Category: Insight

Mandtao Path sofar

Even before I had completed the Treatise ideas of writing “The Path of Scientific Enquiry” started raising their disturbances. I began writing it here, but have discovered that far too many of the ideas have not been formulated. I now feel that this path is the purpose of Mandtao so I have called it the Mandtao path. [Aaaaggghhh – it’s probably a book.]

This is also in the way of Honiti, I want to finish that now I have pathtivism ( Ch24).

Now I am just blasted. Scifimuse was telling me to do Honiti, and spirimuse wants me to write a new book. Worn out so daunting – relentless.

This post is a series of notes concerning what I will look into for Mandtao.

Mandtao Empirical Method

What is the Mandtao empirical method?

My view – there are observations/events/experiences that can be repeated. Because they can be repeated then these are events that we can know. In other words these are events that we can give a scientific explanation for because they repeat.

So empirical method is to make observations and then determine a scientific explanation.

This is different than an experiment in a laboratory. Why?

What is lost in a lab? Can a real life be recreated in a lab?

How to recreate meditation?

How to recreate path?

Quantum Theory Enquiry

I have reposted the Zandtao Hagelin blog here in Mandtao. I learned sub-atomic was protons neutrons electrons. Now the smaller we go the more particles we find. Or do we? Do we find particles or do we find properties that we assign to particles? Fritjov Kapra Gary Zukav etc.

Do we find particles because of Newtonian paradigm?

If Bruce Lee was experimenting would we find chi?

If Annie Besant was investigating would we find consciousness?


Bacon split reason and revelation. Is science no more than what we can measure and logic? If we cannot measure it doe it not exist? Human capacities beyond reason – intuition, insight, creativity, are they now not science/knowledge because they cannot be measured? Meditation/path?

Mind and Brain

I am just going to post a blog that has lain dormant about mind and brain. In the case of scientific enquiry how important is our considerations of what is mind and brain. When you consider the treatiseplusmeme if there is no vinnana to help transcend then there cannot be a path.

If there is only brain and nothing else, how much is this restricting our knowledge?


This is basically the acupuncture discussion only much worse. How much do our medical models restrict our abilities to heal?

the relationship between funding and medicine is back-to-front.


The hidden axioms has already picked on some axioms. Monism fundamental unity has not been investigated.

Gaia Assumptions

<– Previous Post “Hagelin” Next Post “frustration” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.


I was put onto Hagelin and was impressed to see this clip. He was the leader of the Natural Law party (and presidential candidate) but I was told he was libertarian. I have always had sympathy for Libertarians, and this clip has just added to it. Why are these compassionate people right-wing BLOGLINK? But the answer with Libertarians is always the same for me, it is not the theory but the need for staged pragmatism especially in the time of such global bullies as the corporations that is so important. I don’t want regulations but the regulations that go first protect the people – the 1% will never allow their regulations to be quashed. What is the point of removing protectionism when the real control is with cartels. I love the idea of barter, am happy with farmers’ markets with healthy food and first-hand trading, but movements towards free trade globally only benefit the 1%. Follow the money. 1%-money never supports socialism but it does support libertarianism because it knows interim libertarian measures benefit the 1%.

Having said that I would love for socialism to discuss consciousness. To perceive religion as the opiate of the masses is true up to a functional point but it misses the most important thing, the insight and understanding that comes with deep religious understanding are revolutionary. What is worse (because it is not likely to happen sufficiently) this insight is needed for the survival of Gaia and humanity. How I would love for the left to embrace spirituality, and accept some sort of consciousness explanation of life. But the problem is that the left is dominated by left-wing intellectuals who have not experienced spiritual consciousness, insight or whatever is chosen to discuss this religious experience. But there are a few.

But there is something very important that Hagelin does, he brings discussion of consciousness and meditation into mainstream academia. Wherever this blog goes that is so important and mustn’t be forgotten.

Where quantum physics goes loses me, and that is the first half of his talk. But I do not ignore it, my science is just not up to it. When I was young I came across two books, The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav and The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Kapra. Basically these said to me that once you go subatomic it becomes impossible to be exact. You can measure as momentum or as particle but you cannot say that subatomically there are particles or there is momentum. In the Turning Point Kapra spoke of the Newtonian paradigm. Newton’s 3 laws talk about particles, and this works fine with “touchable” objects. But subatomically it is not certain there are particles. But because science’s axiomatic approach is a Newtonian paradigm, then it is assumed to be Newtonian subatomically.

At the same time that I was reading about this (mid-70s) I was becoming aware of the reality of chi (prana). It made perfect sense to me that subatomically there was energy, that we can measure the effects of this energy, but that this energy did not fit in with the Newtonian paradigm. Because I have experienced the chi this clearly meant to me that the Newtonian paradigm did not extend subatomically, so the investigation of quarks etc. subatomically with all the probabilities associated with it did not matter to me. As a way of measuring chi there might be mileage in this but I am not sure. In this same clip, Hagelin takes this subatomic “investigation” into unified field theory. It sounds to me that such strings are indistinguishable from energy; why not call it chi and investigate chi? One significant answer is BigPharma; there is no profit in a few needles and a trained acupuncturist, and BigPharma has significant academic control because of their amount of research funding.

Accepting subatomics as chi, it is a very small leap to accept that there is as Annie Besant describes consciousness in an atom – theosophy (here or Alice Bailey here. And this brings me to the second part of Hagelin’s talk – Maharishi’s consciousness. I use theosophy to illustrate this again because theosophy talks of a layer cake:-

When I first raised the issue of unity, I was meaning political unity that could be found by adopting approaches similar to the Unity Platform. But this political unity is very limited compared to the Unity that is put forward by many spiritual people – including Hagelin. The terminology I use for this Unity is “Gaia” or ONE Planet. It amounts to there being ONE life that is the planet, Gaia. This life force functions as a Unity but from inside we perceive separate individuals and forms of life. Science takes this separation as axiomatic, and misunderstands so much because of that – not least the misunderstanding concerning the sub-atomic realm. For me the sea is the best way to understand the Unity that is Gaia. What happens when you stand in the sea and a wave knocks you over? Are you knocked over by a particle, several particles, the momentum of the wave, the sea’s energy or even the sea’s consciousness (whatever that is)? It depends on how you setup your definitions (or axioms) as to what knocks you over.

In the second part of the talk, Hagelin links the unified field theory to consciousness. Whilst his conclusion is excellent his methodology left me numb; it was so academic. It reminded me of theosophy taken to extremes with diagrams, more layer cakes, parallel isomorphisms, and I have given all of these up. Buddhism talks of 5 skhandas one of which is sankhara – mental proliferations, and I see much of what Hagelin talks about as mental proliferations for academia. There are postulations of 10 dimensions or whatever, and the mathematical consistency supports his arguments, but show me the dimensions. But there is matter chi skhandas and pure being – simple. The real issue of understanding is whether we meditate – enough.

Is Unified Field theory consciousness? As far as I know, yes. The complicated intricacies are necessary for academia, and that is the medium Hagelin works in so I fully support him going for it. For me I see chi and consciousness, and meditation as the way of understanding. Hagelin, enjoy your mental proliferations; what you are doing is great.

But how can the pure being as compassion be found on the political right? In terms of Unity of Being and political unity in the Unity Platform LINK there is togetherness – great.

<– Previous Post Next Post “path sofar”–>
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<– Previous Post “Two Econommics” Next Post “Conative?” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Two Economics

The Mandtao blog is concerned with science and knowledge, so it might be a strange place to find discussion about economics, but this is a clear example of how academia is being used. And academia is the western home of knowledge.

My knowledge of academia’s delivery concerning economics is limited, but it is very clear to me that what is required to become qualified as an economics expert definitely has a strong application of blinkers. For most people in the world of work, understanding of economics is rooted in supply and demand. Because most peoples’ transactions are limited this is a reasonable approach. Go to the farmers’ market. You buy veg that is available, you don’t buy what you don’t want. The farmer is left with surplus of what people don’t want so they change what is grown until eventually there is a balance between supply and demand. The study of economics then extends this supply and demand principle, embellishes it with additional theories, applies a few graphs, and we have a supposed understanding of economics. Competition is an essential aspect of supply and demand. At the farmers’ market if someone sells cheaper more customers will buy, and competition is a means of keeping the prices down – supposedly at the control of the consumer.

Economics is of course a study of money. So we get a history lesson in which money was originally introduced as a means of easing transactions at the farmers’ market from when it was barter. We did not have to bring huge items to exchange, we didn’t have to decide that an hour of maths teaching is worth a pound of potatoes, gradually value was applied to various trades and their products and money was used as a means of trading at a farmers’ market. It is assumed in academic economics that theories of money are based around this transaction theory.

Taxation is also an important aspect of the modern economy. We pay a proportion of our income to the government so that the government has sufficient money to run schools, hospitals and the like. I question this. When the British were colonising Africa they needed to build infrastructure (such as trains) to get the raw materials back to the motherland. At the time Africans had a barter economy so when the British required labour there was no incentive to work. The colonial authorities insisted that all individuals must pay a money tax forcing money as the means of transaction on the barter economy. In this case taxation was required to build the infrastructure for the companies importing raw materials. This monetary flow is an indicator as to the underlying function of taxation despite the schools and hospitals rhetoric.

It is assumed that all finance is expected to balance their books. This is clearly the case at an individual level when if we don’t balance our own books and we owe money we can eventually be imprisoned. Debt is in fact encouraged both by the banks and the system. If we have debts we must try to pay them back, it is therefore necessary for us to work to pay them back and we are brought into the financial system. People who have marketable skills such as teachers are encouraged to get mortgages and other forms of credit, so that they become more concerned about losing their jobs and are willing to put up with injustice at work in order to repay their debts.

Economics as an academic subject is far more complicated than these five simple axioms, and it is this complexity that it is claimed people cannot understand. Experts are then required to interpret the business of economics so economics is an almost mystical understanding of transactions and finance. And people trust the experts. And experts become experts by accepting the above axioms, learning the mental contortions that get applied to our global economic dealings, and it is generally accepted that, although things look wrong because of the many injustices, there are experts guiding the economic system based on the axiomatic approach as described above.

I am going to describe the above as the 5 axioms of 99%-economics, and these are the axioms that the 99% are expected to follow. And this expectation in extreme circumstances is backed up by the law such as the case of repossessions and failure to make loan repayments.

Now I want to consider another set of economic practices. Let us examine the conduct of transnationals (multinationals) – huge companies (owned by the 1%) who as a rule buy the raw materials, own the means of importing the materials, own the means of production, own the distribution logistics and own the retail establishments. At all levels of the sale of a product the profits are made by the transnational.

At this stage one might argue big is not necessarily wrong, one might contend that transnationals compete with each other keeping the price down. I argue differently. Firstly in BigFood at a supermarket there might well be 7 or 8 different brands owned by the same transnational. No competition. The number of BigFood transnationals is limited so together they fix the prices, it is not the consumer demand described in 99%-economics. They have sufficient stocks and are sufficiently big that if consumers reduce their demand BigFood does not have to respond. Whilst mothers spend a long time on their family budget seeking bargains they are very much at the mercy of high level BigFood decisions rather than any consumer wisdom.

The word transnational came into usage because as such they are not subject to national tariffs and customs duties. Part of the murky mysticism of economics are organisations such as World bank, IMF, GATT, WTO and other Acronyms, actions of whom we are not meant to understand, yet whose actions directly impact on the way economics work. These organisations facilitate international finance and transnationals to the detriment of small businesses and local transactions. Small businesses do not control all the aspects of the economic life of their own product, and are often squeezed out by the monopolistic bullying practices of the transnationals aided by the Acronyms, often leading to takeovers and increasing “centralisation” on fewer and fewer transnationals.

These transnationals have tremendous power and dominate the economic life of individual consumers. They have tremendous influence over governments sufficient for me to say that they are more powerful than governments. As evidenced by environmental damage governments are unable to exert control over the transnationals. Climate denial became real through business investment especially after the international community outvoted the US at various COP meetings that eventually reached the limited Paris accord. Now their stooge has pulled out America and enacts numerous environmentally-damaging policies. [It is better to understand that Trump is not an individual with policies, but a stooge enacting policies of the fellow wealthy. Avoid personalising as it ignores the true nature of the economic system.]

The transnationals control production – what we buy, and finance through banks and Acronyms form an alliance that controls global economic life. It is this alliance I see as the 1% controlling the global economy using 1%-economics.

Transnational cartels and market mechanisms remove competition, and eliminate any vestige of supply and demand. The banking and insurance dynasties control money. Under their control that money has lost its transactional raison d’etre, and the accumulation of money is facilitated by the financial sector. Money moves away from the 99% to the owners of finance and the transnationals leaving our economies controlled by the whims of the superrich. With jobs and consumer-potential being controlled by the whims of their decisions, the backdoor governments offer tax breaks, incentives, loopholes and now in the US, the new tax laws, so that the burden of taxation is placed on the poor whilst transnationals are evading tax at will. Taxation has now become a means of transferring money (wages) from the poor to the rich. Because this 1%-alliance controls government they control the printing of money. The US tax bill makes no efforts to balance the books, but is simply a political manoeuvre to benefit the 1%. For 8 years the UK government has applied an austerity policy to the 99% following the crash with the supposed aims of balancing the books. But the only observable change in wealth has been an increase in the gap between rich and poor.

To understand 1%-economics you need only understand this, the actual economic system is designed to increase the accumulation of wealth to the 1%. Initially this began with real transactions but then they determined that there could be increased accumulation through “imaginary transactions”. 1%-control of governments perpetuates this accumulation through fiat policies that become necessary when accumulation has depleted government coffers. The policy of 1%-economics is print more money when necessary.

It is also intended that we fail to comprehend the vast amounts of money appropriated by the 1%. Examine this. ****** I suspect that the wealth of just one family, such as Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Waltons, Gates, is equivalent to enough money for a billion people to live – certainly the poorest of us. Whilst population numbers concern me, it is not the lack of natural resources that leads to poverty and hunger but the accumulation of the few superrich.

The interaction of these two economic systems is on a knife edge. We are conditioned to accept the economy as described in 99%-economics whilst the actual system continues to accrue for the 1%. People see the systemic failure of economics but then experts continue to maintain the charade of the 99%-economics, and encourage people to have confidence in it. For most there is a failure to actually consider the economic realities because a breakdown in the economic system, which would follow from an actual examination of financial dealings and the ensuing lack of confidence (as demonstrated by the crash in 2008), can only lead to chaos – violent chaos. Aware of this the 1% already have private security in place. It is not if but when.

Governments will continue to maintain the charade of 99%-economics as per 1%-instruction. They understand the nature of the two economics, but manage the impending catastrophe through brinkmanship rather than economic strategies that could lead to 100% stable and sustainable economics. We survive by hope, hope that the sickness of the 1% doesn’t demand such an accumulation that the delusion is broken, the conditioning is shattered, and chaos breaks out.

Hope is not enough. Constructive 100%-economics that can lead to stable transactions need to be introduced but this is unlikely as the only people who can introduce them are the 1% as they are in control. And that would be like saying to the mentally ill end your delusions, how can they end them when they don’t know they are deluded?

I used to have faith that the 1% would maintain the system through brinkmanship, now that faith is gone. War is spreading, is on the increase, countries just hope they are not the next one to be targeted. Rather than brinkmanship the 1% are now turning to private security, and accepting that the future holds a protected apartheid existence in which they survive and the 99% fight amongst each other for the crumbs that trickle down.

Now only hope.

<– Previous Post “Cumulative toxic load” Next Post “Truth?” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Vaccines and Freedom of Choice

This is the perfect example of libertarian stupidity. Unlike European libertarian history in the US Libertarians are right-wing, their politics is right-wing although based on principle. What they are is freedom, freedom and more freedom. This sounds good until you look at how they apply it, and then their intelligence is seen as woefully short; it also explains why they get so much right-wing funding. Their freedom means no regulations. Sounds good. Who wants to be bound by regulations? I am a considerate and compassionate person so I don’t need telling what to do.

Are all people this way? If not, educate them. All sounds good.

But then look at reality. We live in a 1%-system. The 1% accumulate huge amounts of money through real and imaginary trading and trade manipulations, and hive the money off into offshore accounts. This is the system we live in. The greed of these people is a sickness because of the global harmful implications of what they do. They are mentally ill, they are in charge, and the only thing that limits them are a few ineffective regulations. When the system is run by mentally ill people, then giving those people greater freedom is blind stupidity. That is libertarianism in the US.

So now we come to freedom of choice in vaccines. Now any sensible person looks at this and says you cannot have freedom of choice with vaccines, everyone has to be vaccinated against epidemic diseases otherwise they could start up again. To argue for freedom of choice is just plain stupid. It is the same blind stupidity shown with regards to regulations. (And government for that matter.) Principle before common sense.

That does not put an end to questioning, there has to be questioning. When science is dominated by the 1%-system of BigPharma and BigFood, there has to be questioning. But if that questioning does not produce a change, then vaccines have to be accepted. Not freedom of choice. Nobody should be promoting freedom of choice with regards to vaccines. It is good there is questioning, there is no problem with doubt, but there can be no freedom of choice with vaccines. One person choosing not to be vaccinated can cause deaths amongst many. There cannot be libertarian principle here. That is just plain stupid.

Yet in this video in general that is exactly what Vaccines Revealed are doing promoting freedom of choice. This is the height of irresponsibility, and again I question the integrity of any scientist who is prepared to add their name to a list who supports an organisation (the film-makers) who are promoting freedom of choice. In my school doctrinaire freedom of choice was intentionally disruptive, in the case of epidemic vaccines it is criminally stupid.

Then we have the ludicrous concept of informed consent (see this clip) that again appeals to intellectual arrogance. How can there be consent with regards to vaccines? If one person refuses to vaccinate then it potentially risks everyone. That is the only consent issue.

The people who make the informed decision about vaccines ought to be the scientific community independent of any business or social pressure of any kind. Vaccines are a scientific decision, if the science says vaccinate then we vaccinate. Most of the questioning within this video belongs within the scientific community, the scientists must decide – there are good questions but science must decide. End of story, no consent – informed or otherwise.

But how informed can people be about such a decision – even if consent were on the table. How much information can a lay person understand about this issue? Science investigated this, that or the other and came to this conclusion. Is that informed? Maybe, but meaninglessly so. The intellect likes to believe it can understand everything, it is arrogant. Informed consent just appeals to this arrogance, it is another aspect of right-wing egotism as is freedom of choice. Informed consent is concerned with individual choice such as “choosing chemo”, vaccines cannot be an individual decision – that decision must be based on scientific evidence. Unlike cancer I don’t believe there is the evidence with regards to vaccines, I think it is just part of the funded, designed confusion strategy.

Basically this video just creates fear. The makers of the movie might believe they are doing a public service but creating fear only adds to the confusion and benefits the 1% only. That’s why they got their funding.

In conclusion I think the makers of this video are irresponsible, and the video casts more doubts on the scientific team who supported the video than they do on the issues of vaccines.

But flu vaccines ….

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Confusion – the new Divide-and-Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez, Zandtao.

Creativity and Imagination

I want to discuss creativity, imagination and their relationship, and I began with a John Cleese talk.

Firstly however I am comfortable in describing myself as creative but here is some justification. I write science fiction stories so the question is because I write am I creative? The easiest route for creative justification is one I reject (sour grapes?), I have not been published or paid any money. Such social accolades can be attributes of creative people but equally they can just be attributes of people who play the game. I equally reject the notion that because a book sells the person is a writer, selling books means that they are a product which has been marketed and distributed. And I say this with all due deference to the many creative people who have toiled for years making a living in the publishing business.

So if I am creative, why? For creative people this question does not have to be asked, it is or it isn’t. I sit down and write a book, no choice, no financial motivation, no public accolades, the book is just written. That is creative. Is there a notion of quality attached to this? Again a creative person answers – certainly but there is no justification, none is needed.

And in the above discussion there is much that describes creativity, it just is. A person is creative or isn’t.

Let’s turn to the John Cleese talk. The Monty Python team were innovative, and I assume that he was invited to give this talk in 1992 in part because of the Python’s team’s innovation – I will discuss my use of the word innovative later. Apart from his humour I found the talk uninspiring. In truth he said at the beginning that he had nothing to offer, and I think that is true. He was there because of his fame.

However what is always useful is to listen to how creative people describe the conditions that lead to their creativity. Cleese listed five factors that enabled his creative process:-

1) Space – away from demands of daily life
2) Time – specified time away from daily life
3) Time – take time with the problem – don’t just take the easy way out.
4) Confidence – fear will prevent creativity
5) Humour – takes us from closed to open mode. A serious problem does not require solemnity.

But none of these actually described the creativity, they described the best situation he could put himself in in order for there to be a creative result. Question (there is assumption in this question) – is a weekly script for Monty Python genuinely creative? It is worth discussing innovative here. The Monty Python team changed the world of western humour, and because of this the word innovative easily applies. What is significant in their humour is that it was primarily new, but because it is new does that make it creative? I think not. In general the word creative is an apt description of Python humour, but perhaps not so for every sketch they did. However to describe every show as innovative would be appropriate. Perhaps some sketches might have been described as flat – did not work. Undoubtedly they were innovative but if they didn’t work were they creative?

Here comes imagination. How important is imagination in creativity? When I grew up art was being changed. Artists would come up with a new work, and because their imagination had thrown back the boundaries of established art the work was often assumed as creative, but because someone is capable of imagining something new does not mean that the imagined product is creative. My own sphere of art, science fiction, is new worlds of imagination, but are those imaginations creative? Perhaps so, perhaps not. It depends on whether there is mimicry or creativity, is there a genuine process of creativity or is the author simply copying another scenario? And there is only one measure, whether the writer feels s/he is being creative.

Creativity is a feeling but what sort of feeling? At my most creative – subjective view, I felt a presence. Such a presence could artistically be described as the presence of a muse, but the muse is mythological – having a creative muse doesn’t add any clarity to a discussion. So what is this feeling about? It is a measure of the relationship between the creator and the Path, and this relationship is creativity as we know it.

Is it innovation or imagination per se? No. These are faculties which can help with creativity. Is a work creative enough if the poet cannot imagine to wax lyrically? Is a work creative that is just innovative? If so, perhaps a computer could randomly “create” new works of art?

Imagination is not a creative process in itself, it is a faculty that adds to the work. For many there is a focus on imagination especially in science fiction. Without imagination there is no creativity in science fiction but the imagination itself is not a majority tool. It sets the scene, it describes Kirramura or Angellara or Kamden. But the creativity is in the story, the writing, what the writer wants to say. The imagination was a vehicle, it enabled the story to be transported into a reality – of sorts as no-one has read the book.

This focus on imagination brings me to another recognition. Imagination is a faculty of mind, like reason, and many others. But the creative process is connected to the Path and not simply a faculty of mind. It is this connection, this element of the Path, that is the spark, the uniqueness, the speciality. It belongs to us all, we can all experience it, creativity is not sectioned off for a few. But imagination is a faculty that we all possess, in some less developed than others. In some cultures imagination is hyped especially in drug cultures, the place of imagination, like the place of reason is raised beyond where it belongs.

Creativity directs, imagination and reason are faculties with places to be known under that direction.

Unity as axiom – yugas

In my last blog I discussed the issue of what the system accepts as true – axioms. This blog started as a consequence of Bruce Lipton’s “Biology of Perception” in which he questioned the fundamental axiom of biology – that we are a consequence of our genes. Much that is based on the axioms of science can be questioned, and in the last blog the main theme to be questioned was that of unity and separation. I have then watched a movie about 20/12/2012. I don’t subscribe to a great deal that is in this clip. I haven’t followed much of the 2012 discussion but started to watch this clip as a summative view.

I took from it some info that I believe can be vaguely classified as a form of truth. I think this movie presented a Hindu position and is based around astrology. I understand that great faith is based in astrology by the Hindus, and what has been called esoteric astrology I tend to believe in. There is an Hermetic aphorism “as above so below”, I am comfortable with that. I see what happens in the heavens as an indicator, a mirror of what happens “below” on Earth. This does not say that because the “moon aligns with Mars” ABC will happen, but it does say that some things happening on Earth will be mirrored as the “moon aligning with Mars”. What does that actually mean? Very little simply because it is all about interpretation, and if it is about interpretation then we are looking at the integrity of the interpreters. I apologise for this but when I watched the movie I felt no empathy with the interpreters.

What was however interesting was some of the basic astrology that undelies this 2012 hype. I have edited the clip, and here just present the discussion of the yugas; note Buddhists tend to believe in the yugas. According ot the clip there are 4 yugas, Hindu – Satya,Treta, Dwarapa and Kali I will call them gold, silver, bronze and iron. This 20/12/2012 is an astrological date for the upward change of yuga from dark to bronze. According to my ill-informed interpretation this change means little in terms of the actual day – other than the hype. Yugas, or cycles, are part of continued existence. Over the last 1000 years we have supposedly been moving up through kali yuga, and this ought to mean that life is improving. If I look at the wars in the Middle East or the drone attacks in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen I see very little increased enlightenment.

One more day on this upward path is going to make no discernible difference. So why am I bothering with this blog and 20/12/2012? Because the stages that the yugas travel through are increasing unity or increasing separation; the golden age is that of unity, the dark age that of separation. For me the axiom always has and always will be unity, whatever the age, but it gives some understanding as to why in this dark age we accept separation as an axiom and how separation produces the darkness.

Taking this unity axiom a step further it gives a very clear understanding of chi. Let us consider the axiom of separation. If we are separate then our energy is also going to be separate. Such separate energy, what we might also consider our personal vitality, is going to be based on our personal sources of energy, food, mental states etc. Totally personal. However if we consider Unity, One Planet, then there is no separate energy as there are no separate beings. There is one energy, the energy of the planet of which our life is a part. That means that when we do exercises that take advantage of that one energy, Qi Gong, Tai Chi etc., we are not doing anything special. We are just doing exercises to get our energy. It is well recognised that our bodies need physical exercise, an exercise that accepts the separation model. But energy exercise is not generally accepted. Even those who do exercises involving chi don’t always recognise that their exercise is based on the fundamental axiom of Unity.

Here is a Chi Master playing around with the chi. My first Chinese Tai Chi Master-teacher did a similar trick, and I too went flying round the room:-


It looks crazy, doesn’t it? Scientifically how can one possibly accept this clip as some form of proof? Don’t. You have to do it.

I then watched this guy, a 90s Doctor from Texas, who was open-minded enough to see that healing can come through the mind. He teamed up with a Boston lecturer who had studied in China, and the clip examines different aspects of healing that involve the chi. Between two people interested in the chi this seems to be a good unbiassed look at chi in China. What I don’t understand is why the doctor didn’t find a western chi practitioner to take him on the tour of China. There are many westerners who are trained and use acupuncture, a number who use acupressure, there are many western chi-healing centres, why did the Texas doctor choose a guy who didn’t experience the chi?

I have no answer, I only ask the question. Here is another question, does acupuncture work? Yes. Proof, empirical evidence from Mandtao – it has healed me. When it has healed you, you don’t need any other proof. Of course science needs proof, but my proof is enough for me. Does Qi Gong work? Yes. Why? Because I have done it. I do Chilel Qi Gong, and feel better for it. Personally I like Tai Chi better, but that is not a proof that Tai Chi is better, it is for me. All I am doing is tapping into the energy that is there for One planet to use, no more no less. Nothing freaky, just an axiom. When the axiom is Unity then we have shared energy that is available. When we have separation, then energy is also individual so why will “swatting flies” work?

The axiom matters, Unity.

Ignorance – avijja

avijjá: ‘ignorance,’ nescience, unknowing; synonymous with delusion (moha, s. múla), is the primary root of all evil and suffering in the world, veiling man’s mental eyes and preventing him from seeing the true nature of things. It is the delusion tricking beings by making life appear to them as permanent, happy, substantial and beautiful and preventing them from seeing that everything in reality is impermanent, liable to suffering, void of ‘I’ and ‘mine’, and basically impure (s. vipallása). Ignorance is defined as ‘not knowing the four truths, namely, suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation’ (S. XII, 4).

This is a definition for avijja taken from a Buddhist Dictionary. It goes beyond what I wish to discuss here but it is mainly the first sentence I wish to use. The problem with ignorance is that it is susceptible to the claim that it is just your opinion. In the above definition, the second sentence is typical of this. Buddhists, including myself, believe impermanence, liable to suffering and void of I (Pali – anicca, dukkha and anatta), and therefore a Buddhist might say it is ignorant not to believe this.

Now in terms of science this question of belief is taken to extreme. Because belief is subjective then science rejects all beliefs or categorises them as belief and NOT science. This position is absolutely ludicrous as it therefore categorises as “NOT science” most of human experience. Science sets as the benchmark of that which is knowledge as all that can be proved by scientific method. Essentially this scientific method is proof by logical reasoning, but science in general does not examine the axioms upon which this reasoning is based, yet it claims to. There is also much that is dubious about the scientific proofs that come under the heading of qualitative research. I interpret this research as follows:-

Quantitative method is an incontrovertible method of proof (given that it is applied appropriately – and there are many cases in which it isn’t) based on numbers and objective measurement. However academics found this proof limiting when it came to the area that is not known as Science (maths, physics, chemistry etc.). Academics wished to introduce a method that would allow academic respectability for the social sciences, and they called this qualitative research. Such a methodology often based on case studies can often lead to useful conclusions but what it cannot give is incontrovertible proof as with quantitative research. Personally I don’t mind this, qualitative research is a useful indicator but it is not proof.

A friend, self-professed worshipper of reason, uses the word “verifiable”, I like this word as it does open the door to genuine knowledge, but academia does not wish to enter. First up is the need to discuss empirical evidence, and for me acupuncture is an excellent benchmark when it comes to considering whether academia respects empirical evidence. For thousands of years empirical knowledge, thousands of years of case studies, has led to that bank of medical knowledge that is known as acupuncture. Yet science rejects it. There is a simple explanation for this – money. As has been discussed often on my sister site, specifically here, the medical establishment has been subverted by the finances of Rockefeller etc. and allopathic medicine is the only medicine that can be accepted. Therefore acupuncture whether it has a verifiable basis or not will never be recognised by western academia.

Meditative method is the next empirical method that is worth considering. Somewhere His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL) describes the method of meditation as a science. Basically all meditators gravitate to the same point of view. By my recollection he described the method of meditation used in Tibetan Buddhism as always leading to the same understanding, if that is true then there can be no better description of a science – scientific method.

I am not here attempting a proof by quantitative method, and as I assert that this is the only incontrovertible proof accepted by academia what I assert here is not science. However if one accepts that qualitative research through the empirical evidence of case study is actually science then everything I describe has a scientific basis. However I have no wish to contend this because quantitative proof is a misdirection and leads to limited understanding. What is needed is a different epistemology, and that theory for me is based around insight. This epistemology requires an education towards a belief and acceptance of insight, and the use of that skill of insight is the measure of science and the tool that breaks through the veil of ignorance. Of course western academia can never accept this. Whilst they can fool themselves that qualitative research is a substantive proof, they will never accept a subjective methodology such as insight.

But this is typical of the “axioms” of science, they are limited and often erroneous. This blog started with looking at Bruce Lipton’s examination of “genes maketh the man”, this might be true of denim (ha ha) it is certainly not true of people in general. In the last blog I promoted the notion of unity over separation as an axiom for understanding life. This axiom comes from insight, but not mine alone; it is a fundamental axiom of a number of religions and a number of peoples’ insights. At the same time insight brings into question the inadequate model that is separation. Quite obviously separation fits in with quantitative method and observation on an external level. Because of this obvious acceptance such a separation has become an axiom, we are fundamentally separate units as human beings. But the question then is “whilst we can observe bodies of separation, does that mean we as human beings are separate?” Once we start to investigate that question we can see that separation as an axiom is a big assumption. Various words immediately spring to mind to undermine this assumption, gestalt consciousness, collective unconscious, archetypes, etc.

Then we can start to examine Nature. What about ants? Quite clearly they have separate bodies but do they function as separate beings? That is open to question. What about the sea? When you look at the sea you see waves, but can you separate the wave from the sea? That is a ludicrous question. Can you separate individuals from unity for me is an equally ludicrous question? But unfortunately I am in a small minority who think so.

What is preventing science from seeing unity as the axiom? The consequences of the axiom of separation is beneficial to the established order – the 1%, as discussed in the last blog.

Here is an axiom that needs to work hand-in-hand with other axioms – compassion. If your axiom is not beneficial to humanity, and therefore by consequence, ONE planet, then your axiom is flawed. Should compassion be an axiom? Of course it is common sense that any axiom we adhere to has to be of benefit to us all. Measure Insight and Unity by Compassion. When I talk of Insight people argue like “what about Hitler’s insights? Are they insights?” Compassion floors Hitler’s insights.

Look at the consequences of the model of separation. We have competition, we have people “stabbing each other in the back”, and we have the actions of the 1% who think it is acceptable to exploit the 99%. Is this compassionate insight? Have you determined your axioms through insight measured by compassion?

Returning to the theme of ignorance we have some people living in a world where they think they are happy. Their happiness lacks compassion because their happiness is founded on exploitation of others. They lack insight because if they developed insight they could see the way they are. Maybe they look after their families but beyond this they lack humane compassion, and this lack of humanity can exist because they consider that we are all separate and therefore our individual lives matter irrespective of what happens to others. However in unity there has to be compassion, seeing ourselves as one means that compassion is integrated into our being; there is no question because our actions cause ourselves suffering or not. The ignorance of separation means that we cause ourselves suffering, and we delude ourselves that the suffering of others that we cause does not matter. But it is a delusion that it does not matter.

So in the end there is only compassionate insight.

Silence then Unity

In silence there is truth. This has come to mean a lot more to me recently. I moved house and am living in the countryside; I cannot see my neighbours. For me this is wonderful, and in doing this it has been coming to me in meditation more and more the importance of silence. This is not external silence nor internal silence – just silence. This realisation arose because I was not surrounded by noise. Where I lived before was a suburb but mostly it was not noisy. There were people around, sometimes there was dog noise, but it was not the quiet of Nature. I have this now, it is such a relief. It is quiet, and it makes me want a quiet mind. This I do not have, and more and more it has become my meditation purpose.

With the quiet comes insight that sees the truth, and one brief snippet came this morning. I was thinking of a friend who had let me down with a recommendation. For me if I recommend then my integrity says that the recommendation means this is someone I would use – I could rely on them. That didn’t happen. This man is dedicated to his family, and this is where my mind went. He is compassionate for his family as are many poeople but their compassion does not go beyond their family. Why not? Because if they extend their compassion to all people then there will be conflict with their need to make profit in business. By seeing themselves in terms of their family only they can work at whatever job comes their way, and come home feeling compassionate and loving.

This is separation, and therefore brings me to unity. ONE planet and Unity are issues I have discussed before, they are fundamental themes for change that I have raised both in Zandtao and Mandtao, but I had not seen so clearly the complete interconnectedness of the two paradigms. Separation produces focus on family producing focus on family values increasing the focus on the need for earning leading to the acceptance of compromise in capitalism. Unity brings with it caring for all as we are all one. This means that we care for our families but not at the expense of others. Mandtao is geared more towards the mind and as such ONE planet needs greater emphasis because it is mind that is causing separation.

Knowing we are ONE planet means we cannot hurt others, we want to help our own but not at the expense of others – UNITY.