Fear of Equal Money, Part 2. 03/24/2013

Photo: Carolyn Cole

10 years ago, I recall working in a Kinko’s in Whitehall, Ohio when the war began with the news of rockets raining down in Iraq. I heard it first on the radio that we had turned on behind the counter. For months I felt uneasy about the prospect of war with Iraq, and when there was news about an anti-war protest being held in Columbus, I went down only to find nobody had bothered to show up. Some of my work colleagues accused me of “protecting the terrorists.” When I talked with my teen-aged son about the illegality of the war, he dismissed me as “giving in to the terrorists.” I kept to myself and studied the news that confirmed my suspicions that “Bush’s War” (as I called it) was being conducted for stealing Iraq’s oil. Others were saying this at the time, and I felt it was probably true. And at the same time, I experienced a gaping disconnect from my fellow citizens who were parading their “patriotism” by slapping American flag decals on their cars and whooping and hollering as if they were cheering the OSU football team in their rival match against Michigan. I felt a disgust and even a hatred against these stupid, easily – duped people, purportedly my countrymen, and wished that there could be something that would happen that would change their collective minds.

The war dragged on. The Patriot Act. Abu Ghraib. Depleted uranium. [1] WMDs that never were found. “Freedom Fries.” Blackwater. Guantanamo. Extraordinary renditions. And what “good” came out of it? Depends on what you would call, “good.”

Saddam was deposed and the invading nations colluded with the biggest oil companies to shares the spoils of Iraq’s oil reserves, namely, BP and Shell. It certainly was a “good” outcome for them.

Looking back on it now, it seems my memories about the start of Bush’s War has cooled and hardened into a dull mass of regret and shame, and the horror of what America is accountable for is difficult to hold in the mind. Some of these memories are recollections of truly the most, absurdly existential bullshit. Some of them reflect a shocking, sinister and murderous malevolence that exists somewhere within the being of every American. Its fury was born in the perceived mass humiliation of 9/11 and was artfully misdirected and manipulated into being unleashed upon 116,000 Iraqi civilians who never asked to be “liberated,” let alone liberated from their precious resources and their lives.

Will anyone accuse the American Capitalist system of illegally “confiscating” the wealth of another sovereign nation? Will anyone question the morality or justification of a course of action that was nothing if not naked fury of greedy, blood-stained hands? Will anybody ask where the trillions of dollars that exchanged hands in the war went?

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to blame others for not doing more to stop this shameful war  from happening. But I didn’t know how to deal with it. I didn’t know how to stop it. I didn’t realize until it was far too late that there was another way, a way that was paved within a society  that was honorable and just, not interested in doing the most good for the largest amount of people, but what is best for all.

I went through all that to set up this question: could something like the War in Iraq happen in an Equal Money System? This is going to sound “scary” to some folks, but when one realizes the decisions to invade another country almost never happens because of a purely politically interest. It’s a business. It’s a racket. The profit motive is front and center. The goal of EMS is to remove Capitalism’s profit motive, and replace it with a principle that is truly life - affirming and supportive to all beings, as this quest for profit is both  unnecessary and the single greatest cause of poverty and fear in the world.

NOTE

[1] A 2010 health study of Fallujah, Iraq reveals the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied. Residents have high rates of cancer, birth defects and sterility from U.S. bombs that used depleted uranium and white phosphorus. Other areas of Iraq face similar health problems.

Fear of Equality, Part 2. 03/03/2013

People fear equality because we fear each other within the competition of survival

The Belief that Man (and Earthly existence) is Inherently Evil (Original Sin doctrine).

This notion was codified in the West by Augustine of Hippo and was expanded upon by Christian theologians through the centuries and accepted as a “truth” ever since. The opinion of Augustine was that human sexual desire was the engine that made Man into a depraved, immoral and hopelessly sinful creature that needed the salvific  intervention of Jesus Christ to be saved from eternal damnation in Hell. In this teaching Augustine traced the fallen state of Man to the Fall of Adam and Eve after they “sinned” against God in the Garden of Eden. [1]

Running along this cultural stream is another complimentary or competing idea that the evil in the world is necessary because of the existence of Free Will in humans, which allows and justifies evil within a scheme of metaphysics that claims salvation comes in choosing the good over the evil, thus following the example of Jesus Christ and earning one’s way to Heaven.

Due to our so-called “fallen nature” combined with “free will,” Man is thus free to commit any act he wishes, regardless of the consequences an act may have on one’s self or others. People are intimately aware of their own inner demons and destructive impulses, so we are certain others are aware of theirs and our own, as well. The question is always present when we enter into any relationship – who can be trusted?

Equality is feared because somehow there exists a belief that such a state will increase MORE suffering and misery for people  in the world. The person I encountered in the previous blog on PolicyMic held such ideas. Mr. Green stated;

Once perfect equality is achieved it will soon dissolve by human nature and talent within hours, to maintain equality for a longer period requires totalitarian force and oppression while leveling down the lifestyle of some to starvation poverty of others. Your equality comes down to petulance of wanting others to suffer, somehow your hatred of those wealthier then you will be abated when this occurs? What will you an internet user do when your opulent lifestyle needs leveling down too?

Reading between the lines reveals a nightmare for those who fear Equality as an existential, authoritarian and human destructive force where freedom of choice, and more frightening, loss of privilege will wipe out human initiative, and more important, degrade the current lifestyle of those who now benefit from inequality within the system today. This fear of degradation of the current lifestyle is the major concern here, although it seems to float upon Green’s subconscious. I don’t know if he aware of the ramifications or the implications he’s made in this comment.

Why does Equality conjure up in the mind of such frightening images of nameless, existential “ totalitarian force and oppression?” Because we are so distrustful and fearful of each other, we consider ourselves so depraved and hopelessly evil, that this belief has become hard – wired into our brains: Equality can only be achieved through militaristic and draconian measures.

By the way, the same can be said to accurately describe the current Capitalist State. Competition (over diminishing resources) is seen as the smarter choice than cooperation. Logically, one could map out the consequences of the destructiveness and  irrationality of this kind of thinking. However, it is more important to maintain the status quo of near-immediate gratification for those who can afford this, and so the must consequences must always remain incoherent, unexpressed and exist in some untouched future for others to deal with. Equality is a direct threat to the status quo and will be pushed back, not through superior logic or intellectual power, but through emotional expressions of greed, fear of loss, hatred and mistrust of Man against Man. When John Mackey complains that Capitalism has been under unjustified attack by intellectuals, his response is likewise a feeble emotional romanticism of a mythical Capitalism that is making the world a better place for everyone. This form of Capitalism obviously only exists within his mind, and yet, because he has systematic value (wealth), he’s going to influence others to adopt his religion of “compassionate” Capitalism. It is unfortunate, and another obstacle to overcome as we spread our ideas of Equal Money and Equality to the world.

NEXT: FEAR OF EQUALITY, PART 3: The Myth of Liberty

NOTE

[1] Augustine based his teaching on his interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans 5:12-21

Fear of Equality, Part 1. 03/02/2013

Part 1. Why People Fear Equality

I have just participated in an Internet dialogue on the PolicyMic site, where I occasionally leave comments that support ideas of equality and bullshit removal.

I had quite an interesting exchange with a defender of Capitalism that was fascinating. This person was adamant in his characterization and defense of Capitalism as a promoter of “freedom” and “liberty.” Through our exchange it became clear that he experienced a very strong reaction to the notion of Equality.

What kick – started this whole shebang were three points made by Whole Food’s CEO, John Mackey that needed to be challenged:

“The problem is not that there is an unequal distribution of wealth in the world. The problem is that there is an unequal distribution of capitalism.”

“Business has been hated by the intellectuals and elites for all time.”

“Profits ultimately create all growth, capital, and prosperity … Profits are created    through voluntary exchange, not through the exploitation of people.” 

These are three curious statements that could only be made in complete ignorance of the historical record, or within an air – tight fantasy land where the dreams of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises reside.

If we closely at Point 1, the assertion that the problems facing the world stem from “unequal distribution of capitalism, ” what we see here is an exercise of dissembling, although we have no evidence that Mackey actually believes this. It’s more a slogan or a sound – bite and not a guiding principle, and it certainly does not reflect the reality of the economically oppressed and exploited. I’m sure that CEOs are more concerned looking at the world through broad and “big picture” lenses, but that only makes these guys incapable of describing reality as it exists. Their words should thus be considered with suspicion.

In Point 2, Mackey offers more of the same impulse for historical fantasilization. The statement that, “business has been hated by the intellectuals and elites,” is not based on any facts, and betrays the anti-intellectualism held by defenders of capitalism. This reflexive backlash comes from the fact that Capitalism, as Karl Marx in the 19^th Century and the Critical Theorists in the 20^th Century proved, cannot stand for long against any sustained intellectual analysis. “Business has been hated by intellectual and elites,” is a statement so monstrously at odds with common sense, that it seems the most silly and childish of charges anyone can make. One only has to take a brief inventory on the “intellectuals” and “elites” who thought Capitalism was a fantastic idea. But because Mackey leads a health food empire, people will be influenced by this kind of empty economic jingoism.

Point 3: “…Profits are created through voluntary exchange, not through the exploitation of people.”

Wow, what a whopper. Somebody get me Tim Cook or the sweatshop responsible for my Nike’s. “Voluntary exchange,” eh? Anybody who works for a living knows that they are a few paychecks away from having to beg on the streets. One either sells their labor to another in exchange for money, or one doesn’t eat. This notion that Capitalism is based on voluntary participation is a sweet – sounding mythology that’s been built up in layers of philosophical sediment over the past 400 years. This process is too deep to cover here, but it’s instructive to note that proponents for speak glowingly about Capitalism’s “voluntary exchange” are going to distort and mangle the definition out of context to support their perspective.

For those not interested in reading the (sometimes tedious and pedantic) thread in its entirety, this is what my comment said:

“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”
- Bertrand Russell

“Sweatshop workers “hoping for the best” isn’t part of the moral equation that Mackey is talking about, or is it? Mackey’s breezy, breathless oversimplifications for compassionate capitalism really is a paean for “compassionate consumptionism” without considering the anti-democratic forces that is the muscle behind unrestrained self-interest.”

This comment drew a response from Joshua Green, who said:

“The hatred implicit in your nihilistic statement is destructive Darryl, please turn from it and embrace that life can be beautiful. What Mackey and the rest of us are trying to explain is that capitalism provides creation of products of new services to build and enhance life for everyone. This means we reward builders and innovators for improving our way of life. Now not everyone can afford say the nicest I-Pad but the technology behind it and the service it provides improves our lives. For an example a restaurant nearby uses an I-Pad for its register saving them money/space on counter and allowing the customer to sign for purchases which offers security to the buyer and assurance to the company.” (Emphasis mine.)

My comment that sweatshop workers (those who are victimized and exploited by the Captains of Industry) are never considered when talk turns to how wonderful Capitalism is, was seen as “hatred” and “nihilistic” (a principle that life is meaningless). Where is the fucking compassion this guy was praising Mackey for having the vision to entertain? And isn’t it interesting that Green’s rambling response was punctuated by three specific words, “hatred,” “nihilistic” and “destructive”  - used to describe my defense for those who are the ones obviously catching hell from the stateless corporations which see no obligation to improve the lives of the slaves they work so slavishly. Mr. Green obviously does not see the projections and distorted definitions that he’s engaged with – his words are loaded with fear. This realization was very instructive to see, especially the further the discussion evolved.  The Big Fear would soon present itself, and when it did, it was not a coincidence that the discussion ended.

Next: Fear of Equality, Part 2. The Competition for Survival

Human Potential Movement Part 3. The New Self-Help Gurus

Wanna make a million? Write a self-Help book.

The New Self-Help Gurus

They’ve given seminars, been on television and made millions with their self-help books flooding the market. It is the Holy Trinity of Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra and Wayne Dyer. Their messages are essentially interchangeable, based as it is on a mash-up of various spiritual and philosophical sources, mixed in with a penchant for giving their followers opinionated homilies passed off as “truth.” All spiritual teachings are essentially one teaching: that if one listens to this transference of “wisdom,” then one will become more healthy, wealthy and wise. But the reality is that nothing practical will ever be given to aid all humanity by these super-salesmen.

Eckhart Tolle (Ulrich Leonard Tolle), experienced an epiphany which eventually led to Tolle writing books and holding seminars discussing enlightenment and other subjects, namely the transformation of human consciousness, which may be the highest form of human potential possible, according to these gurus.

Tolle, like everyone else involved in the consciousness-raising business, often engages in opinion-making that he presents as fact. For example, the well-known experience of Tolle’s “epiphany” – an event which changed a once-suicidal depressive into a spiritual leader and best-selling author, has colored everything the man says. So when Tolle gives an opinion delivered as “fact,” it sounds like this:

“Life will give you whatever experience is most helpful for the evolution of your consciousness.”

The “evolution of consciousness” is a narrative that just about explains anything. Unfortunately, nobody can prove such an evolution is happening. The trite simplicity of Tolle’s quote above, however, causes one to wonder why people choose to believe such things, as the quote  suffers badly when lightly taken apart. So when we go through our day, are we responsible for our experiences, or is “life” (?) dictating what befall us? Am I choosing to experience an event, or is “life” selecting events for me against my will? Why is “life” interested in the evolution of my consciousness, anyway?  Obviously, Tolle’s epiphany has a lot to do with the shape and content of his opinions. He believes that he experienced some form of enlightenment which has “evolved” his consciousness.” But he doesn’t actually know what happened. Besides, if you read any of Tolle’s books, you will not be able to find one single new idea anywhere. Tolle’s works, along with those by Chopra, Neale Donald Walsch, etc., are nothing more than a spiritual stew full of rehashed mash-ups of ancient ideas and philosophies, without the nuance and mystery. Seems more like a devolution of consciousness is happening here, folks.

Fact is, metaphysicians have urged others to evolve the human being metaphysically for at least 30 centuries. Shamen, gurus and spiritualists have forever been proclaiming that raising one’s nature “high enough,” one becomes as “God.” The New Self Help gurus of the 21st Century are merely regurgitating commonly known spiritual language and dressing it up modern parlance. It seems that the metaphysical experiment has reached the end of its life as a living art; a deadening hollowness exists at its core, failing to offer anything truly new in 3000 years; it has endlessly repeated itself to the point of absurdity. It offers nothing but ancient, discredited promises dripping from the voices of a disingenuous, but crack metaphysical sales team.

At the beginning of its reign, the Human Potential Movement was largely a program for profit. When someone discovered, like Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale or L. Ron Hubbard, that there existed a sizeless, titanic market of selling people their own desire to “improve” themselves, they most likely couldn’t believe their luck. The mass consumption of self-help books has turned out to be insatiable and everlasting (Dale Carnegie materials and courses are still available and profitable after 80 years). The best advice to someone wanting to be published is to write a self-help book.

Listen: self-transformation ingeniously linked to the dollar and spiritual perfection has given the self-help industry enough legs to continue its run well into the 21st Century. Although the movement’s heyday occurred during the 1960’s and 70’s, the program of focusing on intense personal achievement by the individual is still being pushed to this day by an opportunistic and self-aggrandizing sales pitch, and many of them only give broadly vague or distasteful solutions for the intractable problems in this world. For example, Osho’s solution for homosexuality was to segregate gays from the rest of the population. Esther Hicks and Abraham only solution to poverty, suffering or abuse is to not dwell on negative thoughts. Seriously. And as stupid as that sounds, people eat it up.

The irony should not be lost here. The teachers of the Human Potential Movement concentrate on getting the individual sorted out mentally and “spiritually” first before concentrating on getting what they want and make their dreams come true.  While humanity’s world continues to devolve and splinter apart, listen to the Human Potential Movement – it wants you to become a “winner,” although it fails to offer any solution to rampant human suffering, the nature of evil, or  inequality. It promotes an agenda based entirely on imagination. Remember the message of The Secret: get what you want by thinking about it. Physical action not necessary.  That message clicked because of an agenda built upon “spiritual” fabrications, human desire and most of all, the glorification of personal self-interest while everyone one else can go screw.

07/16/2012 – 2012 : The Ignorance of Knowledge and Information

It is the collective mind of the  human race that has erected numberous sciences, arts, religions, superstitions, philosophies, metaphysics in a vain attempt to understand the existence, the reality we have found ourselves in. The only area in our lives that we are under no doubts is that our situational awareness of this reality simply cannot be grasped by our consciousness. This can only be considered as a monumental and colossal failure of the powers of the mind. It makes clear that one should consider that the mind is incapable of solving this “problem.” So the old saying of “I think, therefore I am,” should be considered questionable – because to think or to exist does not answer the big question of “existing as what in this reality.” We have composed many theories and speculations of what actually is appearing  before our eyes and through the mental exercises, and that has been deemed an acceptable path long before the days of Aristotle. Since the first speculative fictions of the nature of reality was delivered over – geez, 10,000 years ago (as far as we know), research will show that the knowledge and information of our reality still leaves much to the imagination.

It is the continued and ever-expanding state of world-wide human suffering which provides proof that the mental exercises of humanity with its trajectories of religious and abstract thinking has completely failed humanity in providing the end of human suffering within the ignorance of knowledge and information. To think is to exist within a bubble of ignorance and energy. Shakespeare may have said it best with this bit from Macbeth

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Consciousness* is but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Fixed William’s post. It is consciousness, not “life” that is that “walking shadow.”  When Desteni says the primary goal for each person is to “birth self into life,” what it means is to become the directive principle [1] over the legion of personalities and characters that has become one’s consciousness and not to live life through and as the abstractions and pathologies of our combined, mutable and fictitious personas.

Note:

[1] “A point to consider with regards to you particular reaction to ‘Knowledge’ is that, in fact – everything you participate-within in your reality is ‘manifested-knowledge’: Education, Television, Communication, Participation – everything exist-within and has been manifested/created from/as Knowledge, what we are as the Mind is manifested knowledge and information infused/substantiated with/as energy and personalized with preference/morality, creating ‘individualized personalities’.
So, if you self-honestly have a look, you don’t actually have a reaction towards Knowledge-itself, otherwise you would have had a equal-reaction to/towards everything and everyone in your reality/existence, you have a particularly-specific reaction to/towards that which you require to apply discipline and effort towards obtaining to become practical in this world/reality. Therefore, it’s not the manual or the Knowledge that you’re reacting to – you’re reacting to the fact that you have to walk a process, step by step in reality and actually apply/live discipline and concentration/effort.
So – got to look at the point of laziness and postponement in yourself in relation to your world/reality where you want things to happen/manifest immediately or quickly, without having to go through the discipline / effort to manifest it as you. Therefore, the ‘problem’ is not the knowledge, the problem is ‘you’ not wanting to discipline yourself and apply the effort to walk something here in the physical, step by step.”

-Sunette Spies, ” Applying Self in Reality.” Article. Self-Direction -Destonians.com

07/08/2012/ – 2012 and Deepak Chopra’s Guru-Speak

“A man’s goodness is truly measured by what he is, not what he does.” – Deepak Chopra.

This nonsensical piffle is probably taken very seriously by resident  Chopraholics and it seems this guy is not afraid to say something incredibly silly and lack the insight necessary to be justifiably embarrassed. But just for the heck of it, let’s deconstruct this sagacious-sounding fiddle-faddle and explain why such utterances like this should be wholly avoided like the plague.

Apparently in Deepak-Land it is possible to “truly  measure” the “goodness” of someone by “what” a person “is”  rather by what a person does. Which begs an important question – how can anyone say anything about what another is without mentioning that one’s actions?

“You know, that Jimmy is such a great guy. A real good person.”

“Oh, yeah? What exactly does he do that makes him so great?”

“Hey, you can’t truly measure the goodness of what somebody does, only by what they are.”

“What the hell are you talking about?”

“Dude, don’t you read Deepak Chopra?”

“Reading? Don’t have the time. Takes me away from playing my video games.”

Since, according to Chopra,  a man’s goodness can be truly measured by who he is and not what he does – we should ask whether Chopra’s New Age calculus equally extend and apply to the works of man’s evil? Is not evil that which causes harm, destruction or misfortune to others? Not for Chopra, apparently for him evil is simply “a matter of perception.” In that Huffpost article, Chopra insists that evil is a problem largely based on perception and that evil can broken down “ into smaller components that can be solved,” and then gives some incredibly dubious examples on how to achieve that. ” Abused children can be helped and loved.” Yeah, well the number of abused children that die from malnutrition each day is only 22,000. But I guess they are beyond all help and love. “ A church congregation hijacked by intolerance can be filled with new members who feel otherwise.” That would be nice, but even if every other church in the world accomplished this, we’d be no closer in ending the inequalities and suffering of the world, basically because religion is part of the problem. “Guilt and shame that you feel in yourself can be healed with therapy.”  Why? We’ve got a lot to be guilty and ashamed about – and therapy is no substitution for rectifying the problem.

But beyond that, Chopra also claims that if evil doesn’t directly affect you, then it doesn’t exist for you. This seems to be a rather curious takeaway – and unfortunately I have heard this echoed by many New Agers and spiritualists over the years. They seek to remove their responsibility for the existence of evil by claiming that it isn’t a part of “their reality,” or that those who suffer from the evil acts of others give their approval for their suffering as “lessons to be learned” from this life that will advance their spiritual development.

But let’s cleave to the matter at hand – this mangled, garbled aphorism of Chopra – it needs to be refuted, exposed and disregarded, over and over, until, hope against hope, he stops talking such bullshit and influencing others to become passive slaves of metaphysical nonsense. What a person does – and thinks –  whether it is known to others or not – is a very important measurement of who one really is.  And since the world at large is a true reflection of the inner essence of humanity as a whole, I’d say that Mr. Chopra needs to reconsider his scene and wake up to reality before it is too late.

06/21/2012 – 2012 and the Uselessness of Compassion

Shinzen Young: Genuine wisdom or ironic Zen nonsense? 

“Compassion is to share the pain without sharing the suffering.” ~Shinzen Young. 

How can one who claims to be a spiritual master be so oblivious of misguided nonsense that escapes from the depths of  their brainpan? And yet, acclaimed and renowned “mindfulness” teacher Shinzen Young seems unaware of the violence of his redefinition-mangling in service of his metaphysical  perspective. In his attempt to fuse “contemplative meditation” techniques of the East with the “scientific method” of the West, Shinzen Young has been lauded for his “innovative interactive, algorithmic approach to mindfulness.” “Mindfulness” refers to the Buddhist contemplative meditation techniques (Vipassanā) where the goal is to focus on the awareness of the mind and body and achieve knowledge of the nature of reality which then I suppose makes one a “Spiritual Master.”

But why do so many “Spiritual Masters” say such ridiculous, incomprehensible bullshit? Has their “mindfulness” meditation experiences left them with so much knowledge about the nature of reality that they can even see how far removed they’ve become from every-day common sense? Run through the above quote once more:

“Compassion is to share the pain without sharing the suffering.” 

What’s the takeaway point of this sentence? Well, the unintended point made by Shinzen reveals the uselessness of compassion, which is commonly described as an emotional response within a person to the misfortune and suffering of another and wanting to do something about it to remove the other’s plight. But to create a situation where one can safely  share one’s pain without sharing the other’s suffering is like having one’s cake and eating it too. Why would anyone want to share another’s suffering “out of compassion” without getting down into the dirty, painful and equality-based business of removing the suffering for everyone? Because nobody in their “right mind” would want to. It is the human design to avoid suffering at all costs, especially if one has enough money – and it takes money – to keep physical suffering at a manageable level.

But nobody, including Shinzen, would want to actually do something about the suffering of others in this world, or literally place their feet in the shoes of someone’s suffering.  Much better to “feel bad” about the plight of human trafficking or hearing about children starving to death in the media. A brief, cheap, momentary emotional investment called “compassion” is enough for most people.

But one doesn’t really “share the pain”  of others through compassion, do they? And this is where Shinzen misses the point. He could have said something more profound by revealing the uselessness of human compassion – where one could place the total amount of that human emotion one side of an equation against the totality of human suffering on the other side and see how effective emotions really are in dealing with the human condition of suffering. Or he could have gotten down into the shit with the misfortunate  others like Mother Teresa - who despite her existential doubts spent her life amid the suffering of others [1] and could only cope with her own metaphysical doubts by linking her own spiritual suffering and the suffering of others with the “suffering of Jesus.” But that doesn’t seem to be any more effective in dealing with the removal of suffering, does it?

Spouting religious and spiritual language and meditative exercises  to deal with human problems has simply never worked. Using human emotions like compassion, pity and sympathy to deal with human problems has simply never, ever worked in stopping the condition of human suffering. What statements like these do is allow the person who comes across them to become beguiled by the implied “wisdom” imparted. But it isn’t “wisdom.” It’s just ironic Zen-Buddhist bullshit.  It’s bullshit because all statements made from the starting point of projecting a religiously philosophical perspective can only fail in providing real insight to humanity. Buddhism has been around for nearly 3000 years and it’s failed in bringing “enlightenment” to the people. It’s ironic because Shinzen obviously believes in the power of compassion without sharing another’s suffering but he simply fails to understand that such a point reveals compassion to be nothing more than an illusion. Then again,  this is quite proper since all metaphysics deal with elevating illusions into meaningless life-long obsessions – while choosing to ignore and excuse real suffering and despair with pious blandishments and feel-good flowerhat philosophies And now you know what really matters to these spiritual shysters. Forget about trying to find a way to lift the peoples of this world out of an endemic of inequality. What is most important to these gurus is within the relation of their own knowledge and information about the nature of reality to others while making a buck. I can only hope against hope that people will wake up and reject that and choose equality for all and make it happen. But first, we have to stop listening and being bewitched by the deceptive spiritual nonsense these gurus love to share so much.

Note

[1] “Now Father—since 49 or 50 this terrible sense of loss—this untold darkness—this loneliness—this continual longing for God—which gives me that pain deep down in my heart.—Darkness is such that I really do not see—neither with my mind nor with my reason.—The place of God in my soul is blank.—There is no God in me.—When the pain of longing is so great—I just long & long for God—and then it is that I feel—He does not want me—He is not there.—Heaven—souls—why these are just words—which mean nothing to me.—My very life seems so contradictory. I help souls—to go where?—Why all this? Where is the soul in my very being? God does not want me.—Sometimes—I just hear my own heart cry out—“My God” and nothing else comes.—The torture and pain I can’t explain.” Letter to Father Joseph Neuner by Mother Teresa.

2012/3/31 – 2012 & U.G.K. – Is Enlightenment Possible?

While I don’t agree with everything he said, U.G. Krishnamurti got one thing right. “Enlightenment is a thought-induced experience.”

He correctly demonstrated how the very idea of “Enlightenment” is contingent  is linked to accepting the claims of  the “Great Sages” without question. This is very important to understand, as the mechanism of so-called enlightenment has only come down to us through the transmission of the traditions laid down by the sages and their proponents. In other words, “Enlightenment,” like the concept of “God” or the “Divine,” is something that one never experiences without first hearing all about it from somebody else. The narrative of “enlightenment” always involves a search for a guru who has experienced it and relates the alleged state to others. If one accepts the narrative of the Buddha, one has to imagine that nobody had ever experienced “enlightenment” before. Yet, the Buddha made it his mission, claimed to achieve it, and then told everyone else about it. But U.G. hits the nail on the head when he remarks in this interview that,

“…once one questions the whole idea of enlightenment, or as you put it, the concept of enlightenment,  we are questioning the teachers who have talked about it – and we have invested tremendous faith in them, so the sentiment comes into the picture, and we accept it as the gospel truth.”

According to the stories related by the Buddhists, Buddha actually achieved “enlightenment.” How he managed to convince others that he spoke the truth would be no great feat considering the way most people are willing to believe in any story, the more grandiose the better. This is why religion and spirituality still reigns in a world where any evidence of the divine is completely lacking. When Nietzsche exclaimed in the 19th century that “God is dead,” it seems that he spoke only for himself and the minority of European intelligentsia who surmised the role of religion as a control dynamic of the masses.
Nietzsche must’ve hoped that his view would become dominant in an empirical world of logical positivism, but could not have foreseen that the masses would  never be able to give up  their sentiment attached to religion, for sentiment, through its power of emotionalism and feeling is believed to be a higher form of knowledge (a “peace that passes understanding”), that ultimately  breaks down all common sense and the ability for discernment.

U.G.’s contention, which is correct in my opinion, is that enlightenment, the “soul,” or spirit, are all  inventions and projections of consciousness which demands some assurance of survival. When the interviewer asks U.G. that he imagines that the body does not survive after death but he hopes that his “ability to experience” (sentience) will continue at some level after death. U.G. asks in return, “Can you experience your body while you are living now?”

Of course, Western philosophy has always taken an interest in the nature of consciousness. When the interviewer brings up the famous maxim of Descartes: “I think, therefore I am,” U.G. says that Descartes asked the wrong question and references an old Indian adage:  “If you are not thinking, are you there?”

Clearly, U.G. considers that consciousness and its production of interpretation of experience, projections, thoughts, knowledge and emotions creates a vicious circle of impediments to any understanding of who we really are and what we are doing here.  When the interviewer expresses (almost in exasperation), “It sounds like we’re trapped,” U.G. offers only that “there is no answer” to getting out of the trap. Enlightenment, or rather, the enlightenment claimed to be in the possession of  so-called spiritual masters throughout human history has not elevated the whole of humanity one iota or solved a single problem confronting the human race. The enormous catalog of suffering, poverty, war and exploitation has grown larger with each passing century. U.G. correctly surmised what enlightenment actually is: an imaginary “solution” within the metaphysics of “hope.” This led U.G. to say that there was no “answer” and “no escape” from the condition of the world, and this was his big miss. He did not see or accept his responsibility to this world or how universal equality is the answer.

It’s a pity, because U.G. perhaps could have offered us even more than what he left behind.

2012/03/07 – 2012 & My Reply to a Buddhist

Buddha taught to achieve inner peace. But at what cost?

I received this comment from a reader and I want to place this as a new blog post because it reflects an argument that I’ve seen many times before from various religious devotees. In my earlier post a reader claimed that I was picking on Buddha for and his followers for no good reason.

Reply from esantipapa

““Enlightenment” is a fraud. It is a deception that assumes to know and understand more than it can. Enlightenment doesn’t fail because you’ve applied it incorrectly, or because you are not worthy of it. People throughout the ages have sought it and it and only a few have dared to claim that they have attained it. It would be one thing if Enlightenment actually changed the world for the better for all of us. We can easily see that is not the case.”

Enlightenment is a personal journey. No two people have the same path to it. And as far as it not changing the world, that’s beyond ridiculous. Those who strive for deeper compassion and kindness (to their fellow humans), as a path to Enlightenment, do great things because of their compassion and kindness. Sneering at individuals who aim for deeper understanding of their fellow human, deeper compassion for all peoples, and greater personal-outward kindness is not praiseworthy or intellectual by any measure. It makes me sad to know you do not see how you are right on the core issue, but wrong on the examples, as you demonstrate here:

“The solutions are all here on Earth, not locked away in some inaccessible region of consciousness but within understanding who we are and choosing how we are going to relate with ourselves and each other.”

That IS essentially the concept expressed by the whole of the Dharma (and it is put so eloquently by you). Why are you arguing against Buddha when you express ideas that are virtually identical to the Dharma? You may want to read more about the current Dalai Lama’s life story, he’s had a much better set of translators than those of antiquity, and uses almost the same language you use here. That our compassion is derived from our sameness, and how we see each other. That we have all the tools we need here in this life to further understand one another if we choose to use them.

 

My reply:

 

You say enlightenment is a “personal journey.” I have to challenge that assertion. Have you gained enlightenment? Do you know someone who has? How would one even verify that someone, or anybody, including Buddha achieved it? All we have are stories of individuals gaining it, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding, and there’s no proof that anything like “enlightenment” or “karma” or “the wheel of reincarnation” exists the way the Buddhists say it does.

If people as a whole strove to gain a “deeper understanding of their fellow human, deeper compassion for all peoples, and greater personal-outward kindness” through the application of Buddhist principles and that resulted in a far more sane and rational world, then that would be an entirely different thing. But the Buddha attached a spurious metaphysical component that ended up creating a void where self and the material world is negated. I understand that in principle the Buddhist is to follow the Middle Path, but metaphysical fence-sitting has not brought about a better world for everyone.

Buddha’s starting point within attaining enlightenment has been so ineffective in dealing with the world because the criterion, the foundation, is suspect. Instead of establishing a world based on egalitarian terms, the focus was placed on eliminating anguish and suffering, which are not causes, but the effects or symptoms of the poisonous relationships between people. Did Buddha, as a member of the royalty, denounce or taught that such a social order was beneficial or detrimental to proper relationships within the world? I doubt that he did. Instead, the Buddha focused on meditation and mental stratagems in removing self from the world, which he considered an illusion, anyway. Look at India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, China, Thailand; all the countries that have followed Buddhism to one extent or another. The people who live there have caught hell for a long time. Karma must be something that is defective, because it allegedly is supposed to equalize the human experience towards good and proper ethical relationships. Yet unspeakable poverty, injustice and exploitation exists in conditions that are worse than ever. How would the Buddha explain that?

I do not “sneer” at people who are interested in making this world a better place for everyone – such a goal is what I’ve always been about. People like myself have been diverted and mislead by religious, spiritual and metaphysical principles that have proven to be ineffective, dubious and actually harmful to our cause. Following religious principles and chasing after gurus and special Ascended Masters has made us into dumbasses that has allowed the elites to be able to run slipshod over us for so long. You don’t see them worrying about samsara or dharma, do you? Their lineage continues and continues as if karma only rewarded their efforts to dominate, exploit and destroy.

It takes action to change the world, not sitting on your ass under a bodhi tree until you are an ass-ending master so you can teach others how to ass-end.into their minds. I mean, it just hasn’t worked. Achieving inner peace at the cost of separating one’s self from the world is only separation. This practice has obviously been a defective, impractical and self-interested approach to the problems it alleges to “solve.” And don’t bring the Dalai Lama into this. He is completely irrelevant in the affairs of the world while he sits in a saffron robe placing guru-seekers’ heads in the clouds all day. I mean, don’t equate what I am saying as a personal attack on your belief system. Take it for what it is, facing the truth, as I have faced – that all religious systems lead to one point: deception. We don’t need God, Buddha or the Dalai Lama to tell us the proper way to relate to people. We don’t need meditative states or following gurus or attaining an enlightened state to realize that suffering in this world can be stopped. We only need to release our desire to chase after things we can’t verify and embrace the common sense of universal equality. If the Buddha had spoken about that, I’d be all over it As it is, we have to let it go, because what Buddha represents has not been worthy of following, as the world has entertained the Buddhist perspective for centuries and it has failed completely.

2012/03/06 – 2012 & the Fraud of Buddha’s “Enlightenment”

Meh. He meant well.

“Well, this has been an interesting site. Thanks for helping me find some sanity in some of the rather bullcrappish stuff I have followed over the past decade. I know I have bought and read all of the books mentioned of all of the authors so far and I am broke, unemployed, ready to lose my home, so you figure, who is enlightened by all of this?” – kkorth

Indeed, all the Eckhart Tolle’s and the Neal David Walsch’s of the world pump out their discredited New Age spirituality fictions while passing them off as “truths” and selling them for big bucks to people like you and me, who knew something is terribly wrong with the world and was forever looking for a way to deal with it. As we both have learned, kkorth, reading and applying these principles peddled by the New Age community doesn’t work. It may work for the 1% who write, market and sell this fluffy flowerhat metaphysics, but for the other 99% all we get is a lump of coal in our stocking.

There’s a very good reason it all works this way. We all have been led astray by the assumptions made by philosophers, theologians and spiritualists that there is something “out there” that 1) has our best interests at heart and 2) gives meaning to our suffering. Human suffering is the out-flowing of the singular human condition of necessity. Nobody would ever survive infancy without the aid from others. This condition of needing/requiring aid from others can only come from the network of relationships that are formed by all things in this world. Thus everything that necessity demands is Here. On Earth. The “Power of Now” has nothing to do with anything essential to anything as it is only a refurbished, retooled religious philosophical abstraction created by people like Tolle in the guise of offering a “truth,” who probably mean well, but as we have seen, this doesn’t give anyone any lasting benefit at all.

“Enlightenment” is a fraud. It is a deception that assumes to know and understand more than it can. Enlightenment doesn’t fail because you’ve applied it incorrectly, or because you are not worthy of it. People throughout the ages have sought it and it and only a few have dared to claim that they have attained it. It would be one thing if Enlightenment actually changed the world for the better for all of us. We can easily see that is not the case.

For example, “enlightenment” has long been associated with the doctrines and legends of the Buddha. The fundamental core of the doctrines of the Buddha is the claim that provides an understanding and methodology that allows a person to end “suffering.” But for the Buddha, this cessation of suffering had been personal and it had to include a denial of the physical Here-ness while insisting that there was mental realm of inner peace that transcended suffering (and hence, necessity). This is the fatal flaw of all metaphysics, Eastern and Western. For it is within the relationship-networks of humanity, poisoned by self-interest and the seeking of overpowering others that are the causes of suffering. There is no need for any reaching out to the metaphysical. The solutions are all here on Earth, not locked away in some inaccessible region of consciousness but within understanding who we are and choosing how we are going to relate with ourselves and each other. Yes, the Buddha was correct in a sense that desires and cravings are instrumental in the suffering of human beings, but that arises not because existence is suffering, but because have not learned from what we have all seen, accepted and allowed within ourselves that is reflected in out in the world. Buddha missed the Equality Equation, the universal point that is the key to appropriate self-government and democracy. The application of universal equality alone will end human suffering. People will call this “communism” and “utopia,” but these people have not lost everything yet. Only those with nothing to lose will consider the elegant proposition of political and economic equality. And one doesn’t need ‘the Power of Now” or a Buddha to get there.