Clerk:
All rise.
Judge:
Please be seated.
Judge:
This hearing is now in session and we
will examine case 1,2847, the virtual community versus Mr Virus.
Would the defence proceed to make their opening statement. I
believe you will be representing your 'self' Mr Virus?
Mr
Virus: No your honour, there is no self just a representation.
Judge:
You impudent tone will cause me to hold you in contempt of court, are
you aware of the grave allegations that face you?
Mr
Virus: Yes sir, I am trying to be accurate, however, I have to
grant that language is dualistic anyway and I promise not to let
obstructions such as this interfere with my explanation.
Judge:
Very well then, please proceed.
Mr
Virus: Thank you your honour. Lets get straight in to it and
ask why Truth Strike ran to a halt? This is probably the burning
question on your mind, since at the end of 2012 we stopped accepting
new members on to the site and we have let it stand dormant since.
Naturally, there are a wealth of reasons why things have turned out
this way and some exciting changes are coming up now which I want to
share.
Before I
answer the question I will outline what I hope to achieve in setting
out the defence, and just mention that I am going to dig really deep
to expose not only my own shortcomings, but also those of Truth
Strike as an organisation and allow you, the good jury and court, to
scrutinise every detail of this case.
Essentially,
I am going to be turning the lance on to TS and Ghostvirus, and I am
going to scrutinise the theoretical underpinnings and thought
processes by using the very tool that we used for enquiry in to the
self. No stone is going to be left unturned and whilst this is going
to be damming, I believe it is absolutely necessary that there is a
revolution in the way we go about doing things.
What I
really hope to achieve here is expose the limitations of our approach
and crack TS wide open to expose the hubris that was unchallenged
from day one, and demonstrate how we are guilty of only compassion
for humanity.
Then we
will show what principles are worthwhile which we have always exacted
ourselves to, and then demolish the rest.
Once this
is accomplished I can set down the burden of TS and RT, safe in the
knowledge that they were doomed to fail right from the start, and
were the remnants of a strategy that bought so much negativity to the
table, but were steps in bringing about the catharsis of an endeavour
to explore new frontiers in human understanding.
I
want to focus on the positives that have come out of Truth Strikes
endeavours and all the good things we have achieved before we launch
an attack upon it. To start with we all deserved a nice long break
since we have been undertaking this research program for a long time
without a hiatus. It takes its toll eventually and I think we had all
ran out of steam and needed some time to recuperate.
Upon
this well deserved break the TS staff have had some time to relax
and step out of the frame, having been working on this project
without stopping. In this sense, we have had time to assess what we
have achieved and where we want to go next, having fulfilled one of
our ambitious objectives. This objective was a bold one, but perhaps
represents one of the easier objectives.
I
think we can all congratulate ourselves on the success of our outcome
because accomplishing this was no mean feat, although this should
only be a sober celebration and perhaps we may have to hang our heads
in shame?
I
have to concede immediately; hand on heart, were the means justified
by the end we accomplished? I will leave you, the members of the
jury, to deduce your own conclusions, but for now we will ask what is
this objective that we achieved?
Judge:
Do go on Mr Virus.
Mr
Virus: This point has marked a watershed for us and TS has
really paid off as a project now, in this regard our endeavours over
the past two years have been an outstanding success. What we have
mapped out is a schema of the mechanism of human delusion from which
we can now start to analyse and number crunch.
Throughout
the work in TS and RT, what we have accomplished is perhaps one of
the most unrestricted qualitative surveys in to the notion of self
hood, that has ever been undertaken, and this has all been done in
the public domain.
It is
unique in the sense that not only has a phenomenological paradigm
been championed by each fair enquirer who has stepped up to the
plate, this enquiry has also been tempered by a discursive analysis.
In layman's
terms phenomenology is simply looking at the mental phenomena that
arise in ones experience, and by discursive I simply mean that an
analysis of the discourse between people on the forum threads, where
contradictions and assumptions were highlighted.
In this
sense, a powerful tool has been forged, however, this does not mean
it is exempt from theoretical problems. These will have to be
discussed in future, in relation to qualitative methodologies, but
this plays in to a broader discussion between proponents of certain
psychological standpoints, and philosophical ideas, which I cannot
hope to do justice to now.
This very
issue has produced its own debates in the annuls of academic
philosophy and I will assume that some of these will crop up again,
however, I am satisfied that there are many arguments that grant
validity to qualitative approaches in psychology, and it is to these
that we could start to base any methodological underpinning on in
future.
From this
research project we have developed some robust tools for enquiry and
feel that we can provide the means to uncover every sticking point in
an investigation to the self, and also every ad hoc variation of
arguments for self hood that do not work.
Whilst this
will be the next phase of our work, this leads us on to discussing
our motivation for this whole project, and the reasons for
maintaining and participating in TS.
Firstly,
our primary goal was to put an end to greed, misery, and suffering in
the world which was derived from the illusion of self.
Secondly,
as an investigation in to the aspects of the core mechanism of human
delusion.
From our
primary goal or end game, we derived many other reasons to engage in
'liberating' people, but I think we can safely say that we failed
completely on our primary goal of ending suffering in the world.
Lets face
it, it was a far flung hope at best, more akin to wishing on a star.
With a goal such as this for the basis of us facilitating enquiry,
half of the foundations were built on sand and thus we see a
disconnect from reality. It is of little wonder that the original RT
mob were not interested in coming back to join us.
Hindsight
is a good thing, but I think the absence of Laserpig, Kevin,
Guilliano, Unison, Viv, Thassa, Chris, and numerous other screen
names from the RT days who never stayed in the fray with us, speaks
volumes about we were doing. Furthermore, many of those that we did
liberate from the illusion of self had no impetus to hang around or
get involved in our work.
Quite
simply, this delusion, although based in doing something positive,
was the basis of our entire approach and we should feel foolish for
having stuck dogmatically to this ideology. To be fair, it was done
with the best of intentions, however, I am sure Adolf Hitler had only
good intentions for Germany before the madness took hold, and thus no
such argument of good intentionality is sufficient to exonerate us
for our dogmatically asserted ideology, which found its sources in
none other than RT's old poisonous doctrine, which thankfully we can
lay to rest.
In spite of
this intentionality argument of mine carrying no weight, I still
believe it is worth setting out the position we took in an attempt to
construct an accurate reflection of the mindset involved at the time.
No
self, in real life...
Our
intention from the outset was to carry on the positive aspect of the
work of RT, which was the fact that we were waking people up from
their slumber. Rather than just giving up we still believed, that by
running in to the road and smashing someone out of the way of an
oncoming lorry, that we were doing the world a favour.
We were
trying to foist this discovery on to everyone and even now, we still
believe it has application for reducing cognitive dissonance,
suffering and greed in the world. In a sense we are still motivated
to carry on with our work even after the implosion of RT, and the
initial lack of success with TS as a platform for freeing vast
quantities of people, however, forcing the message down peoples
throats is not going to cut it any more, and it is going to have to
become open to scrutiny from all quarters.
The central
claim we have made, has never been shown to be doubtful. Having seen
the front cover of New Scientist, dated 23rd
February, it is plain that there is no self, and our main claim has
been vindicated by mainstream science. From this point on there is no
need for any of us to try and advance the proposition: there is no
self, since not only is it philosophically iron clad, it has been
empirically demonstrated that free will and all the other things that
we believe are necessary for the self to play a causal role in life,
are illusory.
In a sense,
it felt great seeing that article knowing that everything we
championed and all the ridicule we endured, was finally worth the
price ultimately, and represents a massive blow to all the dualists
and metaphysicians who went great lengths to pretend to follow the
procedures of philosophy, and advance sophisms
in the name of their religion or spiritual system.
To be vindicated of our claim
after all our hard work was great, but this is not the full story and
our claim is not fully vindicated yet.
If any fair
enquirer started to look in to the claim we made, most often they
discovered that it appeared there was no self in real life. However,
the difference between knowing this and experiencing this, was where
people got trapped in the looking process and arrived at an
intellectual understanding where they could not get the breakthrough.
Hence on many of the threads in TS and RT, we had people trying to
get this breakthrough of walking through 'the gate'. The intellectual
understanding of no self is now vindicated in the most reputable
mainstream science journal in Britain, and it is apparent that no
more do we have to argue for the proposition; there is no self.
However, our claim does encompass an experiential aspect that the
intellectual understanding does not encompass alone, and it is to
this aspect that we make a further claim.
It is
possible to directly experience this characteristic of no self, and
this represents a life transforming experience.
This is
where our future endeavours will take us, but no more do we have to
argue about the possibility of no self, since all it takes is a
phenomenological investigation to test it out. In that respect, there
is no need for any of us to defend anything, or promote a view point
any more. The time for that has passed and it seems only pertinent
that we jettison the baggage and make a clean break. If a fair
enquirer chooses they are not interested in no-self, then it is no
longer incumbent on any of us to convince them otherwise. We can lead
a horse to water but we cannot make it drink, however, a horse can
find water of its own accord and it is here where we will focus in
future.
However,
why did we try and take the other forceful approach in the first
place? Why did we try to force this idea down peoples throats at all
costs, and in the process make some serious mistakes?
Winding
back the clock, you have to appreciate that we were merely a bunch of
westerners who had a life changing insight in the beginning. The
initial profundity was so strong that along with Ciaran, we believed
that we had discovered the key to enlightenment and with that key it
presented a real opportunity of ending suffering in the world.
The end of
suffering... an opportunity in real life to end the suffering and
misery of billions that arose at the hands of humanities foul and
darkest side.
It is kind
of funny now looking back that we genuinely believed this was the
case. We actually genuinely believed that we had a shot at ending
human suffering. So, we took it and gave it everything we had. Of
course, we had no chance of accomplishing this goal and we were
deluded for thinking we were, but I hold my hand up and admit that I
actually believed in this possibility.
Why is it
that we had no chance of accomplishing this goal at RT?
Resistance
Firstly, the resistance we met from the
very enslaved we were trying to free was strong, the very notions of
“kill the lie” and “you do not exist” were enough to arouse
the strongest resistance in people. The only way to smash this
resistance apart was to destroy their integrity and this encompassed
vile and ruthless attacks on their identity, whilst delivering killer
blows to their arguments by highlighting their circular logic. It was
not pretty and it was unsustainable keeping the burning intensity up
that was required to free someone for a long period.
It was a mammoth task and for every
person we did free, we sent scores of others running for cover even
to the point where we were branded as a cult, even though we did not
court membership or have any kind of financial incentives. The
resistance that we saw was circular logic in any case which could be
crushed easily, and the abject delusion we saw in not only the
spiritual community, but the world at large only served to fuel the
fire of hatred towards what we perceived as a toxic lie that had
enslaved humanity.
At TS, the culture was changed a little
where we toned the character assassinations to a degree but they were
still present, having authored much negativity with my hand. Simply
trying to tone down this aspect at TS did not work, since the exact
same principle was evidently displayed time and time again, and thus
the results were always going to be similar. In order to change at a
fundamental level, this aspect of our work must be completely
demolished and purged from anything we do in future.
Divisions
Secondly, we drove deep divisions
between ourselves and the spiritual community. Whilst I do think
there is a lot we could have learned from various people, in many
respects we delivered a wake up call to the masses of deluded
seekers. This is not to claim that we are not deluded and they are,
as that would certainly be an untenable claim for me to make, since I
am fully aware that delusion resides in me that has not been removed.
However, seeing people who had been chasing their tails for twenty
years really highlighted the amount of falsity, hubris, and
deceptions prevalent in the whole virtual spiritual community.
Seeing people spouting out their hippy
peace and love crap and parroting Advaitan doctrine under the
delusion that their gurus would save them from their misery was
really sad to see. Whilst it may be a better alternative subscription
to the hostility and negativity prevalent in our society, it was
clear to see that they identified with seeking and wanted to
passively transcend all the horrors and suffering in their lives,
whilst failing to face up to the truth. Naturally, people don't like
being told this and we created deep divisions between ourselves and
the spiritual community. Similarly, we did not like being told we
were deluded either and hence I make no claim to who is more deluded,
we can just agree that the following proposition has universality to
anyone engaged in enquiry.
People fall in to different traps
and part of the process of facing up to the truth, is discovering the
ways in which the mind deceives.
Clearly, “consciousness is”, “I
am the universe”, “there is just this”, and every other ad hoc
idiom, are just multiple realisations of the same indescribable
nature. The worrying thing is simply that many who parrot this derive
a spiritual self from it, because they do not have direct experience
of no self, they merely hold it as a conceptual understanding. Even
those who have experienced no self can easily get trapped in this
mindset too, and cling on to the insight, much like I did.
Aside from correcting these lines of
reasoning, there is much we could learn from those who try other
methodologies in the spiritual community, no doubt. There were some
who tried to reach out to us and we attacked them with great vigour,
even those who wanted to point to the fresh tracks we were making in
the sand, as we wandered off the road of possibility in to the barren
desert of dogmatism. In that sense, with TS we started to see a
gradual shift towards accepting people who were engaged in the honest
varieties of spirituality instead of simply attacking them.
However, I did far too little to engage
with these folks and didn't move round to this way of thinking fast
enough, although, this transition would be evidenced on my blog post
'Eastern Promise' dated March 2012. I still shunned them away even
after this blog post admittedly, when they were simply trying to
reach out to me and I must confess, I can only appear utterly foolish
for my ignorance.
Ignorance
Finally, the very notion of
enlightenment we were initially arguing for was a myth. No self was
genuinely perceived to be enlightenment at the time, such was the
profound shift in our psychology. At the time we genuinely believed
this was the case and it must have been evident to anyone else that
we were far from enlightened. In fact, I am trying not to laugh at
the very notion your honour as I say this. Even within the ranks of
RT it soon became apparent that we weren't enlightened and this led
to the notion of denying the reality of enlightenment itself.
Simply, if this was not enlightenment
then enlightenment must be a myth was the premise upon which this
reasoning was based. A fools errand quite simply, and this marked the
down fall of RT since our claim was delusional. Things changed with
TS however, since we started from a position that encompassed the
fact we were not enlightened, unfortunately, we were still ignorant
enough to believe that we should force this upon people.
What we should have done is made it
available for those want to find an important part of the jigsaw
puzzle of truth. No-self represents the corners, which are ultimately
a piece, of a broader puzzle.
LOOKing at
No-Self
The way in which I conceive the no-self
insight after two years consists in the following points of
reference, to which I will try and spell out plainly.
Firstly, it is not enlightenment, a
claim that TS has been fortunate enough never to make. Anyone
believing that no-self alone is enlightenment, has evidently been
deceived by reason and one need only look honestly at their direct
experience to satisfy themselves that they are not entirely free from
delusion.
Secondly, it is what the Buddhist's
call an 'arising and passing'. However, it is safe to say that the
previous psychological structuring of beliefs and assumptions that
filtered reality as 'I' perceived it, which was also believed to be
permanent and immutable, was drastically changed forever. In this
sense there is no turning back to life before having this insight, it
is a one way ticket. For all intensive purposes, it is an earth
shattering moment and it is easy to see how we fell for the illusion
directly behind it at the time. It would be pertinent to say that I
have never met anyone who regretted the no-self insight, and I would
like to hear from anyone who believes it has had an adverse affect on
them.
Moreover, the very notion of 'arising
and passing' demonstrates that it must pass. Too often were we trying
to cling on to the profundity of this insight, and we treated it as
an end in itself rather than as a means.
Thirdly, it is a direct understanding
in to one of Buddha's three characteristics; the characteristic of
'no self'. On this basis, one does not understand the three
characteristics in their entirety, I merely have a conceptual
understanding of suffering and impermanence, but realisation of the
characteristic of no self. In this sense, there are many seekers who
have been engaged in twenty plus years of seeking and are so
hopelessly lost that they have not had this insight, which people are
capable of mustering the honesty to see in less than a day in some
cases.
This is not to say that they may not
have had realisations about impermanence or suffering, which I have
not, and any claim to who is more deluded is worthless in any case.
This leads me on to, I have to admit, a
conjecture here. When asking why is it that some people cannot muster
the honesty to LOOK, my only suggestion is that they perhaps need to
investigate the other of Buddha's characteristics first. It is merely
our assumption that anyone can get this with the requisite honesty,
it may be that a deeper understanding of other areas may be required
first. This seems to fit the observation, however, we cannot accept
this without any qualitative, or objective grounding.
Essentially, our assumption of
people simply being cowardly and dishonest is not really tenable and
it never was in this respect.
When viewed as a lie that squirms about
in its host and needs to be destroyed, viz Ruthless Truth, it may be
pertinent to suggest that those that cannot see it are cowards.
However, when viewed as a complex web of delusion it is simply that
one is unable to LOOK honestly, and it is nothing to do with
cowardice, since in my experience I can see that people really want
to get this and they acknowledge their fear but want to get the
process out of the way.
Only when smashing apart their identity
and using a brute force method of liberation could it be right to
term someone a coward. When the cowardice term was used it was simply
a rhetorical device to drop a breeze block on a deluded chain of
thought, and snap the seeker back in to reality. It may be true that
they are being dishonest, but this led me to place a caveat on this
assumption where I would state “we do not mean a conniving
dishonesty”.
It is not that a fair enquirer is
dishonest at all, it is simply that they are reverting back to their
programmed loop of reasoning and not applying honesty.
In that sense we can ask does it follow
that a lack of honesty inherently means dishonesty? Indeed, if
conniving intentions are abound then it would be, however, if there
is no intention of dishonesty then the negative connotation that this
word holds is not really applicable. If viewed as a “lie” that
has enslaved its host then dishonesty seems the right word to use,
but it seems that this way of looking at the false self is a situated
knowledge, where the context of this view impacted upon our own view
point, and as a result these negative connotations arose in the
circumstances.
The truth is, one is simply not
following the procedure correctly and reverting back to the
programmed loops of thought instead of looking. When people are
“looping”, they are simply stuck in a thought loop of belief that
they have not tried to step out of by LOOKing. We could term this
dishonesty, since it is the antithesis of honest enquiry but it is
not an accurate reflection of what is happening, especially when
someone is trying their best to crack the no-self insight. They have
simply not worked their honesty to a sufficient capacity to enable
them to do this.
Of course, one of the appeals of RT was
that it was utterly ruthless and used negativity against the lie of
self, and it caused such a furore initially, that it quickly gained
momentum. This could not have been done with kind words and gentle
encouragement if the truth is to be told, even though the LU crew
managed to refine the liberation process to encompass this aspect
later. Essentially, the early success of RT and the large exposure it
gained was in part due to this negativity, and quite simply, the
brute force leverage this method gave in liberating people and
crushing their lies was a useful tool.
However, I don't think it is feasible
anymore, although the many threads of some past liberations that
included this negativity, would be useful for those who are trying to
crack the no-self insight. There are indeed an abundant amount of
abusive threads in the annuls of our forum and whilst this is a
shameful thing, some good has come out of it.
Did the means
justify the end? I fear I am in no position to make such a
judgement but if it serves people in the future to get free then at
least a positive aspect could arises from the hostility and to this
end, it has helped to free people. But, we should not have to revert
to this negativity again when this characteristic of no-self has so
much benefit for humanity at large, and so much potential to be
explored.
To this end, it marks an abject
failure on my part as I have simply tarred a force for good and real
change in the world with so much negativity.
Those that have difficulty seeing
no-self would perhaps benefit from breaking down beliefs in other
areas first. LOOKing is the simplest of things, it does require a bit
of courage to step out of this looping, but so does bungee jumping.
Given enough time and reassurance, one will take the plunge
eventually, or will decide to back out, but by chanting coward at
them it is not really conducive to being kind and encouraging. In
this sense, the no-self enquiry represents a real step in the right
direction for some, however, it represents the transition to the
starting point of 'square one' on a long journey of discovery of
facing up to the truth, one in which it is easy to stray from the
beaten path.
Indeed, it is the start of a
journey, and one where a fair enquirer has no grounding in any
kind of spiritual practice, or other kind of discipline, so it can
take a while to find those feet post-self and start to venture
towards discovery.
Detached
One notion that was under represented
from the inception of RT and certainly should have been viewed as a
major benefit is the notion of non-attachment. The difficulty in
trying to explain non attachment in real terms is particularly
difficult but in order to conceptualise it, we can simply say that
one no longer derives a sense of self from their attachments. Desire
is apparently a real thing in folk psychology, although giving an
objective definition is fraught with problems. I this sense we can
characterise it as a heuristic motivational state and say that desire
motivates us to do things.
We have a natural propensity to invest
in to the accomplishment of our desires, however the insight of no
self diminishes this level of investment. In this way one is still
prone to have ambitions and desire, however, the attachment we derive
from fulfilling our desires, or in other words, the self that we
aspire to be through the fulfilment of our desires, is not seen to be
as such an important consideration any more. Trying to characterise
the 'gravitas' of the insight of no self is, perhaps, the hardest
thing. Trying to describe how phenomena lack the weight the used to
have, and how things we used to perceive as highly important no
longer affect us in the same way is a very difficult description to
make. Since in experience we can only use vague metaphors like
gravity, intensity etc, the deficiencies of language for describing
experience are only too clear.
The power of the mind in inflicting
deceit is evident in the fact that one may be in pitch black because
of a power cut, and drive themselves in to a momentary panic by
imagining all sorts of things, perhaps even ghosts. It is
plain that our fanciful ideas may affect us in various ways, but we
can see that some thoughts do not have such an affect on us. It is to
this comparison I can point in trying to describe how the
phenomenology of a sense self is diminished in power, although this
is not a static complex and it remains in flux.
For this reason if one attends to their
phenomena one can see the foundations of these kind of attachments.
However, if one leaves their ideas unattended, they may well see a
sense of reality granted to these foundations, to which other ideas
can be laid on top. It then takes some investigation to demolish
these foundations again and remain attendant to the new ideas that
may form.
In this sense, like Tetris, one needs
to keep on eye on where the blocks fall and should we glance away for
too long we start to have a structure that builds up since the blocks
just keep coming, much like thoughts, and it takes a little more work
to negate the structure than if we had focussed intently on the
structure we were creating. However, if we start on the hard
difficulty setting we see a pre-existing structure, to which we can
try and negate by inserting the blocks in the correct places. Much
like with our pre-exisiting beliefs, we can start to slowly break
down this complex and this is done with 'acceptance' of things that
may be uncomfortable, 'SEEing' the falsity of things that
might be comforting, and also seeing the empty nature of phenomena,
and the lack of inherent existence in the world.
A conceptual understanding is useless
for this kind of work and here is where some good old fashioned
honesty and looking is required. In that sense, one cannot stop
LOOKing post self and one must be attended to all phenomena or else
such a structure of belief may form, from which cognitions can begin
to feedback in to thought. Whilst the Tetris metaphor is illustrative
it in no way conveys any ontological (in relation to being) meaning,
and for this reason it will only strike a chord with anyone post
self. That aside, it makes sense to try and conceptualise the way in
which being post self, you actually have an angle to start to LOOK at
experience as it is and try to remove the falsity on which the mind
relies on for support. For this reason, the view I adopted over a
year ago is simply this.
The no-self insight reveals a
valuable tool for enquiry.
The insight of no-self represents an
investigative tool where one is more easily able to determine where
the fictions of the mind are affecting the results of that enquiry.
If one chooses to set aside their honesty, one can fly off beyond the
bounds of experience to create fanciful metaphysical speculations. We
need only to turn to the sophistry of certain spiritual teachings to
see that this is evident in those who have been past this point in
their enquiry. No self does not necessarily mean one can be honest,
it is like a muscle that must be worked regularly or it will atrophy.
Greed
It is now
pertinent to demonstrate the application of no-self to suffering and
greed. As has been noted previously, the false self does represent
the core mechanism of human suffering. This is not to say that seeing
it as an inert cognitive structure means one can never suffer again
but simply one's capacity to perpetuate negative thinking patterns is
diminished in capability. Now, one has to hold themselves in some
esteem, since we are dealing with complex social worlds and were we
to remove the capacity for reflecting on our cognitions, in relation
to others, then we would lack the facilities for deeming when our
behaviour is appropriate.
In this sense,
low self-esteem is actually a mechanism where our shortcomings are
highlighted, in order for us to take steps to do things better in the
future. Naturally, thinking negatively can result in downward spirals
of this esteem, and we can further drag our opinion of ourselves down
in relation to others and end up in cascades of negativity, which may
lead to depression and the like. Essentially, the insight of no self
allows one to step out of this cycle to a degree, and one is no
longer chained to trying to maintain a charade to other people. Now
this is not to say the process itself stops, but what I am saying
that its power is considerably diminished.
Bearing in
mind this aspect of the diminished power of representation that the
mind inflicts on us we can now turn to the notion of greed, which we
can characterise as a disproportionate desire that is not satisfied
in a normal manner. The usual characterisation of greed is that of a
rich banker, who despite his
possessions, still strives for millions in bonuses. Of course, we can
look to the fact that one is hardly going to not desire money, but we
can point to a broken economic system that encourages this unhealthy
desire, and a vain society that holds materialism as the ultimate
end.
At
no point is this desire satisfied in the banker, and basically the
theme is simply unchecked motivation where the means becomes more
important than the ends. The very notion of a perceived sense of self
that one aspires to be is derived through the orientation of the
false self and its vain accomplishments in the eyes of others. In
this sense, we have a positive feedback cycle characterised as 'more
wants more'. Greed is not limited to bankers obviously, we can
look to the unchecked desires in ourselves and we need only look at
the striving, the yearning, and the suffering of the modern world to
see that greed is an endemic problem.
Whilst
no-self is not an off switch, I hold firm to the claim that the
capacity to fool ourselves in this way is diminished, and the ability
to deceive ourselves to stay in patterns that support this type of
pattern is severely negated.
A
world with less greed than we see now is a more realistic aspiration,
and highlighting the shaky grounds upon which our political and
economic systems are based, would better serve grounds for an open
debate about how the notion of individualism in society, is grounded
in fiction.
Whilst
the individualist paradigm does have valid points, we do have
individual ontologies after all, it also makes fictitious claims that
when exposed may well undermine our society as it is. It may turn out
that this is the best way to organise society, however, it might be
fun, or even very dangerous, finding out what foundations will
collapse, and what institutions would burn.
This
is a voyage of discovery that may not be pleasant, however, it is
necessary as human beings to completely tear down that which no
longer serves us, and clearly the state of affairs as a consumer
society, is a deluded and unsustainable aspiration, no matter how
much we want to believe that it is not. I make no claim to any
political leanings, but a system based on honesty and reality would
serve us better than the set of foundations we currently have.
In summary,
post-self one can see that thought feeds back in to cognitive
patterns and their severity becomes amplified if not attended to.
What I noticed initially, was that I was able to circumvent
negativity by denying that the thought was happening to anyone.
Essentially this is a bypass where one is evading their thoughts
instead of facing up to them, a mistake pointed out by Adyashanti.
Over time, I
have developed my skills in honesty, and I have had to face up to
problems in my life instead of avoiding them. Basically, all that is
perceived as negativity, is actually conducive to ones drive for
survival. Instead of categorising it as bad, one must see these
things as necessary. For instance, you feel bad for not getting a
job, this is the catalyst to prepare better for next time. When seen
in this regard, we view negativity, when not in a spiral of
dysfunctional thinking, as a necessity of human existence and this
does not have to cause suffering because of attachments to our
desires.
In my eyes, this is how I see the
insight of no-self and I have tried to be as critical as I can to
attend to the weaknesses in my past approach.
Naturally, I plead guilty on the
charges of dogmatism where indicated, and I hope the court will take
this in to consideration.
Judge: You realise the
significance of this admission, it may harm your case?
Mr
Virus:
Indeed your honour, but I swore to uphold the truth and if the jury
are to make an informed judgement then they must be aware of the
facts whether the facts are conducive to painting a good picture or
not.
That aside your honour, I think we can be
satisfied that we achieved our secondary goal in mapping out our
phenomenological investigation and I would like to say thank you and
well done to all the staff involved at TS for all their hard work and
perseverance in this joint endeavour, which we all achieved by focus
and commitment.
I will, in due course, give
a full critique of our methods of procedure and the application of
this study which has been two years in the making. It requires a
degree of number crunching, categorisation, and conclusions to be
drawn from group discussions and trials of these ideas, but rest
assured I will also be turning the critique on the epistemological
aspect of this project and highlight its own shortcomings, failings,
and of course where it really shines and
why this is one of the most unique studies ever
accomplished, for reasons beyond the freedom paradigm that we
championed.
Prosecution:
Objection, the defence has no such critique at the moment, therefore
it should be inadmissible in this case.
Judge:
Sustained, may I remind you Mr Virus that you are only to refer to
exhibits in this court room.
Mr
Virus: Very well, this is an exciting achievement, however, as
I mentioned this should be a muted celebration as we look upon the
trail of destruction that we have left in our wake, and it is to this
matter now that we stand accused, and to which we must now face up to
serious allegations of misconduct.
Clearly, the many threads of delusion
we have evidenced on TS, and some of the pitiful rebuttals in the
face of absurdity, have shown the degrees in which people
unconsciously construct elaborate deceptions. We can look to those
engaged in metaphysics who attempted to masquerade as philosophers by
donning its disguise and imitating its procedures. We can also look
to those in the spiritual community who were engaged in wanton acts
of deception and sophistry, not only with themselves, but with others
who wanted to transcend the suffering in their lives.
Watching people following these gurus
blindly, knowing full well that they were being led down the garden
path, did make me sad, but that was a horrifying reality to which we
have seen evidenced countless times. I will demonstrate under cross
examination that, in fact, we made no claim to be teachers and any
such allegations are completely groundless.
The defence rests its case....
Judge:
Thank you Mr Virus, would the prosecution please call their first
witness to the stand.
Prosecution:
I call Mr virus to the stand please.
To be continued....
Posts
