Class War Lost!!

Posted: 10/12/2017 in Freedom, Struggle
Tags: ,


Boy, have we lost the class war!!!

The 1% are having a field day in the US, look at the tax bill. That is such a big win. And barely a Liberal whimper, just the usual ongoing Liberal bleating.

When did they realise that promoting Liberalism would be so effective?

Post war death of the youth had led to a necessary leftwards move in the UK, becoming the hegemony would have to have great trickle down benefits in the US. But all my adult life I have just seen a worsening of the situation as wealth increasingly accrued to the bourgeois. When I left the UK at the beginning of 93 I lost a continuity with the UK struggle as travel became a way of life. In the UK from 93 the Labour party Blaired and there was the rise of liberalism in the UK, wiki describes it as moving the party to the centre but really it was the rise of liberalism in Labour – new Labour. Until the crash in 2008 and the move to austerity under the Tories.

There was no internet then so I was much less conscious of the US struggle – albeit recognising the hegemony. The presidencies oscillated through to Obama where there was the major rise of US Liberalism. In the US the crash produced the great hope of my lifetime – Occupy, but rather than cementing a change in the worsening situation it fueled a powerful right-wing backlash as the 1% became fearful of being the target of Occupy. Funding of right-wing organisations on the internet proved to be such a powerful move as we can now see globally the impact of this funding with the rise in right-wing organisations and their populist filth.

The key overt characteristic of the Liberal power under Blair and then Obama was the failure to deal with the jobs situation amongst the traditional working-class. Whilst the Republican and Tory homeowners (middle and upper-class voters) tend to ally themselves with the 1% because they think the 1% will have their back, a significant proportion of voters amongst the working-class moved away from the Liberals.

When these working-class people claim the Liberals have taken their jobs there is an element of truth, ostensibly there has been a move from manufacturing and cloth-cap jobs to Liberal employment. The nature of the workforce is changing because of automation where more profit is made in the first world by using machines than expensive human labour. The increase in employment of the Liberal bureaucracies became the target of this working-class anger rather than the source of the problem – the 1%, who throughout my lifetime have vastly increased their wealth. America’s economy has for a long time been based on cheap migrant labour so racism has always been a factor but with the loss of working-class jobs that has also produced a racist backlash.

In the US that focus turned on Obama but the problem with Obama was not the colour of his skin but the failure of his two administrations to address the issue of the loss of white working-class jobs. The failure lay with his promotion of Liberal values whilst ignoring the two issues Liberals always ignore – war and wage-slavery, the two essential platforms of the 1%. Whilst Liberals now bleat about the good times under Obama, the reality is that his time of continuing neoliberalism promoted war and did not address the issue of the changing nature of jobs. And we are paying for it now.

Trump’s populism promotes the racial angle because of his voter-base but his rolling-back of Obama liberal policies is not because of personal racial animosity (that he does have) but because of their limiting the profits of the 1%. Everything he does promotes that interest but the Liberals bleat away. So there is the tortuous public display of Trump’s deplorable behaviour that appeals to his fanbase – the deplorables. And the MAWPs buy into the 1%-lies, lies funded on the internet.

When Trump came to power there seemed a hope that the 1% would not back him because of the instability he causes; they were wary. But the confusion Trump causes enables the 1% to move in and grab. Defunding of liberal agencies and watchdog committees, the tax bill and moves against net neutrality and deregulating Wall Street are in the pipeline.

Meanwhile there is the Trump-orchestrated bleating that is deafening in its silence about the real issue – the increase in 1%-accumulation caused by Trump’s supposed anti-Liberal policies.

A deafening silence about the 1%. Especially just 6 years after Occupy such a deafening silence.

There is no power in Liberalism just the chimeras of intellectual ideals. When the 1% wanted to wipe out Occupy it just happened overnight – no power. Where is the power? In collectivism. But Liberals are not collective animals, they stand up for individual rights or human rights – again ideals. They do not understand or believe in the power of the mass movement – the only threat to the 1%. So in my lifetime with the rise in liberalism there has been a decrease in the only power that has a chance of working against the 1%.

Why am I writing about losing the class war now? There were issues that triggered this understanding. The main one was the tax bill, and the manner in which it was passed – before the vote did we know what was in it? The second is the increase in the acceptance of immorality as characterised by Roy Moore’s upcoming election. And for me the control of free-thinking at universities through Turning Point was frightening. It is clear to me that there has been a coalescing of right-wing forces using Trump as a figure-head since the beginning of his presidency. What began as a voting alliance has now turned into a united right-wing platform. The 1% has seen the confusion caused by Trump, it has not affected their profits especially now with the tax benefits so they can go with it. In the past it was accepted that stability was needed – Theresa May’s sound and stable mantra, but confusion is not affecting their profits so they have allied with Trump.

Why am I also talking about losing the war now? Amongst his supporters are the deplorables, Republicans voting against Liberals, and balance-voters – good people such as MAWPs and some of the “53% white women“, they have got to be thinking of change. Since his election good people have got to be having regrets, however Liberal bleating is maintaining their voting position; there has to be doubts. And overcoming these doubts would be so easy now – the 1% giving jobs. After the gains the 1% have made I have no doubts in the final year of 4 there will be a notable increase in jobs – despite what Trump has said there has not been an increase so far.

So it comes down to brinkmanship, how far can things go before they will stop allying with Trump? Look at the NRA. To maintain their profits they will stop at nothing. The almost unique characteristic of US mass shootings don’t lead to a change in gun laws and control, so the death of Americans does not matter to them – only the death of their own; school shootings do not occur in private schools, they are not politically-motivated. 1%-money funded both sides of the war that grew out of promoting fascism in Germany. Such a war I think is beyond the brink. Civil war in America would be beyond the brink but shooting black people by police is not. Wars in the Middle East are fine by 1%-standards so alienating favoured Muslims by promoting the zionism of Israel through Jerusalem as US capital is also not beyond the brink. Further Middle East war is not beyond the brink; Iran?

Where do we go from here? The traditional understanding of “our idealism is better than yours” is a failure, it is just division. I think the answer lies with compassion and morality. This comes from the deep understanding that we are all one together underneath, and that oneness is compassion. But we are a long way from that compassion. At present the compassionate are divided by their ideologies, and compassion uses ideologies to divide. For example I am a committed socialist as a series of ideals but within socialism there are people who put the ideology first before compassion resulting in the 1917 Soviet revolution. What it produced was better than the Tsar but how much? Communism has at its root compassion but not how it is applied? Capitalism putting profits before people does not have compassion at its root, neither does accumulation to the 1%. With adequate funding it is always possible to find fault and focus on that fault.

Compassion is difficult at times. How do we consider compassion when science tells you that a baby cannot feel until 22 weeks yet US law now says sperm at conception has life. I have compassion for life. Farmers can be compassionate people but actions such as mercy-killing appear without compassion. The issue for me about abortion is the rich (right-wing) telling people what to do, they are not taking responsibility for their actions (as well as the young woman). If a young woman in difficult times cannot look after a child and wants to lose it, then the rich could pay. But forcing the woman to have the child and for it to then become a burden on a burdensome life lacks compassion. The decision-making has to be compassionate, ideology has no solution.

Nothing publicly that is happening now is compassionate. Trump shouts anti-liberal rants, he has power, Liberals bleat back; it is just confrontation – intentionally. Meanwhile 1% are raking it in, and we will pay later. None of this has compassion.

NOT FINISHED

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements


In this model I have described a process of accumulating selves into the modular mind:-

sense experiences, behaviour, memories, perceptions, thoughts and ideas.
</a emotion
</a desire
</a clinging
accumulating to the modular mind.

There is a similar model where we repeat a routine way of thinking:-

sense experiences, behaviour, memories, perceptions, thoughts and ideas.
remember a way of thinking
attach to a way of thinking
cling to a way of thinking
accumulating to the modular mind.

In this way we accumulate selves in our modular minds whether these selves are based on emotions such as racism or more diverse ways of thinking such as applying scientific method appropriately or not.

This process is natural or instinctive, it is the way we learn from birth.

Consider the sex instinct, then the first model clearly applies when we consider sexual attraction. The first attraction in a teenager, there is an emotion which leads to desire, and we learn there is sexual attraction. As a memory we recall the pleasantness of such attractions as in the second model, and this becomes the basis of future sexual interactions. What about mother’s milk, the first model could apply to that but no baby is going to tell us. It would be pedantic to describe such stages but the instinct to feed off the mother could easily fit the model. Then the second model could be considered as the next time the baby feeds – instinct then memory. A baby’s instinct does not contradict the model.

Through these models we internalise a self that becomes the basis of who we are and how we instinctively interact. This process is natural conditioning building up this self.

All our lives we can build up this self in which we accept this instinctive conditioning process. But what happens if we start to question this process? What if we choose to interrupt this instinctive conditioning? As described here the conditioning moment is before we become emotional or here where the moment is before we accept the routine. At some point we recognise that we can step outside the conditioning process, that is the beginning of maturity. At that point in which you recognise the choice of not being conditioned is the point at which a mature life is started to be led.

For this choice to be made, we first have to start to look internally. We have to be able to observe this conditioning process happening, and then with maturity choose when to intercede within the conditioning process.

As we become more mature we control the selves that are accumulated, and then we begin to question those selves that have already accumulated through previous conditioning. We begin to remove the conditioning.

During childhood we accumulate selves through conditioning and as the process develops we begin to develop pattern of selves that becomes who we are. I am the self that is the accumulation of all these selves.

During maturity we begin to unravel all the selves from the I, so we have to ask how do we live if I is just an accumulation of selves. And that is sunnata. When we are born we begin an instinctive conditioning process that is natural. As a result we accumulate these selves that we begin to recognise as I. But when we start to be mature we question the formation of selves, the selves that have already been formed until we remove old conditioning and do not create new conditioning. Then we are in the natural mature state without conditioning in which the guiding hand is sunnata, who we are meant to be. From natural instinct and conditioning to mature anatta:-

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Helping the Conditioned

Posted: 04/12/2017 in Freedom, ONE planet

When looking to helping the conditioned there are two aspects, first making people aware of their conditioning and second explaining the tools Gaia has given them for dealing with conditioning. Much of my rant was because in all the weeks of discussion neither of these came up because the people weren’t interested – one out of complacency and one who has given up.

There is no doubt that I should not allow myself to get frustrated with people but there is so much to be gained by being free from conditioning and in these weeks of frustration we never got near any of it. A conditioned mind is like a prison, I have no right to say that as I have never been in prison, but when the mind is empty it is free, it is open, it can look outwards, but when it is conditioned it is trapped into responding with knee-jerk reactions such as calling liar on verifiable facts because those facts are uncomfortable.

This first port of call in removing conditioning is looking inwards. If we say there is brainwashing this is not looking inwards, it is an observation. Looking inwards is concerned with grasping the notion of brainwashing, unravelling and letting go of the brainwashing. Without looking in there is still brainwashing, saying there is brainwashing is just a litany – it has no meaning until the mind is applied to unravel and let go. Once that happens there is the elation that is freedom of mind as mind loses all it is impediments, its imprisoning. and opens up to the wonder that comes with being free and open to emptiness.

The removal of conditioning never stops because the conditioning process is always happening unless we become adept at stopping conditioning. Allowing myself to become frustrated was a conditioned response. Being free from conditioning allows the mind to touch the joy that is emptiness.

Being free from conditioning allows the mind to experience compassion, compassion that is at the basis of all caring. It is this compassion that brings with it the understanding of unity, the understanding that we are all together as one, and to see the ludicrousness of our politics that just continues to divide, divide through greed, divide through ideals, divide through the lack of inner journey, divide through apathy and complacency, divide through conditioning.

If this compassion has a downside it is the perpetual duty to help the conditioned when the situation arises. It is not possible for me to stop, and I end up frustrated when the help is rejected. Hence the rant. I know there must be frustration, I accept that. Writing is better. It can be explained, I can pretend there is reading, listening and understanding. I can pretend the conditioned are being helped, are becoming aware of the conditioning that they help themselves.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


This is a rant. A rant is an emotional release and as such is a bit meaningless. In the next blog I look at helping the conditioned, that gives this more sense and context – not just a rant.

We are living in the worst time of my personal history. There is an intended high level of confusion created by the 1%-funding and their puppets such as Trump and Brexit. There is so little clarity, and these conditioned leaders duck-and-dive to avoid any form of commitment to humanity. This is the collaboration the 1% depend on.

This rant has grown out of weeks of frustration because of repeated arguments with collaborators, one of whom is so quietly complacent it is irritating – beyond tedium. When I describe conditioned he says we are all brainwashed, when I say 1%-system he says everyone knows that. His response, “what can we do?”; not what you do, Mr Complacent – NOT THE COLLABORATION. His complaint about me is basically a feeling of contrariness. He describes me as taking the opposite position. He fails to see that I take only one position (even though I have said it) – to make people aware of their conditioning; if you are properly aware of your conditioning it is not possible to collaborate, compassion prevails. I spent my life fighting in education, in a sense it was a wasted life as described in Matriellez, but it was never collaboration.

Because of his complacency he sees everything in terms of where he stands, sometimes I am agreeing with him, sometimes I disagree. Because he does not see his own high level of conditioning and collaboration, he cannot see the consistent position of “making people aware of their conditioning”.

There is another collaborator who adds to these weeks of frustration. This collaborator comes from a nation of collaborators – he is Swiss. He is a pleasant man but a Swiss national. From that position of nationalism, he looks at others and sees how Swiss life and nationals compare with the weaknesses of those less privileged. He sees stupid conditioning of peasants but fails to see that Swiss life is predicated on a compliant nation of people bought off with a higher standard of living, greater social benefits and such a level of blindness that they do not see their banking institutions as being the home of global catastrophe. Both the complacent and the Swiss national are nice helpful people whose conditioning leads to such a level of collaboration that if the world is like them there is no hope. Both are differently conditioned so that they don’t see that they are the problem. They are more likely to blame me as the problem because I alienate people, and there is probably some truth in that. But I try never to lie something the complacent accused me of (over some verifiable fact), simply because it was easier to criticise me as I confused him through indirectly confronting his complacency – the lashing out of the intellectual.

My small world is not a microcosm, although it is the stimulus of this rant. In this time of confused crisis few recognise their own conditioning. Few can see that if we manage to step outside our conditioning we can see how the 1%-system operates and how different people fit in – how they collaborate. So it is important to see who makes up these collaborators.

And I want to start with the self-righteous liberals because in this time of confusion the self-righteousness of Liberals is the biggest stumbling block. Chomsky describes the problem of liberals as neoliberalism, and that the greatest problem of neoliberalism is the apathy, ask my complacent friend. Why is he complacent? Because he thinks reasonably although not correctly that nothing can be done anyway. This is a practical example of the neoliberal conditioning that is apathy.

When Marxist analysis first appeared on the scene, his analysis clearly noted two opposing classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie as owners of the means of production exploited the workers who actually produced the products. This clear analysis was not convenient for the bourgeoisie who were easily targeted. Confusion was introduced so that the unity amongst the proletariat was removed. Educated people wanted to feel superior so a middle-class was introduced. The bourgeoisie paid their foremen more so they wanted to be considered middle-class with middle-class management jobs etc. So by the latter half of the 20th century, there were all kinds of divisions amongst the proletariat.

It should also be noted that the bourgeoisie was changing. They began to prey on their own. Small businesses accumulated into corporations, first perhaps willingly and then through corporations preying on the weaker. As such, owners of small businesses are now more aligned with the proletariat because corporations are their enemy. They of course don’t see this alignment because of conditioning.

Corporations and finance are now those in control – the 1%. Corporations and finance work together and accumulate money, both real and imaginary, and withdraw this money out of circulation into private accounts. Without countries such as Switzerland offering havens for such money against the interests of the rest of humanity, the current exploitation of humanity could not occur so it is no wonder that the Swiss people are bought off.

This class realignment was highlighted during Occupy where “we are the 99%” was a clear rallying cry that united the proletariat. Whilst right-wing populists were marginalised because of their divisive approach there was great unity in Occupy. And this frightened the 1%. Once the police demolished the Occupy encampments, finance proceeded to demolish the unity Occupy created; the 1% needed to divide the 99%.

This was done through the internet by funding right-wing populism. Marxism and collectivism were attacked as these individualists were funded to promote their liberty and choice at all costs. Easy targets were the PC police. These people had been around a long time – at least 40 years, but had been developed as part of the neoliberal mainstream by Hillary and Blair. In other words the neoliberal system created the antagonism between PC liberals and the right-wing liberals following Occupy as a means of dividing the 99%.

This antagonism is being blatantly fought out on mainstream US with Trump acting as a catalyst. Every public tweet and action can be seen as an attack on Liberals, and off they go bleating away at the Trump atrocities. Meanwhile two things are happening. Behind the scenes Trump-picks are promoting the interests of the 1%, so what was initially a weak alliance between Trump and the 1% has now become consolidated as the 1% are accumulating well under Trump. Meanwhile the Liberals are going off on rampages using all the diversions Trump throws at them deluding themselves that they have some control over his impeachment and otherwise. Liberal delusion.

Under this Trump neoliberalism the second consequence is the dissolution of the 99% through the sheer ignorant analysis of these Liberals and the right-wing. Liberals are concerned with right actions such as anti-racism, anti-sexism pro-LBGT and civil liberties; Trump is attacking all of these effectively. For Liberals this is the battleground and you see outrage throughout mainstream media. Meanwhile Trump supporters are satisfied with Fox news, fake news and the internet. Complete division, and 1% accumulation is having a field day.

The ignorance these Liberals show is key to my anger. First of all Liberals tend to be educated, so they know the problem is the 1%. But the 1% provide them with a living. Typical are my teaching colleagues who are a good source of liberalism. In general they are caring people, interested in the welfare of their children. They are mortgaged up to the hilt so they cannot afford to rock the boat. They know that what is being taught is not good education – even though they could probably never agree on what is good education. But they do what is required of them in the hope of getting promotion. Instead of education being awareness of the war their society perpetuates and the wage-slavery their kids will suffer all their lives, they deliver the curriculum which perpetuates the 1%-system. They have been bought off with a mortgage. Yet if you ask them who is the problem? 1%. If you ask them what to do? They say “nothing can be done” and politically lurch into apathy. Complacency.

But the real point of Marxism is the symbiotic relationship between capital and labour. Money is needed for the plant and infrastructure, and even though so much money is now imaginary there would be no confidence in the supposed stability of capitalism without the collaboration of labour. Most workplaces are directed by owners, but this direction only works because the workforce collaborates. If people stand up together, there is no need to accept wage-slavery, no need to have endless war. Education should begin here but it cannot because of mortgages and ….

Across the Liberal spectrum you will see people compromised into collaboration one way or another. Yet they know the source of the problem but somehow delude themselves they are doing something.

Meanwhile right-wing intellectuals also know that the source of problems is the 1%. But the 1% funds their right-wing propaganda so instead they attack liberals.

All problems can be solved with the proper finance. If the money available was recirculated in the economy and if transactions returned to trade and money returned to representing value for trading, then we could live in a sustainable world in harmony. Who would suffer the most? The 1% – so it doesn’t happen.

But change can be made. Pressure can be brought to keep money in the economy. If there is more money in the economy there are more jobs. With the changing Liberal emphasis of neoliberalism more jobs are going into the liberal sphere and traditional white jobs are disappearing. Society needs both but the 1% divides society by removing the money from society so there is not enough for both. This needs to be the target – not fighting each other but demanding the release of our money. This is of benefit to liberals and right-wing intellectuals but it does not benefit the 1%. This is the problem that all should be addressing.

But instead we have conditioning. Trump triggers Liberal bleating and off they go on an outrage and Trump supporters laugh at them. Amidst this confusion 1% get obscenely wealthy.

Let me be clear, it is not the liberal values that I am attacking, it is the conditioned response. With the increasing attacks from Trump and others these Liberals are becoming more and more entrenched, and a deeper and deeper wedge is being driven into the 99%. This emotional wedge has no power attached to it. With the rampant abuse being exposed by #metoo, how many men are being punished? A few liberals are losing their jobs but they are not being incarcerated. However ordinary men sympathetic to the promotion of equal rights are being punished by the extreme emotional reactions, and a wedge is being driven between those men and the men who lack sympathy, who are more comfortable with the sexual abuse than they are with making change.

But in the end without unity the 1% will just exploit. Amidst the chaos and confusion that exists between the confronting conditioned idealisms, the 1% now have a tax plan for the 99% only, and various other 1%-laws that were snuck in the Republican tax plan. Now the corporations will be demanding similar globally, no 1%-taxplan no corporation. This does not bode well, and it is caused by the conditioned reactions, by the failure to act on the awareness that this is a 1%-system.

And the right-wing conditioning is perhaps far more destructive. These funded right-wing individuals are promoting their individualism first. Pre-Trump Alex Jones, whilst always a bombast and an egotistical loose cannon, used to attack the 1% – Bilderburg. Why is he not attacking the 1%-taxplan? Because he has become conditioned to his lifestyle, he has been bought off by their funding and his own popularity. “Make America Great” need not be as destructive as it is. If corporation money were being returned into circulation, then there would be enough money for the Liberals to have their jobs as well as white people. But Jones’ funding (and the funding of other right-wing individuals) demands attacks on Liberals. His funding demands attacks on collectivisation – the 99%, it demands putting the individual first. And when individuals are put first it is the biggest bullies who win.

It is straight-forward conditioning. And what about the right wing who support these individuals? What are they doing? Traditionally the wage-slave-owners favour their foremen, they buy them off, and give them a better standard of living. These wage-slaves want a return to this. They believe that the wage-slave-owners will help them and the funded individuals will continue to promote that delusion. And there is an arrogance amongst these people – MAWP, Male, Arrogant, White and Privileged. These MAWPs are often isolated as small business people, and they have been conditioned by their privilege. They don’t question because they think they are right. At the same time their prejudices make them dismiss all those they disagree with. If it is PC or liberal then it is wrong. Under Trump these conditioned MAWPs have been convinced that all is fake news except Trump, and have no idea how to determine what is truth. The real problem with their ignorance is there is no “normal” way to convince them of the truth because they are so emotional. They claim to be rational but their rejection of “facts” is not based on a considered opinion but on indoctrinated propaganda aimed at their arrogance. MAWPs do not listen and we have the mess we are in. In the US 53% of white women have followed these MAWPs with their votes, why?

But the 1% have no allegiance to these people, that is simply conditioning – a conditioned delusion. Yet these people continue to support the right because traditionally under the right they have done well. But their selfishness has no compassion, whilst there is compassion in their communities their selfishness does not deliver compassion nationally. This selfish nationalism is narrow, helps their own families but is not Christian.

With the wedge so firmly dividing the 99% these people can never cross over and work for Unity. The 1% can see this so they can continue to promote this rabid nationalism whilst exploiting the left and right (as they have with the tax plan). The traditional middle-classes will continue to vote for nationalism because that has given them wealth in the past. When that wealth decreases they will be conditioned into accepting less and less of the pie because it will always be better than rabid Liberalism.

There is no solution for Liberals or Nationalists working separately, the 1% will continue to take from both. With such a deep wedge having been formed, more money will be taken from the middle-classes because they know the middle-classes cannot now vote for Liberals.

These conditioned egos have been completely duped – deluded, both on the left and right. It is only by the recognition of how widespread is the conditioning that we can begin to unify. When conditioning is removed we can see compassion, when we see compassion we see people. We do not then see people needing to conform to Liberal ideals because compassion comes first. The rabid sexism of the right cannot be justified as a conditioned response to Liberalism because compassion is what matters.

Idealism is not compassion no matter how much the ideals appear to be compassionate. Compassion sees people first – not ideals. Compassion does not see conditioning, it recognises conditioning for what it is – a failure to learn who we are as human beings, a failure to know ourselves as compassionate. Since the mid-nineteenth century class analysis has recognised the conflict and exploitation, but ever since then this analysis has become an idealism that has divided. It is not the ideals that provide the way forward but the compassion that inspired the ideals in the first place. It is compassion that says exploitation by the few is unacceptable, the analysis only explains it.

Now there is only idealism. Nationalism against Liberalism, by subscribing to the ideals people have disappeared. People are now identified by their race and gender, identified by their ideals – left or right. Classified in this way there is no compassion, accepting the conditioning that applies these labels creates a conditioned divide, we lose our compassion, we do not see people first.

And then there are Buddhists. They see compassion, they see conditioning, but instead they apply it in such a personal theoretical way it does not contribute to the Unity of All. Personal conditioning is recognised and hopefully worked on. There is an element of peace, a peace on the margins, a peace in separation, but this is also conditioning. Whilst the conditioning process that is paticcasamuppada includes conditioning by the 1%, Buddhists avoid this under the pretext of detachment, peace or some other ideal. Buddhists whilst remaining detached need to be at the forefront of compassion, of recognising conditioning and helping people overcome the yoke that this conditioning oppresses them with. Whilst it is legitimate that teachers promote meditation and dhamma from monasteries, the removal of conditioning amongst the lay needs to lead to compassion, and that compassion is concerned with people who are propelled into wars and wage-slavery by their conditioning. As leaders where is Buddhism? Where is the compassion of Buddhism that recognises conditioning and can help us work through this egoic control?

Compassionate Unity is the only way forwards. Scrap ideals, scrap the conditioning of idealism, eschew all conditioning and let compassion guide us as people to help each other.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


Yesterday I spent a long time considering the “Truth about Cancer” even though I only used half of one of the videos. There is a very clear conclusion – confusion. Why?

There is a well-known left-wing adage – divide-and-rule colonialism. Typically the hegemony would find an existing division usually religious or tribal, and favour one group – protestants in Ireland, land deals in Zimbabwe, Obote’s minority rule in Uganda.

Since Occupy in 2011 the ruling 1% have been concerned about a different Unity – the 99%. So they have been funding the internet to prevent Unity of the 99%. And the purpose of that funding is confusion that allows the status quo to remain – the status quo which accumulates profits for the 1%.

So let us examine the cancer issue through this confusion paradigm. There are two issues about which there are sound questions:-

Do the established treatments work?
Do the alternative treatments work?

When you begin to examine these questions with genuine scepticism you are unable to get an answer because the only people who can give you proper answers are independently-funded medical research scientists. The methodology of this research would have to be agreed by all parties so that conclusions could be generally accepted. This cannot happen because the major player, BigPharma, will not work with the other players, alternative treatments. Why? Because it would expose weakness in their established treatments – the cut/burn and poison of operation, radiation and chemotherapy. Without scientific evidence there is sufficient doubt for the established regimen of treatments to continue to be used. The people who now benefit from the established treatments, BigPharma and BigFinance, continue to do so.

What became very clear to me yesterday is that there is sufficient scientifically-verified data to warrant genuine scientific enquiry about both the above questions. Oncologists are apologists for their treatments, but they do not control research. It would require the whole of the cancer profession to stand up and demand appropriate research on these established treatments but there are too many vested interests for this to happen. So the confusion and status quo remains.

I did not investigate any of the alternative treatments yesterday but I have previously. There are strong cases that merit consideration. I am no expert, I do not believe there is a “cure”, but if I had cancer and I had money I would go Gerson. As I don’t have money I would improve the quality of my diet – it is good anyway, I would go to acupuncture as often as I could and do Chi Gung daily, exercise, try to find medical cannabis and meditate. I would listen to but not trust the advice of oncologists, and would never trust chemo unless I could be assured it would be part of the 2.1% successes in 5 years. But that is me and I am no expert so my recommendation means nothing.

And there again is the confusion. There could be clarity. If sufficient mainstream research were done I believe Gerson could be scientifically proven to work, and could then be funded by medical insurance or the NHS. But this is not scientifically known, and in my view will never be scientifically knowable because BigPharma will never allow it. Confusion. The same might also apply to other alternative treatments.

Whilst we live in a 1%-system there will always be confusion, whilst the profits of BigPharma, BigFinance and BigFood are all dependent on the status quo it will never change from confusion. Treatments will remain the same. Ordinary people will be subjected to cut, burn and poison perhaps unnecessarily. There will be some benefits so that there will be some reason to accept the establishment. Some people will go to alternative treatments, and there will be talk of cures as can be found widely on the net. But nothing will be resolved, there will be confusion and that suits the 1% of BigPharma.

This issue of confusion also explains the funding for alternatives. Mainstream science will continue to produce some studies about the established treatments, studies questioning the status quo will never be universally accepted. There will be funding for some of the alternative treatments because individuals benefit – the rich need to know where to go. There will be funding for sceptics who decry the mainstream as well as for those who decry alternatives. Why? Because it all creates confusion and that confusion benefits the 1%.

And then there is the laughable position of the supposed scientists at SBM discussing acupuncture. “This is important to the understanding of the acupuncture literature, as many of the positive studies are coming out of China. The unrealistically high percentage of positive studies makes the Chinese body of clinical literature very suspect.” Even when there is no doubt they appeal to racism, infer the Chinese scientists “liars”, and create confusion.

If you have cancer what do you do? Don’t trust anyone – including me. Don’t trust the oncologists but try to determine what the state of scientific research is with regards to your cancer, treatment and the longevity of the treatment. Change your lifestyle. Eat healthy organic food, watch what you drink and drink healthily. Do aerobic exercise. Find some form of exercise that promotes the chi, Chi Gung, Tai Chi or others, and good breathing – prana. And meditate. With all of this you will probably fill your days!!! . These are recommendations, changing lifestyle is not necessarily a cure but there is nothing there that can hurt – all these lifestyle choices are beneficial.

I refer back to Occupy and the 99%. At that time there was no confusion, apathy but no confusion. The message was growing that the 1% were the source of all the problems. Since then the 1% have increasingly funded the power of confusion.

Brexit cannot be resolved – confusion. Huge money was invested in Brexit and is still invested so there is no resolution as evidenced by Tories fighting amongst each other. There will be at least 4 years of this confusion whilst the 1% exploit behind the scenes.

Trump is just about division and confusion. Try to define what he is about, and you only come up with a political and power-hungry ego. He decries the 1% yet he is one of them. He talks about helping white people but gives tax breaks to the superrich. Everything he says, the way he tweets is just to cause confusion, and whilst there is confusion his special people can work behind the scenes for the 1%.

The new Divide-and-Rule colonialism is 1%-confusion.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


I downloaded an eBook written by Edward Muzika entitled “Awakening and the Descent of Grace as part of my enquiry into awakening experiences, it turned out this guy has an internet presence operating as Edji.

When I started to read his eBook this jumped out at me “The awakening and deepening experiences are closely related to the experiences of the teacher; that is, you will experience awakenings similar to that of the teacher” [p5 of 82]. It is connected with my concerns over 5 Gateways which I reiterate is good stuff. 5 Gateways has a framework that I discussed here, I was worried that the framework creates the type of awakening experiences. This is exactly what is contained in Edji’s quote.

This made me consider teaching methodologies in the spiritual world. In the spiritual world I remember this interaction. At one stage I was close to a monk who was running a useful “Buddhist church”. He regularly delivered Dhamma talks that I used to attend – standard format, meditation, the Dhamma talk where the audience listened in silence, questions at the end – not usually any and if there were they appeared not enquiry but for the sake of having questions – fill the time.

We were close enough that he invited me to interview for a job teaching monks maths, they were attending a monks’ university and would probably end up teaching. Whilst up there he invited me to attend one of his “lessons” on the dhamma to the young monks. I thanked him and suggested that I do a teacher observation and evaluation, something that I had done regularly with good feedback from teacher colleagues in my department; I wanted some value from observing his lesson – watching only had little value. The lecture/lesson was good, the rapport with the students was good, but his reaction to my evaluation was poor. I began with the two positive comments just stated, and then pointed out minor issues (presented as such) in a 6-page report. There were no thanks. Professional teachers are expected to work with such evaluations and accept professional advice in a good interactional environment. With me they always seemed to, with this monk there was no response then.

There was however later. The monk ran a blog for his “church”. As a blog it was excellent, usually informative and well worth doing. However he made a mistake. On his blog he discussed a book by Tony Blair in which Tony had discussed Iraq. His blog bought what Tony had been peddling, and I sent a polite post questioning his stance. There was a polite response in which he made it clear that he did not wish to pursue discussion of Tony and his book – he did not retract the blog or make any personal retraction to me. Within the blog there were slightly bitter references to me as an educationalist. His church was worthwhile, pursuing the matter any further in public would only have been divisive and detrimental to the church, it was clear he was not interested in pursuing the matter privately; I did not attend the church again and he did not contact me to ask why.

To me the reaction contained ego, and also contained a failure to recognise professional teaching experience in the education system as relevant to his work at the monks’ college.

I had a similar interaction with a macrobiotic counsellor but the details are much hazier so I won’t go into them. What I got from the counsellor was that my professional experience as a teacher had no relevance to his counselling.

When I read Edji’s quote I began to think about teaching methodologies in the spiritual world. Professionally, do they stand up?

Here is the person I most consider my teacher, Ajaan Buddhadasa, giving a talk to western students:-

His teaching style is very formal, he gives a dhamma talk in silence following on from meditation (or meditation at the end).

This style would be typical of Theravadin monks in Thailand – he was Thai. Ajaan Buddhadasa is not connected with the Forest Sangha but many western Theravadin monks are connected with the Forest Sangha – as is Harnham Buddhist monastery. I have stayed at Harnham and the style of dhamma talks is typified in this picture. The abbott there introduced Dhammasakkacha in which people connected to the monastery (such as me) wrote a page on a topic such as renunciation – nekhamma that he briefly responded to. These stopped.

Here is Brad Warner, a zen monk that I used to follow, giving a talk:-

There is no doubt that Brad tries respectfully to break through many traditions. My interpretation of his dhamma talks is that they are not traditional but that they are dhamma – I liked that. I have never attended a talk of his nor have I been on a retreat with him but it is my understanding of his methodology that he talks to the group, and he has individual consultations.

Eckhart Tolle sits on stage and gives talks. He did an education thing with Oprah in which he discussed each chapter of his book “The New Earth” answering viewers’ questions and more.

I have attended gatherings with Krishnamurti. His talks appeared interrogatory in that he took a theme and explored it by asking questions and hoped that the gathering would explore themselves by asking the same questions. But he was on stage with an audience of hundreds – the questioning was rhetorical although I genuinely felt he wanted people to come up with answers for themselves.

Now here is Edji reclined in a comfortable chair giving a dhamma talk to a group of “students” connected to him by “video-conferencing” (I assume) – hence the computer on his lap.

Ed also uses the occasional expletive, and in this talk encourages people to be their own gurus.

I have attended talks given by Thich Nhat Hanh. In one his microphone wasn’t working properly and his English could not be heard, the Thai translation was clear. His dhamma is excellent but how could that have happened? How could he not have mechanisms in place to ensure that people could hear him? Something happened on stage, and I interpret it as this – I don’t know how true. Part way through a nun came on stage and tried to do stuff with the mike, I could see her trying to talk to him but she was summarily dismissed. She left with extreme embarrassment.

So a typical dhamma talk is didactic – a lecture in silence.

What am I getting at?

I begin by asking questions. My interaction with the monk makes me question that monk and points to questioning monks in general to accept advice from appropriate professionals, in this case professional advice on teaching methodology.

Where does learning occur? At the dhamma talk only minimally. It occurs when you sit and meditate. Learning is understanding when there is insight, when an idea is internalised. This might happen at a dhamma talk or it might happen in meditation. I described the monk’s group as a church. I attended that church for a while, and as with the catholic church I attended as a child there appeared little enquiry. It was worthwhile that this group met, that was sufficient.

I used to have what might be called dhamma conversations. In a non-silent retreat you might be chatting with a monk or others, and in that conversation you gain insight. Or on the road I have met other aware travellers, and there have been meaningful conversations, insight, learning and moving-on – the wonders of travel broadening the mind. I would describe these conversations as dialogue with the intent to learn or intent leading to a mutual conclusion (most conversations have no such intent).

Here is a non-learning situation that might arise. Sankhara diarrhoea or sankhara block – I think this particularly applies to western students (I have read similar from eastern teachers). Western minds especially fresh from education are so full of this and that, there is no way in for new stuff. I have often discussed this as intellect excluding insight.

You need empty silent minds to learn, not minds full of mental proliferations.

Many of the above giving talks claim to be Buddhist yet my interpretation of the Kalama sutta is that the Buddha said not to believe anything he says learn for yourself. When a talk is given what is expected of the listener, what is it that the listener is expected to learn?

What are the motivations of the listener? Ideally I would say that the motivations are connected with learning and experiencing what the Buddha taught. However as a Christian church wats are not places this happens. It is a social expectation to attend, and some, but few, move beyond. I chose the word church for the Bangkok monk, I did not feel spiritual drive.

The motivations of a learner are different but above I see motivations of a “teacher”. This requires analysis. One of the big problems with teaching is that teachers want to teach and they don’t always have sufficient emphasis on the student’s need to learn – I have met this often. It is not they don’t want the students to learn but the emphasis is on what they do and not what the student learns. Within education teaching methodology on this is changing, but in spiritual circles the main methodology is shut up and listen.

I had a discussion at Harnham. Learning to be a monk took 5 years. Potential learners went to the monastery and worked with the abbot for a while until they could accept that they would be “apprenticed” for 5 years. If they dropped out during the 5 years they were never allowed near the monastery again. There is good learning in this. But the emphasis is on learning to be a monk. This brings in the institutional question, are all monks seeking genuine truth? Are there institutional limitations? Retreats were offered, learning retreats as well as “being there” retreats.

But what is the objective of all these methodologies? And I offer a very dangerous answer – getting the learner to reach the inner guide. As I said this objective is seriously dangerous because it demands an integrity of the inner guide, and whilst a genuine inner guide has that there are so many selves and egos that could get in the way that this is a very dangerous objective.

What usually happens with the above methodologies is that the teachers present a right view (4NT one of the 8-fold path). But how is it received? Does the teacher demand insight, do they demand the necessity of the subjective? No, they can’t so what they are presenting is dogma, the right view of dogma, the safe view of dogma. And when it is dogma, how can there be inner guide?

There is a saying “Give a person a fish, s/he is not hungry that day, teach that person to fish and s/he is not hungry for life”. Dogma is words, words that might rest the “soul” for a day but the inner guide is a path for life. How many of the above teaching methodologies give an inner guide for life?

I have attended a number of dhamma talks and I cannot recall an emphasis on the inner guide – maybe I didn’t hear the emphasis. Some of Buddhism demands a guru. This makes a lot of sense, an inner guide without a guru has the potential to setup all kinds of egos and go in all kinds of wrong directions, but ultimately the guide has to surpass the guru. But for how many gurus is that the objective?

My awareness of inner guide as the teaching methodology came about as part of my recent home retreats – bhavana. But I first experienced my inner guide early in life. Following the path became a “mantra”. However whilst following the path I became a drunk, had dubious sexual encounters and various other selves that were clearly not “spiritual”. Yet I had an inner guide. Reaching the inner guide is not enough, there needs to be processes in place to make sure the inner guide is adhered – mindful processes. One obvious process is a guru promoting the inner guide, for others it is becoming a monk, but for most the inner guide emerges and the individual flounders around – much like I did. Yet reaching the inner guide has to be the objective. I have met recently a number of people whose life has been dominated by seeking. They have found gurus but not the inner guides nor any process that maintains the integrity of the inner guide. Without the guide it is difficult to see where they are going.

When you examine the teaching practices in the world of spirituality there are questions to ask. I contend the objective is to help the seeker find the inner guide but with that help ensure that the seeker has mechanisms that support the inner guide. Is that what is on offer?

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


An odd weekend and home retreat.

I stayed up all Friday night, I was getting tired at 6 am but as the cleaner was due I just about stayed up. After she left the day was taken up with sleeping through Ally McBeal and then in the evening watching and dozing. 12.30 went to bed and got a melatonin hour but that was it.

At 04.00am I decided to meditate mainly about reformism and conditioning – too much sankhara, and then slept for two or three hours. Meditated again, and this was devastating. Since Edji I have an unfinished blog about spiritual teachers and methodologies. Thinking on this I came up with “reaching the inner guide” such a dangerous approach. I discovered huge personal arrogance connected to this, and I fell on the bed and slept nearly 4 hours. I meditated again but stopped after 34mins because the rain was loud on the car leanto. Dozed again till 4.00 pm but at least Benny was there for food.

Inner guide is so dangerous.

I have always talked about the Path but only recently recognised the Path is a mechanism (at the end of this long blog). For the time I lived by the path it was substantive in my life, in a sense it was guiding me. Beyond saying that I felt close to the path or not I cannot explain more but it was a real guide. Following the path fizzled out after Peyton Place because I turned to politics – even though I would always say I was a political activist to enable developing spirituality. I turned to Buddhism after my mid-life review, I don’t know whether that was path or an inner guide. Once I meditated I have always felt a guide telling me what to study next espeically after retirment.

What is the path/guide? Kamma? Dogma – if you remove the I and mine from the 5 khandas then there is just sunnata. And sunnata guides. Somewhere within the morass of BillZ’s egos and selves sunnata managed to designate a path, something that the morass managed to discern as path. But basically calling sunnata a path is a human mechanism but somehow we need to try to find this path, this inner guide.

That is the conclusion of this blog on spiritual teaching methodologies but there are huge dangers to an inner guide. BE WARNED.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

My recent Bhavana continues to have drastic repercussions. The blog “living as no self” set the roadmap but it left much that was vague. A recent effort to return to a normal routine day left me with a surface normal day yet sleep occurring throughout the day without sufficient sleep at night – 11-6. Throughout the efforts at sleep there was clear evidence of self attached without any understanding of why – living as no self was not enough for understanding and change.

There are 3 identities – Wai Zandtao, Matriellez and Bill Zanetti; what are they? This question gives the answer to the selves. Wai Zandtao is the writer, this is almost all there is now – writing, and learning for writing. Then there is the Matriellez teaching – giving back. Where is Bill Zanetti? I now understand why monks have monk names, their birth and society selves have gone. Bill Zanetti is now sanna – memory – only. Bill Zanetti led his life, worked, learned, and has provided for Wai Zandtao to write and Matriellez to teach and write. Maybe Wai and Matriellez will need to draw on Bill’s memories but otherwise there is no need for Bill.

Bill has life patterns and life-styles. When Bill was teaching and drinking Bill watched too much TV, now this TV self is impacting on Wai and Matriellez from being – from writing and teaching. Bill’s selves need to disappear. These are what is keeping the body awake. Bill has learned a way for the body to be healthy, these ways are now not Bill’s, they are Gaia’s. And Gaia has what used to be Bill’s body to enable Wai (and Matriellez) to be.

Bill interfered with Wai (and Matriellez). Bill was angry that people did not listen when he explained various understandings – primarily included in Zandtao Treatise. Bill was frustrated that knowledge and understanding that Gaia Sunnata had granted Wai (and Matriellez) did not give him recognition. These were selves.

Wai (and Matriellez) are simply Gaia Sunnata. Write and teach is all there is – apart from learning for writing. Trust Gaia Sunnata, the writing and teaching comes from Gaia – that is enough. Gaia will decide.

Trust Gaia and no self – no Bill Zanetti (except sanna when necessary).

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Compassion at Labour Conference

Posted: 13/10/2017 in Corbyn
Tags:

Here is that word:-

Jeremy was “Making the case for compassion”.

Every politician should be making the case for compassion, demand it of them. I think Corbyn means it.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Today I have just done another home retreat. I usually go for a massage late Saturday afternoon, so it was interesting to see that when I arrived home I wanted to meditate. I did so for half an hour but began to feel tired – I usually do after massage. I ate and dozed off and on for two or three hours, and then woke up. It was 11 and I was wide awake.

This is a pre-amble to the home retreat. My sleep is totally screwed at the moment, the home retreat concerned sleep. I went to bed at 5 am and couldn’t sleep. Maybe about 6/6.30 I gave up and meditated (no timing) – I wanted to sleep because I wanted to do a home retreat so I didn’t give up and start computing. I was focussing on harmony with Nature as I have lost my natural sleep rhythm. After maybe an hour I was beginning to think there was a chance of sleep, and tried. I didn’t think I could sleep, had a vivid surface dream – dreaming but not feeling like I was asleep, and woke just after 9. There were strange feelings in my gerd area, I was worried about them. It was connected with harmony, and mind and body dropping – Dogen.

I went back to sleep and woke at 12, so I had not had enough sleep and was tired. But I wanted to home retreat so I started. 45 mins, then break, 45 mins and then break, 25 mins and break – wrote about “history ego”, 25 mins and then ate and walked. It was now 6.15. Home retreat is improving. 3rd session, some pain from knee but mostly poor discipline made me stop early – mind was “resisting”.

The theme of the home retreat started with sleep but finished with bhavana. I think the bhavana was contributing to the sleep problem. I am working through this so please don’t take this as truth, if I am way off I will amend the blogpost though. I am amending now.

First:-

I have never been good with samadhi (concentration) and meditation has usually been self-guiding towards learning. This retreat started with sleep, went into harmony with nature, and then saw the issue as bhavana. Instead of developing mind I have been expanding mind, and selves are being created as vinnana attaches to the expanded mind that is bhavana. This is just creating selves, it is not bhavana. There needs to be concentration to focus the mind for it to develop. I began to look at developing mind centring/focussing in the heart, and I could feel the pointed mind getting clearer.

Second:-

I was amazed at the power of self (ego) at the weekend with the historian justifying English nationalism as peace and compassion and colonialism being primarily Scottish. But in my arrogance I missed my own self concerning this bhavana. The clue is in what is happening (or not happening) – sleep. This is not natural so it is self. I have already recognised my self-indulgence tv entertainment, and now understand the vinaya; entertainment encourages self. Throughout my life there has been this self-indulgence – passing time. I have never cared for TV, very rarely have I made the effort to watch a particular thing, but it is there and on. I excused it as tired from teaching, firstly when I was hungover and then when stressed. By the time I retired it was a complete habit – yet in my mind it was with disinterest.

But I never connected it as the cause of my sleep problem; it is but I never connected it. What is happening. I come in, eat and fall asleep. Wake up, refreshed but it is late so I slip into tv-watching. When awake I should be active, reading watching teachers, blogging etc. But it is late and I think tired although I have just woken up. Normal sleeping hours have gone by but it doesn’t matter because I am not working. And when I get up I meditate and write.

But my sleep pattern is crazy and not healthy – not natural. But what else happens? I go to bed tired but cannot sleep. I lie there for a while, and then give up. Where do I go? Self-indulgent tv watching. To be fair sometimes it is good stuff but not always. But now I know it will always be good stuff or not giving up.

But the power of this self is amazing. The years of tv watching has created a screwed-up metabolism. Both digestion and metabolism both work together to prevent sleep. Self has created a screwed-up metabolism that is preventing natural sleep patterns, that is then indulging this self by watching more tv longer and longer. Crazy. Amazing I didn’t see it. I did with bhavana, and yet to begin with the self (of the self-indulgence) deflected to blaming bhavana above. So devious. It is so amazing – fascinating.

Third

I had hoped that was the end of it, I had hoped awareness would be enough!!! I am somewhat ashamed. I had thought my life was on track but sleep problems certainly shows it isn’t. Whatever the routine I was studying writing and so on. But I am ashamed because it is skewed over something as mundane as tv.

Last night was not good. I had slept mid-evening and drifted into tv watching. Past 12. I was getting irritated. Past 01.00 more irritated. Whatever I have recognised as self-indulgence I was not changing. 01.34 to bed. Some sleep. Awake 03.34. It was no good, problem was not going to correct itself. Phra solution, a phra day. Things were not going to get better, this is chronic tv watching. Drastic solution. Phra day. Not only was the tv getting into sleep it was into digestion and metabolism.

Only solution Phra day. Sleep 11-6 every day – like a job. Breakfast before 9 if possible. Main meal at lunch. Avoid food after that, not renounce avoid. At the most a sandwich for tea. Fruit OK. No big meal as digestion will not have dealt with it. A complete change of day. Shame, need to do this over tv self- indulgence.

At the beginning of this post self had questioned bhavana, but it was bhavana that solved the problem – found the self and came up with the solution.

To sunnata it becomes necessary to be clear about some functioning and terminology. Basically what happens with vinnana? What is consciousness? The 5 khandas are concerned with nama-rupa that which is conditioned and temporary. When there is mindfulness there is no attachment. The state of mindfulness occurs when nama-rupa is not attaching, when vinnana is not attaching. So what is happening with bhavana – mental development? The mind (nama) has been expanding, mind-vinnana has been attaching to the expanding mind. This expanding mind has been over-active (over-attached), and I have not been sleeping. I have been developing the mind incorrectly, whilst there have been positives there have also been this mind-expanding negative with attachment – selves. Bhavana – I must develop concentration whilst developing concentration so that I am not just creating mind-expansion.

So now the question concerns bhavana and sunnata, have I got the right view? Nama-rupa is temporary and is not connected with sunnata. So why is consciousness connected with sunnata? Mindfulness has the body, psyche and self systems in place (Buddhadasa approach) but what has mindfulness go to do with the emptiness system? What happens when we feel presence? When mindfulness has the 5 khandas in place, then there is a touch of awareness (vinnana) that feels sunnata – presence. Mindfulness is also needed to make sure that vinnana does not attach to sunnata. Mindfulness is judgement-free awareness, sufficient awareness (vinnana) that optimises the 4 other khandas with no attachment, sufficient awareness that can feel sunnata but not attach. Bhavana develops mindfulness through insight and concentration.

Mind is meant to be aware of sunnata as presence, that is a faculty of vinnana, but attachment is a hindrance; mindfulness prevents the hindrances. In Buddhism and other areas of spirituality there are all kinds of discussions about emptiness, pure consciousness, presence etc., none of which you have any direct control over. It all depends on the degree of mindfulness, and that we have control of – making our minds as perfect as they can be. How good our mindfulness is determines access to emptiness, determines our relationship with the emptiness system.

Working on mindfulness however is not easy but at least we can work on it, the rest is beyond our control. Bhavana helps develop mind which can then be controlled to develop mindfulness.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.