Robert Walker Online

The idea “know thyself” really means that the person who truly knows himself will realize that self itself is an illusion. That the self is an illusory way of experiencing reality. We cannot see/live reality until we do away with that which impedes us from seeing it as it really is; and this is the ego, or self—either of which are, ultimately, illusions.

So, in this way, Kant, and Spinoza, and the Buddha, were right. The mind of which Kant speaks does exist (as what we call ego), and it is imperative for us to recognize this. But where Kant stopped, what Kant did not address (the nature of what that mind is) is where Spinoza and the Buddha come in. Mind, or ego, does exist, but it exists as an illusion. What Kant showed us is that we cannot begin to address the world—or reality—itself before recognizing that how we see it is in the way and colors everything in our worlds. The Buddha and Spinoza showed us that the only way to see things as they really are is to see the mind and the ego and the self as they really are, which is as illusions. This is why it is so important to see illusions, to not ignore them, but to seek them out, for only by finding the illusions of our conditioned existences can we see the reality of which the illusion is a distortion.

The ultimate illusion seems to be the self. This is what Socrates maybe knew, and what Descartes and Kant helped move forward, (or backward, towards ancient “Eastern” “philosophies” and “religions” which already knew this, at least better than we do these days in this kind of society). This is also why the Euro-American espousing of individuality is counter-productive, for it is on the wrong track. The more we separate ourselves from each other and our environments the further away we get from seeing things as they really are, and the further away we get from being free of our illusion-based prisons, and the prisons of Kant’s metaphysics.

If people really want freedom, therefore, they need to change their understanding of freedom, which is part of what we can learn from Spinoza. For freedom is both being free “from” something and being free “to do” something. They are one and the same, and cannot exist without the other. This is why Americans who espouse the freedom of “individuality” and “personal property” are ignorant, misguided, and hypocritical, for it is these concepts themselves which keep them from being free.

Americans do not really want freedom, for it would mean that they would see the concepts and ideas they hold so dear as the illusions and frauds that they really are. They are scared to do this, they are too weak to do this, they are too selfish to do this. European-American “progress” is, actually, nothing of the sort. It is rather a regression, a cancer of ignorance masked as progressive intelligence that is spreading over the world on the crest of the wave of capitalist and “democratic” economics.

An antidote is found in the doing of the teachings of true Buddhadharma (which starts with, and can essentially be summarized as, “think/see for yourself”), or, said another way, in awakening; but it is not flashy, it does not cater to the egos that stand guard in people, and so they will be reticent to consider it. Such are the wily workings of the ego.
.
From my personal notes, 11/15/99.

So, people “see something,” either literally, or figuratively. They think that the way they see it is the only real way to see it, the “true” way to see it (whether it be an “object” or a “situation”). This is what the idealists are talking about when they say that the world exists in our minds, because we can only see the world the way we see it; thus, a thing is, to the idealist, the way he sees it, for how could it be any other way?

One problem with this way of thought is that it is closed off to the reality of process, of change, of the fact that there is, always, another way of perceiving it, so the way you see something now is not necessarily going to be the way you see it later. It also ignores that another person sees the same thing we see, but in a different way, almost as something else. This is the problem with taking idealism further than where its value and truth lies. It is not that the mind determines whether or not something exists, the mind simply determines how we see it, and “subsequently,” how we process it, understand it, and experience it. Though, most people mistake that for what the thing is.

So, people “see something;” but what they are really “seeing” is their perception of the thing, not necessarily the thing itself as it really is (they see an illusion in the place of its reality).

What is it that is causing us to see things in a distorted way? Why (or, how) do we not see things as they really are? Is it that we can’t, or rather that we can, but don’t? Is it even possible for us to see undistorted?

These are not easy or simple questions to answer, but one of the main culprits in it all has to be what we call the ego (otherwise known as the self). What is the ego? Is there really such thing as (the) ego—that it is a something, not just a name we assign to a process? Is the ego a thing, like a filter, or a pair of colored contact lenses, through which we see the world and can not (or perhaps do not) see without it? Or is the ego rather our clung-to perceptions of ourselves, by which our perceptions of everything else are tinted? Perhaps Kant’s notion of mind is not a “mind,” but rather this other conceptualization of ego, that it is our perceptions of ourselves, of whatever and whoever we think we are, in which Kant’s a priori concepts lie, that it is the ego which is the processor of sensory data.

The idea here is that if this is the case, if the ego is a process of how we perceive ourselves which colors how we see (what we see as) everything else, then if one is able to change his perceivings of himself, of who or what he is, then he will be able to change the way his perceivings of the world are colored. And this idea implies that it may be possible to see ourselves in such a clear way that the idea if ego—or mind, or self—is itself revealed to be an illusion as well; a distortion of the reality it distorts: that there is really no such thing as self; that it, as well, is a concept that we have perceived and have been conditioned to accept as fact.
.
From my personal notes, 11/15/99.

Now, here are two ways to approach this issue. One is to be open to the possibility that we can see things as they really are, that with the right efforts it is possible to dissolve the illusions of our conditioned existence and see things as they really are. The other is (as Kant has suggested) that it is not possible to see things as they really are, that we cannot escape the prisons of our own minds, nor of the hard-wired processes of that mind, nor of our (and this, initially, seems impossible to get past) inherently limited angle of vision (i.e., perspective) at any given moment. We simply cannot see something from every perspective at once—it is not possible. Either way, it is this problem of illusion vs. reality, this problem of us all living in our own custom worlds of illusion, that causes so much, if not all, of our human conflicts.

It is our perceptions and concepts and opinions of things that make them good or bad, right or wrong, sensible or nonsensical. These are concepts we impose upon nature; or perhaps they are a part of nature. The implication of Kantian metaphysics, though, is that no matter how much we try, no matter how much effort we put into it, we can never know the truth of it, as we can never not be in our own minds, we can never not be, well, us.

One answer to this stifling implication is that there is no difference between “us” and the “outside” world; that we are not separate things; that we are mistaking the way we analyze the world for the way the world is; for, in many ways, how and why we separate “this” from “that” is arbitrary. Just think of the human “body,” and how we separate it into parts, but it works together as a whole. We think of it as both parts and a whole. Which is it? Parts or a whole? Do we really understand “parts” and “whole?” I mean, they each seem to need each other for their respective existences, and so how can they really be different, separate things?

Do we really understand the way we separate things and why we do it?

We are questioning basic assumptions here. What we find is that things might not be separate, but rather we separate them in our minds in order to understand them in a context, a context that our own minds provide. As such, how do we really know that we are separate from the world, from nature, from that which we assume to be “other” than us? As much as we might want to insist that it is just obvious that there is a you that is separate from that which is not-you, when you think hard about it, you see that it is really a fairly arbitrary judgment based on “rational” assumptions, the grammar of our language, certainties and beliefs that are not understood so much as stood on.

If this is the case, then it suddenly seems possible not only that we might be able to connect with each other and the world, when we previously thought it impossible, but also that we may, in fact, be able to get out of the prisons of our selves, our minds. In fact, I think we can also find the potential for this idea in Kant, in that he said that we impose our a priori ideas and concepts (per our hard-wiring) onto nature. So, from this idea, we can say that one of those concepts is this idea of duality (Kant didn’t say this about duality, as far as I know; I am using it, making an analogy between a priori concepts and assumption). We see the possibility that there is not only not necessarily such things as space and time and extension in the world itself, but that there is also no real such thing as a difference between me and you, this and that, at least as we know them. (This is a possible connection and harmony between Kantian and Spinozian metaphysics, though it might just be with a bridge I put there.)
.
From my personal notes, 11/15/99.

Illusion (n): 1) The faulty perception of an external object. 2) Something that deceives by producing a false impression of reality. 3) A misleading perception of visual stimuli. (Random House Webster’s Dictionary)

Of course, it is also a confounding possibility that the very duality that assumes external objects is an illusion. Much philosophical exploration has been concerned with just this problem. But, look at definition 2. Initially, we might think that that “something” which deceives us is the external object itself, or even the play of light and shadow, or, even when we are talking about the truth of situations as well as objects, that pesky thing we call perspective. But, what about thinking about our own ego/self as the something? That changes the game. And so, again, the object of our examination is this ego, this self—what it is, from where it comes, what it does, and how much we mistake it for who we really are.

Rather than getting caught up in the dark forest of rationality that is the discussion of duality vs. non-duality, let’s just focus initially on the illusions and where they come from, for we may just be able to get our answers about duality from this angle. In fact, I think that we must abandon the angle of Western philosophical rationality in order to discover the truth of these issues. This is what so many seekers have discovered about the inadequacy of the Western rational system.

One simple way to see it is that rationality is not the context in which we must seek truth, or, indeed, the context of reality itself, but rather just a tool we use to seek truth. If we look at it this way, we can see that rationality no longer is the boundary or limit or definer of this process of discovery, but rather just one tool we can use along the way. It opens up a panorama that we never even knew was there only because we had assumed that rationality is the panorama, is the context. But that’s just an assumption that hasn’t been properly questioned. It’s interesting how questioning something that we hadn’t thought to question can change so much. [Note: This idea about rationality in the latter part of this paragraph was thought of while reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.]
.
From my personal notes, 11/15/99.

The point I’m making here is that the way to begin to understand this stuff is to focus on questioning the illusions you have about such things as life, death, birth, beginning, end, process, etc. Unless you are an enlightened buddha, anything you believe or opine about the subject of life/death/rebirth is wrong. Period. It’s better to focus on the illusions in front of us. When you truly start to question your illusory concepts, you will be surprised to discover just how much you had been credulously assuming without even realizing it.

We are the products of our perceptions of the world. Thus, we cannot say that the world “exists only in our minds.” The world exists, it is what it is. We do not determine what the world is, what things are, only how they are to us. It is we who are determined by our perceptions of the world, of the way things are. Things are the way they are—it is up to us to see them clearly, as they really are.

Most people do not see clearly, and thus are unable to see things as they really are, only as they currently appear to them and their fickle and egocentric points of view. Their vision is distorted by illusions—or, rather, reality is seen by them not as it really is, but as illusion; reality is distorted in their vision and thus they see an illusion, a distortion of reality. It is not necessarily as if an illusion is covering up or standing in the way of the reality behind. The illusion and its reality are one and the same. To see it clearly is to have the illusion dissolve, or fade, in our minds, where the illusion exists/resides, into the reality, for the illusion was but the reality seen in a distorted way. Think about an example like a mirage. Whether or not there is water has nothing to do with whether or not you see what you think is water.

Thus, it is possible that we actually do live in a world of “realities,” but we do not see them clearly, we do not understand things clearly, we experience and see them distorted. So, this way that we see things (in a distorted way)—this, then, is what an illusion is.

Our pedestrian understanding of an illusion implies that it does not exist, and this is not the case. An illusion does exist. There are no illusions out there in the world, independent of a subject to (mis)perceive them, but that doesn’t mean that when it comes to ourselves they don’t exist. An illusion exists as an illusion, in our minds. It exists, and it is not whether or not it exists that is important, but rather how it exists, how we experience (or “see”) it. The illusion is but (our) distorted (understanding of) reality. A reality is misperceived and seen not as it is, but distorted. How is it distorted? Through the prism of the ego-self and its army of illusions (beliefs, assumptions, certainties, systems of rationality).

So, this is what I mean when I say we see illusions. We are seeing the thing itself, but not as it is, not undistorted by our perceptions of it. Thus, we do not see reality, we see illusions of reality. Reality is thus only revealed when the illusion is broken, when the spell is broken, so to speak.

Thus, it is in this way that I say that people, in fact, live not in reality, but in a world of illusions. And since their illusory worlds are always going to be different than anyone else’s, it makes clear communication and mutual understanding difficult to varying degrees, which vary according to the degree of congruity between their systematic visions of the world. The disturbing possibility that arises out of this is that is we can never really communicate clearly, or really understand each other; that it is—ultimately, no matter how close we get, or think we get—impossible. But, remember that it is our illusions which cause us to be the way we are and communicate the way we communicate. We need not be controlled and determined by these illusions. It is to a choice of ours to remain so.
.
From my personal notes, 11/15/99.

Life is, of course, complicated by the fact that our lives are, for the most part, the consequences of our actions, and for most of us, our actions are dictated by our unexamined whys (as in, why we do what we do, why we think what we think, etc.).

Now, how much control we have—as opposed to our “whys”—over what we do seems to, you know, have at least some relevance in human life. While I don’t think we can be responsible for what happens “to” us, we are certainly responsible for our own actions, whether those actions are manifested as beliefs, values, and assumptions, or re-actions to what happens to us. I am not sure that I can agree that people can do things to us in the direct, cause and effect way that we normally assume it to be, but that issue is somewhat examined elsewhere in my notes. Either way, we are responsible for our own actions because our whys are made up of our misguided, flawed, and obtuse perceptions of what happened to us, around us, and by us. Thus, if we are responsible for our own perceptions (for who else could be?) then we must be responsible for our own actions. This, then, begs the question: if we are controlled by our whys, and thus do not control ourselves, how can we be responsible for our actions when we do not control our actions, our whys do?

It is that which makes our perception warped—off, misguided, clouded, confused—that is to blame, then. What makes our perceptions skewed is our ego-self. The products of these distorted perceptions are illusions, and it is also our belief in, and our perceptions of, the illusions we see that produce more illusions and baseless beliefs. It’s a self-sustaining cycle of illusion feeding belief, and belief feeding more illusion, and so on.

The thing is, we must be responsible for our actions because no matter where the illusions come from which distort the vision of our perception, our perception is wholly our own; and we are is the product of our distorted perceptions. We are responsible because just because most people do not make the effort to not be controlled by their illusion-based conditioned existence, that does not mean that they can not, and the fact that they can means that they, and only they, must be responsible for whether they do or not make that effort.
.
From my personal notes, 11/15/99.

I have always been interested in, and drawn to, what lies beneath the surface, both in people and societies. What lies beneath the surface façade—motivations, fears, lusts, neuroses, passions, love, hate, anger, joy—all things that, for whatever myriad reasons, bubble, simmer, spit, and spew beneath the surface, unconsciously or consciously, but stealthily, coming to the light in our actions, the subtle look or gesture, the sweaty palms, or the sigh when you thought no one was looking. This underbelly, this pool beneath the insincere, misunderstood, and bogus façade of social and personal action and interaction—this is what is interesting to me. What’s really going on. The surface is nothing, for it is not real. Reality is the absence of illusion.

.

From my personal notes, 11/12/99.

To think that you need to have anything this society is selling to attain enlightenment is to be very confused and ignorant about how things actually work. Having divested myself of these kinds of illusions that had previously been unquestioned, I am now free of the illusions of money, and as such, I’m fine with having or not having money, because I think I am responsible with what I do with it—it doesn’t rule or control me or what I do or do not do, and I don’t hurt, or try to use or manipulate, or otherwise try to use money as power-over-other-people or anything like that with it. I will also not do anything primarily to get more money that I don’t need. If someone’s going to give it to me, or if I write a book that someone pays me for, then fine, but I’m not going to do it, or compromise myself, for the money. If someone is going to give me money for what I am doing, that’s fine with me, I’m not going to refuse it. I mean, that would be giving money more import that it deserves. (People who make a big scene of renouncing things they decry as unimportant don’t realize that they are making it important by decrying it.)

Again, it’s not the money, but the person that matters. But that doesn’t change what is wrong with a money-based system, for there is plenty wrong with it. Any ideology that ties happiness to money, or any material things, is inherently flawed.

Let’s face it: the “American Dream,” and American society, is not, in any way, based upon being a wise and kind person. It is based on making money; because, to those who buy the party line, money means security, success, happiness. “Making something of yourself” in this society means getting a “regular job” and making a lot of money. That’s it. It has nothing to do with how people treat their families or other people, let alone who they really are. Money is what this society clearly values. And the values of “a society” are the values of the majority of its citizens. It has nothing to do with a person’s intentions or wisdom; only money. Having it or not having it says nothing to me about a person, nor does it say anything to whether that person is successful in life other than in making money. The ability to make money is simply not something I respect in the least.

Money itself is nothing. It’s a constructed illusion, an idea. And within the context of this society, it is nothing more than a means to an end. Nothing more, nothing less. But—and this is what this is all about—what end? Does money buy and provide the things that help you attain enlightenment/happiness, or rather the things that, ultimately, get in the way, or don’t really matter? Think about it. When it comes to your life, your happiness, your enlightenment, this happens to be important. Maybe you’ve just never slowed down enough to really think about it. No big deal. Why not think about it now?

In this country one is “free” as long as one believes in the money system, believes in what the system tells you, that getting a “job” to be part of the money system is what you are supposed to do, is what makes you a good person, a productive member of society. One is “free” in this country as long as they play along with the system, which is based on making money. Even most “volunteer” enterprises in this country are all about getting people back to the place where they can be plugged into the system. Why is that “Good?”

The fact that one needs money in this society does not mean that one “needs money” (as an ultimate concept—the way we are conditioned to talk and think about it). It only means that one needs money in this society because this society is run on money. But the things that money can buy are not much more than the basic necessities of life—which can certainly be gotten by other means—and luxuries that one does not need, but rather covets and enjoys.

So, what does the fact that a person can make money, and can play along in the system enough to get it, say about him/her as a person? To me, nothing. Not a thing. It tells me nothing important, because what is important to me is a person’s attitude, a person’s values, a person’s ability to live free, which means not being controlled by the illusions of the conditioned existence his/her upbringing and this society engender. The abilities and skills that one needs to make money, and thereby be successful by American society’s standards, have nothing whatsoever to do with these things. Nothing.
.
From my personal notes, 11/10/99.

It’s fine to “have” things. But, it’s also just as fine not to have them. He/she who can say this, feel this, know this inside, is free from some very important controlling illusions.

I sometimes ask people what they would do if they had all the money in the world, if money wasn’t an issue—the point being to get people to think outside of the limits of their conditioned beliefs and assumptions, to get to what they really wanted to do, which gets closer to who they really are. Well, I eventually came to realize that that is the same, the same, as asking what they would do if they had no money. If the answers to those questions are different, then there’s a problem.

Ultimately, there is little difference between the circumstances of a beach bum who is free from the dictates of a high-powered job, and the guy who worked his whole life at the high-powered job lounging a couple hundred yards down the beach. What matters to one’s level of growth and progress is what you do when you get/are there, who you are and what you are doing inside, regardless of how you got there. This is a pill that many rich people who “worked their whole lives to get where they are” will eventually have to swallow if they want to be happy/awake.

The path to enlightenment is walked through life, not on it. This means that if what is going on inside is right, it doesn’t matter what is going on outside, that the person who is truly walking the path can do it anywhere in any circumstance.

Of course, many people think they are walking the path when they are really just self-manufacturing. They are still controlled by the illusions of their conditioned existences, measured by how much they cling to beliefs, assumptions, fears, desires, ideologies, etc. It just happens that as one becomes more enlightened, he no longer needs the things that people want/desire out of ignorance. It actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

As such, it is not money I decry (for that would be like decrying wood, or paper, or a hammer), it is the ignorance which leads to the unenlightened values which become the basis on which a society such as ours is based, values that are incompatible with real freedom, with real happiness; meaning: enlightenment.

It is not “technology” that is the problem, it is not the creature comforts that this kind of society affords that is the problem. The problem is the attitude that values these things as the ticket to happiness, security, or opportunity, for that is ignorant. This is also where those who preach going back to a primitive life void of technology are missing the point—they don’t get it either. It’s not the “technology,” but what we do or do not do with it, and why, that ultimately matters when it comes to happiness/enlightenment.
.
From my personal notes, 11/10/99.

Of course, it’s not about money, it’s about what people do with or without it that matters to who they are.

Most people are still unconsciously controlled by their beliefs and assumptions about money. Who are they? Anyone who thinks that money has anything whatsoever to do with happiness/enlightenment, or even “security.” The fact that we now live in a money-based system/society is absolutely arbitrary when it comes to the process of awakening and enlightenment.

It’s very simple: if at any time in history a person did not need money—nor the materialistic things that money can buy in this society—in order to attain enlightenment, then money is absolutely irrelevant to enlightenment/happiness. (Unless, that is, we allow for money to be a part of it only in that we must divest ourselves of the illusions we have about it.) In fact, did not the Buddha himself give up, let go of, all but the necessities of life before he was able to clear the way to attain enlightenment? Why didn’t he, when he became enlightened, go and make money to live “the good life,” but just in a, you know, more enlightened way? Well, why didn’t the guy who finally struck real gold go back and gather up all the fool’s gold?

Just think about this for a second: this society is based on the fact that you need money to be happy, that money will buy you the opportunity for happiness, which essentially is saying that you need money to be happy. You can see this for yourself if you think about it deeply enough. This society is based on ideology that is absolutely contrary to enlightenment and happiness. This is not my “opinion.” It is there for anyone to see who wants to see it. But most people will not because they are still buying the bullshit that this ideology is selling, and so refuse to leave the trees to be able to see the forest.

I can and will do what I am doing, regardless of how much “money” I have. It took me a long time, and a lot of work, to free myself from the confining illusions that conditioned me to think otherwise. It happened when I truly saw how the values of this society—on which this system is based, and for which anyone who works in/for the system spends his time and effort, his life—are obstacles, not tickets, to happiness and self-awareness and enlightenment.

Having attained this awareness, I no longer feel a need to either condemn or covet money itself, nor the system itself, for I am free from its illusory clutches. I need not this (”American”/”capitalist”) society, nor its values, to define me, for who I really am is (found in) the absence of the conditioned ego-self that was a product of the conditioning of this society.

In this society, I can certainly live more comfortably with money, and I like living comfortably (i.e., having a bed to sleep in, hot, running water, a roof over my head, etc.) fine enough, it’s quite nice in many ways, but that doesn’t mean that I need money to do what I am doing; I just need money if I want to continue doing it the way I am doing it on the surface level of life. If I don’t think I could adapt to circumstantial change, then I am clinging and craving out of ignorance, and I’m still in bondage to those illusions. But—and this is an important thing to understand in all this—as much as I know I do not need to have money to do this, I also know that I also don’t need to be poor and destitute to do this. To think otherwise is to miss the point and still be controlled by money.

The tie that binds money and material comfort to happiness (in our minds) simply needs to be broken for one to be free of this sort of conditioning, because it’s an illusion, an empty promise. I feel fortunate to be able to do what I do within the modest lifestyle in which I live. But, that doesn’t mean that I would (nor should!) compromise myself in order to retain that lifestyle at the expense of my work. When it comes to this work, it is not my lifestyle that allows my work, but my attitude, my awareness.
.
From my personal notes, 11/10/99.

I am not splitting hairs here. What does money have to do with the things that actually matter in life, especially when it comes to what’s important in families? Take a look at what this supposedly civilized, progressive, evolved, capitalist type of system does to people, to families, to the opportunities for real happiness (as opposed to the illusion of happiness this kind of society is selling).

There is something very, very rotten here that most people are too greedy, weak, lazy, and/or cowardly to acknowledge and actually deal with.

And trying to point to a poor person within the context of a capitalist system to try to prove that money is important because it at least provides a person with the means to pursue happiness is an invalid argument based on circular logic: you need to already have a money-based system to be “poor” in the first place. The assumption of what is trying to be proved is necessary to prove it.

We need oil for our cars because there are no alternatives, so oil is (universally and objectively) “important?” No! No car, no “need.”

This is an issue of context, of controlled monopoly dictating ideology. But, that’s very flawed and invalid logic. Something is only “important” within a manufactured physical and ideological context.

The logic is essentially this: money is important because in a society in which money is necessary for a decent life, money is important—basically, that money is important because it’s important. Or, said another way, one needs money because in a society in which one needs money, one needs money. No shit! That is actually not about money, but about the context in which the money exists and functions. As such, such an argument is basic circular logic and is therefore baseless and absurd.

This is also a good example of the idiocy of typical American pragmatism. You can’t use the ostensible “result” of something to prove its “cause.” A slave is not naturally a slave because he’s a slave. Americans may have learned the fallacy of this logic when it comes to one kind of slavery, but they do not yet recognize it when it comes to the slavery of the American “pursuit of happiness.”

Is having money important in this society? Of course! Who, with any sense, would try to argue otherwise? If a car is designed to run on oil, is oil important to the car? Of course! That’s not at issue here. What is at issue is the fact that the ignorant values on which a money-based society such as this one are based are incompatible with the pursuit of happiness/enlightenment, and that the pursuit of enlightenment has nothing directly to do with money nor anything materialistic.

What is also at issue is the fact that it is certainly not noble, in any way, to be a victim of circumstance.

Now, to acknowledge an ostensibly valid counterpoint, I do think that one could choose to work a job in a capitalist society for the express purpose of making enough money to get to the point of no longer having to work for money and then spend his time wisely pursuing enlightenment. This is possible, in theory. But, I think the reality of this is much more complicated than this idyllic theoretical example implies, not only because most people will never be able to make that kind of money because of the structure and nature of the system, but also because once one sees through the bullshit of the nature and function and purpose of the system, how and why should he work for it?

It’s like after seeing that the wizard of Oz is just a man, trying to pretend that you don’t know that and still believe that there is a wizard—why? To get what? Money? Material things? “Security?” These are self-ish pursuits which have nothing to do with happiness/enlightenment; and not only that, but once one understands what happiness is not, why would he continue to work for, and in, a system for the things he knows will not bring happiness, for things that are illusory? See?—it just can’t work.

If one does have money and pursues enlightenment, it’s really arbitrary, not symbiotic. When one understands the reality of the system in which one would have to work to get themselves to that point, and they see what happiness/enlightenment really is, he will see that it just doesn’t add up to work within/for the system to do that which has nothing to do with the system, and is also absolutely contrary to the system. Think about it.
.
From my personal notes, 11/10/99.

In U.S. society, we are supposed to hold in the highest esteem and respect the “self-made man.” This is a person who, as it goes, grew up poor, or, often put another way, “with nothing,” who, through hard work, made a lot of money and became rich. Such a person is the paragon of the American Dream. But, I ask, why should I respect or esteem this person? Because he made a lot of money? So what? What is money but a means to buy things? Should I respect him because he worked hard? What does that mean: “work hard”? Does it mean sitting in an office all day long, pushing papers, typing on a computer, talking on the phone, making deals, screwing people over, doing whatever it takes to make the holy dollar? Does it mean spending the majority of your time doing things which help you avoid dealing with the truth of yourself, your illusions and issues?

Why should I respect this person more than, say, a person who works hard every day to grow his own food, make his own clothing, build his own home, provide his own heat? If he’s not making money, is he not “working?”

If another person, say, works in a “volunteer” capacity, is he not working because he’s not making money? Why do we equate “work” with “making money” in this society? It’s a subtle yet significant and illuminating tendency. Is it really better to work in order to procure indirectly what was previously procured more directly? Is the worth of a person the amount of money he or she makes, how much “power” or fame he has? Is the worth of a person how much he or she conforms to the expectations of the system in which they live, regardless of the cost to truth, reality, and enlightenment?

In this country it is.

It is one of the most prevalent American illusions—this idea of work and its relation to money.

If you do not make money doing what you do, are you (not) working? What makes something “work?” The stock answers to these questions are conditioned, unquestioned, and empty—they don’t hold up.

This may seem pedantic, but it is actually very telling about American society and those who buy the bullshit it’s selling. People don’t really know what they are talking about, they don’t really have any basis for what they believe, and this is important in that one’s beliefs dictate his actions which determine (are) his karma; his beliefs, values, and actions decide his life.

[A relative/ancestor of mine] apparently was just such a “self-made” American Dream success story. I am told that he came to this country with little enough money and he eventually started his own company which made him wealthy. He also, as far as I am told, cheated on his wife, left her for a young(er) secretary, drank a lot, was very difficult to get along with, and had, in the words of one family member, a “Napoleon complex.” Should I respect him and hold him in high esteem because he built up a successful business and made a lot of money for himself and, eventually, parts of my family? Some would answer, smugly, that I should respect him and what he did because through that company, and that money, he “provided for” his family. (What, exactly, did he provide, I might ask?)

But, why should I respect this man more than a person who, outside of the context of the American capitalist system, say, does not have money, but through living in the country and off the land also provides for his family? Is he less of a man, less of a “success?” What we are supposed to look up to, aspire to, hold in high esteem, and generally spend our time working to have/be in this society has everything to do with money and what money can buy, and what people still think money can buy (like happiness, or security). The problem is that such values skew our understanding of ourselves and our lives. We are so conditioned to mistake what we are “supposed to” believe, think, and do, for who we are.
.
From my personal notes, 11/10/99.

I would like, as of now, some of the things that money can buy, but I know that I do not need them to be happy; and therein lies the rub, and the crux of my conflict with U.S. ideology. I would sort of like these things, but I do not want to be bound by them. If I need to give them up in order to be able to walk my path, then so be it. I am willing to do so, and not only do I think I would be okay with it, I think that it would be a part of me doing something that would bring me true happiness as opposed to the illusion of happiness that I know these things ultimately provide.

I want to be free to be able to do that which is consistent with my pursuit of knowing and being me (not what other people and society say I should be), and free to be able to slough away that which is not consistent with it. I want to be able to be free to go where a life of this pursuit takes me, no matter where it is, because I do not fear it. That does not mean that I am unwilling to do things that I do not want to do at times, for some of those things are resisted because of illusions and selfishness, but most are not, and are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I am trying to see the difference, and will make mistakes along the way, but I must always try to do what is right, in that I must always try to not do that which I know, deep down, to be wrong.

I do not want to resist life, I want to live it, but living life is guided by ideology, and my ideology is one of freedom from controlling illusions. My ideology is living life with my eyes open and not only seeing what is true, but living it. Is that consistent with this society, or any modern society or group of people? I do not know, but I must try, for if I do not try, then I am not really living.

I do not want to do something because I think I have to do it, for I know that I don’t have to. I know that there is really very little in life that I have to do. You only have to do something if you want something—the important part being “if you want something.” If you do not want the something, or are okay if you not get it, then you no longer have to do the other something. Hey, what a neat trick! It is utterly conditional, but something people accept and use (or, are used by) it mindlessly. Without the condition, the “need” does not exist.

Want creates need. Therefore, other than those things we really need to stay alive, need is an illusion. You do not need to do anything unless you want (desire) something or some end. The important thing to realize is that it is okay to want/desire something, but it causes problems and tension when it is not okay if you do not get it. If it is okay that you do not get it, then the need is no longer a need, and you realize that you do not have to do anything, it is rather that you choose to do things according to a desired effect or end.

Thus, the important thing is that you only need . . . if. Take away the “if,” and you no longer “need.”

Incidentally, this is what’s behind the Buddha’s teachings concerning the end of desire. It’s not about repression or denial of desire, but about learning that we don’t really desire what we are desiring, that this thing we think we want is actually getting in the way of what we really want. That is the key. The problem is not with the wanting of things, it is in not being okay with it if you do not get it. To be okay with not getting that which you want, the way you want it, is the key to freedom from controlling illusions, and therefore, to freedom itself. It is, perhaps, the key to happiness—the end of craving.
.
From my personal notes, 11/9/99.

It ends up being fairly simple: I do not believe that people who need to work most of the hours of their days for money to procure the basic necessities of life can ever attain happiness (enlightenment). This system of money-as-power is inherently corrupt. It is necessarily a barrier to love, truth, and enlightenment. They are absolutely incompatible. It is a brilliant system of control and manipulation, but its weakness is its illusory nature and the fact that the kind of society it engenders is against the love, truth, and strength that lies dormant but electric in every person.

Unfortunately, thanks to the truly awesome power of ignorance (and avarice), people remain blind to the truth of themselves and their existences within this context of lies, false promises, and manipulation. It is a situation of consummate irony that people think they are happy, or they think they know what they want, when all the while they are not really happy, and they expend so much time and effort doing that which will keep them from getting what they really want. They build and maintain their own prisons! In reality, no one is, nor can be, doing it to them, for it is wholly within their own power to either believe, or question, the illusions of their own conditioned existences. Need anyone be told what they really want?

I do not feel that pursuing the things I am told will bring me happiness—but I know will not—is something I want to do. In this way, I will not be a part of the system. I will not believe in the system and the lies on which it is based.

Getting the job to make the money to buy the house and the car and the two weeks of “paid vacation” a year, and the clenched-teeth respect and admiration of my peers for being so good at being a part of the system and getting what it says I should want—this is not the way. Does that mean that I expressly do not want a job? Not necessarily. Does that mean I expressly do not want a home? Not necessarily. Does that mean I expressly do not want a computer and a car and a kick-ass home theater? Not necessarily. What is does mean is that I know that I do not need these things to be happy, and that the pursuit of these things will more likely than not preclude happiness, for it will necessitate me being a part of the system and doing its bidding, even if I tell myself the whole time that I do not believe in it.

If there is something I “believe in” it is integrity, and that means practicing what you preach and doing what you say you will do; because, in the end, when it comes to social interaction and the glue of a relationship based on trust and respect, what else is there?

I cannot imagine being happy without also being free. I know that happiness without freedom is doomed; it will ultimately reveal itself, like the Wizard of Oz, for what it is and was: a lie. I do not want that life. I see it all around me and I do not want it. I want to be happy, and to be happy I need to be free. To be free I need to be able to be free to find myself and be myself. I cannot imagine, at this point, a consequence worse than living a lie, and never having given true happiness a shot.

I do not want to live my life out of fear. I do not want to live my life like a sleeping marionette; like the slave who is fed and clothed and given shelter only as much as to allow him to do his work for the good of someone else, for a society that doesn’t give a shit about him, that uses him, like grist in the mill, for an end that he does not believe in, nor wants to be a part of; like a person slowly fed the opium that keeps him feeling good but never really happy.

I do not believe in the American Dream because it is a lie. It is like the sign over the concentration camp: “Work will set you free.” I cannot live it because I no longer believe in the illusion. I see it for what it is. I cannot pretend, no matter how hard I may try, that I do not. The conditioned me is really beginning to understand the phrase “ignorance is bliss.” But that, too, is a lie, the bait for the trap.
.
From my personal notes 11/9/99.

Going out and living life means exactly that: going out and living life; not going out with a life-jacket on, with a leash with one end attached to your wrist and the other to your beliefs (i.e., your parents) which will make sure you do not stray too far. Going out there and living life means being free from the illusions, the illusion-based, conditioned beliefs that, in the end, will not be there for us in the way we want them to be, with our eyes closed in faith and fear. We are scared that they will not be there if we open our eyes, and we are right. They will not be there.

But the good news is that we do not need them. You do not need them. You only think you do, society only tells you this, and the people you know who have their eyes closed as well tell you this because they are all scared of opening their eyes. The good news is that the things that you do need, the things that are there for you are there, and have been all along. The things that you need to be happy are there for you. The necessities of life are there for you. But you need to let go of the illusions.

You are looking for love and happiness in the wrong places, for those places are not where they are; rather those places are dark and obtuse, mysterious and baseless, confused and sustained by circular and contradictory logic, if any logic at all.

The thing is, there is a way to be truly happy, to have the real security of happiness. That way is to allow yourself to recognize the illusions of your conditioned, imprisoned existence, and to allow yourself to know and understand the things that really make you happy, and to do them. You want (to feel) freedom without giving up your illusions. But the cart cannot go before the horse. You must free yourself of your illusions, of your false sense of security, before you can know the real security of true freedom. To use a religious metaphor, you are believing in false gods. The true god is no god at all—reality, truth, life without illusion.

Can this be accomplished in American society? I do not know. The inspiring words of the Declaration of Independence may ring true, but as they exist in this society, they are a lie and an illusion. I believe in the words, but I do not believe that this society is about them.

I do not believe that in this society I have the right to pursue happiness. I have that right only as long as I play along, as long as that pursuit involves the system of living prescribed as “right” by this society, namely the endless cycle of working for money to pay for things.

As long as I am tied to this system, as long as I need to do what this system prescribes I must do, as long as I am confined within this prison of false opportunity, I am not free. I am not saying that I do not think I can be happy in this country; rather, I am saying that I cannot be happy bound by the chains of this society’s illusions and worship of false gods. I cannot believe what one must believe to make his way easily in this society, for it is a path that leads nowhere. This I know, as much as I can “know” anything.
.
From my personal notes, 11/9/99.