Posts Tagged ‘Conditioning’

Love and Self-esteem

Posted: 19/05/2018 by zandtao in Insight, Struggle
Tags: , , , ,

In the car I have been listening to bell hooks, such an interesting writer. I have downloaded a series of audios on bell hooks – it is readings from several of her books. I had to check the USB because I wasn’t sure even though what was being said sounded like her. But there is a problem, unlike Russell’s conversation podcasts there is too much content for when I am driving.

But it is about love and self-esteem, and she said “go back to your childhood”. This is a strategy I like, and on love and self-esteem again I feel incredibly lucky. I have to assume as context what I have described in the , in this case especially Ch 21 – My Path. I am unwilling to be specific about my home as my mother would not have liked it, but I can describe it in general as I have in being middleclassed as described in the chapter on My Path. Characteristics of being middleclassed are emotional repression and a focus on education leading to house car and education for children. As I have said previously, from my upbringing I emerged middleclassed but, significantly, relatively undamaged and with sufficient bits of paper for passports into life. When I look around this is more than I could have asked for.

In terms of self-esteem being middleclassed makes it easy to understand. I had the arrogance of academic success and as the middleclass straitjacket only really measured this my self-esteem was well intact.

As for love, self-love and other issues that Bell discusses, in my childhood these were de rigueur. In middle-class homes there was love but it was not expressed as emotion, passion; it was expressed as the straitjacket. The first thing I did when I hit bottom was to run back to the straitjacket, this is what being middleclassed provided. When I went to uni I questioned this straitjacket because I was beginning to remove it, but now I don’t – it was a comfort. I cannot advocate the middleclassed home but all-in-all it served me well.

With regards to teen and young adult relationships I was incredibly shy and awkward – undoubtedly in part a product of being middleclassed. In my early teens I dropped opportunities for relationship learning until I left new possibilities behind as too difficult. At uni I was drunk and most undesirable. At these times wanting a relationship was a conditioned thing, it was expected to have one; the “alpha males” I looked up to at that time flitted through relationships (people I later derided as Martin Smoothchatter). I say this in part was due to my being middleclassed but I also feel the path saved me – no idea how the path did it. I can think back to times where my awkwardness prevented me from relating to some wonderful women, but women who that underdeveloped self would have adored and left that adoring self very distant from the path.

In terms of self-esteem I had that in spades because all that mattered was education. Self-love never rose at that time because I so identified with the self-esteem of academic success. But then came the upheaval that started me on the path (again I refer you to Ch 21 for details). As path is unconditional love, this of course changed everything – including with regards to relationship. I became the wandering compassion at the time confused in terms of conscious awareness, but driven by path I was just learning. To begin with love of an other wasn’t the priority although the conditioning to have a relationship was there, I still had the conditioning of the cosmic love of an other. This conditioning confused me especially as in terms of the world I was so immature but the path priority drove me through the conditioning; I still had my awkwardness that prevented formation of relationships.

Once I settled into teaching a self formed. This self was based in the path, I knew who I was and relationships happened because of who I was – the self that the path had formed. There were two women I loved, and they are important in understanding the love that is now me – now part of my path. My first love happened when the woman was still in a relationship. You have to remember that I was immature and did not understand the world. The three of us spoke about this love, my lover’s relationship fizzled out, and this erstwhile lover who I thought was a friend didn’t want to know me – I am sorry it was my immaturity. There were further barriers on my lover’s part in this love, and by the time she really started to respond to my love my love was waning. And my path and independence took over until the relationship petered out and she left London.

My second love was an absolutely intense disaster that I described as worse than Peyton Place. I deeply loved this woman and I got absolutely hammered by pain. By the end of the relationship of nearly three years I was very much an alcoholic – the relationship did not cause the drug dependency but made it worse, much worse. When we separated she still agreed to see me, but very rarely and that petered out after a further 2 or 3 years.

With both of these I had deeply loved an other, but neither lasted a lifetime. Love however did. I had experienced love and that experience meant I knew love, love was always there. And that love can best be described by this Eckhart Tolle meme:-

It was only when I was mature (since retirement) did I realise that I was grateful for how I came to know love. The pain of the second love had been internalised and lasted a long time. Maybe 8 years after the start of that relationship I was in Nyanga and managed to dig out a significant part of that pain, relived it and let it go. And then maybe three years ago I finally came to the realisation that I had loved, love was in me and that I was grateful for the women I had loved – especially the second one.

To return to Bell’s books. I never really had self love. Because I started on the path so young, there was the love that belonged to the path. The path and conditioning and lust took me into relationships (2 significant loving ones) – my path had not matured enough to go beyond this conditioning; remember, this is how I describe path:-

I never loved when I was still relating to self-esteem. When that self-esteem blew up in the upheaval there was path, I never had to love myself as Bell describes. Path is unconditioned love, to think about loving it is a dichotomy that just doesn’t apply. I developed a love of others, but the love of self didn’t apply because the path was beyond self – anatta – no-self. I can relate to the love Eckhart describes but Bell’s descriptions are based in self and in terms of love I bypassed that self mostly – I of course had self in other ways as described in Ch22 on addiction.

The following is speculation as I did not experience it. I want to try and relate to what Bell says – as she is my feminist guide. Because I was middleclassed I grew up with self-esteem but I was completely awkward – lacking in any self-esteem in terms of relationships. My conditioning turned me to drink at uni, and relationships became secondary. I had many passions, a combination of conditioning and intellectual constructs that I should love, and occasional near misses where I was lucky that my awkwardness did not allow adoration. And then came the path. I never needed self-love because I had the path. Self-love conceivably is a stage before anatta. Many never move to anatta, and self-love is an important instinct for survival as Bell describes. For me this is conjecture.

Because I loved, once the pain had passed there was conscious love in me; love that was always there emerged without much pain – intense pain for a short time.

“Native code of ethics” <– Previous Post “one Family” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Advertisements


Data mining is the latest tool used by the system to condition us. It is what you might call “bespoke advertising”. OK it’s harder now but years ago I learnt “do not listen to adverts”. What were adverts trying to do? Get me to spend money on items I didn’t necessarily want.

Let’s be clear, I do buy items that are advertised but I don’t buy because of the way they are advertised. I buy a car. From the occasional adverts I do see, is there any information in those adverts that could help me make a better decision? Am I really going to find the woman of my dreams if I buy a Lamborghini?

The political point about advertising is mindful consuming. Mindfully choose. Facebook ads – don’t click. Why am I getting all this spam? Because people click. Mindful people don’t click.

To my mind all of this furore concerning data mining can be strategically overcome by mindful consuming. What does our class control? Consuming. They want us to spend money in a certain way so don’t. If data mining puts an ad on your facebook page, never click. It is simple.

But mindful consuming as a class is far more powerful. Why does the Israeli government spend so much effort fighting the BDS movement? Because boycotting the other apartheid in South Africa contributed significantly to the changes there.

Mindfulness as mindful consuming is an attribute of the path that is beyond conditioning.

Why does this affect liberals? Because they are such avid “liberal” consumers. They want to be free to consume. Where is their sustainability when their “struggle” means being free to consume? Click-bait only works for ill-disciplined minds, be mindful of what you are doing, of how you are consuming.

The above is not contained in this excellent BAR article LINK on Cambridge Analytica. The article is good because it shows that the 1% are into data mining. It shows that what is going on with the Trump strategists is no different to Obama’s strategists, no different to Blair’s strategists, and only a development from Thatcher’s Saatchi and Saatchi.

Confront people, make them mindful, make mindful consuming a political startegy. Data mining only works with the conditioned. If we are a class in struggle then we don’t wimp out with feeble-minded click-baiting. Let facebook waste its money giving me a BAR advert ….

Or skin-lightening cream??

<– Previous Post “Frankie” Next Post “Osho and Bhagwan” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Desire, self and ego

Posted: 27/03/2018 by zandtao in Freedom
Tags:


There is much that is confusing about Eastern religions, this is not surprising as they can help people find the path that is beyond conditioning

Most significant on this path is desire, the more we desire the more potential there is for control. We want drugs, we need to buy them, we get addicted. We want alcohol, we need to buy drink, we get addicted. We want a house, the more money we need the more work we need to do, we get addicted. However deep the addiction the more we become conditioned, the less control we have.

The key to all of this is desire. Buddhism is distinct from most religious practice in that its primary purpose is to end suffering. To achieve this its two most significant dogmas are the 4 Noble Truths and paticcasamuppada, both of which are concerned with desire. It depends on which branch of Buddhism how much emphasis is placed on these dogmas.

The 4NT put simply say that there is suffering, suffering is caused by desire that leads to clinging. To end suffering we need to end clinging and there is an 8-fold path to achieve this. Paticcasamuppada looks at the situation differently by considering self and conditioning. It says self starts in ignorance. Desire attaches to an event that develops into clinging which becomes part of the conditioned self. Removing ignorance and not attaching to desire ends conditioning, ends self.

Russell’s next talk is with Frankie Boyle. The conversation is personal and professional as they are both comedians, if you like that sort of thing listen. Throughout many of his talks I hear from Russell a continued desire for addiction but a strength that says I will abstain. This abstinence is commendable but is not the solution. The solution is when there is no desire, no desire, no addiction. I don’t know whether the 12 steps contains any consideration of this.

Desire is a biggie.

However it is written down, in dogma whatever, ending desire is just so hard. But abstinence is not an end, it is an end to substance abuse but it still leaves the desire and therefore leads to some form of conditioning.

The phrase that many use is “letting go”. When the desire comes let go of it. Unfortunately the desire comes back so with substance abuse you need an additional abstinence approach. But that still leaves desire. But when desire comes back let it go again; over time the desire reduces.

Now there is additional knowledge that can help. In Russell’s case with substance abuse he has seen what it produces so that is a deterrent. Russell has seen addiction causes suffering, knowing that suffering can return is the deterrent. But desire is also part of addiction (coming before clinging), there is greater peace without desire. And it can begin to happen if when desire comes you let go.

Ayahuasca interests Russell. Buddhism has a precept that says to avoid substances that affects the mind. Russell is interested in ayahuasca because it has apparently helped people on consciousness. I suppose because of my own substance addiction, I don’t want such substances. But I trust in the path and aspects of Buddhism that help. I trust that the path will guide me so I don’t want consciousness-altering substances.

At the same time I have a feeling that such mind alteration has possible repercussions. I do feel that too much acid adversely affected some 60s people.

But I trust enough in the path and its discipline meditation.

I have desires, I am still addicted to self. But I know addiction means conditioning, and I want freedom, control so when desires come I try to let them go. It doesn’t always work but it gets better.

The second issue that distinguishes Buddhism from Hinduism has been touched on already – anatta – no self. Hinduism has a belief in reincarnation, in Buddhism reincarnation has a mixed reception. The teacher I follow, Buddhadasa, does not believe in anything, and because he cannot experience reincarnation he does not believe in it. He explains the Buddha’s teachings as existing in a milieu. The Buddha was teaching Hindus and trying to revise Hindu teaching. As such he used the same words but the concepts at times were different. Samsara can be seen as birth and death of self (paticcasamuppada) without considering reincarnation and transmigration of souls. The Buddha never tried to “explain karma”, the workings of kamma are beyond the understanding of humans. Hinduism sees reincarnation as coming back with a better lot as a reward for a previously exemplary life. This better lot is often associated with wealth and the perceived ease of life for the wealthy, and equally the difficult life of the untouchables. I am not sure of the theory but is the heinous caste system connected to reincarnation? With Buddhadasa only trusting experience and for him there being no reincarnation, kamma becomes something that can be managed. Past life trauma need not weigh us down through this if we look at kamma as something that can be detached from.

Self in Buddhism is distinct from self/Self in Hinduism. Buddhist self is a broader concept than ego but is still temporary, ego is an issue Russell knows he has to deal with, perhaps he could extend ego to self if he considered attachment to khandhas and anatta. But it is very difficult for him because of his career. Even though I like his books Revolution and Recovery, I don’t like his stage persona. My main reason for calling him a dickhead earlier was the Andrew Sachs thing, and whilst he didn’t explain in this podcast apparently it was a misunderstanding. But I still don’t find his stage persona funny. It is narcissism – ego. But that is a stage act, it is his professional career – income.

Teachers have ego leading to “better than me”. Teachers are known for “teaching” in their personal lives – it is their ego. Once I stopped teaching that ego can also disappear – although not completely as I have just alluded to. How much does Russell cling to his ego because it is his professional persona? And here is the big question, does he need the money? Does he need to cling to the ego? Could he become the Russell Brand of Revolution and Recovery? Could Under The Skin podcasts not contain all his ego-rantings, be more considered …. and perhaps Naomi would not have to pause so often? Apologies if there is judgementalism. These are not issues for me to judge, but only for me to ask questions?

But here is the rub. The ego of teaching held me back, of course wage-slavery – the world of work and its impositions – held me back far more. Being freed from that slavery gave me a chance to become who I am as I had sufficient money to survive. It must be hard for Russell to decide on this – with all that goes with it. I wonder whether there would ever be answers for him with this baggage he carries around?

But this ego is not self, self builds up from khandhas. Russell has a self that is beyond his ego that he has attached to through his conditioning. But his ego is so huge because of all the baggage that he carries with his ego, wouldn’t it be too difficult to see self? And then difficult to detach from self? It is worth considering what the khandhas are to see how we can become addicted to self. My worst is sankhara. I have always tended to overthink so was loved in academia. I was attracted back to academia to write an M Ed in my 40s, and now I wake up with a blog in mind that I must write. Yet the natural state of mind is peace, stillness and calmness. There is a place for khandhas, we cannot live without them, but as Buddhadasa promotes “remove the I and mine from the 5 khandhas” – no attachment. Am I paying too much attention to the khandhas:-

Rupa -body
vedana – feelings
sanna – memory and perceptions
sankhara – mental processes and proliferations
vinnana – consciousness (attaching to be I or not attaching to be free to follow the path?)

Do you recognise the possibility of being addicted to self? Addicted to khandhas?

When I retired early I accepted less money because I was so far from the path when working. But Russell has to be attached to far more and the decision is far more difficult. But Russell, the path is always better.

Perhaps I should be selfish, would all the good guests he attracts for Under the Skin be there if it was not the public persona of Russell Brand?

Just a final note on Frankie, my knowledge of whom is far more limited than my limited knowledge of Russell. I remember comedian Bernard Manning whose career might be described as built on racism and sexism. He was unapologetic because he was funny – most people found him funny. Frankie draws back the barriers of comedy by being shocking. I get the feeling that he would say anything if he thought it was funny – though he is correct about racism, sexism and LBGQT. Should that be enough? Especially when teaching I have found myself saying things that I shouldn’t have said because I was trying to be funny. I still do that a bit. Humour is an amazing gift, laughing is an amazing experience, should the boundaries be considered? Personally – although it doesn’t matter – I like most of Frankie’s humour but sometimes it was too much. That is of course a personal view and matters not one iota.

<– Previous Post “New or neo narrative” Next Post “data mining”–>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

[Warning – the theme of this blog u-turns.]

We are a long way from most people following the path. As a political strategy I have proposed “following the path”. All those that follow the path will not be subject to conditioning, and such freedom will be increasingly recognised as the natural human freedom.

But that will take time, and meanwhile the need for a narrative is glaring. The dilemma of automation is upon us. How can we live in a consumer society in which the 1% accumulate based on consumerism when people don’t have money. Robots have no desires, they have no self, no conditioning, they do not consume, and therefore the powerful cannot continue to accumulate.

Therefore we cannot continue with profit alone. But we cannot just make demands when we have no power. The power we have is in consuming, and that is because the powerful allow us to work, earn money and become consumers. We agree to that conditioning, and that is the normal narrative:-

If we are not working because the robot is doing our job, there is no consumerism.

1%, people know this, they are not stupid. They might knee-jerk, make stupid decisions like Trump and blaming immigrants because it is easier, but they know if the 1% don’t change and the 1% continue with the profit motive there will be no jobs no consumerism and society will implode.

If there is no consumerism then there is no wealth, where will your power be? You will continue using your wealth as society slowly withers. You will continue to pay your security, the robots will make your products, the military will fight off the 99%, and then your wealth ends you cannot pay for military, you cannot pay for robots, you wither and die.

1%, if you don’t join in the new narrative you will wither and die. Davos there is no future for you in isolation. Davos, you have to know you need consumerism. Davos you have to know you must involve people not sycophants. You want consumerism, you want profit and you want automation. It just doesn’t work.

End your addiction before it is too late for us all.

Serious disappointment. In meditation there came a neo-narrative that works.

For a narrative to work there needs to be consuming, expansion and accumulation. In the current narrative expansion and accumulation are enabled through fiat mechanisms – unsustainable currency, it is the imaginary economy that is creating new accumulation. It has been a long time since money was connected to available resources even the gold standard was not sustainable, and even that minimal protection has long since gone. Money as exchange has long been surpassed, and now money is printed that just disappears into the accumulation – as apparent wealth. We now have crypto-currencies which are completely unsustainable, and even have no pretence at sustainability; they exist purely on the basis of confidence. But then much of our economic system is an act of faith – ask Yanis.

There is a traditional illusion in our current narrative that money is connected to productivity but there is no reason for faith in that illusion to continue. With robot automation there is no need for productivity only the skills for maintenance and creativity for development. Most people would be allocated “entitlement” probably chip-based (RFID). This entitlement would have two properties – survival and choice. The survival entitlement would provide a certain amount of stability, money flowing into government paying rent etc. Then there would be choice to enable crime (enterprise?).

Entitled people would live in ghettoes (projects council estates) that would be intentionally divided to create tension and division – probably based around race but these ghettoes would include white people; deplorables LINK know they are heading there. Crime would be a way out of these ghettoes for a few. Miseducation (conditioning) would ensure the continuation of these ghettoes (in much the same way that wage-slavery is continued now), but there would be a way out for the creative; that would be the secondary purpose of this miseducation – to find the creative and enable their escape.

They would escape to the middle-classes – Liberals. These would be the people who would enable production through the maintenance of automation. They would be rewarded with greater entitlement and greater choice over their money – probably still RFID-based. These middle-classes would provide the enterprise and expansion and therefore increased consuming that would enable the continued accumulation.

There will of course be wars. These wars would be resource-based such as with the Congo and Middle East now. And with the increased ghettoisation will be targeted on “other” ghettoes. Whilst there would be continuous Liberal outcry at these wars, this will just be rhetoric as the Liberals will continue in their separate middle-class enterprise habitats.

The accumulators will have their enclaves protected by private security.

This neo-narrative can be conditioned and is not significantly different from our current narrative.

There will always be the path, and there will be far-off places – communes where people on the path can take refuge. Many on the path would of course work to improve humanity (as they do now) but to what avail? As now.

The call is still:-

Accumulators, end your addiction before it is too late for us all. But sadly that call has no immediacy as I had hoped for when I first started this examination of a new narrative based on the robot imperative.

<– Previous Post “Beyond narratives” Next Post “Frankie” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Fear Delusion and Responsibility

Posted: 10/03/2018 by zandtao in Insight, Struggle, War
Tags:


In this blog I attacked the white middle-classes that I grew up in, and whilst they need a jolt my criticism was not accurate. I accused them of contributing to the war devastation of the 1% because of their greed and delusion. I think the accusation of greed is unfair.

OK the white English middle-classes have more than their fair share when compared to the poor in Bangladesh, this is an unreasonable comparison. And to be honest the money that most middle-class people have accumulated is not the issue. Whilst they might well be greedy and seeking more, the money they have does pale in comparison to the 1%. Just one of the 1% has the wealth of 100000 or maybe a million of the middle classes I am critical of. No matter what the egos of these middle-class might tell them the interests of these people lie with the class that is not 1% – 99% or proletariat.

It is much fairer not to describe these people as being particularly greedy but more that they are afraid of losing their bit. It is this fear that dominates their approach. Their fear of losing their bit formulates their political approach. They accept the devastation the 1%-economy creates globally for their two up-and-down, sanctuary from the poor, sanctuary from starving and sanctuary from racial disharmony. Their racism is institutional or cultural. The system provides them with a set of myths that threaten their homes and way of life, big black guys raping daughters, hordes of Muslims riding camels through their backyards, swirling scimitars and stealing garden gnomes. For most of these people they have not been hurt by the results of racial tension, bullying at school, mugging etc, but the fear for their home translates to fear of blacks – racism etc.

This fear fires acceptance of the delusions that enables the stability of the current system, enables the continued accumulation by the 1%. Their fear connects change with loss of their way of life so whatever change is mooted on whatever moral grounds it is rejected, they accept delusional arguments for stability rather than change.

A major consequence of this fear and delusion is what is done in their name. It is governments of western democracies (NATO) that are spreading war and terror globally. Whilst I consider Blair an evil man – and guilty of war crimes, he only did the same as every other British leader; he got the British people sufficiently in line to support the Americans in the Gulf. The middle-classes didn’t particularly want to support the Americans but they went along with it because it was the system and stability that mattered the most to them. The deaths were not as important. Their fear and delusion allowed them to give responsibility for their actions in a democracy to a government that was not acting for them.

The whole basis of their way of life is tied in with this abdication of responsibility. They would never do such things but the Americans can, soldiers can, mercenaries can. Their fear is disenfranchising, their vote has no component of compassion, their view is limited to keeping their way of life at almost any cost. As a result they hand over their moral integrity, their human responsibility to governments whose actions enable 1%-accumulation primarily through war-for-profits.

Greed is a small factor in sourcing the problem. Whilst many middle-classes would choose greater wealth and would be prepared to work for greater wealth. It is more a question of losing what they have that drives them into accepting the delusions stability offers them. For the promise of stability they give away their moral integrity and human responsibility to leaders who enable 1%-accumulation. Middle-classes are not free from greed but that is not the primary mover like I said here.

<– Previous Post “Middle-classed” Next Post “Embracing path” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


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

sense experiences, behaviour, memories, perceptions, thoughts and ideas.
emotion
desire
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.


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.

Conditioning – Two Childhoods

Posted: 19/09/2017 by zandtao in Buddhadasa, Insight, Struggle
Tags: ,


Having recognised that in my following the path there has been two childhoods, there has to be a recognition of implications.

I have described these childhoods as system and spiritual. We could describe the system upbringing as conditioning, education or miseducation, and likewise for spiritual. Firstly let me state that these childhoods did not follow one from the other but ran in a sense in parallel. However hitting bottom and following the path was primarily although not exclusively concerned with the system conditioning …. in my case.

Even though I describe the consequence in spiritual terms – following the path, awareness of the process at the time was concerned with systemic education. It was based on the rejection of academia and the rejection of the world of work that academia had led me into. But immediately I rejected the academia, I began to follow a spiritual path. Following the path led to experiences, led to consideration of what spiritual life meant, and led to a removing of systemic conditioning or moving beyond systemic conditioning – mostly.

In this blog I discussed two conditionings perceiving difference between East and West. Yet I also say in the blog that there is only one conditioning, that the systemic conditioning is contained within the spiritual conditioning. In spiritual terms (Buddhist) attachments, to desire – greed – and a false theory – the 1%-system, create a miseducation that conditions us into the way of life the system offers – that benefits the 1%. Included within these attachments are intellectual adherence to academic knowledge and an acceptance that we should compete for more money as a rationale for working. Yet this is not all that is in our upbringing. Whilst I consider this as miseducation, this upbringing as education teaches us organisation and basics without which we could not function in any society. But why our education should teach us to function within a 1%-capitalist-system is purely a matter of exploitation – conditioning and miseducation, and is not concerned with our human development in society or spiritually – compassion.

It is important to see how instinct fits into this conditioning. Instinct is nature’s survival, we cling to our mothers, we have a procreational instinct, and generally have survival instincts. Over time these instincts fall out of necessary use, or at least are intended to, but this does not suit the 1% who benefit from manipulating a social imbalance that propagates these instincts. Particularly the sex instinct continues far beyond its natural end integrated with socialising that connects wealth, fame, sexual imagery and exploitation.

Spiritually, what does our upbringing do? Fundamentally it creates I. Using the 5 khandas (aggregates) as that which constitutes a human, then our spiritual miseducation conditions us into attaching to these khandas, and through that attachment creating selves that during our upbringing we aggregate as I (in Buddhism this is generally discussed as anatta). Within this attachment and aggregation is an acceptance of greed and the 1%-system of war and wage-slavery.

By moving beyond our systemic upbringing, we can see the conditioning into the competitive money ethic and the world of work as a process of creating a delusion that we adhere to. By moving beyond our spiritual upbringing, we see that the conditioning that creates attachment and ultimately the self creates a delusion where we are trapped in I. By moving beyond the spiritual conditioning we can experience genuine freedom, by moving beyond the systemic conditioning we can see that this war and wage-slavery now function for the benefit of the 1%. Moving beyond systemic conditioning does not mean we then become free from spiritual conditioning, hence why I consider I had two childhoods. I described the childhoods as one following the other but after hitting bottom and starting to follow the path there was still much systemic conditioning to remove and I hadn’t really begun to think about spiritual conditioning.

What do these conditionings mean? Discussion of 1%-conditioning is common-place usually using rhetoric such as capitalist exploitation – or the like. However spiritual conditioning is rarely discussed generally except in Buddhist or similar circles. How does this esoteric discussion of anatta impact on people? Eckhart Tolle discusses the pain body regularly, this is an attachment to pain – creating a pain self that impacts on our thinking. I regularly harp on about the intellect or an intellectual self, people especially academics cling to this self, expect compliance to intellectual processes, and do not see the importance of higher mental developments (bhavana) such as insight or other benefits gained as described in Anapanasati pp79-81 [8) What is the benefit of concentration?]. The intellect through its own need to survive cannot conceive of thinking higher than its own, a typical characteristic of self. Following the path helps us understand the impact of these selves, moving beyond “spiritual” conditioning helps us to deal with these selves.

Previously in discussion I tend to have been associated with awareness of systemic conditioning – being against the 1%. In reality I am arguing against all conditioning including the conditioning by selves – that above I have called spiritual conditioning. Politically I have promoted compassion as a unifying approach (blogpost and Unity Platform), in this context compassion means freedom from suffering brought about by conditioning (the spiritual that includes systemic). Recognising two childhoods means a change to looking at conditioning rather than just the system, and even more sees the importance of compassion as a benchmark.

Finally it is interesting to consider conditioning. It is normal to perceive an agency that conditions – such as the 1%-system. The 1%-system has a clear purpose – conditioning for profit. But what is the purpose of spiritual conditioning? Who gains? It is nature’s purpose – Idapaccayata. By recognising the suffering caused by conditioning, we can enjoy the happiness that comes from moving beyond conditioning – spiritual including systemic. This is why we follow the path. Further by recognising that all conditioning is part of “spiritual” conditioning we learn how to be free of it, it is attachment – just let go. Don’t buy into it, just let go.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

The Path – Outside?

Posted: 07/11/2016 by zandtao in Freedom, Insight, Meditation, Struggle
Tags:


From way back when I was an outsider – even when I didn’t know it. Growing up I was a shadow, there was social participation but never commitment. I more or less conformed to what conditioning required but never with any determination. I remember upsetting my grandmother because I wasn’t interested in my studies, from what I recall when I said I would do enough to get through she cried. I had no determination, more exactly there was no motivation.

Somewhat romantically I associate this undisciplined approach to school as the Path, learning at school was necessary for some form of social conformity, survival or job attainment but it had limited connection to Nature – to the Path. Then as now there is little connection between what we learn at school and what is required for maturity – the Path. There have been times in my life where genuine study has dominated – including being a major motivation for early retirement; as I got older I was too tired from work and there was only time to study during the holidays.

The Path being outside what we learn at school, or what we are expected to conform to, is a reality that we must come to terms with; hence the Path and conditioning have little connection. Having said that we are conditioned when young – whoever we are, and as adults we are subjected to media barrage no matter how reclusively we live our lives. So even following the Path brings with it conditioning but being an outsider helps. Despite being a teacher, the very essence of whose job is promoting conformity, whatever my heart wanted me to do, my non-working self, was always concerned with the Path.

When I first hit bottom I gravitated to the Outside, those alternatives to the mainstream who make some attempt at non-conformity; most notably this was with the Arts Centre. Two things drew me back from the alternate. First of all my creativity was limited, and was not the driving force it was in others. Secondly once my time on the Path was sufficiently entrenched I sought compassion in my life, a compassion that eventually led to education as a means of amelioration of general suffering – as opposed to care helping others to cope. But the very nature of the job made me an outsider within a profession that imparted conformity, a profession that was a key conditioner along with the media and community upbringing including family.

The Path makes you an Outsider, the depth of the pervading conditioning means that overcoming conditioning moves one towards the Outside. To a certain extent this has advantages, overcoming conditioning gives one an edge. Seeing what is happening for what it is provides a choice. It introduces questions of integrity and compromise that don’t always exist for others. Such questioning leads to an understanding of conditioning, and helps move beyond it.

By considering “being an outsider” I am attempting to consider how to recognise and overcome conditioning – how to transcend to maturity. As an outsider I am basically saying that to a great extent I am outside conditioning. Within conditioning people accept community conformity and community pressure – I include family in this conforming process. As an outsider there is less pressure but there is usually pressure to conform to the “outside community”. This usually involves an “outside mindset” such as Icke-ism, replacing the mindset of our conditioning process with a new mindset is an improvement but very soon becomes a restriction. This is not a process of maturing to freedom but is simply adding a less conditioned chain keeping us within a conformed process. What matters is a complete rejection of any mindset, and replacing it with complete enquiry; and with that enquiry comes maturity and freedom.

Achieving that state of enquiry is obviously extremely difficult and requires continuous attention. The three agencies of conformity are family and community, media and education. When you consider these agencies you are always in contact with them, in other words you are always being asked to conform. It therefore requires great strength and conviction not to be pulled back into the conditioned existence that you have been hoping to transcend. It is no wonder monastics choose to take refuge. Spiritual transcendence brings with it strength and conviction that gives one a fighting chance, political transcendence less so because socio-political transcendence is much more intellectual – concerned with social assessment and does not have the conviction of spiritual insight, the strength that can prevent us from being swayed by the three agencies.

We are never free from the battle that is conditioning, and to understand this brings with it an awareness that is forewarning. Taking refuge, being a recluse, being an outsider, travelling are all means of separating from conditioning, but conditioning is a battle won beyond the mind – in transcendence. If we are fortunate enough to experience transcendence, then meditation is the tool that can help us. Through focus and insight, the mind can cut through the condition with deep enquiry that will free it – maintaining a transcendent state of mind. But this has to be ongoing because daily life through the 3 agencies is always trying to recondition. Energy work can strengthen the mind whilst a healthy body will not bring unwarranted distractions of disease etc.

But desire also brings problems that can lead to conditioning, how can lust not demean a man’s view of a woman and of himself however much love and respect is involved? BigFood manipulates food craving through taste additives such as MSG and refined sugar, and if we give in to those desires we provide the basis within our bodies for degenerative disease. With advertising the corporatocracy tries to manipulate desires to condition you into consuming. Human existence requires homes, food and water, which early humans got for free. Now the corporations make our food, a substantial amount of our income is spent on homes, and water is becoming increasingly expensive. Then our society develops (supposedly more civilised when we are not creating wars), and there becomes more essentials. Tax that pays for education and our transport, although perhaps we should say tax for wars and business infrastructure – whilst corporations avoid tax. In times of pure surviving, we used our time and energy to survive (home and food etc), now that we are more civilised we use our time and energy to earn money to pay for the so-called advantages of civilisation. This is wage-slavery for most, as few have any time to pursue their own interests outside the workplace. And yet cursory observation sees the few gaining huge amounts of money that brings with it leisure time and other advantages that can be bought. We are conditioned to accept this, yet why we accept it is really beyond belief. The level of conditioning that requires such acceptance is very high.

Can we see through conditioning from the inside? Only to some extent. Within we are expected to conform to conditioning, to a certain extent that conformity allows for certain leeway – some people are less sexist and racist than others. But whilst people are tied to conformity, their fear of being different prevents them from becoming sufficiently aware to transcend.

Therefore transcendence means trying to help people become outsiders. There are mechanisms that help towards that. Travelling is one such way, the sort of travelling that takes one outside one’s own society, and puts people in positions where they can see what their society is truly about. Of course within this there is a tremendous pull with the love of one’s family and the pull of the familiar that you grew up with and know. Being pulled back is easier in the short term, but because that pull leads to the restriction of conformity it is not easier in the long run. Yet for most travelling doesn’t do it, and it becomes a chance lost as the community conforms you once again. There is of course no simple way out. Spiritual teachings help, conflict in one’s own community – a conflict that stems from you being in the right, and the 1% and the conforming forces are in the wrong. For some study helps to see society for what it is, but intellectual comprehension is not enough the depth and conviction of insight are essential for genuine transcendence. Political activists deride spiritual people as the activists replace the conformity of their upbringing with conformity to the new restrictive mindset. The spiritual experience is often seen as transcendence yet those same spiritual have not developed political transcendence, perhaps because political activists who have transcended to some extent have not learnt the importance of peace etc.; the spiritual deride the political and this derision could tarnish the need to transcend politically as well.

Refuge is such an obvious answer but is the refuge free from conditioning? Does the refuge conform you to a new mindset or does it bring transcendence? Does the peace and tranquillity usually associated with refuges prevent one from seeing the conflicts and disadvantages that social conformity brings? Does the emphasis on the spiritual dogma prevent you from giving time to socio-political considerations? And do the institutional restrictions, such as charitable status and pandering to the rich because they donate more, prevent the refuge from being a place where socio-political understanding can occur? Can a renunciate understand socio-politically when they are not wage-slaves? Whilst taking refuge has many characteristics of “removing conditioning”, it is not 100% so.

Throughout all our societies exist outsiders. People’s Paths take them all over, and can lead them to make homes in new communities. Like Chinese monks they can be at the tops of mountains or on islands. But they are not likely to be where they should be – as elders and leaders. Yet even as outsiders their wisdom has influence because the conformed see wisdom in these people even though the conditioning prevents them from internalising this wisdom to any great extent. That is the way of wisdom and conditioning for the mature person who has transcended the conditioning and reached some freedom.

Embrace the Outside, can the Path be any other way?

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.