Small Self VS Big Self: The Chicken or the Egg of Conciousness Pt.2

I was sitting in my friend, Dustin's attic bedroom last night, talking philosophy, and I was trying to explain the idea that the universe needs an observer to exist. (I posted an earlier thread about this, which was a dialogue between myself, and my friend Obi.) I don't know how the conversation spiraled into this topic, but it's something I had tried to explain to him before. Anyway, he strongly disagreed with the idea, and he eventually just said that he was done talking about it.

Now, Dustin is a pretty easy going fellow, and not quick to anger, so I wonder what made him so mad. I wonder what made Obi so mad, when I talked about it with him. I understand that the common understanding, at least in the west, is that the universe somehow exists independently of the observer. It's a very intuitive idea, but it was also a very intuitive idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the Sun and the planets all moved around around it, and we all know how that turned out.

But I think that the question about the universe existing without an observer is a far simpler question--you don't need to be an astronomer to puzzle it out. You don't need any kind of specialized knowledge at all. It's just a matter of employing reason.

Imagine I ask someone to show me an orange, and he does. Then I ask them to show me an orange the next day, but that night, I shoot myself with a ray-gun an disintegrate myself completely. The next day, will they still be able to show me the orange? If the answer is "no", then how can I know that the orange is there?

The guy with the orange knows its there, but what happens if HE gets disintegrated with a ray gun?

How can the universe exist without an observer? How can anything exist without an observer? What characterizes it? What shape does it have? How big is it? How can you know it's there if no one notices it?

When you think that the universe exists independent of the self, then it's easy to make the assumption, that the world that you perceive is something you're inhabiting--that you're just a body. But you're not just your body, you're consciousness. The body is perceived by consciousness. Of course the body is the SEAT of consciousness, maybe even the source (though I don't believe this), but you're experiencing the world through the filter of your senses. YOUR senses. If it were possible to somehow experience the universe objectively, my guess is that it would be totally incomprehensible.

Dustin told me that he didn't believe in spirituality and that he didn't understand why I had to analyze everything.

But it seems to me that this is defensiveness. I think there is something attractive to people about imagining themselves as an insignificant speck in a massive universe. I don't know what the attraction IS, but I've seen that when you try to challenge this understanding, otherwise rational people become really upset.

On the other hand, there are real benefits to understanding the universe as an expression of your own awareness. For one thing, when you start to view people as manifestations of your self, a genuine vicariousness naturally springs up, and the need to assert the ego dwindles, and with it the need to create, or be a part of conflict.

When you think about life this way, you take ownership of it. Then you realize the power of judgment and acceptance--you realize that when your are judging someone, you are really judging yourself, and when you are accepting someone, you are really accepting yourself.

If you instead decide to cling to the view of separateness, then what are you? What defines you? Only ego, which is constantly asserting itself to maintain the spell of existence, and often creating great harm as it does so.

No New Religion: I Rescind My Appeal

The first entry in this blog was entitled, "A New Religion for the West", and it was an appeal for just that. Some time has passed since I wrote it, and my philosophy has changed. Now I think that religion should be done away with entirely.

The goal of religion should be to illuminate spiritual truth. I see now that religion can never achieve this end. I say this because I understand spiritual truth from direct experience, and I can say with certainty that religion, like any other concept serves only to obscure truth. Even these words are obscuring truth.

Ultimately no instruction can initiate wisdom. No religion, no science and no philosophy. Throw them away. Don't read another self help book: it won't help you. Advanced yoga poses won't help you. Tai Chi won't help you. Krishnamurti or Krishna or Jesus cannot help you. Offerings of Fanta and oranges will not help you. Getting a doctorate in psychology won't help you, and it won't help you to pay for session from somebody who does.

Don't even meditate. Don't do anything. Wisdom is always here, it's just hidden by all of the shit that is going on in the mind.

You can find wisdom, but you cannot figure it out. If you are trying to understand how to stop suffering, then stop it. The trying to understand is creating the suffering. Religion is built on trying to understand suffering. There are millions of Buddhist monks in the world, who have dedicated their lives to getting enlightened and they never will. Their first problem is that they are trying to get enlightened. Their second problem is that they are Buddhists. No Buddhist was ever enlightened. No Buddhist ever will be enlightened. For one thing, no one gets enlightened. The world gets enlightened and the "one" disappears. Then there is just a guy with a shaved head in an orange robe, staring stupidly with a grin on his face.

SO, I rescind my appeal for a new religion. Any new religion or philosophy, or thing that sits between will probably do just as much harm as good. Drop the religion you have. If you're an atheist, drop your atheism. Drop all the stupid insubstantial ideas that you cling to to define yourself. And if it makes you feel sad or depressed, drop that shit too, and then you will be getting somewhere.