Not just debtors but savers are in big trouble:
Throughout the extended boom all over the world, those who are foolish and greedy (and there are hoards of them) have borrowed heavily and now that the world economy is in recession these borrowers are beginning to feel the squeeze and it is a noose that may strangle many of them.
You will be foolish to think that only these debtors are in trouble because the money they borrowed came from savers and now this money has been irretrievably transferred to those who sold desired assets (houses, shares, cars, goods) at big profits and so down the line, savers may be confronted with the reality that their money has been lost, recklessly lent by bankers seeking to maximize their profits.
IT IS NOT JUST DEBTORS, THOSE WHO ARE FULL OF DEBTS WHO ARE IN TROUBLE AS THIS RECESSION UNFOLDS BUT SAVERS TOO ARE IN TROUBLE BECAUSE THE MONEY BORROWED BELONGS TO SAVERS AND THIS MONEY IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO SOLD GOODS AND ASSETS TO THESE FOOLISH GREEDY BORROWERS.
Write off at your own peril:
But Rebecca Jennings, a media analyst at Forrester Research says that inconsistent picture quality on computers, and the fact that a PC is not conducive to groups of people watching an event together, means we write off the box at our peril.
What has peril got to do with writing off the TV as a medium for communication?
This is not the first time it is said but it is copied from others and applied in many situations without understanding what it means. It is actually a form of scoffing at others’ differing opinion. She obviously is a fan of TV and she is scoffing with a whiff of intimidation (peril) those who hold a different view.
There is peril in holding wrong view because it is the path to insanity, hell or the animal womb and so without seeing or knowing it is true, you should neither write off TV nor be ‘bullish’ about the future of TV.
THE ENTIRE SUBJECT IS FRIVOLOUS, WHY GET HEATED UP OR EMOTIONAL DEBATING THE FUTURE OR DEMISE OF TV WHEN YOU CANNOT AND DO NOT SEE WHAT IS IN THE FUTURE. ‘WRITE OFF AT YOUR OWN PERIL’ IS A ROTE STATEMENT COPIED FROM OTHERS TO BE APPLIED TO MANY SIMILAR SITUATIONS TO SCOFF AND INTIMIDATE OTHERS THAT THERE IS FALSELY PERIL IN THEIR WRITING OFF TV.
WRITE OFF AT OUR PERIL SOUNDS NICE BUT IT IS NONSENSE AND FALSE, DESIGNED TO MOCK.
They are all going to go mad:
They are all practicing controlled insanity that will end in insanity because:
a) What they do is robotic, a ritual at a set time with a set routine and they are conditioning themselves to be robotic such that in time they will develop an irresistible or obsessive urge to go to the gym to the same old things the same old ways.
b) One reason they need such exercise is to let off steam and relieve stress, but this is not the antidote to stress and so they are practicing what does not work and that is insanity. The only way to cure stress is to pay attention to stop using force to stretch syllables, change speed and loudness, if you don’t no matter how much exercise you do, you will get stressed and it will become worse with age. If it is your health that you are anxious to preserve by exercise then as Jesus said, which one of you by being anxious can extend your lifespan by even one cubit? It is a delusion that you can improve your fitness or health by obsessive mindless robotic exercise that may actually stress & wear your body faster. If you truly want to be fit and live longer, stop stressing yourself by being emotional and stylish that subjects your mind and body to relentless force.
c) What useful work are they doing? If you are exercising your muscles to sweep the floor, build a house or cook a meal then you are rationally doing work. What they do is actually meaningless, does no constructive work and so they are unwittingly practicing controlled insanity that will end in insanity.
IN THE PAST I HAD A NEED TO REGULARLY GO TO A TENNIS WALL OR DRIVING RANGE TO EXERCISE AND I WOULD FEEL SOME MEASURE OF RELIEF THAT WOULD SOON BE NEGATED WHEN I RETURN TO WORK. NOW FOR YEARS I HAVE NOT PICKED UP A TENNIS RACKET OR GOLF CLUB AND YET I AM INCOMPARABLY HAPPIER AND HEALTHY THAN BEFORE.
IN THE PAST I HAD THE NEED TO SURROUND MY HOUSE AND ROOMS WITH VARIOUS PLANTS TO CHEER ME UP BUT IT WOULD NEVER DRIVE THE GLOOM THAT REGULARLY DESCENDED ON MY MIND. NOW I DON’T PLANT ANY PLANTS, DON’T KEEP ANY FISH BUT I DON’T FEEL ALONE OR DEPRESSED.
The minimum qualification for heaven:
You do not need to be able to stop all thinking, not like or dislike or attain a mental state of neither pain nor pleasure to go to heaven but the basic qualification to going to heaven for one Age or eternity is goodwill to all as to yourself.
A person of true goodwill does not radiate force or impart force on others and that means he must not have style, must not use force to stretch syllables, change speed and loudness that harms himself and others with stress, restlessness and distraction.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT A PERSON WITHOUT STYLE, WHO DOES NOT USE FORCE TO STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS (THAT HAVE EQUIVALENTS IN MOTION) CAN BE A PAIN IN THE NECK OF OTHERS, CAN HARM OTHERS WITH FORCE AND A PERSON WITH SUCH MINIMUM ATTRIBUTES IS A SHEEP, IS HEADED FOR HEAVEN.
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO STYLE, DO NOT STRETCH SYLLABLES, CHANGE SPEED OR LOUDNESS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN STOP THINKING WHICH IS A HIGHER ATTRIBUTE THAT ACCORDS THAT PERSON TWO EONS IN HEAVEN. IF THE PERSON CAN IN ADDITION TO NO THINKING DEVELOP NEITHER LIKING NOR DISLIKING HE IS HEADED FOR FOUR EONS IN HEAVEN AND IF HE CAN ATTAIN A MENTAL STATE WITH NEITHER PAIN NOR PLEASURE, THAT IS 500 EONS IN HEAVEN. IF HE FURTHER OVERCOMES ALL CONSIDERATIONS OF FORM TO ACCESS THE INFINITUDE OF SPACE THAT IS 20,000 EONS, ACCESS THE INFINITUDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND THAT IS 40,000 EONS, ACCESS NOTHINGNESS AND THAT IS 60,000 EONS, THE MAXIMUM SINGLE LIFESPAN FOR A BEING.
Puggala Sutta: Persons
"Here, bhikkhus, a certain person abides with his heart imbued with loving-kindness extending over one quarter, the second, the third, the fourth quarter, and so above, below, everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides with his heart abundant, exalted, measureless in loving-kindness, without hostility or ill-will, extending over the all-encompassing world.
(It is impossible for a person who is constantly radiating force by stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness to have true loving kindness. Just because you have loving kindness does not mean you can stop thinking)
"He finds gratification in that, and looks to it for his well-being; steady and resolute thereon, and if he dies without losing it, he reappears among the gods of a High Divinity's retinue.
"Now the gods of a High Divinity's retinue have a life-span of one aeon. An ordinary person [who has not attained the Noble Eightfold Path] stays there for his life-span; but after he has used up the whole life-span enjoyed by those gods, he leaves it all, and [according to what his past deeds may have been] he may go down even to hell, or to an animal womb, or to the ghost realm. But one who has given ear to the Perfect One stays there [in that heaven] for his life-span, and after that he has used up the whole life span enjoyed by those gods, he eventually attains complete extinction of lust, hate and delusion in that same kind of heavenly existence.
The final divorce from force:
To be able to perceive without pain or pleasure is the final divorce from force.
To be able to say or do things without using force to prolong, change speed and strength is the first basic meaningful dissociation from force.
To be able to stop thinking is the next level of dissociation from force that provides the momentum for ceaseless thinking. Next comes not stirring your mental force to be attracted to or repulsed by whatever is happening.
After divorce from force, there remains form and divorce from form results in existence in the infinitude of space, divorce from a physical or spatial existence results in existence in the infinitude of consciousness and divorce from consciousness results in existence in the realm of activities or nothingness. With the banishment of all ignorance comes enlightenment and the being ceases to desire any form of existence anywhere.
What is a gaffe?
Quote: Black man becomes white man in Microsoft advert gaffe.
Gaffes are very real to emotional stylish people and something can only be a gaffe if the person is pretentious, devoted to appearances and niceties, things said and done to please and impress others and a gaffe is committed if the person inadvertently or by a lapse of ‘propriety’ says or does something that embarrasses or causes the make belief or pretence to be shattered exposing his true thoughts and intentions.
Thus in this case, Microsoft has inadvertently revealed its racial bias in swapping a black man with a white man in advertisements for Polish consumption. Perhaps a black man will not go down well in Poland and so Microsoft used a white man there.
‘Blackman becomes white man’ is a false way of putting it, what actually happened is that Microsoft used a white man for Polish advertisements whilst the original ad had a black man.
A GAFFE IS ONLY POSSIBLE IF YOU ARE A PRETENTIOUS PERSON WHO SAY OR DO THINGS FALSELY THAT YOU DO NOT MEAN TO PLEASE AND IMPRESS OTHERS AND WHEN AS A RESULT OF AN OVERSIGHT, WHAT YOU SAID OR DID THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS PLEASING OR IMPRESSIVE TURNED OUT THE OPPOSITE, YOU FEEL EMBARRASSED, HURT OR ASHAMED AT EXPOSING YOURSELF NEGATIVELY. GAFFES ARE MEANINGLESS PREOCCUPATIONS OF PRETENTIOUS OR STATUS CONSCIOUS PEOPLE WHO ARE PRACTICING CONTROLLED INSANITY THAT WILL END IN INSANITY.
EMBARRASSMENT IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT IS BLAMEWORTHY SUFFERING THAT IS CONDITIONING AND WILL END IN INSANITY THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN. NOTHING EMBARRASSES ME.
‘A’ Grade for boy who reads maths books for fun:
YOU NEVER READ SOMETHING FOR FUN OR JUST FOR THE SAKE OF READING IT TO STIR ATTRACTIVE MENTAL FORCE, YOU READ SOMETHING FOR A PURPOSE, TO LEARN SOMETHING OR GET INFORMATION AND SO IF IT IS TRUE HE READS MATHS BOOKS FOR FUN, HE IS PRACTICING SOMETHING THAT IS MEANINGLESS OR JUST TO STIR OR STIMULATE MENTAL FORCE THAT WILL END IN MADNESS.
What is said and the way it is said makes it a boast, people don’t just boast about themselves, they also boast for others.
Can reading maths books be truly fun, stir your mental force attractively? The truth is nothing is fun, fun is a conditioned false make belief state of the mind just as jokes are funny is an acquired taste and so it is false or a lie to say he reads maths books for fun with the motive to boast that whereas others find maths books tough to read, he finds it ‘fun’ or enjoyable because he is so smart.
EXACTLY HOW FUN IT IS FOR HIM TO READ MATHS BOOK, WHETHER IT IS A SHOW OR LIE TO IMPRESS OTHERS CAN BE KNOWN. IT MAY BE JUST A BRAG THAT HE THINKS IS HARMLESS BUT HAS DEADLY KARMA, THAT WHEREAS YOU FIND MATHS BOOKS A CHORE OR TOO ‘SOPHISTICATED’ FOR YOU, HE FINDS IT A CINCH, A DELIGHT.
Reading for force not reason:
When you say you read for fun you are actually saying you are reading for the purpose of stirring force that is blind and without understanding.
IT IS MAD TO READ FOR FUN, TO READ TO STIR BLIND MENTAL FORCE THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND AND SO IF YOU TRULY READ FOR FUN YOU ARE PRACTICING CONTROLLED MADNESS TO IMPRESS OTHERS AND HEADED FOR MADNESS.
YOU READ FOR UNDERSTANDING, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN ASSUMING THAT IT IS MEANINGFUL AND IT REFLECTS THE PERSON AND OTHERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY THINK IT IS OK AND UNDERSTANDABLE TO READ FOR FUN.
Sacking will strengthen MCA:
Liow was quoted as saying this.
Without considerable support Chua Soi Lek could not have been voted deputy and so this sacking is likely to open wounds at least temporarily and so what he said is against logic.
It is impossible he sees and knows what he said is true but he is speaking without knowing likely because he is siding with the MCA president.
WHEN YOU LIE, YOU ARE SPEAKING KNOWING WHAT YOU SAY IS FALSE. ANYONE WHO SPEAKS WITHOUT SEEING WHAT HE SAYS IS TRUE IS SPEAKING BLINDLY AND HE MUST USE FORCE ACCORDING TO A PLAN TO SAY IT THAT IS CONDITIONING HIMSELF TO SPEAKING BLINDLY THAT WILL END IN TORMENT.
NEVER SPEAK BLINDLY WITHOUT SEEING OR KNOWING WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, IF YOU DID NOT SEE IT IS TRUE, YOU WILL BE WISE TO REMAIN SILENT, BECAUSE YOU ARE CONDITIONING YOURSELF TO CERTAIN FUTURE MADNESS BY SAYING SOMETHING YOU DO NOT KNOW IS TRUE. EVEN IF YOU GUESSED RIGHT THAT THE SACKING WILL STRENGTHEN MCA, BECAUSE YOU SPOKE BLINDLY, YOU GUESSED, YOU ARE COMMITTING YOURSELF TO DOUBT AND UNCERTAINTY THAT WHAT YOU SAY MIGHT BE WRONG.
Speaking blindly:
If you know what you say or do is false (eg you know you are smiling falsely) then you are lying and that is the way to certain insanity because just as you will others to believe what is false is true, you are conditioning yourself to what is false is true by saying or doing false things.
If you do not know or see what you say or do is true, then you are speaking blindly and even this is deadly because it too is courting future insanity.
WHENEVER A PERSON SPEAKS BLINDLY OR DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HE SAYS IS TRUE (EG REGURGITATE WHAT MEDICAL TEXTS TELL HIM IS SO) HE MUST USE FORCE AND BLOT OUT TRUE REASON (WHICH WILL TELL HIM HE DOES NOT KNOW) TO SAY OR DO THAT THING BLINDLY.
THUS IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING AND PURPOSE OF YOUR SMILE ON YOUR FACE AND YET YOU SMILE THEN YOU ARE SMILING BLINDLY AND THAT IS THE WAY TO INSANITY, DOING THINGS WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING OR PURPOSE.
Thus if you saw someone stealing something and you say so, you are saying out of seeing. If you make an accusation he stole without seeing, you are speaking blindly and even if you turn out to be correct, you are conditioning yourself to speaking blindly that will end in torment for you.
The wonders of pomelo
IPOH: The Tambun pomelo, famous for its juicy and sweet flesh, is more than just a good eat – it has medicinal potential and can be used as an ingredient for aromatic oil.
If you say the above without seeing and knowing it is true then you are speaking blindly and that is as bad as lying because insanity is your final reward.
Jesus said you will be judged for every careless word you say and to say without seeing what you say is true is careless.
Careless does not mean mistake:
Emotional people think they are blameless if they plead carelessness for their actions because they have a false perception that careless means mistake, an accident, they were not paying attention and it was not wilfully intended and therefore they are absolved of eg causing a car accident that may be fatal.
Careless means ‘care less’, you don’t care, you are indifferent or don’t give a damn and therefore you are blameworthy for being careless not blameless.
If you are not paying attention then you shouldn’t be saying or doing something. If you say or do something without paying attention or slickly rendered by rote without attention then if that deed harms someone you are liable not blameless.
FAR MORE THAN THEY ARE AWARE, PEOPLE THINK THEY UNDERSTAND BUT THEY UNDERSTAND FALSELY THAT CARELESS MEANS MISTAKE, IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, NOT INTENDED WHEN CARELESS TRULY MEANS YOU DON’T CARE, DID NOT TAKE CARE, YOU RENDERED SOMETHING WITHOUT ATTENTION BY ROTE IMPERSONALLY BY APPROXIMATION.
Why freedom from style is the minimum requirement for heaven:
Do not underestimate the many evils of style or the use of force to stretch syllables, change speed and strength and eliminating style being the key to going to heaven.
Jesus said in order for a man to go heaven, he must be born again not physically but in spirit and water. This mean there is something fundamentally or systematically wrong with men in general that must be totally reversed as if they are born again in order for them to go to heaven.
What can be fundamentally and systematically wrong with them that can be and must be eradicated to go to heaven?
Style (the use of force to stretch, change speed and strength that has equivalents in motion, thinking and even perceiving) is something that is present in all beings here, is constant, totally unnecessary and for show and always evil (harms self and others) is a prime candidate whose elimination is akin to being born again.
What are the evils of style?
Firstly it means force is constantly used that is totally unnecessary, wastes prodigious energy, is meaningless except for show to falsely impress, please, intimidate and dominate and creates insoluble stress, restlessness and distraction that is also imparted on others.
Secondly the consistent, stereotyped style of a person mandates he must rehash or exist as a robot forever dishing out the same old things the same old ways that is a form of dishonesty and impersonality.
Thirdly style is the dynamo or generator of force that drives the emotions that can only be like, dislike, sadness, hurt, agitation and fear. It is impossible for a person who has no style to suffer from like, dislike, sadness, hurt, agitation and fear and no matter how a person with style might strive to drive out or control his sadness, hurt, agitation and fear, it is not only futile so long as he continues to sport style but these tormenting emotions are conditioning to become increasingly intense and mad with age and he is headed for insanity.
Because style or using force to stretch, change speed and strength is meaningless, only for show, the person with style is practicing controlled madness in the name of impressing and pleasing others and doomed to future insanity.
THUS STYLE IS SOMETHING ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO POSSESS, IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS, ONLY FOR SHOW, IS EVIL BECAUSE IT NECESSITATES A ROBOTIC REHASHING EXISTENCE, CREATES INSOLUBLE STRESS, RESTLESSNESS, DISTRACTION & IS THE GENERATOR OF TORMENTING EMOTIONS LIKE SADNESS, HURT, AGITATION AND FEAR, IT IS THE PRIME CANDIDATE FOR WHAT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED FOR SOMEONE TO BE BORN AGAIN SO THAT HE CAN GO TO HEAVEN.
Style is the mother of all evil:
It is style or the constant use of force to stretch, change speed and strength that is the generator of power necessary to drive the emotions that are identified as sins by Jesus.
Anger is a sin (the man who calls his brother you fool is in danger of hell) and it is a form of dislike. Hate is dislike, laziness is dislike for work, jealousy is dislike for another because he possesses something you don’t.
Greed is attraction or like for money and material assets. Lust is like for sexual objects.
Pride, a sin is like for self, like for what and how you say, do, think and perceive with dislike or disdain for others who behave differently.
Stealing is the result of covetousness or greed, wanting what others have that is not yours.
ALL THE SINS DESCRIBED ARE EITHER FORMS OF THE VARIOUS EMOTIONS THAT CAN ONLY BE LIKE, DISLIKE, SADNESS, HURT, AGITATION & FEAR OR THEY ARE DRIVEN BY EMOTIONS (EG KILLING IS DRIVEN BY ANGER, HATE OR DISLIKE) AND ALL EMOTIONS DEPEND ON THE CONSTANT FORCE GENERATED BY FABRICATING STYLE FOR SUSTENANCE. THUS STYLE IS THE SOURCE OF ALL EMOTIONS THAT ARE THEMSELVES SINS OR THE DRIVES FOR SIN.
DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE ROLE OF STYLE IN SIN AND ITS ELIMINATION BEING THE KEY TO EXIT FROM SUFFERING AND GOING TO HEAVEN.
She is faking seeing:
Based on the positions of her eyes, the object she is looking at is to her left and upwards and that is impossible. She is looking to her left at someone or something but her eye postures says she is looking upwards and so she is faking looking.
She is a dishonest person not just here but always. She can fake she is looking at you when she isn’t, she may be lost, staring vacantly.
THE HONEST PERSON TURNS HIS HEAD TOWARDS THE TARGET OF HIS SIGHT, HE DOES NOT DISHONESTLY LOOK THROUGH THE CORNER OF HIS EYE TO FOOL OTHERS HE IS NOT LOOKING WHEN HE IS.
IT IS NOT LAZINESS OR EFFICIENCY TO GLANCE THROUGH TO SIDE OF THE EYE BUT IT IS DISHONESTY, PEOPLE WANT TO SECRETLY SEE AND PRETEND THEY ARE NOT LOOKING.
IN THIS CASE SHE IS ACTUALLY FAKING GLANCING TO THE SIDE TO SEE BECAUSE HER EYES ARE LOOKING UPWARDS. SHE IS LIKELY STARING BLANKLY BUT FAKING SHE IS LOOKING AT YOU.
SHE IS ACTUALLY GLARING, THERE IS ANGER OR HOSTILITY IN HER FACE.
FALSITY IS NOT ISOLATED BUT SYSTEMATIC AND SO UNLESS THE PERSON IS BORN AGAIN, SHORT OF ALL FALSITY AND DECEIT, HE CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN.
A challenge is a plan driven by force:
Anyone who finds challenges meaningful, who will challenge themselves (and others) to do certain things is a fool heading for insanity.
A 13 year old girl wants to sail solo around the world and it may be that she would say it is a challenge for her, she wants to prove something.
A challenge is never understandable, is never based on reason or meaning but based on force.
What you challenge yourself, eg ‘sail alone around the world’ is a plan that you carry out using force. Whatever planning you do to make it a successful are again robotic, once devised, you are a robot of those plans to ensure your challenge to sail solo is successful.
WHAT YOU CHALLENGE YOURSELF, EG ‘SAIL SOLO AROUND THE WORLD’ BECOMES A PLAN THAT YOU BECOME A ROBOT DEDICATED TO FULFILL. YOU DO NOT SAIL AROUND THE WORLD TO CHALLENGE YOURSELF BUT YOU DO SO BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SEE THE WORLD OR SOMETHING MEANINGFUL.
Tee Keat thankful for Najib’s consent:
Quote: He said he was also grateful to Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for his consent in allowing the MCA to resolve its own internal issues.
Tee Keat may be talking like a confused man or inadvertently exposing who ‘call the shots’ in BN.
He says it is internal matters and yet he is grateful to Najib for his consent. What kind of fool is he?
SOI LEK MAY BE A DIRTY OLD MAN BUT TEE KEAT’S INTEGRITY IS SUSPECT.
Najib: Resolve crisis the soonest
It may be impossible to resolve the crisis and it may fester for a very long time and thus such talk of quick resolution may be just empty babble that is not harmless but the path to insanity.
There is a significant faction in MCA aligned to Soi Lek who will feel wounded and so there will be strain even animosity within the party that may last a very long time or even incurable.
One way to resolve the crisis is to identify all Soi Lek’s men and dismiss them too but that would make it a witch hunt because they were not guilty of sexual misdemeanour like Soi Lek but if they remain in the party, there is likely to be persistent friction.
IF YOU DO NOT WANT A CRISIS, DO NOT CREATE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE BUT NOW THAT YOU HAVE PRECIPITATED A CRISIS BY SACKING SOI LEK IT REFLECTS UNREALISTIC THINKING OR WRONG VIEW THAT YOU CAN RESOLVE THE CRISIS THE SOONEST. SUCH ADVICE IS EMPTY BABBLE.
Boy reincarnation of WW II pilot:
Some time back, a talking fish stunned unsophisticated fishmongers in NY by saying the end is near and that he was the spirit of a departed Jewish man who used to patronize the shop.
Below is story of a boy who appears to be the reincarnation of a WWII pilot shot down in action.
These stories are to be expected in line with what the Buddha taught that all animals are beings like us and you have countless past lives, have spilt your own blood greater than the 4 great oceans.
Reincarnated! Our son is a World War II pilot come back to life
By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 1:29 AM on 29th August 2009
It sounds totally beyond belief. But read the tantalising evidence from this boy's family and you may start to wonder...
The agonised screams pierced the air. 'Plane on fire! Airplane crash.' In the dark, a two-year-old boy was just visible, writhing on his bed in the grip of horror. 'He was lying there on his back, kicking and clawing at the covers like he was trying to kick his way out of a coffin,' remembers the boy's father.
'I thought, this looks like The Exorcist. I half expected his head to spin around like that little girl in the movie. But then I heard what James was saying.'
Over and over again, the tiny child screamed: 'Plane on fire! Little man can't get out.'
Vivid recollections: James Leininger, pictured aged four had nightmares about being a WWII pilot who died after his plane crashed into the ocean
For his shocked parents, these nightly scenes were traumatic.
For experts, they were baffling.
As the nightmares became more terrifying, the child started screaming the name of the 'little man' who couldn't get out of the plane. It was James - like his own name. He also talked in his dreams of 'Jack Larsen', 'Natoma' and 'Corsair'.
James Leininger's father, Bruce, was flummoxed. In a desperate attempt to find an answer to his son's troubled nights, he embarked on an obsessive three-year research project, armed only with the outbursts and names his son had been shouting in his disturbed sleep.
What he discovered astonished and perplexed him, and drove him to an extraordinary conclusion.
Hero: Fighter pilot James Huston, who died in 1945 after his plane took a direct hit and plunged into the water
The idea seems so preposterous as to be unbelievable. Yet in their new book, Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation Of A World War II Fighter Pilot, Bruce and his wife, Andrea, lay out some compelling evidence.
It all began on May 1, 2000. James, just three weeks past his second birthday, was a happy, playful toddler living in an idyllic home in southern Louisiana. That night, his mother was woken by his screams. She held him in her arms as he thrashed around.
Soon, however, James was having five nightmares a week. Andrea was worried. Her little boy began to talk during his bad dreams, screaming about an airplane crash and writhing as if he were trapped in a burning aircraft.
At a toy shop, they admired some model planes. 'Look,' said Andrea. 'There's a bomb on the bottom.'
'That's not a bomb, Mummy,' he replied. 'That's a drop tank.' Just a toddler, he was talking like a military historian. How had he known about the gas tank used by aircraft to extend their range?
As the nightmares continued, she asked him: 'Who is the little man?'
'Me,' he answered. His father asked: 'What happened to your plane?'
James replied: 'It crashed on fire.'
'Why did your plane crash?'
'It got shot,' he said.
'Who shot your plane?'
James made a disgusted face. 'The Japanese!' he said, with indignation.
He said he knew it was the Japanese, because of 'the big red sun'. Was he describing the Japanese symbol of the rising sun, painted on their warplanes, called 'meatballs' by American pilots?
Tentatively, Andrea began to suggest reincarnation; perhaps James had lived a past life? Bruce reacted angrily. There must be a rational explanation for all this.
He questioned his son further. 'Do you remember what kind of plane the little man flew?'
'A Corsair,' replied the two-year-old without hesitation - repeating the word he shouted in his dreams.
Bruce knew this was a World War II fighter plane.
'Do you remember where your airplane took off from?' he asked.
'A boat,' said James. How did he know that these planes were launched from aircraft carriers? He asked the name of the boat.
His son replied with certainty: 'The Natoma.'
After James was in bed, Bruce researched what he had heard. A naturally sceptical man, he was amazed to find the Natoma Bay was a World War II aircraft carrier.
James even began to don an imaginary pilot's headset when his mother strapped him into his car seat. And when Bruce ordered a book for his father's Christmas present - The Battle Of Iwo Jima - James pointed to the picture and said: 'Daddy, that's when my plane was shot down.'
Bruce, who works in the oil industry, rushed into his office, where he had a dictionary of American naval fighting ships. Natoma Bay had supported the U.S. Marines' invasion of Iwo Jima in 1945.
Bruce was mystified - what was coming out of the mouth of his two-year- old? Next, the little boy named his nightmare alter-ego's best friend. He was Jack Larsen.
'He was a pilot, too,' he said. Bruce decided that he had to find Jack Larsen to prove his point to his wife - Larsen would tell him that James had invented the whole thing, and there was no such thing as reincarnation.
He decided to go to a reunion of veterans of Natoma Bay, pretending he was writing a book.
Andrea, meanwhile, was convinced James had been reincarnated. She contacted Carol Bowman, the author of a book on reincarnation called Children's Past Lives. Bowman confirmed Andrea's views.
'The common threads were there with James,' she said. 'The age the nightmares began, the remembered death. These are all consistent with children experiencing past lives.'
She advised Andrea to tell James that he was safe, and that his bad experiences were over now. Apart from his night terrors, he was an ordinary child living an ordinary life, turning three in April 2001.
He liked to play war games with his GI Joe action figures, Billy, Walter and Leon. He also liked to draw - battle scenes, with bullets, bombs and planes. He drew Wildcats and Corsairs, and named the Japanese planes Zekes or Bettys.
Pointing to one plane, he said: 'That's a Corsair. They used to get flat tyres all the time. And they always wanted to turn left when they took off.'
He would play a game of pilots, constructing a make-shift cockpit out of a toy phone and old car seat. He would call: 'Roger. Zero at six o'clock. Hit him!', then throw himself on the floor, saying: 'My plane was hit, I'm parachuting.' At an airshow, he told everyone: 'I want to be an F18 Super Hornet pilot.'
In the meantime, Bruce finally managed to find Jack Larsen - and uncovered an awful secret. It turned out Larsen's friend James Huston Jnr died when his plane was shot in the engine and caught fire, exactly as described by two-year-old James.
Bruce found Huston's name on the list of 18 men killed in action on the Natoma. The discovery finally made him ask: Could this be the man who inhabits my son's soul?
He sifted through a thousand combat mission reports to find where Huston had been killed.
Larsen told Bruce: 'James was a real good man. It was a very dangerous place. But James volunteered to go.'
He also said that it was aboard the Natoma that the first crude napalm bombs had been improvised, mixing napalm powder with petrol. 'It looked like we were making jelly,' he said.
His account brought home the full horror of battle - the flimsy planes flying to attack the Japanese. Huston was flying 'tail-end Charlie' - the last plane in - so Larsen had not seen him go down.
The veterans' association reported that James Huston's father had even attended their reunions. But the old man died in 1973, never learning any specifics of his son's death.
Next, little James unnerved his father by telling him: 'I knew you would be a good daddy, that's why I picked you.'
'Where did you find us?' asked a shaken Bruce.
'In Hawaii, at the pink hotel, on the beach,' he replied. Eerily, he described his parents' fifth wedding anniversary - five weeks before Andrea got pregnant - saying it was when he 'chose' them to bring him back into the world.
Something new emerged every day. On a map, he pointed out the exact location where James's plane went down. Asked why he called his action figures Billy, Leon and Walter, he replied: 'Because that's who met me when I got to heaven.'
Sure enough, on the list of the Natoma dead, alongside James Huston, were Billie Peeler, Leon Conner and Walter Devlin. Uncannily, photos of the men showed their hair colour matched those of their GI Joe dolls.
Finally, Bruce and Andrea located James Huston's last surviving relative - his 84-year-old sister, Anne.
She told them: 'Mom and Dad never talked about Jimmy's death, but Dad went to several reunions to see if he could get any details. He never could.'
And so they were able to tell her where her brother died. After so many years, they were even able to send her a picture of the harbour.
She responded: 'It is so much more personal than anything I have. The picture of the bay is beautiful and so peaceful. A lovely resting place.'
In return, she sent Bruce and Andrea a picture of James with his squadron - a cluster of smiling young men. In the background was a Corsair - confirming that little James had been right about the plane Huston flew.
Bruce says: 'My purpose for researching what was happening to my son was to establish that this was all a coincidence. But I was getting closer and closer to something dangerous. It was like putting my hand in a fire.'
Not long after, the family had a phone call from a veteran who had seen Huston's plane being hit. He kept his knowledge to himself for more than 50 years. He described seeing the aftermath of Huston's crash on the sea below.
'He took a direct hit on the nose. All I could see were pieces falling into the bay. We pulled out of the dive and headed for open sea. I saw the place where the fighter had hit. The rings were still expanding near a huge rock at the harbour entrance.'
Huston's plane was hit in the engine and the front exploded in a ball of flames - exactly like James's account. It explained why he always knocked the propeller off his toy planes.
Another veteran had been even closer. John Richardson explained: 'The Japs began firing at us. We formed up for the attack. A plane startled me. It was a fighter. He was firing his machine guns, strafing what was below. We were no more than 30 yards apart when the pilot deliberately turned his head and looked at me.
'I caught his eye and we connected with each other. No sooner had we connected than his plane was hit in the engine by what seemed to be a fairly large shell. There was an instantaneous flash of flames that engulfed the plane. It almost immediately disappeared below me.'
Richardson began to sob, saying: 'I have lived with that pilot's face as his eyes fixed on me every day since it happened. But I never knew who he was. I was the last guy who saw him alive. I was the last person he saw before he was killed. His face has haunted me.'
The family showed him a photograph of James Huston.
He said: 'I recognise his face. I could never forget it. As we retired from the harbour, I could see where Huston went in. He hit near a large rock right near the opening.'
Encouraged by the Leiningers, Richardson told Anne what he had seen - half a decade after her brother was lost without trace.
Poignantly, she said: 'I'm relieved to know Jimmy didn't suffer, and a little sad that my father died before he learned what happened.'
For his part, Bruce has found peace after his exhaustive search for answers. He says: 'God gives us a spirit. It lives for ever. James Huston's spirit had come back to us. Why? I'll never know. There are things that are unexplainable and unknowable.'
Meeting Huston's veteran brothers in arms, little James was disappointed, saying: 'I'm sad that everyone is so old.' Did he truly remember them as dashing young pilots?
Finally, the Leiningers gingerly broke the explosive news of the real reason behind their questions to Anne. They mapped out the story, the terrible nightmares, the vivid descriptions of battle, naming the ship and the pilots.
She told them: 'Jimmy was due home in March 1945 and I was cleaning, anticipating his arrival. I sensed that he was in the room with me. A couple of days later I got the news that Jimmy had gone missing. I was devastated.
'When my father told me the date Jimmy was lost, I realised it was the day I felt his presence. We never knew what happened to him. I want you to know that I believe the story.'
The Leiningers eventually went to drop a bouquet of flowers at Huston's ocean grave, making the long voyage to Japan.
James's nightmares continued until he was eight, but they were gentler than his early terrors - he woke sobbing softly. Whatever the truth behind the young boy's extraordinary dreams, James Huston now seems able to rest in peace.
Reincarnation is not anathema to Christianity:
There is nothing in the New Testament that says reincarnation is impossible and against Christian teaching, instead it is the delusion and obstinacy of Christians who are incurring karma on themselves to reject it flatly.
Jesus said make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal habitations.
What do you mean by eternal habitations? Would transmigrating from one body to another body not be eternal habitations?
Jesus spoke of eternal punishment. What constitutes this eternal punishment, where do these eternally punished beings exist? Might it not be possible that the animal world, ghost, hell and human existence be part of that eternal punishment.
Neither perceiving nor not perceiving:
The Buddha spoke of a state a being can attain in which he neither perceives nor not perceive.
How might that be?
If perceiving is the Google street view of what is happening in which you only perceive what is in front of you and you can perceive everything around by rotating your body 360 degrees and not perceiving is whatever that is beyond the line of sight or horizon including objects hidden behind what you perceived that you did not and cannot perceive then the bird’s eye view from above is neither perceiving nor not perceiving.
It is not perceiving because the bird’s eye view is very different from the street view that is defined as perceiving.
It is not ‘not perceiving’ because the bird’s eye view perceives everything there is to be perceived below.
It is because foolish beings are attached to themselves, identify with their ‘unique’ individual or different perspectives that is accorded by their different street views of things that they have to severely compromise themselves. The price of perceiving individually that little piece of current reality at a specific location where you are in is that you fail to perceive the far bigger reality of what is happening everywhere else, not just outside your room but outside your house, suburb, town, country and the world and universe elsewhere.
By giving up your restrictive and one sided or partial street view, it may be possible for you to attain the state where you perceive everything but it is not perception because the view is not a street view but an encompassing bird’s eye view nor is it not perceiving because whatever is happening below is totally in your field of view, there is nothing below that you do not perceive.
Suppose the realm of perception, whatever can be perceived is two dimensional and can be represented by a sheet of paper and whoever is trapped in perception and not perceiving is trapped on this piece of paper in two dimension wherein he can perceive whatever is in front of him in 360 degrees next to him and although he can move around and change what he is perceiving he is restricted to perceiving whatever is in the vicinity of his location and he does not perceive anything outside this vicinity that is concurrently happening. The person who neither perceives nor not perceive is the man above, not trapped in the two dimensions of the paper who perceives everything there is on the paper below and so he is not ‘not perceiving’ nor is he perceiving because his encompassing bird’s eye view is different, not the same as the street view that is enmeshed within the two dimensions of the realm of perceiving and not perceiving.
THUS THE BUDDHA MAY NOT BE SPEAKING OF NONSENSE BUT IT MAY BE THAT THIS SO CALLED WONDERFUL WORLD OF SELFISHLY GREEDILY PERCEIVING THE LITTLE THAT MANDATES THAT YOU THUS FAIL TO PERCEIVE THE INFINITUDE THAT IS HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME IS ACTUALLY A SEVERE COMPROMISE OR RESTRICTION, SUFFERING RATHER THAN UNADULTERATED PLEASURE.
ALL BEINGS TRAPPED IN SIMULTANEOUS PERCEIVING THE LITTLE AND NOT PERCEIVING THE MANY ARE TRAPPED IN A TWO DIMENSIONAL WORLD IN WHICH THEY CAN MOVE AROUND AND CHANGE THEIR VIEWS BUT THERE MAY BE A THIRD DIMENSION POSSIBLE DENIED THOSE TRAPPED IN PERCEIVING AND NOT PERCEIVING IN WHICH THE PERSON RISES ABOVE THE PLANE OF PERCEIVING AND NOT PERCEIVING AND FROM ABOVE HE PERCEIVES EVERYTHING THERE IS TO PERCEIVE IN THE REALM OF PERCEIVING AND NOT PERCEIVING BUT IT IS NOT PERCEIVING BECAUSE WHAT IS PERCEIVED FROM ABOVE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE STREET VIEW OF THOSE WHO PERCEIVE AND NOT PERCEIVE.
Bird’s eye view is not the same as the street view:
In what ways is the bird’s eye view different from the street view?
1) The street view is a horizontal landscape view whilst the bird’s eye view is a plan view. Both are totally different from each other even though they view the same object.
2) In the street view, there may be an object hiding behind a wall but you cannot see it but in the bird’s eye view, the object behind a wall is fully visible.
3) What you see in the street view is what is immediately in your vicinity, whatever beyond the horizon is invisible to you, In the bird’s eye view, everything there is to see is seen.
THUS NEITHER PERCEIVING NOR NOT PERCEIVING IS NOT PERCEIVING BECAUSE WHAT IS SEEN FROM THE BIRD’S EYE VANTAGE IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE STREET VIEW OF PERCEIVING, IT IS NOT ‘NOT PERCEIVING’ BECAUSE THE BIRD’S EYE VIEW PERCEIVES EVERYTHING THERE IS TO BE PERCEIVED AT ANY MOMENT.
No comments:
Post a Comment