Life in the Universe

Compared to the body (our personal universe), that nerve nexus known as the conscious part of the brain - wherein consciousness has at least gained the beginnings of a foothold, tenuous though it is - could be viewed as Life. Life, in the Universe.

The body, for all intents and purposes is a gigantic machine -"alive" to a degree (but only "to a degree"), wheels within wheels within wheels - or, organically speaking, systems within systems within systems - each genetically pre-programmed to perform certain functions within very strict and definite limits, with slack and give-and-take - and well-lubricated - so the entire system doesn't freeze up. Cells grow and divide, and accumulate into larger and more sophisticated structures - not unlike galaxies, or star systems - and there is a very definite kind of communication between the systems, though at a very rudimentary, and quite physical level - unlike the brain/mind where it's form of transmission is electrical. That is, blood and lymph and chemicals and hormones are required to transmit these messages to and from the various systems. However, those mediums-of-transmission could be likened to earth-based vehicles, (in our particular case) requiring burnable-fuel-based engines, which therefore are limited in their relative speeds-of-transmission. Not much faster than racehorses, though today, 300-horsepowered-horses.

The conscious part of the brain, which is the electric spark-of-potentiality in all humans, from birth - though only when naturally developed to the point where the human can speak, both to himself and to other similarly equipped men - could be likened to Life in him: him, the body: body, the universe. Life in the Universe.

It is presumed by most today, that because Life on earth does indeed exist, and it flourishes everywhere - from inside the hottest and coldest places (undersea volcanic vents and arctic ice packs), as well as inside and outside the hardest and softest places (rocks and air), that Life must therefore be assured a long and prosperous duration, here and the Universe. Almost 4 billion years, the scientists tell us, Life has flourished on this planet, but only in the last 120 thousand, has the spark-of-potentiality mentioned above been viable, and perhaps, there is a reason for it, of which we are both not presently aware, and duty-bound to discover. (Homo sapiens sapiens - modern man, "knowing man", first appeared about 120,000 years ago.) Perhaps Life on earth had an "easier" go of it then, for 3.8 billion years or so - it's continuance assured. Perhaps, something happened, when it instinctively realized that more would be necessary to continue and prosper here, i.e., consciousness, thinking about existence, as distinct from just instinctively existing, as it had successfully done so many millennia before.

But what if, in fact, Life is no more than an accident of universal proportions - a coming-together of certain events, sizes of stars, distances of planets, circulations by moons, atmospheric conditions, etc. - and NOT a normal/natural event in Universes at all. This would not be all that surprising when you consider that within the entire planet, earth, there is only one creature with the capacity for intelligent and reasoned speech, and further, the capacity to drastically and dramatically change the environment. Perhaps, what he calls his "consciousness" is as rare an event even in ONE human (universe), as Life is a rare event in the only ONE universe of which we are cognizant.

Becoming fully conscious - as conscious as you can be - assists the great work alright, but the great work of Life, not some arcane system-of-thought revered by the sleeping masses even today.

...conscious as he >>could<< be...

If you can be conscious in the immediate present moment of your existence, the way you could be - not the way the "imaginary ones," have you told throughout their dark ages - you would wake up from your waking dream of words, no matter how titillating the self-aggrandizing self-concept arising therefrom.

If you could see the world around and within you in the present moment of your existence, you would not see trees as anything but simply, trees; you would not see birds as anything but birds; you would not see nature as anything but natural, in the same way you would see your own conscious apprehension of consciousness as natural to you, and wonder how you never did before.

Snoring, versus Scanning - you be the judge

Notice, the mystics never said: "Man is asleep but *should* be awake," or "Man is in prison but *should* be free." They said, "Man is asleep but with certain kinds of effort can awaken," and "Man is in prison but with certain kinds of effort can be free." There is certainly a big difference, but to read and listen to most people who write about such things, you'd think they missed it. According to most of those kinds of people (who seem, apparently, interested in waking up, enlightenment, liberation), all men should be awake, and that all men are not now awake, certainly means (according to them and their teachings) there is something wrong, and it should be fixed.

This is an error.
Man is as he is, because Life is as IT is.
You are the way you are, because Life is the way Life is.
There is nothing wrong, and nothing needs to be fixed.
Not in you, and not out there.

If men were "naturally" awake - as conscious as he >>could<< be - as he is, he would probably either kill himself, go completely crazy, or live a much harsher, and much shorter existence. Almost all of technology and science, and all of his culture and civilization is directly the result of his being naturally asleep - that is, NOT as conscious as he >>could<< be. Something is ALWAYS wrong in that state, and technology, science, culture and civilization on the whole, is the full-time effort to FIX what is considered flawed and in error. Good, in general for mankind, "bad" in specific for a person who wants to be awake and stay awake. (Not, "bad" really, just annoying, and then only for a few of the few of the few here and there.)

Puppet lore

There are, basically, two kinds of people: 1) those who believe they existed before the birth of the body, and will exist after the death of the body, and attribute this feature or characteristic of their "existence" to something they tentatively call, their "soul" or their "spirit," and; 2) those who believe they don't exist before birth or after death, and the present lifetime is all there is, not believing in some intrinsic "soul," "spirit," or "otherwise."

Who's right?
Can both BE right?
Can both BE utterly wrong?

What think you? Can puppets have thoughts, either way, about any topic, whether it has to do with their "essential being" before "The Great WoodCarver in the Shop" had a twinkle in his imaginative eye, or a twitch in his carving fingers?

Or, are the only thoughts puppets can have, those that issue forth from their mouths, due to the electronic device tuned to a frequency known (by the woodcarver) and unknowable (by the puppet) - a radio in their wooden heads?

What think you? Do YOU exist at all, or are you just the transiently anomalistic responses due to causes outside your control, that you react to - on cue, and quite predictable everytime?

What think you?

Two, two, two consciousnesses in one.

Or, Wild monkey love with alien chicks - take your pick (swap genders if you must.)

Let's say for argument, there is just one consciousness, and that it permeates all, from insects and below, to humans and above. That which can be experienced by a being, insect or human, is a direct function of the machinery (nervous system) of that being. Insects have no machinery for consciousness, animals much more, but humans have the requisite type to at least experience self-consciousness -he can recognize himself in a mirror, and a few other relatively useful things.

What if, the consciousness that all people who have ever lived, experienced - could experience - was based upon their inborn at birth genetic machinery. That's the first consciousness.

What if, a person wanted a different consciousness - what could he possibly do to achieve it, since no one who's ever lived achieved it? (How can this be known? Because it's never been talked about, written about, or even referred to as even a possibility.)

The only consciousness ever mentioned, is "Consciousness of Self", which they call "Enlightenment". But, that's only one kind of consciousness, because it's predicated on "self". There can not be consciousness somewhere that is not experienced by you. If you're not experiencing something directly, then for you, it doesn't exist. In sleep, there is no consciousness - not for you anyway.

The consciousness possible for humans alive today, is far more advanced than that of humans 500 years ago. We know about, and can even build, nano-sized things and we also know about parsec-sized things - they absolutely did not, so our consciousness can be aware of a much wider spectrum of possibilities. Five hundred years from now, the spectrum widens further - >>much<< further, perhaps exponentially further.

What if you could achieve a new kind of consciousness, possible only for humans living in that age - wherein their circuitry, their nervous systems, had, through natural evolution, advanced in complexity, to transmit/experience the all-consciousness with that more advanced being.

The primary difference in the two consciousnesses, is that the first consciousness, does not change the capacity for conscious thought, thinking. People think the same - different words, perhaps more directed on-point words, but functionally, the same. The second consciousness, however, expands the capacity to Think - to be able to consider what is around one anyway, but to think to the end of it, to "get to the bottom of things".

Try it out for yourself right now if you dare. Put on your best, enlightened dress, stand in front of your prayer beads or mirror or whatever, and pick a subject out of the hat of subjects that you've NEVER considered before - like, for example, "why are there conspiracy theories?" or "how did the idea of God dawn upon mankind?" - and start thinking about it, from the question to the ANSWER - that is, not necessarily the final answer, but at least final enough for you, that you REALIZE you've gotten to the bottom of things, on that subject (again, for the time being).

Are you still standing there, waiting for someone to say, "Start?"

Fragment of an unknown teaching

There are, basically, two groups of humans: 1) those who are not particularly interested, nor stimulated by the terms, "waking up", "enlightenment", "nirvana", etc., and 2) those who are most definitely interested and stimulated.

What happens next, for the second group, is the likely accumulation of books, over the course of the next few years or more, >>about<< those very topics, and a whole lot of talking about them, mostly to other people.

Now, there are, basically, two groups of humans previously grouped into the second group above: namely, 1) those who study the books they've accumulated, and presumably, the human of which those books are constantly referring (the author and his nearest cohorts - Jesus, Buddha, Gurdjieff, and countless others) and sometimes even, if they are "on the edge" of this distinction being made herein, themselves personally, and 2) those who study the thing which does the studying (the mind), which they >>somehow<< innately realize, could not proceed at all, EXCEPT for the thing they want to study - the mind.

Can you see the BLATANT, obvious difference?

One group couldn't care less about waking up, nirvana, self-improvement, and spend all their allotted days in worldly pursuits. Fine.

A second group cares a great deal about waking up, nirvana, self-improvement and spend many of their allotted days absorbed in studying specific books on those topics, hoping often to become experts, professors, teachers, and (hopefully) a few of their allotted days actually studying their "person", studying "themselves," though they do not study their ordinary consciousness, because they don't know how to do that yet. For both groups, studying the ideas is paramount.

But a small minority of the second group, actually a third group, though the numbers are often so small, as to be, statistically near-zero, go straight to the essence of the matter, DIRECTLY to the source of the confusion that initially divided humanity into two nameable groups. (The confusion regarding "who am I?" and "what is going on?", questions which have been "bothering" mankind for 5000 years.)

The direct way to knowledge, is NOT a "way" in the classic sense, as Buddhism is a "way" or Christianity is a "way." The direct way to knowledge is an ACTION - first and foremost - started by the conscious part of the brain, which MUST hear about it, before it can profitably undertake it, and consists of a "sentence fragment" that sounds something like: "...brain here...", which action occurs whenever thoughts are flowing therein, morning till night till death, or until the pooch finally sits down, while realizing he will instantly arise and chase some other attraction, unless you keep your eye (it keeps it's I) on him.

The direct way to knowledge, is the ACTION of branching out in the nervous system, which does not branch out naturally, as it spends all it's allotted days, >>finding out<< (that is, answering questions, which it doesn't even realize are totally meaningless in the first place.)

CPB

The conscious part of the brain is your only hope and possibility. Without that, you can't even be called human. Science knows this, and so does, by now, everybody else.

The heart will not help you, the soul will not help, the spirit will not help. The only thing that can help you is the conscious part of the brain.

Except that (there's always an "except") the conscious part of the brain is in collusion with your hormones and blood to keep you fast asleep. That is, the brain, the non-conscious part of the brain primarily, keeps the entire organism alive, pumping blood to all parts of the organism, and keeping it healthy. The conscious part of the brain has nothing to do with it - though, it most definitely has the capacity to invent science, medicine, intricate and totally astounding tools and to teach human bodies to perform post- and pre-mortem surgery upon humans, including themselves (and other creatures) for the purpose of detailed study of the parts of the organism, and while alive, doing what the non-conscious parts can not, or will not do - keep the organism alive and healthy.

This collusion, unseen by everybody though it's effect can certainly be seen - just not comprehended - consists of inventing ("creating") a fictitious character to keep itself company, the neurons being as it were, quite alone in there, and to duck blame whenever anything goes wrong. So, when the body gets sick - even though the immune system is perfectly capable of dealing with most external foreign substances, and has daily practice and exercise to keep it in shape - "I" feel bad, and it's probably even "my" fault for shaking that guy's hand, or petting that dog, or smoking that 14th cigarette, or drinking that 14th beer, or eating that 14th cupcake.

And, there's nothing left to do but wait it out, or pray to some god, because everybody ("me", "I") is impotent.

Get that? The brain (that entire 3 pound organ in your skull) is in total charge of the entire organism, from the tip of the head to the soles of the feet and everything in between, yet when IT screws up, and falls down on the job, IT blames "you", or, put in terms you can better understand, YOU blame yourself.

This is collusion, and you are the one fooled.
Fool!

CPB, part duh

People hear the term, "conscious part of the brain," and already think they know what that means, already believe they know what that is, but they don't.

All that can ordinarily be known about that, is echoes, overtones, undertones, background noises - the true source of which eluding all but the most persistent investigator.

Let's say someone has said something to you, that "bothers" you, "disturbs" you, and you "find yourself" "thinking about it" afterwards, days later even, and try as you will, the persistent annoying thought keeps arising and you hear it - there might even be images, and certain sounds associated with the thought.

That "hearing" is not the conscious part of the brain, to which I have lately been continuously referring. That "hearing" is memory, stimulated by hormones, chemical, bodily sources - could be anything - but hear you do, and quite likely, identified you become, even if only for a few seconds, until you are distracted by something else.

Most humans, and certainly the greatest majority of humankind -probably 99.99999% - live in this continual state of distraction, and are not annoyed by this at all, as this "result" is the typical "source" of all their supposed thinking. That is, it could be anything: something you recently read on your favorite spiritual or political website, some philosophy text, a chatroom, a tv news channel, whatever, but there it is in you, taking up time and space, and from that instant forward, more time and space is taken up "thinking about it."

The natural reaction to that realization, noted above, is something like, "Well, so what? If it's something I want to think about further, then I've been reminded to think about it further, so, 'that's a good thing'" ("Hey, if it's good enough for Martha Stewart, it's good enough for me!")

Really?
Ya think so?

What's going on, is NOT the conscious part of the brain Thinking, it's memory operating, being driven by chemicals flooding the part of the brain where those neural connections were previously interconnected - like ruts in a road - and you are being forced, yet again, down that same road.

Real Thinking, if such exists, does not utilize memory, or it does not need to utilize memory, except for the recall of words, terms, etc. Anymore than a real explorer needs the map (however well constructed and accurate) of where he's BEEN to explore new territory.

The Thinking part, the conscious part of the brain is not word-based, per se, it is more like energy-based, in that you're thinking with energy, while "controlling" the tendency to remember memories. It's quite like being out in front of all that, not back in the past wherein memory is active. It's being "in the Future."

It could be called, thinking something new, that you had never thought before, and it's a FLASH upon the screen of consciousness that is rarely if ever witnessed, and absolutely of a different "nature" than the continuous flashing upon that same screen of all the noise and chatter in you.

Fools

If a man can be fooled by others, then he is a fool.
If a man can be fooled by himself, then, is he more than a fool?

Teachings, systems of thought, religions and philosophies invented by others are stories - they exist only in the realm of thought (regardless how much or how often they "refer" to physical, material objects.) They exist only in the conscious part of the brains keeping those teachings alive, generation after generation.

If doesn't matter whether some teaching is encoded into the form of books, and more recently, tapes and videos, if people stop thinking about it, it is forgotten. All you have to do is look at history, and what has made it to the 21st century. Very, very little.

That which has made it, is not necessarily correct, or even reasonable, it's just >>remembered<<. And that is the first test of one who becomes interested in the direct way to knowledge. If a person is only thinking about what others have previously thought about, then they are partially responsible for it's continuation, but IT lives because YOU die, and IT lives because Life wants it remembered. (Not, for the automatic "reason" you think!)

It was suggested by the mystics that man lives in a dream but can awaken, that man is born into prison - a slave - but can escape, and if he is "properly" interested in thinking about that further, then that is the first step toward gaining knowledge.

Most NEVER take even the second step, because they don't KNOW what is the second step. So, they spend what seems like the rest of their lives (or, until they finally give up in despair, or get distracted) thinking about what OTHERS have said about what the mystics said before them.

There's a big difference between thinking about topics - however they "arise" - and thinking about the process of thinking. It's a difference between nouns and verbs. Everybody's got access to the nouns - the terms, the charts, the graphs, the images, the books, the theories - nobody has access to the process of verbalization, or more specifically, how the conscious part of the brain operates.

The grand assumption is that it doesn't actually matter, anymore than knowing how the heart operates matters - as long as it pumps blood, and the blood doesn't clog up the veins and arteries.

That is, ordinary routine consciousness, with which everybody thinks about this very idea, maintains absolute control over the BELIEF that as long as a person CAN think, talk, write, that that is enough to discover knowledge. But, sadly, they are wrong. All that's occurring is memorization of that which is/was fed to it.

Ordinary routine consciousness is clogged consciousness, the neural juices do NOT flow, and direct access to something else is blocked. That is the source of the idea, of the mystics, that man is born into a prison, from which he MAY escape.

The mystics knew that thinking about information is not how the prisoner escapes. Action is how the prisoner escapes. Thoughts about the action are ropes around your limbs, and only cutting the cords will free you.

Sex, drugs, 'n rock'n roll

The entire life of the body, is a metaphor for the more real life of the mind. Even Religion has this idea, embodied in "You are in the world, not of the world."

Bodily orgasms are sometimes referred to as, the little death. Mental orgasms could be referred to as, little enlightenments.

Bodily orgasms can be produced, by your private parts knowing what your right or left hand is doing there - and every swingin' you-know-what knows how and where, at an early age. Mental orgasms can be produced, by your frontal lobes knowing what your right or left lobe is thinking...but no one knows how and fewer know where. NO ONE! (well, some do!!)

For most, a really good orgasm is about as close as they'll ever come to a connection with the infinite, and most know how. For a few, that connection can be established through proper use of the intellect, but no one knows how. NO ONE! (well, some do!!)

In the ordinary world of human existence, education, "finding out", is the accumulation of Facts that have to be remembered, or the whole education is valueless.

In the revolutionary world of mind exploration, enlightenment, "finding out", is NOT the accumulation of Facts, but an extension by Acts - it is little intentional movements into other dimensions, and nothing needs to be remembered because information from those realms is not codified; it is the intentional extension of the nervous system, in your most private parts between the ears.

In the ordinary world, intellectual growth is called - finding out.

In the revolutionary world, it is called - branching out - into Life itself, wherein moments of insight, intuition, are moments of realizing what Life is thinking at the time.

The Itch

Everyone has an itch they can not scratch, and not because it's in an out-of-the-way place, but because it's in an out-of-the-way time. In order to scratch this itch, it requires the proper use of all one's innerprizes.

In the meantime, before the serenetime, they content themselves with talk. Talk is the salve they spread all over themselves in hopes it will ameliorate the irritating itch, but it doesn't - and it can't; eventually, someone might discover that talk, itself, IS the itch!

All teachings are about how to get up to the edge of what you know.
Scratching the itch is about how to stay there.

Thought

The Life of Thought, lives within the artificial line of demarcation between polar opposites - good/evil, true/false, this/that.

That's right, all thought - though it constantly and continually makes reference to the terms defining the opposite poles - never even gets close, touches, or goes beyond, the barriers of its own making/thinking.

That's right, and when a person is asked to say whether some action or event is good or evil, right or wrong, he can readily do so, BUT, if asked to say where the actual line of demarcation IS that makes the good go bad, or the right go wrong, he can't even begin to do so.

That's right, everyone KNOWS what's right and wrong, true and false. But, NO ONE knows what the dividing line is, in themselves or others.

This is a monstrous paradox and no one realizes it. Their thought only exists because of the artifical walls, and they only exist because of the artifical line of demarcation.

This twilight zone of unreality is at the absolute center and core of all reality.

To summarize for the dwellers of thought elucidated above: People box themselves into a prison of their own making, actually constructing and maintaining the walls of their own private cell.

People can see the walls, but can't see outside the walls. People live IN THE WALLS.

Think for yourself!

Why do people study (not to be confused with, reading for enjoyment which is another matter entirely) the words of others?

There is only one reason and it is this: because they can not think for themselves. In fact, the unknown, at-the-core concept of all teachings, IS, in fact, to learn how to think for oneself - though none ever state this categorically, like on the first page where it belongs... something like: "If you really want to learn to think for yourself, don't buy this book." (Too much honesty is not often a very wise choice, economically speaking.)

Consider seriously: would you, personally, study this, or that, or any system of "thought" (and I'm NOT talking about air-conditioning systems repair, or four-barrel carburetor rebuilding), if you were capable of discerning the true path for yourself? If so, why -curiosity? Or to become a "teacher" of sorts? What a waste!

The formatory (read: common, automatic) reply to this notion, is "no ordinary human CAN do that, therefore, some external teaching is required." But this is only half-right. True, one must begin by reading something, or at least hearing something, which can enable the person to "get started" (on the "road to find out"). But there is no cosmic law that demands one stays with that, for any particular period of time - once one "gets it," he can and probably should move on. Of course, most don't - get it, or move on, and there are very specific reasons for this, having to do with human genetics, the wiring of the nervous system, the construction and operation of the brain, and the resulting level of consciousness producing and maintaining personality.

For example, most "suitably interested" people have read TONS of literature on the subjects about Awakening, Enlightenment, Waking-up, Liberation but nowhere in the literature can be found specific information about HOW to think for yourself - without the need of the literature. Yes, many claim you will eventually learn how, and there are suggestions to "focus attention", "stay alert", "be intentional in your thinking", etc., but these methods do not help at all. Look at yourself. All they do is strengthen the connection of the person to the literature. More study of a particular system only produces more firm believers.

Heres what Mark Twain (Samual Clemens) had to say about it: from:
http://essayists.8m.com/whatisman.html
"I told you that there are none but temporary Truth-Seekers; that a permanent one is a human impossibility; that as soon as the Seeker finds what he is thoroughly convinced is the Truth, he seeks no further, but gives the rest of his days to hunting junk to patch it and caulk it and prop it with, and make it weather-proof and keep it from caving in on him. Hence the Presbyterian remains a Presbyterian, the Mohammedan a Mohammedan, the Spiritualist a Spiritualist, the Democrat a Democrat, the Republican a Republican, the Monarchist a Monarchist; and if a humble, earnest, and sincere Seeker after Truth should find it in the proposition that the moon is made of green cheese nothing could ever budge him from that position; for he is nothing but an automatic machine, and must obey the laws of his construction."

"Growing up" is all about a "way of thinking," not "what to think." The constant referring to "Things" - ideas, terms, unverified "facts", theories, dead and revered people, mysterious foreign places, all keep formatory people, locked into a mind-set, that leads to nothing fruitful - certainly not to discovering the truth which exists inside them, leading to a grown-up version of "thinking for oneself."

These "Things" mentioned above, are all simply the contents of ordinary consciousness, and continuous adding to, deletion and rearrangement of those contents is tantamount to intellectual death -or professorship. And nearly all people who discover a non-ordinary consciousness might be possible, immediately feel the need to "get connected" with some group, some system, some Thing - to "belong to something" - because they fear "walking alone" - for something they usually believe is so damn "IMPORTANT" (though they don't really understand why they think that.) (Maybe enlightenment is no big deal, afterall, EXCEPT for those who already lost their joy-of-life, their sense-of-humor, and are today, just too damn SERIOUS!)

This is why it is necessary to remember ALL the work, ALL the time. And when you can, you can move on. Not before. And you'll have no need to look backward ever again. But if you spend your entire lives, mulling over ideas which were made up to begin with, by people you don't know, for presumed outcomes you can not demand, expect or predict, with a Mind you can neither control, nor direct, you will simply become another Monarchist, Republican, or student of some way-of-Enlightenment.

This is not growing up. This is remaining stagnant. This is remaining a child.

Some, reading this, of course, will belittle and insult this entire line-of-thought. But know this, their resistance is based upon fear, and too many decades of prior investment of time and energy, and they are quickly running out of time, and know it. So they MUST resist, the more strongly because it's too threatening to personality, which calls itself a "work personality," but is not. One, who can think for themselves, could read this entire post, and remain calm and unaffected either way - before, during, and after - not taking it as a personal affront, and not needing to correct it, to fix it or the writer.

They might even strongly agree.
They might even suddenly see something new.