Ø     We are extraordinarily prone to hurt and humiliation because the images and ideas making up who we are and who we think we are supposed to become, are easily disregarded, misperceived or openly violated by others; others who are, themselves, acting on behalf of their own overwrought (and, therefore, equally vulnerable) sense of a personal past, present and future. Because our very psychological existence depends on identification with a particular self image, when this image is disregarded or attacked the remedy sought lies always in the modified re-affirmation of the separate existence and chosen destiny of the self. That is, we respond to feelings of hurt by somehow increasing the energy and resources invested to defend, reform, expand and re-assert this same image, over and against the opinion and actions of others expressing themselves at the behest of their own self images. In this habitual maneuver of expansive self-defense the sense of separation of the individual from others, from society and from life itself ―the psychological estrangement which is the deepest source of all our mental and much of our physical suffering― is granted new strength and continuity. We go on doing this, even though this life-long series of successive presumptive remedies adopted in self-defense or for personal gain does not ever guarantee anything other than an extension of the familiar cycle of loss, struggle, and humiliation intercalated with ephemeral pleasures.
Nations arm themselves to defend their material and ideological treasures from the real or imagined threat posed by the armed greed of other nations, and we as individuals do pretty much the same. Accustomed to the reality created by this interactive cycle of fear, ambition and violence, we fail to see the many clues indicating that the only real solution to the immense problem of alienation and suffering lies in the disintegration of the insubstantial images and ideas fleshing out and animating the past, present and future of the personal and tribal self. (32)

Ø     What is psychological hurt? What hurts one and who is this one who gets hurt? ―”I” have a lot of images and ideas describing who I am, and an important part of this identity is wrapped around further mental constructs portraying what I am supposed to become in the near or distant future. Consequently, any action on the part of others perceived as contradicting or blocking the internally assigned reality of the self (past, present and future), produces hurt or fear or both, plus a whole host of other reactions associated with these fundamental emotions. Put differently, the self is psychologically wounded whenever others with their words, actions or omissions do not corroborate —or, worse yet, when they actively disparage— the self-projective image it holds of itself. The self image is totally subjective. There is no universally accepted value scale on which different individuals can be appropriately and justly stacked in order of importance. The most wretched of slaves may be contemptuous of the most powerful, intelligent, beautiful and saintly master. The stupidest, most uneducated fool can ridicule and probably offend the most refined intellectual. And the contempt from those at the top towards those at the bottom needs not even be mentioned, it is so prevalent and obvious. Not many seem free from identification with a positive, negative or mixed self-reflecting image. And no one possessed by a self-referential image is exempt from suffering; the suffering that comes, not just from the bad attitudes and harsh words and actions of others, but also from the inevitable fear and frustration built into idealized self images impossible to realize and, beyond all that, from the inevitable gradual or sudden loss of everything the self may claim, possess and desire.

Which brings us to an essential question that arises from the most perfunctory observation of the massive incidence of psychological suffering hounding humanity: Can the contradictory set of images and ideas with which the self regards and projects itself within the framework of psychological time, dissolve or die? And if it can, who might be the entity carrying out the hit job? Is the self different from the mental constructs with which it is identified and from which both pleasure and pain are derived? Can an act of will emanating from the self eradicate the fraud and eliminate the one carrying it out? Can one part of the psyche have total power over another as if it were totally independent and in charge of it? Or is the self indistinguishable from its image of itself and the rest of the conscious, unconscious and half-conscious mind?
Can you and I be totally free of any identification with anything else positive or negative and, being as nothing, still survive in this insane world in which personal images are constantly being erected, defended, attacked and often enough violently destroyed along with the bodies that bear them as horses bear riders? (33)

Ø     If thought is but the response of memory as it meets actuality and the self not at all apart or different from memory and its projection through thoughtful desire then, clearly, there is no independent entity inside the skull fully responsible for thinking. Thought runs in every brain as blood runs in every circulatory system, and part of the general structure of thought is this presumably independent entity ―the “me”― with its conviction of being separate from and, somehow, in charge of perceiving, thinking and feeling. Thought can be relatively correct and rational when concerned with the application of fairly objective knowledge to the practical challenges of everyday life but, as we all sadly know, terribly flawed when attempting to meet, through the application of subjective knowledge, the challenges of relationship and mental suffering. For example, it is clearly useful to have gathered practical experience and at least some theoretical knowledge about internal combustion engines if one's car happens to stop running one day. But knowledge accumulated about oneself is generally useless or even dangerous when it comes to overcoming depression, kicking an addiction, or eliminating the memory of past humiliations that may be eliciting behavior hurtful to someone else. Thought often likes to pretend to itself and others that it is in the process of solving one problem or another, but pretense and gradual reaction is mere cover up for inaction.
There are, then, problems relatively independent from thought that thought has great potential to resolve; but when self-protective and self-projective thought is itself the problem, the record of correction is abysmally bad.

Despite all the great variety of individual psychological profiles and the nearly infinite creativity fueling hypocrisy and self-delusion, there is a single “operating system” or basic programming at work in just about every single human brain. It is the rivulet of unique individuality supported by particular memories, desires, feelings and physical sensations that, paradoxically prevents us from seeing the wide river of psychological commonality running deep within us. Unwilling to see who we really are and permanently caught in a rapid current of confusion, arrogant self-deception, conflict and suffering interspersed with occasional pleasure and joy, we endlessly renew our dedication to the effort necessary to defend and expand ourselves in the direction set by preordained plans for self-fulfillment. And the difficulties encountered in the struggle to become personally better than what we actually are, are often enough compounded by the resistance with which others generally oppose our additional efforts to induce, seduce or force them to change in a manner more pleasing to our claims and goals. Needless to say, regardless of how hard we try to change our behavior and that of others, our efforts remain not just isolated, superficial and inadequate, but endlessly compounding what is already the great muddleheadedness and violence of human thought as a whole.

In a certain sense it could be said that personal and tribal hypocrisy is worse than the general psychological facts underlying the conditioned human psyche. This, because the personal cover-up of our common mental ground in dysfunctional thoughts and actions, makes a real correction impossible. Were we not self-blinding hypocrites and, therefore, aware of where the root of the problem lies, our brains would act instantly and with the same intelligence demonstrated in the solution of immensely complicated, but more objective problems. But we are hypocrites and mental laggards trapped in the bias and self-protective maneuvers of the self, and so we learn to live with our chronic mental problems and make a virtue of our suffering.

If I think, for example, that I am not violent, then I may strive to cure others of their perhaps more apparent hostility, and do so violently which does not say much about my alertness, let alone my sense of forbearance. And if there is some degree of acknowledgment of the violence in me, this acknowledgment is generally not content to stay with the fact and let it tell its own story in full, but rather triggers the effort to overcome violence as though it were somehow external to the entity that may whisper to itself: “This violence is ruining my self-image.” The presence in each and everyone of us of harmful collective traits such as fear, aggressiveness and a marked proclivity towards habit and illusion, is there to see for anyone who cares to look. But we fall time and time again for the nearly universal deception that makes us think, not only that we are substantially different from others and perhaps better, but also that we are in charge of our own process of perfectibility (if not theirs, as well).
The domination of the psyche by an all important personal and tribal narrative always in the process of gradually improving itself and its circumstances, prevents us from seeing that, despite all our endless intellectual, technological and religious posturing, we have not really evolved as much as we generally like to think.

Now, to face this enormous fact, to look at oneself and in a single glance see the blinding multifaceted hypocrisy and brutality of the species as a whole, is not so much a step in the right “evolutionary” direction, as an instantaneous collapse of the lie of separate and endlessly perfectible personal and tribal existence. This radical break in psychological continuity, this abrupt and complete depersonalization of the brain/mind, ends the waste of energy implicit in the myriad maneuvers of self-expansion and self-defense meant to diminish or avoid suffering. Real intelligence is not just the correct application of adequate knowledge to the right problem, it is rather full and accurate perception instantly demolishing the unnecessary effort, and the fear and sorrow that are the essence of the deceptive and ever procrastinating self. (34)

Ø     In order to claim a separate existence, a unique identity and the capacity of giving both a progressively better shape, one has to think oneself the measure of all things. In order to boast a life of one's own, one has to be altogether blind to life itself or, at least, feel that it is something outside oneself—as we often feel the “environment” to be. Tragically, for most of us life as a whole has only the meaning that the extent of our successes or failures impart on it which is, of course, not only absurd but also terribly dangerous. (35)

Once no longer isolated, bamboozled and exhausted by tribalism and personalism of any kind, the mind is free of subjective judgment or preferential discrimination and, therefore, acutely aware of things as they actually are. The free mind is alone although not lonely or disconnected. It is alone in the sense of not being burdened by any source of particular identification with its attendant compulsive desire for status and privilege. The central source of conflict and pain has been traced all the way back to the psycho-social fragmentation of humanity and to the psyche itself as a particular manifestation of the general accumulation, personalization and idealized projection of recorded experience and other forms of acquired subjective knowledge. And because there is no longer any attempt to display, defend or further any imaginary personal or tribal treasure, there is a modicum of equanimity and silence in the mind.

When one is as nothing and, therefore, no longer harboring any intention of becoming something else, perception is quiet, wide and intense. In a psychic field no longer spearheaded by the “me” entity observing and attempting to utilize or keep at bay manifestations of “not-me”, the subject/object divide fades away. There is no longer an observer separate from what is observed. Life is one. (36)

Ø     As the situation of the world grows progressively more confused and conflictive, people everywhere desperately entrench themselves further within respective tribes and traditions. To save themselves, they feel, it is imperative to defend the knowledge they share based on exclusive experience. Different groups created through our common individual need for identification with particular interests, meanings and values, continue to compete or violently clash with one another wasting incalculable energy, time and resources and engendering vast suffering in the process. The past is conflict, the present is conflict, and through blind commitment to our exclusive personal and tribal versions of the past, the present and the future, we make sure that every conceivable tomorrow will be more of the same.
Caught in this permanent struggle for pleasure, resources and position, and anxious to grab and play significant roles on any number of different levels and sectors of society, we remain unaware and disregard out of hand the possibility of being ―no, not of being― we disregard the simple possibility of attentive but passive perception of life itself as the unimaginable context of contexts within which all the intrapsychic and interpersonal dramas and traumas rocking humanity at every moment, are truly insignificant.

“I can only hope,” he said to his friend, “that if I am by the side of your bed as you die, I will not have to witness your frustration at not having found this 'master switch' you think will lead to an entirely different form of being human.” The friend answered: “You still do not understand what is it that I am trying to convey. Please, listen carefully. First of all, there is no such master switch, for that would presume a separate entity reaching out to turn it on or off. There is nothing in this world or in a hypothetical other world that we can depend on to save ourselves, and that is precisely what must be realized. The central issue is not whether there is enlightenment or not. What truly matters is whether or not the limitations of self-centered thought can be fully seen without attempting to resist or transcend them through new images and ideas representing less restrictive limits or eventual liberation. Any and all efforts designed to escape or transcend personal suffering constitutes one more instance of, and serves nothing but, the mechanical continuity of the same egotistical frame of mind. Our most immediate truth is the seeming sliver of what is actual and perceptible without the intermediation of self-centered thought. Thus any desire and effort to gain access to a predetermined and preferred outcome outside this immediate truth, simply sinks us further into the pseudo-evolutionary process of the isolated and barren entities we all know as our selves.
I am sure you can see that there is no point in spending one’s whole energy in pursuing improved versions of the original illusion of a separate and self-centered existence. The ground of our presence in the universe might not be primarily in the personalized psychic field, but in life itself, and we cannot reach the unthinkable infinity of life as a whole through thought which is, by definition, limited and fragmented.” To this unfashionably earnest speech, his friend responded with a sarcastic smile and these words: “I've got to go. I really cannot make sense of what you are saying but, as they say, I will defend to death anyone's right to say anything they want. By!” (37)

Ø     There is, first of all, the rather obvious realization that one’s brain and psyche have been conditioned by the selective memorization of one’s biographical experience, and the equally selective memorization of the historical/cultural context within which personal experience takes place. Then, there is a related awakening to a couple of other essential facts. First, that this mental conditioning by experience recorded as personal knowledge is the lot of every human being that has ever lived and, perhaps, that will ever live. And, second, that each and every particular case of psycho/cultural conditioning has a common ground in the pre-personal experience that dates back to the animal and beyond and that underpins the mental reality of the species as a whole. If incisive beyond mere words, these realizations immediately destroys one's sense of uniqueness. We are indeed fruit of the same tree, our brains have been deeply and equally imprinted by all the events that preceded our particular personal appearance on the planet. Witness if not the presence in everyone’s brain (and experience of life) of fundamental instincts, drives and proclivities. Who is free of sexuality, fear, jealousy, anger, ambition and anguish? Who is not beholden to the fundamental events and processes of the life cycle of the human organism? Who is not a willing or unwilling servant to the master drive mechanically attempting to avoid discomfort and pain and just as mechanically chasing after physical and, especially, after psychological pleasure?

When our fundamental similarity is finally seen, that perception makes risible the importance we habitually grant our differences and the overwrought sense of personal or tribal uniqueness derived from them. The physical and psychological imprint of previous pre-personal, cultural and biographic experience is so pervasive, deep and tenacious, that any positive effort anyone can make to alter or escape from it will only further isolate the self and further fragment the species by adding to the number of conflicting pseudo-solutions leading to nothing but new versions of the same superficiality, antagonism and sorrow we are already quite familiar with. To open one's eyes is to see that everyone is fundamentally the same as everyone else and, therefore, indistinguishable from the social reality that has been and continues to be created by this atomized and conditioned psyche endlessly sustaining itself through the projection of trivial modifications of itself.

There is no sense in moving away from the reality of who we actually are for the simple reason that it is precisely our effort to become better or someone else altogether, that keeps the same conditioned mindset in place, suffering, and making others suffer as well. If the incapacity of the self to change itself in any truly significant way is clearly seen, then the mind itself stops breaking up and struggling against itself in the always futile attempt to realize a different and improved state of consciousness. And, what happens to a mind no longer torn by the unsolvable conflict between the actual and the ideal self? That is the real question and any theoretical, image and idea-based, answer to it is obviously incorrect. (38)

Ø     There is a great blessing granted when the equality among human beings becomes apparent. Envy, hatred, frustration, fear and ambition only come to an end when the incessant ranking of oneself vis-à-vis others has also come to an end. (39)

Ø     The only illumination we need is pure and simple: It lies in seeing that one is, fundamentally, the same as everybody else; a common result of the ways of the world and the way in which the human psyche has evolved, first, within the fold of nature, and then splitting off from life on the wings of self-knowledge guided, erratically, by its own tribal and personal volition. That insight revealing simultaneously the plight and the impotence of the conditioned and self-centered mind, instantaneously resolves the conflict implicit in being who one actually is while simultaneously attempting to become some else, someone better. No longer weighted down by odious and misleading psychological comparisons and the internal and interpersonal conflict they engender, the mind quiets down and smarts up in an impersonal and attentive silence that is in itself equanimity, intelligence and love. (40)

Ø     The human being flowers not by yearning for and struggling to reach what he covets but, rather, by dispassionately, simply, seeing all that is there to be seen and, in that very perception, instantly moving away from what is false and illusory. The truth cannot be an object of desire, because what is fed with what is already known, can never deliver what is utterly beyond knowledge. Try searching the Internet for the truth. (41)

Ø    What we think has a lot more to do with the limitations of the way we perceive and know than with the unthinkable depth of truth. Knowledge generally does not take into consideration the bottomless ocean of ignorance on which it floats, even though what we ignore is infinitely greater than what we happen to know, personally and tribally. The truth is not at all knowable. Better said, knowledge is not be the correct way to approach the truth. Why suspect this? —If truth is the infinite totality ―perhaps what could, not without some hesitation, be called the sacred― then it is absurd to imagine ourselves as a disparate collection of presumably independent entities experiencing different versions of this truth. And, yet, that is exactly our present reality: the human mind in all its insane fragmentation standing outside infinity, reducing it to images and concepts, committing these to memory in multiple and contradictory ways and forms, and thus shrinking and distorting the truth to the scale and according to the egotistical purposes of the separate and conditioned personal and tribal self. (43)

 Ø     Awareness of my personal ignorance and of the irremediable proprietary ignorance of the million splinters into which humanity has divided itself, hallows me out. Awareness of the gravity and interconnectedness of human problems and of the futility of my and others' actions regarding their solution, also hallows me out. The thin and brittle walls of the self collapse under the pressure of this powerful inner vacuum. And the sense of psychological time created by hope, project and effort, suddenly disappears. Self centered and self projecting thought comes to a definitive stop along with all its attendant conflicts and contradictory hopes. All that remains is the impersonal brain function that is essential to safeguard, when at all possible, the physical well-being of the organism. Where the chatter of the world and of the self used to boom and echo, there is now silence. Not a manufactured, worked-for or meditated-for, silence that would be but yet another product of self-centered thought, but an unprecedented and ever unknowable silence. (44)

Ø    In many ways we chose to be who we actually are from day to day, but generally we also chose to simultaneously improve ourselves, to become better, more successful or someone else altogether. Although coming from the same general background of recorded experience and accumulated practical knowledge, these opposed psychological choices have their own particular character, their own limited point of view and their own limited projections. The result is continued mental strife and confusion, as well as the ever present possibility of painful interpersonal problems.
There is an alternative to a mind torn between what it actually is and what it wants to become, but that alternative is not a choice, It cannot be attained through an act of will, for it implies an end to both being and becoming; a radical negation of all past, present or future points of view and, therefore, a mode of existence devoid of a fixed frame of mind shaped and expanded by personal and cultural experience and prolonged by predetermined desire. (45)

Ø     Can the mind detach itself from the sense of separate existence and the time frame forced upon it by self-centered thought? That is, can the mind free itself from the pre-historic and historical matrix of the species and from the biographical context of the self? And if there is freedom from any attempt to regress or progress along the lines of those two closely related and equally constrained vectors, is there suffering and is there self? (46)

Ø    What I think of life, what I want or fear from it, has nothing to do with life. Life is totally independent from and inaccessible to thought. To say that one knows or understands life is like saying that one has swallowed both the Atlantic and the Pacific in a single gulp. (47)

Ø    We all seem to be permanently engaged in the struggle to find personal fulfillment through the attainment of very different goals. Given the extremely low rate of success and the extremely negative consequences of participating in the general struggle for self-realization, it is more than licit to ask why is it that we continue offering ourselves as propitious sacrifice ourselves on the altar of secular or spiritual success? —Why could we not be, not merely satisfied, but as one with the life we all equally share? Are the goals of hypothetical self-realization not futile escapes from who we actually are at every moment? And if down deep we are nothing in ourselves, if our unknowing minds are one with a living wholeness that has no parts —are all our attempts to find exclusive fulfillment not only wrongheaded, but also condemned to produce frustration, conflict and fear, instead? Are the images and ideational forms held in memory and then modified and projected onto the future by egocentric thought what, in giving illusory substance and undue attention to the self, block from sight the fundamental moment by moment emptiness of the mind? And, is not the unavoidable failure and constant reinstatements of all our contradictory attempts to assert ourselves and our particular groups of reference, what creates a reality of permanent distress and violence for everyone? (48)

Ø     Corporatism has created a false sense of globalization. Life, which is not just global but infinite, has no nationality, faith or brand, and it cares nothing about personal identity and the fulfillment of personal or corporate ambitions. The future of humanity clearly depends on our ability to attain an extremely high level of harmonious and intelligent collaboration; one that evidently will never result from one faction or tribe triumphing over all others and subordinating them to its particular ideology and objectives.
The fate of our children and of the children of their children depends on a critical number of attentive individuals irrevocably setting aside today the personal and cultural attachments from which our illusory sense of separate existence and manifest destiny are dangerously derived. (50)

Ø     Thought is an impersonal function of the brain that can be admirably efficient in the application of previous experience to the solution of practical problems. This much is clear. What is much more difficult to discern is why other aspects of the experience of the species have also been systematically internalized through a sustained processes of linked tribalization and personalization that, at this stage of our history, not only continues to create suffering, but may prove to be ultimately lethal for humanity as a whole. Put differently, the extraordinary human ability to commit experience to memory in increasingly complex and pliable forms of additive knowledge capable of intelligently responding to the demands of different and yet unknown circumstances, has perverted itself through the acquisition of separate, self-sustaining and conflictive tribal and personal identity. To make matters even worse, the impersonal knowledge that is clearly an essential tool with immense potential for diminishing human suffering, when placed at the service of misguided tribal and personal goals, becomes instead an endless source of strife and pain without any substantial capacity for self-rectification. Witness, if not, the monstrous consequences of putting some of the greatest insights of science at the service of aggressive forms of political, economic, religious and, yes, also scientific, expansionism.

Without the projection of accumulated personal and tribal memory onto an imagined future, the sense of psychological duration on which we base the idea of our separate existence would disappear. I know a rock exists because it is stable in time; I see it today and, tomorrow, it is still there relatively unchanged, at least in simple view. In the same manner, I have a strong sense that I was here yesterday, that I am here now, and have no grave reason to doubt that I will be here tomorrow as well, from which I assume that I too exist as an independent entity uniquely different from everyone and everything else. Leaving aside the strong possibility that no separate existence can be predicated of our rock either, this psychological entity, this “I,” that is assumed to exist does not exhibit the substantial actuality of the rock. It is but a collection of largely unverifiable and highly unstable and selective images and ideas based on a past that no longer exists; applied to an ever evanescent, unknowable, present; and projected onto a future that does not yet exist and most probably will not come to pass as imagined, feared or desired.
The separate self presumed to exist as an autonomous psychological entity continuously evolving in time, is not actual but rather a powerful illusion blocking all evidence that it is thought (the systemic projection of the fragmented cultural and personal knowledge conditioning just about every brain) that creates and sustains the illusion of the “I” who merely thinks and feels s/he exists apart from everything else. In reducing the unthinkable breath and depth of infinity to its little representations of the personal past, present and future, the self cuts off from life and condemns itself to short-lived pleasures and unending alienation, fear, violence and grief. (51)

Ø     A human organism is a person minus the multiple layers of psychological knowledge that constitute the personalized psychic field and that include all the efforts to defend, expand and project onto the future the relative social position (the status) without which that cultural phenomenon of self-reflective knowledge could hardly subsist. If free of its cumbersome and time-bound psychological exoskeleton, this peculiar organism with the big brain can be quite sensitive. It can be sensitive enough to be in direct contact with life and, though fully aware of all the conflictive division and self-inflicted suffering of humanity, not part of it. (52)

Ø    After long years of hiding beneath layers and layers of adopted and self-created psychological conceit, life will irremediably catch up with you and I and rip the mask off our face. It will strip us naked of all our deceptive achievements, projects and dreams, and literally pin us to the ground. None of the habitual alibis will be of any help then, for regardless of pedigree, preference and faith, we will have to confront the final truth of our organismic reality. It is paradoxical, indeed, that we generally resist being one with life until the much abhorred and greatly denied instant of physical death shows up unexpectedly calling our name. To live an absurdly diminished and fearful life while avoiding death, only to be finally ambushed by it, is commonplace. Billions and billions of human beings have preceded us in this rather unnatural way of living and dying.
To postpone death by assuming it to be the ultimate traumatic event that terminates the life cycle of the physical organism, may be our choice at every moment. But that postponement implies being mostly dead while still living.

Does the plenitude of life not lie in the realization that just as every instant dies giving life to the next, we too must die every moment to everything we have experienced, so that life itself may be lived innocently and afresh? There is no good way to put this in words without creating the impression that there is someone out there living life “correctly.” There does not seem to be a good way to talk about life and death without implying separation and duality or, worse yet, bringing in the whole circus of religious belief and practice. The very structure of thought and language seems to lean towards error and self-deception. And, so, the only reasonable approach is a negative one, as in: Life has no separate parts. If there is a personal life to live and a personal death to fear, rigor mortis has already set in, long ago. (53)

Ø     Life in the cosmos is not merely a penumbral stage for the one act play that each and every one of us calls “my life.” Our fundamental reality is not particular, but general. It pertains to all organisms, to everything that being lively or that being part or precondition to what is lively, is an integral part of existence as a whole. Thus, to say “I am” (I was, I am and I will be) is a profound misrepresentation of life; one that makes us lose sight of the essentially cosmic dimension of the human presence, both personal and collective. To say that I exist as a discrete entity progressing psychologically in the peculiar time space created by personal memory and the dynamics of desire, is to mentally break ranks with life itself. And this reductive separation from life inevitably produces insecurity and conflict in an unending cycle of falsely compensatory or remedial personal and tribal actions that cannot help but lead to further instances of insecurity, fear and conflict. We have reduced life to an egotistical provincial domain characterized by the aggressive defense of whatever each one of us thinks about his existence and the concomitant offensive attempt to become and attain whatever each one thinks he oughts to become and deserves to posses.
Because existential and tribal separation and self-assertive becoming constitute the essence of bondage, insensitivity and violence, true freedom and caring intelligence necessarily imply a radical negation of both. A radical disregard of psychological memory and the consequent cancellation of its compulsive desire to control and manipulate personal life and relationship, implies the dissolution of the self into the totality of life. (54)

Ø     If conditioned and self-centered thought is a high security prison with an inmate immobilized and tortured by contradictorily wanting both freedom and the familiarity of his confinement, what would be the path to freedom be? Why and how would the prison allow the prisoner to escape if there is no distinction that can be made between the two? And why would the prisoner be ever seriously interested in freedom if he is condemned (or programmed) to uphold the continuity of a sentence determined by who he thinks he is and who he ought to become in this life and, perhaps, also the next?

Since the psyche is uniformly conditioned by pre-personal, cultural and personal experience, there is nothing (particularly no one) in this conditioning capable of undoing it. Any form of resistance is futile simply because intrapsychic contradiction and conflict merely strengthens the sense of existential separation and widens the division within the psyche. This, while simultaneously securing the impulse towards the imagined future on which the self depends to sustain the illusion of its open-ended potential. Thus, the process of self-centered thought cannot but end with the very realization of the futility of any action seeking to attain a better self and improved circumstances constructed by exclusive recourse to previous experience and knowledge.

That non-action might be the only reasonable action, may sound counterintuitive if not outright idiotic to most, but the fact remains that what has created this impossible situation is precisely the enormous contradictory multiplicity of self and tribe-centered action struggling to attain whatever the more and the better means to each unit of self-conscious humanity. Yes, it seems pointless not to take some side or position in this or that issue and, on that basis, feel that one is doing something reasonable and responsible to prevent at least one or two of the multiple catastrophes threatening us today. Yes, it feels so much better to be held upright in the safe though tight folds of a particular consensus. And, yes, it also feels good to be propelled forward by the attraction of noble goals rolling on the infallible tracks laid by expert-recommended methods. But, again, consider that anything one might do is automatically polluted by the limitations and biases inherent in memory and separation and, by the same token, immediately placed at odds with the equally limited and biased actions undertaken by other persons embedded in other groups motivated by different memories, values and goals.
Is the empty, uncommitted and therefore passive mind not the first expression of an intelligence not affected by self-centered experience and desire? (55)

Ø     If the conditioned human psyche is based on particular memory and the self-protective and egotistical desires that spring from that memory, can any one given person draw others' attention to this essential fact and its tragic consequences without tripping up a loud fear alarm that will merely awaken their defenses and, perhaps, their hostility as well? (56)

Ø     There is a level of perception and a point in chronological (not psychological) time in which self-centered thought finally sees itself as irrational and irrelevant in its chronic incapacity to do anything that will effectively eliminate the massive fear and suffering of humanity. This insight instantly blocks the retrieval and projection mechanism of psychological and most cultural knowledge, thus destroying the time frame of personal becoming. This does not mean that a mind thus deprogrammed becomes morosely isolated and paralyzed, not only because were it so it would not long survive in the world as it is. What it does mean is that memory as recorded psychological experience and projected desire, is no longer dominant in a mind suddenly lit by the perception of the falseness of self-sustaining existential separation.
Insight implies as well a profound and caring concern for humanity and life as a whole, for how else and for what other reason could the conditioned mind have dared look at its own incapacity to do anything significant to put an end to conflict and sorrow? In simply refusing to rush along with everybody else in hot pursuit of illusory and contradictory ideals, the mind effectively de-conditions itself thus rendering the only essential service the mental health of the species urgently needs. (57)

Ø     It is urgent to allow for a veritable mutation in our consciousness. This, not only because the mind reduced and distorted by stored up and self-projecting experience is permanently making itself (and others) ill, but also because of the dire threat posed to the very survival of the species by the unchecked continuity of tribal egotism. However, simple recognition of urgency does not, in this matter, lead to immediate and efficient action because a truly significant change in consciousness is totally unlike changes in other aspects of human reality. One cannot radically change one's mind as one can change the decoration at home or as a group of engineers and physicists can fix a malfunctioning particle accelerator. The central impediment to real mental change is the fact that its presumed agent is not just impotent, but an impostor. In declaring that "I" intend to significantly change the nature of “my” consciousness I lie because the difference between me as the agent of change and the psyche as the presumed object of this change, is fictitious. The memory-based self is the personalized psyche, and the self only the most conspicuous part of it. We may be capable of effecting relatively superficial additions, modifications and subtractions to our personal and tribal memories, but we are utterly incapable of freeing ourselves of the determinism imposed by these memories and their projections.

The challenge posed by the peculiarity of this problem implies the necessity of a terminal break in the continuity of the self; a break creating the latitude necessary for the uncertain possibility of an irruption into the brain/mind of an intelligence unrelated to cultural tradition and personal consciousness. The uncertainty of anything “worthwhile” replacing the self makes the possibility of its coming to an end seem even more terrifying. But any fear or desire that may still be mechanically doing the bidding of previous experience, is instantly overtaken by the light of a direct and lucid perception that one is nothing but a particular bundle of dead memories and dangerously contradictory and unwise desires. There is nothing to lose. (58)

Ø      I look at myself and others and see in all of us fundamentally the same isolated and limited mind at work. This is not meant as a moralistic condemnation of who we are. It is not an unmasking of our congenital evil, but a simple assertion of the fact that the mind/brain we share is dangerously conditioned, diminished and distorted by the particular psychological and tribal knowledge that fleshes out our particular identities and mechanically informs our perception and our actions.

Many do not seem to care much about the suffering of humanity. And most of those who do care have, according to their particular mental programming, specific explanations for its causes and particular plans for its gradual diminishment or eventual eradication. Proponents of different and contradictory theories and projects attempting to diminish or heal different forms or sectors of human misery, do not generally question their beliefs and, much less, discuss with those sponsoring others, the veracity and efficacy of their respective convictions and undertakings. In fact, they spend most of their attention and energy in the defense and expansion of what they believe and practice. The truth that may lie beyond their creeds and efforts is seldom an issue for the advocates of any given ideological consensus, because their identity, their very sense of existence, depends on the belief that what they know and do is the truth or, at least, good and important enough to matter more than anything else.

Even though it is patently absurd to go from uncovering the falseness of one particular set of beliefs and traditions, to a reactive grab of the security blanket offered by another similar set, such transit is a rather common occurrence. The real challenge posed by the human condition demands, not a leap from one faith to another, but a leap out and away from all protective cultural forms. This is not Tarzan letting go from one hanging vine just in order to take a short flight forward and grab the next one. One abandons what is false and illusory not because one sees the truth shinning beyond it and extending a friendly hand, but simply because it is abundantly clear that all forms of exclusive psychological security are false and dangerous. To be true, the letting go cannot be gradual, partial and warranted by predetermined guarantees, but instantaneous, complete and completely devoid of ulterior motives. We have been forming and reforming ourselves along fixed cultural patterns for thousands of years and the result of all that “progress” is the psychological and social disorder in which we live today and that we are still trying to fix with half and quarter measures.

We have to begin simply. We have to begin by seeing ourselves as identical to others in our common subjection to a superficially multiple and falsely evolving programming that is in effect a unitary and unchangeable mental phenomenon. And seeing that there is nothing separate and unique about oneself in this central regard, also reveals that there is nothing “you” or “I” can do directly to improve on or eliminate this mental condition. The “me” crowning every human organism is no different from the knowledge derived from personal and tribal experience that physically and psychologically conditions the brain in that organism. Nor is any “me” fundamentally different from any “you.” Thus, right from the start it is obvious that while the conditioning of others may at first sight appear as different from “mine and ours,” the general fact of mental predetermination makes us all fundamentally the same. We are all equally bound and, therefore equally unintelligent, unaware and dangerous.
If I see that I cannot claim any attribute of particular distinction because I am as conditioned as everyone else and therefore not special at all, then I instantly see as well the absurdity of continuing to be part of any group investing its members with a false sense of particular identity and status. And if I am no longer committed to any group or cause, then I stop making any effort to improve myself or to further the development of any group or society. In other words, a direct perception of the falseness of psychological separation determines that the psychic field is no longer dominated by a particular personal and tribal past and, perhaps more importantly, no longer engaged in any attempt to accomplish future goals informed by fear and desire. Rid of psychological being and becoming, all that is left of the conditioned contents of consciousness is language and the functional thought needed to communicate, earn an austere living and move around the world as it is.

As a sudden and complete perception of the nature of the self-centered process of thought, this total insight has neither precedence nor projection. Its occurrence is not within the time frame of conditioned thought. It cannot be turned into knowledge and it cannot be transferred to others, even if they were pleading for a reason and a method to go beyond themselves and their limitations. In this matter of self destructive insight there is no goal that can be established a priori and no pre-determined sequence of actions that if completed guarantees its attainment.
The fact of psychological and cultural conditioning and its nefarious consequences are either seen or not seen. If they are fully and accurately perceived and there is no attempt to fix or overcome them in any way, the sense of psychological and tribal existence is instantly eradicated along with its obligated contribution to the on-going corruption and disintegration of the species. If one still asks for a reason or a method to see oneself and to discern one's part in the division and suffering of humanity, it is because the blind urge for predetermined reformation that undergirds the self remains dominant and, therefore, undisturbed and uninterrupted. (59)

Ø     It is instructive, to say the least, to contemplate thought as a limited practical tool that has come to dominate the human mind by granting itself ―through the creation of the self― a sense of separate and autonomous existence. This sense of personal being is so fragmented and overbearing that it can effectively block off the presence of the material universe and whatever might be the deeper ground animating and sustaining it. Our alienation from the totality is tragically expressed in personal minds riddled with psychological problems and in the troubled relationships between our particular cultures and psyches.
As long as our physical needs and psychological claims are met, even moderately, many of us seem strangely indifferent to the plight of the less fortunate and largely unaware of mounting threats to the species as a whole. We may be brainwashed by religious delusions, or all too absorbed by the consuming occupations, trials and pleasures of our personal lives. And, as already pointed out before, those of us ―seemingly always a minority― who are relatively aware of the calamity of the human condition, generally convince ourselves that greater effort along any of the many particular ideological or scientific lines of our choice, absolve us from greater responsibility garnered from a deeper insight into the root mental cause of the human condition. Thus, through indifference to the chaos of human affairs or naive trust in the double illusion of personal development and social progress, the domination of self-centered and tribal thought is strengthened and interminably projected onto the future as the only possible mental reality of the individual and, by extension, of the species.
Despite the mind-numbing shallowness of activities meant to distract (that is, designed to take your mind or attention away), and the historical failure of all our contradictory and always insufficient political, religious and scientific advances, reforms and revolutions, we robotically continue entertaining ourselves away from any sense of clarity and responsibility, or pouring most of our energy into futile traditional efforts and simply hoping for the best. All this, while the distance between us continues to grow and the suffering that comes from confusion and bad relationship continues to ravage our minds, our lives and the natural environment.

If perceptive and honest enough, one might come to see, first, the built-in limitation of the memory bank (personal, pre-personal and cultural) from which one's thought springs; and, then, the ineffectiveness or outright destructiveness of one's action in the world. Even the most high-minded efforts we might be capable of are utterly incapable of correcting the intrinsic stupidity and violence of the thinking process of a fractured and confused humanity. And because that much is now clear, one immediately stops exerting oneself in any particular direction. In terms of the operation of thought, this means that one is no longer becoming; no longer naively yearning for things to be different from what they are and, hence, no longer projecting idealized images of oneself and an "improved" humanity onto the future. Only the negation of the notion of psychological progress brings the process of self-centered thought to an end. And because all investment in any particular form of distraction or laborious hope has died, the mind is able to see in a flash the whole tragedy of humanity in its fragmented and conflicted alienation from the totality.

Whereas before the mind was dominated by particular knowledge and belief and the self's built-in proclivity to jump into action, fail, disappoint and jump again through a different form of desire, now the mind turns easily and with a quiet and fearless eagerness to the immensity of what is beyond the reach of thought and self and therefore, generally ignored. This unimaginable immensity is now in the mind's eye, not as a reinstatement of self-centered thought's habitual attempt to continue the endless and largely barren task of reforming the world and its self through new reforms and projects, but precisely because in the definitive absence of any such ideas and projects, the immensity of the unknown is all there actually is. The very disappearance of that “some-one" who identified with a remembered past, and who destroyed the present by utilizing it to reinstate in the future a modified version of itself, opens the door to the immensity of the unknown.

The question that often emerges at this point may sound something like this: If through an insight into the limitation of its own personal and social insularity, a given brain/psyche breaks free of previous psychological content and disowns the mechanical projection of this content onto the future ―that is, if the self dies― then who is going to have this revelation of what lies beyond the reality of thought? Undoubtedly, the very posing of this question reveals, does it not, that while the words employed to flesh out this argument may have been understood, the actualities to which it refers, have not been directly and completely grasped. Words can be easily pronounced and heard, and even when properly understood intellectually, they may still mean nothing. Insight cannot be put into words. There is no approach to it that may be described and then transferred to others. Insight has no positive characterization similar to those that energize desire chasing after pre-specified value. It is only the instant, independent and complete rejection of what is false and illusory that may open the mind to insight. Consequently, to ask whether or not the author of these lines “has achieved” insight is also an erroneous question that if pursued will prove to be an utter waste of time and energy. (60)

Ø      Let us assume that one has come to a clear perception of cultural and psychological conditioning, not just in oneself, but in the human mind per se. And let us assume further that because it is evident now that most human beings are only memory and the illusory ideals projected by that very same limited and isolated memory, any further action attempting to somehow resolve the problem of suffering has been definitively ruled out. In fact, the very feeling that there is an "I" capable of creating and implementing an action of self improvement or outright transcendence, is no longer there. Who then would be saying this? And, if there be an action originating from this impersonal emptiness, what would it be, and who would be able to re-cognize it as such? (61)

Ø     How do you tell yourself that the chaotic situation of the world and the health of the brain demands the negation of the sense of a personal and tribal past, present and future on which your very existence depends? In other words, how can anyone ever come to see the necessity of psychological death? After all, no one wants to die. All we generally want is to go on being ourselves while still trying to become better, wealthier, more knowledgeable, perhaps ethical superstars or even enlightened beings. In one way or another we all crave for more and more experience, even if our hope clashes violently with the hopes of others; even if it demands postponing its realization to an afterlife that is nothing if not an illusion. Tragically, more often than not, most of us are quite willing to do just about anything, even commit the most heinous atrocities to get what we crave after (if we have the resources, we like to save effort and face by having others commit these functional atrocities for us). And because we generally buy wholeheartedly into the three-tiered illusion of existential uniqueness, psychological development and social progress, we never stop being its victims as well as the willing vehicle of the perdurability of this illusion in mental and chronological time. Our attachment to particular claims regarding the actual or eventual superiority of our identities is so intense, that we generally march to our deaths unable to see that the more destructive attributes of the self-centered process of thought that dominates the brain are not just characteristic of “bad” people, but common to all of us. And this is, of course, why gaining the impersonal perspective necessary to see the self as indistinguishable from the general and self-sustaining phenomenon of thought (and the species-wide tragedy it creates and recreates), is to lose the driving desire to defend, assert and “improve” oneself. This is psychological death, the loss of all sense of personal separation and exclusive hope. It is also all that is necessary. (62)

Ø     We are all caught in thought and thought offers only escapes and false solutions to our personal and collective problems. Thus, it is fair to say that all is lost; that as far as the presumed self-corrective and liberating potential of thought is concerned, all is irremediably lost. Confronted with the startling impossibility of not knowing what to do, and stung by the unpleasantness of this passive certainty of uncertainty, one is easily seduced by the next convenient fantasy or the next false solution that may come up, kind courtesy of ―you guessed it right!― thought, previous self-centered experience and its attendant desire to improve itself.
Now, to stay with the unfamiliar discomfort of uncertainty and insecurity, to deliberately avoid rushing into any predetermined action, is already a significant change in the operation of the brain. Through awareness of the bias and enormous limitation of one's thinking (of conditioned thought itself), one is starkly confronted with the futility of any further personal and/or social becoming. Leaders, experts, gurus, programs of self-development and the whole panoply of available therapies and “spiritual” disciplines promising personal healing and unending growth, are finally seen for what they are and instantly put aside and forgotten. It is evident now that all the psychological and social damage done by thousands of years of thinking based on exclusive past experience and on premeditated future outcomes, cannot possibly be solved by further efforts undertaken by the same futile mental setup. None of the multiple instances and disciplines of thought into which the mind has fragmented itself, can free the human being from his foolishness, his cruelty and his suffering. No imaginable scientific, political, economic, religious, or artistic action will ever save anyone, let alone humanity as a whole, from its insensitivity, destructiveness and self-inflicted sorrow.

Just to make sure that this argument is not overshooting its target, let us repeat once again that although awareness of the impotence of thought implies the instantaneous ending of the process of personal becoming, this does not annul the capacity of the mind to recur to thought in those occasions in which its impersonal communicative, logistic and technical capacity are called for. In a reduced mode of practical operation, thought is an essential tool of the mind without which we would never have survived, let alone acquired the capacity that allows us to discuss these thorny topics. But let us also be abundantly clear in that thought has nefarious effects when it constitutes the limited experiential ground from which a particular self arises in relative isolation and projects itself over and against others and life itself.

Is a human being who sees the limitations of self-centered thought and the dangers posed by its continuity, capable of ending its domination of the mind/brain? The answer to this question is negative if what is meant by "human being" is the "I," the presumed managerial center of the conditioned mind. If the perception of the futility of thought is, pardon the redundancy, thought-based, then the "I" (thought) will just try to improve the tuning or merely change the station of its thinking. But if what is seen is the actual fact and dire consequences of thought's limitation and distortions (and not just merely the words and ideas used to describe them), then it is inevitable that it will come to an end except when practical challenges warrant its intervention.
What maintains the on-going interest of thought in pseudo-solutions to psychological, interpersonal and intra-tribal problems, is a deeply ingrained fear of the collapse of the process of gradual personal becoming as the sole ground and enabler of its continuity. Even those individuals who may occasionally glimpse the futility of all human efforts to fix or transcend divisiveness, violence and suffering, can usually conceive of no other option than to redouble their efforts to somehow improve what they know as well as redouble the practical efforts made on the basis of that knowledge. It is fair to say that we are all caught in the belief that self-reflective consciousness is the only possible ground of human existence.

Thus, while superficial personal and social transformations may abound, the conditioned mind remains fundamentally the same and, so, humanity continues to suffer (and to invite its own destruction) by further atomizing and fighting itself through the very contradictory attempts we all make to reform, reorganize and conquer ourselves and others. (63)

Because of its peculiar nature, the collapse of the fundamental irrationality of divided, conditioned and self-projective reason, cannot be motivated by thinking that such collapse will lead to a predetermined and superior mental state. Nothing must be expected on the other side of the radical break of continuity that is required. The corruption and incapacity of self-centered thought must the only possible base and motive for such an unprecedented action, because its continuity, in whatever noble or ignoble form it may take, will never heal its alienation from life, its conflictive atomization, nor the wounds opened by its violent and not-so-violent attempts to bring about change. To take time to think whether or not these last statements are true and worthwhile pursuing, without having actually seen the actualities to which they refer, merely indicates the untrammeled continuity of self-centered thought. (64)

Ø     The insecurity incurred by simply being physically alive is, in the human being, compounded a thousandfold by the enormous difficulties that the conditioned drive to be a noticeable somebody of some type or another, creates. Over and above the essential task of securing the satisfaction of our fundamental physical needs (which, incidentally, we share with all other organisms), we take on the often much more stressful tasks of securing a respectable position in society, and of maintaining and endlessly attempting to improve the material and immaterial signs of this position. If felt necessary, we sometimes take on the even harsher task of trading whatever social and cultural niche we may presently occupy for something entirely different and presumed to be better; something with more status and, therefore, granting more pleasure and "happiness."
Granted, some psychological changes, such as the learning of a new language, skill or body of knowledge, can be necessary and extremely useful. But when psychological change is concerned with the relative importance (the notoriety or respectability) of the self, or its degree of conformity to its immediate social environment, then it usually comes at tremendous cost to the mental of the organism and it naturally affects the quality of its relationship with others.

At the baseline of human existence, inequality is one of the main characteristics of our social reality for the simple reason that physical and intellectual aptitude is far from being evenly distributed among all members of the species. The negative consequences of inequality and the vast suffering that stems from it would be fairly easily and promptly remedied if those better able to generate the goods and services upon which everyone's life depends, would only take notice of the relative inability of other individuals and groups, and share generously with them their skills and the bounties they generate. However, this seldom occurs because the equality thus attained would level off the sense of superiority that so pleases those who hold the greatest physical and intellectual gifts and, hence, the greatest power and wealth. Worse yet, the particular goals and efforts involved in attaining psychological security through excessive wealth and other symbols of status and power, cannot but create greater inequality which aided by blatant injustice or simple indifference, in turn, generates levels of violence, insecurity and suffering that may eventually reach practically everyone. Who feels safe in the world today? And who beyond the age of, let us say, six or ten, is innocent of the divisiveness, fear, conflict and sorrow in the world?
How could the species as a whole enjoy justice, peace and harmony if as individuals most of us are attempting to have and become more and more in relative comparison with others who, for that purpose, must have and be less and less? Evidently, the huge significance assigned to exclusive wealth and psychological status in a world of limited material resources and restricted social privilege, guarantees nothing but an open-ended process of senseless competition and outright violence. It is insane, then, for anyone to hope that the unity and collaboration needed for the well-being and even the very survival of the species, will come from the victory of “our” particular interests and ideology over those of others.

If division, strife and mental pain are the inevitable outcome of an endless and splintering process of psychological and tribal greed, unity and peace could only appear through the collapse, in one person at a time, of this process. Do not take my or anybody else's word for any of this; look at it out yourself and maybe you too will independently come to see the real nature of the problem and, consequently, realize that there is no other way to deal with conflict and suffering, in general and in particular, than through the free and easy abnegation of the self. (65)

Ø     There is an action that is unavoidable and peremptory because it is related to the satisfaction of basic physical needs. But, other than that, is there any other similarly relevant action warranted? If we are all conditioned, isolated and broken up by accumulated experience that fragments and categorizes internal and external reality, what could we possibly do of any significant value and from that same base of action, except realize the futility of any further effort? What is absolutely necessary is to undo the indoctrination effected by recorded experience, and this is not something that can be projected by the self and then gradually willed through because any such reactive process merely reenforces and prolongs the continuity of the personal mental programming that is precisely what needs to go away.

All this might leave one with the feeling of having awakened paralyzed and in a panic after having hit a wall at a two hundred miles per hour. But this fear is yet another mechanical reaction coming from a personalized thought process quite able to detect, think about and solve all manner of practical problems, but utterly incapable of doing the same with problems created by its assumption of a separate identity armed with its own variable agenda. The fact is that the existence and permanence of “my” self as a particular instance of the general phenomenon of self-centered thought is not a problem that any form of thinking can ever possibly resolve. And, still, one might go right on wondering: "Now, what am I going to do about that?" (66)

Ø     Nothing is whatever you or I or anyone else says it is, because nothing exists in isolation from anything else or remains unchanged over time. The totality and dynamic actuality of life cannot be reduced to knowledge, except by isolating parts of it conceptually thus turning the abstracted splinters, and the totality itself, into something this totality fundamentally is not.
The observable multidimensionality, inter-penetration, and flow of everything in and out of form and existence, seems to indicate that the notion of the human being existing in separation from everything else as a constant and objective observer of himself and the world around him, is a complete illusion; one with the most dreadful consequences. There is then nothing abnormal in considering that the sanity and perhaps even the very survival of the species might be contingent on freedom from the collective illusion of the existential separation of the personal psyche. Since there can be no masters or leaders in this matter of directly questioning the relative sanity of the self, let alone its goodness and its very existence, it is safe to assume that you and I are as good as anybody else in taking the hint of essential facts open to everyone's observation.

Although radical questioning of the psychological and social reality of the self is far from easy, it is equally clear that to continue to conform to the dictates of cultural tradition and personal habit only serves mental laziness and the ever more dangerous continuity of the mental setup responsible for all that ails us. The very suffering implicit in the historical and biographical progression of a system based on conflictive psychological and cultural fragmentation, seems to beg each and every one of us to simply be open to the possibility of an end of the separate self as it is "known" in every case. Whether this end constitutes or leads to integration with the unknowable totality of life as it has been suggested by some, notably Jiddhu Krishnamurti, is not something that anyone can know beforehand and, therefore, such notion should in no way inform one's perception or motivate one's actions. (67)

Ø     There is no such a thing as progress or evolution of the psyche for the simple reason that the human mind as a whole, and the personal mind within it, is conditioned by particular experience and the limited and selective knowledge extracted from that experience. Thus, what may appear as progress is merely particular additions or subtractions made to parts and aspects of a universal phenomenon of mental reduction and distortion and not, by any stretch of the imagination, an abandonment or transcendence of this largely dysfunctional mode of mental operation.

As we have mentioned several times before, there is an important exception to the toxic irrationality of self-centered thought, and that is the kind of thinking that goes into the logistics of everyday life and, perhaps more prominently, into science and technology, disciplines that being highly dependent on the most objective operation of thought, have clearly undergone an extraordinary evolutionary progress. And yet, one must not forget the routine use of the advances attained in science and technology in the waging of war, in the ruthless extraction of wealth from the natural environment, and in the manipulation or outright exploitation of millions and millions of human beings. This is, clearly, not a sign of progress but further proof of a primitive mind still conditioned by thousands of years of greedy division and the fixed insensitivity of a largely self-serving intellect. Though heavily disguised by the multiple masks of cultural "exceptionalism" and the ever-evolving deceptions of personal neurosis, the human psyche —your mind and my mind— remains programmed by self-projective experience and, therefore, isolated from others, divided within, and chronically incapable of solving the problems it creates in and for itself.

Does this all mean that a revolution in the mind is impossible? ―No, it does not; but in revealing the real nature of the challenge confronting us, it makes plain that something much deeper than mere modifications of the same particular conditioning is necessary; something not predicated on further action informed by self-centered memory and desire, but rather in the definitive collapse of both, psychological memory and desire. If there is enough clarity to see that efforts made to improve ourselves psychologically or culturally are, at best, insufficient and, at worst, a form of self-deceptive violence then the whole process of thought naturally stops lurching forward lusting after revamped versions of its previous experience. Not knowing what to think and do and, even more importantly, no longer wanting to know, thought quietly ends its role in the defense, expansion and general realization of the self. It stops promoting reactive and insufficient actions on behalf of an idealized self, thus restricting its operation to the simple and direct satisfaction of the fundamental needs of the organism and, perhaps, the communication that may convey to others the nature of the challenge facing everyone. (68)

Ø    I have come to a point in which I want nothing more to do with culture. I mean by culture this corrupt amphitheater into which we have all been born and where we are all expected to fight one another literally to death over the possession of material goods and to prove the supremacy of one particular set of absurd ideas and beliefs over others that are just as absurd. I remain vitally interested in the possibility of what we may advisedly refer to as the sacred, but in a manner coherent with the just stated comprehensive rejection of all existing and potential psychological creations of the human mind. A couple of further clarifications regarding this interest are in order here. The first is that turning one's eyes away from the fragmented world of culture to which most human beings depend for dear life, does not mean not caring for them as individuals and being indifferent to the fate of the species. All to the contrary, such action would not be even considered were it not for a deep affection for everyone and, especially, for the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us. Given the nature of the general problem of psycho-cultural conditioning and its deep imprint in the physiology of the brain, there is nothing of relevance I or anyone else can do for others if they chose to remain enmeshed in their particular enclaves of tradition and dedicated to whichever projects of material, intellectual or “spiritual” gain they consciously or unconsciously endorse. The second consideration has been lightly touched above and it has to do with the very real danger posed by a turning away from culture in so far as it is linked to a serious interest in the possible manifestation of the sacred. Any image or idea referred to anything transcending culture, is nothing if not a new addition to the long serial story of cultural and self-centered thought. It is imperative, then, to be permanently alert to the danger of inadvertently slipping into a new idea of what the sacred might be and to then strive for its realization as a means of protecting and enhancing oneself. The move away from the cultural realm definitely implies terminating the projection of belief onto the future that is one of the central characteristics of religious culture. If I have anything clear, it is that my very presence as a psychological entity existing within the general system of culture/thought, makes any actual relation with the truth or the sacred impossible. I have nothing then. I am no-thing. There is nothing that I can exult in and, therefore, nothing in me that you can envy or that I can chose to either give or withhold. (70)

Ø     We may hate to admit it, but far too many of us live and die for praise. We would sacrifice practically anything to receive the approval or, better yet, the adulation of those near and far. We especially crave validation coming from those we happen to consider superior in any way, including spirituality (the mere idea of rank in spirituality stinks to high heaven).
This common hunger for respectability warranted by others' approval is clear indication of an irremediable and bottomless inner poverty; is it not? If this boundless emptiness at the core of one's being were simply allowed to be, and not judged, avoided or otherwise tinkered with, it may just reveal itself as the essence not just of the human presence in life, but of life itself. (71)

Ø     An uncommitted and unattached mind stands alone and empty; that is, it stands outside any form of divisive and self-projective consensus. And because it is free of cultural and personal blinders, this mind alone is capable of seeing things directly and as they are, without having to take instruction or leadership from anyone; without losing itself in abstractions and, most important of all, without projecting self-serving idealizations and fantasies... and that is enough. (72)

Ø     Perception of what actually is requires selflessness for the simple reason that the self ―what you and I think we are; what we think, feel, desire and do― is never fully related to the actual. It is fair to say that the psychological self does not exist as anything actual, grounded as it is on past experience and a sense of the future that is but a new version of the same past experience regurgitated through fear or desire. Accurate and complete perception of what is actually happening at every instant can only occur if the mind is not occupied with images and ideas from the past representing what no longer is, interpreting with its prejudice what may be occurring right now, and projecting or fearing what might never come to be. The self (the self-propelled story of “my” life shrouded within the tradition of “our” life) is the mental negation of life as an actual whole.
Two questions immediately arise: Who is making this assertion, a particular self or life itself? And, second, how is one going to find out and how? (73)

Ø     Is it too cynical or unfair to describe humanity as billions of solitaires tormenting each other (and conflicting their own minds) with the common desire to experience, in relative isolation, as much love, power and pleasure as possible, while simultaneously assuaging our fear and pain?
Anxiety, hate, violence and sorrow harvested in the pursuit of pleasure and social position, are the inexorable fruit of that familiar feeling of existential separation that each one of us call “myself.” And regardless of how much knowledge we might accumulate and how much enjoyment and power we may manage to experience and exercise, we can never quite overcome the permanent threat or, often enough, avoid the actual presence of psychological pain. The exaggerated cultivation and defense of the self only extends, modifies and diversifies our common insecurity, and superficial changes merely serve to consolidate even further the conflicted fragmentation of the species and the suffering isolation of the individual. This vicious cycle can only be broken by the dissolution of the self, but for obvious reasons this dissolution cannot be a desire willfully carried out by the same self. To say that one is working, praying or meditating to tame or get rid of the ego is sheer nonsense. The bondage of thought's time frame, cannot be expected to come undone through an action triggered from within this same mental space. But this powerlessness needs to be fully seen and lived. It may not be what one may think. (74)

Ø     Is the human presence in the cosmos forever limited to the strictures of a collection of disparate personal stories developing within larger collections of tribal narratives, themselves nested within human history, as this is within the supra-contextual narrative of the coevolution of life forms and the timeless ground of life beyond form? ―Could the human presence be something other than a mental description of a series of events preserved in memory and projecting themselves indefinitely onto the imaginable future? In other words, could the significance of our presence be beyond matter and thought (which is itself but a subtle material process)?
―Why should anyone assume that the outer limit of his partaking of existence lies where his skin and his memories and desires end? ―Do we not already know that matter is far from being what we once thought it was; that what we call elementary particles emerge into the structure of time and material space perceptible to our limited senses and cognition from a formless ground that is utterly beyond our reach? ―How could we relate with this ground if it is not form or the evolution of form through time? ―Is the human mind spacious and alert enough to receive what is utterly beyond form and time? ―Is this ground that contains every possible manifestation of matter and thought but that extends unimaginably beyond both, the truth?
Clearly, if this truth exists at all, it must be inconceivable to a mind mired in formal psychological and cultural insularity and consumed by the labors and sorrows demanded by its developmental conceit. ―Does a serious interest in the possibility of the existence of this ground not imply the instantaneous and complete destruction of the mind's psychological moorings and the self's absurd imaginary trips onto a future of its own making? ―And is the mind thus cleansed of the dregs of self and tribe not the very emptiness and silence that may be predicated of the ground?

Whatever anyone says about him or herself acts as an impediment to accurate and full perception. Particular identification with all its attendant prejudices and projective efforts, constricts the full breadth of awareness and serves as a permanent source of faulty thinking and inadequate behavior. Total and instantaneous insight is then, by definition, impersonal. The more inflated the idealized self-image gets to be, the less one sees who one actually is and what is actually happening in and around oneself and in the world at large. And, this, regardless of how great the gifts and how lofty and well researched the particular specialization of the observer might be. Thus, a brilliant physicist, for example, might be completely unaware of his own bad posture, and an extremely “sensitive” artist might be oblivious to the psychological pain of her assistant who has just been left by her lover or hurt by a cruel remark from her boss. (75)

Ø     Can a human being be free of all identification with gender, race, age group, nationality, profession, educational level, and any other source of prejudice and limitation? Can a human being be free for no other reason than a profound interest in seeing without blinders everything there is to see, including the general contours of what cannot ever be seen? Knowledge might be extremely useful in the scientific exploration of matter and in other practical affairs, but knowledge and belief in psychological and cultural matters, are without exception the source of severe myopia, if not outright blindness. How can I accurately see you and you me if we are both looking through the aberrant optics issued by our respective backgrounds? How can any individual or any group or nation respond adequately to the global issues
demanding everyone's attention, if our most immediate and exclusive interests are distracting or biasing our perception and thus determining and limiting our action?

And what would a human being unbiased by particular identification, attachment and ambition see? What world would be revealed to one who is in himself insignificant and not greedy for significance? Would it not be an utterly atomized and conflicted world; a world drunk with illusion, fear and ambition and, thus, bent on self-destruction? (76)