PREFRONTAL CORTEX: "Flying with the Pixies"

"Your mind, your soul, your hopes, your dreams, your emotions is about a cantaloupe size of meat crackling with electricity inside your skull. There's nothing sancrosanct about altered states of consciousness.

You've always been told that altered states of consciousness are higher states of consciousness. The hallmark is that altered states of consciousness is the subtraction of all the mental faculties that make us so special in the animal kingdom. Hypofrontality means that the very pinnacle of human evolution, the prefrontal cortex, must be down regulated, which means that you lose these higher cognitive functions that make us so special. 

All altered states of consciousness are lower states of consciousness. You connect to nothing but your own reduced mind. Some people find the idea repugnant, beneath the significance of the mystical experience and that's alright if you want to hold onto some sort of stone age, medieval sense of spirituality, but I think you will only find this counterintuitive if you hold onto the idea that in those special moments, when you catch a glimpse of some parallel, mental universe, in those very moments, the mind, somehow, can transcend the machinery of the brain, become a ghost in the machine, ride above the fray, and enter some sort of platonian world of eternal truth and beauty in flying off with the pixies." (quote from video below)

The prefrontal cortex is where "you" exist. Right behind the eyes is the "I-me." The ego-self is a product of a huge frontal lobe, the size of which is not found in any other species. It's where self-actualizing egocentric decisions arise and these ego-self conceptualizations influence the neuro-chemistry of the brain, thereby, influencing the body. 

What else could "enlightenment" be, but a complete reduction of prefrontal activity (ego-self) and what other than prefrontal lobe "thought" thrusts you into your own personal heaven or hell based on conceptual interpretations made in that brain region? Suffering is a prefrontal phenomenon occurring right behind your eyes and found nowhere else between your ears.

Hence, as can be clearly interpreted from current neuroscience research, any higher state of consciousness, i.e., "awakening," "enlightenment," etc, is nothing more than a progressive shutdown of the prefrontal cortex and for most, this shutdown is brief, (a kind of spasmodic blip of depersonalization, which occurs naturally for many peeps not seeking "enlightenment") after which the prefrontal then floods with conceptual interpretations as to what just happened, ("I have attained spiritual awakening!" or "Oh my fucking god, I'm going crazy!") which then results in firing up the reward centers of the brain (source of all addictions) or the fear-survival centers, to the point that the conceptual description of the experience becomes an addictive response which, through reward-based synaptic impulses, is pontifically verbalized ad infinitum, ad nauseam (eg, Eckhardt Tolle, Deepak Chopra, etc.), but from fear-based impulses can lead to mental illness and concomitant physiological symptoms.

Yet, alas, without repetitive experiences to reinforce the conceptualized interpretation, the electro-chemical current begins to dissipate and eventually the memory circuits dissolve and you are left with a spiritualized conceptual definition that means nothing, because the experience has dissolved into nothingness.

Pain is immediate, but suffering is simply your chronic, prefrontally generated, complaints of pain, repeated incessantly in the prefrontal cortex (the thinking cap of human egocentrica mammalia). To be more specific, right behind the eyes is where almost all insanity prevails (neuroscience shows how the prefrontal cortex actually shrinks in chemical and behavioral addictions, resulting in poor decision-making and frequent relapses and this is called "hypofrontality").

As Cognitive Therapy proclaims, "it's not reality that disturbs you, but your interpretation of reality," and all interpretation is a product of prefrontal hard-wiring. Interpretation of reality is a conditioned response and after many decades that hard-wiring becomes immune to neuro-plasticity (change) because, for wiring to remain 'hard,' it requires vigilantly filtering out opposing data that might disprove the interpretation to essentially demonstrate how stupid you are (and in post-modern social order, acknowledging your stupidity is tantamount to death).

Since all "enlightenment" is a prefrontal product, while the rest of your brain, bio-genetically functioning to keep your dumb arse alive, has no interest in your prefrontal hocus pocus bullsheit and keeps doing it's thing no matter how expertly you have memorized and repeatedly provide lip-service to the Deepak Chopra quotes that gets you all jiggy in your neuro-circuited reward centers.

So here's the rub, peeps. The difference between my "enlightenment" and the "enlightenment" you seek is that I have arrived at a state where what arises from the prefrontal cortex has absolutely no significance whatsoever...to the prefrontal cortex. In other words, the prefrontal cortex is now hard-wired to cease to care what the prefrontal cortex...'thinks.' In other words, even though the prefrontal lobe (location of the 'mind') cannot stop 'thinking,' it simply has lost the capacity to care (give a rat's arse) what it thinks.

The operative term/signifier is "care," which is indicative of experiencing "emotion" and, contrary to general opinion, emotion is also a neuro-chemically induced brain state influencing bodily/physiological symptoms through the central nervous system (and peripheral nerves), but it is prefrontally 'conceptualized' (while actual emotion is more grounded in the hippocampus and amygdala, yet, engaging reward centers throughout the brain) and this is maintained through fixating on the "enlightenment" concept which is NOT "enlightenment." This is similar to those who experience "panic attacks," in which hypothetical fears, produced in the prefrontal, generate physiological symptoms throughout the entire body, even though the fear is hypothetical or NOT real.

Hypothetical "enlightenment" makes you feel good for a time. But without an accompanying actual experience (depersonalization), those circuits soon wither on the vine and eventually the brain will "prune" them out and your enlightened emancipation proclamation will become more psycho-spiritual drivel to be completely forgotten (i.e, Eckhardt Tolle, Deepak Chopra, etc).

Just as the prefrontal lobe can generate hypothetical terror, and the accompanying psychosomatic symptoms based on unreal fears not oriented to reality, it can also generate intense feelings (symptoms) of joy and pleasure, and the accompanied physical psychosomatic symptoms based on hypothetical thoughts of enlightenment not oriented to reality.

Circuitry of Consciousness: Alternating vs Direct Current (metaphor)

The self-construct (“you”) was NOT conceived apart from a world of other egos. Such a reciprocal exchange makes us exclusively “other-referencing” and even in our most isolated egocentric moments we are drawn to one another through the circuit that connects us.

The content of every individual mind is a story of birth and death and this is available to all minds. Everything in between is only meaningless filler, simply because it makes no difference to the story of birth and death.

However, it may be very meaningful to “you.”

Nevertheless, others define you as you define them and this is occurring moment to moment since you became aware of an individual ego-self ‘existence” (an existence in which other egos were necessary to your awareness of a ‘self’). This circuit of consciousness has no direct source, but is an “alternating current” infinitely connecting all minds.

However, the ego can misinterpret the circuit as “direct current.” The ego demands division from the circuit through which it constructed itself in order to experience itself as exclusive-to-itself. It misinterprets alternating current by asserting a direct line from itself to itself, assuming total authority of itself, by itself. This negates all but the most minimal of influence from, (or to) others, making it easy for the ego to maintain its narcissistic “existence” in contrast to other egos and this is why there is a tendency to keep our thoughts undisclosed and private.

Of course, this is delusional, since all current alternates between minds and experience is constructed based on that exchange. This is why all experiences must agree or else we could not communicate.

The egocentric self-construct must always interpret alternating current as direct, otherwise its belief in a localized self-consciousness would be dissolved and it would be privy to the content of other localized minds as they would be aware of the content of its consciousness. To believe that localized content is available to other localized minds, would be to end egocentric existence entirely and this is a very fearful idea to an ego glorified in its individual exclusivity.

But is there really exclusivity to your experiences? Although you certainly interpret your experiences as exclusive to “you,” is this actually the case or is it merely a grandiose egocentric delusion? Your thoughts are different from mine in relation to time, but are they different in relation to content?

Although the circuit of consciousness is infinite, we limit what can be experienced thereby setting limits to consciousness. We agree that we cannot “move mountains” and no individual has ever done so (except maybe through dynamite).

This explains the brief psychologically paranormal experiences often reported by individuals, such as precognition or past lives. What occurs in these atypical instances is that individuals attain brief contact with the circuit’s alternating current. Such experiences are beyond the usual realm of direct current and can be disorienting and sometimes shocking to the normalized and conventionally conditioned ego-self.

Hence, experiences of awakening are nothing more than brief disorienting experiences of alternating current, as opposed to direct current, resulting in all manner of abnormal, atypical, and seemingly miraculous, encounters. Nevertheless, this can only shock the normalized ego back into directly continuing to assert itself as direct source of itself. This is why experiences of “awakening” or “enlightenment” never last. An Individual will revert all experiences into direct current, thereby, interrupting the charge.

Direct current automatically imposes time constrictions making experiences finite, temporal and conventionally expected. However, alternating current, running between minds, has no restrictions, limits or conditions and so it is very unexpected. When individuals serendipitously and spontaneously find themselves briefly experiencing this alternating current, they are afforded momentary glimpses of other minds and really nothing more than this, since there is really only One Mind. This experience is not thought based, since our thoughts are oriented entirely on direct current. However, it is an experience of the circuit of which we are all connected. Therefore, contrary to egocentric individualism, we are entirely the same (metaphysically speaking, of course)

Welcome to the Grand illusion

Come on in and see what's happening

Pay the price, get your tickets for the show

The stage is set, the band starts playing

Suddenly your heart is pounding

Wishing secretly you were a star.

But don't be fooled by the radio

The TV or the magazines

They show you photographs of how your life should be

But they're just someone else's fantasy

So if you think your life is complete confusion

Because you never win the game

Just remember that it's a Grand illusion

And deep inside we're all the same.

We're all the same...

So if you think your life is complete confusion

Because your neighbors got it made

Just remember that it's a Grand illusion

And deep inside we're all the same.

We're all the same...

America spells competition, join us in our blind ambition

Get yourself a brand new motor car

Someday soon we'll stop to ponder what on Earth's this spell we're under

We made the grade and still we wonder who the hell we are

(Styx)

CHRISTMAS NEUTRALITY: The Gift of NOT "Loving it All"

I often find myself in disagreement with my non-duality buddies, who continue to recommend that we “love it all.”

....as if an ego has any comprehension of love. 

Oh sure, egos have relative ideas of “love” (over 6 billion, in fact), but after centuries of such relativity, we have come little closer to what love IS, thereby asserting “dualism” in the world of conscious experience or....what love IS NOT.

This makes me wonder why “loving it all” is so frequently advocated by non-dual teachers. Of course, hypothetically speaking, a non-ego might “love it all,” since relative concepts of "love" would not be superimposed upon experience.

But then… show me a teacher who has NO ego and I'll show you an elephant that flies.

However, its easy to understand the ‘feeling’ dimension of an egocentric 'self' and “loving it all” would certainly seem to 'feel' better than NOT “loving it all.” But this is the trap of presupposing that love has something to do with 'feelings' and egos should probably NOT make assumptions that they have NO way of testing for truth (like knowing what “love” should 'feel' like... feeling THAT... and then pronouncing that you’re “loving it all”).

However, stop feeling love for "it all," even for a nanosecond, and guilt may very well be the very next feeling...

This Christmas, I would suggest you cease your attempts to “love it all” simply because relative love merely asserts its relative opposite, resulting in the usual combative contrasts that egos never fail to identify and, unfortunately, act upon (in fact, couldn't we say that it's all this relative "love" in the world that's the world's number one problem?)

For instance, let’s say this Christmas, somebody snubs your precious gift giving. Well, of course, instantly the ego will assert relative suffering, or 'hurt,' which will then threaten the ego's "loving it all" perspective, causing it to quickly rush to reframe it’s relative suffering into relative “love,” which it can only suffer from equally, due to it’s relativity...

...because deep down you know your only scamming your ‘self.’ Notice the circularity?

This Christmas, seek neutrality... it's so much easier than "loving it all." (of course, your ego is telling you that you MUST "love it all' or else you're not being non-dual, but just ignore all that)

Egos fear that if they don't "love it all" than they will subsequently adopt the opposite perspective. Yet loving "it all," as a means of replacing fearing/hating “it all,” is probably not a ‘best practice’ for egocentric individuals stuck in relative perspectives of “love” (but still wanting some kind of "practice"). This is because relative love can only assert a dualistic opposite and, as we all know, the opposite of relative love would be relative fear (and corresponding relative hate).

Now, some would say that since we “are it all” we must then “love it all" (kind of in-sequence) Yet this is a story of mixing metaphors. Stating that we “are it all” is an excellent non-dual “pointer.' However, “loving it all” is an egocentric relative concept, since egos do not know love, only relative love.

It seems logical that once we can finally give up our relative concepts of “love” we might then be open to apprehending what love is, which might then result in discarding all relativity (hypothetically speaking).

Until then, it seems logical that a neutral perspective might be more advantageous than a relative “love it all” perspective. Yet, it does seem that some “non-dualists” are really stuck in the egocentric, relativity of Pollyanna love. But who can blame them, social conditioning is deeply pervasive (relatively speaking).

So this Christmas, instead of “loving it all” give neutrality a whirl. 

This way you can't go 'wrong,' simply because you have not adopted one way or the other and your “loving it all” will no longer interfere with what LOVE can be...if you weren't out tryin' to "love it all."

Perfect Peace holds no perspective... one way or the other..so neither should a Peaceful Self.

So have a very neutrally merry Christmas!
(and avoid kissing hamsters.... kiss a Lemur instead)

Surreal image by Olivia - "Lemur Christmas"

CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS: "And the Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb"

Non-duality, or when the two are as one, does not signify that the two will no longer be ‘perceived’ as two. However, they will no longer be perceived as in opposition to one another and that which does not oppose, can only join and join fully.

"That the ALL may be made ONE. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be ONE in us. I in them, they in me, that they may be perfect in ONE". (John 17:20-22)

Notice the request is that we be made "perfect in ONE” since, although we are ONE, we make two “real” by superimposing conflict upon dualistic contrasts. The request, or prayer, asks that we “make” an experience of ONE as "real" as an experience of two, since it is the truth of "creation" and refers to free-will.

Dualism demands, not simply contrasts or differences, since contrasts or differences need not oppose, but dualism must always perceive contrasts in conflict and differences opposed to one another.

Up/down, black/white, top/bottom, etc are all dual contrasts that need not oppose and are non-conflictual. In fact, we could say that they are one through complementarity, because without one there cannot be the other. More importantly, there is NO opposition and they do indeed define parts unified as a whole.

However, when an ego perceives ‘up’ as more advantageous (or “sacred”) than down or ‘top’ more valuable than ‘bottom,’ we have then superimposed conflict upon contrasts through our own egoic value systems. Becoming fixated on the value system we ‘make’ real can be referred to as "dualism."

One need not suffer through ‘duality.’ But ‘dualism’ (which applies values to duality), demands not simply contrasts, but conflicting contrasts in opposition and this results in suffering.

Christ Consciousness still perceives contrasting concepts, yet, the contrasts are unopposed and exist in perfect equality and therefore, interact harmoniously, neither one more than nor less than, the other. It is not duality that creates conflict, but egoic values of good/bad, right/wrong and guilt/innocence that determines conflict and, hence, suffering.

The non-dualism of Christ Consciousness simply dissolves the distinction between guilt and innocence as the chief component of superimposed 'meaning.' If guilt or innocence is superimposed upon perceived contrasts, then conflict emerges and suffering constructs your experience of a ‘world.’ Attaching guilt and innocence is the burden you impose upon the objects of consciousness and has nothing to do with the thing-in-itself that is perceived.

One must always be guilty, for another to be innocent and this constructs your experience of a world, which seeks measures through levels, degrees, states, quadrants, stages, grades, ranks, phases, classes, intervals, etc, etc, etc.

There are no measures of equality, because it need not be measured.

To kill another is neither good nor bad, but simply unnecessary and Christ Consciousness need not deny this distinction as “real.” However, Christ Consciousness does not apply guilt and therefore, does not condemn from these distinctions by asserting truth to what we determine is “real,” simply because everything we determine as “real” must conflict through levels and degrees.

For the egoic mind, both war and murder derive the same objective results- death. However, the ego compromises with this 'reality' by superimposing guilt and innocence and thereby differentiating between guilty and innocent contrasts. Death in war is innocent, while murder demands guilt. This is because the ego-self is a product of conflict. How else would the ego perceive death as “real” if not by allowing death to be perceived as the result of both guilt and innocence?

Completely remove the distinctions of guilt and innocence from perception and what would be perceived? What levels or degrees could exist? What opposition would be experienced?

Christ Consciousness perfectly equalizes all objects of consciousness simply by denying the projection of guilt or innocence. To atone for guilt is to recognize that guilt has no meaning, but then, neither does innocence, since both concepts are a product of egoic fear. Therefore, guilt and innocence are not a part of perception and perception need not be controlled by the need to seek out guilt and innocence, because such perception naturally sees only perfect peace.

"And the wolf will dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard will lie down with the young goat,
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little boy will lead them."

Isaiah 11:6 (New American Standard Bible)


Image by Jeff Christensen - "Just Business"

Let the Guru Bow to You

Your words enthrall me, your thoughts are clean. You tell me everything is not as it seems.

Are you my teacher? Are you the wise master-guru that "I" seek?

The egoic self-construct will discard that which is not already there IN the student. The idea that there is something new to learn is a trick the student plays on the guru.

This way, the 'self' can be retained as not 'realized,' but forever seeking realization.

The dynamics of the 'enlightenment game' are cyclical, since you can dump all your ignorance on the exalted guru, who's job is to dump it back on you. This is how you maintain the 'cycle of ignorance' and your experience of the world never changes (Yet, you claim to be getting 'closer,' which, of course, only takes you farther away).

However, you can break from the 'cycle of ignorance' when you trust in the ignorant to teach you, because the ego will deny learning anything at all. In that denial, realize that you have learned more than could be learned from a million wise gurus.

But this is virtually impossible, because the ego-self seeks out what is useful based on its own requirements. Even before the teacher speaks, the ego-self knows what is said and so...

...listens intently.

If it resonates, then most likely it's what you've asked for... but not what you need, because you don't know what you need. (and if you don't know what you need, then it's best to trust in everything except what you've asked for).

The real teacher is the one that bows to you. But, most likely, "you" will have none of that, since that would negate the enlightened teacher and your goal to be 'one' (...of them).

Nevertheless, essentially, you teach yourself. The "teacher" only confirms what is already known by YOU. In that sense all teachers are useless and any enlightenment, realization, awakening, etc, etc, you give yourself, as there are no intermediaries for the contents of your mind since all intermediaries are content too. (although we tend to project it outward in the desire for an external reference point, but that's just Freudian "wishful thinking"). The "guru" always gives you what you ask for, although you may deny awareness of the asking.

Seems kinda silly when you really get down to it.

However, there are those who can give you what you do not want, nor ask for, but need. They are all around you. When will you bow to them in the realization that they are your teachers?

The real learning happens when you excuse yourself from the classroom.

Well the dawn was coming,
heard him ringing on my bell.
He said, "my name's the teacher,
that is what I call myself.
And I have a lesson
that I must impart to you.
It's an old expression
but I must insist it's true.

Jump up, look around,
find yourself some fun,
no sense in sitting there hating everyone.
No man's an island and his castle isn't home,
the nest is full of nothing when the bird has flown."

So I took a journey,
threw my world into the sea.
With me went the teacher
who found fun instead of me.

Hey man, what's the plan, what was that you said?
Sun-tanned, drink in hand, lying there in bed.
I try to socialize but I can't seem to find

what I was looking for, got something on my mind.

Then the teacher told me

it had been a lot of fun.

Thanked me for his ticket
and all that I had done.

Hey man, what's the plan, what was that you said?

Sun-tanned, drink in hand, lying there in bed.
I try to socialize but I can't seem to find
what I was looking for, got something on my mind.

(Jethro Tull - The Teacher)


(Image by Saturno Butto)

Forgive Them Lord, For They Know Not What They Do

Spiritual paths and practices are a godsend (unfortunately, God, most likely, is not a participant).

Hey, did your spouse and kids piss you off? Not to worry! You’re on a spiritual journey and they are definitely NOT. At least, not yet, anyway. Obviously, when you get “enlightened,” you’ll bring them into the fold, but for now they must remain on the fringe of your spiritual journey to "enlightenment."

Of course, you’ll have to tolerate their ignorance because they just don’t understand, nor can they. Nevertheless, you will soon understand everything and, based on the "trickle-down" theory (not to be confused with the “shit rolls down hill” theory) they will soon partake of your abundant beneficence and enlightened wisdom.

Unfortunately, they are simply too ignorant to understand that you're doing it all for them! 

They simply do not understand and must be kept on the outside looking in. Oh sure, you can throw ‘em a bone from time to time, like “kids stop fighting, don’t you realize it's all illusion?” Of course, most likely you’ll become the “illusion” and they will tune you out for all eternity. But that’s the way it is with the ignorant ones, they know not what they do.

You, on the other hand “reside in the certainty of your goal." (they can thank you later)

When your wife asks you to do the dishes, you jump at the chance, because now you do the dishes the right way - “mindfully.” Ha! That’ll show her! Besides, what does she know about properly doing the dishes so that only the dishes are done. You are incredulous at how she sometimes does the dishes and talks on the phone at the same time. Nothing but pure ignorance!

Now when you come out of your sacred meditation, only to be angrily informed by your wife that you over-drafted the checking account, you merely respond with, "but honey, all the evil in the world, and all the unhappiness, comes from the I-concept. and failure to be one with Being."(Wu Wei).

Don't be concerned when she defiantly states that she's "getting a lawyer" (lawyers are ignorant fools!)

Your real love is the guru, meditation or text and the ancient hallowed path of ego-transcendence. Ironically, like the alcoholic’s primary love is the bottle and nothing else matters, you are a lover of "enlightenment" and nothing else matters. Your head’s not swimming with booze, but koans, sutras and witty advaitist sayings like, “There is no becoming, ALL IS,” or the constant inner drone of I AM, I AM, I AM, etc, etc, etc.

Let's face it, nothing else in the world, is as important as transcending the world. Hell, even Sri Ramana had to be stuffed with food to keep his body alive. Nobody dared ask him to do the damn dishes, for crying out loud!

So, when your coworker gets promoted over you, you don’t blink an eye simply because you know that “ALL IS.” Sure, you’re “in it,” but you know damn well you’re not “of it” (although sometimes that can be hard, especially on the freeway). Let him get that raise in salary (ignorant fool!) your kid’s education means nothing to you. Money is maya! (except when the price of gas goes up, but you're still working on dissolving that one).

Of course, it may take several decades until you reach your coveted goal of “enlightenment.” But hey, everybody’s gonna have to be patient and trust that "your goal is certain." 

If only you could figure out how to make them understand that through your “awakening” they'll all be saved. If only they understood that the hell you’re going through is not for you (that would be selfish), but ultimately it's all for them.

Then they might be a little more respectful, for God’s sake!

What are You Defending Against in This Moment

It’s never really about attack, since attack comes from the need to defend. Attack is merely an aspect of an ego defense system. However, your ego-self system is ever vigilant against attack (psychological and physical) and this is because it's an active player in the game of death. The objective of that game is different from all 'life' games since you must avoid the outcome rather than seek it. In avoiding this outcome we press into our experience of 'life' by demanding outcomes to life experiences to prove our 'living' and this involves the enlightenment or awakening paradigms.

Enlightenment is sought in 'life' primarily in opposition to the experience of 'death.' It is conceived as the greatest method of asserting 'self' into the experience of 'world,' in opposition to the most diminished experience which we refer to as death (or end of 'self').

However, keep in mind that the ego-self is not as concerned about ending it’s concept of ‘body” as it is with ending the total experience of a ‘self,’ in which the body is only one part of that comprehensive integrated experience.

This is because ‘self’ is only an experience. Its 'world' has no tangible or physical properties only the experience of tangible and physical properties. The ego-self constructs numerous and variable experiences for which to ‘live’ (experience) through its construct of 'self.'

Yet, your ego-self has no experience of death, other than an experience of 'inevitability' and you do experience that everyday.

The ego-self constructs each and every experience it encounters and this is why there are no coincidences in 'life' ("you" just deny responsibility and that denial is the foundation of an 'ego-self'). It provides itself with teachers and teaching moments (and not the ones you consciously choose). This helps maintain an experience of a ‘world’ as directly received from a 'world.' Nevertheless, it cannot construct the experience of death and this cannot be taught from the 'world.' Oh sure, it can experience others dying, but, it cannot construct its own experience of death since it allows for no teachers or teaching moments in time.

Since it has no experience of death, but death is conceptualized as inevitable, it is conceptualized as an 'ending.' This entails a moment to moment self-experience we refer to as "mortality." It is this mortality that makes the ego-self entirely unsafe with itself. How can you trust what you teach yourself (and you pretty much teach yourself everything) if within the construct of 'self' is mortality and the complete cessation of 'self' at any moment?

Certainly, the world provides theoretical and conceptual teachings on death (religion and spirituality), but always doubt is inherent in every theory simply because they cannot be tested. But obviously the ego-self will construct an experience of death since death is inherent to its self-construct and this is because it constructs the experience of ‘others’ dying. Yet, the experience of death, unlike other life experiences cannot ever be confirmed until the moment of death.

Therefore, you are never NOT constructing an experience of death in your experience of life and this tends to put a damper on things.

All of our experiences tend to interface with one another and this is why just having “intent,” as the Law of Attraction proponents advocate, is rather inconsequential, since any 'intention' construct must compete with its opposite. What’s important about the egoic experiential construct of death is that you will spend your entire ‘life’ constructing your experience of death and this is the function of all religious-spiritual concepts and ideologies.

However, you will NOT realize or 'know' the culmination of this death-construct until the time of death. It’s not important to realize the ‘when’ of death, because the game is about preparing for that 'event' at any moment and this is why death is the only experience the ego-self must defend against IN every moment. Since it cannot define or construct it, it must therefore always be vigilantly prepared for it. Interestingly enough, there are examples of individuals who, upon accepting the diagnosis of a terminal condition, discard all preparation and report this to be the most joyous time of their entire life.

Essentially, your defense against death is how the ego-self defines life because all assertion of ego-self into the world is in opposition to death. To "live life to the fullest" is only to oppose the dualistic opposite of life, which is death. The paradox is that the ego-self construct, or experience of ‘self,’ includes living-unto-death within it and this tends to buffer or dumb down all experiences because deeply inherent within each experience of living, is the construct of death. Subsequently, Living-unto-death reinforces the experience of ‘time’ because there is so little of it available to 'life.'

All ego-self experiences tend to dualistically nest within each other reinforcing and canceling-out other experiences and this merely supports the ego’s need TO experience ceaselessly. Will the ego-self experience ceaselessly after death? The answer is denied because there is no construct of experience through which to define itself in-death. This demands 'fear' and fear is the warning to the self of the immediacy and mortality of death, because it has no experience to go on.

The name of this game is defense and your defenses reinforce the ego-self concept of death and this is what must be defended against through asserting the ego-self into its experience of ‘world.’ But how can you assert into life and defend against death at the same time? Essentially, "you" have no choice since you cannot escape the dualistic 'self' that "you" require. To completely end one process would end the other and you would cease to exist and "you" certainly cannot allow that to happen. You cannot just defend against death or assert for life. You must do both, alternately and cyclically.

However, you can experience a reduction of defense, and this seems equivalent to the levels of the enlightenment experience. Recognize the ego-self use of defenses to protect the ‘self’ against death (not just embodied self, but more importantly the psychological self). This defending against can be experienced from moment to moment, like when your child talks back to you, you are cut off in traffic, argue with a coworker, etc, etc, any experience that has anger, anxiety, depression or guilt is solely related to fear of death. Anything that threatens the self-package is treated as threat of an end to the experience of 'self.'

Keep in mind that it’s not survival of the body that is of most concern, but the survival of the whole experience of ‘self,' including body, mind, others and world. If the psychological component of ‘self’ is threatened (the experience we believe as located in "mind") this is equal to bodily threat and can create as much panic and fear as if the body were threatened.

It is fear that you defend against because it warns of death. This fear creates vigilance and vigilance demands defense and constant defense can drain you to exhaustion (but this will not stop it because of your dire need to defend). Stillness of mind and body (not necessarily “meditation”) is helpful in recognizing your perpetual vigilance toward defense. This is because all your hustle and bustle, within your experience of ‘world,’ is actually from fear. Let fear guide you to your defenses so that you can fully examine why you do what you do. Therefore, the question is, when I experience fear, what am I defending against in this moment and what is the purpose I have assigned to this fear.

This might help you realize the need to do less, since it’s only the experience of death that you are protecting yourself from in all your 'doings' and to limit such self-protection can be quite liberating to say the least. Essentially, you must substitute the need to defend with an evolving experience of complete safety.

Good Luck With That!

Is "Be Here Now" Bullshit?

I have no problem with chemical 'states of consciousness,' since there really is no difference. You can interpret experiencing 'god,' on acid or meditating with your guru, it really doesn't matter, since it will be the ego that interprets it as an experience of 'god' based on whatever ideology the ego adopts as 'true.'

But is there an experience of something more than ego or even not ego involved in terms of making that interpretation? I believe there is a field of uninterpretable consciousness from which ego arises, but if I make such an interpretation from an experience, doesn't that assert ego ownership and therefore the interpretation will be tainted by ideological learning?

In fact, could we not say that all interpretations of a present moment are interpretations acquired from the past. For instance, you may have an experience that you interpret as "be here now" but if that experience is ego-self interpreted (and how could it not be), and all interpretations have an ideological viewpoint and must come from a 'self,' then it was learned from the past and therefore, IT IS the past that is applied to the experience. In other words, who or what from the past, taught you to interpret certain experiences as "be here now"?

This is why I take issue with all interpretive language, especially the sacrosanct, ideologically specialized concepts like "awakening," "enlightenment" "nirvana" "samadhi" "satori" etc, etc, etc.
Once I hear these ego-self interpretations of experience, I tend to figure that this was the paradigm going into the 'experience' and it's what's declared as 'truth,' coming out. The experience merely serves to further reinforce the ideology and bolster the ego-self.

Is there an "authentic awakening"? It seems there are numerous "awakenings" one could have, that do nothing but take an experience of normal "awakening" into a higher or more profound interpretation and if one achieves different states of consciousness (drugs or meditation) then clearly value will be applied to each episode of experience.

Much Hindu/Zen/Advaitist ideology revolves around 'awakening' levels and degrees. This seems to keep the enlightened fat-cats at the top, "yes, grasshopper, you may be awakened, but you are only first-level, novitiate awakened, not grand-awakened such as I" (a little Yoda humor).

The sacred ones tend to avoid me and I don't blame them, all this reductionism gets pretty tedious and discouraging. However, we all have egoic "frames of reference" and I think spiritual paths provide such 'frames.' They are very helpful in negotiating the world. However, I don't believe an ego-self can transcend itself employing the ideologies and practices currently advocated.

Yet, I don't totally disbelieve either. Nevertheless, if this is even possible, we'll need to really understand the underlying ego-self dynamics, that we spend our wholes lives ignoring, if we wish to find a way to go beyond the usual interpretations of 'enlightenment,' 'awakening' or 'god.'

mikeS

CONVERSATIONS WITH EGO: "Awakening"

Mike: WOW! Unbelievable! HaHa! I now finally realize what “Awakening” is!

ego: Oh? And what’s that, mike?

Mike: It means that I don’t need to seek “Awakening” anymore, because I am already Awakened!



ego: Uh, Ok… that’s fine, but…we don’t seem to feel any different than we did a moment ago.

Mike: Achh! You don’t understand. It’s not about any state of mind it just IS!

ego: What just “IS”?

Mike: Awakening!

ego: I’m not sure I get it. What have we “awakened” to?

Mike: "We" no, no no, I've "awakened to my True Self.

ego: Your true self…does that include me?

Mike: Well, no…actually, I have to "transcend" you and you have to dissolve or be annihilated or something like that.

ego: Well, you better be clear on this mike, because…I’m still here…are you sure you’re awakened? Maybe I’m just supposed to hang around a little while longer.

Mike: Huh? …No! my awakening is supposed to be egoless. Don’t you get it?! You’re the whole damn problem…all your striving and desiring…you’re the cause of all my suffering and to be awakened is to be without YOU!

ego: But, Mike, who would you be… without me?

Mike: Free! Finally free of all my suffering. All the suffering that YOU caused.

ego: Uh, ok then… I’ll just step back here awhile, out of the way, and let you enjoy this “awakening.” But when you need me, just go ahead and give me a shout.

Mike: HA! Need you! You just don’t get it. Our relationship is over, kaput, no more!

ego: Ok then, but……oh yeah, I almost forgot, don’t forget to pay the electric bill cause you’re now 5 days late. Oh and don’t forget, you’re supposed to pick up your daughter after school today and make sure you stop and pickup your prescriptions on the way home. Hey, look at your hair! Aren’t you due for a haircut? By the way, shouldn’t you be thinking about getting something for your wife’s birthday and another thing……………

Mike: (sigh)


Dedicated to MonkMojo

Get High, Get God...It's All Up to Your Ego

I remember years ago reading about Richard Alpert, assistant 'acid master' under the tutelage of the real 'master' Timothy Leary at Harvard Univ. Alpert reported experiencing the same wild, flying through consciousness , world-love, experiences in India with his chosen guru, as when he was daily experimenting with LSD at Harvard U.


He came back from his Indian induction as Baba Ram Dass. In several books, most famous “Be Here Now,” Ram Dass asserted that through 'natural’ meditative practices he achieved the same ‘higher states of consciousness’ that he experienced through LSD and Psilocybin (mushrooms) while at Harvard.

I've had some profoundly interesting experiences many years ago while ingesting various chemicals. I have also had very similar experiences through my own past meditation practices (through the American Med. Society, which teaches a form of TM only with a personalized mantra provided by the guru or guruic representative). This is commensurate with the claims of Ram Dass, Terrence McKenna, and many others.

So what’s the difference between the drugged experiences and the reported "pure" experiences of meditation?

The difference seems most likely (speculation, open for questioning) in the paradigm through which the experiences are interpreted (of course, this is also Ken Wilbers claim). Ram Dass’s guru taught ‘service’ and Ram Dass returned to the states with that learned goal clearly reinforced by the intense "superconscious," or altered state, experiences he acquired. If the egoic paradigm supports God, nirvana, enlightenment, etc, then clearly the altered psychic state will be interpreted by the ego in just that way.

The egoic paradigm is paramount and serves to filter any profound psychic experiences. Thus, without the learned paradigm, the experiences, such that Alpert had at Harvard, were useless since the paradigm or model which made the interpretations, while on acid, was grounded in the world's value system.

The meditative psychic experience is filtered through what the ego-self considers as pure and unadulterated eastern paradigm. Although both may be the exact same states of consciousness, it is the egoic self which makes the determination as to value and worthiness in order to be accepted as 'awakening' or 'enlightenment.' The experience is real (whether through drugs or meditation) while the interpretation is purely ego-self, "wow, that was great! It must've been the enlightenment they told me about."

Ram Dass needed, in his opinion, the correct paradigm or teachings before he could adequately process the psychic states. The states then supported and reinforced the paradigm. (if you read Castenanda’s “Don Juan” you’ll see these same egoic interpretations of higher or altered states throughout the narrative, but note that psychedelics were used to attain the states).

My assertion is that through these states or neurochemical alterations, the ego constructs interpretations that it has learned from other teachers that simply serve to reinforce the ego from those interpretations. The interpretations will be formed from the paradigm that the ego-self has determined are worthy of adoption and this occurs long before the experience is encountered, otherwise the experience must be processed through whatever paradigm or model exists within the ego belief system.

Yet, the ego can even go back and re-evaluate past states and thus make a consideration of "awakening.'

The question is, does the fact that the states are interpreted and defined by the ego lessen or diminish the psychic states? Do we need to have neurochemical imbalances and alterations to reinforce ego-self belief systems? Recall that severe bipolar neurochemical imbalances also result in altered psychic states, but we tend to refer to this as mental illness.

If superconsciousness or awakening is nothing more than an egoic interpretation of "superconsciousness," what does this say about the whole awakening premise or paradigm which is based on ego transcendence?

If the mental state requires ego interpretation, how could it ever signify a state of egolessness?

This tends to stand the usual argument of "you can't understand unless you have the experience" on its head. It seems the real story is that you can't understand the experience until you have the correct paradigm through which to interpret the experience.

Possibly the real experience, or Truth of the matter (cap T) is that you will need to smash all paradigms through which your ego has been taught to interpret experiences.

Maybe by preparing yourself for SURPRISE, with no paradigm attached or associated, will you then have an experience unclassifiable by your ego. Until then you will simply interpret your supposed superconscious psychic states based on how you were taught to interpret them.

And because of this, we have the wonderful "awakening" industry....

But, how can this be Truth? (cap T)

The "Unconscious" Doesn't Exist

Is there really a nebulous lower domain or netherworld of impulses and drives outside conscious awareness that we refer to as the unconscious? If reality is nothing more than the flow of concepts within a ‘field’ of consciousness, where is this region of consciousness we call un-consciousness? (or subconscious) Seems to me it’s merely a perfect alibi for irresponsibility.

Psychology loves the unconscious, because it's used to make sense of absurd and irrational behaviors, while not making sense of anything at all. In fact, it may be this all-encompassing theory of the unconscious that perpetuates our collective mental illness and our failure to accept responsibility for our world.

The rule is that we can never really have full culpability with any of our actions due to unconscious impulses. The field of consciousness merely attaches coordinates to the objects of consciousness. The coordinates provide either personal ownership or locates some objects of consciousness as separate and external to you.

Yet, essentially, it’s ALL IN your consciousness and, hence, it’s all you, all the time.

Therefore, objects of consciousness, which includes all perceptions, conceptions, thoughts, feelings, emotions, images, everything you could consider as experience, are either allotted a personal coordinate in space/time (as belonging to you) or it's cut off and given to the world.

Yet these coordinates are delusional as nothing exists outside your consciousness.

The "evil" you repress is never really tucked away in some mental basement, it's merely projected outward and attached to objects or the people you see all around you everyday. However, since your ego has arranged that "evil-doers" be separate from a "you," now you can easily deflect responsibility for all the nasty stuff “out there," and easily ignore what you SEE as not your responsibility. Somebody else needs to take care of that. The entire science of psychology supports this basic premise of "personal responsibility" so how can I remedy what is not my fault?

The entire world seems to be crumbling before your very eyes, yet, of course, there's nothing you can do. It's "out there"! All you can do is take care of your own little world, or that within consciousness which your ego has allowed personal responsibility.

The ego determines what you own and what will be given to the world or, essentially, projected away from you while still in consciousness. Anything the ego does not wish to own, is merely given an external coordinate and thus, you perceive it as outside you, in the world. This becomes a 'knee-jerk' classification that merely requires acknowledgment in order to collapse. But who wants to acknowledge guilt for what the world has become? No, it's all become quite comfortable to let the ego do its magic.

Nothing is ever repressed into unawareness and no such unconscious, subconscious, preconscious, etc, levels of the mind exist. You are unconscious of nothing, since everything is in conscious awareness, but merely allocated 'external" coordinates. All your "primitive impulses" are available for full view. All your fears and nightmares are in consciousness and you view it daily in one form or another. War and destruction are in your mind. There is no need to forgive another, as you are both victim and victimizer.

The evil is NOT 'out-there,' it’s 'in-here.'

Why would ego desire some experiences of consciousness be externalized, while others be personally owned? Obviously, if hell is of your making, you would certainly seek to change it. Yet, extracting and externalizing parts of hell, as not your doing, works well in keeping the separation machine humming and keeping you apart from your own consciousness. Let's face it, if you were forced to take responsibility for the whole kit and Kaboodle, you’d fix it in a cosmic heartbeat since it really sucks. Unfortunately, this would fix your ego-self as well since, if there is no separation, then there could be no “you” to deny ownership, requiring full responsibility. But, if there's NO "you," what happens to the 'world'?

This poses a problem for many awakening programs, which rely on a “you” having an unconscious requiring you plumb your “unconscious” depths in order to finally realize the obstacles to "awakening." The exalted teachers claim it’s not the conscious mind that obstructs your progress but all the unconscious conditioning that you have repressed from consciousness. This Freudian perspective is really anathema to achieving a unified consciousness or that oneness we all tend to give lip-service.

Why would they seek to partition consciousness thereby allowing you to avoid your responsibility in saving the world? You can’t seek what is outside awareness. Therefore, to maintain the awakening game there must be some part of your mind inaccessible to you. Because if consciousness is all there is and you are not separate from any of it, how could you ever seek to realize this fact if there is a part of consciousness, or unconsciousness, that you have been taught is not available to you. It's time to deeply question the conventional wisdom of the "masters."

Nevertheless, we're all as guilty as "sin." So instead of spending everyday steeped in hours of meditative wandering with the intent of finally overcoming your unconscious impulses, just look outside your head and SEE it all in vivid technicolor. Once you take responsibility for what you see , then go back into your consciousness and change it.

It's as simple as that!

Control vs No Control in the Awakening Game

Does your spiritual path teach ‘doing’ or ‘not doing’? Control or no-control? Does your chosen spiritual path require you be an active participant or a passive observer? Do you seek to surrender control of your thinking or are you seeking to channel your thoughts through some form of intentionality?

Sometime ago, I engaged in just such a discussion through Tom Stines blog and his post “No Control, No Control, No Control.” Tom, and many of his readers, believe that the path to "awakening" requires a detachment from thought or ego. To quote Tom, “We like to think we have control, or we like to think that we have at least some control, but in point of fact, we’ve got none. Hell, we can’t even control the thoughts that flow through our minds, let alone the turning of the wheels of life. And, to get right down to it, there isn’t even a you who is or isn’t in control! How’s that grab you?! No you, no control.”
You'll notice by reading the comments attached to this post that there were a fair number of egos who agreed with Tom and many who did not (my comments are listed under Mike S).

When you closely examine the ingenuity of the ego in creating brilliantly designed "awakening games" that secretly serve (actually it's not very secret at all) to further accentuate itself, you must wonder why folks are so anxious to escape it or demand the ego surrender control. Why not tap the power of the ego to see how far it can take us, since obviously it must be fully utilized to play “awakening games.”

Alas, the ego does cause suffering, but of course, that's contingent on the ego’s choice of suffering games (similar to awakening games, except a different prize). Yet, that is exactly what the awakening games seek to alter. Your ego is what 'you' are, since it is a psychological package of beliefs you clearly designate as 'you.' The rule for the "no-control" player is that you passively identify with your belief package rather than firmly assert it. This is fine and I imagine it may help reduce anxiety/fear, that is until certain problems pop up demanding an assertive ego and then the game is seen as disingenuous.

In this game the ego recognizes that it is the cause of suffering, therefore, it needs to get out of its way so that suffering will cease. It sets up a game in which it attempts to redirect its experience of suffering by asserting a claim that it's no longer in control, hence, suffering should cease. The rules of the game are that we simply allow thoughts to come and go and don’t attach to the thoughts, but merely let them pass. Essentially, this means that the ego will continue to construct concepts (that's what egos do!) with the goal of not attaching to what it makes.

The problem is that this tends to deny the hierarchical thinking that the ego engages with, in which some concepts are more serious than others. This is because thinking is a serious game (why else would we seek to detach from it) in which some thoughts or concepts predominate over others.

The thought “I am hungry” is much more serious than the thought “I am bored,” since relieving boredom is certainly not as crucial as relieving hunger. The ego can easily detach from boredom because boredom is a concept having very little to do with survival of the body and the body is a major idea in the ego’s bundle of concepts making up a "you." Continuing to detach from hunger will exacerbate your suffering until you eventually die. Obviously, ego demands existence and so hunger must be attended to very assertively.

We may pretend this hypocritical contradiction does not exist, but eventually we will realize the rules are disingenuous simply because the ego makes up the rules it has determined will save it.

Now the argument seems to be, “there is no 'YOU' to be bored” and that makes sense in relation to the abstract nature of the concept of "you." But try “there is no 'YOU' with hunger and I imagine you won’t get very far. Although you may surrender control of your “boredom” you will inevitably seek to control your “hunger.” The game is stacked against you from the git-go, so why bother playing by those rules?

However, it's fine if you choose to play by those rules, I just wouldn't take it too seriously, that's all. You can feel free to play any game you choose (make no mistake, 'you' do choose), but it will be the degree of seriousness you attach to the chosen game that will determine your degree of suffering. The game of not taking ego seriously (detaching from thought) can be a very serious game. Once it becomes a 'serious game' then the rules take on grave significance and world history demonstrates what happens when we take "awakening games" (or God) seriously.