A New Letter from the Teacher
A Dear friends, peace to you and your home!
I am very glad that you manage to pass in an interesting way the examination which has appeared in your life path.
In some of your letters you express doubts in regard to the correctness of your reactions to those who in the past sorrowful events have readily assumed a significant blaming role.
It should have become clear to you from the Teaching that as a conventional enemy you can designate only those who consciously seek to do maximum harm to your basic interests in life.
The commandment to “love your enemy” does not, of course, imply that you should make every effort to express any admiration or enthusiasm for them.
Loving the enemy implies above all those righteous efforts against yourself, when you will not condemn those who persecute or hate you, when you will not show your dislike towards them in every possible way and when, if they find themselves in need of help that threatens their health and life, you will do your best to help them without reminding them of their past negative deeds.
At the same time, if you see the harm done by them and think it favourable to prevent it, you may well turn to the rights that are stipulated in the existing society.
But in such a case be extremely vigilant and do not in any way allow false testimony.
Do not do what your enemies usually readily allow themselves.
There are conscious and unconscious perjury.
There are situations where a person is well aware that he is intentionally fabricating a false accusation against someone, or there are cases where a person fabricates a lie while sincerely believing in the truthfulness of what he is saying.
The unconscious perjury can successfully be based and actively flourish precisely on your subjective assessments and assumptions.
Man has a very strong psychological predisposition to treat his own conclusions and understandings as the most correct information.
In this connection, throughout the history of human society on Earth, a great deal of fateful misunderstandings and inadequate manifestations have always arisen and continue to arise.
When I studied the testimonies of those who complain or condemn, I saw that all these testimonies are based precisely on the belief in the correctness of their own judgements, some of which are completely ridiculous and even comical.
As I told you earlier you will have an opportunity to become acquainted with this educative material, because everything documented by the investigators will certainly be given to us for review.
All this documented material will remain with us.
A lot of it is very educational.
Two persons well known to you, who with their identical false denunciations played a role in putting us in prison conditions, did not realise at all what they had actually been skilfully involved in by the sophisticated professionals of the investigative agency.
I think that these two well-known personalities did not at all give importance to the fact that false denunciation is punishable by law and by the standards of the secular society.
My friends, I see from some of your letters that many of you naively believe that the investigators will be able to understand and stop the inappropriately initiated persecution.
All that I have been forced to confront has clearly demonstrated a completely different circumstance.
Our investigator has no intention whatsoever of looking into what happened to us objectively.
The investigators, like obsessed people, are trying to gather as much negative evidence as possible, no matter how poor the quality of the evidence might be.
And the opportunity to deal with all this accumulated agglomeration will be left to the judicial process.
As I was to see, the investigator has only one interest – to make sure that we are not only guilty, but that our guilt can be great.
This one-sided interest has proven to be capable of pushing even into a malfeasance that you have all become aware of and where inhumane methods of violence and intimidation have been used.
The duration of pre-trial investigations depends above all on whether the investigator is reasonable and adequate or whether he or she is capricious, trying to extend the process to the maximum legal limit, which, in the case of the charge of grievous harm, can be stretched to a year.
I was able to find out about this willingness to be capricious at a specially arranged meeting with me without the presence of a lawyer.
But at the same time the whole process that is happening to us may also be affected by other circumstances.