Seeing the wood from the trees

The flag analogy is useful here for what we meant by looking in the early days. Ghost 2013

(Not a transcript but the jist of a conversation I had last night.)

Friend: So if theres no you, then what makes each of us so different? What makes the uniqueness of each of us?

Me: Well basically, our personalities are actually shaped by our experiences. Seeing as no one has an identical experience, that would account for the variety.

Friend: So what your saying is there is no set personality from birth?

Me: Well certain things are hard wired in to us. A good book to read would by Anthony Wilson's Prometheus rising. That is a great book on the subject. He basically explains the way in which a human has a default OS as it were. For instance when we are born we have a hard wired response to given stimulus that we can not be aware of. At this point we are a blank slate.

Friend: I've not read it, you sent it me a while ago

Me: Do you ever remember the story of the giraffe that thought that a jeep was its  mother. It was at an African reserve and because it mother died during birth and the ranger discovered it. Now at this point a critical circuit is hardwired in to us, a bond is made with the mother object. Why do you think feral children grow up in the way they do?
They basically have only the hardwired survival imprints triggered. The organism bonds with a mother. This has to be a hardwired instinct. A lump of meat that comes out of a womb doesn't know shit, it can't distinguish friend or foe. It has no experience so the pattern matching faculty picks the first object and makes this the mother figure. Usually this works a treat but as we've seen this goes wrong sometimes, as in this case!
Anyway I'm basically saying certain things are conditioned in to us and as further conditioning takes place this gets to be very complex.

Friend: So what your saying is the human experiment they have never managed to do, where you clone two people and if you put them in to seperate environments, see if they will turn out differently or not. From what your saying, you think they would be different?

Me: Certainly they would be different but they would have certain similarities. Its not like you actually choose to be good at drawing, this stuff is already in you I guess. I would be very interested to see how this experiment turned out. I would say it would be a mixture of genetic and enviromental factors but I would say they would turn out differently because it is in the early stages of life where you are conditioned to take on some certain personality traits, obviously if your family were religious nuts or alchoholics, you would get different results. Then after that the people at your school, if you get bullied by people, or you become a bully, there are so many different factors. From my experience conditioning has a big influence  but to say this caused me to have this personality, is probably not the full story, so I would have to conceed its likely a mixture of genetic and conditioning factors. There doesn't need to be a "you" for this to occur though, it just happens anyway.

Friend: This does sound crazy but its very deep shit!

Me: Basically all you have to do is look and you can prove it, for instance; take a look at that flag and tell me what you see.

Friend: I see the national flag, it stands for the nationalism of the country, the people....

Me: Hah, there you go, you weren't looking at the flag, you were telling me what it means. This is what I see... a metal pole and some material flapping in the wind

Friend: Ohh I understand you now, I've seen something like this before

Me: Now what you have to is apply it to the self, basically the illusion of self is constructed of thoughts, imagination, memories and projections. These are real and exist in reality however, the construction of "you" itself, is actually an illusion. If you tell me about what self means e.g I'm a journalist etc... your actually not looking at reality, you are being distracted by the meaning of it.

Friend: Ok

Me: I can tell you are open to this, I could use your help here, your writing style is very effective and as you have done sub editing before, your spelling and punctuation is loads better than mine. We are looking for people who can communicate effectively to kill this lie.

Friend: Right I'll take a look at what you say, I can help you with the writing aspect of it.

Me: Ok cool but you have to cultivate some honesty to do the looking. Thats all you really need; courage to see it through to the end and the honesty to look at reality non judgementally.

Friend: Ok do you want another beer?

Me: Errrr.... go on then

The science of non - attachment part II

Quite evident this, nothing new really, but more insight in to how consumerism does not make us happy. Ghost 2013

So we have ascertained that the false self projects itself on to any external object it can, in order to perpetuate the illusion of a thinker behind the thinking. We also discussed the idea that all thought, no matter how trivial, is serving one function... taking us closer to survival by means of gaining survival and replication value. Or simply S+R value.

From here we can take our thought experiment and expand from our car.
So you bought a car from my garage and your not happy about it now, so I'll do you a deal, you can have the Ferrari and I'll put the original engine back in and sort out the handling sound fair? How about if I offered you a 3 wheeler? If you were non attached to the car you wouldn't care so much if you were seen in a Reliant Robin, hey its only a car right? Never mind, heres the keys to your Ferrari.
Ok now how do you feel? Seriously close your eyes just for a minute and imagine a Ferrari outside. How does it feel?
Pretty good huh?

Ok so you got a Ferrari and everythings still the same, you got the same job, same house, everythings still the same. A month has passed now and the novelty of getting all the heads turning as you drive past is getting a bit old but its still pretty cool. Occasionally you wish that you could just pop down the shops without everyones jaws dropping but oh well, I can think of worse. You take a look at your life and you think well nothing has really changed, I got a nice car but somethings still missing.

The honeymoon period from getting the car is over but nothings changed too much. You  yearn for that feeling that you had when you first got that car but as luck would have it, right now, I'll give you a Lamboghini for free. Yes you heard that right. A free Lamboghini. How good is that? Wow you just got that new car feeling again, how awesome is that? Come on, I've just given you a Lamboghini for free and you already had a cut price Ferrari. You should be ecstatic right now. Isn't this what you always wanted?

Ok two weeks later, the fun has gone a way a bit quicker this time and everything is back to normal again. What can we do now to make you happy? How about I buy you a mansion, I'm serious. Do you want the one with the swimming pool? No problem. Ok you have this, you have the cars. Everything ok now? Good.
Roll on two months. Its nice to have a mansion and the cars, you still have to work the same old job and lets face it, its a little lonely living in a mansion on your own. I tell you what I'll introduce you to this girl I know she's very attractive. Well what do you know you hit it off and 3 months later she actually wants you to marry her, she might be bit of a moneygrabber, she seems the party girl type but your just enjoying the moment right now and you have fun together.

There is a term going round at the moment that I think is pretty good a discussing the mindset we have right now, its called deferred happiness. I believe it was Tony Robbins who came out with this. Maybe we would disagree on the cause of this but we are in agreement on the symptomns of it. Its deffered happiness because it implies one day when when certain conditions have been met, then we can actually decide ok... I'm going to be happy now. So where is the threshold that we can actually turn round and do this? You think about it, you go through school and then your told to pick a college course you may be interested in. Your told to work hard and then you can get in to university. So you finish college and to be fair it is an acheivement in itself. How did you feel when you completed college? Take a look back but do yourself a favour, please use absolute honesty when you do this.

Did you find that once you got your results back it was a good feeling, you went to tell your parents and they said well done and then all of a sudden it was like wow two years, now I have a piece of paper. I expected to feel a little bit different than I do now. "Well done son, now you can get in to university".
Now all of a sudden, no sooner have you completed college, the goal posts have been moved. Two years of your life to get that piece of paper, then all of a sudden, you get to the finish line and then what? "It's ok, you have just run 10 miles but now you have got to do the marathon next. Come on theres no time to hang around get moving!".

Woah, now we got three years to go. Fast forward, rinse and repeat when you finish university. You get your worthless media atudies degree (sorry for being cynical, I did anyway I'm in the same boat) and then you have the joys of walking out in to the workplace. This jobs market where you need a degree to get a shitty job that you despise and has no interest to you. You wake up every morning thinking fuck this bull shit, I can't be arsed, your boss is a cunt, most of your co - workers consist of utter morons, who you would never give the time of day to but when it comes xmas you feel obliged to send them a xmas card just because they sent you one... even thought they don't like you either. You keep telling yourself everything will be alright once you get the promotion, once you get a new job, once you get a relationship, once you get the car, blah blah. Everyday you look on the TV and in the magazines, you see all these people living the life you can only dream of, you want to be just like them. You see people with all this stuff, they are prettier than you, have more stuff than you, the message everyday is BUY THIS STUFF AND ALL YOUR PROBLEMS WILL BE FIXED.

You see those slimy politicians lying to you every day, you stand by and watch as your civil liberties become eroded and accept the fact that you are living in a police state. No worries its ok, I'll turn a blind eye, now if I can just move out of this apartment in to a bigger house. Now you have all this stuff, you become the boss, you got respect, you start to put your money away in to a pension, you can afford it among the car insurance, contents insurance, Utilities insurance, credit card insurance, mortage insurance, holiday insurance, loan insurance, life insurance, hell even your pet insurance, you can sleep with total peace of mind now. You decide to have a family, then you can be happy. You spawn a litter of fucked up selfish brats to replace yourself (thank you Irvine Welsh =D) You find they want and want all the latest shit, your wife won't fuck you because she doesn't want to become pregnant again and she hates the stretch marks on her stomach. One of you cheats, the marriage falls apart, you only get to see your kids on weekends now.
Never mind, its ok you can be truly happy when you get your pension. Oh wait sorry to tell you this someone has embezelled it all and spent it on luxury holidays, I'm very sorry, you can take them to court if you want? Don't have the money, oh well, there nothing we can do sir, I'm very sorry. You saved all your life in to the pension scheme and then they flip you off, theres nothing you can do.

As you lie on the bed in the government old peoples home as the nurse wipes your arse because you can't do it yourself, you stare blankly at the TV. Look its Big Brother 69, this time they have to do each other twice in the arse or they get eliminated form the house. You sigh and put your palm on your face. You look back at your life and think what did I really acheive? Then you think about your impending demise, I wonder if there is a heaven will I go there? A tear comes to your eye as you realise that in actual fact there is no such thing as heaven and once you die thats it. You look back on a wasted life chasing the dream, the carrot dangling from the stick that they tied to your head. Maybe a few people will turn up for your funeral but the world will just continue, life goes on.
You call this life?

Could so easily have been me, I started out on this trail but from a young age I knew I didn't want this kind of life. Its rather a bleak view of life but I saw so much misery and suffering around me and none of it was over anything in particular. I mean its not like we were living in Africa and had no food. Yet we have the highest rates of depression in the west, how can that be when in reality most of us have a roof over our heads and 3 meals a day? Maslow's hierarchy of needs is met for most people, so what is it that makes us so discontent?

Lets go back to the situation where I've just given you the cheap cars the mansion and even a relationship. Nothing has changed, you just have this stuff. Your life has changed some as you have just got a girlfriend but underneath all this appearance level stuff, you are still you. We have done nothing to fix you, you still have the same problems, we've just pasted this stuff over your problems. You thought this shit would solve your problems right? You thought this would make it all ok and your struggle would disappear?

You still have to work for a living but no worries I'll give you a job with my company. All you have to do is collect your wage, I'll pay you double what your on now for doing nothing. Still not enough? How about a private yacht or a helicopter? That should keep you occupied for a year. You can party hard everyday, you don't have to work. I would go snowboarding all the time, that would be fun. What other stuff can you do? Hell go travelling round the world for the rest of your days. How awesome would that be? Do you think at any point you would feel unhappy? Surely you have everything that everyone want, you have absolutely no right to be unhappy? Surely you must never argue with your girlfriend? Surely all those hanger onner's you have picked up along the way are your true friends? Surely everyone respects you when they are nice to you? Surely nothing bad happens to you anymore? Everyone wants to be just like you, everythings perfect now right? Surely you can't desire anything more than this? This is the accomplishment of success in other peoples eyes and your own standards right?

We all want this one way or another, theres no denying it. You know what though? Its not the answer to your problems. We can throw all these objects at you but we have done nothing to sort out you. Have you ever heard of those stories "The lottery ruined my life?". How can this be? They have everything they wanted thrown at them all at once and they can't handle it. Its like they have all this stuff and the they yearn for how things used to be because of all the hangers on and the changes they encounter. These are rare occurrences though and in reality we usually see people accumulating wealth over time, so this is only an extreme form of this but for the average person, what does success mean to them? What point can you consider yourself to be succesful? When you've got a mortage on a semi detached, a Ford Focus, a spouse and kid? How do we really measure success or again, are we dealing with constantly moving goalposts...

So we look at all this and then say what have we really learned? From the example I used, all thats really been demonstrated is that if you acheive your desires for material goods it doesn't guarantee you happiness. You'll have up days and down days still, people will still irritate you, people will still walk over you like they always have if your a submissive type, you may get bored of snowboarding all the time, you'll still be an emotional wreck, you'll still have relationship problems, you'll still be a crackhead or whatever. This stuff don't get fixed by material goods. Its The last ones a clincher though, can you get bored of partying all the time? Yes you can, its not so difficult. It does get tiring after a while. Try backpacking round the world, you literally have days when you cannot touch a beer and you often realise I haven't been sober for a month. But as for having enough money to go travlelling for the rest of my days that would be awesome. I would totally love for that to happen. The world has so many magnificent places and cultures, I would truly love to see it all. Yes this is something I truly desire.

Does this cause me any suffering? Remember "desire is the root of all suffering" was our riddle this time round. I can say categorically no. Does not winning the lottery cause you any suffering? I doubt it. Yet we all desire this. Now there is something called wishful thinking, Here there is desire but guess what is mising? Thats right, we generally don't form an attachment from such things as there is the knowledge of the fact, that it is something that cannot be obtained in objective reality; bar extreme cases. Theres no point in forming an attachment on something the body cannot obtain. Hey... I don't make up the rules of the cognitions of an organism but generally, there is no attchment to these types of things, although I'm sure we know the types who spend loads of money on loterry tickets.

So going back to our example again, if someone gave us all that stuff would we really want it? Fuck yeah! That would be totally awesome lets not beat around the bush. The chances of it happening are pretty minimal but Do you desire this to happen? sure, I know I do. Do I desire a lottery win? Yes Do I desire a Ferrari, loads of money? Yes its a very real part of us to want this stuff, we know this from our own experience. Is this really so bad? Think about this, when do you ever get down about not having this stuff? I mean maybe on occasions you may think I wish I could win the lottery but its not as though you ever get upset about it.
If we are realistic about it when do we think; if I don't have a Ferrari people will look down on me? Like never, ever ever innit like... Sorry for writing like a spaz there but its pretty simple if we look at things there is no pain when we desire something that we cannot obtain realistically. So desire is not all bad right? Now lets look at it another context. Lets look at it from the point of view of something that can be obtained in objective reality.

To be continued...

Message to a friend

Trying to impose my views on an English teacher lol! Nothing of value here. Ghost 2013

Ok, lets talk about it.
Basically there are two types of people, those can summon up the courage to look at the truth and those that can't. I mean fuck it its really that simple, either you look and get free or you don't look and what that means is you are afraid to see if there is any truth in it, which I will admit.... at first it seems scary.

Fuck it does, those words are potent "there is no you, you are an illusion". The self is threatened by these words, the lie will do all it can to avoid being unveiled. This is the point where you have to have so much faith in your belief that there is a "you", you have to put it to the test.

Do you have the conviction to put your belief to the ultimate test: Reality? Do you believe so strongly that there is a "you"? If so then put it in the fires of truth and see if it comes out through intact on the other side.
Yes you need to have faith in your belief to do this. Do you really have so much faith in your belief?

You may think why should I test it? But now someone has called in to question your belief. I have bought this to your attention. Can you ignore this doubt, or would you rather resolve it once and for all? Remember just saying I know it to be true is clinging to your belief, not testing it. Can you turn your back on this doubt and sweep it under the carpet? Or for once in your life can you test the shaky ground you stand on.

But really... there is either taking a look and seeing if its false or seeing if it could in fact be true. You are right to be curious and cautious. Do not take my word for it, you have every right to be skeptical and should be too. Don't trust this, test it.

It takes courage to look at the truth and honesty. Not everyone it seems is capable of both. The opposite of truth is cowardice.
It is not a lie that is the opposite of truth, it IS cowardice quite simply.
The only thing to do is either ignore it and walk away or look to see if its true or false. If its false you can go back to your life in the knowledge that everything you believed is true.

I implore you to muster up the courage to look but if you choose not to then I respect your decision as I won't push you any more than this. I will never mention it again and things can go back to normal. But should you ever need the missing piece of the puzzle hit me up.

A brief discussion on suffering

Naive tone throughout this discourse, however, one important part is the distinction between pain and suffering. The rejection of 'life is suffering' is contradictory to Buddha's teachings, and I see that suffering can permeate through life, as it is inherent to our goal seeking mechanism. Life is suffering and struggle by its very nature, although we may try to deny it - which was exactly what I tried to do when writing this post. It is quite clear that I was trying to avoid suffering and deluding myself. All beings and creatures struggle at times and although we might not be in pain all the time we are prone to suffering, we are human after all. Now, there is a distinction to be made between physical pain and suffering and I guess that was the only point of value here. I was clearly not enlightened and I still suffer just like everyone else from time to time. This avenue is worth exploring further, and I hope to gain more insight through meditation here. Ghost 2013

Thats the thing. the innitial instigation OF suffering is pain. i mean, it sounds obvious, but its often overlooked, or the pain is seen as suffering and then judged as wrong or something, reinforcing and perpetuating the pain and creating suffering. buddhas thing of "life is suffering" isn't really right. its more that life is pain, which is then reinforced by subjectivity and spins out into that feedback thing. i mean, its like calling a severed limb an injury and the phantom pain afterwards an injury too.

Totally with you there. "Life is suffering" don't fly and negative thoughts and feelings are useful to an organism so as such, should not be judged as good or bad. There is no suffering now just pain that arises and then fades away. It's innacurate to say we suffer anymore, because suffering is the cognitive dissonane caused by the feedback not the pain itself. Sometimes you get caught up in it briefly and then you go back in to presence and its more like an annoyance.

Although, unpleasant emotional experiences do  not become any more pleasant as such and its not as though we can suddenly stop mulling shit over when it hits the fan. I've just been so used to calling pain suffering I've never actually distinguished between the two until now.

So pain is just a constiuent part of the experience of life that arises and fades away. Its the same as saying happiness is life. It don't mean nothing, although suffering is a major constituent part of life filtered through a false self. There you go, are we safe to add "life is suffering" to the proverbial scrapheap too?

The only thing that holds suffering together is your thoughts about it. pain = good. suffering = bad. knowing the difference = hard. This is my experience anyways and the preceeding sentence is full of subjectivity too. from a life thats seemed to be strung together from one painful event to another I kinda spun this web, seeking pain, cos pain is feeling, and i've been so apathetic to just about everything for so long that serious strongly felt emotion was something that i aspired to experience. But that same apathy also had with it a kind of fearlessness which led to... well... not a lot of actual suffering, despite the horrible things that happened in that life. Above i should have said "avoiding pain" instead of "avoiding suffering" really

Yeah its a subjective sentence but its true objectiveley kind of thing... Pain is useful, suffering is not.

I was geared towards avoiding pain at all costs, I felt strong emotions so much I always wanted to avoid them. So we are polar opposite in that respect but I know all about being strung from one painful event to the next. As I said before I've been so caught up in labelling suffering and pain as the same thing, its only now that it makes sense to make a clear distinction, or in fact we actually CAN make a distiction between the two.

Its a psychological thing more than anything really. its a game people play with themselves. the fear of the pain reinforces its significance so when it does happen it becomes intolerable and so inflated with false purpose that it seems like the end of the world. Think about them guys on wall street that throw themselves out the window when they go broke. Thats the worst thing they could imagine ever happening to them. not the actual thing. the thought of it. its their whole life purpose and it all comes crashing down in an instant. all the suffering that preceded the climax culminating in a gigantic explosion of pain that was so intolerable they couldn't go on living with it a second longer.

Yeah right, seen this happen before. Som guy near here got ripped off with 250,000 dollars so he threw himself off a building. Theres so much identification with this stuff its insanity really but the thing is people can actually realte to this and I'm sure you have heard people say "if I was him I would top my self too". Of course it may be a bit in jest but theres just an assumption that any of this stuff is profound or meaningful in some way.
There was a guy mxxxxxxx, from xxxxxxxxxxx.com (i recon he's enlightened, others dont, i'm not pushed) but this exact thing happened to him. he went broke. entire world view shattered. and that moment was when he realised he didn't exist. the self in his head committed suicide rather than his physical being. I'd call that cowardice and an explanation for his weakness. but its an entirely plausible way for a person to realise they're not really there by accident.

I read the whole 40 - 50 pages of that battle one sunday afternoon and from that it motivated me to post on RT saying I'm not going to stand aside and spectate anymore. I would guess he was "enlightened" too from his description but the same thing happened to Tolle in a way, the arse just fell out of the concept of self suddenly. Interestingly that guy seemed to be against enlightening other people. I can't be arsed to look but I distinctly remember him saying I don't like what RT are trying to do. I would say that motivation is preserving his "reverence" as an enlightened. If everyone was ewnlightened he wouldn't be so special - loss of perveived status/ value.

Fuck this is so simple. Its so obvious the brain is simply doing this programmed routine. Timothy Leary proposed this years ago its bang on the money. Even suicidal thoughts are rooted in survival initially. The suffering and feedback spirals from pain which has a positive intention for an organism i.e to alert the organism it is moving away from survival. Its the dissonance that spirals out of control with a large momentum of feedback and it can even overwhelm together people if the circumstances are "tragic" enough e.g your example.

What are the stats for depression? I'm pretty sure that 1 in 2 people get depressed in their life time or is it more? I'm surprised that everyone can hold it together so well when there is this filter of insanity on everything. Its mind blowing really...

 oh. and the desire thing.
"I want x thing because it would be cool to have and would add value to life in some way"
"I want x thing because it will define me and say something about me"
only one of those will lead to suffering. regardless of what its applied to its the motivation that ties people up in knots.

Yeah true both kinds of thoughts do arise, even now the second kind of thought still arises but its not bought in to anymore. The motivation then would be the brain moving towards value in either case so that figures but the second type, is just a conditioned version of the first one basically. In fact I'm going to use the idea that there is no intinsic motivation other than survival and this would originate in the form of "object". Then after that there is a thought about a thought. Check your experience do you still have type 2 thoughts and then you realise that you don't need to buy in to it anymore? I can say they have drastically cut back but they still arise sometimes, even though the brain has seen that there is no self. So the desire is rooted in the object itself then an attachment is formed or it is not. There are two distinct stages; desire then attachment or non attachment to the object or outcome.

So then we would have to say desire comes from the survival instinct so then you would say: "survival is the root of all suffering" and then its a simple case of saying life is the  root of all suffering because it is the product of survival and we can whittle it down further to  simply "life is suffering".

However we know this to be false as the suffering actually only arises through attachment, we are proof that non attachment = no suffering. Then we have resolved desire is the root of all suffering and life is suffering and we can shove them both in to the same fetid trash can.

Utterly foolish here. I guess the notion of suffering again seemed absurd to me at that time, however, desire is the root of all suffering and it makes no sense to conjoin this with the survival instinct. Indeed it is rooted in it but trying to merge them is clearly absurd. Ghost 2013

My two-pennerth worth: http://v4vivality.blogspot.com/2011/02/suffering-soccotash_22.html
I may end up linking to that post actually when I get to the last stage. It really is that simple how thought influences suffering, you have done a good job of explaining it for the layman. The fact is the frame of reference to the suffering influences it. Mind over matter, simple as. Remeber that guy who fell down the mountain and his mate cut the rope and he crawled down. Survival instinct so strong he crawled miles with a broken leg. The body would have taken over from the self (well thats already happening but from his view through the illusion) and the pain would only have been felt when he stopped to take a breather. In fact I remember him saying something along the lines, All I could think of was getting down to the bottom. That is not him deciding to have courage, this is the raw survival instinct of the organism. FFS every reply here is a blog post in itself, this is the last time I'm talking to you lot unless I get some free time!!! ;)
I think I've just resolved the pull of survival and push of death, in this case it would clearly be the former. When under stress this is the thought occuring, I've gotta watch touching the void again. Needless to say the guy in this would be like: "I didn't know I had it in me". Thats right because theres no you to control this inner strength, there is just the body  in survival mode working overtime.

Here's a thing not on suffering per se but, I see McKenna mentioned here, and it reminded me of a phrase he and many others use. "The integrated state". What does that mean? There is no you to be integrated, so what's being integrated? ... You're character/ego. It's probably un-killable, as such the only thing to do once you're enlightened is to stream line the ego so it fits with enlightenment. It would explain why so many stooges put forward "you are love" and "you are consciousness" they are reshaping the egos of their followers to integrate their ego into the flow of reality. Problem is that integration is not enlightenment and without enlightenment integration is useless
I've not read Jed's stuff, thats the fifth time this week I've heard his name... I really ought to check him out.

The science of non - attachment part 1

A post about attachment to material possessions, perhaps common knowledge now but it may be useful to the layman or someone who has never investigated how shallow consumerism really is, and the effects that it has. Ghost 2013

I want to discuss with you the dynamics of the concept of non - attachment.
Non - attachment is a Buddhist concept but it actually fails as a premise for the average truth seeker. This is because non - attachment cannot be realised through self. I stated this in my last entry so I will paraphrase what I wrote just to recap:
Non - attachment cannot be realised through self, its like a man made out of lego saying "I don't want to be plastic".


From this metaphor we can see that attachments are actually the construction material of the illusion of self, like plastic is the material the lego man is made from. Without attachments there cannot be a sense of self  Like our man made out of lego, each piece builds up to form a complex model except the difference is, the lego man is an object that exists in reality, what we perceive as ourself or "you", "yourself", "your personality", "your life" is not an object that exists in reality, it is simply a complex illusion of thought patterns.

So we are ready for one one of Buddha's most well known bit of scripture:

"Desire is the root of all suffering"

Ok, in order to make sense of this we need to first look at how desire works on a normal level, define the root of this desire and then take a look at suffering with many detours along the way :)

First though lets look at why non - attachment cannot be realised through self....
When you have not seen the universal truth of "there is no you", non attachment is simply a pipe dream because you are living life through an illusion of self. This illusion is primarily made up of  thoughts, memories, projections. Whether its thoughts related to an ex girlfriend, next weeks holiday your looking forward too or thoughts about the present moment. These thoughts give rise to attachments from which a false sense of self is drawn.

How can you choose what you attach to?
The answer is, you can't. Because the illusion of self is made of attachments, anything that arises is attached to by the illusion. This is why resistance to the idea of no self is so strong. It almost sounds like science fiction. Really its not so difficult to comprehend, its just that so many attachments are formed and constantly drawn from it, that it literally seems insane to say there is no self. Fortunately however this discrepancy in reality and what we percieve as our experience can easily be reconciled by looking in reality with absolute honesty.

Since we have actually already looked in reality and seen there is no "you", no "ego", no "self" or any other entity behind the thoughts, actions and experience in any way, we can look at the subjective nature of thought and see how it tries to manifest objectively as a self.

Since there is no thing in reality that can be construed as self, we can deduce that "you" is composed of external references or labels which we will call attachments. As a thought pattern trying to manifest itself in reality, the illusion of self will take every opportunity to jump on to attachments. Thats why there is no choice about this, it is automatic. Thats why you can't conciusly choose to not feel hurt when you fall out with your lover for instance. Even if you hate their guts and you have humiliated them, why do you still hurt? It is through this attachment that suffering arises.

Where do thoughts originate?

A thought arising is the product of the mind. We can say thought is requisite in a human, in order to drive it towards survival. We see that in every species, an organism is hardwired to go towards survival and reproduce. Even if lemmings do self terminate, their drive in their useful lifespan is survival and replication and we even see in certain species that once mating occurs the organism dies. Evolution is ruthless but the drive towards survival and replication is the driving force behind an organism, we cannot deny this.

So when exactly do we NOT have thoughts related to survival? The answer is NEVER. The end product of every thought is rooted in survival and replication, we can take any thought you like and trace it back. The base level of the thought is rooted in the organisms drive towards survival and replication value, lets just call this S+R value for easy reference. Conversely, if we were not driven towards survival it would be counter intuitive that an organism would have thoughts about survival. We simply wouldn't have this capacity if it had no benefit to an organism. We have already seen from direct experience that when necessary, direct thoughts about survival do occur.

So I've got a few quid saved and I have a thought about buying the "Mona Lisa".
What has buying an expensive painting got to do with survival?
Lets look at the key things in terms of survival:

1. Its a status symbol. Displaying wealth can be helpful in displaying qualities or putting out a certain message to people. Whilst this is debateable in some circles, there is clearly a perception of this or else why would people feel the need to have status symbols. By displaying your status you are showing that you have higher status than others. This goes back to our evolutionary psychology. Our ancestors status symbols could have been animal skulls or bones through the nose. Higher status in the tribe often ensures more respect for your family (survival) and better pick of the gene pool. (replication).

 2. You have an asset that will increase in value. If you sell it you have more bio - survival tickets (money), if you keep it and pass it on when you die, you are ensuring that your offspring  will have a greater chance of surviving. They will be able to cash it in for more bio - survival tickets or have the status symbol also. You have just given your offspring a better chance of surviving and having higher status in the human tribe.

What other things can we get out of this purchase?
What if you are a lover of fine art and you appreciate the picture or you have a big ego as it were and you want to look good to other people or impress your artsy fartsy friends? We can lump the latter with our S+R pile but as for the appreciation of fine art, is that something that you are passionate about or are you more interested in making people have this impression of you?

Hmmmm interesting, lets not forget to use total honesty by the way. We won't answer this one but if you look with absolute honesty with this, maybe you can get a good insight, if you don't cling to the delusion of self too hard.

Maybe your still not convinced yet anyway.

 Lets take a car. Now I'm going to buy a Ferrari but I'm not too sure, maybe I could just buy a Mercedes and pocket the difference. Both are status symbols but one has more status associated with it.

Which would you choose and why. Ok first lets live within our means, can we really afford the Ferrari or in fact is it going to affect our survival prospects? We may have to go without food at the end of each month and if I loose my job or am ill, I could get in to arrears. My anxiety will increase, I will have no bio survival tickets, my children will get anxious and my partner might get angry at me for getting us in to this mess. Is this what you really think?

Or does the thought "I can't afford it" just arise. If this is the case, (well it is with me anyway), where then is it rooted? The positive benefits of this purchase do not outweigh the negative impacts and perceived threat to the bio survival equilibrium. Hence the thought patterns are triggered to actualise the S+R drive. "I can't afford it" is taking you closer to survival.

Sometimes we witness that in some people, the drive towards survival can actually make them get in to debt as the perception of status is so important to them. People call them stupid but really all they are doing is following their drives and they are more susceptible to the affects of advertisers.

With the mercedes, I can afford the monthly repayments and I get the same perceived benefits but its no Ferrari never mind. Why don't you buy a second hand Ford Focus, they are really cheap right now.

So why don't you?

The bio survival equilibrium would be tipped heavily one way, with all that money left over you could invest it in to a few diferent pies, your kids could go to university and you can go on holiday next month.

Now heres the clincher...
Which one increases our perceived S+R value? Would it be the Ford? I think not. As I mentioned before, the basic drive in a human is to move towards survival and climb a status ladder of sorts, going back to our evolutionary psychological drives. Of course the survival benefits of ensuring your kids go to university and having a holiday next month to keep the wife happy are good and all but our status is not increased from doing this. We want the good feelings from purchasing consumer goods. Saving the money and buying the Ford ain't gonna cut it.
Our purchase of the Mercedes will be perceived to increase our S+R opportunities hence we have a situation where people are literally "chasing status" over and above all else.

The advertisers know this all too well.
Yeah thats right... you are being f**ked with big time. They are f**king with your head. They know you are hard wired in this way and all they are doing is simply manipulating you. It is genius really, it is so clever how it is done. How do you sell someone a new car? Make them think there is something wrong with the one they already have. Its like the fashion industry, it chops and changes so often, why is this really?

How do we know this is true?

Simply because if given the choice, you would have the Ferrari. You could argue that  you like the fact its faster and it handles better.

So I'll do you a deal, I'll make the Fiesta as fast as the Ferrari by putting a Ferrari engine in it, I'll uprate the shocks and make it handle just as well as the Ferrari.
Now which one would you choose?

Would you still tell me you prefer the look of the Ferrari? Ok To make it fair, I'll downgrade the Ferrari engine to a Ford Focus engine and downgrade the suspension and make it handle like the Ford Focus used to.

Which one would you choose now?
Hmm... now I've f**ked with things. The image you have in your head of each of the cars has been changed. It ain't the same thing your buying anymore. Theres a little more difficulty in the decision.

Why?

Its only a car I'm offering you.

A car you can use to get from A to B.

Nothing has changed there. However we have f**ked with the perceived image or the S+R value that you think can be derived from it. If your like me, you probably think that neither are really that appealing anymore.

Who cares now? No one knows or gives a f**k that the Ford is the same speed as the Ferrari. The Ferrari wouldn't feel the same now because it would have a farty little engine in it and the image that you were buying in to is not there. All those spotty boy racers would blow you away and people would probably chuckle when they heard the farty engine of your car and you would be cursing it when the top end of 120mph is reached on the motorway.

I've taken away the value of the luxury item and increased the value of the non luxury item. The advertisers work the other way around but we are merely doing a thought experiment. If all you wanted was a fast car that handled well, you could take the Ford and if you just wanted to potter around and look good you could take the Ferrari right?

To make up for it we will sell either car for the same price. Remember I've got a shotgun pointing at your genitals, you have to buy one :)

Ok so you drive away from my forecourt.... and take your new purchase home. So your friend comes round and sees the car on your driveway. "When did you buy the new Ford?"
Would be the first question asked. Just now you would say "and guess what"!
"What?"
"Look at this".
You would excitedly open the hood and show the Ferrari engine crammed in to the Focus.
"How awesome is that? I've even had the shock absorbers uprated it handles the same too!".
"Yeah its cool and all but its only a Ford Focus".

Ok so you drive away from my forecourt... and take your new purchase home. So your friend comes round and sees the car on your driveway. "Wow!!! When did you buy the new Ferrari?"
Would be the first question asked. Just now you would say "It looks the part don't it"!
"Yes, it sweet, lets have a look at the engine"
"Err... look the seats are leather, check out the interior".
You would open the door and show your fiend the smart interior of your new car.
"How awesome is that?"
"Yeah its cool lets have a look at the engine then and lets take it for a spin".
You open the hood and there is the poxy little 6 cylinder engine.
"Its only a ford focus engine dude, this car is a fake".

BAM!!!
Please tell me how you would feel in each situation. At the end of each of these little scenarios would it be safe to say you felt a little insulted and you would have to defend yourself? Would you volunteer to show the engine of the ferrari? Would you be able to contain yourself from telling everyone about the Ferrari engine in your Ford?

Yet the car says nothing about you?
Then why would you feel the need to defend it and sell its strong points and hide its weak points? What does the car say about you?
The problem is, you have formed an attachment with your car.

Yes an attachment.
An attack on the car, is actually an attack on your false sense of self. Thats why these comments would hit. Your judgement and sense of self would be called in to question and you would feel the need to defend this. Why, its only a car that you use to get from A to B?
At what point does a car become a part of you? Of course this is when the false self latches on to external objects, to create an illusion. These attachments are the mental construct of the illusion of self. Whether you like it or not you have formed an attachment. You don't have a choice in this.

To be continued....   

Enlightenment "DeBuNkEd"

Oh dear. This is a pitiful post written by someone who had no clue what they were talking about. Oh wait that was me :) I have edited some parts out and toned it down where necessary. Ghost 2013

When we talk about enlightenment, immediately we think of Hindu gurus, Buddhist monks, meditation, chanting, impossible yoga poses, self enquiry and a whole host of other things. Its probably a perception by those who have no clue about spirituality, that it takes ten years of meditating all day to become enlightened and its some magic thing that happens to mystics etc... This is what I used to think anyway and it turns out I was totally wrong. Whilst universal truth can be obtained this way, it all revolves around a central core idea which I will share with you shortly. If you meditate long enough, there is no way that you cannot see it eventually.

I see Buddhist monks accepting offerings of food every morning on the way to work. I see a whole religion built around enlightenment right here, where I am living. It kind of makes me chuckle. I wish I spoke Thai well enough, so I could tell one of the young monks "you don't exist" and explain them to look for the lack of a thinker. Maybe it would save them 10 years of their life beating around the bush trying to solve the riddles and koans layed down by Buddha!

Tell the monks about anatta, are you for real Mr virus? Ghost 2013


 But there again its like me telling some ideologically blinded christian that there is no god. Then they just cling to their delusion and reject everything you tell them and revert back to their circular logic to justify why they have their belief.

The bible is the truth = the truth is the bible

I am having thought because I exist = I exist because I am having thought

The problem with enlightenment is, its a false grail. It is seen as the paragon of human accomplishment by many.
Some even think you have to build up spiritual power to be worthy of being bestowed such an honour.
This is just a preconception based in.... well.... nothing as simple as it is.

As Shakespeare put it "Much ado about nothing!"

The whole thing is a complete load of bollocks, it is literally nothing, truth be told.

ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT REAL, THERE IS NOTHING TO ENLIGHTEN

Very narrow minded and incorrect. Ghost 2013

 You see the problem with the enlightenment thing, is people
mean it to take that "you" attain enlightenment. As if there is some entity that becomes enlightened at the end of it all.
Then all your fears, all your problems disappear by magic and you continue to live happily ever after as yourself. You
have attained enlightenment, you are all wise, all seeing, in touch with the infinite, its stil the same but with all the negativity taken away, only joy is left.. blah blah blah....

There is a degree of truth here but it was grounded in the wrong place. Ghost 2013

Nothing could be further from the truth. You no longer derive your sense of self from these things, is the crux of it all
because it is realised that...no self = there is no "you" as such behind the thinking and actions.

Don't get me wrong there is inner peace and clarity. This state brings great wisdom but to be fair it doesn't mean you
suddenly jump up in IQ points, it is simply because life is not passed through the filter of self anymore. This is all it really
is. You don't even gain clarity, the veil is removed from reality and it gives normal vision again, rather than a skewed
perception. Rather, seeing the truth is the cleansing of the things that muddy our perception in the first place, seeing the truth resets us to our default as it were.

The fiction of the self is just one layer of delusion and there are many more layers after this. Ghost 2013

Yes, we were all born "enlightened", all that happens is a false self is created by conditioning and when this is seen for the fallacy that it is, it ends up having the fancy name of enlightenment, when really all it is; is the seeing that there is no you in reality. Because all "you" really is, is a mental construct, made up of thoughts, ideas, projections and memories that form the illusion of a "you" behind the thinking. It is really that simple, there is no "you". This is the whole core behind "enlightenment" which in itself is not real either, as there is nothing to enlighten anyway.

But... this does not mean all delusion drops away and that is where I fell for the illusion immediately after this. Ghost 2013

So there truly is nothing to enlighten, there is no you to enlighten whatsoever. There never was, hence there cannot be any such thing as enlightenment. 

This argument is far from sound. Ghost 2013

It becomes obvious that enlightenment is not a "special" whistle and bells state, it is
actually being the experience of life itself. Total oneness with being, rather than the illusion of being an entity that has
thoughts and experience. (sorry for the new age jargon).

In Buddhas own words:
"There is nothing that will attain, there is nothing that won't attain".

Ok lets decrypt this riddle:
1. There is no you, you don't exist
2. There is nothing to attain
3. There is nothing that won't attain since "enlightenment" is already present.

The buddha speaks the truth here it is a shame that I thought I was preaching the truth. Ghost 2013

Coming straight from the kingpin of spirituality itself. In fact I am going to make it a special weekly feature to decrypt all
his riddles. When I first started looking in to all this spirituality stuff, I marveled at all his words of wisdom and the depth of it all. Now I see straight through them for the shallow twisted product of the lie that they are: They distract people from the truth, not help them see it.

Completely wrong and an example of the kind of RT rhetoric prevalent at the time. Ghost 2013

I didn't see point 3 initially, I started writing this blog and I only noticed the first two points. Then it suddenly became so obvious that it just jumped straight out at me. I can't believe I missed it initially! This whole post is essentially communicating the meaning of this teaching of the Buddha.

You see the whole enlightenment seeking thing becomes a barrier to becoming enlightened as it were. The very thing
people are trying to find, instead they are actually distracting themselves from the truth. These distractions come in the
forms of gurus, home study courses, new age books and tomes of Eastern philosophy. Yeah all the eastern philosophy is true "from a certain point of view" being the cliche....

Through the eyes of truth, it all makes sense but to your average seeker, it is a set of riddles. People even build a whole new identity out of seeking, even people who are enlightened make a whole new identity out of being enlightened. You see your already enlightened, you just can't see it is all!

True, people do make another ego out of it, this is clearly an example of my 'enlightened' ego! Ghost 2013

This is how powerful this lie is, we have already seen this. Read Eckhart Tolle for instance, his wonderful insights in to
presence and non attachment etc.. I read these things a few years ago and thought wow. It even seemed to me that this
sort of "strength of mind" must take real concentration and wisdom.

I wanted to be "non attached" to things, I wanted to stop the causes of suffering in my life. I wanted what he had.

Do you not see it, right now in the above statement, read it again. Can you see the attachment?

THIS THIS THIS

This is the attachment itself. Wanting non attachment, is an attachment. So how do we become non attached?
Remove the want by removing the self and then there is no attachment remaining.

My highlight in bold. The desire for wanting non - attachment is itself an attachment and this is the nature of the lock we are trying to ease apart. Our desire for freedom is an attachment and this in turn creates a yearning for some thing. This is not removed by seeing the false self, although it gives great insight. Ghost 2013

How do we remove the self?
LOOK in reality and see for yourself, that it just isn't there, it is a complex mental construct that forms an illusion. "You" is nothing more than a mere thought.

Anyone who claims they are non attached without seeing the truth, are denying their reality, because if life is seen through
the filter of self, the self is derived from attachment. If they are not attached to one identity, they cling strongly to another.

Non attachment cannot be realised through self, it is actually impossible since this is the fundamental basis of self. This is
how the illusion of self manifests itself. Its as absurd as saying "I don't want to be plastic" if you were actually constructed entirely of Lego!

But.... enlightenment is not the destruction of self, it is the acknowledgement of what self is, an illusion. If any of you are
doing self inquiry or spiritual autolysis, I can save you alot of work. The final answer in the puzzle? There is no you, its an
ilusion. This is the final bedrock of truth.

Wrong, it is only part of the truth. Ghost 2013


ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT REAL, THERE IS NOTHING TO ENLIGHTEN
If the truth of this statement could even be seen by yourself, you would be actually on the gateway of liberation itself and
you could simply walk straight through in to reality.

The brain likes a nice idea it can conceptualize. It likes a logical explaination of what is going on, this is why it cannot be explained in language it can only be seen through the eyes of honesty. There is no "you" is not  a puzzle or a concept it is  just a realisation. This is all the thinking you need to do. When this is realised, this is the first step to enlightenment.
Then all you have to do is actually LOOK in reality and verify the truth in this statement and that is it. POP! Welcome to
reality.

If only it was so simple! Ghost 2013

There was a guy on Ruthless Truth who had already seen this truth. He was expecting the world to stop and some kind of "shift" to happen. There is a shift but it is only metaphorical. This was the block to his seeing of the truth. Your frame of reference to reality undergoes a paradigm shift of sorts but there is no shift as such because there is nothing that changes.

No magic, just seeing the blatant and obvious truth of it all. Its so silly to even believe there is an entity thinking the thoughts, doing the actions and experiencing the
experience. Rather its just the all encompassing view of reality that had been hidden from view.

A subtle change (well nothing changed at all really) but with massive ramifications on how things are seen. 

The simple truth is how can something you have never seen before be known? You can have an idea about a blind date
but until you see the date in reality, how can you know if she is hot or not? No matter how many descriptions your given,
you would never know without seeing it for yourself. This is the truth of it right here.

Someone tells you enlightenment is some amazing zen trip in to infinite love, when in reality its not even a real thing, it is merely a label for something that doesn't exist.
It also becomes an attachment for someone, so they build it up to be some incredible thing, when really it is simply the truth, nothing more.

So basically your argument is: you trying to tell others, that something you have never seen, that doesn't exist anyway, that is a projection of your own mind, that was influenced by second hand material that you have read, is in fact what enlightenment really is. Yes, all the eastern philosophy is your second hand knowledge, its not your own knowledge. You just decided to adopt it as a belief system. I challenge you to drop that right now and take a good look in reality at the universal truth, "you" do not exist.

The truth in what they say in Eastern philosophy is right on
the money but it only makes sense fully once you have seen the universal truth; there is no you. The funny thing is you are already liberated, you just haven't actually seen it yet. People tell us "my ego keeps taking control again".

NO. There is no ego. There are thoughts that are egoic in nature but no ego. Ego is a concept termed by Freud for certain thought patterns. Enlightenment is not the death of ego. It never existed in the first place to die. "You" never existed in the first place to enlighten. Its all a schill the whole thing. A lie of self.

The ego is simply the illusion, however, the brains firmware (if you allow this analogy) propagates this illusion and makes it seem real to us, even post self this holds true. That aside I don't know why I felt qualified to comment on years of Eastern philosophy. How foolish I was. Ghost 2013

There is only the truth, once seen, the whole facade comes down and you can see reality for the first time andexperience life through the eyes of truth. The more invested you get with gurus and home study courses and all the like, the further
from the truth it actually takes you. All you need to do is some hardcore looking in a focussed capacity and the truth is
there, you just have to lift the veil of illusion and take an honest look in reality.

"So how do I see it?"

Can you test your beliefs in reality, you believe you exist, do you believe it so strongly you are willing to put it to the test?
Can you bear to test this belief out in reality? No "you" is not oblivion, non existence or nihilism.

Rather, realising no "you" IS existence. It is the realisation that there is nothing more than the experience itself and there is
no you behind the thinking and actions that arise. Freedom.

This is going to take some comitment from yourself. All you need is a bit of courage and a shred of  honesty. Then you
can see this universal truth and purge yourself of the lie. Check out the FAQ's and then do the thought experiments. Then
you are ready to take the step of looking at this truth.

DON'T TRUST A WORD THAT I SAY... TEST IT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY AND USE YOUR INNER
VISION TO DETERMINE THE TRUTH IN REALITY

The n00bs guide to non duality

A few pertinent insights here, and clearly explained. The cause and effect thing is worth scrolling down for, and the ideas about time are, although there is only a very limited explanation. These are key aspects to investigating mental phenomena and I will produce a more full exposition on this aspect in due course. Ghost 2013



Hey
I read all of your other email and what a lot has happened to you! So you have come to the conclusion that everything that has happened to you is not happening to you but to something else? not really sure I get it! I did a philosophy module in second year and it was very interesting

No it didn't happen to me. Because there is no me per se. There was the experience of it happening, it was 100% experienced but there was no me to experience it, there was only the experience itself.

Ok there is a body, there is thought, there is the experience of life right now in the present moment. There are memories, there are desires. But the whole concept of a "you" behind the thinking or the actions is actually a fallacy. "you" do not actually exist.

You are experiencing life right now, you are sitting in front of a computer. What you see and hear is real. The body/ (bodies if your at uni) you can see are real. The thoughts that arise are real, the memories, the imagination, its all very real, its existing in reality right now. The only thing that isn't real is what you perceive as yourself, your life, your personality what you describe to others as "I" or your self etc..

It is not actually a real entity, it is actually only a thought, you do not actually exist whatsoever. No matter how incomprehensible this sounds, it can be demonstrated by looking in reality. It just simply isn't there whatsoever, it is an illusion. A very, very complex illusion that does not exist in any way shape or form.

Now you have had a whole life of thinking in this way and all your experience dictates that you are the thinker of thoughts or the doer of the actions that arise. For me it was 31 years worth, a long time. But the thing is, not once did we ever check to see if it was real. We just assumed we existed. It seems ridiculous to even test this premise because we are experiencing this life right now. Unfortunately we have been duped by a lie that there is an experiencer, thinker or doer behind the experiencing thinking and doing.

To put it simply your belief or frame reference you engage reality on is that "you" are having the experience of life. We even call it life experience to describe the experiences we have had. This in itself is dualistic, stating in language that there is actually a seperate entity from reality having this experience.

My new frame of reference is that "I" is the experience itself. I say "my new frame of reference" but there is no entity to have a frame of reference on reality.

There is no entity or "I" having the experience. The experience itself is all that there is in reality. There is only experience itself, there is nothing more than the experience itself.

Lets use a metaphor: Imagine if we objectify experience and we have an apple and label it EXPERIENCE. This would be the experience of life itself in the present moment.

Then suddenly you see me walk up and reach out and place my hand on the apple and look at it. I would have experience, the experience of having the apple in my hand and looking at it. I would own and would be observing or "having" the apple.

What I'm trying to communicate to you is that I am not there, this is an illusion. What there is, is only the apple itself, no "I" to lay a claim and own it. The apple is real, the me walking up to the apple and laying claim to it is not. The apple or EXPERIENCE is all that exists in reality.

This sounds like a load of new age clap trap and it would be nice to just suddenly decide to switch on this wavelength but it is not so difficult as you think. All you have to do is have an honest look in reality and you will discover this as truth.

but when it comes down to us as beings or time (time is very complicated) then I am a bit stumped! Like the idea of what you believe but not sure if I buy it, only because I think I am not as open minded as others are ): lol.

Ok there is a body, there is thought, there is the experience of life right now in the present moment. There are memories, there are desires that arise in certain moments but they are only experienced in the present moment. Nothing exists outside of the present moment, aboslutely nothing. 

The past is no more and the future has not happened yet.

They exist as a mental construct in the mind as there are projections of imagining the future and memories that have happened. But only the present moment can be experienced.

With me so far?

The image of a thought about the future is experienced in the present. This gives the illusion that we have a future that we own.

The paradox is how can we own something that doesn't exist? Time is merely a measurement used on earth. Physicists call it space time to describe measurements in the cosmos.

It has already been proven that space time is not constant and can be warped. The GPS satellites have to use the general theory of relativity to correct quantum time dilations (fluctuations in space time) or else the whole system would be a worthless and innacurate fail! These fluctuations arise because of quantum gravity.

All of this is a nice distraction about quantum space time dilation but we have strayed off topic.

The whole premise is, our concept of time is only a measurement. We can only exist in the present moment but we can use time to describe changes from moment to moment of any length we can conceive, be it billions of years or the time it takes to blink our eyes.

How do we get time perception then if we exist in the present?
This is where we get to cause and effect and show how in reality it actually fails as a premise:

CAUSE + EFFECT

Before you were even conscious of any memories, you have been primed through conditioning to live in a world in terms of cause and effect. If you drop the cup on the floor, that’s cause and effect. The cup is dropped and it breaks. Simple as it is. Do this = this happens. This is great, this is how we interact with the world on a base level.

We have a lens in place that allows us to interact with the world as we go about our lives.

“If I walk out in the road without looking, I will get run over”.

“If I don't do this, I will get shouted at”. 

This mechanism is necessary for survival and making judgements about the world as they arise from moment to moment.

Cause and effect is how we analyse the world but this is looking at cause and effect through a microscopic lens however. We are conditioned to look at cause and effect in terms of; this action now has this outcome, or x action generates y outcome. In other words that’s just how the mind sees things in reality. The mind makes a snapshot of reality dependent on external stimuli that is constantly being updated.

Take the first model presented:


The cup is dropped = cup smashes in to pieces

Cause ------------> Effect ----------------> Cause -------->

So how about this.... you complain about the smashed cup and get a bag to put the pieces in. You get down on your knees and pick up the shards. Whilst picking up the shards you cut yourself badly. you have to phone a friend who takes you to A+E. You are stuck at A+E for 2 hours waiting in the queue to get stitches in the wound.

You don't go to to the nightclub until later on and consequently you meet a different future spouse. You get married and have the son who became the prime minister in 40 years time.

This son caused the world to destruct as he started a nuclear war because he was consumed by a lie... All this because of a broken cup.

You could go backwards in time too if you like. I could say; what would have happened if my father beat me as a child, what if he caught the flu and didn't meet my mum, what if my Granddad had of been shot down in WW2? His plane got hit by flak but they made it home, what if the pilot was out on the heading by 0.00001 degrees? What if the plane took off a fraction of a second earlier. What if my great grandfather didn't narrowly avoid an accident, what if my mediaeval ancestors got burnt at the stake, what about if my caveman ancestors didn't find that injured mammoth to kill and narrowly avert starvation, what about my primate ancestors, the big bang? Would they have any effect on whether I was there to drop the cup or not?

As you can see, its difficult to draw a line and put a label on the cause and effect of each event. Of course there is causality but our minds simple method of cause and effect begins to break down as an objective model at this point. When you make a cup of tea, does it ever cross your mind that you are depleting the worlds fossil fuel reserves? Of course not, we are only ever operating on this basic level of cause and effect. I turn the kettle on = the water boils. Really, this model is inadequate to explain anything apart from labelling objective experience. So whilst it has a place and is useful to us, its not so good for relying on it as the explaination for things.

So there you go me preaching again. I'm going to blog this response to you anyway, don't worry I won't include your name or email lol!!! Some of it is from the book I'm writing thats why its so long! But take a look and tell me if you see a "you"? Does a "you" exist? If so describe it to me, tell me what you see when you look....