Consciousness Is Not A Device

Consciousness is not wholly, nor even primarily a device for receiving sense-impressions. …there is another outlook than the scientific one, because in practice a more transcendental outlook is almost universally admitted. …who does not prize these moments that reveal to us the poetry of existence?


– Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington




The Unknown Aether

If today you ask a physicist what he has finally made out the æther or the electron to be, the answer will not be a description in terms of billiard balls or fly-wheels or anything concrete; he will point instead to a number of symbols and a set of mathematical equations which they satisfy. What do the symbols stand for? The mysterious reply is given that physics is indifferent to that; it has no means of probing beneath the symbolism. To understand the phenomena of the physical world it is necessary to know the equations which the symbols obey but not the nature of that which is being symbolised. …this newer outlook has modified the challenge from the material to the spiritual world.


– Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington



Meditation Cannot Produce Love

LOVE is essentially self-communicative: those who do not have it catch it from those who have it…. No amount of rites, rituals, ceremonies, worship, meditation, penance and remembrance can produce love in themselves. None of these is necessarily a sign of love. On the contrary, those who sigh loudly and weep and wail have yet to experience love. Love sets on fire the one who finds it. At the same time it seals his lips so that no smoke comes out.


– Meher Baba


(Quote taken from





You Can’t Sell Enlightenment

Now, what some people have realized is that you can’t really sell enlightenment (which is what we’ll be calling the Experience, just because we have to call it something at this point). You can pretend to sell enlightenment. You may even be able to convince some people that you’ve enlightened them. But the charade has a difficult time persisting because it’s a false understanding of enlightenment that is sold. The understanding that was/is sold was/is the understanding that once I become enlightened all my problems will be solved. I’ll know all the secrets of the universe. I’ll be happy ALL THE TIME. Chicks (or dudes) will want to fuck my brains out. My student loan arbiter will forget all about those tens of thousands of dollars I owe. I will float in mid air. My farts will smell of Petunias. I will speak only in cryptic koans that will convince all the Buddhist dorks that I’m a Master. I will teleport freely between space, time and dimensions in order to save ALL LIVING BEINGS, including, for some reason, earwigs. But first, all living beings must pay $15 per month for access to my youtube channel, because, you know, enlightenment isn’t cheap, you unenlightened creeps.


You know…enlightenment


The problem with selling that sort of enlightenment is that even if you convince someone they’ve reached this stage, life still sucks. And when life continues to suck even after enlightenment has supposedly been attained, there’s going to be some weird psychological blowback. Basically: cognitive dissonance. But enlightened beings are not supposed to experience cognitive dissonance, so, “subconsciously” perhaps, the enlightened being is forced to make significant psychological efforts to repress and/or ignore the cognitive dissonance, which — as everyone knows by now — only reinforces the cognitive dissonance one is trying to get rid of.


So basically you have a bunch of psychologically fucked up people wandering around, condescending to people and being generally insufferable to be around. And, what’s worse, they’re not even happy. They’re simply trying to convince everyone else that they’re happy and that everyone else would be happy if those people simply did what the supposedly enlightened people told them to.


Mr Furious.

Rotten Green Ham

Examples of ” psychological “, ” logical ” and ” defective ” thinking abound around us. Occasionally we meet with the psychological method in science. In psychology itself the ” psychological method ” leads inevitably to the recognition of the fact that human consciousness is merely a particular instance of consciousness, and that an intelligence exists which is many times superior to the ordinary human intelligence. And only a psychology which starts from this proposition and has this proposition as its foundation can be called scientific. In other spheres of knowledge psychological thinking lies at the root of all real discoveries, but it usually does not keep long. I mean that as soon as ideas which have been found and established by the psychological method become everybody’s property and beginto be looked upon as permanent and accepted, they become logical and, in their application to phenomena of a greater size, defective. For instance, Darwin—his discoveries and his ideas were the product of psychological thinking of the very highest quality. But they had already become logical with his followers and, later on, they became undoubtedly defective, because they stood in the way of the free development of thought.

This is exactly what Ibsen’s Dr. Stockmann meant when he spoke about ageing truths.

There are truths, he says, which have attained such an age that they have really outlived themselves. And when a truth becomes as old as this it is on the best way to become a lie. . . . Yes, yes, you may believe me or not, but truths are not such long lived Methuselahs as people imagine them to be. A normally constructed truth lives as a rule, let us say, fifteen, sixteen, at the most twenty, years, seldom longer. But such ageing truths become terribly lean and tough. And the majority, having first of all been created by them, later recommends them to humanity as healthy spiritual food. But I can assure you there is not much nourishment in such food. I must speak about this as a doctor. All the truths belonging to the majority are like ancient rancid bacon or like rotten green ham; and from them comes all the moral scurvy which is eating itself into the life of the people around us.

The idea of the degeneration of accepted truths cannot be expressed better. Truths that become old become decrepit and unreliable; sometimes they may be kept going artificially for a certain time, but there is no life in them. This explains why reverting to old ideas, when people become disappointed in new ideas, does not help much. Ideas can be too old.


– P.D. Ouspensky. A New Model Of The Universe