Archive for the ‘Insight’ Category

Data confuses me

Posted: 21/01/2018 by mandtao in Big Fashion, Big Food, Big Pharma, Freedom, Insight
Tags:


I watched this interesting talk with Russell Brand and Jacques Peretti, and am totally confused by the reference to data as being the corporate currency.

The issue is advertising as far as I understand. It has always been my practice to ignore advertising; I know it is not everyone’s practice – I often heard schoolkids singing jingles. In the talk Russell and jacques were discussing that the new big corporations are the tech giants who know your data. With this data they can tailor-make the ads that appear when you are online. I never look at ads, use ad-blockers and edit the hosts file primarily to stop their use of my bandwidth by opening new windows. I make it a rule never to click on an ad.

I understand that I might be unusual in doing this but this type of mindful consuming ought to be a common-place act of “resistance”. The corporations need our consuming but if we choose how we consume then we have some control. So I am confused.

For me the issue is mindful consuming. Firstly my mindful consuming is limited because it is not easy to buy organic food. But I have two sources and if I make the effort my veg can be organic. I cannot find “organic” meat, that is a worry. But I try to avoid factory products because of additives and preservatives. I have my car and my computer stuff but I rarely buy more than I need. Mindful consuming is sustainable, and in this world resistance needs to be sustainable. I therefore am confused.

In fact data makes them vulnerable. If they rely on controlling us through advertising yet we are consuming mindfully then they are vulnerable to a movement of mindful consuming.

I don’t live a life of consumerism but of course I do consume. But it is my money, my labour, my savings, my pension. As Russell likes to use the word “revolution”, then isn’t mindful consuming revolutionary?

I do remember getting angry when last I lived in the UK and I was forced to use Direct Debit so that they could take my money effectively from salary. I was not used to this as I used to go and pay my bills. Now I go and pay my bills. So it requires some time and effort to do this but I have some control.

This issue of data confuses me, but these people would not use it if there was no profit. But if there is mindful consuming they don’t have control. If directing our consumerism through data and advertising is the future, then organising mindful-consuming is the answer.

Look at how Israel is frightened of BDS, is this not mindful consuming? Back in the day some people did not buy South African produce, this seems common sense to me. So I am confused.

Mindful consuming is “easy”. Avoid BigFood, BigPharma, BigFashion. Consume mindfully. Organise mindful consuming. For committed comrades/revolutionaries data is something we can take advantage of through sustainable and mindful consuming.

What am I missing???

<– Previous Post “1% want Trump?” Next Post “Accidental Anarchist” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements

Oriental – slap wrist

Posted: 13/01/2018 by zandtao in Insight
Tags:


I have just discovered that the word ‘oriental’ is now considered politically incorrect. I have used the word descriptively in the same context as described in this article but in current liberally-oppressive climes it is always safer to be politically correct; I originally always was when proper use of language was a sensible socialist strategy. Now PC is just harmful divisive liberalism.

Here is an Asian viewpoint on the use of the term :-

“The term ‘Oriental’ is outdated, but is it racist?”

I think Science-Based medicine should read the final paragraph.

<– Previous Post “Trump – winnable?” Next Post “1% want Trump?” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


People before profits is a standard liberal and socialist slogan that ought to make common sense to all intellectuals across the spectrum. This is pragmatic, it is fundamental compassion and if applied wisely could be the overriding mantra of governance. Surely people first is just democracy.

I began thinking about this when I spoke of human values before robots. These values are creativity, intuition, insight and wisdom, and are not valued as part of the underlying ethos in the world of capitalism as these values do not necessarily provide profits.

In article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (pdf here):-

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Much of this article is forgotten as these Labour rights eat into profits, but for me it is important that every person has the right to work. It is my view that it is government’s job to ensure that every person has the right to work, and I believe in the counter “every person should work”. Our welfare system is a net to help those who fall through the cracks, but the reality of the situation is that the way our society is structured there is not enough work for everyone. The major cause of this lack of work is automation. Despite all the PR to the contrary everyone knows that the machines perform menial tasks more efficiently, and as the profits on the production side of our economy is based on menial tasks we have a situation in which our dominant economic model is putting people out of work.

This is why there is such an increase in racism in the West. Prior to automation there used to be jobs and indigenous white people were well off. Then the number of jobs were reduced primarily to do with automation, and the jobs these white people did were lost. Into their societies there came non-indigenous Labour, in the UK people from the colonies following their money, in the US and elsewhere cheap immigrant labour was used. Whilst there was full employment people did not complain, once automation put people out of work racism became a scapegoat.

Whilst profit is the raison d’etre there will never be full employment because machines make more profits. R&D into robotics is on the increase so even more jobs will be lost. This is why Article 23 is so important. People have the right to work.

For many people the 1%-conditioning that labour must produce a profit is gospel. But with increased automation labour cannot be involved in the profit-making. Therefore there is a need to re-evaluate what labour is for; if we continue to accept that the reason for labour is profit only then there will be an increasing number of people without work.

Beauty is a human value often associated with creativity. Are our cities beautiful? Are all people working? They could work to make the cities beautiful. They could work to improve our health care. They could work to improve our education service. If the principle of our caring society was Article 23, the right to work, and the corollary the insistence that all people have work, then the emphasis of our social service would be totally different.

Of course all of the above is totally impractical because the people who control our societies – the 1%, control where the profits go – mainly into their offshore bank accounts. They do not follow Article 23, and with the increasing roboticisation there will be more people without work.

Wise compassion requires a change in this. Putting people before profits combined with Article 23 means that we need to see the way we employ people has to change.

At the moment the increasing automation means more and more people are without work. There are an increasing number of schemes out there to massage this fact. At the same time the 1% do not want to admit that this is their aim. If the wisdom of the compassionate doesn’t step in then the majority of people will not have work, and will be perceived as scroungers.

But it’s not that there are things that don’t need doing, it is just that what needs doing is not profits from production.

For me Article 23 is the place to start. At the moment liberalism suggests that if people don’t have work then they should be given handouts. This of course is divisive especially if these people are not indigenous. But if all people had to work then there would be no such issue. Marx describes the way the bourgeois perceive the unemployed is as a reserve army. If you don’t toe the line you will be sacked, if everyone is working they can’t say this.

If we start with the right to work then we can begin to move away from the road to chaos that 1%-profit-making is taking us to with automation and robotics. Change work so that it respects the human values of compassion, creativity, wisdom, intuition, insight and aesthetics. Bring quality into life, and stop reducing everything to profits based ion manufacture and gambling.

This is a pipedream because of 1%-control.

<– Previous Post “Truth?” Next Post “Trump Support” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Truth?

Posted: 06/01/2018 by zandtao in Insight, ONE planet, Science, Struggle, War

Since my early retirement I have enjoyed learning from the internet. I got sucked into conspiracies and subscribed to what I assumed were left-wing newsletters that kept me informed. It is only with examining the rise of Trump that I have determined that many of these are right-wing intellectuals. This is understandable as I see their funding as being a knock-on effect of the 1%-manipulations.

However whilst I describe this right-wing intellectualism, it does not mean that this information is untrue – far from it. I consider these intellectuals the right-wing periphery, and have no wish to dissociate from them. Of course that does not mean I have any right-leanings.

For me the issue lies with the answer to this question, how do we overcome the 1%? And the answer for me is very clearly Collective Unity, and struggling as the United 99% against the 1%. It is never clear to me how the individualism of these good right-wing intellectuals will overcome something as powerful as the 1%. In my view they need to overcome their abhorrence of the liberals, an abhorrence I also feel, and somehow find a way of working in Unity against the 1%.

Government and taxation is of course very divisive. When I look at the neoliberal governments of Blair and Obama I understand why these intellectuals are against taxation and government. As a teacher I incline to defend the educational aspect of governance, but I know that the caring aspects are only a subterfuge for the main current purpose of taxation – accumulation of wealth to the 1% through taxation for defence spending on the wars-for-profit.

There needs to be some form of commitment to Unity, and I don’t see these right-wing intellectuals wanting that; I must just accept the bonus of knowledge that the right-wing periphery funding provides. The egos that comes with individualism anywhere on the political spectrum has also to be recognised and defeated, ego is a major divisive factor.

I am old enough for truth to be easy, proletarian struggle. Occupy reinforced that with its simple 1% clarity. But these understandings are interspersed throughout a steady campaign of confusion. Politically for me this has shown itself clearly recently with the identification of the left with liberalism, when I think that people might identify my position with neoliberalism, its wars-for-profits and wage-slavery I shudder. But the clarity of my truth has to be tempered by the obvious failure of the genuine left to unite and be meaningful, hence the ease with which we have been labelled with the liberals.

This blog on truth was sparked by watching this video called “The Republic of Science” from Judith Curry, I absolutely do not recommend this video. In Mandtao I examine science – I am posting this in my main blog Zandtao as well. As a Buddhist I am firmly committed to 100% enquiry (4 Agreements as well). Science needs questioning because science is establishment. Now saying science is establishment for me means that science is controlled by the 1%, and when you listen to Judith she talks of the way science is controlled. She makes a very convincing case, that creative scientists (who she calls mavericks) are restricted by the science establishment and government direction. This is excellent, Mandtao would appear to say the same thing but the reality is the exact opposite.

Judith Curry is on the periphery of the Koch brothers campaign for climate denial. I suspect, although I don’t know, that whatever funding she gets stems from the vast amounts the Koch brothers have used to dominate the internet. So-called independent media. I have no interest in her climate denial evaluation – she might have a genuine position; she does not appear to be a direct definitive climate denier. What concerns me is that her analysis of science is so close to the truth that it is so easy to fall for her line.

The problem is she does not see the source of the problem as the 1%. She talks mostly of the science establishment stifling mavericks, who can argue with that? Her position is then that the establishment is stifling the maverick who talks of climate denial. This is so plausible but oh so dangerous. The question is “when is science stifling maverick creativity?” as opposed to “when is scientific knowledge refuting politically and financially-inspired bogus claims of climate denial?” these are significantly different positions yet so subtle. On the level of daily science, the source of funding that creates such destructive scepticism cannot be traced to the 1%, and leaves blogposts such as this in the realms of lunatic conspiracy. This is the purpose of confusion. And with the current level of collective confusion there can be no Unity to fight.

How can I ask for all to see through such subtle manipulation?

I have a completely misguided acquaintance who can put “likes” on my 1%-posts, and yet can support Trump. How confused is he? He does not have a mass movement base to his understanding. An individualist will examine Judith Curry’s individualist examination of science – the individualism that celebrates mavericks, and can see the partial truth of what she says as truth. The mass movement says “where is the hand of the 1%?”, and immediately looks at finance. Once you apply that paradigm you see the Koch Brothers and climate denial – whether Judith believes what she says or not.

I can support her analysis of the scientific establishment, and I thank the funding that has powered that. I can thank the right wing for the Corbett Report that brings this and other useful information to light. But if I am unsure I ask the mass movement question “where is the hand of the 1%?” …. and there is clarity.

As Mandtao the maths/stats man I am a supporter of scientific knowledge and scientific method. I attack the science establishment for similar reasons to Judith Curry’s video “the Republic of Science”, but in the end she is supporting the 1%, the Corbett Report is supporting the 1% by promoting her. All the scepticism around climate change can only be seen in terms of 1%-industries, the Koch Brothers campaign, and how any doubts that arise enable this industrial establishment to continue with the environmental damage and pollution – whatever “scientific point” Judith or others raise.

It is sad in this world that the 1% are so sick, so detached from the species they are a part of, that they want to destroy the very Unity of who we are – the ONE planet. And they will finance and manipulate at any level to enact their sickness. It is so hard to understand how these people became so sick, I understand why Icke wants to separate them and call them lizards, but they are just sick humans. We have to face the understanding that humanity can become as sick as these people.

<– Previous Post “If I were Bill Gates ….” Next Post “People before Profits”–>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Revisiting Confusion

Posted: 23/12/2017 by zandtao in Finance, Freedom, Insight, Science, Struggle
Tags: ,

In this post I discussed the role of confusion, I would now describe it as the new internal strategy of divide-and-rule colonialism. If we are confused we cannot unite against the 1%, it is that simple.

There is no confusion in Unity against 1% but we have been turned against this Unity. There has always been one-issue campaigning such as anti-racism, feminism, and pro-LBGQT, but this was usually done under a leftist umbrella that was vaguely socialist. But liberals have lost their socialist base and see their campaigns as more important than fighting the 1%, more important than fighting wars-for-profits, more important than fighting wage-slavery. As a result Liberals bought into the neo-liberalism of Obama, laying the grounds for disgruntled white working-class privilege that swung the balance in favour of Trump. I think there are sufficient indicators to say that it is not just a racist backlash against Obama, if these people had jobs they might well not have swung to Trump’s fascist populism.

Once the 1% got beyond Trump’s unpalatable populism, they found that they could gain from his rhetoric leading up to this horrendous tax bill. This article describes measures to promote support for this bill even when it has been passed. I suspect worse in the New Year as the GOP misuses their control until mid-term changes will perhaps alleviate their misuses of power. If such an analysis is correct then it is unlikely that Trump will get to a second term unless the 1% concertedly provide the jobs Trump has promised. In which case there will be further problems. What is worse for me is that the Democrats remain totally neoliberal, so if mid-terms go as predicted money will be put into democrats for Hillary. And she has become such a divisive figure. There needs to be a Bernie-backlash to turn back all the Trump “legislation”, the 1% will not allow that.

Trump has a “deplorable” support base who are becoming more entrenched against the liberal whining in the media. Whilst 1%-MSM fan the deplorable-liberal divide, both entrenched camps don’t get out of their comfort zones of Breitbart and righteous liberalism respectively. No Unity there.

But so far I have not considered the confusion. Fake News has become a popular slogan, and it is a major platform for confusion. It cements the new deplorable-liberal divide as Trump and Breitbart continue to define MSM as Fake News, and liberals accept 1%-MSM as mostly truth. But the strategy of Fake News does far more than cement this divide, the strategy creates a confusion where few know where to stand. Most people stood by an ideology but Fake News has undermined ideological standpoints by creating doubt. And this doubt has been fanned into hate – PCpolice-hate, feminist-hate, Liberal-hate, anti-SJW, Marxist-hate, collectivist-hate.

Concern about political bias in news is of course not new, but there has never been such a concerted strategy to cause such confusion. The BBC is well known on the Genuine Left for its bias as typified by its banning of Liar Liar by Captain Ska; plausible banning but biased. The BBC falls in line with MSM when discussing Occupy or the 1%, but on liberal issues they tend to be OK. “War-for-Profit does not exist and people are not exploited as wage-slaves” BBC The BBC offers liberals a place of employment, and is regularly attacked by anti-liberal sentiment such as the right wing and racists – to whom they give time because they are unbiassed. How long did they take to come to terms with Corbyn? But if you knew what they were about they were reliable. With Fake News everything is questioned. Previously the right accepted the BBC bias that was in their favour, and played the game. Trump has ended that game with the confusion he has caused. The right want the BBC to move to the right, to end the generally-accepted degree of supposed unbiassed BBC reporting, and just support right-wing bias. I am sure the establishment are as dismayed by this confusion as anyone else. Confusion is destroying an accepted fabric of society. Personally I don’t mind the confusion as the liberals will have to question what their whining achieves, and at the same time right-wing intellectuals who have some compassion will have to question why they are in bed with deplorables. But with the prevailing ignorance and lack of understanding of the right-wing and the power of its funders, there are major risks with this confusion. Prevailing social fear reacts to anarchy with military oppression, if the ensuing mass confusion turns to violence then there might well be increased daily military presence. What will happen to right-wing libertarian freedom then? Where will be your revered choice at any price?

As usual in education there is the unquestioning mainstream acceptance of liberal righteousness. Here:-

is a student methodology for examining Fake News. As described in the third and fourth steps news is not fake if it is accepted by consensus. But why not take the opportunity to question the fakeness of education – the degree of conditioning, why not examine our histories to see their bias? However in the current climate I would be a fool to advocate this because 1%-funding of views would just lead to a lurch further right. It is claimed that young users can see fake news in facebook, but do they really? Or can they just see the fake news that liberals see, and ignore the fake biassed infrastructure that I have been aware of all my adult life?

But Fake News is only the tip of the confusion strategy. Sceptics are legitimately questioning science, questioning is a legitimate part of scientific method. But instead of that questioning adding to the scientific process, it has been turned into a destabilising mechanism by finance. With Koch investment, climate deniers have gained a limited amount of credence. Trump supporters have been deluded into thinking Trump’s 1%-position over the Paris Climate Accord is in some way legitimate.

This 1%-undermining of science is a serious problem because instead of science being seen as a bank of knowledge there is now confusion as to any form of scientific verification. Science is now FAKE SCIENCE. But what is worse is that because scientific verity has been undermined ignorant pipsqueaks who have seen a youtube clip think they are equipped to discuss science. Whatever indoctrination occurs at university the level of academic knowledge that makes up a degree does compare somewhat favourably with a youtube clip.

Unfortunately science has already been hijacked by the 1%. Medicine was hijacked by Rockefeller and Carnegie towards the end of the nineteenth century (culminating with the Flexner Report) so that natural medicine was eschewed in favour of profit-oriented patented medicine as part of any medical degree. As a consequence of the confusion vaccines have been questioned, and right-wing intellectuals offering people the choice over vaccines is very dangerous to global health. Science should be questioned and resolved in-house amongst qualified scientists applying scientific method rather than entering the populist arena of profit. Scientific method is sound and needs to be respected. People need to return to accepting sound scientific judgement.

Unfortunately science has equally allowed itself to be hijacked by finance. Scientists wanting jobs are directing their research towards what will be funded, and as most funding comes from the 1% through technology for defence or gadget-profiteering, BigFood, BigPharma there is little genuine science-for-science’s sake. Knowledge per se has no value in the 1%-system.

Quantitative method has been extended to qualitative method especially in social science. Case study methodology is being promoted and whilst there are checks and balances desire for funding status or simply job-retention can leave issues of integrity behind. A case study draws inferences from what a few people say, is it science to draw inferences from what Trump says, from what Breitbart says? Is it science to accept a funded professorial watchlist such as Turning Point?

And then we have the absurdity of science-based medicine’s rejection of acupuncture because the research is too compelling and potentially unsound because it is non-western.

Confusion is now being blamed on the Russians by the right-wing. Obviously I have no personal knowledge of so-called Russian meddling, I am not sure what they will gain. I suspect it is just a tactic for the 1% to remove Trump when they choose. There is a rule of thumb in social analysis. Look at who it benefits. Confusion is benefitting the 1% and their main current stooge Trump. Confusion is lurching the world to the right, and again the 1% benefits – more war, more wage-slavery.

To end this confusion good people have to stand together with their only common value – compassion. End ideologies, just stand for compassion. Why do compassionate people hate liberals? Because they perceive ideology before compassion. Let’s end this divisive support for ideals that divide – be compassionate. If we are compassionate we are not compromised by ideals that put us in the same camp as deplorables. If we are compassionate we do not fight wars-for-profit, if we are compassionate we do not view fellow humans as wage-slaves.

End confusion, be compassionate.

<– Previous Post “Class War Lost!!” Next Post “Wise Compassion” –>

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.

Teaching Methodologies

Posted: 22/10/2017 by zandtao in Education, Insight, Meditation, ONE planet


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.

Inner Guide – Bhavana

Posted: 22/10/2017 by zandtao in Insight, Meditation, ONE planet
Tags: ,


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.

Identities – Selves

Posted: 17/10/2017 by zandtao in Freedom, Insight, Meditation, Writing
Tags:

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.