU HAVE SEX BECAUSE YOU MEAN IT, NOT FOR GOOD SPERM AND IF THAT CONSIDERATION COMES INTO YOUR MIND, IT RENDERS YOU A MECHANICAL SEX MACHINE PERFORMING SEX FOR GOOD SPERM.
Not justified even if you have poor sperm:
Unless you want to become mad, it is not even justified to have daily sex for good sperm if you are childless and it is proven your sperm count and quality is poor because by following this rule you have converted yourself into a mindless robot dedicated to good sperm and performing sex for that purpose instead of sex being a meaningful activity.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT EVEN IF YOU SUFFER FROM POOR SPERM AND ARE CHILDLESS, SHOULD ANYONE HAVE DAILY SEX FOR GOOD SPERM BECAUSE IT RENDERS HIM A HYPOCRITE, PERFORMING SEX NOT FOR SEX BUT GOOD SPERM AND HE MUST BECOME A ROBOT OF THE RULE.
The true purpose and value of food:
There is only one true purpose and value of food and that is to keep your life here going, anything more is false and delusion and because people are fastidious about their food, they eat to preserve their health and lives, for the different (falsely) perceived qualities they are headed for perishing and suffering just as their foods however exalted are also perishable, never everlasting.
Whatever can be eaten to provide energy or nourishment is food.
Jesus taught that you should not go after food that perishes and if you do not go after food that perishes (name me one food that does not perish), what more should you go after the different properties of food like antioxidant, anti-cancer, cooling, etc?
ALL EDIBLE FOODS PERISH AND SO WHATEVER QUALITIES OR INGREDIENTS IN THOSE FOODS WILL ALSO PERISH AND SO YOU WILL BE A FOOL TO EAT CERTAIN FOODS FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS.
THIS IS A WORLD OF SUFFERING AND FABRICATION. JESUS CAN CREATE FRESH BREAD OUT OF NOWHERE INSTANTLY SO YOU WILL BE A FOOL TO FUSS ABOUT THE QUALITIES OF DIFFERENT FOODS. THE BUDDHA CAN TURN A MOUNTAIN TO GOLD SO YOU WILL BE A FOOL TO HOLD GOLD IN HIGH ESTEEM.
AS THE BUDDHA SAID, TO ONE WHO SEES THERE IS NOTHING, NOT EVEN HEAVEN WITH ETERNAL LIFE EVEN FOR 60,000 EONS HAVE ANY ALLURE, WHAT MORE THAT A PERSON WOULD SEEK AFTER THE DIFFERENT HEALTH AND LIFE GIVING PROPERTIES OF CERTAIN FOODS.
THUS ANYONE WHO IS FASCINATED AND FASTIDIOUS ABOUT FOOD IS PRACTICING CONTROLLED INSANITY THAT WILL END IN INSANITY AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE PURPOSE OF FOODS HERE AND IT IS TO SUSTAIN YOUR LIFE HERE, ANYTHING MORE COMES FROM EVIL AND IS FALSE OR DELUDED.
Jackson Leaves His Entire Estate To Family:
Always, emotional stylish people want to stir emotion in others with whatever they say or do.
They consciously or unconsciously want to convey that whatever they say, whatever has happened is likeable, dislikeable, dislikeable in a liking way, saddening, hurtful, agitating or fear arousing.
This accompanying emotion is clearly evident in the (eg excited, angry, derisive) way a person speaks, it is not so obvious in written speech but is nevertheless present.
Jackson leaves his entire estate to his family may read matter of fact but the ‘entire’ is to make much of it and reflects accompanying emotion not so obvious in written form. ‘Leaves his estate to his family’ is understood to mean entire estate and so the word ‘entire’ is unnecessary and reflects emotional emphasis to make much of the news and to stir readers’ emotions to be thrilled or scandalized or whatever. It is no big deal, what Jackson does to his estate is none of anybody else’s business and why should anyone be so fascinated with his will that he must make much, his ‘entire’ estate to his family when his estate to his family suffices.
EVEN IF THERE IS NO EMOTION ACCOMPANYING TO WHAT IS WRITTEN (AND INDEED EVEN SAID), READERS AUTOMATICALLY READ WITH EMOTION AND THAT IS FALSE PERCEPTION.
For instance, what I say in writing and spoken is without emotion, without liking or disliking but emotional people automatically read or hear what I say with emotion and project their emotions onto me.
ALWAYS WHATEVER IS SAID OR WRITTEN BY EMOTIONAL PEOPLE HAVE ACCOMPANYING EMOTION THAT THEY WANT TO IMPART ON OTHERS. READERS AND LISTENERS WHO ARE EMOTIONAL ALWAYS READ AND LISTEN WITH EMOTION SUCH THAT EVEN THOUGH WHAT I WRITE OR SAY IS UNEMOTIONAL, THEY PROJECT EMOTION ONTO WHAT I WRITE AND SAY REFLECTING THEIR FALSE PERCEPTION THEY DO NOT REALIZE WILL END IN MAD PERCEPTION.
THE FACT THAT THE WRITER ADDED ‘ENTIRE’ TO JACKSON’S ESTATE BY SAYING ‘JACKSON LEAVES HIS ENTIRE ESTATE TO HIS FAMILY’ IS AN INDICATION HE IS TRYING TO MAKE MUCH OF IT OR STIR EMOTION.
UN begins Bhutto killing inquiry:
“UN begins Bhutto killing inquiry” may sound unemotional or matter of fact to you but you have false perception because it is disrespectfully or insouciantly improper. What is proper or correct is to say “UN begins inquiry into Bhutto’s assassination.
It may be he is trying to economize words but that is not the case but he likes to put things that way, he is attracted by his way of putting things that he wants to impart or impress others as proper when it is disrespectful. People have an attitude of speaking disrespectfully or in a way that scoffs or dismisses and that is about repulsion or dislike.
THUS ‘UN BEGINS BHUTTO KILLING INQUIRY’ IS A WAY OF PUTTING THINGS THAT THE PERSON LIKES AND WANTS TO IMPRESS OTHERS WITH AND IT IS A WAY OF SCOFFING OR DOWNPLAYING OR DISMISSING THINGS THAT DE FACTO HAS EMOTION ACCOMPANYING.
YOU AND HE MAY THINK IT IS UNEMOTIONAL BUT IT IS NOT THE CASE.
Mercedes Benz:
The words ‘Mercedes Benz’ or ‘Doreen’ by themselves are devoid of emotion but when people write or speak them, they are always spoken with liking or as if it is very desirable or attractive thus “Meerrcceeeeeddeeesssss Beeennzzzz” (wow!) or “Ddooorreeeenn” (mmm!).
In the same way emotional people always add emotion usually like or dislike when they read ‘Mercedes Benz’ or ‘Doreen’.
Because emotions are just force stirring that is blind and meaningless apart from being stressful, when you write and speak with emotion you are trying to convey and impart blind and meaningless force to others, when you read or hear emotionally, you are adding blind and meaningless force to what you read and hear.
PEOPLE ALWAYS PRONOUNCE WORDS WITH STYLE AND EMOTION, THEY READ AND HEAR WITH STYLE AND EMOTION THAT IS ABOUT PRONOUNCING OR PERCEIVING WITH BLIND AND MEANINGLESS FORCE. THIS IS PRACTICING CONTROLLED INSANITY THAT WILL END IN UNCONTROLLED INSANITY. YOU HAVE NOT REACHED UNCONTROLLED INSANITY YET, DON’T BE SO SURE IT WILL BE ALRIGHT, IT MAY BE WEEPING AND GNASHING YOUR TEETH.
Dislike is the dominant emotion behind people’s speech and actions:
Some people always speak in a curt, rude, aggressive, nasty, sarcastic or stabbing manner. Often, to those who are discerning, they are merely faking they liked what they neither liked nor disliked or even disliked.
The writer may have nothing personal against Bhutto but his statement “UN begins Bhutto killing inquiry” emanates from an attitude of dislike of everything.
WHY IS ‘DISLIKE’ (OR IN ITS DISGUISED FORM, LIKING WHAT THEY DISLIKED) THE DOMINANT EMOTION ACCOMPANYING WHAT PEOPLE SAY OR DO?
Few are the things in this world that can generate genuine liking (eg getting new car, pretty girl liking you, tasty food), most things in this world are either boring or suffering and therefore disliking.
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STRESSING THEMSELVES WITH THE CONSTANT USE OF FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS, THEY ARE BOMBARDED BY FORCE FROM OTHERS, THEY ARE STRESSED AND THAT LEADS TO DISLIKE AND SO DISLIKE IS THE RESIDENT EMOTION AND IT IS DISLIKE THAT IS THE DOMINANT EMOTION ACCOMPANYING PEOPLE’S SPEECH AND ACTION AND OFTEN THEY FAKE THEY LIKE WHAT THEY DISLIKED OR SPEAK AS IF THEY LIKED WHAT THEY DISLIKED TO GET ALONG WITH OTHERS.
THUS “UN begins Bhutto killing inquiry” IS ACCOMPANIED BY DISLIKE NOT BECAUSE THE PERSON HATES BHUTTO BUT HE IS STRESSED AND DISLIKING OR SULLEN AND HIS SPEECH HAS A TENDENCY TO BE SULLEN OR SULKING OR DISLIKING.
PEOPLE’S SPEECH IS ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE, NEVER TRULY OBJECTIVE. THEY ARE KIDDING THEMSELVES IF THEY THINK THEY ARE SOMETIMES OBJECTIVE. IT IS SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY EMOTIONS AND STYLE AND THIS SUBJECTIVENESS IS AT THE CORE OF THEIR SELF IDENTITY VIEWS THAT THE BUDDHA SAID IS ONE OF THREE LOWER FETTERS NOT JUST TO RETURN HERE BUT FUTURE WOE IN RETURNS HERE.
As if they like everything:
Just as some people speak with a default nasty repulsive way, there are many in this world who speak as if they like everything they say, they like everyone they speak to and whilst it may be genuine liking in some cases, in most cases it is faked, they are faking they like you, they like what they say in the name of getting along and material gains.
JUST AS SOME PEOPLE ARE DEFAULT NASTY IN THE WAY THEY SAY THINGS, SOME PEOPLE ARE DEFAULT NICE IN THE WAY THEY SAYING THINGS EAGERLY, EXCITEDLY, FRIENDLILY BUT THIS CANNOT BE TRUE, THEY ARE OFTEN JUST FAKING IT, THEY FAKE THEY LIKE WHAT THEY DISLIKED WITH SUCH INTENSITY THAT THEY NOW INSIST THEY TRULY LIKED WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DISLIKED OR ARE APATHETIC TO.
No comments:
Post a Comment