Category: ONE planet


4 Characteristics of mind


Mandtao was in some sense a follow-on from the Treatise of Zandtao but at the time I was not clear why. It was connected to a notion of man but I wasn’t sure how. It was also connected to science as it began with Bruce Lipton’s epigenesis. So in some way it could be man and science.

It began with unity – ONE planet, and as well it began, following Bruce’s examples, with questioning all that the system called knowledge. But it kind of stuck on ONE planet.

Then I clued into Tan Ajaan, and began to look into mind. Understanding mind is the essential to understanding man, and as science hasn’t got to first base on mind it is no wonder that science is such a mess; effectively the search for knowledge has become a tool for the procreation of financial profit. Scientific method has typically disappeared out of the window as BigFood politics has determined that we need not consider the consequences of messing with Nature’s genetics. Why is understanding mind key to this? For me ONE planet is sufficient to say that science needs to be in harmony with Nature. But what about those who consider man above Nature, where can that come from? This is where understanding self comes in. Self is a mental construct. It does not exist so why do we think it exists? Because self seeks survival, promotes itself, and moves beyond its position in Nature. So this mental construct’s raison d’etre is to promote self-importance irrespective of what happens. Greed promotes self, and greed is the dominant human characteristic in the destruction of the planet. Self on a planet-wide scale is a description of our planetary troubles, and anatta, no-self, is the solution – on a personal level.

Previously I would have used greed to describe this situation but self is much more accurate. Attachment to self produces suffering. Whilst the search for increased profit at whatever cost is the most obvious consequence of self (normally seen as greed), self justifies this in terms of family and other such sensible rationales. If others are
doing it to help their families I may as well do the same – self-interest on a small scale. This does not show the destruction self creates. Why? My family is your family is you and me, we are ONE planet – unity; self has created separation, self-interest and then destruction. It is the separation that is the beginning of the suffering and destruction, greed is not the first step.

In the inner journey to world peace recognition of self as not existing is the first step. Yesterday I described the meditation that led me to asking “where is I?” To counter this as a proof that I does not exist it would be easy to say that I asked the question. This is where understanding and some Buddhist theory of mind helps. There was a feeling there was no I. It felt like I was a perception. There is a natural function of mind to question, and I only starts to occur when consciousness attaches to the perception. In Buddhist theory these four recognitions of self can be seen to come from vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana – possibly translated as feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness.

This is not strong in me. Whilst I am not stretching to fit into the theory, I know because of the way it happened in meditation, I could not convince a sceptic – nor could I convince the doubter in me. This anatta awareness is hard, if it was easy we would all have it. And squeezing into theory is not good for proselytising. It is necessary for the theory to be internalised and lead to an external understanding that can clarify it for others, otherwise it is just dogma. Time will tell.

I began asking about mara. Shamefully I don’t now the Buddha’s gospels well, but somewhere it says that he battled with mara under the bodhi tree. Now temptation is a very real problem, look at all the kilesa that arise from self. But how is it real? It comes from self. Self wants to exist, and if we become tempted into an action of
self then that is self-existence. In other words temptation is self tryng to create itself through temptation. It is part of mind that wants to create the separation of self so it creates temptation. Nature does not tempt. There is what Nature has for us to do, and there is what self wants to do to actualise. If there is that recognition then self has a problem to exist. It therefore tries to tempt. I have no idea how this fits in with the Buddha’s battles with mara, but if I can’t sense the devil it does not exist. Apart from quenching suffering this is the only other Buddhist axiom.

So mind is a sense that has four characteristics – vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana; these characteristics or aggregates make up the way the sense works. In excess this sense becomes self but if we live according to Nature the way Nature intended there is no self. And world peace.

Blogs:- Zandtao, Mandtao, Matriellez.

There are a series of movies by Frank Huguenard entitled “Beyond”:-

Beyond me

Beyond belief

Beyond reason

Anything that is beyond pleases me. However they haven’t gone down too well, Beyond Me sent me to sleep. The creator, Frank Huhuenard, is from a Vedanta tradition. This doesn’t make him right or wrong – it is just not my tradition so I am not knowledgeable about it.

But anyone who is beyond his tradition has got to be listened to so I must persevere. And I did so a little to hear the Elder brothers giving an excellent description of science. There are discussions about science and knowledge in my earlier blogs but for sound-byte culture here is a short clip (15 mins) of the dichotomy of knowledge into science and religion relegating non-measurable knowledge into the realms of superstition.

Because that was so sound I have included this clip on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is beyond me, not a good beyond – I don’t understand it. Because their discussion on science so resonates with me I have included this clip on quantum mechanics without understanding it. The clip on science exposes science as not being knowledge, quantum mechanics has an image of explaining all; the Elder brothers places parts in the realms of intellect and not knowledge. I don’t know how to go into the intricacies of what they presented but I am happy with what they say.

Unity despite a 1% system


When I first started Mandtao I was more interested in science. Bruce Lipton’s discussion on genes fitted in with much of the delusion I felt about science. And then I came to a personal crossroads when discussing the movie of that name. If I ignore the context in which we live I am avoiding the real issue the same way as the intellectuals I criticised in the movie.

The original sound-byte for the blog was the point and wave. This is an important realisation that I came to when young and reading “Tao of Physics”. But did Capra fully embrace the notion of the system we were in? He discussed paradigms, and at the time the notion of the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm in Turning Point rocked my world. But in the same way that the Crossroads movie blames society so did Capra.

What has made me reject the notion that it is society is the fact that in my 20s I came to these realisations, entered a world of work to some extent cognisant of Unity and Path, and spent my life battling. This conflict grew from a lack of willingness to compromise when I was right, an erstwhile friend correctly called me a “right f—er”. If I was right I stuck to my guns and alienated others.

The tolerant Buddhist in me now says that perhaps my attitude was wrong, an outsider causing alienation. Maybe? Or maybe it was aggression or belligerence on my part that caused the alienation. I was on the receiving end of alienation by idealists for 10 years. This alienation was caused by people placing political ideals before the interests of the people themselves. This lesson came to me most forcefully through an education I received working in the trade union movement backed up by some sound communist theory. It is not ideals we work for but the “Mass Movement”. Or much better Unity – the Path of Unity.

Unity in the 1% system sounds a contradiction in terms. When the concept of 1% first started being raised I read a Buddhist writing it is not 99% we want but 100%. I immediately thought what a dickhead, wonderful theory that has nothing to do with reality. These people, the 1%, have chosen to leave humanity. Their separation takes the form of greed at any price including the price of tens of thousands of lives. These 1% must choose to rejoin, it is they who are creating the problem, not those who are demanding Unity however forcefully. It is simple for the 1% to stop putting profits before people, their own material wealth before humane considerations of poverty, hunger and a “roof over the head”. Whilst their compromise might be seen as financially more substantive the reality is that there is no restriction on their choosing – other than their family. I compare that with myself. When I came to the Path – forced on the Path, not only did I face the wrath and ridicule of my family I also faced similar emotions from people around me. Still do. But with nearly 40 years of such conflicts I have learnt how to deal with them better, but mostly that means a form of separation. Such is a real irony, to gain unity I often separate. There is no doubt in my mind that any steps forward on the Path of Unity are taken because I am able to separate myself in retirement, something I could never do in the world of work.

The Path of Unity becomes that of sila – moral integrity, people before profits. Consideration needs to be at the forefront and such consideration does not exist in the minds of the 1% for whom profit at all costs is the reality.

For the majority of people the choice is neither giving up wealth nor a life of conflict based on what is right. Most people work within the 1% system of wage slavery, and the more fortunate spend the majority of their working lives doing something they can tolerate – or even partially enjoy. But what is significant about all wage slaves is that they have to compromise. When the 1% system pushes them a particular way, there is compromise. What the 1% system has developed is mechanisms that make these compromises palatable. The middle level exec does not kill Afghans, nor do they give orders to do so. Oppenhaimer built the bomb out of a genuine desire for knowledge. He compromised with concerns about its use, but there was a commitment to learning in what he did. But look at the results of his compromise. Do the inventors at Apple think about their own compromise for Apple’s significant military use? And Steve Jobs a Zen Buddhist?

The soldier kills the Afghan or pushes the drone button, but soldiers are groomed from early years to accept this. Is the university geek who builds components for the drone? Far from it, so they are kept from the front end, the battlefield, the place where people are killed.

Do the echelons of workers at Monsanto accept responsibility for the suicides in India? Of course not. No-one, not even the Board, told these farmers to kill themselves, but in each death there is a contribution from every Monsanto employee. It is the sum of the compromises that leads to policy that induces suicide, which compromise was yours?

It is by intention that most compromises are not recognised as disastrous, if we were all to be made conscious of the consequences of compromise then more would stand up for the 99%. How different are the people of Occupy? The endless letters from people who explain why they are 99%, is their story much different to yours or mine? I had a full grant and ended up with drinking debts that I was only able to pay off at work because I was on crutches for two months – and kept myself out of bars.


On the Zandtao blog and on this blog I have a One Planet page. Towards the end of Crossroads ideas approaching One Planet – Unity and connectedness began to be discussed more fully. First Bruce Lipton discussed a causal relationship involving plants, animals and humanity. In a world of plants there would be an excess of oxygen in the atmosphere that could lead to fire. The introduction of oxygen-breathing animals who emit carbon dioxide creates a balance, and the power and intelligence of man ought to provide an adjustment if ecological balance goes wrong. This is a functional relationship between man, animals and plants that is part of One Planet. In theory! In practice the 1%-directed humanity is destroying the ecology in search of profit.

There was then introduced the idea that humanity functions as a school – as in a school of fish, an army of ants, a flock of birds etc. When you look at a school of fish you see a large number of distinct creatures but if you look again you could imagine the fish as one. I believe, and the suggestion in the movie is, that humanity functions as one. I would perceive a single school of fish moving through the ocean in search of food. If we accept a school of humans then what is their direction? Above is the answer – 1%-directed. Examine a school of fish, on the leading edge move certain fish – the leaders. The rest of the fish follow, they are directed. This is a similar analogy to the use of the word herd to describe humans, most humans function in a herd but there are some that make decisions. It is the direction and decision-making process that is important to understand in considering a movie such as this. Because the movie asks intellectuals, they describe the ideas as the direction because ideas are the tools of their trade; but ideas do not have intrinsic power and are only allowed to direct when it suits the interests of power – at present the 1%.

Throughout the movie there is a vain hope built up concerning the Tipping Point – that if 10% of humanity adhere to an idea that idea will happen. In some cases ideas will come to fruition with 10% support but those are ideas that do not threaten power – those are ideas that move within the sphere of intellect alone and as such are not significant in the direction of the school. They might be ideas concerning relationships within the school but not of the school itself. Ideas that affect the power and influence of the 1% do not require a 10% Tipping Point, how many revolutions (changes of power) have changed based on 10% accepting an idea?

The movie wishes for 10% acceptance of an idea to be all that counts. This wishy-washy understanding of global power would enable intellectuals to mutually disagree, propound ideas and academicise whilst the world suffers. And then magically comes a consensual 10% and the world will change. Such will not happen and for intellectuals to conceive that it might is a chimera the 1% throws out as bait. The reality is that those that have some form of leadership mantle within the school of humanity cannot faff around in the hope of 10% cohesion, they need to make a decisive move to reshape the power of the whole school.

This is all connected with responsibility and power. We have power dominated by the 1%, and this power is used to the detriment of the planet. The Human school is misdirected. The 1% have recognised that they need to influence – control – the other leaders. And who are those leaders? They are the people with ideas, ideas for change. What the 1% cannot have is those ideas becoming action, coordinated action for one direction of the human school. So they find ways of controlling these ideas. In most cases those people with ideas are bought off by academic positions. They are told these positions have power but in truth all they are given is control of an institution that goes nowhere in terms of change, and often contributes to the power and direction of the 1% such as Harvard, Yale, Oxbridge etc. Whilst the academics in these institutions might propound ideas for change, the minds of the next 1% minions and corporate execs are fashioned in the lecture theatres and through the Hidden Curriculum.

When Ernst Laszlo describes the people who could make change as being those with ideas, he does not turn around and say they have been bought – because it is his colleagues who have been bought – and him (I don’t know him)? It is important to begin to recognise that for change to happen all those that see the need for change begin to work together, bury differences, and address the one “idea” that matters – the power of the 1% and how we can overcome that power. This “idea” that matters cannot be solved by 10% tipping, it cannot be solved by these active colleagues on the streets, it can ony be solved by an uncompromising attitude of all those who know taking a determined position against the 1% and their minions of politicians, police and military, enslaved bureaucrats and corporate execs. A big ask, not a 10% Tipping Point.


It is hard to write about such a movie as Crossroads that does not recognise the power issue. My continuous reaction is good idea but what about the power reality.

The first X-roads theme was interdependence, and it began with a global risk strategist talking about the connections. The strategist did not say that the 1% allow these problems to happen because they still maintain their income.

A guy, Jairon C Guesta, talks about Nature, how our economy exploits Nature, that is then based on our social values that is connected to our psychological and emotional systems and all our actions. This again is an important error in focus. Who is the we? I have never made decisions that would support the exploitation of Nature as discussed by Jairon. The vast majority of people do not support such exploitation. At worst a significant proportion of people trust government to control corporations to prevent unnecessary exploitation, but such blind faith can only tentatively be called a value of such people, it would be better described as abdication of responsibility. It is the same point, it is not we who decide it is a decision of the 1% that most people cowtow to including tacitly the speakers in this film who make their money from the existing system, compromise with it and don’t spend their time fighting the misuses of the 1%.

The next speaker, Michael Laitman, in this clip talks of governments not having the ability to manage the people. The governments are still the same, the economy still provides the 1% with profits in all the countries, and these vast numbers of people are on the streets fighting the 1% whilst academics pontificate. Laitman cites these struggles as being interdependence demonstrating a “law that is characteristic of integrated systems”. He claims world leaders cannot realise their decisions and in the movie actors portray headless chicken activity. This is far from reality. The reality is that business continues to accumulate profits, governments are blamed for ineptitude, and politicians get their pay-offs when leaving office after being the required receptionist in government. Such an analysis whilst correctly identifying the importance of interdependence, what used to be called the mass movement, does not sufficiently analyse the power structures and their objectives.

The next speaker, Amit Goswami, talks about Egolution recognising that the problem is ego. He then goes on about this ego in terms of the survival instinct producing competition as if it is the survival instinct that is the dominant idea leading to the egotism that is screwing up the world. Very simply competition has become misplaced, instead of it being a drive to help personally improve ourselves by competing with ourselves. No, the idea of the survival instinct leads to competition leading eventually to exploitation by the 1% – he didn’t make all those leaps. Misplaced competitive ego contributes to the problem but the few controlling the reins of power prevent those who want to withdraw from the world of competition from doing so. It is not an idea, an individual choice but power, power that misuses competitive ego.

They then go on to suggest that this power is simply social control ie that it is society trying to control itself. Of course there are cultural impositions in society that control. The Ash experiment is one example of social control – 10.31mins, and it led Jairon C Guesta to ask what way have we been using the influence of society? This question is of course completely misdirected, in what way have the 1% been manipulating society to enable their profit-making? It is not we, society, who are at fault but those who are manipulating society for their own greed and ego. It is not social control but 1% social manipulation, an important non-intellectual difference. There is a term, social contagion, described from 15.00 mins, we identify with group characteristics. Actions, happiness etc depend on those in the group. This type of conclusion is fundamentally describing herd responses but we are not just herd animals. Sadly some humans are herd animals, some choose to behave like herd animals abdicating reponsibility, and others begin to seek out their own individuality not as separate beings but as being on the Path. Would someone on the Path have been weak-willed enough to agree with the actors in the Ash experiment? People cannot tell me there is no chi. One guy, James Fowler, described norms as being transmitted through networks, our friends. Peter Joseph, their integrity is only as good as the integrity around them effectively describing all as herd.

This classification of humans is important in identifying the needs for change. We cannot find change in herd animals nor in those abdicating their responsibililty hiding as herd animals so that leaves the few who are not herd animals who need to effect change, by my description refuse to accept their non-herd responsibility to not compromise with the 1%. But most of these accept being bought off, accept compromise, and can be seen in interviews in films such as Xroads.

In truth though what do they do to get their views across? With this film let me try and answer that. The issue is not getting ideas aired but refusing to compromise with the 1%. Xroads is a movie that supports the 1% because it does not attack them as being responsible. So simply by appearing in this film these people are compromised, no matter that this movie in the end talks about Unity. In a similar vein I should not support Xroads, am I compromised in discussing the movie at length in this blog? Yes. But I want to note what are the contemporary ideas, even so – compromised.

I have just skim-watched “Crossroads: Labor Pains of a new worldview” and struggled through it. Yet another crossroads that a group of intellectuals or spirituals claim the world is meeting. To be honest my bias almost gave up on it. Then add the other failure of such intellectualism, the failure to recognise that the world does not change with ideas, it changes through power. There is a particular intellectual forlorn hope known as the tipping point. Basically an idea that has less than 10% of the world as adherents has no currency, more than 10% and people take it up. Here is an idea:-

The 1% control the world and 100% should control it, let’s call the idea democracy.

Why isn’t it happening? Because less than 10% of the world believe in democracy? Not at all. But because those in power manipulate that power so that the idea doesn’t happen. Some ideas might become currency if they do not affect those in power. But this movie was about a global crossroads, who has the power, and the effects of that power. So tipping points with regards to this are hogwash. To deal with that problem we need awareness of the ways of influence of the 1%, and certainly at the beginning this movie did not offer that awareness.

As usual in such films the propounders of the crossroads have been personally successful to some extent, writing books, academic positions and so on. As with my own situation as a teacher they have accepted some kind of compromise to earn their living, and any such compromise, including my own, allows the 1% to manipulate the power. Recognition of this compromise is also not part of the film, and we have a typical scenario of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed idealists presenting ideas as if the world only has to recognise these ideas and everything will be hunky-dory.

As an example of the groundswell that is leading to global change, they began with this short clip:-

January – Tunisia
February – Egypt
March – Spain
May – Greece
India – August

Lost the ability to manage the people? So examine these countries now, what is the state of change there? The repression, the 1%, has changed hue but not substance. I am not belittling the struggles of these comrades, their fights are powerful and the people deserve respect; but 10% tipping point idealism has got nothing to do with what is happening there. Are these struggles not managed? These people are confronting the 1% and the 1% minions through the army or the police are repressing them; this is the reality. The movie’s intellectuals need to face the reality, recognise how much their own compromises help create this reality and begin to face the real struggle. It is far from a struggle of ideas, it is about power. These same intellectuals wield some power as it is their creativity which is often the backbone of academic institutions and publishers that 1% minions exploit. Turn around and tell them, do something within your own compromise and not leave it to others.

There is also something worth considering, and that is subterfuge – a type of false flag. Over the years the 1% have always recognised how academia and reason can be used to maintain their own (1%) position of power. By repeatedly talking about ideas and reason intellectuals can convince themselves and others that those are the precursors of change, and rather than using their positions to the benefit of humanity they simply propogate ideas, their intellectualism deflecting focus away from the power of the 1% onto the supposed transformational ability of ideas. Be clear, ideas create change only if the powerful let them do so – unless there is a powerful mass revolution (a mass far more than the 10% tipping point). This film could be such a diversion – a false hope. Throughout the world young people are growing up to a realisation that the enemy is the 1%. Whilst the level of awareness of this inimical 1% is not high it must be worrying for those in power. The 1% response is not tolerant, peaceful demonstrations globally are repressed violently in a way that has not been seen since the anti-war protests of the 60s, a time when the establishment must also have felt under threat. Beginning a movie on unity with a message that the problem lies with the people only, that the people are in conflict, and that the people are going through a change suggests change can happen through ideas and ignores the immense power that is being used to prevent change.

On this false focus theme I am going to raise a further possible scenario, one that leaves me open to accusations about anti-Israeli racism. Let me first state a position I hold but cannot substantiate. The power bloc that is the 1% possibly has Bilderberg group connections, certainly has business connections including Jewish, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and so on. By recognising this am I being racist? Of course the 1% power bloc would say so. There are good Israeli people as there are good people of all nationalities, but are all nationalities part of the 1%? Here is a description from his website:-

“Joseph Ohayon is a filmmaker, writer and speaker based in Israel and New York.

“Known for his relentless quest to put pieces together and look at the big picture, Joseph directs, writes, and hosts documentaries and talk shows on Israeli television. Joseph also lectures for the ARI Institute to help raise awareness of today’s global challenges and the need to adapt to an increasingly interdependent world.” It is significant that in the movie there are no attacks on the US government nor on the Israeli government, and as I have said an intellectual focus that does not rest on the 1%. Where does this free movie get its funds from?

Even though the 1% are so powerful that is no excuse for apathy, we must agitate for change.

Having got that off my chest there is much in the movie that is helpful and positive and worth considering as primarily the movie addresses the notion that we are all one, and that the crossroads we need to face is that we remove separation and unite.

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:-

here

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.

Paradigm

Capra begins the next section of Web of Life with discussion of the word paradigm. Starting from Thomas Kuhn’s definition as applied to science Capra expands it [p5]:-

“to that of a social paradigm, which I define as “a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions, and practices shared by a community, which forms a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way the community organizes itself. ”

As Matriellez, I described one of the four dominating aspects of education as the corporate paradigm. Capra’s adaptation of Kuhn’s defintion would apply very well to this corporate paradigm “a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions, and practices shared by a community, which forms a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way the community organizes itself. ” It doesn’t need any alteration, it fits as a perfect description of the way things are except for one important caveat, the Mandtao caveat, that ought to be included:-

“a constellation of concepts, values, perceptions, and practices shared by a community, which forms a particular vision of reality that is the basis of the way the community organizes itself but whose totally dominating influence is the increased profits of the 1%.”

No wonder science is embraced by the 1%, they sugar-coat reality for the benefit of the 1%. Where is the genuine understanding of what is without a recognition that the paradigm profits the 1%. It is the same as saying we live in a democracy without saying the Mandtao caveat “democracy whose totally dominating influence is the increased profits of the 1%.”

He goes on to describe the mechanistic view of life, Newtonian Cartesian paradigm, as disappearing. Because he does not include the Mandtao caveat it appears reasonable to see this change from the mechanistic view as feasible, but with the caveat we can understand the failure of science to embrace the changes he so eloquently described in his earlier books. In his scientific paradigm he considers developing awareness, but with the caveat one has to ask “will the profits be affected?” And that is difficult to answer. If his awareness change demands a sustainability pre-requisite then such a change is in direct conflict with 1% profitability to such an extent that the 1% has established a think tank whose specific purpose is to promote climate change denial.

To be fair to Capra, I could interpret the rest of the chapter as tacitly including the Mandtao caveat. He promotes deep ecology as described by Arne Naess (I came across him when I relived my 20-something ecosophy – amusing). This deep ecology is a more elucidated version of the ONE planet page in which humanity recognises itself as integrated with all being – as opposed to shallow ecology which sees a separation and natural resources to be used in a “nice” way.

Capra also drew an interesting distinction between holistic and ecological [p6]:-

“A holistic view of, say, a bicycle means to see the bicycle as a functional whole and to understand the interdependence of its parts accordingly. An ecological view of the bicycle includes that, but it adds to it the perception of how the bicycle is embedded in its natural and social environment – where the raw materials that went into it came from, how it was manufactured, how its use affects the natural environment and the community by which it is used, and so on.” I have a particular beef about plastics. The plastics industry produces an excessive amount of plastics, and leaves government to clean them up (discussed here). This is complete dishonesty because the only way they can be cleaned up is for business to build plant that can recycle the plastics. The gyra and other plastics eyesores (as discussed in “Tapped”) are completely caused by the 1%, and with all the will in the world the 99% cannot do anything about it because plastics requires plant to convert them – despite the efforts of the industry spokespeople to blame the 99% and government. Because of my beef about plastics I say that ecological disposal of manufactured items needs to be part of the ecological outlook (I have no doubts at all that Capra was including this ecological disposal in his “and so on”).

I choose different words than ecological. I consider that the businesses of the 1% need to be accountable for the environmental damage they cause, and by accountable I mean that they must pay. It is ludicrous that in Tapped the water spokespeople were allowed to blame the local councils for the failure to provide sufficient collection points for their plastic bottles. It is not up to the local council to provide collection points, it is up to the businesses. Furthermore those businesses also need to provide plant where these plastics can be converted into other useful plastic items. Once created plastic does not biodegrade as does wood or other natural products. The plastics become an eyesore causing environmental damage because they have been created by business. It is up to Bill Gates to build factories that recycle the polystyrene, not anyone else. This is the benefaction that community responsibility requires, not usurping Africa with Monsanto GM seeding.

Here the problem lies with the legal, social and scientific axiom concerning the environment. Our legal system is controlled by the 1% but it tries to give the appearance of compassion, and occasionally judges risk the wrath of the 1% control and dish out environmental settlements. But throughout these legal processes the lawyers funded by the 1% tie up the legal process with law, case law, previous settlements and so on. There are many scenarios where Erin Brockovich fights for the rights of people and the planet against big business; in the movies the person who wins is miraculously portrayed, in real life there are few legitimate cases that are actually won. This is because the fundamental basis on which the law is fought is the Mandtao caveat, the protection of the 1% and not the genuine axiom of ONE planet, Capra’s ecological imperative.

Here we have the underlying problem. Our system is based on the 1%, the Mandtao caveat “whose totally dominating influence is the increased profits of the 1%”, and not on ONE planet. ONE planet needs to be applied across the board, our law, our economy, our science and our society. To be civilised means to be in harmony with ONE planet not creating technology that allows the continued domination by the 1%. This is the reality of discussing paradigms. Token changes from mechanistic world views might rock the world of science but if our whole system does not change this basic axiom there is little chance that such paradigmatic scientific change will be anything other than whistling in the wind. How far along this road did Capra go?