The core delusion
The spiritual teacher J. Krishnamurti made continual reference to “time” (specifically “psychological time”) and states that the ending of the problems of dysfunction in the human race require the “ending of time”. This document attempts to explain and clarify what he was talking about.
In a nutshell, ego-consciousness (the common state of consciousness of modern man) is a deluded state. The root error derives ultimately from an error of inference deep within our psyche as to the physical nature of the universe, and specifically the thing we call “time”, and how we (as a consciousness) exist within it. Correcting this psychological error of inference (as a direct seeing psychological insight) has the potential to correct the delusion, moving the subject out of ego-consciousness and towards enlightened (or non-deluded) consciousness.
There are a few different theories on what “time” actually is.
A commonly held intellectual idea is that time actually exists as a separate dimension, a continuum through which the material universe passes.
By this theory, the universe is supposed to work a bit like a movie film – you have a spool of independent “still” universes which, if reeled past the lens (your consciousness), summons up the sensation of movement, and of course the sensation of your consciousness passing through time.
Some people disagree with this idea, and instead think that actually all we have is a single universe, and that there is no time as a separate dimension or continuum, and that we simply observe change of state directly. So what we call “time” is merely measured change of state (e.g. changed position of the clock hand).
Totally regardless of which of these theories you personally believe with your sensible “intellectual knowing” head, deep deep down inside psyche of virtually every human being there is only one of these premises that is actually acted from.
Unfortunately, the theory we actually act from is the wrong one – we act as if there really is a continuum of time and there isn't. And we have another little problem - against whatever you may merely intellectually believe, our deep inner psyche is structured as if it can actually live within this continuum of time, that our very existential essence can actually survive living spread out along it. In a sense, we are operating from the premise that we are not just existing within the instant of “now”, but also existing in a (psychologically) very real way in the past and in the future, all at the very same time.
Just to clarify - I am not accusing you of believing your mind is actually capable of living spread out along the dimension of time.
I'm not talking about what we believe, but about the premise from which we act.
As I'm sure you have noticed, these two things unfortunately don't always coincide. Sometimes we, with our sensible heads, know full well what we should be doing, but are then frustrated to notice that we are compelled to act in some totally different way, even so far as to doing things we may badly regret later. Before doing them we know we shouldn't, after doing them we regret them! It's quite easy for human beings to believe one thing (as an intellectual position) but actually act from a completely different position.
So how did it actually happen that, some time in our evolution, we made this mistake regarding the nature of time?
Over the course of our evolution, the consciousness of the human species has inferred the physical nature of our universe from the stream of sensory information that is constantly fed into it from our body. Its a very big job to work out what the universe actually is from this stream of basic sense information, but our species is now several million years old – that's quite a lot of sense data we have collected, and enough time to do an awfully large amount of inferring! Enough time in fact, to create by the process of evolutionary “philosophical extrapolation and inference” the amazingly detailed image and understanding we all carry within ourselves of the physical nature of things that allows us to live our daily lives.
But we have some other tools (memory and imagination) which, although they are not providing actual sense data from the real physical universe, are actually a bit like the senses in that they give us an “experience”.
We all know our memory of the past is extremely useful, and is an essential survival tool. Don't play with rattlesnakes! I remember what happened when my now dead friend was bitten by one! So too is our ability to imagine future states, since it allows us to plot scenarios in our mind and “try ideas out” mentally without actually having to physically implement them. This is the nature of our mental activity when we plan.
However, a deep danger presents itself when we use either of the psychological tools of past memory or an imagined future. To understand what this danger might be exactly, we need to examine closely how both of these mental tools actually work, and what experience they give us whilst we are using them.
The human mind records historical experience as sequential “frames of state” rather like a movie film does. When we think about the past, we are playing this mental “mind-movie” back to ourselves. (As an aside, do you notice that this is similar to how the flawed view of time outlined above operates?) Our understanding of our relationship with the data representing this “mind-movie” is derived from the feelings we get when playing it – these match the actual feelings we had at the time of the original experience. The feelings may be stronger when the actual experience takes place than it is when we re-play the memory of it, but there is not any actual difference in the very nature, the intrinsic quality of the feeling.
When I see a rattlesnake, I remember what a rattlesnake did to my friend, i feel horror, shock, fear and react accordingly in self-preservation!
We have imaginations about the future too – extrapolations and fantasies about what we think may come to pass. Noting how these possible future states make us feel allows us to understand our relationship with the possible future state scenarios that we are plotting.
And here is the hidden danger. As we have seen, there is not really any fundamental difference in the nature of the feelings we commonly experience in our daily reactions with the world and the feelings we experience when we replay mental memories of the past.
Feelings are sensations. And experiencing sensations of any kind gives our consciousness a sense of direct connection with the “thing” which is causing the sensations, imbuing it with a sense of actual existential reality.
And so here is the root error we are operating from. During the evolution of the human consciousness, our psyche has thus far failed to differentiate that there is any fundamental difference between recorded data (our memories) and absolute “happening right now” reality. It's an easy mistake to make – experientially, because from the data with which it has been provided over the course of our evolution, our consciousness has no direct way of telling the two apart.
Philosophically, if I have two “things”, both of which posses an identical basic intrinsic nature, without any extra descriptive information about them it is simply not possible for me as an “evolving consciousness” to tell one apart from the other.
So we have a fundamental quality of experience when we slide sequentially backwards and forwards through our memory and imaginations (in terms of the emotions we feel) that is qualitatively the same as the emotional experience we have in the real universe – the actual here and now. So our deep inner psyche acts from the premise that the past and future is a real “place” that actually exists “now”, and that we can actually “visit”.
We “know” it because we have “experienced” it. But this premise is completely wrong. Thinking about the past is not actually traveling back to the past, it's merely thinking about it “in the now”.
We re-live the emotions generated by things that have happened in the past and that might happened in the future by thinking about them – the feelings feel “real” and we therefore experience existential identification with them. But these remembered or imagined “things” have no existential reality, no actual existence beyond the historical data inside our brains. This means that when we think about the past and the future, we effectively become personally identified with abstract data - mere dry, lifeless information inside our memories.
The manifestation of this is that instead of living fully within the only time actually available for us to live and act – the “present instant”, the actual “here and now”, our psyche thinks it lives as a stretched out entity, smeared along some imaginary continuum of time, which it believes stretches right the way back through our past to our earliest conscious memories and forward into some imagined future ahead of us.
Please now think about this paradox: When did time begin?
The answer is that it didn't - There is no time.
If you don't “get” this, that is successfully “see through” the paradox of time (as a direct seeing psychological insight rather than merely following my argument), then it's no good. Following an intellectual argument is simply accumulating dry symbolic data in your memory.
If you can summon up any sense of personal identification with any thing, idea or event that occurred (or will occur) at any time other than the “now” you are currently occupying, regard it as proof you cannot yet completely “see through” this paradox.
When I say that time does not exist, I am not saying that the abstract human concept of "clock time" does not exist – it does, and actually it is very useful, but simply as a "reference change" against which all other movement or change may be measured. (Linear speed in meters per second, rotational speed in revolutions per second, evaporation in liters per hour and so on.)
Provided we use “clock time” merely as a “reference change” and nothing more, it adds great value to our practical life.
But maintaining belief in “clock time” does not in any way prevent us from letting go of the psychological premise that time represents some physical continuum through which we continually "pass" or, even more dangerously, actually live within?
But the question is, where does “living in time” actually place us, psychologically speaking?
We have all experienced those occasions when in a moment of stress and hurt, our minds churn over and over and over trying to resolve the problem. We experience this huge compulsion to think incessantly about our difficulties, and at the same time there is this vague awareness of the madness of what we are doing – on some level we are aware that however hard we think, the suffering never actually reduces, we never actually "fix" the problem with all our compulsive thinking.
What we actually say to ourselves in these situations is something like: “My life is this way but I cannot accept it, it's too awful! Things “should be” like this instead!
When we think like this, we are effectively avoiding facing the absolute reality of the present moment by the “mind trick” of imagining a future preferred state of “what should be” and psychologically identifying with it, e.g. operating from the premise at some level that we actually occupy this future imagined state in some real existential way.
Of course we cannot completely avoid our unpleasant here and now life situation in this manner because we cannot take 100% of our existential psychological essence into our imagined future. Our fantasy “as it should be universe” inside our head is convincing and quite satisfying to think about, but the sense data coming in from our bodies from the actual “here and now” universe keeps a certain part of our psychological identity trapped in the rather unsavory real universe, the place where we really don't want to be.
So (usually with much complaining and moaning) we start waiting for things to be “as they should be”, e.g. waiting for the actual universe to turn into our fantasy imagined future situation, without unfortunately bothering to question whether this is a reasonable expectation. Why should we question it? At some level, we believe we have “experienced the future”. We know it's possible because we think we have already “seen” it!
We are now walking down the psychological gang plank! Our strategy for resolving our problem is based upon fiction mistaken for fact.
So a typical human strategy for dealing with painful life situations is to fantasize about and identify with a future universe where the painful situation does not exist (or has been “corrected” in some way) and then expect and require the here and now universe to “become” that fantasy over time.
Our belief that our suffering can “become” fixed over time prevents us from facing it totally and absolutely 100% in the actual here and now. There is a huge irony here – any painful situation fully and totally faced in the here and now must be accepted and in the same instant will cease to cause suffering. But by failing to face it, by deferring the solution to some imagined future that can never arrive, the pain and suffering will be kept alive indefinitely, together with an attendant feeling of psychological incompleteness. We are left in a permanent state of feeling less than whole, relying on “becoming” psychologically complete and therefore free of suffering some time in the future.
There is a by-product of becoming identified with future states, of our need for things, people or events to be a certain way in the future in order for us to be able to feel “complete”. In accepting this way of being, our identity becomes attached to form. We in a sense no longer know that we are life itself, but rather we see ourselves in things we don't have but want, or the absence of things we do have but don't want.
Quite often, rather than just waiting for things to become “as they should be”, we actually add to our suffering by trying to force our outer situation towards “becoming” our fantasy image. Because change towards some fantasy future is completely out of alignment with the natural rhythm and flow of change within the real world, our actions will inevitably be counter-productive and therefore deeply frustrating. Furthermore, if directed towards other human beings, our acts will inevitably be perceived as acts of violence and aggression, because we will be trying to move people outside of their natural rhythm and flow (e.g, against their will).
When we act in the manner described above, we are using “psychological time” to separate us (subject, usually identified with a preferable past or a better fantasy future) from that on which we are working (object, e.g. our current here and now situation which we are usually judging negatively).
In fact, we notice that our life experience almost always consists of “me” and “everything else” - this is the root of the normal dualistic way of thinking that Buddhists tell us is a delusion. And as we have seen, this delusion of object and subject is supported by our error regarding the nature of time.
This perceived way of working with the universe is, philosophically speaking, inside out. We cannot actually leave the “here and now universe” in any shape, manner or form. Our psyche perceives that it has, but actually it hasn't. We are still fully within the universe, within the “here and now”, an actual part of what we are trying to change from the outside, deeply intrinsically coupled with the actuality of it.
The inescapable reality is that you are the very universe itself – we all are. Think about it, where did that matter from which your body is constructed actually come from, and what is it that completely encloses you, wherever you actually are? When Gandhi came up with his famous quote: “Be the change you would like to see in the world”, was he preaching from some moral high ground, telling us all what we should be doing in order to be better people? Or is it possible that the real truth of Gandhi talking was actually the opposite way round to that, pull instead of push? Perhaps an enlightened man was simply talking about maths and physics, inviting us to see the reality of the actual hard physical relationship we each have with the universe?
Hopefully then you will agree then that you cannot change any of your situations “from the outside” because you are never physically outside of them! So isn't our real option to cause change “from the inside”? Perhaps, on those rare occasions when we actually succeed in causing successful conflict-free change, each and every one of us are actually already acting in this manner because actually reality does not provide for any other possibility?
Because our mind fully believes in the idea of our problems "becoming fixed” or us “becoming complete” with respect to time, we are incentivized to work hard at it when we have to face a difficult life situation. This "incentivisation" is experienced as the emotional charge given to us as a reward when we think about our problem, and it is this emotional charge that causes the compulsive nature of our thoughts. If you find yourself compulsively thinking about how to resolve some painful situation in your life, take this thinking as proof that you psychological structures are based on a mistaken idea of the concept of time. All you are actually doing is neurotically running through the difference between "what is" and some fanciful hypothetical notion of "what should be", and all the while avoiding the required psychological transformation "in the now" - which is simple acceptance of the only real truth, which is always "what actually is".
When “somebody hurts us” with something they did, and then we resent it and take the position that they need to change in some way to make things “better”, can you see that this is what we are actually doing? By shouting at them, we are trying to act on reality from the outside, trying to move it towards “what should be”, which is the imaginary universe where it would not be possible for us to be hurt like that. Who says this “what should be” of ours is really how the actual (shared) universe “should be”? Us, isn't it? It's only our truth! No wonder then then that when we try to live our life by this principle it often doesn't work very well.
Because it's basic purpose is to help the organism survive, thought always moves in the direction of increased personal security. This may be real (e.g. planning your pension arrangements) or it may be neurotic (e.g. an attempt to avoid facing something). The difference between the two can generally be spotted by the amount of emotional charge and identification you experience when thinking the thought, which in turn will determine how compulsive you find the stream of thought to be.
Buddhism makes great points about the damaging nature of "grasping" and "aversion" (namely, trying to force reality to provide what we like and trying to avoid things that we don't like).
The reason for this is that grasping and aversion are both examples of "psychologically becoming". The point at which we start to experience grasping or aversion is the point where our image of "what should be" has separated from the nature of "what actually is" through the psychological device of “time”.
Witnessing this moment of separation in yourself is witnessing your mind sliding into a dualistic view of the universe. Not all of our daily experience is dualistic - when we are totally absorbed in what we are doing, when the activity we are engaged in has our full attention, then there are no judgments of the present moment and hence no dualism.
It's important to realize though that grasping and aversion are not in themselves the root problems, and so should not be addressed directly – this just becomes grasping for a state of non-graspingness! The root problem is the delusion that allows our mind to think it's a sane idea to support grasping and aversion as sensible psychological rules of behavior for use in our daily lives. Instead of fighting grasping and aversion, see through the root delusion and both grasping and aversion dissolve automatically.
In addition to prolonging suffering unnecessarily, our belief in time actually generates large amounts of suffering all by itself. Imagine for a minute someone who feels (as many do) that it's completely impossible for him to be happy and fulfilled when he is single, e.g. when he doesn't have a life partner.
Someone who believes this, and who is currently single will clearly experience suffering, and will see obtaining a partner as the sole route towards finding resolution of their suffering. Just as soon as they find a partner, they believe they will be “complete” and the suffering will be over.
Looking at this psychological position, we can see that it contains the concept of “psychological becoming”, e.g. “I am not currently complete, but I will become complete just as soon as I have a partner”.
So what happens when he does have a partner? Because he knows that he cannot be happy without a partner, and he also knows that his partner might die or leave him, he is now terribly unhappy from the constant worry of loosing his partner!
Actually, this worry is just the mirror image of the same suffering that he experienced whilst single. The actual root cause of his suffering in both circumstances is his unquestioned belief that he requires a partner to be happy, and until he questions this belief, this “attachment to form”, he will always be experiencing distress at some level, regardless of his situation.
Why can't he see this directly? Because the contradictions inherent in “requiring a partner in order to be happy” are kept apart by his sense of time, and belief in the possibility of “becoming”.
The two related states of suffering are never allowed to touch inside his mind, it is only possible to "move from one to the other" through psychological time, which is experienced by the person as thoughts, moving from one psychological state through “time” to "become" the other state.
So instead of connecting him with the paradox his need for a partner presents him with (and therefore allowing him to look for other options for happiness - such as letting go of his perceived absolute need for a partner), his deluded thinking actually smooths over the cracks so that he is in no way conscious of the horrific contradictions taking place inside his head.
Our mind consists of a very large number of similar contradictory beliefs all existing inside our mind at once. We only "occupy" (personally identify with) one of a set of conflicting beliefs at any one moment. We move between them through use of a made up sense of time, through the vehicle of thoughts thinking about "becoming" or “not becoming” (which is exactly the same as “becoming” - requiring things not to change in the future is still attachment to form).
In other words, our psychological structure is fragmented into contradictory but temporally separated sub-structures, and the reason the contradictions are never allowed to meet (and therefore be challenged and dismantled by our psyche) is that we only ever allow ourselves to “psychologically inhabit” one particular psychological time frame, or “temporal reality”, and therefore only experience identification with one particular psychological sub-structure at any given moment.
Because our internal contradictions are effectively isolated by the continual operation of our thought processes (thoughts are the manifestation of our belief in “becoming” through psychological time in action), if we were to stop thinking for a second all of our internal contradictions would start to collide. And whilst (should this happen) our minds would have no other option but to “see” the contradictions and therefore transform to a supreme state of sanity, sadly we view this as a huge threat to our very existence (otherwise why should we have kept them apart in the first place?). This is why we cannot stop our compulsive thinking. This is why, until we choose to look at it deeply we will each and every one of us continue to go on peace marches and then come back home to our personal wars with our neighbors, and this is the paradox of our current state of consciousness.
These contradictions and the constant thinking that keeps them all suspended in isolation inside our mind causes a constant sense of "becoming". In fact, this sense is the single common factor in all of our experience - the one thing that must be there in each and every one of our waking hours is some sense of becoming, sometimes very faint, sometimes very strong.
It is therefore not such a huge leap of faith for a “trying to work life out” sort of consciousness (such as each human possesses) to assume that this "constant factor" is it's actual identity. If you remove everything in your experience that's "sometimes there and sometimes not", what you are left with is surely what YOU actually are, isn't it? It seems this is precisely what we do, and since we all become personally identified with “a sense of becoming", our identities are constructed from ideas, ambitions, belongings, successes, wants, aversions and other deluded fixed states of being.
This ever-present background sense of "becoming" in our minds therefore is fundamentally what we experience as the "I", the so-called ego identity. So ironically the very basis for our chosen identity is in fact just our own neurosis! Our proudly chosen identity, “that which becomes”, is paradoxically also our suffering and our unhappiness with “what is” - otherwise, if we were really that happy with it, why would we ever need to “become” something else at all? We don't like suffering but we, the actual “ego I” is the very nature of suffering, so we cannot let it go because that would mean death of the “I”, yet we continue to struggle against suffering whilst fighting to hold on to it. We want more, but because we need to constantly “become”, more is never enough. Little wonder there are so many wars in the external world, when we are so fundamentally, intrinsically in such a total state of all-out war with ourselves! Our chosen identification is with fixed temporal states (those 'things in life' we need to be happy), yet fixed states are only possible in a universe where a continuum of temporally separated alternative realities actually exists. But we can never really get and keep these 'things we need for happiness' because our universe is a process in action, constantly morphing into something new, nothing here ever exists in a fixed state. It seems we are not merely at war with ourselves, we are at war with the entire universe! Do the writers of science fiction horror ever actually stop to question the ultimate source of their material? Could the stories they are telling possibly occur to them, as even an imagined possibility, unless there was not already the seed of it as a reality in their very own consciousness? It would seem that the brutal all-destroying monster in the film 'Alien' may be somewhat closer to home than we realize. What will happen to the universe if we invent space travel before we realize this?
So we can perhaps see the danger of thought, but does this mean all thought is neurotic? Not at all - thought put man on the moon and gave us antibiotics. Neurotic thought can be noticed as thoughts which amplify a separate sense of "I" by temporally separating ourselves from any life situation which we are averse (or attached) to.
This amounts to a neurotic action of trying to inflict some arbitrary "should be" on the reality of what actually is. Direct realization of this madness enables a different psychological possibility for dealing with life's ups and downs that actually works – namely we work from a position of relationship and interconnectedness, meaning that when facing a difficult reality we start by fully coming to terms with and accepting the problem, up to the state of being totally totally OK with it (e.g. psychologically transform to fit the reality of the world) and only then start looking for ways of improving things. Doing things this way, our thinking will not be imbued with a separate sense of "I" and therefore will not be neurotic. It might be about improving your life, but you will be able to look at it as dispassionately as some impersonal logistics problem you are working on at your job, because it's about improving an already completely acceptable life, rather than fixing a life which is currently “broken”.
It is a total mistake to try to "stop" neurotic thought though, because that's just more of the same - your ego trying to inflict "what should be" on "what is". Effectively, trying to stop neurotic thought through will is just more neurosis coming in through the back door. The key to correcting your behavior is to actually see the root of your delusion, not intellectually as some meaningless abstract idea, but as "direct seeing" – through psychological insight.
J. Krishnamurti make great use of the phrase “to inquire into the nature of things”. What he is saying is that you must forget trying to “be” enlightened, because that is an act of will and therefore an act of ego. The best thing we can do is to simply deepen our understanding of the actual essential nature of life and the paradoxes it presents us with and hope that eventually our consciousness “gets it”.
What happens when we “directly see” that time does not exist?
The less we resist and separate from reality by moving into a different (but non-existent) temporal place inside our psyche, the more our consciousness is free to follow the infinitely subtle texture of reality as it actually unfolds. Separation reduces the connectedness of our consciousness with the true nature of reality - 'smooths over the ripples' rather like plastering removes the contours in a wall built out of brick. This means that all we see is a dim blur of what is really there. We are conditioned to believe this "dim blur" is the full extent of reality – having no other experience, why would we ever question it? You will know when you have got the insight – you are likely to experience the moment as a huge visceral wave of color, beauty, sound, texture, smell and sense of aliveness sweeping in to your consciousness, accompanied by an unimaginably deep and still sense of inner peace as your compulsive thinking stops, the ego-castle in the sky collapses and is replaced by a deep and profound sense of wonder of “what actually is” in the eternal here and now. Can you imagine that we daily miss all of this wonder, due to our grasping for pleasurable experiences and trying to “become” something? We continually fail to spot (and therefore completely miss out on) the hidden, unimagined gems that are ours for the taking in a fresh, pristine, and totally unimagined normal everyday reality of the moment.
Correcting one's delusions regarding time also exposes and corrects a key mistake of identity of being. It is possible to hold the belief that our psychological identity is based on form (e.g. our bodies, our material possessions and our life situations) only when operating from the premise that we can ever be “incomplete” in the “now” - in other words when we are waiting on some future situation or event in order to be happy, or “psychologically complete”.
Realizing that our memories and fantasies are mind-movies, not the actual separately accessible realities we had taken them to be causes us to discover that the content we experience in our life is impermanent – it comes and goes (and when it's gone it's gone)! This in turn causes us to see that it lacks the permanence needed to provide us with the absolute identity we inherently know we have.
Our true identity is therefore revealed to be the single remaining common factor in our experience – the process which knows form rather than the form itself. “I” am pure, abstract consciousness without the arbitrary content.
Moving from content to process implies a shift from “problem” to “solution”. You are not your physical body, which without anything else in the picture is clearly just so much organic matter. Move away from identification with the physical matter on which the process of evolution acts to being the very process of life and evolution itself, and you'll find that “working on” becomes "growing", and “finished” becomes "fruition". A desire for separation and division transforms into a realization of interconnectedness and relationship. Battling for survival against the universe becomes actually being the very universe itself, and a universe that, whatever it's current state is, is always totally OK with you. Do you want someone else to do something for you? “Making them do it” becomes “Acting through them with the power of your inspiration”. Don't wait for “a separate them” to do it - you as a “process” can actually inhabit someone else's body by taking responsibility to inspire them with your vision and passion of the truth. What happens, if before their death, somebody, without making, forcing, pushing, even without any words whatsoever inspires someone else sufficiently with their life's vision for the seed of it's truth to take root in the earth of a new body? When the old body dies, in what real sense can the “life” have said to have died, when the passion of the process that previously made the corpse act upon the earth still lives on in a different body? How many people still live inside of you? How much of your life's passion is due to the inspiration of other people's example, your “life heroes”, people currently living and perhaps people who have now died? Can you sense their passion, their love, as an actual living process inside of you? How do you think those persons came to become so inspirational – who may have previously inspired them that they were able to walk so tall as to be able to inspire yourself? Isn't perhaps the definition of inspiration “that which works on us from the inside”? Isn't this simply because, deep within us all, we already know we hold an inner, absolute truth? You may not be able to articulate the specifics yet, but don't you sense a feeling of deep inner truth deep within the core of your being? There may be obscuration in the way which makes it a bit hard to see sometimes (especially on days things “go wrong” in your life), but who really doubts it's reality within themselves? Don't inspirational persons always operate by connecting our consciousness with the the actuality of our own inner truth, by helping our consciousness illuminate (which is distinct from actually specifying) whatever unique path we ourselves as unique individuals need to take to get there?
Identification with process has a further significance for humanity. Process is abstract, so by identification with an abstract something you suddenly find the core of your identity moves entirely outside not only time, but also outside of space and matter. Perhaps a more traditional term for this abstract “process of life” is simply the word “Spirit”.
So identification with process creates an immortal, timeless identity. It's not that you never die, rather it's that you realize that you were never born in the first place, because “birth” is just yet another example of “becoming”. That most uncomfortable paradox our ego consciousness confronts us with becomes fully resolved:
"If I am a real, true, separate identity, existing absolutely, now in time, as indeed it feels as if I am, how can I possibly conceive of the time after my death, when it appears this absolute, real, and true 'I' will no longer exist in any manner. Doesn't this amount to truth and false co-existing? Isn't this impossible?".
The answer, as with all paradoxes, comes from the unimaginable, and is simply that the “I” that poses the question of life and death, the ego center of our consciousness, is a castle in the air, a delusion, and therefore already does not exist.
The apparent paradox of birth and death is just one more example of how the human consciousness keeps two independent but contradictory dualistic “truths” separate from each other by the use of a non-existent temporal continuum (e.g. the perceived time between birth and death).
The operation of our individual ego-consciousness will by their very nature constantly work at splitting “the truth” into more and more dualistic entities, each of which by themselves are part of, but in a sense always a step further away from the bigger truth. Nowhere is this more visible than in the world's religions, where the human race at large seems to be pursuing a continual expansion of different beliefs.
Even the beliefs themselves eventually split and separate. How many “Christianities” were there at the time of Jesus? How many are there now? If it's genuinely an all-inclusive, all-pervading total truth we are talking about here (isn't that what religion is supposed to be?), why do we ever need more than 1 truth? Is it possible that there might simply be an error of perception, which, if corrected, suddenly makes all religions seem to be pointing back inwards, all spatially separated like the spokes of a wheel but pointing back in towards a single central kernel of truth? Perhaps we are just looking along the spokes in the wrong direction! We have got the world's religions the wrong way round, we are seeing divergence when the actuality, if we care to correct our view is convergence? When looked at from this perspective, from the existential truth of human unity rather than the delusion of ego-separation, the multiple differing and contradictory spiritual paths in the world are not in any way divisive - they are each just helping to add further detail to a bigger overriding picture, and show the possibility of a different path towards it.
Hopefully it's obvious to you that what I have written so far has large associations with Buddhism and Hinduism, but how about Christianity? These days it's quite popular to sneer at Christians, but have you ever reflected on the meaning of “original sin”, perhaps interpreting the meaning of the word “sin” as mere “psychological error”, rather than the more common (but arguably rather un-Christian) judgmental statement of value or worth regarding the sinner? Is there any significance in the Adam and Eve story where it is indicated that our separation from God was related to “our use of knowledge” (which is always stored in our memory, isn't it?). What “psychological device” might man have used to separate from God? We are told that this “separation” resulted in our “learning” of the opposites of good and evil. Can you see that the concept of “the opposites of good and evil” is a dualistic entity of thought, which we have seen can only exist in a consciousness that believes in psychological time? Is it possible that unenlightened persons who conceive of God as an entity, extrinsic to the universe, are actually just projecting their own inner ego-God nature? And that for the historical Jesus, God was actually seen as intrinsic to the universe? Is it possible our “separation from God” was really just our psychological separation from the universe, our perceived loss of intimate relationship with it, through the birth of dualistic thought?
Is it possible that “atonement” merely means intellectually acknowledging an error in our understanding regarding the physical nature of the universe, and that “redemption” merely means “putting right”, as a direct seeing psychological insight by our consciousness? And that “revelation” is the direct perception of the actual nature of the physical universe that must follow? If the historical Jesus was really enlightened, what do you imagine he might have been trying to explain to us, perhaps in terms of physics and psychology? Is there a sense of some sort of “deeper eternal truth of life” implicit in what must be regarded as the most profound inspirational act in history, that of freely offering one's life via the most grizzly death imaginable for the “sin” of humanity? In what hard logical way, in terms of an evolving human consciousness, might the “sin”, (or “error”) of humanity possibly be “corrected” by this inspirational offering?
Did you know the exact same strands of thought regarding our use of “psychological time” exist within the traditions of Islamic Sufi mystics?
When will we start waking up to the ultimate paradox of the human race? Of our deep internal contradictions - our desperate need for relationship, community, love, connectedness combined with our (always temporally separated) needs of individuality, separation, uniqueness, individual power, and selfish control of our environment?
Why not think about where all this actually comes from inside yourself?
In a nutshell, ego-consciousness (the common state of consciousness of modern man) is a deluded state. The root error derives ultimately from an error of inference deep within our psyche as to the physical nature of the universe, and specifically the thing we call “time”, and how we (as a consciousness) exist within it. Correcting this psychological error of inference (as a direct seeing psychological insight) has the potential to correct the delusion, moving the subject out of ego-consciousness and towards enlightened (or non-deluded) consciousness.
There are a few different theories on what “time” actually is.
A commonly held intellectual idea is that time actually exists as a separate dimension, a continuum through which the material universe passes.
By this theory, the universe is supposed to work a bit like a movie film – you have a spool of independent “still” universes which, if reeled past the lens (your consciousness), summons up the sensation of movement, and of course the sensation of your consciousness passing through time.
Some people disagree with this idea, and instead think that actually all we have is a single universe, and that there is no time as a separate dimension or continuum, and that we simply observe change of state directly. So what we call “time” is merely measured change of state (e.g. changed position of the clock hand).
Totally regardless of which of these theories you personally believe with your sensible “intellectual knowing” head, deep deep down inside psyche of virtually every human being there is only one of these premises that is actually acted from.
Unfortunately, the theory we actually act from is the wrong one – we act as if there really is a continuum of time and there isn't. And we have another little problem - against whatever you may merely intellectually believe, our deep inner psyche is structured as if it can actually live within this continuum of time, that our very existential essence can actually survive living spread out along it. In a sense, we are operating from the premise that we are not just existing within the instant of “now”, but also existing in a (psychologically) very real way in the past and in the future, all at the very same time.
Just to clarify - I am not accusing you of believing your mind is actually capable of living spread out along the dimension of time.
I'm not talking about what we believe, but about the premise from which we act.
As I'm sure you have noticed, these two things unfortunately don't always coincide. Sometimes we, with our sensible heads, know full well what we should be doing, but are then frustrated to notice that we are compelled to act in some totally different way, even so far as to doing things we may badly regret later. Before doing them we know we shouldn't, after doing them we regret them! It's quite easy for human beings to believe one thing (as an intellectual position) but actually act from a completely different position.
So how did it actually happen that, some time in our evolution, we made this mistake regarding the nature of time?
Over the course of our evolution, the consciousness of the human species has inferred the physical nature of our universe from the stream of sensory information that is constantly fed into it from our body. Its a very big job to work out what the universe actually is from this stream of basic sense information, but our species is now several million years old – that's quite a lot of sense data we have collected, and enough time to do an awfully large amount of inferring! Enough time in fact, to create by the process of evolutionary “philosophical extrapolation and inference” the amazingly detailed image and understanding we all carry within ourselves of the physical nature of things that allows us to live our daily lives.
But we have some other tools (memory and imagination) which, although they are not providing actual sense data from the real physical universe, are actually a bit like the senses in that they give us an “experience”.
We all know our memory of the past is extremely useful, and is an essential survival tool. Don't play with rattlesnakes! I remember what happened when my now dead friend was bitten by one! So too is our ability to imagine future states, since it allows us to plot scenarios in our mind and “try ideas out” mentally without actually having to physically implement them. This is the nature of our mental activity when we plan.
However, a deep danger presents itself when we use either of the psychological tools of past memory or an imagined future. To understand what this danger might be exactly, we need to examine closely how both of these mental tools actually work, and what experience they give us whilst we are using them.
The human mind records historical experience as sequential “frames of state” rather like a movie film does. When we think about the past, we are playing this mental “mind-movie” back to ourselves. (As an aside, do you notice that this is similar to how the flawed view of time outlined above operates?) Our understanding of our relationship with the data representing this “mind-movie” is derived from the feelings we get when playing it – these match the actual feelings we had at the time of the original experience. The feelings may be stronger when the actual experience takes place than it is when we re-play the memory of it, but there is not any actual difference in the very nature, the intrinsic quality of the feeling.
When I see a rattlesnake, I remember what a rattlesnake did to my friend, i feel horror, shock, fear and react accordingly in self-preservation!
We have imaginations about the future too – extrapolations and fantasies about what we think may come to pass. Noting how these possible future states make us feel allows us to understand our relationship with the possible future state scenarios that we are plotting.
And here is the hidden danger. As we have seen, there is not really any fundamental difference in the nature of the feelings we commonly experience in our daily reactions with the world and the feelings we experience when we replay mental memories of the past.
Feelings are sensations. And experiencing sensations of any kind gives our consciousness a sense of direct connection with the “thing” which is causing the sensations, imbuing it with a sense of actual existential reality.
And so here is the root error we are operating from. During the evolution of the human consciousness, our psyche has thus far failed to differentiate that there is any fundamental difference between recorded data (our memories) and absolute “happening right now” reality. It's an easy mistake to make – experientially, because from the data with which it has been provided over the course of our evolution, our consciousness has no direct way of telling the two apart.
Philosophically, if I have two “things”, both of which posses an identical basic intrinsic nature, without any extra descriptive information about them it is simply not possible for me as an “evolving consciousness” to tell one apart from the other.
So we have a fundamental quality of experience when we slide sequentially backwards and forwards through our memory and imaginations (in terms of the emotions we feel) that is qualitatively the same as the emotional experience we have in the real universe – the actual here and now. So our deep inner psyche acts from the premise that the past and future is a real “place” that actually exists “now”, and that we can actually “visit”.
We “know” it because we have “experienced” it. But this premise is completely wrong. Thinking about the past is not actually traveling back to the past, it's merely thinking about it “in the now”.
We re-live the emotions generated by things that have happened in the past and that might happened in the future by thinking about them – the feelings feel “real” and we therefore experience existential identification with them. But these remembered or imagined “things” have no existential reality, no actual existence beyond the historical data inside our brains. This means that when we think about the past and the future, we effectively become personally identified with abstract data - mere dry, lifeless information inside our memories.
The manifestation of this is that instead of living fully within the only time actually available for us to live and act – the “present instant”, the actual “here and now”, our psyche thinks it lives as a stretched out entity, smeared along some imaginary continuum of time, which it believes stretches right the way back through our past to our earliest conscious memories and forward into some imagined future ahead of us.
Please now think about this paradox: When did time begin?
The answer is that it didn't - There is no time.
If you don't “get” this, that is successfully “see through” the paradox of time (as a direct seeing psychological insight rather than merely following my argument), then it's no good. Following an intellectual argument is simply accumulating dry symbolic data in your memory.
If you can summon up any sense of personal identification with any thing, idea or event that occurred (or will occur) at any time other than the “now” you are currently occupying, regard it as proof you cannot yet completely “see through” this paradox.
When I say that time does not exist, I am not saying that the abstract human concept of "clock time" does not exist – it does, and actually it is very useful, but simply as a "reference change" against which all other movement or change may be measured. (Linear speed in meters per second, rotational speed in revolutions per second, evaporation in liters per hour and so on.)
Provided we use “clock time” merely as a “reference change” and nothing more, it adds great value to our practical life.
But maintaining belief in “clock time” does not in any way prevent us from letting go of the psychological premise that time represents some physical continuum through which we continually "pass" or, even more dangerously, actually live within?
But the question is, where does “living in time” actually place us, psychologically speaking?
We have all experienced those occasions when in a moment of stress and hurt, our minds churn over and over and over trying to resolve the problem. We experience this huge compulsion to think incessantly about our difficulties, and at the same time there is this vague awareness of the madness of what we are doing – on some level we are aware that however hard we think, the suffering never actually reduces, we never actually "fix" the problem with all our compulsive thinking.
What we actually say to ourselves in these situations is something like: “My life is this way but I cannot accept it, it's too awful! Things “should be” like this instead!
When we think like this, we are effectively avoiding facing the absolute reality of the present moment by the “mind trick” of imagining a future preferred state of “what should be” and psychologically identifying with it, e.g. operating from the premise at some level that we actually occupy this future imagined state in some real existential way.
Of course we cannot completely avoid our unpleasant here and now life situation in this manner because we cannot take 100% of our existential psychological essence into our imagined future. Our fantasy “as it should be universe” inside our head is convincing and quite satisfying to think about, but the sense data coming in from our bodies from the actual “here and now” universe keeps a certain part of our psychological identity trapped in the rather unsavory real universe, the place where we really don't want to be.
So (usually with much complaining and moaning) we start waiting for things to be “as they should be”, e.g. waiting for the actual universe to turn into our fantasy imagined future situation, without unfortunately bothering to question whether this is a reasonable expectation. Why should we question it? At some level, we believe we have “experienced the future”. We know it's possible because we think we have already “seen” it!
We are now walking down the psychological gang plank! Our strategy for resolving our problem is based upon fiction mistaken for fact.
So a typical human strategy for dealing with painful life situations is to fantasize about and identify with a future universe where the painful situation does not exist (or has been “corrected” in some way) and then expect and require the here and now universe to “become” that fantasy over time.
Our belief that our suffering can “become” fixed over time prevents us from facing it totally and absolutely 100% in the actual here and now. There is a huge irony here – any painful situation fully and totally faced in the here and now must be accepted and in the same instant will cease to cause suffering. But by failing to face it, by deferring the solution to some imagined future that can never arrive, the pain and suffering will be kept alive indefinitely, together with an attendant feeling of psychological incompleteness. We are left in a permanent state of feeling less than whole, relying on “becoming” psychologically complete and therefore free of suffering some time in the future.
There is a by-product of becoming identified with future states, of our need for things, people or events to be a certain way in the future in order for us to be able to feel “complete”. In accepting this way of being, our identity becomes attached to form. We in a sense no longer know that we are life itself, but rather we see ourselves in things we don't have but want, or the absence of things we do have but don't want.
Quite often, rather than just waiting for things to become “as they should be”, we actually add to our suffering by trying to force our outer situation towards “becoming” our fantasy image. Because change towards some fantasy future is completely out of alignment with the natural rhythm and flow of change within the real world, our actions will inevitably be counter-productive and therefore deeply frustrating. Furthermore, if directed towards other human beings, our acts will inevitably be perceived as acts of violence and aggression, because we will be trying to move people outside of their natural rhythm and flow (e.g, against their will).
When we act in the manner described above, we are using “psychological time” to separate us (subject, usually identified with a preferable past or a better fantasy future) from that on which we are working (object, e.g. our current here and now situation which we are usually judging negatively).
In fact, we notice that our life experience almost always consists of “me” and “everything else” - this is the root of the normal dualistic way of thinking that Buddhists tell us is a delusion. And as we have seen, this delusion of object and subject is supported by our error regarding the nature of time.
This perceived way of working with the universe is, philosophically speaking, inside out. We cannot actually leave the “here and now universe” in any shape, manner or form. Our psyche perceives that it has, but actually it hasn't. We are still fully within the universe, within the “here and now”, an actual part of what we are trying to change from the outside, deeply intrinsically coupled with the actuality of it.
The inescapable reality is that you are the very universe itself – we all are. Think about it, where did that matter from which your body is constructed actually come from, and what is it that completely encloses you, wherever you actually are? When Gandhi came up with his famous quote: “Be the change you would like to see in the world”, was he preaching from some moral high ground, telling us all what we should be doing in order to be better people? Or is it possible that the real truth of Gandhi talking was actually the opposite way round to that, pull instead of push? Perhaps an enlightened man was simply talking about maths and physics, inviting us to see the reality of the actual hard physical relationship we each have with the universe?
Hopefully then you will agree then that you cannot change any of your situations “from the outside” because you are never physically outside of them! So isn't our real option to cause change “from the inside”? Perhaps, on those rare occasions when we actually succeed in causing successful conflict-free change, each and every one of us are actually already acting in this manner because actually reality does not provide for any other possibility?
Because our mind fully believes in the idea of our problems "becoming fixed” or us “becoming complete” with respect to time, we are incentivized to work hard at it when we have to face a difficult life situation. This "incentivisation" is experienced as the emotional charge given to us as a reward when we think about our problem, and it is this emotional charge that causes the compulsive nature of our thoughts. If you find yourself compulsively thinking about how to resolve some painful situation in your life, take this thinking as proof that you psychological structures are based on a mistaken idea of the concept of time. All you are actually doing is neurotically running through the difference between "what is" and some fanciful hypothetical notion of "what should be", and all the while avoiding the required psychological transformation "in the now" - which is simple acceptance of the only real truth, which is always "what actually is".
When “somebody hurts us” with something they did, and then we resent it and take the position that they need to change in some way to make things “better”, can you see that this is what we are actually doing? By shouting at them, we are trying to act on reality from the outside, trying to move it towards “what should be”, which is the imaginary universe where it would not be possible for us to be hurt like that. Who says this “what should be” of ours is really how the actual (shared) universe “should be”? Us, isn't it? It's only our truth! No wonder then then that when we try to live our life by this principle it often doesn't work very well.
Because it's basic purpose is to help the organism survive, thought always moves in the direction of increased personal security. This may be real (e.g. planning your pension arrangements) or it may be neurotic (e.g. an attempt to avoid facing something). The difference between the two can generally be spotted by the amount of emotional charge and identification you experience when thinking the thought, which in turn will determine how compulsive you find the stream of thought to be.
Buddhism makes great points about the damaging nature of "grasping" and "aversion" (namely, trying to force reality to provide what we like and trying to avoid things that we don't like).
The reason for this is that grasping and aversion are both examples of "psychologically becoming". The point at which we start to experience grasping or aversion is the point where our image of "what should be" has separated from the nature of "what actually is" through the psychological device of “time”.
Witnessing this moment of separation in yourself is witnessing your mind sliding into a dualistic view of the universe. Not all of our daily experience is dualistic - when we are totally absorbed in what we are doing, when the activity we are engaged in has our full attention, then there are no judgments of the present moment and hence no dualism.
It's important to realize though that grasping and aversion are not in themselves the root problems, and so should not be addressed directly – this just becomes grasping for a state of non-graspingness! The root problem is the delusion that allows our mind to think it's a sane idea to support grasping and aversion as sensible psychological rules of behavior for use in our daily lives. Instead of fighting grasping and aversion, see through the root delusion and both grasping and aversion dissolve automatically.
In addition to prolonging suffering unnecessarily, our belief in time actually generates large amounts of suffering all by itself. Imagine for a minute someone who feels (as many do) that it's completely impossible for him to be happy and fulfilled when he is single, e.g. when he doesn't have a life partner.
Someone who believes this, and who is currently single will clearly experience suffering, and will see obtaining a partner as the sole route towards finding resolution of their suffering. Just as soon as they find a partner, they believe they will be “complete” and the suffering will be over.
Looking at this psychological position, we can see that it contains the concept of “psychological becoming”, e.g. “I am not currently complete, but I will become complete just as soon as I have a partner”.
So what happens when he does have a partner? Because he knows that he cannot be happy without a partner, and he also knows that his partner might die or leave him, he is now terribly unhappy from the constant worry of loosing his partner!
Actually, this worry is just the mirror image of the same suffering that he experienced whilst single. The actual root cause of his suffering in both circumstances is his unquestioned belief that he requires a partner to be happy, and until he questions this belief, this “attachment to form”, he will always be experiencing distress at some level, regardless of his situation.
Why can't he see this directly? Because the contradictions inherent in “requiring a partner in order to be happy” are kept apart by his sense of time, and belief in the possibility of “becoming”.
The two related states of suffering are never allowed to touch inside his mind, it is only possible to "move from one to the other" through psychological time, which is experienced by the person as thoughts, moving from one psychological state through “time” to "become" the other state.
So instead of connecting him with the paradox his need for a partner presents him with (and therefore allowing him to look for other options for happiness - such as letting go of his perceived absolute need for a partner), his deluded thinking actually smooths over the cracks so that he is in no way conscious of the horrific contradictions taking place inside his head.
Our mind consists of a very large number of similar contradictory beliefs all existing inside our mind at once. We only "occupy" (personally identify with) one of a set of conflicting beliefs at any one moment. We move between them through use of a made up sense of time, through the vehicle of thoughts thinking about "becoming" or “not becoming” (which is exactly the same as “becoming” - requiring things not to change in the future is still attachment to form).
In other words, our psychological structure is fragmented into contradictory but temporally separated sub-structures, and the reason the contradictions are never allowed to meet (and therefore be challenged and dismantled by our psyche) is that we only ever allow ourselves to “psychologically inhabit” one particular psychological time frame, or “temporal reality”, and therefore only experience identification with one particular psychological sub-structure at any given moment.
Because our internal contradictions are effectively isolated by the continual operation of our thought processes (thoughts are the manifestation of our belief in “becoming” through psychological time in action), if we were to stop thinking for a second all of our internal contradictions would start to collide. And whilst (should this happen) our minds would have no other option but to “see” the contradictions and therefore transform to a supreme state of sanity, sadly we view this as a huge threat to our very existence (otherwise why should we have kept them apart in the first place?). This is why we cannot stop our compulsive thinking. This is why, until we choose to look at it deeply we will each and every one of us continue to go on peace marches and then come back home to our personal wars with our neighbors, and this is the paradox of our current state of consciousness.
These contradictions and the constant thinking that keeps them all suspended in isolation inside our mind causes a constant sense of "becoming". In fact, this sense is the single common factor in all of our experience - the one thing that must be there in each and every one of our waking hours is some sense of becoming, sometimes very faint, sometimes very strong.
It is therefore not such a huge leap of faith for a “trying to work life out” sort of consciousness (such as each human possesses) to assume that this "constant factor" is it's actual identity. If you remove everything in your experience that's "sometimes there and sometimes not", what you are left with is surely what YOU actually are, isn't it? It seems this is precisely what we do, and since we all become personally identified with “a sense of becoming", our identities are constructed from ideas, ambitions, belongings, successes, wants, aversions and other deluded fixed states of being.
This ever-present background sense of "becoming" in our minds therefore is fundamentally what we experience as the "I", the so-called ego identity. So ironically the very basis for our chosen identity is in fact just our own neurosis! Our proudly chosen identity, “that which becomes”, is paradoxically also our suffering and our unhappiness with “what is” - otherwise, if we were really that happy with it, why would we ever need to “become” something else at all? We don't like suffering but we, the actual “ego I” is the very nature of suffering, so we cannot let it go because that would mean death of the “I”, yet we continue to struggle against suffering whilst fighting to hold on to it. We want more, but because we need to constantly “become”, more is never enough. Little wonder there are so many wars in the external world, when we are so fundamentally, intrinsically in such a total state of all-out war with ourselves! Our chosen identification is with fixed temporal states (those 'things in life' we need to be happy), yet fixed states are only possible in a universe where a continuum of temporally separated alternative realities actually exists. But we can never really get and keep these 'things we need for happiness' because our universe is a process in action, constantly morphing into something new, nothing here ever exists in a fixed state. It seems we are not merely at war with ourselves, we are at war with the entire universe! Do the writers of science fiction horror ever actually stop to question the ultimate source of their material? Could the stories they are telling possibly occur to them, as even an imagined possibility, unless there was not already the seed of it as a reality in their very own consciousness? It would seem that the brutal all-destroying monster in the film 'Alien' may be somewhat closer to home than we realize. What will happen to the universe if we invent space travel before we realize this?
So we can perhaps see the danger of thought, but does this mean all thought is neurotic? Not at all - thought put man on the moon and gave us antibiotics. Neurotic thought can be noticed as thoughts which amplify a separate sense of "I" by temporally separating ourselves from any life situation which we are averse (or attached) to.
This amounts to a neurotic action of trying to inflict some arbitrary "should be" on the reality of what actually is. Direct realization of this madness enables a different psychological possibility for dealing with life's ups and downs that actually works – namely we work from a position of relationship and interconnectedness, meaning that when facing a difficult reality we start by fully coming to terms with and accepting the problem, up to the state of being totally totally OK with it (e.g. psychologically transform to fit the reality of the world) and only then start looking for ways of improving things. Doing things this way, our thinking will not be imbued with a separate sense of "I" and therefore will not be neurotic. It might be about improving your life, but you will be able to look at it as dispassionately as some impersonal logistics problem you are working on at your job, because it's about improving an already completely acceptable life, rather than fixing a life which is currently “broken”.
It is a total mistake to try to "stop" neurotic thought though, because that's just more of the same - your ego trying to inflict "what should be" on "what is". Effectively, trying to stop neurotic thought through will is just more neurosis coming in through the back door. The key to correcting your behavior is to actually see the root of your delusion, not intellectually as some meaningless abstract idea, but as "direct seeing" – through psychological insight.
J. Krishnamurti make great use of the phrase “to inquire into the nature of things”. What he is saying is that you must forget trying to “be” enlightened, because that is an act of will and therefore an act of ego. The best thing we can do is to simply deepen our understanding of the actual essential nature of life and the paradoxes it presents us with and hope that eventually our consciousness “gets it”.
What happens when we “directly see” that time does not exist?
The less we resist and separate from reality by moving into a different (but non-existent) temporal place inside our psyche, the more our consciousness is free to follow the infinitely subtle texture of reality as it actually unfolds. Separation reduces the connectedness of our consciousness with the true nature of reality - 'smooths over the ripples' rather like plastering removes the contours in a wall built out of brick. This means that all we see is a dim blur of what is really there. We are conditioned to believe this "dim blur" is the full extent of reality – having no other experience, why would we ever question it? You will know when you have got the insight – you are likely to experience the moment as a huge visceral wave of color, beauty, sound, texture, smell and sense of aliveness sweeping in to your consciousness, accompanied by an unimaginably deep and still sense of inner peace as your compulsive thinking stops, the ego-castle in the sky collapses and is replaced by a deep and profound sense of wonder of “what actually is” in the eternal here and now. Can you imagine that we daily miss all of this wonder, due to our grasping for pleasurable experiences and trying to “become” something? We continually fail to spot (and therefore completely miss out on) the hidden, unimagined gems that are ours for the taking in a fresh, pristine, and totally unimagined normal everyday reality of the moment.
Correcting one's delusions regarding time also exposes and corrects a key mistake of identity of being. It is possible to hold the belief that our psychological identity is based on form (e.g. our bodies, our material possessions and our life situations) only when operating from the premise that we can ever be “incomplete” in the “now” - in other words when we are waiting on some future situation or event in order to be happy, or “psychologically complete”.
Realizing that our memories and fantasies are mind-movies, not the actual separately accessible realities we had taken them to be causes us to discover that the content we experience in our life is impermanent – it comes and goes (and when it's gone it's gone)! This in turn causes us to see that it lacks the permanence needed to provide us with the absolute identity we inherently know we have.
Our true identity is therefore revealed to be the single remaining common factor in our experience – the process which knows form rather than the form itself. “I” am pure, abstract consciousness without the arbitrary content.
Moving from content to process implies a shift from “problem” to “solution”. You are not your physical body, which without anything else in the picture is clearly just so much organic matter. Move away from identification with the physical matter on which the process of evolution acts to being the very process of life and evolution itself, and you'll find that “working on” becomes "growing", and “finished” becomes "fruition". A desire for separation and division transforms into a realization of interconnectedness and relationship. Battling for survival against the universe becomes actually being the very universe itself, and a universe that, whatever it's current state is, is always totally OK with you. Do you want someone else to do something for you? “Making them do it” becomes “Acting through them with the power of your inspiration”. Don't wait for “a separate them” to do it - you as a “process” can actually inhabit someone else's body by taking responsibility to inspire them with your vision and passion of the truth. What happens, if before their death, somebody, without making, forcing, pushing, even without any words whatsoever inspires someone else sufficiently with their life's vision for the seed of it's truth to take root in the earth of a new body? When the old body dies, in what real sense can the “life” have said to have died, when the passion of the process that previously made the corpse act upon the earth still lives on in a different body? How many people still live inside of you? How much of your life's passion is due to the inspiration of other people's example, your “life heroes”, people currently living and perhaps people who have now died? Can you sense their passion, their love, as an actual living process inside of you? How do you think those persons came to become so inspirational – who may have previously inspired them that they were able to walk so tall as to be able to inspire yourself? Isn't perhaps the definition of inspiration “that which works on us from the inside”? Isn't this simply because, deep within us all, we already know we hold an inner, absolute truth? You may not be able to articulate the specifics yet, but don't you sense a feeling of deep inner truth deep within the core of your being? There may be obscuration in the way which makes it a bit hard to see sometimes (especially on days things “go wrong” in your life), but who really doubts it's reality within themselves? Don't inspirational persons always operate by connecting our consciousness with the the actuality of our own inner truth, by helping our consciousness illuminate (which is distinct from actually specifying) whatever unique path we ourselves as unique individuals need to take to get there?
Identification with process has a further significance for humanity. Process is abstract, so by identification with an abstract something you suddenly find the core of your identity moves entirely outside not only time, but also outside of space and matter. Perhaps a more traditional term for this abstract “process of life” is simply the word “Spirit”.
So identification with process creates an immortal, timeless identity. It's not that you never die, rather it's that you realize that you were never born in the first place, because “birth” is just yet another example of “becoming”. That most uncomfortable paradox our ego consciousness confronts us with becomes fully resolved:
"If I am a real, true, separate identity, existing absolutely, now in time, as indeed it feels as if I am, how can I possibly conceive of the time after my death, when it appears this absolute, real, and true 'I' will no longer exist in any manner. Doesn't this amount to truth and false co-existing? Isn't this impossible?".
The answer, as with all paradoxes, comes from the unimaginable, and is simply that the “I” that poses the question of life and death, the ego center of our consciousness, is a castle in the air, a delusion, and therefore already does not exist.
The apparent paradox of birth and death is just one more example of how the human consciousness keeps two independent but contradictory dualistic “truths” separate from each other by the use of a non-existent temporal continuum (e.g. the perceived time between birth and death).
The operation of our individual ego-consciousness will by their very nature constantly work at splitting “the truth” into more and more dualistic entities, each of which by themselves are part of, but in a sense always a step further away from the bigger truth. Nowhere is this more visible than in the world's religions, where the human race at large seems to be pursuing a continual expansion of different beliefs.
Even the beliefs themselves eventually split and separate. How many “Christianities” were there at the time of Jesus? How many are there now? If it's genuinely an all-inclusive, all-pervading total truth we are talking about here (isn't that what religion is supposed to be?), why do we ever need more than 1 truth? Is it possible that there might simply be an error of perception, which, if corrected, suddenly makes all religions seem to be pointing back inwards, all spatially separated like the spokes of a wheel but pointing back in towards a single central kernel of truth? Perhaps we are just looking along the spokes in the wrong direction! We have got the world's religions the wrong way round, we are seeing divergence when the actuality, if we care to correct our view is convergence? When looked at from this perspective, from the existential truth of human unity rather than the delusion of ego-separation, the multiple differing and contradictory spiritual paths in the world are not in any way divisive - they are each just helping to add further detail to a bigger overriding picture, and show the possibility of a different path towards it.
Hopefully it's obvious to you that what I have written so far has large associations with Buddhism and Hinduism, but how about Christianity? These days it's quite popular to sneer at Christians, but have you ever reflected on the meaning of “original sin”, perhaps interpreting the meaning of the word “sin” as mere “psychological error”, rather than the more common (but arguably rather un-Christian) judgmental statement of value or worth regarding the sinner? Is there any significance in the Adam and Eve story where it is indicated that our separation from God was related to “our use of knowledge” (which is always stored in our memory, isn't it?). What “psychological device” might man have used to separate from God? We are told that this “separation” resulted in our “learning” of the opposites of good and evil. Can you see that the concept of “the opposites of good and evil” is a dualistic entity of thought, which we have seen can only exist in a consciousness that believes in psychological time? Is it possible that unenlightened persons who conceive of God as an entity, extrinsic to the universe, are actually just projecting their own inner ego-God nature? And that for the historical Jesus, God was actually seen as intrinsic to the universe? Is it possible our “separation from God” was really just our psychological separation from the universe, our perceived loss of intimate relationship with it, through the birth of dualistic thought?
Is it possible that “atonement” merely means intellectually acknowledging an error in our understanding regarding the physical nature of the universe, and that “redemption” merely means “putting right”, as a direct seeing psychological insight by our consciousness? And that “revelation” is the direct perception of the actual nature of the physical universe that must follow? If the historical Jesus was really enlightened, what do you imagine he might have been trying to explain to us, perhaps in terms of physics and psychology? Is there a sense of some sort of “deeper eternal truth of life” implicit in what must be regarded as the most profound inspirational act in history, that of freely offering one's life via the most grizzly death imaginable for the “sin” of humanity? In what hard logical way, in terms of an evolving human consciousness, might the “sin”, (or “error”) of humanity possibly be “corrected” by this inspirational offering?
Did you know the exact same strands of thought regarding our use of “psychological time” exist within the traditions of Islamic Sufi mystics?
When will we start waking up to the ultimate paradox of the human race? Of our deep internal contradictions - our desperate need for relationship, community, love, connectedness combined with our (always temporally separated) needs of individuality, separation, uniqueness, individual power, and selfish control of our environment?
Why not think about where all this actually comes from inside yourself?
posted by phil anderson at
06:42
10 Comments:
K slowly alters ones brain structure until one becomes just another SHAPE SHIFTING REPTILE (frothing at the mouth). The only way out for one is to want to commit suicide, which will extinguish all THOUGHT. Believe me - I spent years exposed to this FALSE PROPHET. Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation [John 3: 16].
PEACE BE WITH YOU
MICKY
Hi Phil,
I couldn't quite consume your whole philosophy in a sitting. It's long, really long, and covers more points than I can process. However I think I agree with it in many points. So, in order to break it down into actual bite sized pieces would you mind having a conversation in your comment section and discussing how your philosophy applies to real world examples?
Let me put forward some very real examples, and feel free to criticize and pick apart the way that I live my life. Feel free to suggest ways that I might better live my life to increase my overall happiness.
For example, right now I am determined to purchase a Nintendo Wii, largely for the new Metroid game. My reasoning is based on having enjoyed immensely past Metroid games, usually through the challenges overcome, the unfolding stories, and the rich worlds explored. I'm expecting 20-40 hours of enjoyment in my life and lasting sci-fi world concepts to stick around in my head. I don't think anything will ever make me complete and happy, but I do believe that I can buy hours of enjoyment.
As another example, I look for conflict. I enjoy playing games and matching my wits against others. By overcoming challenges by putting together a plan and executing it, I enjoy a great deal of satisfaction. Often it is because the parameters of a situation are difficult that I enjoy overcoming them. As this relates to life, it would seem that much happiness is relative and stems from the overcoming of suffering. Hence I would be afraid to be above suffering, for fear of boredom.
I try not to see things from a definitive perspective and apply different points of view to different situations, looking for the most advantageous and effective. I see no advantage in straining to change that which can't be changed, so I try not to focus on problems that I can't alter. At the same time, I could see some realities being preferable to the one I now inhabit, and try to change my situation accordingly. Rather materialistically, I'd like to change my reality to one in which I have a greater income, because despite the fact that most of my present income sits in the bank, I like the security of being able to afford things, like a year's rent, as this reduces my stress, however I'm sure that no amount of money will be ultimately sufficient to make me happy. However, the greater my bank account, the lower relative cost of all material things and experiences, and the easier it becomes to follow my dreams.
I'd appreciate your criticism of my life plans based on your philosophy. I do enjoy a good philosophical conversation, and will do my best to take any criticism constructively.
Profounder:
i don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying the fun things that the world has to give (e.g. games technology), provided you are not obsessing about needing to have a Wii or constantly day-dreaming about how great it will be when you can finally afford one. also, there is no harm in looking for greater financial security - actually it's quite sensible to do so (again, provided you are not obsessing about a perceived current lack of financial security).
our "life situation" is only a problem if we feel defined, controlled or limited by it. do you feel absolutely free? if in some way you don't, the question then becomes how much of what is holding you down and limiting your options is actually real (and if what's holding you back is something that took place in the past or might take place in the future then it is definitely not real).
Hi Phil,
The only limitation to my freedom is that you can't please everyone and please yourself.
In the end I see life as art. If there is no real time. Then the past present and future all exist simultaneously and whatever I do leaves behind a permanent mark in the universe. If there is only present, then my actions would most felt if they echo far into the future.
The thing that keeps me longing for a reality beyond my immediate means is that I dream a lot. I dream of achieving one thing after another. And everything ends at the point at which I have everything. If I could have everything, do everything, and know everything, I would be bored. Human beings thrive best on challenges. We achieve the most when the standards are highest. My only gripe with Buddhism and with the idea of eliminating irrational goals is that striving to make those dreams reality is what makes life good.
That's why I set lofty goals and don't give a damn whether I achieve them. As long as I give it a shot, I'm satisfied. If I don't meet them, that's okay. I guess I rejoice in my triumph and downplay failure.
I think the scariest thing about the disconnect between people's present situations and their imagined futures is the salesmen who sell bridges to that future. Lottery tickets, brand name clothing, expensive cars, and penis enlarging pills are all aimed at people looking for a quick leap to that imagined future. Sure they don't work, but would those people be happy even if they did work? I feel that very same imagined future was used in the holocaust. Nobody was told they would be exterminated, they were given an imagined future to cling to. If they just gunned down the jews in their houses they'd meet armed resistance, but instead the coaxed them along with the hope that they'd be okay eventually, and that hope for the future kept them from fighting their present situation.
I never really looked at the situation from a perspective of space time before, but simply as the lies that people have come to believe that keep them enslaved to various imagined futures. In essence, living in a country where the people carry enormous credit card debt and spend on ridiculous luxuries, I just want to scream out "buying that won't make you happy! The last thing that was supposed to make you happy didn't work either. Admit that you've been a fool and resolve that you won't be fooled again."
The funny thing is that I'm in marketing. However, marketing is a double edged sword that can be used for good or evil. I like to think I'm using it for good.
Wow!
Phil,
All that you say is mostly authentic according to our Ancient Vedic Scriptures..I'm really surprised to see this witting from you..Well u can mail me @ sourendra.das@gmail.com
I can tell you more things that you may include in your article and study..Being myself a student of Vedic Science & Vedic Scriptures learning it from the Source where it generates from..From Rasik Mahatmas and Saadhus (In English Saint who are liberated souls)..
I'm so happy to know this side of yours..
Am really happy Phil..
All the best..
And I'll hope to hear from you soon..
Am amazed to see this from the webmaster of g4m..
Its great to see the Spiritual side of yours..
ALL THE BEST AGAIN!
Urs Well-Wisher Friend.. :-)
PS - We will share more through email..
This is nice article...
Hi Phil,
Paul Michael here and I am interested in chatting with you about your g4m site. I am a graduate student at the University of California Riverside in the Southeast Asian Studies department and my research is on Filipino online communities. I have been observing the community specific to your site and was hoping to get some background on how you had come to develop G4M. You may reach me at tru2hzwrd@hotmail.com and I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.
http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=product/prod_mainery good and right-on--Art Therapist here and rather than going into depth about this since we are both probably MENSA members , assuming, after reading "The Core Delusion", I have another post and real concern and maybe some advice re: Guys4 Men site, as am a member and just recentl, this profile named 'Sidwishes', Sidney Fernades. His last email to my reg email, was dealing at 32 with his sexuality and religion conflicts/family disowning....all shit that is in my carry-on baggage in this life, but this guy first off, came on to me obsessively, he is HIV NEG and me POZ, and this alll happened over course of a week and half....He started talking suicide and thank God I am aware of 'Psychic Vampires', thaat are just looking for another place to haunt and move to....he has started calling me obsessively and I am always careful, but this is a total Jeckyl and Hyde scenario....he is looking for someone to take him away from all his problems and this is too much even for my kind heart, but no longer wanting to carry any more baggage, let alone a psycho mooch. Just FYI incase you have any other complaints. The religion struggle with old school Puritanistic parents is pretty bad stuff, but was unable to contact you via my pC as I do not have Outlook Express as my defaul mail client and found this,and glad I did. Also, these psychoreligious fanaticals that clain being gay is a CHOICE, they too often forget how many have been victims of preists....If I were a psycho serial killer, I would go after those people in a viligente way....LOL
Peace,
Robert in Columbus, OH
http://www.ntius.com/default.asp?p=product/prod_mainery good and right-on--Art Therapist here and rather than going into depth about this since we are both probably MENSA members , assuming, after reading "The Core Delusion", I have another post and real concern and maybe some advice re: Guys4 Men site, as am a member and just recentl, this profile named 'Sidwishes', Sidney Fernades. His last email to my reg email, was dealing at 32 with his sexuality and religion conflicts/family disowning....all shit that is in my carry-on baggage in this life, but this guy first off, came on to me obsessively, he is HIV NEG and me POZ, and this alll happened over course of a week and half....He started talking suicide and thank God I am aware of 'Psychic Vampires', thaat are just looking for another place to haunt and move to....he has started calling me obsessively and I am always careful, but this is a total Jeckyl and Hyde scenario....he is looking for someone to take him away from all his problems and this is too much even for my kind heart, but no longer wanting to carry any more baggage, let alone a psycho mooch. Just FYI incase you have any other complaints. The religion struggle with old school Puritanistic parents is pretty bad stuff, but was unable to contact you via my pC as I do not have Outlook Express as my defaul mail client and found this,and glad I did. Also, these psychoreligious fanaticals that clain being gay is a CHOICE, they too often forget how many have been victims of preists....If I were a psycho serial killer, I would go after those people in a viligente way....LOL
Hi Phil,
Could we please exchange links with your website : http://www.guys4men.com/links.php please contact me back goudzrj@hotmail.com
Thanks.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home