How Is A Person Innocent & Not Knowing?

How is a person innocent and not know he is innocent?
In the case of Razak telling Altanturya, “I got nothing to do with you, if you want to do anything, go ahead”, Altanturya is completely innocent but she does not know she is innocent and may even blame herself for being bad to pester Razak.
She is innocent because Razak is lying to say he has got nothing to do with her when they had an affair. His advice if you want to do anything, go ahead is never sincere but also a lie and he is guilty not Altanturya.
THUS IN REGARD TO RAZAK’S STATEMENT, “I GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING GO AHEAD” ALTANTURYA IS ENTIRELY INNOCENT AND IT IS LIKELY SHE FEELS GUILTY WHEN SHE WAS THUS TICKED OFF BY RAZAK.
THEREFORE SARIPUTTA IS NOT TALKING NONSENSE WHEN HE SAID THE PERSON WHO IS INNOCENT AND KNOWS HE IS INNOCENT (EG ME) IS HIGHER THAN A PERSON WHO IS INNOCENT AND DOES NOT KNOW.
Razak Is The Lowest Person:
By saying that he got nothing to do with Altanturya and if she wanted to do anything go ahead and obviously thinking he is righteous, Razak (and those who see nothing wrong with what he said) has unwittingly objectively demonstrated himself to belong to the lowest category according to Sariputta of those who are guilty and do not realize they are guilty.
Because heaven is a community of beings living in harmony it is vital that all beings behave righteously and benevolently to each other, otherwise it will not be heaven much long. Therefore it is not how much medicine or science or philosophy or poetry that you know how much you see and know of conduct that is beneficial for yourself and others that is important in determining whether you go to heaven.
People seldom just sin but they often try to push the blame of their conduct on others.
As I have said some years ago, this world may be compared to a room in darkness with many people and when the light came on there was a big pile of shit on the table and they all pretentiously looked away and started pointing their fingers at each other for being responsible for the shit.
It is important that one recognizes what shit on the table belongs to one and clear it off and then washed one’s hands off shit in the future. If you are undiscerning and start to accept shit that in truth belongs to others, you will become overburdened and confused.
You may think you are magnanimous but you are a fool to accept blame and feel guilt for others’ shit.
The significance of Altanturya’s police report:
On the eve of Altanturya’s murder she made a police report in which she expressed fears that Razak may kill her.
Not all police reports of threats to life have the same significance. The significance of each report depends on the unique circumstances surrounding each case. In Altanturya case, there are many unique circumstances that taken together with the report will point the finger even infallibly at the suspect more than in other cases.
Everything that happens, even if it is false, has implications or meaning that can be defined as such and such are the implications of her report and it is likely that ordinary people (including the judge and lawyers) will fail to grasp totally the significance of that police report and therefore fail to make the conclusions that can be made from the report.
Wanting to convict a person in a human law court is not necessarily the same as wanting to establish by logic what happened. Law courts are inflexible or regimented and logic does not necessarily prevail in its deliberations because they are crucially dependent on the logic and wisdom or the lack of in its judge and prosecutor. Often the evidence available is sufficient to convict a person but the judge or jury fail to join the dots together or make the correct inferences to come to the right conclusion.
Few murdered people make police reports before hand and most murders are premeditated by people known to the victims rather than strangers.
The fact that Altanturya was murdered the next day after the report indicates her fears has basis.
Because Altanturya only raised fear about Razak, if the murderer was not Razak or someone linked to him, he must be unsuspected by Altanturya otherwise she would have mentioned this person in her report. If you are in fear of your life enough to make a police report and you are aware of other potential significant threats other than Razak surely you would have articulated them in your report.
Because Altanturya is a foreigner who is not resident in this country, if you exclude the possibility the policemen killed her without instructions on their own volition, how many unknown or unsuspected enemies would she have in this country who would not only want to kill her but managed to conveniently get her killed through the agency of the Malaysian police who whisked her away to her death from the house of Razak so that Razak will be the prime suspect because Altanurya had singled him out in his police report?
How likely is it that there should be another unknown Malaysian unrelated to Razak whom Altanturya did not voice suspicion who also want her killed and conveniently got her killed not personally by himself but indirectly by policemen whom the police force has acknowledged took her away from Razak’s house that night?
If this person who is responsible for Altanturya’s death is not Razak, he must be unsuspected by Altanturya, must be able to get her killed through agency of the police. He must be very lucky to have a competitor in Razak who has motive and professed intention through his private investigators to kill her and conveniently got her disappeared in front of Razak’s house so that he is the prime suspect for her murder.
Whilst it may be argued that the policemen exceeded their authorities to kill her, it is preposterous that policemen will go to the trouble of killing and blowing her up to smithereens with exclusive C4 explosives instead of dumping her somewhere and by coincidence her immigration records were erased.
From This Day I No Longer Have A Daughter:
Quote: From today, I no longer have a daughter – those were the words of Teh Tatt Beng, father of Jess Teh who was remanded to help with investigations into the shocking death of her daughter, Shearwey Ooi Ying Ying.
Most if not all emotional people utter such strong words at the spur of the moment and then they forget and undertake words or actions that render what they said void, that they no longer have a daughter false not realizing that this too incur serious karma for them.
Emotions are evil and when their emotions are aroused to intense levels that they cannot control, they utter foolish words that incur karma for themselves. Unless it is true and irrevocable, you should not say that from this day I no longer have a daughter however disappointed and angry you are with her. Such words are said to hurt her and that is karma too because it is ill will. As it is her world has fallen apart and you do not need to pour oil into a fire and you are deluded if you think you are justified to say that because if afterwards you hug and make up it renders you a liar for saying you no longer have a daughter.
THOSE WORDS ‘FROM THIS DAY I NO LONGER HAVE A DAUGHTER’ ARE SAID ANGRILY DRIVEN OUT OF ILL WILL TO HURT HER AND ILL WILL IS NOT THE WAY TO HEAVEN BUT PERDITION. IF AFTERWARDS YOU RENEGE ON YOUR WORDS TO MAKE UP WITH HER YOU HAVE RENDERED YOURSELF A LIAR NOT SUCH A KIND HEARTED PERSON WHO HAS FORGIVEN HER.
If Altanturya had disappeared elsewhere:
If Altanturya had disappeared elsewhere eg at a shopping mall or the policemen whom the police acknowledged took her cannot be traced to Razak then a credible case may be made Razak may not have done it.
But in the circumstances of this case where Altanturya has made a report about Razak and nobody else, for her to disappear in front of Razak’s house after being taken by policemen brought in by Razak whom he admitted he knew had killed many people makes the conclusion that Razak is seriously involved compelling if you linked the dots together.
IT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO CONFIDENT OF GETTING AWAY WITH IT THAT THEY DID NOT PLAN TO TAKE HER AWAY AT A MORE NEUTRAL VENUE BY POLICEMEN WHO COULD NOT BE SO EVIDENTLY LINKED TO RAZAK.
No remorse:
If Razak has concern for Altanturya whom he had a presumably passionate relationship in the past, he would have expressed remorse that his action in calling in the police led to her demise. Instead according to his secretary, he was anxious to lay the blame on Azilah the police officer for doing it without his permission.
In an ideal world the policemen will admit they killed her and who ordered them to kill her but in a real world where there is a court case going and a verdict must be reached, what is the wise verdict?
If Razak ordered the killing it would be hypocritical for him to express regret and so it would be more convenient for him to ignore his feelings about what happened to her and his role in at least bringing in the policemen instead of suing her for blackmail (she apparently wrote a note she passed to Razak through his secretary asking Razak, “Your money or your life?”). That she pestered and even threatened him is no reason to kill her because as an analyst you should analyze that with the evidence she foolishly supplied, you can take her to court and jail her.
If the intention of the police in arresting Altanturya at Razak’s house is to charge her, why did they not do so officially by going to her hotel to arrest her or arrested her when she came earlier with her friends but instead it appears a mysterious call made her go back late at night even against the advice of her friends?
If Razak would not seek official police assistance with this matter of Altanturya harassing him, what is the purpose of private policemen taking her away to police headquarters?
RAZAK IS ALREADY TO BE BLAMED FOR TAKING THE LAW INTO HIS OWN HANDS AND PULLING STRINGS (UNRIGHTEOUSLY ABUSING HIS CONNECTIONS) BY CALLING IN HIGH POWERED POLICEMEN TO ACT IN A SUSPICIOUS WAY NOT ARRESTING HER AT HER HOTEL OR EARLIER WHEN SHE CAME WITH OTHERS, TAKING HER AWAY LATE AT NIGHT WHEN THEY HAD NO POWERS TO DO SO BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ACTING OFFICIALLY.
Unless you believe rogue policemen killed her without permission in such suspicious circumstances (taking her away secretly alone at night from Razak’s house) something that is unlikely if not impossible because she was alleged to have been blown up with exclusive explosives and her immigration records deleted (the court should have ordered immigration officials to testify if it is true records were deleted and who did it if it is possible to find out), then if there was someone else other than Razak who ordered her murder, Razak must be extremely unlucky to have her, a Mongolian national who is not resident here and therefore is unlikely to know too many people who would want her killed, being taken away from his house by policemen he acknowledged he called in, in private capacity and he himself has serious motives to get rid of her and has declared intention to kill her through his private investigators (the fact that he hired private investigators that repeatedly hounded Altanturya in unseemly hours and made her fearful for her life enough to lodge a police report indicates Razak has serious ill intention towards Altanturya).
Razak has demonstrated objectively that he told lies in quite a few places (eg I got nothing to do with you, anything you want to do, go ahead, he told the police not to harm her when his private investigator said Razak wanted to kill her or arrange her suicide in such a convincing manner she lodged a police report against him). The behavior of his associates in wearing T shirts and displaying banners supporting him, his wife punching Altanturya’s father are all unrighteous and intended to exert unfair advantage on proceedings.
THUS TAKING IN CONSIDERATION THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHOUT SEEING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, ONE MUST CONCLUDE THAT RAZAK IS GUILTY, IF NOT ENTIRELY THEN TO A VERY SERIOUS EXTENT AND THOUGH HE MAY ESCAPE THE FULL PENALTY OF HUMAN JUSTICE (HE HAS ALREADY GOT MUD THROWN ALL OVER HIS FACE & FACE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO GOATS), THE DIVINE PENALTY IS EVEN FAR MORE PAINFUL. EVEN THE MAN WHO CALLS HIS BROTHER YOU FOOL IS IN DANGER OF THE FIRE OF HELL, WHAT MORE THE FAR WORSE THINGS THAT HE HAS DONE IN THIS CASE.
15 Seconds for WMP to play:
It takes 15 seconds or more for window media player on Vista Home Premium to start playing a song from clicking it whilst it takes ALS 4 seconds to start.
Thus it is troublesome if you are editing and trying to sample tracks.
All this may be because of the jazz or glitch associated with WMP that slows it down.
Razak & the policemen broke the law:
Merely by unofficially arresting Altanturya, the policemen involved have broken the law and should be charged and dishonorably discharged from the police force and Razak for seeking unofficial assistance from the police force is guilty of abusing his privileges (association with the deputy PM) and acting unlawfully.
Thus whatever happens, Razak and the policemen are guilty of serious misdemeanor and the fact that the police and politicians see nothing wrong, think it is understandable and do not take actions to reprimand them reflects the state of tolerance of abuse and double standards.
RAZAK HAS SERIOUSLY BROKEN THE LAW BY PROCURING POLICEMEN AND THE POLICEMEN HAS BROUGHT SHAME TO THE POLICE FORCE BY RUNNING ERRANDS FOR OTHERS WHILST ACTING AS POLICE OFFICERS.
You are responsible for people under your care:
By taking her in, she is under their care and Razak & the policemen are responsible for whatever happens to her in their care. If Altanturya was not taken in under the instruction of Razak or the policemen then they have no responsibility for what happens to her.
If a person dies as a result of a legal action (eg operation by a surgeon) the person is responsible depending on his negligence even if he did not intend to harm the person but if a person should die as a result of an illegal action then the persons involved in the illegal action (Razak and the policemen) are even more responsible even if they had no intention to harm them.
If the policemen were acting illegally in arresting Altanturya on a private errand for Razak in suspicious circumstances (late at night in a secluded place whilst she is alone) and Razak illegally requested the police to assist him then they are seriously responsible for the consequences of their action, the violent death of Altanturya no matter how they may disclaim responsibility.
Who asked Razak to call in these policemen to go against the law to act privately but as if on official business?
Who asked the policemen to obey Razak who is not a commanding officer to go to Razak’s house to take her away?
Although ordinary people may see nothing wrong, such actions by both parties incur deadly karma especially when it results in the death of the victim.
No justification for the arrest:
There is no reason for police, let alone police illegally acting on a errand to arrest Altanturya at such an odd hour in such an odd location. If police on an official arrest mission could politely wait for Razak to finish his breakfast and be even served refreshment by him, they can wait to arrest Altanturya at a more appropriate hour.
The only reasons for police to detain someone are to take him in for interrogation or he is a danger to the public. It is farfetched to think that there is such urgency to take her in for interrogation (they can go to her residence to take her in) or that she is a danger to public safety.
Instead the reason why she was arrested in such a remote location in the dark is never an accident but the motive is nefarious. If your intention is for her to disappear without trace then it will be desirable that she be taken away alone without witness and on transit she is under the cover of darkness (therefore night time is a more suitable time to transport victims to their disappearance than day time. Usually at night there is less likely people will be around (eg joggers) where they want to dispose of her body.
THUS IT IS NOT AN ACCIDENT BUT FITS IN WITH NEFARIOUS INTENT THAT ALTANTURYA SHOULD BE ARRANGED TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM RAZAK’S HOUSE IN A SECLUDED AREA WITHOUT WITNESSES, TRANSPORTED UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS AND DISPOSED OFF AT NIGHT IN A REMOTE AREA WHERE MOST PEOPLE ARE LIKELY TO BE ASLEEP THAN JOGGING. IF THE POLICEMEN HAD LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR TAKING HER AWAY THEY COULD BLAMELESSLY VISITED HER AT HER PREMISE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT RAZAK ADMITTED HE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH ALTANTURYA AND ALTANTURYA BLACKMAILED HIM FOR MONEY AND PESTERED HIM AND HE HAD INTIMIDATED ALTANTURYA THROUGH HIS PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR THAT HE WANTED TO KILL HER SO MUCH THAT SHE FELT IT FIT TO LODGE A POLICE REPORT, RAZAK ADMITTED UNRIGHTEOUSLY CALLING IN THE POLICEMEN WHO ENDED UP SOMEHOW GETTING HER KILLED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO LEAVE NO TRACES, SHE WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM RAZAK’S HOUSE AT SUCH AN UNSEEMLY HOUR WITHOUT HOSTILE WITNESSES, TRANSPORTED IN DARKNESS AND DISPOSED OFF IN DARKNESS, EXCLUSIVE C4 EXPLOSIVES HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY USED AND THE COURT SEEM NOT BOTHERED TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER IT IS TRUE ALTANTURYA’S IMMIGRATION RECORDS HAVE BEEN DELETED LET ALONE FIND OUT WHO DID IT, THE CASE IS COMPELLING THAT RAZAK IS SERIOUSLY INVOLVED AND IT IS NOT A ROGUE KILLING. IF THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE IN MALAYSIA UNRELATED TO RAZAK WHO WANTED TO KILL ALTANTURYA, A NON RESIDENT WITH FEW CONTACTS HERE, AND SHE IS TOTALLY UNAWARE AS NOT TO STATE IT IN HER POLICE REPORT AND HE COULD ARRANGE FOR HER MURDER THROUGH THE HANDS OF THE POLICE AND VIA RAZAK'S HOUSE SUCH AS TO STRONGLY IMPLICATE RAZAK, RAZAK MUST BE AN EXTREMELY UNFORTUNATE MAN TO HAVE SUCH A RIVAL TO DISPOSE OF ALTANTURYA AT THE SAME TIME.
Najib: Exodus shows no confidence in leaders of PKR (Anwar’s party).
Comment: Whether you are justified to come to this conclusion based on the number of people leaving Anwar’s party or you are using the occasion to mock PKR and falsely mislead the gullible that PKR is tottering (seeking political gain) can be objectively known.
If you have no right to jump to this conclusion and you do so, you yourself must emotionally want to believe this is true and because it is presumptuous, not based on reality you are embracing falsity that you fail to realize is increasingly realistic to you, in other words you will descend into madness where what did not or cannot happen has happened or you think can happened when you are debilitated by old age or in an acute crisis.
You don’t need a sledge hammer to crack a nut:

If the purpose of calling the policemen is to patrol around the house as Razak contended or to arrest Altanturya for being a nuisance, you do not need to covertly, illegally trouble high standing bodyguards assigned to protect the deputy prime minister who are highly trained killers, experts of firearm use and athletic swift, covert tactics but you only openly & legitimately need ordinary policeman and you could arrest Altanturya at any convenient time at her place of residence but if your purpose is to take her away to be killed and disposed off without trace, as has happened, then you don’t want to delegate the task to amateur policemen who may botch it but you want the best there is, highly trained killers who are experts of firearm use and swift, covert athletic tactics, especially if they are available to you by privilege to carry out the task under the cover of darkness, you need to take her away not at her residence but in a secluded spot with the minimal risk of the presence of hostile witnesses with overwhelming force and efficiency that would ensure her resistance is in vain and she cannot escape and she would be killed and destroyed without remorse as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thus despite Razak’s protestations to the contrary, all the relevant details of what has happened indicates a premeditated plot to kill and dispose of her, not a random killing by rogue policemen. Altanturya paid her price for her folly as all foolish people will but her murderers from executioners to mastermind will weep and gnash their teeth even for another eternity for their parts.

Whilst people do occasionally use sledge hammers to crack nuts because they are mad, it is a much less likely scenario in this case and thus the use of specialist policemen is an indication of the intent.

Even a person proficient in the use of firearms may botch an assignment to shoot stray dogs because the dog does not sit still for you to shoot but it can sense danger and run away at the hint of danger thereby frustrating your mission or you might just wound it allowing it to escape and tell tales that an attempt was made on its life. Even though you are good at firearms you might bungle it by alarming people around or you might cause 'collateral' damage.
Whilst there may be policemen amongst the rank and file of the police force who could have successfully carried out the disposal of Altanturya if you were the mastermind you would not want to leave anything to chance, you would want people who are expert killers, who have killed before, who would know how to overpower their victims so that they will not raise alarms or alert people who happen to pass by, who would not become squeamish or emotionally disturbed by the sight of death or identify with their victims and carry out the considerable task of transporting the victim to the location of her execution and disposal by explosion with the minimum of publicity and as quickly as possible.

EVEN THE SIMPLEST THINGS ARE OFTEN EASIER SAID THAN DONE AND IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT A MURDER SUCCESSFULLY BEARING IN MIND THAT THERE MAY BE NO SECOND CHANCES AND THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE & DISCOVERY (THE DEATH SENTENCE) YOU WOULD WANT THE KILLING TO BE ENTRUSTED TO SOMEONE WHO IS AN EXPERT, EXPERIENCED & FIT KILLER SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCES OF FAILURE (ALTANTURYA STRUGGLING AND ALERTING OTHERS OR ESCAPING).

THUS ALL THE PIECES IN THE STORY OF ALTANTURYA'S MURDER FIT TOGETHER NICELY THAT IT WAS PREMEDITATED AND EXECUTED BY EXPERT POLICEMEN OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO THE MASTERMIND BY PRIVILEGE AND TO MINIMIZE THE CHANCES OF FAILURE. THAT THE EXPERT POLICEMEN SHOULD HAVE CARRIED OUT THE MURDER ON THEIR OWN IS AT ODDS WITH THE OTHER PIECES OF THE STORY.

IF RAZAK DID NOT MASTERMIND ALTANTURYA'S MURDER HE MUST BE EXTREMELY UNLUCKY TO BE THE FALL GUY FOR SOME OTHER MURDERER UNRELATED TO HIM OR FOR ROGUE POLICEMEN WHO JUST COINCIDENTALLY DECIDED TO KILL HER WHEN HE IS THE ONLY PRIME SUSPECT WHO HAS MOTIVE AND DECLARED INTENTION TO KILL HER (THROUGH HIS PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR) AND WHOM ALTANTURYA HAD FINGERED (AND NOBODY ELSE) AS THREATENING TO KILL HER. IF HE IS SO UNLUCKY HE DESERVES TO BE CONVICTED EVEN IF HE TURNS OUT TO BE INNOCENT. HOW UNLUCKY CAN YOU GET TO HAVE ALL THE SHIT PLACED AT YOUR DOORSTEP WHEN YOU ARE THE ONLY SUSPECT WITH MOTIVE AND INTENTION TO KILL AND YOU DID NOT DO IT?

The painful consequences of believing in lies:
If you (facetiously or indifferently or don’t care) believe what Razak said that he merely called the policemen in to patrol around his house and told them not harm Altanturya then you are gullible or naïve and you are vulnerable to be cheated to pay dearly even with your life in some future situations that are vital for you to distinguish clearly what is possible is possible and what is impossible is impossible and not as you like to believe that occasionally what is impossible (what Razak contends) is possible.
THEREFORE IF AS A RESULT OF INDIFFERENCE (YOU DON’T GIVE A DAMN) OR ANTAGONISM (YOU LIKE TO ARGUE WITH MY POSITION) YOU CONTEND THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE POLICEMEN UNDERTOOK A ROGUE KILLING, THEN YOU ARE EMOTIONALLY CONDITIONING YOURSELF TO FALSE LOGIC, TO ENTERTAIN FALSE LOGIC THAT WILL BECOME INCREASINGLY BIZARRE SO THAT YOU WILL FINALLY GO MAD WITH AGE OR YOU ARE AT RISK OF BEING CONNED BY OTHERS TO THEN EVEN PAYING WITH YOUR LIFE.
Why Two Policemen Were Up To No Good At Hotel:
Hotel video footage presented in court suggests that the same two policemen who are specialist bodyguards of the deputy prime minister were present and loitering at the hotel where Altanturya stayed on the day before she disappeared.
Their prior presence at the hotel indicates their subsequent encounter with Altanturya in front of Razak's house the next evening is not due to chance but they have done groundwork or targeting leading up to their taking her away from in front of Razak's house.
One must remember that just as these two policemen are expert bodyguards they are not expert investigators proficient at investigating wrongdoing who are the right persons to send to trail Altanturya in the name of gathering evidence to convict her. Further there have been no official complaints or accusations of wrongdoing against Altanturya and therefore the police had no reason to be shadowing her and even if there have been official complaints surely policemen who are specialist bodyguards of the deputy prime minister who are not trained to do investigative work and are likely if not certain to be busy in their official protective duties, are not the appropriate choices for investigating Altanturya.
BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFICIAL COMPLAINT OF WRONGDOING AGAINST ALTANTURYA, THE POLICE IN GENERAL HAS NO REASON TO VISIT ALTANTURYA AT THE HOTEL SHE WAS STAYING LET ALONE LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN WHO ENDED UP KILLING HER WHO ARE SPECIALIST BODYGUARDS AND NOT INVESTIGATORS OF WRONGDOING, WHO WERE FURTHER NOT ACTING LAWFULLY BUT ACTING UNLAWFULLY ON A PRIVATE ERRAND FOR RAZAK, TO VISIT HER AT THE HOTEL. THEREFORE THE MOTIVE FOR THEIR VISIT TO THE HOTEL THE DAY BEFORE ALTANTURYA'S DISAPPEARANCE MUST BE SINISTER, THEY MAY BE PREPARING GROUNDWORK LEADING UP TO THEIR TAKING HER AWAY (INDICATES THEIR TAKING AWAY AND SUBSEQUENT KILLING AND DESTRUCTION OF HER BODY IS PREMEDITATED) OR THEY WERE THERE TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF KILLING HER LIKE STAGING HER SUICIDE BY JUMPING OFF THE HOTEL. (RAZAK'S PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS MAY HAVE BALKED AT DOING THIS BECAUSE THE RISKS TO THEM IF CAUGHT MAY BE TOO GREAT)
THEREFORE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN WERE PRESENT AT THE HOTEL ALTANTURYA STAYED THE DAY BEFORE SHE DISAPPEARED SUGGESTS THEY WERE THERE WITH SINISTER MOTIVES, THERE IS PRIOR PREPARATIONS OR CONTACT BEFORE SHE DISAPPEARED IN THEIR HANDS THAT IS ILLEGITMATE BECAUSE THESE TWO POLICEMEN ARE NOT ACTING ON OFFICIAL CAPACITY BUT ON A PRIVATE ERRAND AND THEY ARE NOT TRAINED TO BE INVESTIGATIVE OFFICERS.

POLICEMEN WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO BE BODYGUARDS FOR THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER MUST BE VERY BUSY PEOPLE WHO MUST ACCCOMPANY THE DEPUTY PM ANYWHERE ON SHORT NOTICE AND THEREFORE EMINENTLY NOT SUITABLE FOR ASSIGNMENT TO PATROL AROUND RAZAK'S HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER AS RAZAK CONTENDED. FURTHER THEY HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE AND BUILD A CASE AGAINST ALTANTURYA WHO HAS NOT BEEN ACCUSED OFFICIALLY OF ANY WRONGDOING, SO WHAT BUSINESS HAVE THESE SAME TWO POLICEMEN TO LOITER AROUND THE HOTEL THE DAY BEFORE SHE DISAPPEARED EXCEPT THAT IT IS SINISTER?

ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOUR INTENTION IS TO DISPOSE OF ALTANTURYA WITHOUT TRACE THEN IT IS PERTINENT THAT YOU SHOULD SEEK POLICEMEN WHO ARE EXPERTS AT KILLING AND COVERT OPERATIONS, WHO CAN DO THE JOB FOR YOU IN THEIR FREE TIME AND IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE WHY THEY MIGHT WANT TO VISIT ALTANTURYA AT HER HOTEL BEFOREHAND TO SCOUT OR EXPLORE OTHER POSSIBILITIES OF FULFILLING THEIR MISSION.
THE PRESENCE OF THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN IN THE HOTEL BEFORE ALTANTURYA DISAPPEARED FURTHER UNDERMINES RAZAK’S CREDIBILITY THAT HIS INSTRUCTION WAS ONLY TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER BECAUSE IT IS FAR FETCHED THAT PATROLLING AROUND HIS HOUSE COULD EXTEND TO ALTANTURYA’S HOTEL AND THAT ROGUE POLICEMEN WHO KILLED WITHOUT INSTRUCTION IN THE COURSE OF THEIR RANDOM CONTACT WITH HER THROUGH PATROLLING WOULD ALSO SCOUT AROUND HER HOTEL WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS. WHILST THEY MAY HAVE INCENTIVES TO KILL HER (EG THE SEXUAL GRATIFICATION OF RAPE) WHAT MOTIVES OR GAINS DO THEY REAP IN GOING TO HER HOTEL?
Altanturya’s Police Report:
The fact that Altanturya was able to make a police report regarding fear for her life at a local police station and it was allowed to stand indicates there is no police coordination, local police at the station were unaware of her significance and she is not officially under taps (because no official complaints have been filed against her) but the attention of the two policemen were private on the behalf of Razak and there was a cock up, it was far more vital to delete the police report than immigration records of her entry into the country.
You should make your lies credible otherwise it incriminates you:
The policemen implicated in Altanturya's murder did not voluntarily involved themselves but by Razak's admission they became involved upon his request to their seniors and therefore if Razak's tendered version of what he requested from the police is untenable or preposterous, it must mean that his actual request (which must exist and he and the policemen must know) is incriminating or cannot be revealed otherwise he would have saved himself a lot of trouble fabricating by plainly stating the truth of what he actually instructed the police to do and therefore that his explanation of what he requested the police to do is untenable must mean he is seriously involved in Altanturya's death more than he concedes (that he merely asked the policemen to patrol around his house and not to harm her).

If in truth he did not ask the policemen to kill her why did he not say exactly what he instructed the policemen?

That his actual instructions to the policemen were to patrol around his house and not harm her cannot be true because unless he is out of his mind, the appropriate response of the policemen's superior would surely have been to get on his phone and contact the local police to arrange more patrols around his house rather than second highly trained policemen who have important duties to perform and can be summoned away to follow the deputy prime minister and therefore totally unsuitable to regularly keep an eye on Razak's house. It is physically unfeasible for such specialized policemen to organize regular patrols around Razak's house as he is supposed to have requested but it is entirely feasible for the local police force to increase the frequency of their patrols to Razak's house.
As the two policemen's senior police officer or the two policemen themselves, you must be out of your mind if your response to Razak's request for police assistance in the form of more police patrol around his house and not to harm her is to second highly trained bodyguards to the deputy prime minister or to yourself as bodyguards of the deputy pm to patrol around Razak's house. Do you seriously believe that bodyguards of the deputy prime minister have nothing better to do than to personally mount patrols around Razak's house and not harm her?
If you think this is untenable then Razak's statement of his request to the policemen must be false and if it is false it must mean that his actual instructions to the policemen must implicate him because if in truth he was not involved his actual instructions cannot implicate him and so why won't he just tell the truth what he actually instructed the policemen?
THE NEW DISCLOSURE THAT THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN MAY HAVE BEEN TO THE HOTEL ALTANTURYA STAYED INDICATES THAT RAZAK’S CONTENTION THAT HE MERELY TOLD THEM TO PATROL AROUND HIS HOUSE AND NOT HARM HER IS FALSE AND IF IT IS FALSE, THEN HIS TRUE INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM THAT HE WILL NOT DIVULGE MUST BE DAMAGING AND HE IS SERIOUSLY INVOLVED IN ALTANTURYA’S DEATH.
What they did not do:
The two policemen did not go to the hotel to interview or gather data because there is no record they informed Altanturya of their arrival and interviewed her.
The two policemen were not keeping taps on her because they did not stay for long, they went up to the floor where she stayed and looked around and left suggesting they must be there to inspect for example for any opportunity for mischief.
IF THE SAME TWO POLICEMEN WHO ENDED UP KILLING HER DID NOT GO TO THE HOTEL TO INTERVIEW HER, DID NOT KEEP TAPS ON HER (DID NOT STAY LONG) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THEIR VISITING HER BEARING IN MIND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE HER AND THEY ARE ON A PRIVATE ERRAND FOR RAZAK?
Hotel’s CCTV shows figures of two men
THE still images from a closed-circuit television system at Hotel Malaya where Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu stayed before she went missing reveal the figures of two men.
The hotel’s operations manager Jimmy Loo Mow Chan confirmed that the shots were captured about 5pm on Oct 18, last year, one day before the murder victim went missing.
The two men – one stout-looking with a receding hairline and wearing a yellow T-shirt, the other lean with longer hair and wearing a white short-sleeved shirt – were featured at the main lobby area, the lobby lifts and the lifts area on the seventh floor.
The first still showed the man in white standing just outside the coffeehouse at the lobby while the man in yellow was heading towards the “information box” where the hotel kept its brochures.
In the few scenes, the two men were seen together at the information box area before they walked towards the lobby lifts and then entered a lift.
Another still showed them facing each other on the seventh floor just outside the lifts. They were then pictured back at the lobby looking as if they were leaving through the hotel’s main entrance.
All these were captured between 4.54pm and 5pm that day.
Loo and his front office assistant N. Haridharan, 22, later confirmed in their testimonies that Altantuya had checked into a room on the eighth floor when she arrived at the hotel at 2am on Oct 9 last year.
They also said that she had changed rooms twice but all the rooms were on the eighth floor.
Loo, 50, said that he had on Nov 10, last year handed over three videotapes containing the footages and 20 sheets of guest folios to the police.
The folios, he said, were for charges made to Altantuya during her stay at the hotel.
“The folios contain charges for the hotel guest such as charges for the room, telephone and laundry as well as coffeehouse bills.
“They will also reflect change of rooms,” Loo said, adding that Altantuya had initially been assigned to Room 817 when she first checked in on Oct 9.
He said Altantuya moved into Room 801 later the same day and Room 821 on Oct 14, last year.
Asked why he had testified last week that one of the photographs of the still footage was captured on the eighth floor instead of the seventh floor like what he said yesterday, Loo said that was what he thought when the police came to take the photographs in May.
No business to be at hotel:
There must be a purpose or intention for the two policemen who are specialist bodyguards of the deputy PM for visiting the hotel otherwise they are mad.
They have no legitimate business to be at the hotel because the Malaysian police did not assign them to keep track of or investigate Altanturya and therefore whatever purpose they had going there must be private as part of the errand for Razak.
Whatever their private business is, it is not to establish contact with her because they never introduced themselves to her nor is it to keep taps on her because they left very shortly according to hotel records.
The fact that they went up to the seventh floor indicates they are interested in familiarizing themselves with the location where she stayed, they were after something that is related to Altanturya.
IN FACT THE TWO POLICEMEN COULD BE CHARGED BY THE POLICE FORCE FOR MOONLIGHTING AND BRINGING THE POLICE FORCE TO DISREPUTE FOR UNDERTAKING TASKS THAT APPEAR TO BE ON BEHALF OF THE POLICE FORCE BUT ARE NOT AND ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE REPUTATION OF THE POLICE FORCE.
She was never under official surveillance:
If Altanturya was under official police surveillance the policemen trailing her would have seen her enter the local police station and contacted the local police station as to what she was doing and who she was but it indicates she is not under surveillance that the local police station accepted her police report ignorant of its significance and who she was.
The people who is trailing her is not the police but private investigators hired by Razak and rogue police officers moonlighting for Razak and because despite their powers or clout they are isolated without eyes and ears everywhere, Altanturya was able to lodge her report unmolested and it was allowed to stand providing an important incriminating finger as to who she thinks want her dead if she should die.
If anybody should know who wants her dead and it then happened, surely she herself would have a very good idea.
IF THE TWO POLICEMEN WERE NOT AT THE HOTEL ON OFFICIAL ASSIGNMENT, WHICH THERE NEVER WAS, THEY ARE THERE ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE INITIATIVE AND SINCE THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO BE THERE IT MUST BE AS PART OF THE ERRAND FOR RAZAK AND THEY MUST THEREFORE BE UP TO NO GOOD.
Altanturya paid for her false logic with her life:
If Razak repeatedly will not see you on many occasions, did not see you when you turn up at his house earlier in the evening with your friends who were probably acting as guardians, it is impossible he genuinely wants to see you if you returned alone but it is a set up with sinister motives in mind and you should not accept the invitation to return alone at night.
Because Altanturya has obsessed (emotionally) regarding seeing Razak for reasons best known to her, her desire to see him distorted her perspective and she believed that it was a risk worth taking going back alone. Razak is not a shy man, why should he be so coy as to only want to see her alone? Any honorable man will see someone who turns out to see him, not let him go and request he return alone.
ALL ORDINARY PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE ADVANCED FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT IS COMPELLING, IT IS THEIR FALSE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT IS DICTATING TO THEM AND WILL PUSH THEM TO A FUTURE CLIFF THAT THEY MUST JUMP IF THEY DON’T TURN BACK AND RE-EQUIP THEMSELVES WITH TRUE LOGIC AND PERCEPTION.
If you asked Najib whether he said what he meant that ‘the exodus from PKR (Anwar’s party) showed no confidence in its leaders’ he is likely to say “definite” or “absolute” and yet he is not saying what he meant because there is always emotional baggage in what he said. If he were to truly say what he meant he must say that “I would like to express my delight and derision at the apparent disarray in the PKR, draw your attention to it so that you can write off the party bearing in mind there is going to be an election not too long down the line.” What he said is an apparently factual statement but it may seriously exaggerate the disarray in the PKR party and the reason he said it is not because it is factual but to extract political mileage and gloat.
You don’t send a factory Rottweiler guard dog to the airport to sniff for drugs nor would you send a drug sniffing dog to ward off intruders at your factory and therefore it is ludicrous and impractical to second highly specialized bodyguards who can be called at any moment’s notice to follow the deputy prime minister to (consistently) patrol around your house or do investigative work regarding Altanturya (if they are not investigating Altanturya why are they at the hotel where she stayed?)
Why you must always say what you mean and mean what you say:
If you do not say what you mean and mean what you say, you must be beset by confusion, doubt and uncertainty (one of three lower fetters to future states of woe that includes hell) apart from a certain mad perception and logic because people increasingly believe and see as logical what they say that they do not mean or do not say what they actually meant.
For instance when Najib said ‘the exodus from PKR (Anwar’s party) showed no confidence in its leaders’ he has many things in mind that he wants to convey not directly but implicitly or he hope listeners will jump t conclusions that he desires. Did he say he was experiencing glee or delight or he wants to mock PKR? If he did not say so but he has the intention in his mind and they are reflected in the emotional way he said it, he did not say what he meant but merely hinting or prompting the listener.
Whenever you speak you must only convey one message and that is what your words mean as they stand or literally not by allegory or aspersions or not calling a spade a spade or with emotional baggage like disdain or anger or delight at others troubles. Otherwise you are conditioning yourself to confusion and conflict that becomes more intense with practice and will end in madness you do not believe you are headed for.
IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE MESSAGES, SOME OF WHICH ARE EMOTIONAL IN WHAT YOU SAY AND YOU DO NOT DRAW THE LISTENER’S ATTENTION TO THEM, YOU DO NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY AND ARE HEADED FOR TORMENT. IN TRUTH ORDINARY PEOPLE NEVER MEAN WHAT THEY SAY NOR SAY WHAT THEY SAY BECAUSE THERE IS STYLE AND EMOTION ACCOMPANYING WHAT THEY SAY THAT IS ALWAYS MEANINGLESS. HOW CAN YOU MEAN THE STYLE (STRETCHING, CHANGING SPEED AND LOUDNESS) OR EMOTION THAT ACCOMPANIES WHAT YOU SAY THAT ARE MEANINGLESS MANIFESTATIONS OF FORCE? BECAUSE STYLE AND EMOTIONS ARE MEANINGLESS YOU CAN NEVER MEAN WHAT YOU SAY OR SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.
NEVER MEAN WHAT THEY SAY:
THE ANGER OR ‘EXQUISITE SOFT GENTLENESS’ THAT ACCOMPANIES WHAT YOU SAY IS ALL ABOUT HOW YOU USE FORCE TO PROLONG, CHANGE SPEED AND LOUDNESS. BECAUSE STYLE, LIKE AND DISLIKE AND EMOTIONS THAT ALWAYS ACCOMPANY ORDINARY PEOPLE’S SPEECH ARE ALL MANIFESTATIONS OF FORCE ARE ALL ABOUT USING FORCE AND FORCE HAS NO MEANING OR ANYTHING EVERLASTING, THEY ARE JUST TRANSIENT (STRESSFUL & CONDITIONING) RECURRING DISTURBANCES OF YOUR AND YOUR LISTENER’S MENTAL FORCE, YOU CAN NEVER MEAN THE STYLE (ANGER OR GENTLENESS), LIKE OR DISLIKE OR EMOTION OF WHAT YOU SAY AND THEREFORE ORDINARY PEOPLE NEVER MEAN WHAT THE SAY (EMOTIONS OR STYLE IN WHAT THEY SAY IS MEANINGLESS) AND NEVER SAY WHAT THEY MEAN (THEY NEVER TELL YOU THEY MEAN TO BE STYLISH, MEAN TO TRULY OR FAKE LIKE OR DISLIKE YOU).
THE FACT THAT YOU STILL INSIST YOU CAN AND DO MEAN WHAT YOU SAY, AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME REFLECT THE INTENSITY OF YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION AND LOGIC (DELUSION) THAT WILL END IN TEARS AND GNASHING FOR YOU.
BEINGS ARE IN THIS WORLD OF SUFFERING (AND NOT HEAVEN) BECAUSE THEY NEVER MEAN WHAT THEY SAY NEVER SAY WHAT THEY MEAN.
Altanturya did not let her yes be yes only:
If Razak has expressed just once that he did not wish to see you then if you let your yes be yes only you accept what he said as truth even if he did not mean it and you let matters rest or forgive him for whatever you want to see him about to allow natural justice to take its course. Alternatively you must explore alternatives like suing him.
If you do not let your yes be yes, you are conditioning yourself to future madness by keeping on pestering him such that increasingly you cannot accept an answer for what it is, you refuse to accept reality and that is certain future madness.
If you offer food to another and he declines it even if secretly he desires it but is playing hard to get or thinks it is below his dignity to accept then you accept his decision right or wrong and don’t insist he change his mind and take it.

Unimaginably Good

Quote: The BBC's Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston says it is "unimaginably good" to be free after 114 days in captivity.
ANYTHING THAT CAN BE IMAGINED IS IMAGINABLE AND TO SAY THAT TO BE FREED IS UNIMAGINABLY GOOD IS SAYING WHAT IS ABSURD AND COURTING MADNESS. IT IS TO HYPE OR EXAGGERATE HOW GOOD IT IS. YOU MEAN TO BE FREED IS ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN?
HOWEVER GOOD IT IS TO BE FREED IT CAN BE IMAGINED BY HIM AND OTHERS AND IT IS MISCHIEVOUS MISLEADING OTHERS TO SAY IT IS UNIMAGINABLE.
HE IS NOT INNOCENT FROM PICTURES OF HIM AND HIS RELEASE AND ESCAPE FROM DEATH IS ONLY A TEMPORARY REPRIEVE IN THE DIVINE SCHEME OF THINGS.
There are truly unimaginable things:
There are things that are imaginable and things that are truly unimaginable.
The consciousness changes after 1977 and in recent years are truly unimaginable because no one could imagine that they are possible before they happened. I certainly could not imagine the consciousness changes that I initiated on both occasions were possible.
If you should argue that similarly the goodness of his release is truly unimaginable to him, you may be right or have advanced false perception and argumentative or antagonistic that will end in doom.
He may feel extremely emotionally delighted to be released but that is still imaginable by him and others.
What can & cannot be imagined:
It is not arbitrary whether something is imaginable or not but what can and cannot be imagined can be clearly objectively defined.
Whatever can occur or are regularly occurring in the existing scheme of things can be imagined by some if not all. If there are some in the community who have experienced captivity and certain death and then been released, the spectrum of elation that they felt can be imagined by them if not by all others in the community and if there are some who can imagine then it is clearly not unimaginable which is used to falsely exaggerate and falsely elevate one’s feat.
In contrast the consciousness changes after 1977 and in recent years which have never been acknowledged by anyone has never been experienced in the scheme of things by inhabitants trapped in earthly existence, that no one could imagine can happen beforehand otherwise they or I would have brought about the change much earlier. Because the consciousness change is an unmistakable change and no one on earth had experienced it before it is truly unimaginable and that is no hype or delusion.
Exclusivity that distinguishes you also finger you:
The very exclusivity that foolish people crave in order to set them apart from others also fingers them because they are not so anonymous.
If Altanturya was a Malaysian girl or resident in this country a case can be made that there are many people in this country who would want her killed but because Altanturya is a foreigner who hardly knows anyone in this country, there cannot be many people in this country who want to kill her let alone want to kill her at the same time as Razak has declared he wants to.
How many Malaysians have Mongolians as girl friends? The number of Malaysians who have Mongolian girl friends who will be automatically suspect if a Mongolian girl was murdered must be a very exclusive subset. If Altanturya was from a more popular country for having girl friends like America or Australia or Indonesia then the subset of people having them as girl friends must be greater. Because Mongolia is an exotic country for Malaysia, there must be very few who have Mongolian girl friends and at the same time want to kill them.
How many people have the privilege of calling the bodyguards attached to the deputy PM to take away Mongolian girl friends who have become a nuisance and know that she is there for the taking alone on a particular night in front of a particular house that is not his?
How many people in Malaysia have access to C4 explosives to blow people up? If you think it is necessary to use C4 when other explosives will do, you just want overkill to show off how special you are, you have mad logic and perception.
How many people in Malaysia can get the immigration entry records of not just someone but a particular Mongolian girl who was murdered deleted? It may in truth be totally unnecessary to delete the records but it reflects perverted thinking to do so.
If very few or no others fall into the criteria that are relevant to this case then the person who matches the criteria must be responsible for Altanturya’s death.
Not knowing what you speak:
If you mean what you say, you know what you are talking about, how is it possible for you to say that it is unimaginably good to be free after 100 days in captivity? Surely you have experienced it and should be able to imagine it and therefore it is not unimaginable. Surely you are aware that there are others who have undergone the same predicament as you or even much worse (spending many years in captivity) and therefore you cannot say it is ‘unimaginably good’?
The reason why he said it is because he is an emotional robot who is spewing out the substance and style of what he said by rote because the emotion of the occasion has overwhelmed him and just wants to hype it up for himself and the expectant audience. A robot never understands the meaning of what it says or does, it only carries out in speech and action what it has been programmed to when certain stimuli are detected and so it is ordinary people are robots who spew out speech without knowing the meaning of what they are uttering.
What is truly unimaginable:
Before the advent of the internet, handphones, car, aeroplane or TV it is true that it is unimaginable for people to imagine live with internet, handphones, etc.
Thus for something to be ascribed as unimaginable it must not have happened to all the inhabitants in a community. For instance the people with white skin may be unimaginable to red Indians before they arrived.
Anwar Case Thrown Out:
Quote BBC headline: Anwar case thrown out.
Comment: If you think Anwar’s court case can be thrown out that implies the use of force to throw you have false perception and it reflects the person is a man of force not reason that he chose the word ‘thrown out’ when he could have said ‘rejected’ or dismissed.
Rejection and dismissing does not convey force and if you believe a court case can be rejected or dismissed, you have correct perception. If you believe a court case can be thrown out you are in danger of being thrown into hell.
Divine & Human Law:
There is such a thing called human law that you can see and know and such a thing called divine law that you may deny or doubt to your chagrin if it turns out to exist.
Divine law is supreme, perfect, serious, far more painful and everlasting in its punishment, inescapable and takes precedent over human law which is relative, imperfect (flawed even wrong), less painful & can be escaped.
Thus in the eyes of human law, Razak who has conceded that C/Insp Azilah and his underling who were seconded to him to resolve his problem with Altanturya killed her without his approval, is blameless and will escape any punishment if it is true he did not order them to kill her.
However in the eyes of divine law, even if Razak did not order them to kill her, he is guilty and punishment is inevitable and far graver than he ever dreamt possible and ignorance (that you are liable for punishment just by calling the policemen who ended up killing her) is not an excuse so as not to incur punishment.
Therefore by acknowledging that the policemen were brought into the affair by him but they killed her without his assent, this is not an unfortunate train of event as viewed by human law but it unwittingly incriminates Razak as guilty with punishment due to him that is far graver and everlasting than he ever dreamt possible. If it turns out he lied, he did request them to kill her in a way as to obliterate all evidence then he has further compounded his punishment.
No one will admit more guilt than he is liable but they will usually admit just sufficient to get away. Thus by Razak’s admission, it was the two policemen seconded to him who killed Altanturya, either because he knows it because he was party to it or he was reliably told by the police that he believed. Therefore it is unlikely if not impossible that someone other than these policemen or their proxies killed her and it is unlikely if not impossible that there is anyone else unconnected to Razak (excludes Najib who is linked to Razak) in this country where Altanturya cannot possibly know many in high places who also knew Altanturya well to want to dispose of her permanently to order the killing. It is impossible the two policemen or their proxies killed her as a random senseless rogue crime because rogue policemen do not have access to C4 explosives or the deletion of immigration records.
How is divine law far more serious, painful and everlasting?
As the Buddha said even a trifling deed can send a person to hell, the man who spat at a private Buddha boiled in hell for hundreds of thousands of years and became a leper and beggar, Jesus said the man who scolds his brother ‘you fool’ is in danger of the fire of hell, you will be judged for every careless word you say, whoever disagrees with the counselor will not be forgiven, not in this Age or the Age to come, such minor deeds as spitting, scolding someone and speaking carelessly can have far reaching painful and everlasting consequences for you, whether you realize or not.
When you are punished here, your agony ends once you pass out or away but in hell there is no passing out. According to the Buddha you can be put on a rack and sharp instruments will be jabbed into your limbs and body repeatedly and you are not allowed to pass away or out until you have repaid your debt.
Karma will pursue you however long it takes. It was said that Moggalana, one of the Buddha’s two deputies who was Satan of one previous eon, had to be bludgeoned by dogged hired assassins of a rival religious faction who kept coming to pursue him even when he made himself invisible to them in past attempts in a final repayment for past debts before he passed away for a last time after ‘dragging’ himself in pain to see the Buddha for a last time. (The Buddha’s two deputies had to and passed away before the Buddha himself passed away).
I Got Nothing To Do With You:
She (Razak’s secretary) said the analyst told the Mongolian woman: “I’ve got nothing to do with you. If you want to do anything, go ahead.”
It would be true if I were to say I have nothing to do with Razak or Altanturya but it is impossible it is true Razak has nothing to do with Altanturya.
If what Razak said is true then Altanturya is mad, wrong or a nuisance to keep trying to see Razak.
Not only is it hurtful but it is not true or a blatant (unconscious) lie that the speaker and most if not all listeners are unaware it is a lie.
(Something said is only hurtful if it is false but emotionally or angrily said as if it is true to wrong the addressed person)
Razak has admitted he had an affair with her so how can it be true he got nothing to do with her? When Razak was trying to get under her pants he would have sworn then he has everything to do with her (and more) but now that he wants to shirk responsibility he has conveniently denied he got nothing to do with her.
Therefore this statement that his secretary quoted that was supposed to cast Altanturya in bad light as pestering Razak and painting Razak as a saint actually indicates he is a liar and shirks his responsibility. Only if he never had any relationship with Altanturya will his statement then be true.
THIS STATEMENT 'I GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU' WAS TENDERED OBVIOUSLY TO CAST ALTANTURYA IN BAD LIGHT AND RAZAK IN GOOD LIGHT WITH ALL THOSE RELEVANT THINKING IT IS SO WHEN IT IS A NASTY STATEMENT AND A LIE THAT CAN EVEN SEND HIM TO HELL AND THOSE WHO PERCEIVE IT AS RIGHTEOUS WHEN IT IS FALSE AND HURTFUL ARE DELUDED AND HEADED FOR PERDITION THEMSELVES.
THIS STATEMENT AS IN MANY OTHER PLACES INDICATES RAZAK IS A LIAR NOT A MAN OF TRUTH AS HE AND HIS ASSOCIATES ARE TRYING TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC. BECAUSE ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE THEMSELVES GUILTY OF DUPLICITY, THEY SEE NOTHING WRONG AND EVEN THINK RAZAK MAY HAVE A CASE TO SAY WHAT HE SAID.
THE NUMBER OF LIES ORDINARY PEOPLE ARE CONSCIOUS THEY PERPERTRATE COMPARED TO WHAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY COMMISSIONED IS LIKE THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG. WHEN THEY FIRST TOLD A NEW LIE THEY MAY EXPERIENCE DISCOMFORT AND BE CONSCIOUS THEY ARE LYING BUT AFTER THEY HAVE TOLD THAT SAME LIE MANY TIMES THEY PERCEIVE THAT LIE AS TRUE OR SEE NOTHING WRONG. JESUS SAID YOU WILL BE JUDGED FOR EVERY CARELESS WORD AND THEREFORE THE SUFFERING DUE TO PEOPLE FOR TELLING LIES MAY BE AS THE BUDDHA SAID, LIKE AN OCEAN COMPARED TO THE FEW DROPS THAT REMAIN IN THOSE WHO ARE NOBLE AND EVEN THIS IS UP TO SEVEN MORE LIFETIMES.
Quote: Siti Aisyah (Razak's secretary) said she and her two colleagues had also been told by Abdul Razak that Altantuya had blackmailed him for money before and that they were not to let her into the office if she showed up.
Comment: This is likely intended to cast Altanturya in bad light or to attack her; she deserved to die. If this is true then it is self incriminating by admitting that Razak has potential motive to kill her and so did he do it? Thus such information is irrelevant to the trial except in the false perception and logic of those involved. Razak cannot now deny that there is no reason why he should want to kill Altanturya because he has admitted Altanturya was abusive (shouted he was a bastard, come out) and blackmailed him.
How many if any high standing others in Malaysia not linked to Razak will have motive or reason to kill her bearing in mind she is not resident here and comes from an exotic foreign country?
"Energy security is extremely important to all nations throughout the world, and of course in protecting and securing Australia's interests," Mr Nelson (Australian Defence Minister) said.
Speak for yourself and do not speak for other nations that never appointed you as their spokesman. Even Australia did not appoint him her energy spokesman so he should strictly speak on his own behalf that energy security is important to him (but not me). Not all nations treat energy security as extremely important and therefore what he said is false and sweeping to exaggerate the validity of his argument or suggest that Australia's involvement in Iraq is totally rational. Because he sees nothing wrong, even thinks what he said is valid, he is headed for mad perception that what is false is true. When you perceive ants crawling all over you and ghosts haunting you when there are none, let me hear you scoff at mad perception.
You want me to believe what you said is true that energy security is extremely important to all nations? If you don't want others to believe it is so, why do you say so? Are you mad?
Do you believe what you say is true that energy security is extremely important to all nations? If you believe it is true then you are deluded because it is impossible that all nations should think so.
Quote: The Latest Twist In The Case
There are no twists in any case but it reflects the predilection of the writer to scandalize or make more salacious a topic that he chooses ‘twist’. The latest development or information or news about the case is more objective or neutral. If you think there can be twists in a case, you like to see twists in things you may be a conspiring twist and turning person yourself heading for perdition not truth and safety.
It is false perception that makes one perceive there can be twists and the latest twist in an event. Whatever happens or comes to light comes to light, twisting is a figment of your false imagination that you want to inoculate into others with karma attached not merit.
If you want to do anything, go ahead:
If you do not know the meaning of what you say then you are a fool who does not know what he is talking about. What kind of analyst are you who does not know what he is talking about? Does he not analyze or reflect on the veracity of what he says?
By saying ‘if you want to do anything, go ahead’, you mean you have no objections, you are totally agreeable which is not possible and therefore Razak is speaking falsely. He clearly objected to her coming to try to see him. If you don’t mean what you say, you don’t know what you say means you may be made to eat your words.
What he would like happen is that Altanturya disappeared and never saw him again.
The frightening truth:
Quote: Michael Booth's road test reveals the frightening truth.
Comment: The truth is just what happened and that cannot be frightening. It is a person’s mental force or specifically emotions that make something perceived as frightening. As the Buddha said that the sage is like a mountain unshaken by whatever happens.
IF YOU BELIEVE TRUTH CAN BE FRIGHTENING THEN YOU HAVE FALSE PERCEPTION, IF YOU ARE FRIGHTENED BY LEARNING ABOUT OR SEEING SOMETHING, YOU ARE A SLAVE OF FEAR IN DANGER OF ANOTHER ETERNITY OF SUFFERING NOT SAFE.
AS THE BUDDHA SAID TRUTH IS THE HIGHEST OF SAVORS SO HOW CAN TRUTH BE FRIGHTENING?
Challenging her not giving her permission:
By saying ‘if you want to do anything, go ahead’, Razak is not giving Altanturya his unreserved permission to do whatever she pleases but he is actually challenging her to do what she wants to do.
Challenges never come from reason, is never guided by reason but challenges come from emotion or mental force. Therefore Razak is a man of force not reason.
You have perverted perception and logic if you think ‘if you want to do anything, go ahead’ is the same as “I challenge you to do anything regarding our affair”. Thus Razak does not say what he means or mean what he said, not just here but in many more places.
If Altanturya had informed his wife about their affair or spoken to the press about their relationship, would Razak be truly indifferent?
Intimidating not challenging:
Actually Razak is trying to intimidate Altanturya. By giving her permission to do anything she wants it implies he is not afraid of anything she might do which will be futile and therefore she would be wise to desist and get lost.
There must be a purpose or intention to what Razak is saying otherwise he is mad. He will be but is not mad yet and therefore there is purpose or intention in what he says, ‘if you want to do anything, go ahead’ and it is to say I am not afraid of whatever you might do and I therefore dare you to go ahead.
What he said and what he meant:
When Razak said ‘if you want to do anything’ what is said is not to support Altanturya for whatever she might contemplate doing but to hint that he is not afraid of anything she can do, and when he said ‘go ahead’ he is not giving Altanturya unqualified permission to go ahead but to challenge her to do so as he is confident he can negate her.
Goats never challenge people who are more powerful than them (eg you would not challenge Mike Tyson to a fight in a ring because they are cowards and big bullies who will challenge people they are sure they will win or prevail over. What they do not realize is that God can make them cowering wrecks and for challenging the weak to an unequal fight they may be fed to the lions in some life to come.
Makes No Sense:
Why should Razak be concerned about anything Altanturya might want to do that he should need to tell her to go ahead if she wants except that he is likely to be referring not to anything she wants to do but specifically to things Altanturya might want to do regarding issues between them.
Therefore when Razak said ‘if you want to do anything, go ahead’ he is challenging Altanturya to go ahead and do anything she may be contemplating regarding issues surrounding their relationship that may be calling her bluff, he is that confident or powerful as to be unafraid thereby discouraging her from taking any actions she might be contemplating.
If you are calling someone’s bluff you are misrepresenting yourself or lying about yourself as more confident or invincible as you truly are.
If you are truly that invincible then you are trying to intimidate someone with what you say, you do not mean what you say that she is free to do anything she wants but you are scoffing at her.
Altanturya is an independent person and does not need anyone or Razak to tell her she can do anything she wants, so why is he saying so? Is he mad or is there an emotional message that is more important or the only aim of what is said.
WHAT RAZAK SAID THAT ‘IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING, GO AHEAD’ DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE BUT WHAT HE IS HINTING AT THAT HE NEVER SAID IS: IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING REGARDING ISSUES BETWEEN US, I DARE YOU TO GO AHEAD BECAUSE I AM NOT AFRAID.
IF YOU THINK IT IS A MATTER OF SEMANTICS, IT IS UNDERSTOOD WHAT RAZAK SAID IS THE SAME AS WHAT I INTERPRETED HE SAID, YOU MAY BE RIGHT OR HAVE LAXED OR CARELESS INTERPRETATION.
From superior fabrications as a requisite comes superior consciousness:
Because as the Buddha said, consciousness comes after and from fabrications, it follows that from poor quality fabrications comes poor quality consciousness and from high quality or virtuous fabrications comes high quality consciousness.
And this has been borne out in practice because when there was a significant improvement of the fabrications (perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing) there has automatically followed a significant improvement in the consciousness state as is evident by the consciousness changes that followed after 1977 and in recent years when significant behavioral or fabrication changes (where there had been none before) brought about alleviating consciousness changes.
No matter who you are, even if you are a stupid person who finds concepts hard to grasp, your consciousness state is not immutable but as the Buddha said, it is determined or governed by your fabrications or how virtuous in speech and conduct, how and what you think and perceive. Although in the normal course of events you experience a steady decline in the quality of your consciousness state as you age, it is possible for a being to experience improving consciousness states if he improved his fabricating.
Therefore the Buddha is prescient and has penetrative wisdom. What he said is true or reflects reality here as in other things he said and you will be a fool to doubt him not realizing there will be serious karma for doubting the highest teacher if he turns out to be so.
COMPARED TO SINFUL EMOTIONAL STYLISH SPEECH AND ACTIONS WITH CONSTANT FORCEFUL PROLONGING, CHANGING SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE, SINLESS, UNEMOTIONAL UNSTYLISH SPEECH AND ACTIONS THAT HAVE NO PROLONGING, CHANGES OF SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE IS INCOMPARABLY SUPERIOR AND LEADS TO A CONSCIOUSNESS STATE THAT IS INCOMPARABLY SUPERIOR.
COMPARED TO CONSTANT STYLE FREE THINKING, SPEAKING AND DOING, TO BE ABLE AT WILL TO SWITCH OFF THINKING, DOING AND SAYING WHEN THERE IS NO NECESSITY IS AN EVEN MORE SUPERIOR WAY OF FABRICATING THAT LEADS TO AN EVEN MORE SUPERIOR CONSCIOUSNESS STATE OF EXISTENCE.
COMPARED TO NOT FABRICATING BY NOT THINKING, SPEAKING AND DOING, NOT TO PERCEIVE NOR NOT PERCEIVE IS AN EVEN HIGHER STATE OF FABRICATING THAT ACCORDS AN EVEN HIGHER STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS THAN THE STATE OF NO THINKING.
He Broke His Promise:
A case could be made that when Razak spoke of “I’ve got nothing to do with you. If you want to do anything, go ahead” he was not denying the past but clumsily referring to the future that thenceforth he wanted to have nothing with her and she can do as she pleased.
In that case he broke his promise because he continued to hound Altanturya by employing intimidating private investigators and as is likely he is seriously involved with her death.
‘I GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU’ CANNOT TRULY REFER TO THE PAST AS IT CANNOT BE DENIED THEY HAD A RELATIONSHIP BUT IF IT IS CLUMSILY INTENDED TO REFER TO THE FUTURE THEN HE BROKE HIS PROMISE TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HER BY HOUNDING HER WITH PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND AS IS LIKELY IMPLICATED IN HER DEMISE. HIS ACTIONS MAKE A MOCKERY OF WHAT HE SAID, “IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING, GO AHEAD”.
Dr M: Anwar has no chance to become prime minister:
Whilst that statement sounds like a very reasonable assessment of Anwar’s potential to become PM in a system that is heavily manipulated to favor the incumbents (opposition deprived of use of the media, election fraud, financial clout of the ruling party), Dr M’s purpose for saying that cannot be objective but it reflects his implacable hatred and need to ridicule Anwar.
Exactly what his intention in saying that may be known; if it is to ridicule, did he say “I want to ridicule Anwar’s chances of becoming PM?” If he did not say so but he said ‘Anwar has no chance of becoming PM’ then he did not mean what he said but what he meant was he wanted to ridicule Anwar’s chances of becoming PM.
Although unlikely, it is conceivable that all the top Barisan leaders may be killed by a bomb or by an earthquake at a meeting and in that vacuum, Anwar may stand a chance of being PM and therefore to say Anwar has no hope is presumptuous.
The implications of what the Buddha said:
(Name me one philosopher or scientist who has taught you that your consciousness state is not fixed but comes from and is governed or determined by how and what you perceive, think, speak and do)
It follows from what the Buddha said that it is not your blameless genes or biochemical processes or the foods you take that govern your consciousness state, how much consciousness suffering or inability to concentrate you experience but it is your fabrications that can only be how and what you perceive (through sight, sound, touch, taste and smell), think, speak and do. And it is how exalted your consciousness state is and not how much medicine or science you know that will determine how long and exalted you exist in bliss after you pass away from here.
If you think your present consciousness state is immutable, permanent, blameless then you have wrong view that may not be harmless but leads to hell or the animal womb according to the Buddha.
Therefore depending on how you sin or abuse yourself and others with how and what you perceive, think, speak and do, your consciousness sufferings (stress, restlessness and inability to concentrate) govern your mind and detain you in the lower realms of suffering.
To perceive, think, speak and move without added forceful prolonging, changing of speed and strength of force is incomparably superior than the default state of all beings here namely the constant (unnecessary) added forceful prolonging, changing of speed and strength of force that persecutes self and others with stress, restlessness and distraction that governs their consciousness state woefully.
To be able to exist fully conscious fully perceiving without thinking when there is no need to think, something ordinary people are incapable of and have never experienced is a higher state in which to exist compared to constant perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing at constant speed and strength of force without prolonging.
To be able to exist fully conscious not only without thinking but without perceiving nor not perceiving is an even higher of state of consciousness.
Once you have achieved discursive thinking and conduct without forceful prolonging, changes in speed and strength of force, you are rewarded with one eon or Age in heaven.
Once you have achieved no thinking, you are rewarded with two eons or Ages in heaven.
By further establishing well the equanimity to joy and detachment to abide mindful and aware, experiencing pleasantness with the body too that the noble ones say mindful abiding in pleasantness with equanimity, he attains the third higher state of mind that leads to four eons in heaven with death.

By further establishing well the dispelling of pleasantness and unpleasantness, and earlier having dispelled pleasure and displeasure without unpleasantness and pleasantness and purifying mindfulness with equanimity attains to the fourth higher state of mind that leads to 500 eons in bliss.

By further overcoming all perceptions of matter (form) and going beyond perceptions of anger, not attending to various perceptions, [1] With boundless space attains to the sphere of space. He becomes fully satisfied in it, strives after it and prospers in it. Becoming intent on it and making much of it, without falling away from it, he dies and is born with the gods of the sphere of space that leads 20,000 eons in bliss.
By further overcoming all the sphere of space with boundless consciousness attaining to the sphere of consciousness he attains a lifesan of 40,000 eons in bliss.
By further overcoming all the sphere of consciousness, with there is nothing he attains to the sphere of no-thingness and attains a lifespan of 60,000 eons in bliss.
IT IS BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE THAT A BEING FABRICATES AND IT IS FORMIDABLE FABRICATIONS THAT STAND IN THE WAY OF THE DISPELLING OF IGNORANCE THAT LEADS TO ENLIGHTENMENT. HIGHER QUALITY OR VIRTUOUS FABRICATIONS IS SUPERIOR TO LOWER QUALITY SINFUL FABRICATIONS AND LESS FABRICATING IS BETTER THAN MORE FABRICATING. THUS NO THINKING BUT STILL PERCEIVING IS HIGHER THAN THINKING AND PERCEIVING AND NO PERCEIVING NOR NOT PERCEIVING ABD NO THINKING IS HIGHER THAN PERCEIVING AND NOT THINKING. THE TOTAL CESSATION OF ALL FABRICATING OR ENLIGHTENMENT IS THE HIGHEST.
IF YOU DON’T CARE, YOU FOLLOW OTHERS TO NOT JUST CONSTANTLY FABRICATE BUT FABRICATE IN PERCEIVING, THINKING, SPEAKING AND DOING WITH CONSTANT FORCEFUL PROLONGING, CHANGES IN SPEED AND STRENGTH OF FORCE THEN IT WILL BE YOUR LOT TO WANDER FROM LIFE TO LIFE BUILDING A PILE OF SKELETON THAT IS AS HIGH AS A MOUNTAIN IN AN EON OR AGE.
A hierarchy of fabricating:
In terms of how long and how well a being’s consciousness is released from suffering there is a hierarchy:
High quality or more virtuous fabrications (perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing) is higher than poor quality or un-virtuous fabrications. Apart from the harmful use of force to prolong, change speed and strength of force there are no determinants of the quality of a person’s fabrications. Therefore do not underestimate the importance of style that is nothing more than the use of force to prolong, change speed, strength and direction in the perpetration of evil.
Less fabricating is better than more fabricating. Just perceiving is better than perceiving and thinking. Just perceiving and thinking is better than perceiving with thinking and speaking and doing.
No fabricating is better than fabricating. No fabricating in perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing (enlightenment) is better than any remaining fabricating.
THEREFORE IF YOU LIKE (ARE ATTRACTED TO) TO PERCEIVE, THINK, SPEAK AND DO THINGS YOU WILL BE TRAPPED IN THE LOWEST REALMS OF EXISTENCE.
The More You Fabricate The More You Suffer:
There is only one principle governing fabricating and it is that the more you fabricate the more you or your consciousness must suffer.
Quality does not come into play where fabricating is concerned, there is only the quantity of fabricating and the more you fabricate the more you suffer.
Having a style in your perceiving, thinking, speaking or movement is not a matter of quality of your fabricating but a matter of additional fabricating the style that attends your fabrications that result in additional suffering.
When you speak or do something with style you must use additional force to fabricate the prolonging, changing speed, direction and strength of force that characterizes your style.
Thus if you do not have to spit or sneeze and you do so you are fabricating more that leads to more suffering no matter how genuine and harmless you think your spitting and sneezing is. If in addition there is prolonging and violent acceleration in speed and strength of force in your spitting or sneezing you must suffer proportionally more than the person who spits and sneezes at constant speed and strength without prolonging.
If you speak (eg saying ‘oh my goodness’) or do something (shake your legs) unnecessarily you are fabricating in speech and motion unnecessarily that will cause suffering to yourself more than to someone who does not and if in addition you say or do what you say or do with stretching, changes in speed and strength of force you must suffer more than a person who speaks and does things at constant speed and strength without prolonging.
If you just perceive without thinking or speaking or doing you suffer less than a person who perceives, thinks, speaks and does.
Smiling Is A Fabrication:
No matter how genuine and wholesome you think your smile is, it is a fabrication just as all expressions with face, body and limbs are. Therefore no matter how you may attest that your smiles and expressions are genuine you must suffer more in stress, restlessness and distraction compared to someone who does not smile or express himself. Further you are conditioning yourself to fabricate such that now the urge to fabricate is very hard to resist and you are headed for torment if you do not turn back.
Perceiving Is The Most Fundamental Fabrication:
There are these four fabrications that a mind is capable and they are perceiving, thinking, speaking and doing.
Of these four fabrications perceiving in sight, sound, touch, taste and smell is the most fundamental or primary, thinking is the next (ordinary people think all the time they are conscious) whilst speech and motion are less fundamental (ordinary being can control themselves not to speak or move some of the time but they cannot stop themselves thinking or perceiving even though it is possible and they have not experienced the incomparable superiority not thinking and perceiving accords).
ORDINARY PEOPLE CAN STOP THEMSELVES OCCASIONALLY FROM TALKING OR MOVING BUT THEY CANNOT STOP THEMSELVES FROM THINKING OR PERCEIVING WHEN THEY ARE CONSCIOUS AND THEREFORE THINKING AND PERCEIVING ARE MORE FUNDAMENTAL AND INVOLUNTARY MODES OF FABRICATING.
Each of these four different types of fabrications can be undertaken either unadulterated or uncorrupted just by themselves or in a fabricated or corrupted way, corrupted by force, with forceful prolonging, changing speed, strength of force and direction where possible. This additional fabricated way or style in fabricating is the universal bane of beings trapped here and in the lower realms and is the only cause of the mental torment they experience and the instrument by which they persecute all others including their ‘loved’ ones.
A person’s consciousness state is governed or determined in a negative way by the quantity of his fabrications. Thus if you are capable of not speaking and not moving but you choose to speak and move a lot, your consciousness suffers correspondingly. A person who has little inclination to speak or do things suffer less than a person who cannot resist talking and doing things.
Thus the person who is not just constantly perceiving and thinking (when conscious) and who speaks and moves excessively (for show to impress or please others) but does so with constant prolonging, changes in speed and strength of force of all his fabrications must suffer much more than the person who does exactly the same but without style or fabricated way of perceiving or constant prolonging, changes in speed and strength of force in his perceptions, thinking, speaking and moving.
Even though ordinary people cannot do so and do not realize it is possible to do so, it is possible to exist fully conscious and only perceiving without thinking or saying or doing anything and this accords that person with an incomparably more blissful consciousness state.
According to the Buddha it is even possible for a person to exist neither perceiving nor not perceiving and this is a higher, more blissful state than one who is constantly perceiving when conscious.
A person who can stop thinking is higher than the person who cannot.
A person who can stop perceiving is higher than the person who cannot.
Why you will regret if you don’t meditate:
Just by sitting still and not speaking (something easier said than done in restless people), you have momentarily stilled the two base fabrications of speech and motion that is always conducted with forceful prolonging, changing of speed and strength of force that considerably reduces the load of fabricating impacting on your consciousness. And as your skill in meditation progresses, your thinking become more calm and reasoned without forceful prolonging, changes in speed and strength that is the requisite pathway to a final cessation of thinking if you manage to progress to this level. How high up after you achieve an effortless cessation of thinking is up to you and your reward is even up to 60,000 eons or Ages in bliss not returning to this world of goats.
THUS THE BUDDHA SAID, ‘MEDITATE NOW CUNDA, DON’T AFTERWARDS REGRET’.
There is nothing unchristian about meditation:
Did Jesus tell you to pray in private or public? He said shut the door and pray in secret and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
The first purpose of meditation is to isolate yourself from the toxic influences of others. Seclusion is the first purpose of meditation to allow you breathing space and time for reflection.
The second purpose of meditation is to stop moving and speaking that again gives your mind some much needed rest so that it can get a hold of itself.
The next purpose of meditation is to calm and slow your thinking making it more purposeful and reasoned rather than wildly, mischievously, dingdong arguing with yourself and others. If you can stop yourself from thinking, then that is a greater achievement. It is universal that anyone who can exist without thinking is happier than a man who cannot stop thinking.
Therefore any Christian who opposes meditation is not a man of reason but an emotional, prejudiced man.
THERE IS NOTHING MYSTICAL OR MYSTERIOUS ABOUT MEDITATION, IT IS SIMPLY AND ONLY ABOUT FIRST ISOLATING YOURSELF FROM THE CORRUPT INFLUENCES OF OTHERS, NEXT STOPPING YOURSELF FROM TALKING AND MOVING (FABRICATIONS THAT NEGATIVELY AFFECT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS) AND THEN WORKING TO CALM OR SLOW DOWN AND RATIONALIZE YOUR THINKING UNTIL YOU CAN EFFORTLESSLY STOP THINKING AT WILL.
The purposes of meditation:
The purpose of meditation is to address the five hindrances.
The five hindrances are preoccupation and worries about matters of the world, ill will (desire to harm others), restlessness, sloth (laziness and torpor (dull, diffuse unfocused mind or sleepiness) and doubt and uncertainty and towards this end one secludes oneself and refrains from speaking or moving and pays attention to the condition of one’s mind and body.
"And when, Aggivessana, the ariyan disciple is possessed of mindfulness and clear consciousness, then the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come you, monk, choose a remote lodging in a forest, at the root of a tree, on a mountain slope, in a wilderness, in a hill-cave, a cemetery, a forest haunt, in the open or on a heap of straw.' He chooses a remote lodging in the forest...or on a heap of straw. Returning from alms-gathering, after the meal, he sits down cross-legged, holding the back erect, having made mindfulness rise up in front of him, he, by getting rid of coveting for the world, dwells with a mind devoid of coveting, he purifies the mind of coveting. By getting rid of the taint of ill-will, he dwells benevolent in mind, compassionate for the welfare of all creatures and beings, he purifies the mind of the taint of ill-will. By getting rid of sloth and torpor, he dwells devoid of sloth and torpor; perceiving the light, mindful, clearly conscious, he purifies the mind of sloth and torpor. By getting rid of restlessness and worry, he dwells calmly the mind subjectively tranquilized, he purifies the mind of restlessness and worry. By getting rid of doubt, he dwells doubt-crossed, unperplexed as to the states that are skillful, he purifies the mind of doubt.
The Buddha is right:
Whether you or everyone in this world likes it or not, you think, not just sometimes but all the time. If it is possible for you to stop thinking and yet be fully conscious and it is an incomparably superior state with which to exist, the Buddha is right and prescient to tell you that.
Only if you do not think or you think and thinking is an unadulterated pleasure and not to think is terrible will the Buddha be wrong.
Whether you or everyone in this world like it or not, you perceive, not just sometimes but all the time when you are conscious. If it is possible for you to neither perceive nor not perceive and yet be fully conscious and it is an incomparably superior state with which to exist, the Buddha is right and prescient to tell you that.
Only if you do not perceive (impossible) or you perceive and it is an unadulterated stress, restless and distraction free pleasure whilst not to perceive is terrible will the Buddha be wrong.
Whether you or everyone in this world like it or not, you like and dislike (your mental force is stirred attractively or repulsively by events), not just sometimes but all the time when you are conscious. If it is possible for you to neither like nor dislike (your mental force is not stirred to be attracted or repulsed) and it is an incomparably superior state with which to exist, the Buddha is right and prescient to tell you that.
Only if you do not like or dislike (impossible because you are frequently speaking of liking and disliking) or you like and dislike and they are an unadulterated stress, restless and distraction free pleasure whilst not to like and dislike is terrible will the Buddha be wrong.
WHETHER PERCEIVING, THINKING, LIKING AND DISLIKING IS UNADULTERATED PLEASURE OR THEY ARE OPTIONAL FABRICATIONS THAT ARE ALWAYS STRESSFUL, RESTLESS AND DISTRACTING IS OBJECTIVE AND APPLIES TO EVERYONE.
If you disagree with the Buddha you must continue to perceive, think, like and dislike incessantly and if you think God sanctions your belief but yours is the pathway to torment then you asked for it.

No One Is A Master Of The Five Hindrances:
If the five hindrances (covetousness for the world, ill will, restlessness, doubt and uncertainty and sloth and torpor) are not relevant to all ordinary people the Buddha would not have taught about them. It is because all ordinary people are beset by them, are detained by them that the Buddha addressed them and taught meditation with the purpose of eradicating them.
No one decides “I shall now entertain doubt and uncertainty” or “I shall now switch off doubt and uncertainty” but the truth is doubt and uncertainty are resident in them because they practice and accept falsity, they only use force to suppress them and present themselves as confident and certain but as soon as their forces of self preservation flag, they are tired or stressed, they are besieged by doubt and uncertainty that causes them to become cynical and scoff that there is any meaning in life.
In the same way, no one is the master of his covetousness for the world, ill will, restlessness, sloth and torpor but they are slaves of their covetousness for the world, ill will, restlessness, sloth and torpor that drive them to do or say things that they afterwards regret.
Because it is the five hindrances that is dictating to you not you who is the master of the five hindrances and they are forceful and conditioning, as you grow old, your covetousness, ill will, restlessness, doubt and uncertainty and sloth and torpor increases and becomes harder to control and you are heading for doom, loss of control and madness.
THE PURPOSE OF MEDITATION IS TO SECLUDE ONESELF FROM THE POISONOUS INFLUENCES OF OTHERS SO THAT ONE CAN KEEP IN TOUCH WITH ONESELF, TO STOP ONE’S SPEECH AND BODILY FABRICATIONS, SLOW DOWN AND RATIONALIZE ONE’S THINKING SO THAT HOPEFULLY A TIME WILL COME WHEN THINKING CAN EFFORTLESSLY STOP AND BRING MINDFULNESS TO THE FORE AND THEREFORE DISPEL SLOTH AND SLEEPINESS.
Men Are Not Born Equal:
Beings are not equal but there is a hierarchy of virtuousness, discernment, wisdom and concentration of the mind that differs from being to being that distinguishes or condemns them.
As Sariputta, the Buddha’s deputy said, the man who is guilty and knows he is guilty is higher than the man who is guilty and does not know he is guilty. The man who is innocent and knows he is innocent is higher than the man who is innocent and does not know he is innocent.
In the same way, the man who can speak without stretching syllables, changing of speed and loudness is higher than the man who cannot because he suffers less and does not persecute others.
The man who can neither like nor dislike is higher or more accomplished than the man who cannot.
The man who can stop thinking at will whilst fully conscious, he only sees and hears and does or not does is higher than the man who cannot.
The man who can neither perceive nor not perceive is higher than the man who always perceives (sees, hears, smells, tastes and touches).
Thus if you are a man who is constantly stretching syllables, changing speed and loudness, constantly liking and disliking and constantly thinking and you cannot see it is so or you think the man who can refrain from doing so is your equal or peer then you have wrong view and the destination of wrong view according to the Buddha is hell or the animal womb. How can a person of wrong view go to heaven?

Style In The Substance

Style In The Substance:
Ronnie Liu: What’s desiltation? You see, flood water being flood water, it’ s not clean. In fact, it is always full of mud (silt) and rubbish. That’s why after every flood, the biggest headache is washing the mud away (desiltation).
Comment: Even those who like to think they are good are emotional and condescending.
Does he need to tell others that flood water is flood water? Is he courting future madness by speaking the meaningless? Because what he said is meaningless it is the style in speech to impress others. Because others are very stupid he is very smart.

The person who lets be yes only as Jesus commanded says: Flood water is full of mud and rubbish which is why the biggest headache after a flood is washing away the mud.
All stylish postures are stressful:
Compared to equivalent non stylish postures all stylish postures are significantly more stressful, restless and distracting. Thus sitting slouched in a posture to express casualness that you want others to admire is more stressful than sitting properly upright alert in a gravity-neutral but not ramrod stiff posture.
The postures people adopt in standing, sitting and lying are partly a reflection of style to impress, intimidate or dominate others and partly driven by innate stress, restlessness and distraction. Because there is significant tension in their minds they have an irresistible urge to adopt tensed postures that also accommodate their desire for style.
You can sit in a given chair in many different ways and the resident stress associated with each style of sitting is objective not subjective and only the postures that are without style generate the least stress, restlessness and distraction.
When there is unnecessary tensing of the muscles, twisting or bending or pulling to one side of body parts, the posture is said to be without style and no matter how you may dispute it is the least stressful, restless and distracting position. In terms of sitting, the lotus position as adopted by the body is the most easeful posture for sitting. If you have not tried it you have no right to doubt it.
Razak Not Najib Is The Principal Villain:
Based on the letter Altanturya wrote in the event anything untoward happened to her, Razak and not Najib is linked to her. Razak made promises to help her but when she came to Malaysia, she was threatened with an engineered suicide by being thrown out of a building that may have been aborted for lack of volunteers to carry out and fear of witnesses since the other girls would not leave Altanturya alone.
In the name of getting what they want for instance the heart of a girl, many make promises that they forget or never fulfil not realizing that they would be made to eat their words and fulfil their promises in a way that is far more painful than they dream possible. So the next time you are seized by an emotional urge to make promises, think twice, you may be asked to fulfil and if you renege and even harm the person you made promises of assistance, you are asking for even more pain yourself.
Here you have Razak and his wife and daughter showing affection publicly (daughter kissed him as he was in transit) but it is just for show and such people are not capable of true love but intense liking for persons they have vested interests in or identify with. People might feel touched but it is all hypocrisy and if you think maybe their affection is genuine you are deluded and in danger of being conned by others.
Conditioning, mutual reinforcement to agony:
A person who is restless will shake his leg with constant acceleration and deceleration in speed and strength of force that will reinforce his restlessness that will cause him to continue shaking with even more intensity and speed that can become agonizing at times.
In the same way, constant changing in speed and strength of force in one’s thoughts, motions and speech (perhaps initially deliberate because it is deemed stylish and in imitation of everyone else) causes restlessness that seizes one’s mind to conduct whatever activities that mind undertake with constant changes in speed and strength of force that is not just escalating the suffering but conditions and degrades that mind that people do not realize will end in loss of control and insanity, mad stress, mad restlessness and mad inability to concentrate.
Again a combination of a desire to be stylish and resident stress causes the foolish person adopt stylish poses that demand multiple bending of body parts eg head tilted to one side, left shoulder and hip presented forward, increased tone or tensing of muscles more than is required (eg to fabricate a stern, aggressive look) and torsion or twisting of body parts around their axes. Such contorted unnatural stylish postures consumes greater energy to produce greater stress, restlessness and distraction that promotes the continuation of such postures because the body is experiencing stress and a stressed body automatically adopts contorted postures.
Overwhelming Incriminating Evidence:
To some people, perhaps reflecting partisanship or antagonism (they will automatically say A if I say B) unless they saw what happened or there is concrete evidence (eg the two policemen incriminated Razak or there is written or audio evidence incriminating Razak) he is innocent in their eyes and because this may not be possible they will insist you cannot make any conclusion based on the evidence produced.
The fact is Altanturya however nasty she may be was murdered by policemen who were bodyguards to the deputy PM with explosives that are available to the Defence Ministry. She was taken away by policemen in front of Razak’s house whom she was desperate to see and she suddenly decided to go back that led to her disappearance after just returning upon receipt of a phone message.
Razak has reason to kill her because of her ‘pestering’ him for money and through his private investigators had made many death threats.
SO WHAT IS THE CHANCE DUE TO COINCIDENCE THAT A WOMAN WHO HAD AN ACKNOWLEDGED AFFAIR WITH RAZAK WHO WAS IN SOME WAY PESTERING HIM THAT HE REPEATEDLY AVOIDED SEEING, WHO HIRED NASTY PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS TO INTIMIDATE AND THREATENED TO KILL HER MANY TIMES BY THROWING HER DOWN THE HOTEL SHOULD SUDDENLY GO TO RAZAK’S HOUSE AND NOBODY ELSE’S HOUSE THAT NIGHT WHERE SHE WAS MET BY NOT JUST POLICEMEN BUT BODYGUARDS OF THE DEPUTY PM WHO TOOK HER AWAY AND SHE WAS FOUND SHOT AND BLOWN TO BITS WITH EXPLOSIVES ONLY AVAILABLE TO THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE THAT NAJIB HIS CLOSE FRIEND PRESIDED AND HER IMMIGRATION RECORDS DELETED?
IF RAZAK DID NOT DO IT, THE PERSON WHO ORDERED IT MUST BE PRETTY WELL CONNECTED TO HAVE THE DEPUTY PM’S GUARDS DO THE DIRTY WORK FOR HIM AND HAVE IMMIGRATION RECORDS TAMPERED. NAJIB APPEARED NOT TO BE OVERTLY INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH HER AND THEREFORE IF RAZAK DID NOT DO IT, THE PERSON WHO DID IT MUST BE CLOSE TO HIM FOR THE KIDNAP TO BE DONE IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE. THE REASON WHY HE WAS SO FOOLISH AS TO DISAPPEAR HER IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE WAS BECAUSE HE DID NOT EXPECT THE MURDER TO BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, WHOEVER KILLED HER MUST HAVE MOTIVE TO KILL HER (NOBODY KILLS FOR FUN WITHOUT REASON UNLESS THEY ARE MAD, RAZAK HAS STRONG ENOUGH MOTIVE AND DECLARED HIS INTENTION TO KILL THROUGH HIS UNSAVOURY PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS), HE MUST BE WELL CONNECTED IN ORDER TO HAVE GUARDS ASSIGNED TO THE DEPUTY PM TO DO THE DIRTY WORK FOR HIM AND EXCLUSIVE EXPLOSIVES TO DO THE JOB AND IF IT WAS NOT RAZAK, IT MUST BE SOME SHEER COINCIDENCE THAT SHE SHOULD DISAPPEAR IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE AFTER RETURNING ALONE SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD LEFT PREVIOUSLY UPON RECEIPT OF A PHONE MESSAGE.
CRITERIA FOR ASPIRANTS TO BE ALTANTURYA’S MURDERER:
THERE ARE CRITERIA THAT MUST BE ALL MET FOR ANYONE WHO ASPIRES TO BE ALTANTURYA’S MURDERER:
MOTIVE: HE MUST HAVE MOTIVE TO KILL HER. APART FROM RAZAK THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WITH MOTIVE TO HAVE HER KILLED. HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THROUGH HIS PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS HIS INTENTION TO KILL.
DECLARED INTENTION TO KILL HER IS AN OPTION AND RAZAK HAD A DECLARED INTENTION.
CONNECTIONS: WHOEVER ORDERED HER KILLED MUST BE WELL CONNECTED TO HAVE GUARDS OF THE DEPUTY PM AND EXCLUSIVE EXPLOSIVES TO DO IT, MUST HAVE ACCESS TO IMMIGRATION PERSONNEL TO DELETE RECORD OF HER ENTRY.
CONNECTED TO ABDUL RAZAK BECAUSE THE ABDUCTION TOOK PLACE IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE AND NOBODY ELSE’S HOUSE. WHY SHOULD A MURDERER WHO IS UNCONNECTED TO RAZAK ARRANGE FOR HER TO BE TAKEN AWAY BY SPECIAL POLICEMEN AT THE HOUSE OF RAZAK WHERE IT COULD BE OBSERVED BY SECURITY GUARDS AND RAZAK HIMSELF? IF IT WAS NOT RAZAK SURELY THE PERSON SHOULD ARRANGE FOR THE KIDNAP TO BE DONE IN A LESS OBTRUSIVE SPOT. IT IS BECAUSE IT WAS RAZAK AND HE ARROGANTLY EXPECTED TO GO SCOT FREE, THE DISAPPEARANCE TO BE WITHOUT TRACE THAT HE DID NOT BOTHER TO ARRANGE FOR A MORE DISCREET SITE FOR ABDUCTION.
Celebrity Can Count Against You:
(If I am not mistaken, Razak’s private investigator or his security guards kept Altanturya engaged whilst they awaited the arrival of the police to take her away. It was testified that the police informed the relevant personnel at Razak’s front gate to keep her engaged until they arrive. It would be a sheer astronomical coincidence that Razak was not involved when he had motive and professed threat to kill her, it was at his house that she was taken away by policemen who were later found to have killed her and his security personnel had been instructed by these policemen to engage her.)
It may seem marvellous to be a celebrity with friends in high places who can arrange everything for you, to go on frequent overseas junkets and have exotic Mongolian girlfriends but sometimes celebrity can also count against you badly.
Altanturya was not a luckless victim of random street crime because she was taken away by policemen and destroyed with explosives not available to ordinary people. Therefore she is a victim of a premeditated murder with motive.
If the person who wanted Altanturya dead was not Razak surely it would be foolish to carry it out in front of Razak’s house instead of some more discreet place that was not incriminating. Instead Razak’s place appear to be a rendezvous because the same police who ended up murdering her were informed about her presence and they instructed that she should be kept busy until they arrived.
Altanturya is not a local woman who may have known many men or people who could have wanted to kill her. How many local men or women of high standing who had access to bodyguards of the deputy prime minister and defence ministry explosives can arrange for her to go to Razak’s house so that the same police who ended up killing her could be informed to come and take her away?
It would be an astronomical coincidence if there exist another Malaysian apart from Razak who has motive to kill her, a foreigner from an exotic country and can also engage killers who used explosives not readily available and are bodyguards of the deputy PM and could get her immigration records deleted. This same person who is not Razak must be able to get Razak’s security men to call the police to go to Razak’s house to take her away.
THUS THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS DAMNING OR INCRIMINATING:
RAZAK HAS MOTIVE AND DECLARED INTENTION THROUGH HIS PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS TO KILL HER BY CREDIBLE MEANS.
THE TWO POLICEMEN WHO ENDED UP KILLING HER WAS SECONDED TO HIM AND HE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.
ALTANTURYA WAS ‘DISAPPEARED’ IN FRONT OF RAZAK’S HOUSE AFTER THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE INFORMED AND THEY INSTRUCTED RAZAK’S SECURITY MEN TO KEEP HER THERE.
SHE APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN SET UP BY A PHONE CALL TO GO ALONE TO RAZAK’S HOUSE AFTER SHE HAD JUST LEFT SO THAT SHE COULD BE TAKEN AWAY WITHOUT HOSTILE WITNESSES.
CELEBRITY CAN COUNT AGAINST YOU AS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE ALTANTURYA IS SPECIAL EXOTIC FOREIGN GIRL FRIEND THAT FEW MALAYSIANS WOULD HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF HAVING, THE PERSONS GUILTY OF CARRYING OUT THE KILLING ARE LINKED CLOSELY TO THE DEPUTY PM AS FEW PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO CALL UPON, THE KILLER MUST KNOW OF PEOPLE IN HIGH PLACES WHO CAN GET IMMIGRATION RECORDS DELETED AND THE PLACE WHERE SHE DISAPPEARED IS INCRIMINATING.
Mad lawyer:
The lawyer and even Razak may gloat about this message that they delighted in having the person who sent it read out in court not realizing this message is not really relevant to the case.
If you think the message is relevant to the case you have false perception that will end in mad perception.
What this message actually demonstrates is that there is bad blood between the Razak and Altanturya camps and therefore indicates Razak has motive to kill her.
What does the lawyer want to prove by asking her to read it in court? He is trying to cast her in bad light, trying to say that Altanturya and her camp are nasty people who deserve to die and nobody should shed a tear for them. So if she deserves to die, did Razak kill her?
Wong Kian Kheong, counsel for Abdul Razak, first asked her to confirm whether she had sent the text message to private eye P. Balasubramaniam.
Burmaa, who appeared shocked to see the SMS in print, tried to laugh it off before she confirmed that she had sent it.
Wong then repeatedly asked her to read the message aloud, reminding her to be serious as she was under oath.
“Just read it. My client is facing a capital offence. Please read it since you sent it,” the lawyer said in a stern voice.
Burmaa then read the message in a hushed tone of voice but was told by Justice Mohd Zaki Md Yasin to re-read the SMS again in a louder tone.
“You must read it with the same tone as you did with the other notes you read earlier. You must be fair,” said Wong, referring to several notes purportedly written by Altantuya that were tendered by the prosecution.
Burmaa then did as she was instructed and read the following (reproduced verbatim):
“You sick f*****s, listen to me carefull ... I’m gonna call his wife ... already report to Mongolian Consulate in Malay ... you chicken s***s are in big problem ... i’ll do my best i promise.”
It Is Razak’s Own Affidavit That Fatally Incriminates Him:
It is Razak’s own unwarranted foolish affidavit he submitted in the hope of getting bail that fatally incriminates him and no one else in Altanturya’s murder.
It is now come to light he has made serious harassment (his private investigators repeatedly intruding in the early hours of the morning into her room), death threats were conveyed through them that even suggests how her suicide could be engineered. This allied to his acknowledgement he had sought unofficial police help ‘to patrol around his house’ and how she appeared that night at his house and his guards informed the two police officers who instructed them to keep her engaged whilst they came to take her away indicates he had intention to get rid of her by killing her and he or his guards (and nobody else) were instrumental in delivering her to the police officers who subsequently killed her. His defense is that he merely asked them to patrol around the house and they went beyond their brief to kill her (something preposterous). It has now come to light that it may have not been an accident but a set up Altanturya arrived alone at the house that night but she had been there earlier with her companions to see Razak and had received a message that Razak would see her if she returned alone.
Piecing all the pieces of information together a person of true logic must conclude it is irrefutable Razak who had expressed intention to kill her is responsible for her being handled to the police who committed the extra judiciary killing and therefore responsible for her death.
IT WAS RAZAK WHO HAD EXPRESSED THROUGH HIS PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS A DESIRE TO KILL HER IF SHE DID NOT LEAVE MALAYSIA.
IT WAS RAZAK AS HE HIMSELF ADMITTED WHO SOUGHT UNOFFICIAL POLICE HELP THAT RESULTED IN THESE TWO POLICEMEN WHO WERE GUARDS FOR NAJIB KILLING HER.
IT WAS RAZAK’S GUARDS AS HE HIMSELF ADMITTED WHO INFORMED THESE TWO POLICE OFFICERS OF ALTANTURYA’S PRESENCE AT RAZAK’S HOUSE AND IT WAS THEY WHO KEPT HER THERE WAITING FOR POLICE TO ARRIVE.
WHAT REMAINS TO BE RESOLVED IS WHETHER HE ORDERED THE POLICE TO GET RID OF HER PERMANENTLY OR THE POLICE OFFICERS TOOK IT ON THEIR OWN INITIATIVE WITHOUT PECUNIARY INCENTIVES TO PLAN AND KILL HER.
Why Razak Is Guilty:
Whether there are other undisclosed parties involved in Altanturya’s death, Razak is guilty based objectively on evidence tendered so far. If you think one cannot be sure then you may have false logic and mad doubt and uncertainty that cannot be assuaged.
No man will admit more guilt than he is in truth guilty of (unless he is acting as the sacrificial goat for someone) but he will admit less than he is guilty of to get away as much as he can.
In his affidavit he has already admitted that he had an affair with Altanturya and he asked for and got the policemen who ended up killing her to patrol around the house. Therefore he is linked to Altanturya and may have asked more of the policemen who killed her than is disclosed.
That he merely asked them to patrol around his house and not harm her contradicts with his employment of two unsavory private investigators who persistently hounded her in the wee hours of the morning and said Razak wanted to kill her and they could be thrown down through the hotel window. Rather than Altanturya purely pestering him, the evidence that she had departed with her companions from Razak’s house but conveniently returned alone on receipt of a telephone message and her belief that Razak will see her alone indicates companions allied to Razak were not just happy to see her go away but was setting her up to be taken away by police.
Even though Altanturya and her companions may not be innocent, she may have blackmailed him, they are far more credible witnesses than Razak and his companions eg the private investigators.
The outburst that Razak’s lawyer was so ‘cock a hoop’ about has nothing to do with the case and is understandable considering the agitated angry emotional state she was in with her friend’s disappearance.
Quote: “You sick f*****s, listen to me carefull ... I’m gonna call his wife ... already report to Mongolian Consulate in Malay ... you chicken s***s are in big problem ... i’ll do my best i promise.”
What the lawyer is trying to paint is that Altanturya and company are nasty people but does this justify killing her or did she kill Razak? If they have been nasty to Razak it actually is supporting evidence of possible motive for Razak to kill her. The lawyer (and even judge) has false logic and perception (that they never dream will end in mad logic and perception) that such innuendos about Altanturya are relevant to the case when it is not and even incriminates Razak giving him cause to eliminate her. The question before the court is who unlawfully her not whether she is bad and deserved to be killed.
Why policemen did not do it on their own initiative:
It is incredible that policemen who were trained bodyguards for the deputy PM will kill Altanturya on their own initiative without clarifying or seeking financial rewards.
If they had abducted her, raped her and disposed of her to cover their crime, how could they as policemen have obtained explosives that are only available to the defense ministry and how did they get immigration department to delete records of her entry into the country. By trying to be too smart in using special explosives and deleting immigration records, the perpetrators point the finger even more incriminating at powerful people and not lesser beings being involved.
BECAUSE IT IS INCREDIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE POLICEMEN WOULD HAVE DONE IT ON THEIR OWN BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE SPECIAL EXPLOSIVES AND DELETING IMMIGRATION RECORDS AND IT WAS RAZAK WHO BROUGHT THEM INTO THIS AFFAIR AND HE HAD DECLARED INTENTION TO KILL THROUGH HIS INVESTIGATORS, HE MUST BE INVOLVED.
Razak Must Be Guilty:
Notwithstanding the involvement of other undisclosed figures, it must be Razak who is involved with Altanturya’s case because he admitted he had an affair with her, he has admitted she pestered him for money (he has motive) and he hired private investigators who intimidated her and told her Razak will kill her and how they might engineer her suicide (declared intention to kill) and it was he who sought the assistance of the policemen who ultimately killed her. It cannot be killing done by the policemen on their own initiative because they cannot have access to special explosives and the deletion of immigration records and it is incredible that policemen told to patrol a house and not harm her without financial inducements, will end up killing, blowing her body up and deleting her immigration records.
BECAUSE RAZAK WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING IN THE POLICEMEN WHO COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT ON THEIR OWN BEHALF OR BY MISTAKE BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT THEN HAVE ACCESS TO SPECIAL EXPLOSIVES AND DELETION OF IMMIGRATION RECORDS, RAZAK MUST BE INVOLVED EVEN IF THERE ARE OTHERS INVOLVED UNDISCLOSED.
Wrong View:
Wrong view is deadly because if you have wrong view how can be in accord with the Father in heaven and the Buddha said that wrong view leads to hell or the animal womb.
If it is possible to conclude based on evidence available that Razak must have done it and you refute or believe it is not possible, you have mad doubt and uncertainty or perception and is headed for future woe.
Razak has admitted in his affidavit that Altanturya has taken from the front of his house by the two policemen who are charged with killing her. Thus if the policemen deny killing her they must account for what happened to her in their custody. If they or others killed her, how can they access explosives that are only available by the Defence Ministry and deleted the immigration records? Therefore whoever responsible for her death must have access to the special explosives and immigration records that suggest they must be people in high places.
Therefore the policemen could not have done it on their own initiative but with the direction of people in high places. They were brought into the affair by Razak who had demonstrated motive to kill her (extortion and pestering him) and declared intention to kill (private investigators employed by him warned her Razak will kill her). If this does not convince you he is involved notwithstanding others being also involved, what else can convince you or do you have mad doubt and uncertainty that cannot be assuaged?
Heinous Crimes Without Perpetrators:
It was Lim Kit Siang who liked (attracted emotionally) to speak of the many heinous crimes without perpetrators in this country of which the Perwaja Affair, Maminco, the British pound devaluation betting fiasco, BMF and many others come to mind.
Such crimes without perpetrators do not only involve financial matters but where human lives are involved in which the most prominent are the cases of Noritta Shamsuddin where someone was charged but he was acquitted and her sexual murder remains a crime without perpetrators perhaps because some high standing people are involved and the case of the Chinese boy who was murdered in the custody of his wealthy guardian where the guard took pictures but he was acquitted.
(In the Noritta case, if there was the accused’s sperm present on her thighs or mattress, the accused must be present when she was last alive because she never got up after the intercourse even if there are traces of others’ sperm in her vagina. Is it so hard to find traces of sperm on items on the room?)
Thus one would be presumptuous that in the case under deliberation the court will convict those charged because it may not be the judge but puppet masters behind the scene that will decide what the verdict is.
The judge may decide that because no one actually saw the crime committed, there is no concrete evidence linking those accused with the crime and the accused all deny they did it, there may be risk in convicting people who may be innocent so the judicious verdict is ‘we don’t know’.
Najib told a lie:
Apparently Najib has denied knowing or ever meeting Altanturya. If the photo of her attending dinner with Najib & Razak is true then he has told a lie and if he can tell a lie here he can tell a lie anywhere else.
If you think he and other politicians are people of wonderful fidelity you may be a deluded fool. Therefore anyone who sides with them, who testifies for them saying they have some decency may be in grave danger of following them into eternity of punishment.
Why dancing is insanity:
The Buddha said that singing is crying and dancing is insanity in the teaching of the Noble Ones.
What productive work are you doing (eg cook rice, sweep the floor) are you doing when you dance? The gratifications in dancing are emotional, you think all the girls are attracted to you because of your suave dancing, you have emotional deluded liking for the particular sequence of movements in the dance or being socially competent or demonstrating your proficiency say in the rumba or cha cha cha or just exercising your body.
A dance is nothing more than a standardized sequence of movements of both feet on the dance floor accompanied by music that may include standardized swaying of the torso and movements of the upper limbs that is entirely for show, it is a ritual that does not communicate any true meaning.
The repeated forceful practice (force must always be used to move your body in dancing) of something that is unnecessary even to levels of great violence is practicing controlled insanity in the name of impressing and pleasing others that with loss of control results in uncontrollable madness as disco dropouts can attest in their maddening writhing in psychiatric wards. You think you are not as stupid as them, you dance in moderation but you may be a fool whose time to be mad has not come yet.
Why disagreeing with the counselor is not forgiven:
Jesus said that if he had not come and spoken you would not have sinned.
Thus if the counselor comes and he speaks in a way that spells out sin precisely that no one has done and yet you disagree, you think it is wonderful to like and dislike, to smile and have style and be nice to others, then you have affirmed you are a man of this world even if you believe you are Jesus’ most fervent disciple who is denying himself and therefore you should be allowed to go your way wherever it takes you, dead end with a ferocious demon in wait or heaven.
Jesus said don’t throw pearls before swine lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you and he also spoke of those who are chosen out of this world that implies that many are incorrigible, will not be denied and it is no use to teach them because their father is the devil and their will is to do their father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has nothing to do with the truth because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
It is not that life here is not very stressful, restless and distracting to ALL here but tough goats will not be denied or daunted, until they run into a brick wall or make a mess of themselves and others they put on their silly smile masks that they think is meaningful and think they are fine and the benefactors of this world. They fake so well they are enjoying themselves they think they are enjoying themselves and want you to join in with their ‘fun’. Anyone who is emotional, who likes and dislikes is subjecting his mind to force and has an unsteady mind under the total influence of force and cannot be truly happy and if you are not happy and try and convert another who is happy to your brand of emotional, excited ‘happiness’, you are heaping karma on yourself.

The Significance Of Altanturya’s Police Report:
I think Altanturya made a police report on the eve of her disappearance saying she feared for her life and that Razak wanted to kill her.
The significance of this report is that unless she is paranoid (and events have borne her fears out), the reports that the private investigators conveyed to her in no uncertain terms many times Razak wants to kill her has credence. This means Razak is lying when he said he only told the policemen to patrol around his house and not harm her.
It is impossible that rogue policemen could have killed her on their own initiative because rogue policemen have no access to C4 explosives nor would want to or can delete immigration records.
Now that police testimony acknowledges that Altanturya was taken into custody it means it is true Altanturya was taken from Razak’s house by policemen and somehow thereafter she was murdered by persons that the police must account for and who could not have done it by themselves for the fact that special explosives were used and immigration records deleted.
How many Malaysians of such high standing capable of procuring C4 explosives, ordering the deletion of immigration records, have links to special policemen assigned to the deputy PM to be able to get them to take her away from Razak’s house and know she will be there at Razak’s house alone that night, does Altanturya, a Mongolian national, knows that would want to harm her? The odds must be astronomical that Razak is not involved.
So many high standing Malaysians want to kill her at the same time?
How could Altanturya, a Mongolian citizen who must know very few people in this country know more than one high standing person (including someone who is in collusion with this person) who would at the same time want to eliminate her as she has informed the police that Razak may be trying? This hypothetical high standing person apart from Razak, who is not in collusion with Razak must be able to get Najib’s bodyguards to go to Razak’s house to fetch her knowing she will be there alone that night and able to procure C4 explosives and get immigration records deleted.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER MALAYSIAN OF HIGH STANDING WHO IS INDEPENDENT, NOT IN COHORT WITH RAZAK WHO KNOWS ALTANTURYA, A MONGOLIAN CITIZEN WITH FEW FRIENDS LET ALONE HIGH STANDING FRIENDS IN MALAYSIA, AT THE SAME TIME WANT TO ELIMINATE HER AS ALTANTURYA HAS PROFESSED RAZAK WANTED TO IN HER POLICE REPORT? THIS HYPOTHETICAL HIGH STANDING MALAYSIAN MUST BE ABLE TO GET NAJIB’S BODYGUARDS TO FETCH HER FROM RAZAK’S HOUSE KNOWING SHE WILL BE THERE THAT NIGHT AND PROVIDE SPECIAL EXPLOSIVES AND DELETE IMMIGRATIONS RECORDS.
Quote Altanturya in police report: That Indian guy told me Mr Razak is rich man, he knows many people here so can easyly put me to jail. They say Malaysia is different from Mongolia and said they know people in police so can easy get me to jail.
If Malaysia law goes like that I cant complane. But true is I didnt nothing to him. Im just normal girl trying to meet my lover who lied to me and promised many things but now want to put me to jail or kill...
If I made mistake Ill never do again. But if something happened to me please check that person.”
Courting Madness:
Razak and those siding with him (eg family, lawyers and friends, even those observing on the sidelines) might emotionally, repeatedly want to believe that despite such overwhelming (even irrefutable) evidence that Razak is seriously involved, it is still possible that it may be someone else who killed her that has nothing to do with Razak.
This is willful forceful or emotional courting false logic and thence perception that what is false (that Razak may not have done it) is true.
AS A RESULT OF SELF INTEREST (RAZAK’S NECK IS AT STAKE HERE) OR PARTISANSHIP ORDINARY PEOPLE HAVE WILLED THEMSELVES TO BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE, CANNOT HAPPEN EVEN WHEN THERE IS OVERWHELMING OR IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE MAY NEVERTHELESS BE TRUE OR POSSIBLY HAPPENED. TO CONTEMPLATE WHAT IS FALSE OR CANNOT HAPPEN CAN HAPPEN IS FALSE LOGIC THAT INCREASINGLY MAKES ONE PERCEIVE WHAT ONE THINKS WITH FALSE LOGIC IS TRUE OR CAN HAPPEN IS TRUE OR FALSE PERCEPTION. THE INEVITABLE END POINT, NO MATTER HOW RELIGIOUS OR GOOD YOU THINK YOU ARE IS UNCONTROLLABLE MAD LOGIC AND PERCEPTION THAT MANY ALREADY HAVE ADVANCED VERSIONS THAT THEY IGNORE OR CAN STILL SHRUG OFF OR SUPPRESS TEMPORARILY.
IF YOU ARE FREQUENTLY COURTING MADNESS BY WANTING TO BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE IS TRUE, WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE IS POSSIBLE THEN YOUR WISH WILL BE FULFILLED WHEN YOU FINALLY GO MAD.
Unimaginably Good:
Quote: The BBC's Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston says it is "unimaginably good" to be free after 114 days in captivity.
ANYTHING THAT CAN BE IMAGINED IS IMAGINABLE AND TO SAY THAT TO BE FREED IS UNIMAGINABLY GOOD IS SAYING WHAT IS ABSURD AND COURTING MADNESS. IT IS TO HYPE OR EXAGGERATE HOW GOOD IT IS. YOU MEAN TO BE FREED IS ETERNAL LIFE IN HEAVEN?
HOWEVER GOOD IT IS TO BE FREED IT CAN BE IMAGINED BY HIM AND OTHERS AND IT IS MISCHIEVOUS MISLEADING OTHERS TO SAY IT IS UNIMAGINABLE.
HE IS NOT INNOCENT FROM PICTURES OF HIM AND HIS RELEASE AND ESCAPE FROM DEATH IS ONLY A TEMPORARY REPRIEVE IN THE DIVINE SCHEME OF THINGS.
There are truly unimaginable things:
There are things that are imaginable and things that are truly unimaginable.
The consciousness changes after 1977 and in recent years are truly unimaginable because no one could imagine that they are possible before they happened. I certainly could not imagine the consciousness changes that I initiated on both occasions were possible.
If you should argue that similarly the goodness of his release is truly unimaginable to him, you may be right or have advanced false perception and argumentative or antagonistic that will end in doom.
He may feel extremely emotionally delighted to be released but that is still imaginable by him and others.
What can & cannot be imagined:
It is not arbitrary whether something is imaginable or not but what can and cannot be imagined can be clearly objectively defined.
Whatever can occur or are regularly occurring in the existing scheme of things can be imagined by some if not all. If there are some in the community who have experienced captivity and certain death and then been released, the spectrum of elation that they felt can be imagined by them if not by all others in the community and if there are some who can imagine then it is clearly not unimaginable which is used to falsely exaggerate and falsely elevate one’s feat.
In contrast the consciousness changes after 1977 and in recent years which have never been acknowledged by anyone has never been experienced in the scheme of things by inhabitants trapped in earthly existence, that no one could imagine can happen beforehand otherwise they or I would have brought about the change much earlier. Because the consciousness change is an unmistakable change and no one on earth had experienced it before it is truly unimaginable and that is no hype or delusion.