Expectation Versus Reality


Oh ffs… Rudy, your mind is full of preconceived ideas given to you by those folks who claim something magical, and now you are looking for this something special and magical here.

What flipping ‘Oneness’???? What bloody ‘enlightenment?? Where ON EARTH have you EVER come across anything that does not have another side of the coin, i.e. complete duality? Black-white, happy-miserable, dry-wet, male-female, in the mountains – on the savannah, up-down etc. etc… The sense of non-dual is a temporary sense of floating through the universe pumped up full of happy hormones. One always remembers the taste, but it goes, and one ends up staring at.. what exactly?? Yes, at the real world, the one they have always inhabited, but wanted to get out of, because the real world is unfortunately not that conducive to happiness.

WE as human beings are not prone to happiness. For hundreds of thousands of years we had to survive in the wild just like all other animals do. We are hard wired for a sense of alert, danger, competition, and that is keeping us on our toes even when there is no immediate danger anymore.


Worth having you say….what is worth having? Didn’t you read Jed’s recommendation against looking for something that, frankly, will fuck you up forever? What, you want Valhalla?? There is no Valhalla.

There is no pretty Shangri-La either, where one is One with everything, drop that crap right away. One lands exactly where they started and goes “SHIT, what was I looking for all this time!!! There was nothing to look for!! What a bloody idiot have I been!!!” Don’t you remember Jed’s metaphor of taking the skin off oneself piece by piece and than Bang! one gets the fact that they are looking for something THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED, and begin to laugh, yes, hysterically, I did too.

But then…. real life reminds them that they need to survive. They begin to write books. Or begin to charge for courses. I know a person who said to me they would teach, even though they realise it is all pointless. But they said they have to pay the bills. Anyone who tells you Oneness is a special state that exists and is achievable – is selling you the Dream.

You are a typical representative of the enlightenment seeker brigade: willing, naive, eager. This is the target audience of our masters. Of those people on your list I would give some credit to Richard Rose, even though he was a total tool from attempting to crack open the minds of his young students. None got it in the time of staying on the farm… and to Wayne, as he he never profiteered much from it, but he did write his books which means – he did add to the illusion of enlightenment, and let’s face it – he was a nice man, but not quite right in his head.

Adyashanti is your typical Californian business person: he is shrewd, in the business of enlightenment and has set it up very successfully. He is softly-softly, but see if you directly challenge him and his business practices and watch how vigorously it will get defended. There will be no ‘softly-softly’ then. Something is so strange about Californian people in general.. all that I have met are screwed up as far as this enlightenment shit goes. I have met a few here too. ALL have ‘enlightenment’ or ‘New Age’ affliction.

I am beginning to sound like U.G. – grumpy, fed up, annoyed. I am annoyed at human gullibility, yes. I am annoyed that you have surrounded your mind with all these ‘respectable’ figures and their stories, and now you are also inadvertently trying to add me to this monkey circle.

And you are asking the wrong questions. You are asking the questions which will never lift the veil of your ignorance. You are not asking anything on Reality. And it is not me you should be asking. It is – you.

Scotty Don't Beam Me

47 thoughts on “Expectation Versus Reality

    1. You are welcome, Rudy.

      Please do not feel offended, as no offence ever intended.

      I’ll tell you what… if you ever have a question – feel free to post/ask. If the question has no real value – I will tell you so, and you can ask another and another until the question is real, with a true potential to contribute to understanding. Then you would have to get your teeth into it, on your own, in order to come to some answer.

      1. No offense taken. Lots of viewpoints out there. Yours is one. I reached out because I wanted to hear more and you were kind enough to really respond. I genuinely appreciated it.

        Your offer here is equally kind and I will likely take you up on it. But not sure what you mean by “a question with a potential to contribute to understanding.”

        I think I understand your position. In no particular order: 1) it is a jungle out there built on will to survive and therefore survival of the fittest, 2) we’re chalk marks in a rainstorm and what we think want feel washes away like the chalk and then nothing and it is therefore not worth the sturm and drang we invest in it, 3) when its over, its over…just nothing, 4) human adulthood is worth striving not because it better than something else but just for for your own sanity and the sanity of those around you, 5) anything else you choose to strive for, do it for love or curiosity, not because it leads anywhere or means anything or earns any merit badges, 6) we need others, we grow through interaction with others so be kind to those you can and those you can’t try to avoid, 7) reality bites but its all we got…its this and then its nothing 8) what you don’t surrender will get stripped away…the sooner you do so the easier the journey will be, 9) there are flashes of blinding insight but no such thing as a state of Enlightenment so don’t waste your time looking for it, 10) the world exists but the meaning we project onto it is bullshit, 11) question everything.

        I didn’t think I had another question for you, but maybe this: Anything of note that I either left out of my interpretation of your position or misconstrued?

        If you go back to my original post, i was writing because I didn’t think i could summarize your position. Perhaps I got close.



        1. @ Rudy

          No, it is all quite close to what I am saying, and I don’t really feel like tweaking your points to perfection.

          I am just not sure why you want to summarize my position when to me the most important point would have been- what is MY position in all this?

          You see… I kept that in mind when searching for answers: “Forget about these bearded folks’ positions, what is MINE? What do I ‘ME” think, feel, sense, perceive about all this shit?”

          And that is exactly what I mean when I say ‘Find questions ‘with a potential to contribute to understanding’.” Wondering about my position is not one of those as it will not lead one to seeing Reality for themselves. It will only lead to comparing their current understanding to that of mine, and what good is that to anyone?

          In short, just like Jed says – it is a solo path, with own questions and own answers.

          1. Part of what I am doing is similar to what you seem to have done…read other views, sit with the questions about them, and decide what is true for yourself.

            You appear to have read all of these authors at least enough to be able to come to some conclusion about them and their experiences. You indicate what you liked about Wayne Wirs and were you think he went astray. You have read about Adyashanti and Nisgardatta, and Mark Leavitt. Despite what appears to be a few significant issues with Jed, you quote positions of his that you like quite liberally, including in your response here.

            As evidenced by this website, you also have a position on the topic all these writers are writing about. It interested me. I earnestly wanted to try to better understand what you were saying by reading this site and interacting with you.

            You indicated that my summary above is directionally correct. I agree with you on everything about the points I summarized except for #9. I agree there is no permanent state of enlightenment, but I believe there is an experience of enlightenment that radically shifts one’s lived experience when it happens.

            For better or worse, I remain curious about that possibility.

            Again my sincere thanks for the interaction,


  1. @ Rudy

    You are most welcome.

    I never read Wayne or Marc. I just knew who they were and where they were coming from the way they interacted with others, and their life choices.

    I never read Niz, but there are many large chunks of quotations of his to comprehend where he was.

    I listened to Steven Grey’s The End Of Your World after the Big Bang. Much of it didn’t resonate, not because of the content (which IS embelished and exaggerated), but because I knew that he ended up ‘teaching’ and so was lying through his teeth in order to expand the business.

    Now it is also a family concern, with his wife drafted into the business.

    Jed falls into the same category minus the public face. My opposition was never to what he writes about, but to the fact that he wrote at all and sold it, as well as not really speaking of the true Reality. As I said before, if he did – it would cost him his readerdship. So he doesn’t. But I have no doubt he gets it.

    As for No. 9… you will laugh one day at this wish of yours that enlightenment is, and that it changes your experience.

    You (and we all) are a sack of meat barely able to cognite in any constructive advanced manner and destined to rot away without a trace. Make the best of it.

    1. Hi,

      I take it you are a little less triggered by Marc and Wayne since beyond writing a couple books, neither seem(ed) to be trying to develop a paying following. Is that accurate?

      Also, since you indicated that you have actually spoken with Wayne (I do not recall you saying whether you actually talked to Marc but in one of your replies to me you indicated he is “one genuine chap,”) I am curious as to whether either of them agreed with you that enlightenment “isn’t” and if they offered any explanation as to why in the world they decided to write that it “is?”

      And if they didn’t agree that enlightenment isn’t did they say/share anything about how enlightenment affected their lived experience beyond the depth they go into about that change in in their respective books?



      1. I appreciate that they were not pushing for a paying following, yes, very much so. But they both wrote about enlightenment. Enough for me to question the state of their minds as and when they were writing.

        Marc seemed to have come to his senses eventually. Wayne, however, was lost in his.

        Nothing of enlightenment was discussed with Wayne. I didn’t speak to Marc, someone else did, and no, it was not about enlightenment either.

        Aside from this website, I am not concerned about enlightenment and spirituality, since to me they are nothing but the toys people play with in order not to face bare facts of life. Kinda like a happy pill. Gives one determination, a will to keep digging, aka life purpose… Huh.

        All based on air castles, but as I said a few years back – this is the scary truth most folks will try very hard to ignore.

        I am more into practical, living orientated things now.

        1. Interesting.

          This can be a tough medium for really understanding someone, so let me be sure I am clear on what you are saying. 1) Are you saying that whatever experience Marc or Wayne had was not enlightenment? and 2) That the act of writing the books makes you question whether they might have had a Pink Floyd…Momentary Lapse of Reason, in short, they lost it…moment?

          While speculating can be dangerous, what do you think might cause someone who is not trying to get famous or build a following to write a book claiming some experience they just had or maybe even didn’t have at all was enlightenment? Is it just to justify all the time spent sitting on their assess and engaging in omphaloskepsis? To say it wasn’t just pissed away?

          And what of all these monks in all these Eastern temples for all these millennia…like the ones in your backyard (I thought you indicated you lived in Cambodia)? Are they just hiding out trying to avoid getting chewed up by the machinations of Reality? Again, dangerous to speculate, I know.



          1. @ Rudy

            1) Define ‘enlightenment’, and I will answer this question.

            A. They have an experience.
            B. All experiences need time to mature in order to fully comprehend their value and lessons. It applies equally to divorces as well as school competitions and boardroom decisions.
            C. But most people have no patience and maturity to wait and see, to fully incorporate their life experiences in their mind.
            D. Instead they jump up and down excited like ADHD kids and begin to write about their experiences, without fully understanding them.
            E. As a result, they produce immature, fantasy and exaggeration riddled books. It doesn’t matter what the subject is, the process is universal.
            F. Many books, regardless of the subject matter, are badly written and teach the fables, from cookery recipes to biographies to novels. Some become bestsellers despite the absence of any serious merit.
            G. The books get picked up by other, curious and eager humans who begin to look for something based on a story of one overexcited mind.
            A.A. They have an experience….

            I predict your question. “But they had an experience, right? So it must be real?”

            People have many mind experiences. I had dozens and could be waxing lyrical and writing engaging books about them. It means nothing. What means SOMETHING is what one UNDERSTANDS as a result of their experience, and what one DOES as a result of their experience.

            Monkhood is a social institution going back a long way.

            Stage One: There were overexcited ADHD kids listening to someone. I call them ‘spiritual groupies’. They founded places of worship, no matter what part of the world. Remember, the man is eaten alive from inside by his desires, afflictions, hormones, thoughts, some pretty dark. The man is looking for some relief from those. Relief in groups offers a form of comfort.

            Stage Two: Groups based on a common religious call become social institutions, well incorporated into society. Poor families give one child to become a monk. It is believed to bring good luck to the family (they are amazingly superstitious in Asia) AND gets rid of one mouth to feed (they are amazingly pragmatic in Asia). Children here are a commodity to be traded, except for more educated and well=heeled small minority.

            It keeps a chunk of healthy male population from participating in economic and procreational activities and hence from resource competition. But temples as an institution are well engaged in economic activities.

            Monks, just like priests, abuse little boys in their care. Remember, the boys are taken from the families to live with the monks. Think of the sordid potential for abuse. Scandals happen on a regular basis. No one gives a shit.

            Here is a speculation for you, Rudy. One day you will come to hate me.

  2. Hi Rudy,

    Enlightment isn’t truth “is” as above, the sack of meat barely able to cognite in any constructive advanced manner and destined to rot away without a trace.

    Take care!

  3. Hi,


    Do you refer to yourself as Tano? I feel sort of rude not addressing you by name, but I have not seen you sign your name.

    You asked me to define enlightenment. I of course have no idea what enlightenment is. Only know what i read of it from the names we have been discussing. You said you did not read Niz, only listened to one of Adya-shanty’s productions. I have not seen you quote much beyond Jed and I know he is hit and miss for you, but here is one of Jed’s explanations:

    “The one and only truth about any person lies like a black hole at their very core. Everything else is rubbish and debris which covers that hole. That rubbish and debris is what they think they are and that’s what blocks awakening. Enlightenment is breaking through blockage and stepping through the hole.”

    This notion of the experience of utter emptiness was described by Steven Gray and by Mark and by Nisgardatta and they also said that this feeling of utter emptiness was followed, at some point, by a lack of separation between observer and observed. Jed said as much: “One exists. Nothing and Two do not. Nothing that says two survives.” That’s the best I can do.

    Your speculation in your reply was wrong and I suspect your prediction will be too. Rarely find myself really hating someone I disagree with, the one possible exception being Trump.



    1. PS. In your 2) answer above I really liked the notion that experiences of all kinds take time to mature and too many people write/broadcast their new insights too quickly…wine before its time.

      I appreciated the detail around monk-hood. That seems true as well, though i wonder if it might be a rather broad brush.



    2. ‘Tano’ will do.

      Regarding that Jed quote… One of the reasons I have a problem with these kinds of pretty quotes is the following: they sound punchy and true, but say absolutely nothing. I mean… what ‘black hole’? Would Jed care to spell it out? What ‘rubbish and debris that covers that hole’?

      In other words, our authors, Jed including, talk AROUND Reality, without naming any components of it. So. You are left scratching your head as to what they mean.

      Do you understand what exactly he meant by that passage?

      I spoke about that before, but my version is too ‘depressing’, in most people’s minds, to even consider it, to just give it some degree of reasoned attention. Hence, people come over here, read, accuse the EM of nihilism and lack of optimism and fuck off somewhere more rainbow coloured.

      Jed cannot name it. He never said we are animals in origin. He prefers to call it ‘the black hole’. Fuck yeah…. much Clarity for you lot.

      And so he encourages people to ‘step through that hole’. Right. As I said before – ‘Go there, I don’t know where. Fetch that, I don’t know what’.

      And people do. Oh they doooooooo. They run, and they search, and they bite the tail, and they spend decades doing so. Until they mature enough to see the futility, slow down, relax, kick back and finally begin to enjoy their normal everyday life as they should have done way back. Except now they are old(er), the bodies are not as capable even if the minds are willing, and there isn’t that much time left before death claims them forever.

      The freshie boys and girls then join the circus, and the enlightenment Game plays again. In the background – the sound of rustling green dollar paper.


      1. Hi Tano,

        Conceptually I have a sense about what he meant (rubbish = ego identifications and stories about self; hole = the empty space of awareness that thought and sensation arises in), but in actuality of course I do not.

        If it is not too much trouble, would you mind linking to what you referred to in your answer: “I spoke about that before, but my version is too ‘depressing’, in most people’s minds, to even consider it, to just give it some degree of reasoned attention.”

        Sincere thanks for the ongoing exchange.


        1. Rudy.

          I COULD give you a link to my musings, but I will not. You are getting stuck in a rut, except now it is TANO’S RUT. Those are MY musings on the state of Reality, human origins and place in it.

          You don’t need them. You need to formulate your own understandings.

          …Ask a real question.

          …I will tell you if that question is worth investigating.

          …. You go and investigate it on your own.

          ….If you feel like it – come back and tell about your findings.

          1. Hi Tano,

            What makes you a good judge of a question worth investigating?

            Worth seems to imply that something is better but it all ends in oblivion so why is one question or one pursuit worthy and another not?

            What do you know that many of the rest of us don’t seem to know?



          2. Not good questions. Will not lead to understanding.

            1. Being unsatisfied with the vague writings on spiritual websites and in spiritual books – I went on my own to ask the questions and to seek the answers to those questions.

            2. It all ends in two things: understanding of the Futility AND gaining Clarity. Is it worth it? I don’t know. The Futility will wipe it all out eventually. But before that happens – one lives and breathes. Do you want to live and breathe in Clarity or in Fog? I personally thought ‘Fuck the fog’.

            3. Here it would be easy to answer in two ways: A. the egotistic ‘I know everything, the Perfect Knowledge” (remember that Jed’s claim?) B. the spiritually correct and fakely humble “I know nothing”.

            The truth is more prosaic. Some things I know without a doubt. Some things I am completely ignorant of. But to give a closer fit to your last question…. I know my Mind and subsequently understand the world. I know who I am, and I know what the world/Reality is, my place in it and ways in which it all pans out.

            This is what people mostly don’t seem to know about themselves and, as a result, are utterly lost in this world and in their own minds.

    3. Utter Emptiness. Sure, when one comprehends the full Reality and its futility.

      It is not pretty or uplifting. But within that – a person stops throwing stones and begins to count their blessings. That makes life worth living.

      “One exists. Nothing and Two do not. Nothing that says two survives.”

      Yeah. YOU.

      Now, Jed can stuff the pretty, but meaningless expressions up his back passage. He too was a bit too fast to put pen to paper. Too infatuated with own premature insights.

      One book of his I WILL read is ‘Jed on his deathbed’, in the hope he will drop the spiritual correctness and will spell it out.

      Someone has to.

          1. Hi Tano,

            That seems like a vague, pretty Grasshopper answer that you accuse Jed of frequenting.

            People constantly think they are clear and know what time it is only to find out they really didn’t/don’t. You just advised that Marc and others should have waited after their “experience” to see what was really going on. My son thought he was totally prepared for his Math test..was helping others with their homework and prep and he got crushed on the final. In science, a construct is becoming clearer and more well understood when it is used to make predictions and those predictions are born out by experimental results.

            I thought my question was a good one. I would appreciate it if you would “take another kick at the cat.”



          2. @ Rudy

            It is the same as asking ‘How do I know when I am in pain?’ You know when you are in pain. Not ‘how’ or ‘why’ or ‘when’ or ‘who’. YOU KNOW WHEN YOU ARE IN PAIN.

            In the same way – you know when things become clear.

            This, however, is a useless question. You are asking yourself NOTHING of the nature of this world. Instead, you are asking “What happens if I travel to Paris? How would I get there? Who would I travel with? How would I know when I am in Paris? What about others who went to Paris? Did they really get to Paris? How did they know they were in Paris?” On and on, useless questions that won’t take you to Paris.

            Go to Paris, Rudy. You will know.

          3. @ Rudy


            It is funny, because I didn’t give this article the name ‘11100’. I didn’t name it at all. This number was given by the system.

            OR ask your own questions, those of a burning interest to you specifically. But ask questions about Reality, not about how to get to Reality.

            I hope you can see the difference between what kind of questions fetch the answers, and what kind of questions confuse and end up in even more questions.

            And if you can’t see the difference… I cannot help you.

      1. Hi Tano,
        I would agree with the”a bit too fast to put pen to paper”. In considering this my conclusion at this point is he is/was writing out his experience to possibly clarify it for himself. However, the part I haven’t come to a firm conclusion to for myself is why publish these experiences? Where is the benefit? Is it only for his own amusement? I am guessing you will say it’s all about the money. Something about that explanation is unsatisfying to me, perhaps it requires more inquiry into why I feel that way. The one question that keeps coming back to me is that for someone who hates mystery and says “nothing is hidden” there seems to be a whole lot of mystery and hiding. Why? I am asking this more as a rhetorical question as the only answers will be the ones I come up with for myself. Thanks for the site it is very thought provoking.

        1. I never said it was ONLY about money.

          Jed always wrote. It is the only true talent he has, and he recognized it early on. He has put to good use what he was best at, which in turn was recognized by his readers.

          But he has an existential kind of wisdom, not an everyday perception fuck-up that most people possess. Writing crime thrillers with street smart gangsters or novels about ravenous vampires or si-fi flicks would be impossible for someone like him. Enlightenment, on the other hand, is up his street. He said he can write on the subject indefinitely.

          Sometimes I wonder if he can change a car tyre. I hope he can.

          Income is important, we live in the world of money as the means of survival, although some choose to homestead it.

          Why hiding… People destroy their lives prompted by the books. Never mind they will find nothing, but I wouldn’t want to be there when some of them DO find out there was nothing. Luckily, very few will, so he should sleep safe and sound.

          And also… he doesn’t like people that much either. Not for lack of compassion as such, but for their dumb and irrational ways. It’s like watching a toddler going through the motions of a tantrum every day: where are all the adults?

          Let’s face it, children are cute, but dumb.

  4. “Hence, people come over here, read, accuse the EM of nihilism and lack of optimism”
    I wouldn’t accuse you of nihilism. I hate the materialistic sound you have. I was raised in a communist country and they taught us dialectic materialism in school, mixed with the party directives… teaching us how to be the new multilateral developed human. I can’t help but remembering those times when you go so down to earth.
    The human mind cannot conceive a reality where it does not exist. We know zero, but zero isn’t nothing, zero is still something. The materialistic view says that zero is nothing [you die and it’s over], while a spiritualist view says zero is not nothing [there’s a soul that will burn forever in hell for his sins].
    To say “here today-gone tomorrow” equals to it never existed and it never will; here/gone do not compute. It’s not a belief, it’s a mind glitch. I saw a video on youtube about the relieving understanding that once you are gone it’s over, so you might as well enjoy while you can, and dare to do all the good things you’d like to do for your fellow beings [only the good things!]. It annoyed me because this enlightening idea is to me just a masked afterlife belief – you won’t be there to suffer the punishment. Quite a pale heaven idea. So materialism lies on this subject.
    On the other hand, this immortal soul idea is just a way by witch the mind addresses it’s inability to deal with nothingness, and then all becomes wishful thinking. Yet it seems to me more like a honest mistake, a bit better than the materialistic lie. [I once knew a Buddhist priest that didn’t believe in reincarnation.]
    There’s no nihilism here, here is making nothing out of something. Nothing to condemn though, just annoying to me.

    1. Well, you wouldn’t accuse me of nihilism. You are accusing me of materialism.

      Would it sound more attractive and appealing if I spoke like Jed? Kinda in riddles, but pretty ones, the punchy ones, the ones that arouse and stir and cause an emotional echo in a human being?

      That’s all you want people… feel emotion, be hooked on emotion. And emotion has to be evoked via the unusual, the unknown, the unexpected. Who wants the ordinary?

      I was not taught dialectic materialism and, frankly, have no idea what its tenets are.

      So that you know.. the idea of reincarnation is not the idea of the original Buddhism. The Buddha was hmm.. a materialist. He did not believe in reincarnation. Neither does the Buddhism frown upon suicide. Like.. ‘each to their own’ is their stance on the matter.

      The West is so fucked up in their multiple ‘interpretations’ laced with peculiarly Western ideologies that people forget where the original beliefs are. The Buddha was very.. down to earth. He knew exactly what he was doing. Just like Jed, who is also very down to earth and who has known what he is doing – for the past twenty years.

      I’ll give ya an ounce of the soul in exchange for a pound of some brain cells. Deal? Meet ya at dawn in Paris by Marx’s grave (he was the one from the dialectical materialism school, no? I am not sure).

      1. P.S. It’s annoying because you want something intangible to exist. You want it SO BAD that anyone who says otherwise – causes that inner reaction.

        Accidentally, that is why I said Rudy will begin to hate me eventually. He too is looking for the fairies. I just hope that his ordered rational mind will be able to overcome this innate human desire to live a fantasy.

        Humans want fantasy because they perceive the world as hash and hard. And it is.


    2. @ ZeXe

      Part of me is glad that you mention all these earthly concerns – ideologies, philosophy, a search for souls and the likes… because it means the question of the mythical ‘enlightenment’ is shifting towards something alive, something that real people discuss and away from the purple fogs and third eyes of the New Age bullshit.

      All those philosophers were looking for the same thing as all you enlightenment inspired folks are. Cool… humans are so alike in so many ways, no matter when and where they live.

      1. It is raining heavy outside and I can’t get out, so: You mean to say no more fantasizing for you? What would you do with my brain cells? You know “I can give it but can you take it?” other than fried/grilled served on a plate? There’s plenty of brain cells at the local butcher. Not only this, but don’t you fear your brain might get infected by my erratic brain cells – then no more clarity…

        Screw those Marxist days at school, I remember the definition of religion: obscurantist belief by which humans explain phenomena in lack of scientific knowledge, or something like that – tasty isn’t it? I passed my last exam on the matter with that, when I cheated with a subject pulled out from a special pocket I prepared under my jacket and the other subject totally unknown to me.
        I also remember the law of negating the negation. Here is how Marx interpreted it: “… capitalist private property is the first negation of individual private property, based on individual labor. But capitalist production, with the inevitability of a natural process, gives rise to its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. It does not recreates private property, but individual property on the basis of the achievement of the capitalist era: cooperation and common possession of the earth and the means of production produced through labor itself.”
        Like, the natural development of capitalism is communism where we don’t have private property but “individual” property, a share of the communal property. That’s how the communists justified taking almost everything away, like the land from the owners (big land owners and poor peasants as well).
        You had an exchange with someone that loved these “new” ideas of sharing in small communities, the end of state organization, money system, etc. it is so ironic to me. Probably raised in capitalism, his aspirations followed that law, toward communism. Yet I’m sure he wouldn’t call it communism.

        You say I have accused you of materialism, so you don’t identify yourself as one –what would you call yourself then?

        “… because it means the question of the mythical ‘enlightenment’ is shifting towards something alive, something that real people discuss and away from the purple fogs and third eyes of the New Age bullshit.”
        I don’t know where from came this associating me with New Age bullshit.
        About mythical ‘enlightenment’ – yeah, what the hell do I want with it? You say to drop the idea and live away. Do people reach what you call clarity by simply living away?
        If I am to be living away is like fragmenting the interest in enlightenment back into small “tangible” enlightenments: money, sex, health, whatever fancy. For whatever reasons, the small interests agglutinate [ideally speaking] into a big enlightenment one. I can’t drop one and keep the others. Actually I can’t drop anything, unless I get comatose. I find something missing in your advice.

        1. What would I do with your brain cells… well, you may have a talent that my brain is unable to master. I could borrow your brain cells. Mathematics, for instance. I have respect for it, but no understanding. I think it is great that people have different kinds of intelligence.

          Someone here I know defines religion as ‘Those invisible friends’. Ironically of course.

          “You had an exchange with someone that loved these “new” ideas of sharing in small communities” – I don’t remember having an exchange like that.

          “You say I have accused you of materialism, so you don’t identify yourself as one –what would you call yourself then?” – All of the -isms in the world have some basic truths in them. It is when they become a ‘stand-alone’ theory, with defenders and proponents, that they become laughable and unrealistic.

          So in answer to your question…. sometimes I am a materialist, sometimes a nihilist, sometimes a dualist and other times a monist, and many other -isms. It really depends on the situation at hand.

          Why limit oneself lol.

          And really, in the end of the day I take things in, expunge them, inhale and exhale, interact with my immediate surroundings and somehow change their equilibrium through that interaction; it goes on and on, and one day it will stop going on, and I will become a little pile of decomposed organic matter, which will end up building another types of matter. You might even eat or inhale me, who knows.

          What would one call me then?

          And that’s what I call ‘the real stuff’, and you are talking about -isms.

          Nothing is missing in my advice. It is just that it is too late, you have the deadly enlightenment bug.

          You will spend your upcoming years looking. They are probably your best years as well – healthy, vital, promising. But you will ignore the promise. You will chase -isms and will ignore simple little things that make your life complete. Why? Because you have no idea who you are and what has the fucking POTENTIAL FOR YOU SPECIFICALLY to make you feel complete. YOU SPECIFICALLY. Who the fuck ARE YOU?

          What makes you tick, you nutty headcase? I bet you any money you haven’t got a clue.

          Such self disrespect.

          1. “What would I do with your brain cells…”
            But you know I’m stupid, and a nutcase recently. [hah, google translate says that in my language nutty means “nut flavored” and “interesting”…well then, I understand your sweet tooth for my neurons]

            “Someone here I know defines religion as ‘Those invisible friends’. Ironically of course.”
            The real fun start when they become visible

            “You had an exchange with someone that loved these “new” ideas of sharing in small communities” – I don’t remember having an exchange like that.
            I don’t remember his id but you told him that he still has some purging to do.

            “…. sometimes I am a materialist, sometimes a nihilist, sometimes a dualist and other times a monist, and many other -isms. It really depends on the situation at hand.
            Why limit oneself lol.”
            Oh, this reminds me of Bruce Lee, “be the water my friend”

            “And really, in the end of the day I take things in, expunge them, inhale and exhale, interact with my immediate surroundings and somehow change their equilibrium through that interaction; it goes on and on, and one day it will stop going on, and I will become a little pile of decomposed organic matter, which will end up building another types of matter. You might even eat or inhale me, who knows.
            What would one call me then?”
            The only thing that comes to my mind is dead end.
            You will never decompose – your body will, unless the rest cremate it. Within your frame of thinking [as I understand it] you are a kind of squeak the body makes while rubbing against the environment while I’m a parasite vibration within the original squeak that scrambles the vibration [as they say in zen[!] to put a head on top of your head]. You say that this additional head falls by abandoning the search-I say that the second head is kind of built in and only accidentally is about enlightenment when in fact it is about everything.

            “Nothing is missing in my advice. It is just that it is too late, you have the deadly enlightenment bug.
            … You will chase -isms and will ignore simple little things that make your life complete. “
            Yet I didn’t always had this “bug”. I remember those days. Nothing special about it, if not else I was quite gullible back then. What you are telling me is to go back there.
            I’m pretty conscious of the things most people take for granted, I don’t know, like the miracle of having running water… and how easy these small thing can go away. What little things are you thinking of?

            “Why? Because you have no idea who you are and what has the fucking POTENTIAL FOR YOU SPECIFICALLY to make you feel complete. YOU SPECIFICALLY. Who the fuck ARE YOU?
            What makes you tick, you nutty headcase? I bet you any money you haven’t got a clue.
            Such self disrespect.”
            Luckily enough I don’t know any referee trustworthy enough to judge that bet.
            This idea of “being complete” is a nonsense to me. The only way I could understand not being complete is having some subconscious psychological glitch.
            If you mean “satisfied” than this is just a temporal opinion someone may have.
            What makes me tick. The common denominator of all the actions I can think of is “pleasure” [or libido to be more scientific]. Kill, love, fuck, eat, revolt, enlightenment, science, meditate, watch tv, healthy, unhealthy, survive, work, procreate, fidelity, infidelity, suicide, what isn’t based on the search for pleasure?
            Disrespect for what? What is here so worthy of respect?

          2. “you are a kind of squeak the body makes while rubbing against the environment while I’m a parasite vibration within the original squeak that scrambles the vibration [as they say in zen[!] to put a head on top of your head].’

            The above sounds pornographic to me… squeak, body, rubbing, vibration, head… hmm..

            Other than that… you will never abandon the search, because you will never find anything and will keep looking forever.

            You will never find anything because your remarkable capacity for self-sabotage prevents you from being honest with yourself. And that is self disrespect.

            From now on I will only reply to your comments if you get real, Zexe.

          3. i am true to myself and i have been true in my posts. if you see otherwise it means to me you have been replying to someone else, not to me.

  5. Hi Tano,

    Well, I may then in fact be beyond you being able to help me.

    I am asking the questions of burning interest to me, even though you feel I am ridiculously off-course, looking for fairies, and wanting to live in a fantasy.

    I take small comfort in the fact that we quartered many of the same questions. Here are a few examples:

    What is awareness? What is Consciousness? Was Jung enlightened? Who was the Buddha? What was he really doing under the tree? What does Yin and Yang represent? What is Ego? What is referred to as ‘Spirit’? What is meditation? What does it do or not do?

    Some of my latest: Is there any connection between the awareness I have, the awareness of an alligator looking for “food” moving near the edge of a swamp, and the awareness of plants: (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/science/plant-defenses.html). Is that one continuous awareness or separate awarenesses? If the latter, where/why does the awareness end and then restart? And what is the source of that awareness. More fairies for you, I am sure.

    I don’t think you are saying you got to the point that you were 100% sure on all the answers on your list. There is no shared understanding of what Consciousness is despite 200K years of humans contemplating writing and experimenting with it. Would surprise me if you can say you got to an answer that could stand rigorous scrutiny. If you did, you might want to let others know…would be super helpful and though you probably don’t care, they would put a ribbon around your neck in Norway for the contribution!

    I will let this conversation with you go for now. I really appreciated the exchange. We agree on a lot, but not all, but if we did that wouldn’t be very interesting, nor have the potential for fog clearing.

    I really appreciated your willingness to interact with me around my questions, despite their sophomoric nature, and the mostly kind way you chose to respond. This form of communicating can be a blunt instrument. Thank you.

    Bye for now, but likely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZdVWKM1ILs



    1. Rudy,

      The first question on potential differences in awareness of various living organisms is certainly valid. The rest are based on pre- existing conditions, such as an assertion “There is such quality as continuous awareness” or “There is such quality as separate awareness”. But is there?
      Therefore, the question would be flawed from the start.

      BUT. Asking flawed questions is beneficial, as one begins to see the ways in which they are flawed and why they will not therefore have an answer.

      I don’t have a definition of consciousness worthy of a trip to Norway. I have my working definition that… works.

      Highly intellectual people write highly intellectual academic papers on the subject. In Reality, however, they are boys (and girls) with overactive frontal lobe and a desire to prove themselves = normal human ego.

      For instance. The so called ‘hard problem of consciousness” was only formulated by a young Ozzie guy twenty years back. I posit that it is a made up non-existent problem that has no discernible basis for discussion. Many philosophers would agree and DO agree. However, the phrase stuck just like the pink elephant gets stuck in one’s mind.

      Consciousness is. Theoretical discussion about consciousness – isn’t, because consciousness is not subject to dualistic explanations.

      Compare it to Universe, if you wish. The Universe contains All. Everything that has ever been and will ever be. It is objective and always changing, but always contains All and every phenomena. Consciousness is the same, but on a subjective level.

      Well. It’s a big topic and, strangely, not directly related to the subject of enlightenment.

      Thank you for the interaction, Rudy. I enjoyed that, and it made me also organize my thoughts in a better way.

      My best.

      P.S. I cleared up the typos, was replying from the phone.

  6. Hello,

    I was wondering how this works for you. You are very death aware. But are you no longer scared of death? Isn’t it natural to be scared of death, instinctive? How could you blot out your basic instincts?

    1. Hi P,

      I have the same relationship with death as a person on a death row.

      They may have been waiting for years. Not that they welcome the thought of own upcoming demise, but… one gets sort of used to the idea. Since there is no getting out of that one – eventually it is grudgingly accepted. I acknowledged death and the complete totality of my feelings about death.

      So it is not like being afraid of death or such. It is more like viewing it as an unwelcome, but inevitable visitor.

      And you know that fighting the inevitable will only cause suffering.

      1. You also said you no longer daydream.
        In what sense? Does your mind no longer wonder? So your attention is always with what is physically there. Or you think willfully only. Your brain does not activate the Default Mode Network?

        If that is the case I would like to know what you did to make that stop.

        1. The mind can NEVER be focused only on what is physically present; it is not the property of the human mind. We have evolved to be abstract thinkers, given an ability to step away from the immediate. Therefore….

          …’daydream’ as in ‘imagining improbable situations and scenarios without doing anything to make them reality’, aka ‘wishful thinking’.

          Such as… ever imagined how that girl/boy you fancied said ‘yes’ to your advances, and the possible head-twisting scenatios of spending time together? Or you climbing the Everest/leaving that awful job/learning five foreign languages/going on a cruise/running the International Monetary Fund/becoming an ISIS fighter/loosing weight/cleaning the attic/taking kids to Disneyland/making a profitable investment/making up with an estranged parent/moving the neighbourhood/moving country/getting rid of that toxic friend… blah blah, all the imagined outcomes WITHOUT doing squat about it.

          Daydreaming is pleasant, but useless. It can be argued of course that ‘pleasant’ justifies it. Sure. Each to their own. It is partially the reason why most of humanity is stuck in situations they utterly detest – they do little to change them, preferring to daydream instead.

          I am not saying one is better than the other. I am saying ‘Don’t complain if your situation can be tackled, and yet you’ve done shit all about it’.

          I think. I imagine. I speculate. I wonder. Without this my entire investigation couldn’t have taken place. But I don’t indulge in wishful thinking.

          How was it lost? I’ve come to think it is a side effect of losing the emotive side. After all, daydreaming is fueled by some emotion about any given situation.

          1. What do you mean when you say that you have feelings but don’t emote? You said you are afraid of cockroaches, so you do feel fear which is considered an emotion. I don’t think you lost the ability to be angry neither, is that right?

Leave a comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s