Yirah.fi
EN

ajankohtaista · tutkittua tietoa · Raamattu & teologia

Uutta Joukkovaikuttamisen keinot · kirja nyt saatavilla

Tämä on FBI:n tutkinta-asiakirja Epstein Files -aineistosta (FBI VOL00009). Teksti on purettu koneellisesti alkuperäisestä PDF-tiedostosta. Hae lisää asiakirjoja →

FBI VOL00009

EFTA01160176

3927 sivua
Sivut 161–180 / 3927
Sivu 161 / 3927
28 A Manual of Peace: 38 Steps 
towards Enlightened Living 
the example of those people we are 
closest to, such 
as our family and friends. The 
second major influence 
on our formation of discretion is 
ourselves. 
Sometimes we call it the ability to 
be a good teacher 
to ourselves [yonisomanasikAra]. 
Even if you have 
been listening to advice for good 
or bad friends, 
you always have to consider 
advice and justify it to 
yourself before getting down to 
EFTA01160336
Sivu 162 / 3927
following the advice. 
If you have accurate discretion 
when you consider 
things, even given faulty data, you 
will have 
the common sense to see through 
the discrepancies 
and come out with the right 
decision required 
by the situation — unlike the man 
with unreliable 
discretion, who even when given 
reliable data, will 
come to the wrong conclusion. 
Usually we have to learn discretion 
from the example 
of other people by transactions 
EFTA01160337
Sivu 163 / 3927
with them 
first, before we can calibrate our 
"auto-didactic" 
discretion and come to accurate 
conclusions independently 
— because in the beginning we 
have no 
idea what constitutes a sensible 
decision and what 
constitutes neglect. Thus when we 
are learning discretion, 
at first we are very vulnerable to 
the example 
set by others. The example they set 
us may calibrate 
the way we think for the rest of our 
life. Thus 
EFTA01160338
Sivu 164 / 3927
a correct example has the power to 
correctly calibrate 
our thinking for the rest of our 
lives — but 
conversely, a faulty example may 
damage the way 
we think for the rest of our life. 
C. PROCESS OF ACQUIRING 
DISCRETION 
C.1 Benefitting from others 
without catching 
their bad habits 
Every time we have a transaction 
with a person 
it is like a negotiation or 
tug-of-war between us 
to see whose discretion will brush 
EFTA01160339
Sivu 165 / 3927
off who. In a 
situation where people are unable 
to recognize 
good or bad examples of 
discretion, then the exchange 
of "discretion" will be like osmosis 
flowing from a point of high 
concentration to a 
point of low concentration. If 
Person A has a lot 
of good discretion and Person B 
less, then Person 
A's good discretion will tend to 
brush off on Person 
B. If Person C has a lot of bad 
discretion and 
EFTA01160340
Sivu 166 / 3927
Person D less, then Person C's bad 
discretion will 
tend to brush off on Person D. In 
practice though, 
as adults with a degree of life 
experience, we don't 
passively let others' habits brush 
off on us. If we 
are able to recognize good habits 
and good discretion 
then we will open ourselves up 
especially 
to absorb them. However, if we 
recognize bad 
habits and bad discretion, then we 
will try to protect 
ourselves from picking those 
EFTA01160341
Sivu 167 / 3927
habits up. Thus, 
normally we are selective— and 
try (to the best 
of our ability and discretion) to 
pick up good habits 
while avoiding the bad ones. In 
this way, we 
can have transactions with others 
without losing 
our own virtues under their 
influence. You can 
compare it to visiting someone in 
hospital who 
has a fever. You can visit them, 
talk to them and 
console them — you can do all 
these things without 
EFTA01160342
Sivu 168 / 3927
catching their fever, but you would 
try to 
avoid having them sneeze over 
you. 
There are some sorts of patients 
and some sorts 
of illness, however, that are so 
dangerous that 
we cannot afford to have any 
transaction with 
that person. Such diseases like the 
plague are so 
contagious, that it is not safe for 
healthy people 
to transact (specifically come into 
physical contact) 
with them. Such patients, by the 
EFTA01160343
Sivu 169 / 3927
nature of 
their disease need to be nursed in 
an isolation 
ward with no visitors. If they were 
animals, they 
would be put in quarantine. When 
considering 
the transmission of discretion, 
there are some 
cases of those so contagiously 
infected with 
faulty discretion that despite our 
immunity or 
our efforts to be selective, we will 
nonetheless 
be infected by their faulty 
discretion. Even if we 
EFTA01160344
Sivu 170 / 3927
started with healthy discretion, it 
would be undermined 
by the strength of negative 
discretion 
of those people — what more the 
danger if we 
are still inexperienced and 
impressionable (perhaps 
still children or lacking world 
experience) 
and don't even know what it 
means to be selective? 
These quarantine victims of faulty 
discretion, 
whether intentionally so or not, are 
the first 
and most fundemental obstacle we 
EFTA01160345
Sivu 171 / 3927
will meet as 
we try to acquire blessings 
in 
the Manual of 
Peace we call such people by the 
technical name 
of "fools". 
Blessing One: Not Associating 
with Fools 29 
D. FOOLS: BEARERS OF 
CONTAGIOUS 
MISAPPREHENSION 
D.1 Definition of a Fool 
A fool is someone wicked, or 
weak, or feeble. They 
are made feeble by the fact they 
habitually think, say 
and do things that are 
EFTA01160346
Sivu 172 / 3927
unwholesome. The root of the 
lack in common sense by which 
they can justify 
such unwholesome behaviour is 
the fact that they 
don't have their mind centred or 
under their control. 
To call such a dangerous person a 
"fool" might 
seem like an understatement —
because some fools 
might look like a proverbial giant 
punching sandbags, 
a frightening prospect for a 
rhinocerii, let 
alone a fragile human being. Thus, 
how come we 
EFTA01160347
Sivu 173 / 3927
use the term "feeble" for a fool? A 
fool is made 
weak like a person made weak by 
a serious disease 
— we do not fear him on the basis 
of his strength 
or knowledge or ability to think 
but because his 
disease is dangerous. 
D.2 Four Human Strengths 
Human beings have four different 
sources of power: 
I. Physical Strength: different 
people are endowed 
with different degrees of physical 
strength. Anyone 
with plenty of muscles and no 
EFTA01160348
Sivu 174 / 3927
disabilities is 
endowed with the first storehouse 
of power. 
2. Strength of Knowledge: derived 
from one's background 
of education and the experience of 
passing 
years. Having the ability to apply 
educated 
reasoning in useful subjects is the 
second storehouse 
of power. 
3. Strength of Thought: Some 
people go through 
the same number of classes 
together. They have 
an equal amount of knowledge, but 
EFTA01160349
Sivu 175 / 3927
their ability 
to think through things using their 
knowledge 
may not be equal. Some people 
know so much, 
but it is of no use to them when 
they come to 
think things through. Someone 
may know how 
to mend an engine but sits idle all 
day long. Why 
don't they offer their services as a 
mechanic? Or 
earn their living in the engine 
business? Sitting 
around all day long, waiting for 
someone to come 
EFTA01160350
Sivu 176 / 3927
along and find work for them...? 
We can blame 
this on their having knowledge but 
not using the 
knowledge as part of their 
thinking. Thus, if anyone 
uses both their strength of 
knowledge and 
their strength of thought, they are 
at great advantage 
because they are endowed with the 
third 
storehouse of power. 
4. Strength of virtue: When one 
has both the 
strength of thought and 
mindfulness of what one 
EFTA01160351
Sivu 177 / 3927
is doing, when one is using one's 
knowledge and 
thought to perform good service to 
oneself and 
others, one is endowed with the 
fourth storehouse 
of power: strength of virtue. 
The human being has the potential 
to be endowed 
with all four storehouses of power: 
physical 
strength, strength of knowledge, 
strength of 
thought and strength of virtue. 
Even if someone is endowed with 
(some of) these 
storehouses of power, if their 
EFTA01160352
Sivu 178 / 3927
judgment is faulty, 
they will not be able to put their 
power to full use. 
If, for example, a foolish guy is 
physically strong, 
and may be qualified as a professor 
with a Ph.D., 
with plenty of knowledge, but 
without the ability 
to think properly, he will be want 
to apply his mastery 
of chemistry for dishonest 
purposes (e.g. distilling 
heroine). Thus even if you are 
endowed with 
only some of the four powers, you 
can still be classified 
EFTA01160353
Sivu 179 / 3927
with the fools 
and those powers 
are not 
used to their full potential. At the 
most a fool can 
use only three of the storehouses of 
power. They 
can use only three of the four. Like 
a four-cylinder 
car in which only three of the 
spark plugs fire — it 
is of no use to anybody. If you 
have a four-cylinder 
car, all four need to work in order 
to get benefit 
from any one of the four. Thus, if 
you know 
your `cylinders' are damaged, you 
EFTA01160354
Sivu 180 / 3927
don't need to 
wait until none of them are left 
firing before you 
go for mending! 
In conclusion, when we define the 
meaning of a 
fool as someone weak or feeble, 
we can see more 
clearly now that it means that they 
are weak or 
feeble in doing good deeds. Now 
that we know 
about the risk they present to our 
discretion and 
know a little about the reason for a 
fool's weakness, 
the next challenge that faces us is 
EFTA01160355
Sivut 161–180 / 3927