 
### The Sound of a Hand

(An insight into the nature of mind)

~

By Zeljko Mussovich

Copyright 2012 Zeljko Mussovich

Smashwords Edition

~

License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

**Table of Contents**

Instead of an Introduction

Part 1: Before Death and After Life

The Soul and Life after Death

Views to Reality

Life and Consciousness

Proofs under Magnifying Glass

The Keys

Part 2: I?

From the Womb to the Tomb

The Delusion

The Answer

Part 3: "...To Live in Clarity"

Without Armor and Arms

Instead of a Conclusion

About the Author

Bibliography

###

Ancient riddles named koans are a Chinese invention, but the Japanese Zen teachers used to give them to their students too.

Mokurai ("Silent thunder") was a Zen teacher and the head of a temple in Kenin. One of his disciples was a small twelve-year-old boy called Toyo who often observed older disciples visit the teacher in his quarters every morning and evening in order to receive instruction in the form of San-Zen or personal guidance. Naturally, Toyo also wanted to do San-Zen, but the teacher always told him that he was too young. Nevertheless, Toyo was persistent and the teacher finally agreed to give him a koan:

"The sound of two hands can be heard if you clap them", said Mokurai, "but I want you to show me the sound of one hand!"

Toyo bowed and went to his room to think about the problem. After a while, the music of the geishas was heard through the window. "Yes! That's it! I've got it!" he rejoiced.

The next evening the teacher requested an illustration and Toyo started to perform the music of the geishas. "No, no!" said Mokurai, "That is not the sound of one hand. You have not got it at all."

Toyo went back to his room and meditated. "The sound of one hand – what could that be?" Suddenly, he heard water dripping form the tap. "That must be it!"

When he appeared in front of the teacher for the second time Toyo began to imitate dripping water. Mokurai laughed and said shortly, "Try again."

For days Toyo meditated and tried in vain to discover the sound of a hand. He heard the howl of the wind. But the sound was rejected.

He heard the hoot of an owl. That wasn't right either ... More than ten times he visited the teacher with different sounds and they were all wrong. Almost for a year he racked his brains trying to get the answer but without any success.

Eventually, Toyo entered true meditation, transcended all sounds, and reached the right, soundless answer to the koan.

## Instead of an Introduction

When I read this story for the first time in 2002, I could not help thinking that it seemed a bit stupid. Actually, it was difficult for me to accept the fact that Toyo could not figure out something so obvious: "The sound of one hand is silence! You cannot illustrate silence with sounds."

I also thought that I was extremely clever because I had guessed the right answer before reading the end of the story. However, what I did not know then was this: I was just "a blind hen which luckily found a single grain of wheat". I simply had a flash of "selective intelligence" but still was not able to see the wood for the trees. It took me a while to realize that there was no real difference between me, Toyo, and other 99.99% of the population on this planet. Namely, it was only a few years ago that I "saw the light" and understood the following: _describing silence_ is a perfectly normal, human thing to do. Every day we describe things which cannot be described, or which do not exist. Our lives are based on such behavior, and only a few people are aware of it.

Now you probably think that I am talking nonsense, don't you?

It is OK, I have already got used to astonished looks and nasty remarks, and now I also find it quite amusing to watch the alert facial expressions of my students (and other people) when I ask them the following question: " _What do the words of your name and surname represent_?"

After a short "What-is-this-nutcase-up-to-now?" pause, some of them answer cautiously: "Well, me... John Johnson is me.", or: "I am Ann Aniston! Isn't that obvious?"

Well, let's say that it is. It is also obvious that there is a massive amount of additional information behind (or around) everyone's "I"/name and surname, and that is the reason why the students easily do the task which follows the "unusual" introductory question: writing an essay titled "I am..."

It is something everyone knows, since this individual, personal consciousness is the most important thing in our lives. And most people say that it plays the main role in death as well. But, think about this: Would that which is alive or conscious "in you" (the "thing" you call "I") change in any way if one day you stopped being John Johnson and became Marko Markovich?

Let me answer it for you: Of course it would _not_. ... Does that tell you anything?

Have you ever wondered what it is that you describe with all those words which you use while talking/writing about yourself?

Of course you have not. It is not something people do, because it is _not normal_.

*

About twenty years ago, my father died of lung cancer at the age of 55. It was followed by a series of premature deaths of my closest friends and other unfortunate events. I lived with it the best I could. I did what had to be done and thought about other things. Like everybody else.

In 2001 I myself had a short "blackout" near the summit of Bjelasica, a mountain in Montenegro, and after that I finally _wondered_... I became more interested in both science and religion and started reading all kinds of books about life as a natural phenomenon, death, life after death... I carefully studied and analyzed everything scientists, psychologists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus... had to say about these subjects; thought about them myself; and, after years of research, _The Sound of a Hand_ "appeared".

In short, this is a book about consciousness, knowledge, life, and death; about my own search for that which lies behind words.

_The Sound_... introduces a unique way of thinking and looking at "things", and it is very likely that some readers will find the ideas and conclusions presented in this book disturbing or, perhaps, even irritating. Interestingly though, it has been my experience so far that this applies to both religious people and atheists. And, as far as I am concerned, it is a very good thing – I must have got it right.

Some parts of the book may seem a bit negative or "heavy" but do not give it up – this is not a pessimistic book. Read it carefully, with an open mind, and eventually everything will come to its place.

~

Three Wishes

On a sunny morning, a man was fishing on a river bank. After many hours of futile efforts he felt a mild jerk and the float sank. He was very surprised when, after a short fight, he pulled out a kind of fish he had never seen or heard before! The golden fish was wiggling on the ground in front of him and producing loud noises which sounded like curses. He almost fell on his knees when the fish clearly said:

"What's the matter? What are you looking at? As if you have never heard that I exist?"

Confused, the man stammered, "Th... three wi... wishes!?"

"Oh, that isn't true my friend, it doesn't go like that." the fish mocked, "I offer three wishes, and you can choose only one."

The man protested, "But, it has never been like that!"

Now the fish nervously replied, "Have you ever heard the expression: 'news reporters lie'? You humans are such greedy beings – somebody offers you a finger and you grab the whole arm. I'll tell you again, you can choose one of three options."

"And what if I take you home and fry you?" threatened the man, hoping to get a better bargain, but the fish calmly said, "You stupid man, you will be left without even that one wish – do you want me to tell you what I have to say, or not?"

"Well then, speak."

"Here it is: first, you can live as a rich man for 200 years; second, you can learn what happens after death; and finally, you can experience enlightenment in this life or, in other words, you can find out who you are."

The man sat on the ground and started thinking: "A fish will tell me who I am?! As if I don't know!? What am I to do...? The first wish is great, but it would also be good to find out that second thing. If only I could get both... Wait a minute... that deceitful, golden whore! Everyone knows that every religion in the world says that life goes on after death; the soul is immortal, and you only have to be careful not to sin too much. That's right, everything has already been written down and in the next 200 years I will read and learn all that I need to know."

The fish saw a decision in his eyes and said, "I am listening."

"I want to live 200 years!"

"All right, now put me back into the water and your wish will be fulfilled."

As though hypnotized, the man stepped into the water and did what he was told. The fish swam away and splashed the water with its tail. At that moment the man disappeared and in a hospital, in a city, a son was born to one of the richest men in the country.

Moral: News reporters indeed lie, but one shouldn't trust a golden fish either.

*

The man got an entirely new life, new body... He would get a new identity as well. Is that what he wished for? A lot of us would probably "swallow the hook" in the same way. Everyday life and experience from the past tell us that people prefer this earthly life, even though they all "believe" in different religious and other explanations of the soul, life after death, or paranormal events. The prospect of another, new life becomes important only if or when we are (one way or another) reminded of our own mortality.

So the fisherman from our story is not an exception. At a glance, he did some rather logical and practical thinking. Religions of the world do claim that life does not end with somebody's death, and some of them even offer a detailed description of after-death happenings with enclosed instructions for the stay in "another" world.

However, if he had only thought a little bit differently, a disturbing question might have passed through his head: "That fish must know everything I know, and it can't be that it is offering me the second and the third wish just like that, for the sake of a game?!"

Really, do we have any reason to even think that the existing theories of the "thing" called the soul, and the stories about life after death are not entirely true? Can it be that widespread guessing about the meaning of life is just another pointless human activity?!

We mustn't forget that (in all these years we have been living on this planet) the number of people who acquired a higher level of consciousness or had an insight into real knowledge is very small, compared to the total number of people who have lived so far. In addition to that (and unfortunately), some of them, like Buddha or Jesus for example, did not write down their thoughts and, consequently, their words have come to us through many hands. We can only hope that miscellaneous writers, transcribers, and translators did their job well enough.

Finally, in the course of time, their messages have been frequently interpreted anew by numerous "authorities", or adapted to current interests and historical circumstances. The original teaching was "lost in translation" or "improved" by five, ten, a hundred and ten variants of a single, former truth. Insight and comprehension were replaced with piles of distorted traditions, memorized rituals and information. Slowly, these things have become the core of today's religions.

Modern science suffers from similar diseases, too. Scientists are only humans, mainly with one-track minds, and are constantly influenced by different commercial/existential and personal interests. As a result, limited or biased research, accompanied with false or ill-founded knowledge, inevitably lead to degeneration of cognition.

It may sound paradoxical, but it is not at all: _in time people have gathered so much information but lost real knowledge_. Most intellectuals, philosophers, scientists and theologians did not know (and do not know) what they were (are) talking about. That is the main reason why we have so many different religions, philosophical schools, ideas, scientific theories... If those people had not understood everything one-sidedly, superficially and wrongly, that would not have happened, would it?

Only ignorance can sustain several (hundreds of) confronted truths at the same time.

*

People prefer believing to knowing. It is easier to believe and it takes no work at all. Throughout history, different cultures/civilizations, groups of people, and individuals have believed in all sorts of things; most often because they _did not know anything_ about the subject of their belief. If they had known, they would not have believed! When you are sure that something exists, or that it is an indisputable fact, there is no need to believe in it any more. The same goes for those who do not believe.

Both believers and non-believers adore arguing and tirelessly try to prove their point to the other side. Some think that the most important thing in the world is to answer the question of whether the world/life is a result of creation, or coincidence (depending on what they believe in!) and carry on an endless discussion, despite the fact that they actually clueless. Others want to learn Jesus' blood type, or at least when the promised Messiah is going to come, and what it will all look like – is he going to arrive on a motorcycle, or by a flying saucer? The rest foretell the future from the Bible, rocks, signs in the nature..., or study Nostradamus's verses seeking to find some answers even though it is perfectly clear that we have been walking the same path for thousands of years. The blind is leading the blind.

Still, is anything different today? Is our time unlike the previous centuries or millenniums which were swarming with prophets who announced "the last days" and "the doom of the world"?

Perhaps the world has always been on the verge of insanity, but it seems to me that it has not always been completely normal to study "homosexual pelicans", create and exhibit the sculpture called _The Excrement of Tom Cruise's Child_ , or be involved in other pointless activities thinking that you are "making a giant step in the progress of human kind".

Isn't it "a bit" strange when you hear the news report which says that "a group of German scientists have found out that deep and regular breathing has a soothing effect on a person..." and you already know that even illiterate people from India or Japan have been familiar with this "newly discovered" fact for many centuries.

I really cannot assert that we are essentially different from our ancestors, but we certainly play the fools much better than they did. Furthermore, we are constantly increasing the general and individual "quotient of stupidity" by turning our brains into mere warehouses for billions of useless, meaningless facts about sports, cars, politics, celebrities...

Our thoughts are monotonous and predictable; everything we know is handed to us and we rarely question anything; we walk less and less... A degenerating "gene" is visible in everything: music, film, society, religion, science... Technology is there but the content is missing. Computers think instead of people; television tells them what to look like, what to eat, listen, watch, buy... People spend the greatest part of their lives stimulating their senses, or numbing them. The industry of sex and oblivion or, in a word, "fun" is booming.

In such a world, and with an equivalent collective state of mind, people do not want to think about difficult topics and to burden themselves with reassessment of priorities. In regard to death, if ever they think about it, many people are reckless: "It happens to everyone." "That is natural, everything will be OK."

Like our fisherman, they also realize that life is short, so they say: "I want to live and enjoy myself while I can; and if I need to know what happens afterwards, I'll read. There are so many books about it, films, scientific research..."

Yes, this is all true and nice – until reality shakes us bitterly when a dear, close person dies, or we are ourselves struck by some serious illness. Can you describe the fear that "crawls under your skin"? No, because the fear itself is the reason why we avoid conversation or thoughts about death, but the more we keep quiet about it (and get older), the more horrifying, perfidious and present it appears to be.

Consequently, the world is full of "believers" who read and talk about love, religion, God, eternal life, the immortal soul..., and at the same time want a lot of sex, fame, expensive cars, big houses, things, and money. They all believe in another life after death but tightly hold on to the one they are "living". Death is never mentioned or is denied. We live as if we are never going to die. The result is obvious: confusion, stupidity, ignorance, and fear wherever you turn, only disguised with "spirituality", fun, arrogance, rudeness, marketing...

It seems that something is not right, that we have missed some road signs on the way and lost the trail.

~

### Part 1

Before Death and After Life

~

The expression "life after death" represents a human heritage thousands of years old. In fact, it is as old as the conscious fear of death, or the appearance of the dead in dreams of the living. This second phenomenon is probably the most important thing which "gave birth" to the belief that death of the human being is not the end of his/her existence in some other world; that "our immortal soul" survives death of the body. Funerals, customs, and rituals which are performed after someone's death are direct consequences of this belief.

In that way the fear of death has been diminished, because the idea of dying is denied, but at the same time it has also been increased, because no one has ever been certain about the existence of the other world.

Nevertheless, this original and naïve belief in the survival of human beings after death has been gradually improved and strengthened by contemplation, different ideas, and individual experience. Eventually, it was replaced with several doctrines which are now accepted and supported by the world's religions and billions of believers.

## The Soul and Life after Death

For thousands of years, an interesting description of the soul has been in "circulation" in India. One translation in English goes like this: "The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being when the body is created. The soul is birth-less, eternal, imperishable, and timeless and is never destroyed when the body is destroyed." ( _Bhagavad-Gita_ , chapter 2, verse 20)

One of the scholars in ancient Greece who accepted and slightly adapted this description was Plato (427-347). He believed that the soul "not only survives death, but also exists before birth. It has stayed in numerous bodies, has seen all kinds of things and therefore knows everything... But, since the soul temporarily lives in a body, its vision of truth can be blurred and it can mistake itself for the body, which ultimately creates the fear of dying that burdens so many people."

Many years later, Christian theologians and authorities rejected the part about "numerous bodies" and established that the soul is "bodiless by nature, immaterial, without any specific location"; "an eternally simple substance in the universe"; "indestructible, eternally living essence of intelligence." It is also "free, omnipresent, infinite, above any law..." And, finally: "It comes from God."

But what exactly is the soul?

According to these descriptions, we can conclude that we are actually talking about something which is not easily defined but, still, most religious people agree that "It is the breath of life animating the flesh." Or, in more detail: "The soul is the living essence... (The essence of man, but not the man himself as a corporeal, psychosomatic being.), it is sensible and wise..., uses the body as a tool and gives it a life, growth, feelings... The soul is endowed with will and energy, it is created and prone to change, and all that has been bestowed on it by the Creator..." ( _The Right Approach to the Orthodox Faith,_ Jovan Damaskin)

Furthermore, most Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe that every person has a separable, invisible/immaterial soul which is the vehicle of individual consciousness and, according to some near-death experiences, has the same form and personality as its material body. The immaterial soul is unaffected by diseases, injuries, and other things affecting the material body.

Some psychologists and philosophers describe the soul in their books as "a unity of all mental activities and, as such, it is autonomous and independent in its work." Intelligence, will, imagination, attention, emotions, memory, understanding, attachment, hostility, dreams and psychic abilities – all of them belong to the soul and are nothing but different names used to define one and the same thing.

The idea of an immaterial, immortal animating force (the soul) has been and still is considered by a number of biologists, chemists, physicists, physicians..., and some of them have tried to provide a scientific explanation for this "appearance". Astronomer Camille Flammarion wrote his opinion down in the first quarter of the 20th century:

"The soul exists as a personal being. It outlives the death of an organism because it is immortal. The general and firm belief of humanity in immortality, which has already been proved by philosophy, can be successfully proved by natural sciences as well. After our body dies, the soul continues its existence in another life. If it is not so, and the soul is just a product of the brain, then in what way could it be possible for us to maintain the knowledge of our personality and its unity (which does not leave us from childhood to maturity) when it is scientifically proved that every atom of our body is completely replaced in the course of 7 years."

However, most scientists do not use the term "the soul" at all and do not accept the story of an "immaterial entity" which creates the body and "uses it as a tool". One of the first who supported an atomic theory of life and rejected the idea of immortality was Epicures (342-270). Many centuries later, he was followed by Nikola Tesla who wrote that "A human being is no exception in the natural order of things. A man is a machine, like the universe. Nothing comes to our mind, or influences our doings, directly or indirectly, without being an answer to the messages which we receive from the environment with our senses. Because our constitution and environment are alike, we all respond to similar influences in the similar way, and understanding is just a result of our reactions. During all these centuries immensely complex mechanisms have been developed, but the thing we call 'the soul' or 'the spirit' has remained nothing more than a sum of all bodily functions. When these functions disappear, 'the soul' or 'the spirit' disappears as well." (February 1937)

*

It is similar today. Reasoning and standing points have not changed much, in spite of the impressive discoveries that have been made in the last 80 years. "Flammarions" and "Teslas" are still fighting their war.

~

Christianity and Life after Death

The Bible, as the main source of wisdom and knowledge which is used by all Christians, does not give (at least to me) a clear answer. Like many other existential, moral or general human issues that have been raised over the centuries, this one can also be a subject of debate. The same book offers arguments or parts of the text which will sustain or negate whatever you stand for. For example, when life after death is in question, you can find this: "For, the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything. They have no further reward – even the memory of them disappears... and they have no part in anything that happens on earth... Whatever you find to do with your hands do it with all your might, because there is neither work nor planning nor wisdom in the grave, the place you will eventually go." ( _Ecclesiastes_ , 9:5, 10)

And, also this: "Now the poor man died (Lazarus) and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side..." ( _Luke_ , 16:22, 23)

Contemporary Christian doctrines say that after death the soul goes directly back to God/heaven (and is eventually reunited to a resurrected body), or is punished and sent to hell.

Besides heaven or hell, Catholics also have purgatory, and until not so long ago there was limbo, a place where the souls of non-baptized martyrs who had lived before Christ went to, as well as the souls of children who had died before they could be baptized. But I read in a newspaper that the Vatican abolished limbo at the beginning of 2007.

Orthodox Christian "experience" about afterlife confirms that death is not the end of a man's life but only the beginning of a new condition of the human soul which continues its existence separated from the body. Where will the soul end, depends on the way a person lived his/her own life, and how they prepared themselves for death.

"Death is a boundary which ends the time of accomplishment and marks the time of redemption... Repentance or correction of life is not possible after death." And, here is the beginning of life after death according to Orthodox teaching: "When the soul leaves a body, angels appear and begin to escort it. The forces of darkness intercept them wishing to hold on to the soul, and so the questioning starts. They want to find out if that soul is theirs." This marks the time of temporary judgment, and when it is finished the soul goes on to join God, or is taken to hell by the forces of darkness. (The quotes are from the book _After-death Experiences in the Light of the Orthodox Church_ )

The Last (final) Judgment will happen "at the end of days" when all dead people will become alive again (the Resurrection).

~

The More Recent Investigations

In the second half of the 20th century a new way of thinking was introduced to the Christian, Western world. Some people with academic titles, such as Hans Holtzer, Raymond Moody, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross... offered a different perspective on death and events that follow it. They investigated "after-death" and "out-of-body" experiences of people who were "clinically" dead, as well as their own contacts with the spirits of the deceased (Kübler-Ross).

The results of their investigations can be summed up in the following way: "Death is not to be afraid of" and "there is no judgment or hell." Despite some bad experiences, the vast majority of "patients" declared that they "are no longer afraid of death", and recorded cases show that "dying is painful, but death itself is... a peaceful event, without fear or pain." In most cases "a being of light" does not react even to the most sinful deeds "with wrath or rage, but rather with understanding". Most people "have a feeling of completeness – God does not judge, man does."

According to Dr. Kübler-Ross, death is "...a painless transition to a higher state of consciousness where you continue to perceive, to understand, to laugh..." and the only thing you have lost is something you no longer need – your physical body.

Dr. Moody sees the meaning of (human) life on earth, and life after death too, in the development of the soul. It is the unlimited process of "growth" in love, understanding, and self-realization which is considered to be the final goal. In a sentence: The development of the soul, especially in the areas of love and knowledge does not end with death.

~

Hindu and Buddhist Teaching(s) about Reincarnation

Yoga philosophy says that death exists only in ignorance. Death is an illusion, since neither the soul, nor consciousness dies. A body dies, but in reality it only changes its shape because the constituting elements decompose and are put together again. In fact, there are two forms of life: one from birth to death, and the other from death (of a body) to a new birth. The soul is a separated, but identical part of the Absolute, cosmic consciousness, or God. Human life is just one in a row, and the reason why the soul goes from one body to another is its aspiration to be reunited with the Absolute or God. On this journey an individual spark of life ("a" soul) undergoes the evolution of consciousness. As it changes bodies, it collects experience and studies until it acquires the absolute knowledge or finds out the truth. The change or the journey ends when a soul learns that it is one and the same with the Absolute.

Even though all living beings have a soul, only the human body can secure a relatively fast evolution of consciousness which eventually results in the transition of the human being to another evolutionary step: a man becomes a saint, and his soul completes the circle/journey. However, saints are few, and the cycles of birth and death can be repeated for millions of years.

Here is what Hindus say about the after-death events: When the soul leaves a physical body the entire memory from the beginning of time, all emotional and mental functions accompany it, and all experience becomes available – the soul knows everything then. All that knowledge is not in any physical form, but in vibrations, and it is stored in our other bodies: the astral and, the more subtle one, the causal. The astral body consists of the same elements as a physical body, but they are in a more subtle form. This body cannot be perceived by instruments or senses but still represents some kind of material and energetic shell around the soul. (?!) A being "in astral" remembers everything but has no necessary means or "tools" with which it can work or change its destiny. On the other hand, when the soul enters a human body ("wraps itself in matter at the moment of conception") it can do a lot, but a man or a woman forgets everything about the purpose of life and its aim. They also lose knowledge that their life is just one of many. The fear of death arises. If you are asking yourselves why that is so, yoga answers that the blockade is there because the memory of previous lives can be painful (?!), or can be an obstacle to doing "the job for which we were born, and acquired the instruments to work on our karma".

And what is karma? In short, it is activity, the law of cause and effect. "The soul travels to a world (body) to which the winds of its own karma blow it."

The cause of happiness or unhappiness in life lies in the causal body which carries karmas. That body follows desires, and desires carry the astral body. Reincarnation is determined by craving or, in other words, by your own good or bad deeds, thoughts, and words. Based on the overall quality of karma, the soul goes into the light or darkness, a better or worse new life.

*

Buddhists, particularly Tibetan, have a similar teaching on reincarnation, but they do not believe in "an independent and unchangeable entity such as the soul or ego which survives the death of a body. The continuity between lives is not made possible by some entity but by the most subtle levels of consciousness." (...) "Successive existences in the series of births are not like pearls on a string, tied by 'the soul thread' which goes through the pearls; on the contrary, they are like cubes put one on top of another. Each cube is individual and supports the cubes above it in a functional relationship. There is no identity between the cubes but continuity." (The Dalai Lama)

~

Proofs of Life after Death

To be honest, it is very difficult to talk about any proofs of life after death, or against it, because none of them can be practically confirmed. We can only discuss some arguments which are considered to be sufficient evidence by religious authorities or some scientific circles.

The fundamental proof, which is often used as the strongest when discussing this subject, is the fact that most religions and myths contain the belief in afterlife. Up to now those beliefs have been differentiated into two major directions: the one which explains life after death in the form of reincarnation or moving of the soul/consciousness; and the other which insists on the idea that life after death goes on in an incorporeal, spiritual, or astral "form". Both of these interpretations are supported by contemporary religions and individuals with or without academic titles.

The second piece of evidence is obtained through their investigations. Today we have a number of books with recorded testimonies of the people who had visions from the past, or described their "previous lives" in detail. In addition to that, development of medicine, together with different reanimation techniques, has led to an increasing number of studies which describe experiences of the people who were clinically dead or had close encounters with death.

Some people also think that children who show amazing talents for arts or mathematics are excellent proof of reincarnation. The skills and abilities of those children are considered to be a consequence of their intellectual development in previous lives.

And finally, almost every day we can watch TV documentaries, series or movies about some "inexplicable events" involving people with unusual or "paranormal" abilities; people who see ghosts, "mediums" who talk to dead people... These are all proofs (for some of us, at least) that there is something "on the other side".

## Views to Reality

It seems that, since the day our species appeared on this planet, the development of human consciousness (let's not say _knowledge_ ) has been marked by a constant conflict of two opposed ways of thinking. One, represented by the people who somehow get certain ideas (not necessarily true) of the world around them and then transmit that "knowledge" from one generation to another as the one and only truth; and the other which is based on permanent learning, movement, change, and relativity.

Over time, those two ways of thinking and looking at the world and life in it have offered two completely different answers to the eternal question of how the world and life came into existence. One insists that they appeared as a result of God's will and activity (so-called creationists), and the other says that everything happened some other way, perhaps spontaneously or even accidentally (evolutionists). Of course, the answer you accept as the right one will greatly determine your personal view on life, death, and whatever comes after death.

However, sometimes the distinction between these two ways of thinking is not so clear and, since we are talking about humans who are unstable by nature, it often happens that individuals play for both teams. So, today we have physicists and biologists who are also mystics; evolutionary scientists who have their dogmas; and creationists who use scientific methodology and discoveries in order to prove their religious points of view.

While I was working on this study I had the opportunity to read books published by both (or _all_ ) sides and finally came to a conclusion that _neither_ (or _none_ ) _of them knew the answers_. Fortunately, some real scientists are still trying to get them.

I also realized that some scientific theories partly (or completely) correspond to certain ideas presented a long ago in China and India, while the information from the Bible is too often scarce, contradictory, or simply wrong, although "modern" creationists impudently and arrogantly claim that the scientific discoveries through the centuries merely confirmed what had already been said in the Bible. (Does this mean that Galileo, Bruno, Copernicus, Newton... did not read the Bible?)

This subsequent "wisdom" is the reason why I have to come clean and state my own point of view: the problem _is not whether the world and life appeared as a consequence of divine or other intervention or not_. It is the fact that the contemporary creationistic explanation of the world is not a result of a free and independent process of learning and discovery – it is developed to fulfill only one task: to prove the accuracy of biblical ideas given in the book of Genesis.

For me this is the reason enough to look at it with suspicion.

~

Starting Points and the Paths

At this moment (hours and minutes are irrelevant, because time is a relative "thing") in the city of Bombay, India, planet Earth, three new human lives are conceived.

Will those human beings have the same lives or destinies? Or the same abilities and comforts in life? Will their characters and personalities be identical? Will they all live long enough to be born?

I suppose many of you who are reading this book will, consciously or otherwise, respond to these questions. I also think that all the answers will be "no", except the last one which will probably be "I don't know". However, if someone asked you later: "Do you believe in the influence of 'heavenly bodies' on a man's life and destiny?" it is more than certain that some of you would say "yes", and you would readily defend your belief by stating the facts that the Moon, for example, "governs" the water on Earth; that a human being is 70 % water; that animals and plants change their behavior under its influence... Then, there are also the Sun, Saturn, Venus, Pluto, "Goofy"..., and all of them together (or individually) create a man's destiny. That is why we have horoscopes and astrologists who tell us our "already drafted future" which is determined by the position of stars at the moment of our birth, because only a few people know the exact time of their conception.

Really, I can tell you at least five ways in which people react to the influence of the Sun: the pleasant feeling on the ideal temperature; the unpleasant feeling caused by the insufficient heat of the sun's rays; nervousness and tension because of extreme heat and sweating; sickness caused by sunstroke; concern because of long-lasting drought... But, I cannot think of any way in which that same Sun could ever "decide" if someone should get married, have two or four children, become a carpenter, or an accountant...

Human beings, as well as plants and animals, mostly unconsciously or semi-consciously react to various impacts from the environment but can also become fully aware of many of them – even of those that come "from above". So, through centuries, by using their own or somebody else's experience clever people from all over the world have found out that most of the outer influences can be predicted and prevented; that those which are aimed at our mental life can be ended, or are ended, when we become aware of them. When we find out what the Moon does and how it works, its power disappears.

The same goes for some other influences: as soon as we become aware of the real value of offensive words or human actions, their "magic" ends. Every church relic or a "holy" stone which has "healing powers" get those powers thanks to the mind or, to use another word, faith. If it wasn't so, then any part of somebody's dead body or any piece of a rock would have the same effect on all people, regardless of the strength of their faith – as is the case with antibiotics, for example.

The mind is the one that gives or takes away the power to/from the things around us: a stone is a stone, and two crossed pieces of wood are two crossed pieces of wood, until we give them some special, symbolic meaning and power. Only then (and _only in our mind_ ) does a stone become the cure, and two crossed pieces of wood become the trade-mark of a religion.

When we submit to different influences, do not know how to explain them, or produce them ourselves thinking (as a result of our ignorance or a habit) that they come from the outside world, it is normal for us to be susceptible to them and their powers.

Our complete way of thinking depends upon the way we look at the world and ourselves in it. The clarity of the picture we see is always in proportion to the intensity of emotions, number of prejudices, and the quality of available knowledge.

~

The "Programmed" Way

Most people set off into the adventure of explaining the universe or learning something about life and consciousness exclusively from man's standpoint and his (average) quality/level of consciousness as a standard and, therefore, almost inevitably "discover" the invisible perpetrator who stands behind everything and is usually called God.

One may now ask: So what? What is wrong with it? At first sight, nothing. This is a completely logical consequence of brain training to which the majority of people have been exposed from their earliest childhood. For thousands of years generations have been taught that the human race was the real reason for creation of the universe. Parents, teachers, sorcerers, media... have been inventing supernatural beings, telling us fairy tales, and encouraging us to emotionally experience the world around us. We are forced to judge, to like or dislike. From the beginning we have been trained to distort everything and stray from the truth, knowledge, ourselves – to live in illusions and constant conflict with reality.

That is why poets and artists persistently seek meaning in everything, wondering: Why do the trees grow? Why is something the way it is? What is the point of that? And, when you add some emotion, prejudice, little knowledge, imagination..., you witness a miracle: a pine is not a pine anymore; a dog stops being just a dog and becomes a symbol of something, or for something... Eventually, you come to the conclusion that everything in this world is part of some hidden and mysterious plan: just an expression of somebody's will or creativity.

Most of us are not satisfied when we find out that a cell functions in such and such way, or a cuckoo does this and that... There must be something else behind that! And soon judgment is passed: a cuckoo does not know why it leaves its egg in another bird's nest. That action is written in its genes, or in other words, the cuckoo is programmed to do that by God's mind. The answer we wanted is there, but the fact is: _we still do not know_! That is the foundation on which a number of theories and definitions of reality known as "God's master plan" has been built.

It is completely normal for a programmed mind to view everything and everyone around him/her as a part of the program too. Consequently, the ability of plants, insects, and animals to change their behavior and adapt to new situations is only a result of a global, intelligent project in the background.

In his book _God Created Life_ Slobodan Tomovich, a Montenegrin philosopher, unintentionally but perfectly depicted the essence of the problem I am talking about. After describing "the ideality of mathematical proportions" and the beauty of a butterfly's wings, he came up with the following conclusion: "Not to see God's master piece in that act, but only the impersonal chemistry of nucleic acids and protein creations, is more than shameful for human intelligence."

Indeed, a mind addicted to emotions, prone to judging and fantasizing, trained to think in the "normal" way will not be satisfied with what it sees, which is irrefutably proved, and will, in accord with habit, draw such a conclusion. But, a liberated, unconditioned mind will simply, as a common fact, accept the finding which says that butterfly's wings are actually a product of chemical processes in its body and will continue the search from there, without any presuppositions.

*

The validity of an overall creationistic way of thinking (with the exception of some of their opinions and conclusions) can be easily evaluated.

For example, they are absolutely convinced that all the mysteries of the world have been solved or explained by appointing an omnipotent, omniscient, and super-intelligent person to the position of creator. If you ask how such a person came into existence, or who/what created "him" (or "her"?!), the answer you will probably get is: "God is eternal, unborn, undying..." or, perhaps, that "it appeared out of nothing!"

Yet, very few of those people seem to understand that not a single "How...?" question is really answered with the "God" answer, and even fewer can accept the fact that the assertion "God is eternal..." has the same market value or validity as this one: "Elvis Presley is eternal, unborn, undying..." And, naturally, none of them are aware of the real problem: If someone already believes that God could appear on its own, out of nowhere or nothing, _why do they reject the idea that so could universe and life_?

If you carefully read their books, you will also quickly discover that all creationists tend to draw very strange conclusions from presented facts. Here are some examples:

"The universe in which we live is _a secret_. It is a miracle of God's creation."

"Human speech is _a secret_ – it is a gift from God, a miracle."

"So far, we have _failed to clearly understand_ why that happened." [The enlargement of the cerebral cortex] "Could it be that man was created like that?"...

Clearly, these people haven't got the slightest idea of what they are talking about, but they "know" that it was created that way, that God did it for some reason.

The assumption of creation is mainly "proved" in the following way: first, some appearance in the universe (a life form, for instance) is described in detail by using scientific methods and learning; then admiration towards its perfection, function, and beauty is expressed; and finally a victorious announcement is made: "All that cannot result from pure coincidence. It is the evidence of creation. It is the act of an omnipotent and intelligent creator."!

I am (not) sorry to say this, but this _is not the evidence_ , it is _only a logical conclusion_. It may be more logical than the one asserting that life appeared by accidence, but it does not have to be more truthful. An example: A man called Aristotle saw two stones, one 2 kilos in the weight and the other which weighed only 500 grams, lying on the ground. He immediately concluded that, if dropped from a 20-meter-tall building at the same time, the heavier stone would hit the ground sooner than the lighter one. Logical, isn't it?

For many centuries Aristotle's conclusion was considered to be the absolute truth. But, then, a man called Galileo took two stones of different weight in his hands, simultaneously dropped them from some building, and undoubtedly _proved_ that Aristotle's conclusion was false – both stones hit the ground at the same time.

Naturally, as any other person who listens but does not hear, an opinionated creationist will immediately wave this argument aside and point to, let's say, a bicycle in the vicinity: "Did this appear by itself, or was it created?" Of course it was created, and so were planes, ships, submarines, trains, and other means of transportation, but we know they were, and still are, made by man. We have seen them being made. We also know that they have evolved from some wooden or stony wheel, and gradually developed into their modern forms ("survival of the fittest"). The first two-wheeled cart evolved into a coach, then into a steam-driven car, and eventually became an electric car. The coaches were replaced with train wagons, buses and airplanes... Different "organs" were added to enable different ways of movement, and inspiration constantly came from the environment: inventors watched birds, insects, fish..., and got the ideas.

Then, what is the problem? Well, this is: we have just _proved evolution_ , and creationists say that trees, bees, cats, monkeys and human beings were created the way they look today – there was no evolution!

And, another (more important) thing: Can you really explain the coming into existence of the original (e.g. birds) by using bad copies (e.g. planes), and at the same time be completely ignorant of how the original actually appeared on this planet?

The philosopher quoted above tried to do something like that in his book when he compared or, rather, equalized nucleic acids and printing types claiming that nucleic acids "can organize and form themselves" (without intellectual incentive from outside) "as much as printing types can organize themselves to create a meaningful text."

Intentionally or not, he did not see the following: perhaps nucleic acids do need some kind of initial stimulus (whatever it may be) in order to start doing their job, but the outside intelligent influence will never be detected in their work, and you can stimulate printing types as much as you want – they will always remain "dead letters on a piece of paper".

All these inventions, man-made things (including robots and computers) are still, and will remain not alive (in the real "living" sense of that word). They are unable to _create_ themselves, change themselves, feed themselves...

No one can deny the fact that life develops on its own, simultaneously producing the environment necessary for its survival and adapting to the broader environment, planetary conditions, and natural laws. These laws can, but do not at all have to be, part of an in advance designed plan or guidance and are simply results of the general behavior of the universe. We can place the Creator at the very beginning, but we cannot show or prove his later personal influence, which is, we have to admit, an obvious fact in the example with man-made inventions.

*

It is true that man becomes a seeker with his birth, as it is well said in a book titled _Mankind's Quest for God_ , but isn't it also true that most people gradually lose that "instinct" and eventually blend in with the stupefied crowd which does not tolerate nonconformity. You can generalize that man "has never directed his energy exclusively to the basic necessities of life. He has always been searching, looking for the right way, longing for the unreachable.", but the unpleasant truth is that this claim only goes for those extraordinary individuals who have always been a scary minority in the world. Here is an example. When Columbus expressed his ideas to the Spanish king and queen, did he talk about "longing for the unknown" and "desire to discover", or did he mention some material benefits for their Majesties and Spain in general? Did the sailors who set off on the journey with him do that because they were eager to learn, or they had other thoughts in their minds? And finally, what was the reaction of religious authorities?

Think about this: Has any true believer of any religion ever discovered or found out anything new? Was Jesus just a believer?...Or Buddha, perhaps? No, they were both heretics, renegades from original Judaism and Hinduism.

Believers do not change anything. They do not adapt, dispel illusions, or search for the truths – that is exactly why they are believers. If they had their way, the world and life would still be explained in the same way now as it was in the 6th or 13th century, and people would still be tortured, condemned, and burned alive because they wanted to learn independently.

The God that most people believe in (and they turn to when facing danger or a desperate situation) is nothing but a mental image, a substitute for ignorance. For thousands of years we have been replacing the darkness in our minds with even darker darkness: with a simple utterance of the word we have been trained to bow to and to pronounce it with awe.

~

TAO

(Tao is _the way_ , the cosmic way from chaos to order. All things are involved in it. The laws of Tao were not created by any god – they are the fundamental feature of the universe itself.)

*

In July 1998 I spent three days with my wife and several friends in a village called Suvodo (Dry valley) in the north of Montenegro. The weather was fine; the village is situated at over 1400 meters above sea level, and we had an extraordinary opportunity (or luck) to observe the night sky we had never seen or even imagined before. There were no houses or any lights around us and we were lying on our sleeping bags in complete silence. Our eyes were fixed on an enormous number of shining dots which were so dense that we could actually see the "spinal column" of our galaxy.

The sight was magnificent and frightening at the same time.

We live on a planet which revolves around a non-descript star in the corner of an apparently everyday galaxy. This galaxy has, as they say, hundreds of billions of stars around which hundreds and hundreds of billions of planets and different heavenly bodies revolve day after day.

Our galaxy is also just one of hundreds of billions of galaxies which are scattered over an indescribable amount of space which we call the universe. All these galaxies have hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of billions of stars, planets, comets...

According to one way of thinking the universe had to be exactly as it is in order for us to be here. It was all created just for us, the human kind. The perfect order of the universe (the way it is "tuned") and its beauty "provide evidence that there is a God behind it all." The probability that the perfect universe, and then our beautiful planet with all the life on it, could appear accidentally or spontaneously is less than minimal. In fact, it is negligible. In addition to that, all the chances are that the Earth is the only inhabitable planet in the universe.

OK. Now please read the part of the text which starts with "We live on a planet..." and ends with "stars, planets, comets..." again.

Strangely enough, I have always thought that a perfectly designed universe should look like this: The Sun, the planet Earth, probably the Moon, and a few other objects ("the North/South star", for example) which are there to help sailors and travellers orientate at night. No exploding stars, asteroids, comets, meteorites, expanding universe...

And, since we are already talking about probability, one question has always kept on haunting me: Can it be that our universe, as it is, _is an obvious evidence_ that the planet Earth and the life on it are just _a result of hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds... of billions of_ (unsuccessful, random) _tries_ which, to be honest, finally ended in a rather questionable success?

Can it be that (even though I myself do not think so) the universe, as it is, is just "an enormous waste of time, space, energy, and matter?"

*

It is much harder (but, nevertheless, better) to begin the process of learning from the fact that some day the Earth is going to disappear in a "blaze of glory", turning into dust and ashes. In the (hopefully) distant future our colorful planet will, as everything else in the universe, cease to exist in its present form.

But there is no need to go that far. All those natural disasters of lesser intensity which frequently happen on this planet could easily make you realize that there is something wrong with the idyllic "God loves us" picture from believers' minds. A single earthquake (Haiti, 2010) can sometimes clearly show how much are our emotions and opinions relevant in the overall functioning of this or any other world.

The theory of eternal harmony, order, and progress is untenable, and we can see that (whether we want it or not) everywhere around us: every thing or being takes form, lasts for a while, declines, decomposes, and becomes a part of something else. Life has the seed of existence and development in itself but also the seed of decay.

All appearances in the universe, from a small cloud of dust to the functioning of brain, are result of "cooperation" of energy and matter. Any chemical or physical reaction requires energy. The result of a reaction is energy. In the end, it all comes down to the existence and circling of indestructible and non-creatable energy.

Things, rocks, people, planets... all look solid and compact on the level at which our senses perceive them. However, on more subtle levels, atomic and subatomic, it turns out that seemingly solid matter consists of smaller and smaller particles, and particles within particles which eventually turn out to be dimensionless, acting both as particles and waves, and without any of the properties of an object. So, physically we, or any other form around us, are just visible, materialized energy.

An example of a delicate form or materialized energy is a _thought_. Due to relatively small number of particles and weak connections between them, thoughts are extremely transient and unstable. Opposite to them are stones, metals...

The world around us is simultaneously ruled by order/certainty and disorder/uncertainty. In layman's terms, everything follows the two basic principles of attraction and repulsion. There are causes and effects, but there is also synchronicity. Order comes out of chaos and chaos comes out of order. Chaos spontaneously arranges itself and order, again, disarranges itself. The speed of the process depends on whether the system is closed or open. Open systems receive and emit energy themselves and that is why they stay arranged for a long time. Energy losses in the form of heat during the process of energetic transformations increase the entropy (disorganization) of a system. Stars, for example, remain in order (in "one piece") until they consume their own fuel, and then become part of chaos: already seen several times in the course of human history.

Living organisms stay alive for as long as they are able to receive and process the available energy. As this ability diminishes, an organism works less and less efficiently, or is often out of order, until it finally dies old and tired. The remains of its body will be "welcomed" by other, elementary life forms and in that way "the organism" will rejoin order again.

The pieces of a former star will gradually reorganize and produce something new.

Once the first step is made, all others will follow by themselves. The laws are "given" in that first step, in the same way as the one, first cell contains the seed and the picture of a grown organism. But, what something will look like in the end, no one can tell for sure – there are too many known and unknown influences, variables which can change the final outcome.

The coming of order out of chaos happens as a consequence of attraction and preservation of elementary parts which create a more complex entity, or in other words, " _preservation of the same in (seemingly) different_ ".

What does that mean?

Every part of the universe is a separate world for itself, but at the same time reflects the structure of the entirety, which basically means: a drop of water from the ocean is identical to the ocean as a whole. Each cell of an organism contains in itself the information about the organism as a whole. One single cell is the origin of the entire human being: billions of cells working together and doing different jobs.

A higher level of complexity is produced by "simple" repeating or connecting of simple patterns.

For example, by periodical sedimentation of mud around a larger stone or a piece of wood during rainy seasons, a river will gradually create an island at its mouth which will consist of more or less identical layers.

Human intelligence works in a similar way: put millions of stone blocks on top of each other carefully and a pyramid will emerge in the middle of a desert, as a realization of somebody's vision. The only difference is the factor of attraction. In this case it is an urge, desire or idea, and in the previous one it is a "misplaced" part of some tree.

Therefore, the universe is one, or a whole. Everything in it is more or less interrelated (on different levels) through workings of energy and matter, cause and consequence, synchronized activity... And, it is usually manifested in the form of duality: _yin_ and _yang_. Whenever some phenomenon or a situation reaches its end or peak, it reverses and becomes its own opposition. Everything is in a continuous state of change and movement. Lao Tzu described it, 2700 years ago, in the following way: " _The man looks up to the Earth; The Earth looks up to the Universe; The Universe looks up to Tao; Tao looks up to itself_."

*

The only way for the universe to function properly is to organize and develop itself gradually, on its own. Every attempt of deliberate guidance or influence from outside is doomed to a disaster, because something always remains uncontrolled. Our daily human life proves that best: the more laws and rules there are, the harder it is to run a country; the more you try to raise the young as you wish, the harder it gets, or you achieve the opposite; the more you try to beat the river current, the easier you get drowned...

The theory of spontaneous arrangement of chaos has been confirmed over and over again in any natural catastrophe which occurred on the Earth:

\- A flood or a sand storm may completely destroy or reshape the surface of the ground, but soon (to a person who watches the scenery for the first time) it will all look as if nothing has happened for ages;

\- After a fire destroys some area and all the plants on it, the soil soon recovers and the vegetation is flourishing, better than ever;

\- Some of the most beautiful places on this planet are the ones that have been formed after volcano activity in the Pacific Ocean...

Of course, I am talking about "the big picture", and neglecting the feelings, victims and losses – that is exactly how the universe operates. The more we try to give it some more humane look and a higher purpose, the further we get from the real picture.

## Life and Consciousness

"In the same way any pot, regardless of its shape or artistic manufacture, is only clay; and nail clippers (or any other iron tool) are only iron; and any golden ornament is only gold; so is any living being 'from a mosquito to a lion and a man', regardless of its name and shape, only expression of life." ( _Upanishads_ )

~

The Rudiments of Life

Biologists and other scientists have learned so much about life on Earth in the last two hundred years, but the secret of the "original mix": a combination of physical conditions and chemical elements which produced life or created living matter (with or without God's help) is yet undiscovered. However, the more they find out about the cell's structure and its modus operandi, the more we see that all activities happen as a result of numerous chemical reactions. Everything that "controls" or initiates those activities has physical and chemical reality. All hereditary information also has physical and chemical reality which originates from some other chemical reaction or composition. Whenever we think that we have reached the elementary components, we always discover that they consist of something even more elementary and more miniature! Hence, the point of creation or intellectual activity from outside cell (or DNA molecule) becomes more and more distant and even uncertain – wherever we decide to appoint the creator, it turns out that the position has already been taken.

All organisms consist of cells, the elementary units of life, and all cells, regardless of the type of the organism they create, perform the same vital functions in exactly the same way. Mono-cellular beings do everything that any complex organism does. They absorb and release energy (they "eat", breathe, secrete waste, move...), react to the environment, adapt and reproduce... A cell in a human brain does not do anything more complicated than a mono-cellular being in the sea does. The differences can only be observed in relation to shape, size, and the sort of the tasks that cells do (due to their specialization).

Most organisms are mainly made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. For a normal life an organism also needs 21 out of 92 natural elements. The molecules of life are very similar, and some are common to all living forms, but some can only be found in individual species. The common ones are carbon hydrates, proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids.

For this research the most important molecules are nucleic acids which consist of nucleotides. They have a central role in the transmission of energy, and they create macromolecules of RNA (ribonucleic acid) and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA represents hereditary matter, looks like a chain or twofold spiral, and "resides" in a cell's nucleus or, more precisely, nucleic plasma. The parts of a DNA chain which have a specific arrangement of nucleotides are called genes, and the whole DNA of an organism makes its genome.

There is no total agreement among scientists on the number of genes in human body. First they talked about 90.000. Now it is 25.000, 30.000, 35.000, 38.000... Imagine the disappointment when it was discovered that a mere worm had about 20.000 genes. Human beings and chimpanzees differ in not more than 400-500 genes!

It is often said that genes determine this or that on a man (the color of hair or eyes, the shape of ears or nose...), but the truth is that they give instructions for absolutely everything: from molecules in cells to the shape and (possible) activity of the whole body. What will come out in the end depends on both external conditions and internal combinations.

Therefore, a molecule of DNA contains the genetic information on the basis of which a body comes into existence. Each of our cells contains DNA organized in 46 units called chromosomes, arranged into 23 pairs. Chromosomes "transport" the genetic matter that we inherit from our parents....But, not only from them.

Our birth is the last one in a double line (father's and mother's side) which means that genetic information of many generations has "reached" us and presented itself in our form. Still, there are several things which clearly indicate that the inheritance we are talking about does not involve only human generations but the generations of other species too.

For example, scientists have found out that the genetic code of almost all living beings is universal, meaning that genes from one sort of organisms do the same job or give the same instructions when we put them in another species. For instance, a bacterium can "read" the human gene for insulin without any trouble, and then it can make the insulin which a man can use without any unwanted side effects. This universality of the genetic code is an indicator that all higher forms of life are connected to those oldest and the simplest ones which lived millions of years ago.

Another thing which implies strong ties between mammals, reptiles, fish... is the similarity of their embryos. A human embryo, for example, in not more than 7 or 8 weeks of its development shows us "in vivo" how a fishlike form with gill-like structures becomes a reptilian creature with a tail. Finally, the tail disappears and we become a very strange mammal.

Transformation from one form to another can be more clearly observed in the life cycle of frogs: a tadpole, a fishlike creature with a tail which lives in water and breathes with gills, will soon become a being which breathes with lungs and mainly lives with its head above the water level.

However, in spite of all that, scientists still cannot explain how the transitions from one species to another occurred. The changes really happened, and they may have even been rather quick or sudden, but what triggered them?

Scientific research shows that genes and their mutations cannot produce substantial differences in regard to the "standard" appearance of any species. Evolution is usually slow and gradual, although we can sometimes see visible changes _within a species_ in a short period of time. But, there is no proof that evolutionary changes can lead up to a definite transition from one species to another. The external influences and the ability of organisms to respond to them are not of crucial importance in that. As a matter of fact, if the environmental impact is too big, or too fast, it can cause the extinction of species or life in general.

So we have reached a stalemate. Namely, on the one side we have genes which are (as carriers of hereditary matter) very consistent, and the fact that mutations do not produce significant (or at least positive) changes.

On the other side, we see that a single cell produces _different types_ of cells, and _different types_ of organs, and we have other facts which clearly point to common origin of species.

In short, everything that has been discovered or said about cell structure and its function, the genetic code, human and other embryos... may not support the idea that "crocodiles are directly descended from some fish that came out to live on land", or that first mammals originate from some reptiles, but it unmistakably leads us to the conclusion that all these species have mutual origin and the ability of transformation!

Something in the very foundation of life, in an egg, an embryonic cell can somehow produce changes, but what actually happens or how it happens, for now, remains a secret.

~

The "Roots" of Consciousness

Are lightning, thunder, "howling" wind, earthquakes..., "flashes of sensory-nervous tremors of some gigantic organism", as P.D. Ouspensky believed? Does a stone have consciousness?...Or, a car?

A number of contemporary scientists put the sign of equality between energy, matter, and consciousness, and so they say that each and every thing in the universe has consciousness. Furthermore, some of them even claim that consciousness is the ground of all being and, therefore, they recognize consciousness in any chemical reaction which occurs between two or more chemical elements. Physicist David Bohm was explicit: "The ability of form to be active is the most significant feature of mind (consciousness), and we have something that is mind-like already with the electron."

Indeed, one can recognize the radiation of the Sun (i.e. light) as a signal or information meaning "I am here." And we can respond to that information in a number of ways. As it has already been said, we "communicate" with the Sun on a daily basis and many things in our lives depend on how well we understand its messages. An earthquake is also a signal, an indicator of certain movements in the Earth's crust or, if you insist, a clear message: "My friend, that house of yours was not properly built!", but is the Earth aware of that message?...Or, perhaps, the Sun? In both cases we are, in fact, talking about ordinary chemical/physical reactions which can produce further reactions within us.

But, unlike the Earth or the Sun, we are aware or can become aware of their and our (re)actions. And so can any mono-cellular being. If you expose an amoeba to some benign external influence, it will respond to it in its own way. However, if that influence is regularly repeated with the same intensity, the amoeba will gradually stop reacting – it has become aware of the harmlessness of that influence. Contrary to that, a chemical reaction between two or more elements will always happen in exactly the same way if the conditions are the same.

Now I suppose we can say that there are two kinds (or levels) of consciousness: "chemical" and "biochemical". Of course, the latter has something to do or depends on the former, because we have already learned that life itself is based on chemical reactions, but there is an obvious distinction! The appearance of "biochemical" consciousness is inseparably connected to the appearance of life. It is true that living and non-living matter are not separate substances, but isn't it also true that _it is only so in the living beings_!

I can fully accept the idea that the planet which is now called Earth has become alive in the course of time, or, more precisely, that it has become _part of the living system which appeared on it_ , but not that the Earth (or Venus for that matter) itself, as a planet, was/is an independent, conscious, and intelligent organism. In the same way a human being is _a living system_ , and the chemical elements that constitute it are _parts of that living system_ , but they are neither conscious nor alive by themselves, in spite of showing some signs of intelligence in certain conditions.

Finally, a stone in a field, or an idea written on a piece of paper indeed contain a certain amount of potential energy which can be released in some way, but still do not have what it takes to be alive or conscious.

So what is the "missing link"?

Some researchers believe that water is the key component which enables appearance of consciousness/awareness, and one might also add that it is the most intelligent "thing" on Earth! It unites with different chemical elements, seemingly becoming something else; it adapts to all shapes and conditions; reacts to all kinds of influences (including human emotions) by changing its structure; acts in accordance with the available energy; uses the easiest or the best possible routes, and when there aren't any it transforms into another form.

When you think about it, this is not anything new – just replace the word _consciousness_ with _life_. The fact is, even though we really do not know how the first living molecules appeared on this planet, it is obvious that (among other things) water had something to do with it. It is also not at all difficult to see that these molecules are the foundation of life inside us and around us. These real, visible creators of life and carriers of hereditary information, the macromolecules of DNA, or at least RNA, can be found in everything that lives on this planet. The length of the chain (that is, the number of genes) is the only thing that separates species from one another. The more similar the species, the more similar the DNA is.

In other words, genes contain the key information which enables living beings to stay alive and to grow. And, as soon as the word _information_ is mentioned, it is understood that we speak about _consciousness_ as well. So, it is obvious that DNA, i.e. genes, _is the source of consciousness_ , but it is important to understand that every cell becomes conscious of the environment, or itself, through its membrane, not DNA! Genes only give instructions how to produce the membrane or, in our case, the nervous system.

_In order to become "conscious", consciousness requires a body_.

Although it is still one of the unexplained phenomena of the universe, there are many definitions of consciousness. For example: "Consciousness is information." "Consciousness is perception of whatever comes through our mind." "Consciousness seems to be a process where an environment becomes defined, and where an observer of that environment becomes defined simultaneously." Creationists say that gene (or consciousness) is "a materialized signal of the creator's mind", and psychologists talk about the sub-conscious, the super-conscious, the unconscious...

In any case, everything that lives has consciousness which differs in terms of level and volume. More complex beings can process larger amount of information and achieve a higher level of consciousness, but we should differentiate the _complexity_ of consciousness from the _quality_ of consciousness. The complexity of consciousness (especially as far as people are concerned) does not necessarily signify a better quality or a higher level of consciousness.

Each species processes as much information as it requires for normal functioning and survival but at the same time has the ability to increase its amount or quality. Even the lowest life forms react to external and internal influences and, what's more important, change their behavior or physical characteristics by mutating into a more advanced type (viruses and bacteria are good examples of that).

On the basis of those facts, we can draw the conclusion that the thing we call intelligence is also a constituting part of life and consciousness at all levels but of different quantity (?!) and quality, even inside the same species. Of course, again the amount of processed information is not a necessary requirement which determines the quality of intelligence or the positive outcome of its workings. Intelligence is a condition for change, progress, adaptation..., but results of intelligent behavior do not always have to be positive or profitable, either for a man or any other being in the world. For example, a young tree which is trying to get more light in a pine wood is doing what it can, or has to do, in order to fulfill that need: it is growing more rapidly, i.e., it is "stretching" itself. So, it changes the normal growth rate which is usual for that species but, at the same time, in most cases sentences itself to premature death, because the thin trunk cannot hold the weight of the top.

In the same way, an intelligent man does not necessarily have to be a clever man as well, because, for some reason, he fails to apply his intelligence in practice; or, even worse, the practical application of his intelligence often results in stupidities. Too many times I have seen some very intelligent young people destroy their lives by drugs, alcohol, laziness, bad ideas...

That is why I think intelligence should be defined as _the ability of using information or consciousness for various purposes_....Nothing more, or less.

All life forms acquire this ability at the moment of conception, but it can be additionally improved in the course of life. As for human beings, it is believed that about 40% of our individual intelligence develops under the influence of the environment and other factors.

However, there are many people who still believe that only higher forms of life are intelligent and, moreover, some psychologists have "discovered" that there are many types of intelligence: emotional, social, rational (or computer-like)...

Those ideas and "discoveries" are basically wrong, and these are the arguments for such a claim:

\- Any life form which reacts to environmental or other impacts and tries to adapt in some way or another is an intelligent being!

\- Any life form which uses its own bodily faculties to satisfy its needs in any possible way is an intelligent being. The fact that a life form is not always aware of these activities does not indicate the lack of intelligence! Think about this: is a human baby that has just been born an intelligent or unintelligent being?

\- There aren't many types of intelligence but only _different ways of using it_ , or rather, different conditions under which it "operates". Intelligence itself does not depend on personality, temperament, or way of thinking. But, its practical application has everything to do with these things.

The examples of intelligence of different life forms can be seen everywhere: look at the mutation ability of viruses (which basically do the same we do: receive some information from the outside, process it and respond to it in accordance with their abilities); observe the way young aspen trees surround the older beech trees and literally suck the life out of them by draining all the water from the ground; think about symbiotic relationships between different species; and about numerous examples of the surprising behavior of animals and insects.

As for self-consciousness, it is evident that we cannot say that a plant or an insect have self-awareness in the human sense of the word, but it is true that both plants and insects defend themselves, attack, and do almost everything that self-conscious men do. Again, we are talking about levels. A fish has no name, surname, title, or a position in the government but clearly recognizes danger and does not swim away from it because it feels like it, but because it wants to save itself!

Any tree can be observed as a "primitive" nervous system with all other organs that it needs. That it possesses a certain level of awareness and intelligence is shown by the fact that it registers a good or a bad year through tree rings, growth rate... Then, it reacts to everyday weather conditions, noise (proved by experiments), adapts to the environment (size and depth of the roots, height, position of the trunk and branches)...

Nevertheless, many people have difficulties in accepting this for various reasons. They think that only man and some "higher" animals have intelligence and self-consciousness, whereas most animal activities, as well as the overall activity of plants and insects, are only results of instinctive, unconscious, or, as some of them say, "programmed" behavior placed into species (by an intelligent creator) for the purpose of survival.

Of course, we can look at things like that, and underestimate the indisputable abilities of "lower" species, but I still cannot help asking myself: Does such a way of thinking really explain anything?

Anyway, we have reached some of the most important questions in this part of the study: How much is life programmed? Is all knowledge/experience/consciousness of a species, or even of "the whole universe", planted into a new life form at the moment of conception, or each being, each species gets only what is necessary for the safe start?

What do genes transmit?

~

Inheritance

Psychologists say that "instincts are impulses which determine the entire stereotypical pattern of inborn behavior aimed towards fulfillment of a need." All instincts are related to bodily functions and the physical survival of species concerning feeding, multiplication, adaptability... They are, so to speak, the first steps in satisfying urges – the inborn incentives which arise from bodily needs, a condition of shortage or imbalance.

However, even though instincts have been the subject of scientific interest for a long time and research has shown significant results, there is still some confusion about what activities are to be considered as instincts, or where instincts stop and become something else. Also, phrases like: "inborn knowledge" and "inborn behavior" are often used too easily, especially when certain activities of individual species cannot be adequately explained.

Now, one thing should be immediately clarified: an instinct _is_ an act of consciousness (genetically transmitted), although a living creature is not always aware that it is doing something; or, in other words, _it does not pay any particular attention to these activities_ – they are done by themselves. These elementary, visible actions which are done by all life forms for the purpose of survival are the consequence of causal and synchronized internal activity of different cells and organs. It can all be described like this: a number of cells in an organism do not have enough food or energy, so they send a signal to "the organ in charge". That organ, for instance, the stomach, passes the signal on to the "higher instance" which is, in this case, the nervous system which employs all available "workers" (eyes, ears, limbs...) to provide necessary food in whatever way they can.

Another, rather important thing to remember is this: the entire initial (or lifelong, as far as lower life forms are concerned) behavior of many beings is conditioned by the characteristics and abilities of their bodies which are in most cases completely, and in others partially harmonized with the natural conditions. Therefore, the body dictates the way the scorpion defends itself, the fish moves or hides in the sand; the way the rabbit finds, eats and digests food, and eventually dumps the waste. People can try as many as 169 positions in sex and satisfy their desire in many ways, but, in the end, it all comes down to what genetic mechanism fixed as the only possible way of procreating. So, in that sense we can regard instinctive actions as inborn or programmed, but it mustn't be forgotten that, in fact, in most cases _there is no other way for them to be done appropriately_.

Each instinctive action may be provoked from the outside, but it starts within the body, is realized through the body, and goes on when the body and its needs get in touch with the environment. From that moment, all physical abilities of an organism are more or less consciously (depending on the species) adjusted to the surrounding situation. They also frequently tend to develop under its influence. At some point in time, an instinct can give up its place to change, memory, imitation, learning...

In other words, there are basically three stages in the beginning of life:

1. The initial, internal activities that enable the body to function on its own for a (short) period of time until all "available instruments" it has are put in operation.

2. Fast, or gradual, interaction with the environment which is conditioned by the physical faculties of a life form. If that does not happen, any living creature will soon die. The fact is: the more complex a species is, the more helpless its young ones are during the first days of their lives. For example, all mammals are doomed to inevitable death if they are left to themselves and their "inborn knowledge"

3. The moment when a living being semi-consciously or consciously (intentionally) starts using its own physical abilities and certain surrounding objects to adapt itself to the existing situation, or to create a new situation in order to satisfy its needs or desires. Such behavior can soon become a routine, or so automatic that it can hardly be differentiated from the instinctive behavior.

The last, third thing which has to be pointed out in the story about instincts and inheritance in general is the fact which inexorably says that _genetic mechanism does not show even the slightest sign that it is able to transmit specific patterns of behavior acquired in the course of life_ (through practice, learning, or habit). That is something that shouldn't be forgotten in studies like this but, unfortunately, it happens.

In the scientific and "popular" literature we can frequently find descriptions and examples of interesting, sometimes amazing behavior of different species, particularly insects. Researchers and scientists cannot (properly) explain those examples of obvious wisdom but persist in refusing to ascribe them to intelligence or, more precisely, the "personal" _intelligence of those species_. That is why creationists believe that all instincts are part of "the software package" provided by "the intelligent and wise Creator", and some evolutionists talk about "inborn knowledge". Consequently, you can read that spiders are born with the innate knowledge of how to make web; that birds, or eels, from the very moment of their birth know all migratory routes ("have already engraved maps and routes in their eggs"); that most birds get the "projects" of their nests at the moment of conception; that chickens "which have never been in the presence of the sparrow hawk" run to a shelter when they see the hawk's shadow on the ground, because "they have the predator's image implanted in their system."...

Since the subject that we are dealing with in this part of the book is very sensitive to the idea that various species inherit "ready for use" knowledge or experience of previous generations, we have to pay special attention to such assertions.

So let's begin with the "case" of chickens which have "the predator's image implanted..." That is, among other things, a very good example of subjectivity, narrow-mindedness, and inability to link facts. Namely, a scientist called Conrad Lorenz studied the behavior of chickens. In an experiment he used devices which moved along a wire on a certain altitude and cast the shadow which resembled the sparrow hawk. Whenever the chickens noticed the shadow on the ground they would immediately run to hide themselves. On the basis of this, psychoanalyst Murray Stein, in his book _Yung's Map of the Soul_ , came up with the idea that the concept of the predator (in this case the sparrow hawk) is inborn and "can be recognized without any need to be learned."

However, that conclusion would surely have been different if the following facts had been taken into account: the chickens would react the same way if the shadow was in the form of a kite or a rectangle, and a similar thing happens when other species are involved in the same experiment. If a shadow is cast, for example, over the kitten, it immediately draws back and takes the inquisitive or defensive position. Both species do not respond to the form of the shadow, but to _the shadow itself_. It announces a threat, something unknown from the area which is not well "covered" by their senses. Chickens, as well as cats or humans, have the sensor for danger and the initial reaction "installed" in their systems but not a photo album with the pictures of different predators and enemies of the species. What's more, when they are born _they do not even know what their mother looks like_! Lorenz also discovered _habituation_ (a quick process of learning which takes place at the beginning of life) during an experiment in which he "became mother" to a flock of just hatched ducklings.

The other example, which speaks of "the implanted maps and routes", is rather interesting, but, still, such an explanation is only one of the possible ways of viewing the problem. Let's try the following approach: the basic way of moving for birds is flying. Accordingly, you might assume that they would know how to fly as soon as they reach the right age, but it is not so – birds _learn how to fly_ , they _practice_ flying! The truth is: they are genetically given the ability to fly but not the skill itself. Therefore, if birds are not conceived with the most essential knowledge they need in order to survive, how can they be born with an atlas, or even a "map of the starry sky for flying at night" in their head?!

The "programmed" behavior must be reduced only to the first steps or basic activities in the life of an organism. The total programming would make any kind of improvisation, or any change in the behavior of birds (or other species) impossible, and even the smallest change in the natural conditions would cause terrible losses, or even extinction. For instance, the birds we are familiar with have existed for hundreds of thousands of years: how many times have their "maps" had to be adjusted to large climatic, geological and other changes that took place throughout that time?

Different sorts of birds have different migration routes, because they have different physical abilities and are differently adapted to the surroundings. Therefore, some of them follow the land lines, some use the air flows on higher altitudes, and lots of them have magnetite in their beaks which helps them find their way regardless of the distinctive land marks or weather conditions. All of them, as well as eels, have extraordinary memory, certain sensory abilities (which we know very little about) and, in many cases, there is always somebody among them that has already been on that journey.

As for nest building, the fact is that birds of the same species build different nests or shelters in different environments, and it means that _the need for a nest/shelter is inborn_ , along with the physical ability to build it, but not the picture of the nest. It results from watching and imitation. Consider this: what is the first thing a little bird sees when it hatches from the egg? If it is not a parent, then it is the nest it was born in. In order to build its own, when the time comes, a young bird will do exactly the same as any other bird around it does: look around, chose the best available material, and try.

Spiders are not essentially different. Most of them make neat webs of circular shape, but there are some which prefer untidy, sporadic, or even funnel-like shapes. The shape of the web and the way it is hung depend on the environment but also on the stuff a new spider learned in the first hours or days of its life. Isn't it true that every spider is born on its mother's web or in the vicinity of it?

Spiders possess the ability to produce threads and make webs, but none of them have the innate knowledge of how to make a web as soon as they are born. The "neat spider" must try at least two or three times before it completely masters the technique, but each time the web will serve its purpose. The beauty and perfect shape are not of crucial importance.

~

Are Humans anyhow Different?

As you know, our physical development lasts longer than the development of other species, but we also (usually) get everything we need for survival and normal life. The difference is that in our case it frequently happens that some of the "implanted" abilities are never expressed.

Immediately after it has been born, when it is given to its mother, the human baby only knows how to breathe, find breasts and suck, digest food, react to some internal or external influences (shut the eyelids because of too much light, grab an offered finger, express a need or discomfort by crying...) and that is all. As you see, not so much different from what a mono-cellular life form can do. The rest is a matter of time, further development, influence of the natural conditions, and learning abilities.

Every child begins to walk and talk with some help from the side. The upright walk and the articulated speech are the traits of human race. But, if a child who inherited the ability to speak grew up in a non-speaking environment, it would never learn to speak. Likewise, if everyone around a newborn baby moved on their hands and knees, it would probably never straighten up and start to walk. But even if it did (because the body can do that, has that ability), that walk would be a result of practice and learning, and not of some inborn knowledge.

Moreover, you will never hear that building of houses is a practical application of inborn knowledge, but that it is a result of ability and intelligence. Additionally, you will probably get the explanation that the contemporary design of our houses and buildings is a consequence of evolution. And finally, human houses are generally speaking similar, but they still differ from one area to another – just as it is the case with birds.

Now compare the overall ability of birds and humans, and then have a look at, for example, the hanging nest of the African "weaver" bird and a nearby cottage of a family from the local tribe. I believe you will easily deduce that both constructions are the results of _the identical needs and processes_ , and perhaps you will be inclined to think that the hanging nest may be more difficult to build!

The fact that somebody does not see or does not want to see this, because they think man is essentially different from other, "lower" beings, and thus should be considered separately from them is part of another, quite a stupid story.

*

It is time to recapitulate on some of the most important facts that we have learned so far.

Each of the activities which psychologists and other scientists regard as instincts can actually be explained as an inborn disposition or ability ( _not knowledge itself_ ) of an organism to perform certain actions. In most cases there is only one (right) way to satisfy the bodily needs, which is the natural consequence of the built of that organism and the environment in which it lives.

The human body, as any other life form on this planet, originates from one, single cell (zygote) which is formed after the union of a spermatozoid and an ovum. That new cell represents the base which will gradually generate the nervous system, the heart, lungs, and all other necessary parts.

All hereditary information (DNA, the combination of genes which is responsible for the final appearance of a grown man or woman) is comprised in that first cell. A DNA molecule contains the instructions for _everything that human body can do_ or, in other words, you have inherited the ability to eat, sleep, look and see, listen and hear, walk, work, think, speak, learn... It has also given you the initial consciousness, intelligence, chemical composition which will determine your temperament, talents... What you are going to do with what you have been given depends mostly on yourself and the environment you live in.

However, this "manual" has not provided you with the language you are going to speak, the way of thinking, or any of those necessary skills you are going to need throughout your life: you have only been given the instruments and the ability to learn them. Similarly, in spite of the fact that you have inherited your father's eyes, nose or mouth, mother's talent for mathematics, and grandfather's voice, genetically you have not received any amount of their personal knowledge, none of their experiences, or memories. That part you have to provide for yourself, although so many people will zealously try to fill your head with everything they know during the process of upbringing and education.

Even such an important thing (for a human) as self-consciousness does not exist in a newborn child. It takes months for it to be developed. When they see themselves in a mirror, a few months old babies, as well as cats, do not know what they see or, at best, think that they are looking at another member of their species. A child has to learn everything about itself and the surrounding world. Every human being slowly builds its own individual consciousness (and sub-consciousness) on a foundation which has already been set in that first cell. This "structure", which is created gradually and can be altered, is called _personality_.

Therefore, it turns out that a man/woman does not come to this world as an "empty sheet of paper", because something has already been "drafted" at the moment of their conception. There are many possibilities and variants, and also some general directions, but so many things can be messed up, improved, changed... However, that "paper" does not contain any thoughts, concepts, or political ideas of their ancestors, and especially not of the people who are in no way related to them.

The things which Carl G. Jung and his followers call the collective unconscious and archetypes (which, according to them, we inherit from our ancestors but become aware of them gradually, or just for a moment, in the course of our life) are unbreakably related to the preceding story of instincts and the body. All archetypes (i.e. psychical notions common to all people) arise from the identical aspects of human life and characteristics of the human body: birth-death, youth-old age, love-sex, parents-children... and that is where their universality comes from. None of them is a product of some inborn or previous knowledge left to us by the ancestors.

Anyhow, one thing has to be emphasized: everything we get at the moment of conception has material, hereditary base and does not appear in some mysterious, astral or any other incomprehensible ways! The pages which follow will clearly show that all our "higher" consciousness has the same, material nature.

~

The Nervous System and Information Processing

How does the immaterial soul exert control over the body? Does it do that directly, or by using the mechanisms of the physical body (nerves, muscles...)?

If you think the direct way is the right one, then you need to answer the following questions: How could the "immaterial substance" of the soul ("which cannot be affected by anything") possibly interact with the material substance of the body at all? In what way does the soul stay attached to the body?

If the soul controls any part of the body directly, and it is not affected by any kind of physical injury or chemical substance, then why can't a person paralyzed from the waist down move his/her legs? Why does a man behave differently, or even completely loses control over his body, while he is under the influence of alcohol or anesthesia?

On the other hand, if you believe that the soul uses the mechanisms of the body to control it and, in your opinion, the brain is merely the interface between the immaterial soul and the material body, you will again find yourself in an awkward situation. An incredible amount of research performed during the last century has revealed that the brain is not an intermediary between the soul and the body. In fact, there is evidence that functioning of the brain generates the properties of mind which theologians and believers alike ascribe to the invisible and immortal soul. And, apart from that, we have already seen that the appearance and existence of consciousness cannot be exclusively linked only to the brain – it has much deeper roots.

The quantity of consciousness, or the amount of information that a living creature "handles" in its life, is directly related to the features of the apparatus with which that creature receives and processes internal and external stimulations and influences. The more complex an organism is the more complex information processor it requires. Humans, of course, possess the most sophisticated mechanism which consists of the nervous system and the endocrine system (different glands).

But, one thing is common to all life forms: _without these organic structures and physiological processes within them there is no awareness and psychical phenomena_. Injuries of senses and nerves, brain damages, recording of brain waves and glucose consumption in certain brain areas prove that beyond any doubt.

The human nervous system consists of the peripheral system which is formed of the nerve cells outside the skull and the spine, and the central system which is placed inside the skull and the spine: the brain and the spinal cord. The complete nervous system is made up of more than a hundred billion of cells, neurons which are linked in many ways. However, it should not be observed or studied independently, because it is a part of a much larger system. We mustn't forget that the human body operates on many levels and they are all connected. For example, our skin cells register different kinds of radiation and vibrations which cannot be perceived by our senses. We become aware of those influences only if or after our body reacts to them.

Cells and organs of the human (or any other) body do the job successfully because they have been coordinated from the very beginning – _one produced the other_. There is synchronization at every level: from a single cell and its consciousness to the complete nervous system or the body in general. The coordination is also obvious in interaction of cells and their environment, organs and their environment, an organism and its environment, and, finally, a species and the environment.

It is very important to understand that all conscious and unconscious bodily activities, as well as voluntary and involuntary reactions and movements, appear as a result of the workings of a living system which receives, processes, and uses information at the same time. There is nothing outside that system that supervises or evaluates its work.

*

Most researchers are confident that information from the outer world comes to our brain exclusively through senses/the peripheral nervous system, but there are some of them who also believe that human brain is capable of receiving information without any participation of senses. In either case, the brain checks that information out and, if necessary, relates it to the information stored in our sub-consciousness, eventually creating something that people usually call "higher" consciousness.

Everything that goes on in the brain (from receiving the data concerning sensations in the skin, muscles, organs... to the complex processes such as memorizing, thinking, decision making...) happens as a result of joint and simultaneous work of a large number of neurons in different areas of cerebral cortex and sub-cortex.

Still, it seems that the most "intelligent" part of the brain is its front section, the forebrain. It integrates a wide range of connections from other parts of the nervous system, and the thought processing which takes place in this section is the main thing that separates humans from (other) animals. But, let's not forget: every aspect of our consciousness, no matter how complicated or sophisticated it may be, is, in fact, only an outcome of the same principles which apply for both consciousness and the universe in general. For example, the sublime (or terrifying) _subjective experience_ that some people have while listening to the sound waves which are "officially" called Beethoven's Fifth symphony is essentially nothing else but the practical manifestation of the principle of attraction (or repulsion) in a more complex manner. Our body accepts or refuses the external influence and sometimes, for some reason, our neurons additionally work out their impressions eventually producing an essay titled "The influence of Beethoven's music to the masses".

Experiments show that water behaves more or less the same. After being exposed to different kinds of music/vibration and immediately frozen, it turns into beautiful or ugly ice crystals, depending on the "experience" and "mood".

In a similar way chemical elements create or dissolve different compounds; bacteria react to warmth or cold; and dogs greet a known or unknown person. So, it is obvious that our "higher" consciousness should not be observed separately from those "lower" levels of consciousness. They are all based on the same principles and all appear in the same way – as a result of certain information coming from the body itself or the environment.

The influx of information from the outside is reduced or stopped when senses, or the peripheral nervous system, are partly or completely damaged. Neurons (and some heart cells) are the only cells in our body which do not regenerate. In fact, their number is constantly falling in the course of life due to various causes. A brain injury may cause temporary or permanent cessation of our bodily functions, and when the brain is dead the whole system shuts down.

What happens to the "stored" information then? Can it survive the destruction of the "storehouse", or appear in another body?

The first part of the answer has already been given in the story about cell and the section about inheritance. The second can be drawn from the following fact: the total destruction of a being's (or specie's) DNA eliminates every possibility of getting any direct information about that being (or species). And the third will be revealed in due time.

~

Why isn't Consciousness Chaotic?

Without the soul "a conscious subject would not be possible, there would be no consciousness." If our senses and nervous impulses were "the only organizers of our mental state, then our consciousness and conscience, emotions and will, would be ruled by endless chaos." (Tomovich)

At first sight, this surely seems to be "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". But, if you think that you have really learned something from these sentences, you are wrong. The author merely wrote down or slightly rearranged the words he had read somewhere else but indeed knows very little about the subject. He is only one of (so many) people who observe the man and his consciousness separately from the rest of the living world.

The "thing" or phenomenon we are talking about is for now (and it may as well remain) in its essence inexplicable or inconceivable, but the way in which it operates (no matter how fascinating, or fast it can be) is, nevertheless, visible and conceivable. It shows us that consciousness of a mono-cellular sea creature, or of a newly born rain-worm, manifests in the same way as consciousness of a human baby. The differences in quantity (and quality) that come later are the consequence of the complexness of the "equipment" and the ability to use it.

Every higher level of consciousness is a product of the previous one. In our case, the consciousness of the first cell is the source of consciousness for all other cells. It gives consciousness to the nervous system and then passes it on to all other organs and systems. When everything is completed, fitted and synchronized, we have a being equipped with all necessary receivers, transmitters, transformers... Everything that the first cell had or required has a grown man too, only in a more complicated way.

The consciousness of the first cell _was not chaotic_ and, therefore, the _consciousness of a newborn child will not be either_ ; of course, if genes are all right! The basic mode of operation is exactly the same.

Simply put, the cell processed all inside or outside information with no problems at all and did everything it was supposed to do in order to survive. A newborn child will do exactly the same, only with a little help from the side in the beginning. The final result depends on the quality of the equipment and the way it will be used. Other people, upbringing, and education are there only to steer a developing consciousness in one direction or other, but human consciousness would be organized even if there were no such influences. It would be rather interesting to watch the development of a young man/woman who creates their personality on their own.

The world in our head is (usually) not chaotic because of our ability to memorize and to forget. If there was no memory, we would constantly have to learn who we were, who the people around us were, what we looked like, what was dangerous, what was good... Memory has no specific location in the brain and is closely related to other cognitive processes: perception, thinking, learning... If there was no forgetting, our memory would probably be like an overcrowded warehouse in which it would be impossible to find a necessary thing, although many people say that the capacity of our "warehouse" is much greater than we suppose.

There are several theories about memorizing and forgetting, and it seems that in all of them neurons in our cerebral cortex indeed have a significant role in these processes, but it is of even greater significance how (often) we use them. The main thing in the processes of memorizing and thinking is the frequency and the quality of connections or synapses between neurons. A brain damage (destruction of a larger number of neurons) can cause amnesia, or loss of a number of bodily functions, but after some time things can return to normal condition thanks to the possibility of overriding or creating new connections. Older people retain the ability to create new and preserve the old connections by staying mentally active. Research shows that the brains of mentally active people have up to 40% synapses more than the brains of mentally lazy ones.

So, to sum up, self-consciousness is a consequence of the development of the nervous system on the one side, and a result of learning and memorizing (the most frequent connections and processed messages) on the other. One thought leads to another and so on. Experience, parents, and teachers teach us to choose, organize or join different thoughts. Some thoughts are memorized quickly, others slowly, and some, seemingly, not at all. Perhaps it all has something to do with our disposition(s) and the way our individual brains work in accordance with their own chemical codes.

However, the fact is that many heads are really in a messy or even chaotic state. A sensitive nervous system receives, conducts, and processes greater amount of information, and the mind often becomes overloaded. Also, when someone's brain, or mind, is exposed to persistent, extremely intense sensual inputs, consciousness may become more agitated or even uncontrolled. That is why it sometimes happens that healthy people (the ones who have not inherited some mental illness) have problems, nervous breakdowns, or become physically ill.

In a sentence, the state of mind (or consciousness) is directly related to our genetic predisposition and the way we deal with all kinds of information – the adopted way of thinking and living.

*

That is all, for the moment, about life and consciousness as natural phenomena. Before we return to life after death, here are some additional facts and ideas which will help us understand things better and also give us a better perspective to the story that follows.

~

21 Grams

It is an experimentally established fact that every brain activity is preceded by its own code (or a command), the so-called "wave of subconscious readiness". This wave, or the code, contains a small amount of energy which is registered on the screen immediately before the main activity (or the greater discharge of energy) takes place. Such a code also announces the moment of death. After that, the main energetic activity is displayed.

Before this experiment, at the beginning of the 20th century two British physicists, William Crooks and Oliver Lodge, found out that, at the moment of death, an amount of _energy which equaled mass_ of 17 to 25 grams instantly emanated from the dead body, which meant that immediately after death the human body was approximately 21 grams lighter.

Today we can often hear people say that this shows that the human soul weighs 21 grams and leaves the body at the moment of death. (Some contemporary authors mention 8 to 10, or even 120 grams.) However, at the same time, most of them do not realize that by saying so they admit that the soul is _something measurable_ or, to use the appropriate word, _material_! And, moreover, in this case the scientists were absolutely clear: they talked about energy or "an electrical phenomenon which can be controlled and the reactions of which can be anticipated". (Tesla)

There is nothing mysterious about it. Life is a bio-chemical-electrical phenomenon based on DNA molecules which contain something that people call the life impulse or life force. But, what they actually talk about is an enzyme called DNA polymerase and nucleic acids/nucleotides. This force "mobilizes" matter and puts us in operation, and the ability to absorb and transform energy keeps us (and all other beings) alive. We have established that the initial energy, matter, and ability are passed on from one body to another _through procreation_ and are manifested as _elementary consciousness comprised in a single cell_ which creates billions of others. Thus, consciousness can be defined as the "harnessed" energy which produces and sets in motion different beings and forms.

The moment of conception can be described as fusion, or integration of two matters (father and mother's), and the moment of death as the beginning of fission, or disintegration of matter, which appears as a consequence of lack of oxygen exchange in cells.

The result of both processes is releasing of energy. At the moment of death a certain amount of energy suddenly leaves the body, but let's be realistic: it is only a very small portion with respect to the total amount. A body which weighs 70 kilograms is, so to speak, a storehouse for 70 kilograms of energy. The process of "leaving" goes on for as long as there are material remains of that body. As they decompose they emanate energy.

Life is still present in the cells and organs for some time after breathing stops, or death has been pronounced. When it completely "goes out" an organism cannot be reanimated, and organs cannot be used for transplantation.

## Proofs under Magnifying Glass

As indicated earlier, it is difficult to talk about proofs of life after death. The truth is that there aren't any. But, let's not spoil the fun of investigating. The near-death experiences and (alleged) reincarnation cases will be discussed in detail, although I have to admit that, in my opinion, only certain reports of the children who "remembered details from their previous lives" have some weight. However, even that is questionable: How can we be sure that these testimonies are indisputable proof that those children have actually lived another life before? Apparently, our understanding of this phenomenon is nothing but a conditioned reaction; a mere relying on the opinions of ancient authorities. We simply explain somebody's visions or "memories" in a way which has been forwarded to us from the past as the most probable. A better answer has not been found only because it has not been looked for.

If western researchers of these reports had shown more will to study the religions which support the teaching of reincarnation independently, they would have probably discovered one important inconsistency which would have made them search for another explanation.

~

The Cases of Near-Death or Clinical Death Experiences

Well trained doctors and the fast-improving medical "machinery" added a new and exciting dimension to (previously not so frequently recorded) near-death experiences (NDEs). Nowadays, people are brought back from "death" after all kinds of accidents, heart attacks, during operations... Some of them have stories to tell, and most of them do not.

Even though there aren't two people who have had the identical experience, some sort of a general model of stages that those who survived clinical death go through has been provided by the experts who studied their stories:

a) Feelings are altered; in most cases peace and bliss are experienced; there is no pain or bodily sensations.

b) It is possible to hear buzzing, or a loud sound, and you can be separated from your body ("out-of-body experience" or OBE). People can watch their body and the surroundings "from the ceiling"; some senses are improved; you can move through walls.

c) You find yourself in a different reality, plunged into darkness, floating in a dimensionless space, and eventually going rapidly through a tunnel.

d) The (white) light appears and people are overwhelmed by love. Some talk about "the being of light" full of compassion and love. "Reviews of life" are common, you can communicate telepathically, and terms like time and space lose their meaning.

e) Most people see heavenly vistas, hear heavenly sounds, and only a small number have terrifying visions of hell, openings in the ground with smoke coming out, lost people wandering aimlessly...

f) It is possible to reach the border you cannot pass. Some people meet their dead friends and relatives, and then they decide (quite often unwillingly) to go back, or they are "told" to return to their bodies and go on with their lives, often with some mission or a task.

These experiences sometimes have such a strong impact on "returnees" that they often undergo a significant transformation of their lives, attitudes, carriers, and relationships. They also say that they have not lost the fear of pain and dying, but have lost the fear of death. (!?) Those people become more tolerant, wiser, and are usually interested in some "universal spirituality" instead of the dogmas of individual religions.

Obviously, most of these experiences are in agreement with religious teachings about astral or mental body, continuance of perception (these people hear, see...), feelings... However, there are at least three facts which imply that these stories do not represent real insights into life after death:

1. Christians (or members of Christian, western civilization) have Christian-like near-death experiences; followers of Islam have Islamic NDEs; followers of Hinduism have Hindu NDEs... Unless you think that "the world of death" is also religiously divided, with exclusive "compartments" for believers of different religions, this could only mean that all those experiences have nothing to do with life after death but with deeply rooted religious training, personal attitudes, family background, general education...

2. Deceased friends and family members seen during NDEs always appear as vital versions of these same people as they were last remembered. The same thing happens when they appear in our dreams.

3. It is evident that the forms which people take in the "afterlife dimension" are products of their thoughts, feelings, and desires, that is, of their _conscious mind_. People who are limbless or tied to a wheelchair during their physical existence always find themselves in perfectly healthy bodies which are able to run and dance. Older people usually "inhabit" young bodies, and children tend to "continue their existence" in grown-up bodies. (Talbot)

Still, I suppose it would arouse suspicion and this book would be considered incomplete if I did not pay special attention to "the large amount of evidence" which "proves" that (personal, conscious) life continues after death. And, indeed, I am going to comment on this evidence in the form of a dozen questions and answers, but before doing that let me draw your attention to something quite extraordinary. Something that is worth thinking about and keeping in mind while reading the following pages: There are many people (especially in the USA) talking, arguing, doing research, writing about NDEs, but somehow nobody seems to notice that _they actually talk about 10-20% of the cases_. To be precise, studies show that as many as 18% of the people who had heart failure reported having unusual mental experiences in the course of resuscitation. (Lommel 2001, Parnia 2001) I find it rather amazing that anyone, and particularly people who call themselves scientists, can support, and even try to prove, any theory about anything (let alone life after death) after taking into account only 18% of the overall research material. Isn't it strange that 82% of data is completely neglected?! _The 82% of "silent" data which "scream" that nothing extraordinary happens while people are "dead"_.

~

Questions & Answers:

\- People who are severely injured, or suffer from a cardiac arrest, sometimes undergo very lucid NDEs (OBEs included). People suffering from tumors in the temporal regions also experience vivid hallucinations of audio-visual nature similar to NDEs. Many of the experiences in temporal lobe epileptics involve phenomena such as déjà vu, memory recall, feelings of religious ecstasy, and visual and auditory hallucinations. LSD and ketamine induced hallucinations are very similar, if not identical, to NDEs. So, is there anything that is common to all of these experiences?

Yes, there is. Depending on the perspective, the common link is:

a) "...the release of the soul/spirit/consciousness, to a greater or lesser extent, from the body." which is accepted and promoted by those who support The Afterlife Hypothesis.

b) The place of their origin: the brain, which is supported by skeptics.

Many authors from the second group agree that the right temporal lobe, hippocampus, and associated limbic lobe structures are the biological substrates of near-death, out-of-body, and religious experiences. Direct electrical stimulation of deep right temporal lobe structures always provokes OBEs, "seeing" memories, and other elements of NDEs. It is also interesting that professional mediums often have anomalous findings on temporal lobe EEGs. Several authors have found "an increase in subjective paranormal experiences in subjects who demonstrated 'temporal lobe lability', meaning that they had an increased number of minor symptoms associated with temporal lobe epilepsy, but never had a seizure." (Morse)

\- However, the opponents from the first group claim that sometimes the brains of the people who were pronounced clinically dead (and came back to life) were dead too – the "machines" showed no signs of brain activity. And, "it is medically inexplicable to have a highly organized and lucid experience while unconscious or clinically dead." (Long) What about that?

Well, first of all, the flat EEG line does not necessarily mean that the brain is dead, or even for that matter, that a patient is unconscious. This is verified by the practice advisory of The American Society of Anesthesiologists. Secondly, in the cases of cardiac arrest patients are usually massaged and the very process sometimes restores the flow of blood to the brain sufficient enough to sustain at least partial consciousness, even though a patient looks unconscious. Thirdly, _a brain-dead person is_ _a dead person_ and regardless of what anyone thinks, believes, or does, one thing is definite: that person cannot be resuscitated or brought back to life! No one can have any mental experience if their brain is dead.

As for "highly organized and lucid experiences while unconscious...," let me ask you something: Who says that _they actually had those experiences while unconscious_? Can you say that a person who sleeps (and dreams) is unconscious? The fact that somebody was pronounced "dead" by a doctor is in no way proof that that person was really dead or even fully unconscious.

Can it be that "returnees" from clinical death only speak of visions which had taken place immediately before their brains "switched themselves off", or immediately before they completely regained their function? The time necessary for a NDE is measured in seconds. Remember, an ordinary dream which sometimes seems like an entire movie lasts about 30 seconds.

\- What triggers NDEs which are induced by natural causes?

The people who do not see NDEs as "spiritual voyages", or "evidence pointing to an afterlife", say that:

"Near-death experiences are usually (about 90%) products of brain oxygen starvation and that explains the worldwide consistency of NDEs..." (Woerlee);

They are results of defense mechanisms of the body such as increased secretion of endorphins "which reduce pain, alleviate stress, give pleasure, enhance or suppress memories, and determine what information we allow into our brains." (Livergood);

Or, perhaps, that they are caused by "misfiring in the temporal brain area" (Blanke)...

NDEs are also ascribed to the actions of the neurotransmitter glutamate "which is central to the function of the hippocampus, temporal and frontal lobes and plays a vital role in cognitive processes..." When glutamate is present in excess (in cases of hypoxia, an epileptic fit, and hypoglycaemia) neurons die via a process called excitotoxicity. To prevent that, the brain releases a counter-flood of substances which prevent neuronal death and "are centrally involved in producing NDEs." (Jansen)

\- Everyone who had a NDE/OBE claimed that the visions, sounds, feelings... were real; not "hallucinations" as many skeptic authors describe them. So are these experiences real?

Of course, they are. But, here is a question: How are we to distinguish imagination or hallucination from the signals coming from "another reality"? Can anyone spot the difference between the experiences of the people who "leave their bodies", see heavenly sights, telepathically communicate with dead relatives and friends... during clinical death, and those misfortunate ones who "see" oases and rivers in a desert? Or, between those hypnotized who scream and roll on the ground because "their clothes are on fire" and the people seeing ghosts, angels, "the creature of light"...? They are all sure that their visions are 100% real! And, indeed, they are.

They are as real as our ordinary, daily thoughts or other mental images are. There is reality within the brain and outside the brain: brain-created reality and objective reality. Experience says that they rarely coincide. The objective reality interacts with the brain/body and the opposite. The brain-created reality can sometimes have a strong effect on the body/person which created it. It all depends on the person itself. In order to become more real, meaningful, important... consciousness (the brain created reality) has to be embraced by the brain/body, identified with some body, or to be additionally materialized in the form of a sentence, drawing... Ultimately, _the person who has an experience is the one that gives the power and reality to that experience_.

\- Blind people can have visual near death experiences too. How is that possible?

Most people look with the eyes and see with the brain. Blind people also see, but their "pictures" come through the sensory cortex by touching, listening... Naturally, in order for those pictures to have sense or meaning, the blind who were born that way have to learn all about shapes and appearances first. They, as well as other people, dream about things they "see" during the day, or in the course of their life, and can also have visual near-death experiences.

\- There are some authors who talk about a "hyperspace with many realities" and connect quantum physics and consciousness. Karl Jansen, for example, believes that subatomic (quantum) events may be involved in consciousness and suggests "that certain drugs (ketamine), and _the conditions which produce NDEs may 'retune' the brain to provide access to certain fields and 'broadcasts' which are usually inaccessible_." The brain can act as "a transceiver, converting energy fields beyond the brain into features of mind, as television converts waves in the air into sound and vision." and if "entry can be gained to the quantum realm, awareness (the 'disembodied eye') might travel through different realities without the body itself going anywhere."

Interesting... I suppose "certain fields and broadcasts" are parts of numberless streams of consciousness (brain waves and signals) produced by human brains so far and sent into space. The idea is that consciousness manifests itself in a similar way electrons, light, gamma radiation... manifest themselves – in the form of particles when it is inside the body, and in the form of waves when it is outside the body. I find it quite acceptable, but there is a problem with the other part of this theory. Namely, our mind/soul/conscious self does not go anywhere (does not travel to or enter different realities) to get information which is later additionally processed by our brain. The picture in our head is always our own creation which is a result of three possible activities:

a) The brain uses the "stored" information and creates the picture;

b) The brain uses the pieces of information from the outside world through our senses or, theoretically, somehow "picks up" the bits of different streams of consciousness which have already been emitted into the universe and which _travel_ through space and time;

c) The picture appears as a combination of a) and b).

\- However, some people who had NDEs claim that during OBEs they could clearly see and hear what was going on around them, in another room or even in a distant place, and sometimes these perceptions were confirmed later by observers present at the scene.

I have to say that, in my opinion, this is the most fascinating and intriguing part of NDEs. But I really do not think that these claims of out-of-body perception directly support The Afterlife Hypothesis. As already stated before, "the immaterial disembodied conscious self" _cannot interact with physical matter_ and, accordingly, cannot hear (interact with sound waves) or see (interact with light).

In order to have this kind of experience a person has to be (still) alive and at least partially conscious: as in a dream or in those horrible cases when anesthetic doesn't work properly during operation and patient seems completely unconscious but, nevertheless, can hear sounds or feel some pain.

One scientific explanation of these events says that the temporal parietal junction (the region in our brain which controls our comprehension of our own body and its situation in space) gets confused during NDE and produces a false impression that people are detached from the body. According to the same explanation, the other aspect of this experience, "out-of-body perception" of real events, has something to do with the fact that these people's brains are forced to work with insufficient amount of information and, therefore, play tricks by mixing objective reality and imagination, as under hypnosis.

Unfortunately, this can only explain the cases when "returnees" speak about events which happened in their immediate vicinity. Those rare and stunning reports of "remote viewing and hearing" are still unexplained. The easiest thing to do would be to discard them as bogus. But, what if they are true?

Since there is no clear scientific answer to this problem, and yet we have already established that "the soul" does not go anywhere or "follow" anyone to get information, I think it would be a good idea to take a look at the underlined part of Jansen's theory again. The truth is that we are talking about extraordinary situations which undoubtedly provoke extraordinary behavior of the brain. Perhaps conditions which produce NDEs sometimes actually "retune" the brain so that it suddenly becomes open for extrasensory communication, i.e., starts receiving thoughts and emotions of other people, no matter where they are. (Also see pages 45-47, "The unified field".)

I am perfectly aware that this idea may be considered a little far-fetched by many skeptics, but it is definitely a better explanation than the one supporters of afterlife have to offer.

\- Who is outside the body? Who or what is the (immaterial) being that watches the immediate physical environment, or "continues to experience consciousness in another dimension, in an invisible and immaterial world... independently of brain function"? (Lommel)

The Afterlife Hypothesis says that "I" goes on living outside the body as a spirit/soul. But, the presence of "I" or "Self" can also be viewed as the crucial piece of evidence that these people are still "with us". Their "Self" is still connected to their body and, hence, they are afraid of some experience or delighted at it. Their brain is still in the "on" position and impressions are analyzed and developed, as in a dream. (The complete answer to this question will be given in the second part of the book.)

\- Can these "after death" experiences be compared to the state of dreaming?

The so-called "snow death" is preceded by something which is always described as a beautiful dream. Can we say that different causes of death induce different experiences? That, for example, death from heart failure is not the same as death from freezing or drowning? Still, perhaps we are only talking about _different states of mind_ before death and different lengths of "transition periods".

\- Are our dreams independent from our bodies?

No, and it can be confirmed by any person who has woken up in a sweat after having a nightmare, or by any young man who has, at least once in his lifetime, experienced "a wet dream" and woken up with wet underwear after "having wild sex" in a dream.

\- But, can we, again, consider dreams as a sort of out-of-body experiences? Yes. We do float in the air, fly, or move through obstacles in our dreams. At least, I still sometimes do.

\- While we are dreaming, in what form are the bodies of the people we are dreaming about? Are these bodies physical? The right answer is: they are subtle-material, because they are produced by our brains. We can call them mental or astral, but that will not change the point!

\- Do we "know everything", or meet dead relatives and friends in our dreams? Yes, that happens too.

\- Finally, have any of the people who had a near-death experience, and lived to tell about it, really died during those events? Obviously, they have not. Therefore, _not one of those numerous recounts can be accepted as the evidence for afterlife_! The "returnees" _do not describe life after death but their_ (special) _state of mind/consciousness at the moments which precede death_.

~

A "Twofold" Theory

The human body, as any other, does not die immediately and at once. In a way, it is similar to the work of electric fan: when you switch it off, it still turns its blades for a while until it fully stops. Some parts of our body (hair and nails, for example) live on for a few days after death has been pronounced. In cases of reanimation, a body, in which a vital organ is damaged or unable to function properly, starts itself all over again with its own energy or with some assistance from the side. The heat you feel in some parts of your body after physical training, or numbness, is a result of a similar process of a lesser extent.

Furthermore, when heart failure occurs, it does not cause an immediate break down or death of the nervous system. In fact, it is the opposite: heart activity depends on the electric impulses which come from the central nervous system. That is why the heart can be kept in operation with the support of mechanical devices.

However, heart failure causes the lack of oxygen which after some time (usually about 20 seconds) inevitably leads to brain failure. But, one has to differentiate _failure_ in operation of an organ from _death_ of that organ. When the heart stops with its work, it can be restarted again if the damage is not too serious. Likewise, brain failure (or its "self-disengagement") does not necessarily signify its instantaneous death, or death of the whole system. Many of our bodily functions are performed without any direct engagement of the cerebral cortex, because most of our "biological memory" is stored in the spinal cord and other, older parts of the central nervous system. Still, the longer the lack of oxygen lasts (more than 5 minutes), the larger number of brain cells will die, and when the critical point is crossed the brain cannot be restarted again. It is dead.

Can it be that in these 10-60 seconds which precede the period of the brain's "self-disengagement" (and which provide more than enough time for any mental activity) people experience something that could be explained like this: What happens when, for example, a man's leg is amputated for some reason? His brain and the rest of the body still "feel" the pain and "think" that the leg is still there. It takes some time for the body to accept the new reality, to get accustomed. It is possible that a similar process goes on in our minds before death – I call it the _brain echo_. That state of mind can again be compared to a dream because, like a dream, it is also a product of long-lasting accumulation of information, habits, desires, functioning of senses... In its final couple of minutes the brain starts to survey its memory since it has no new data.

Is this where the reviews of life, meetings with dead relatives and friends, different visions... come from?

Possible, but the fact that NDEs are not as frequent as we thought they were implies that these experiences might also have something to do with an uncommon or (at least for 80% of people) abnormal brain reaction which is usually (but not always) triggered by a life-threatening or stressful situation. Namely, most of NDE phenomena such as bright colored light, visions of heaven or hell, buzzing, ringing of bells, noises, reminiscences... are also the symptoms of the first phase of psychomotor epilepsy, i.e., of the phase called "aura". And more than a hundred years ago, John H Jackson gave an explanation of that phase which is still valid today: "...an epileptic fit is caused by a sudden, excessive, and rapid discharge of brain cells."!! (Medina)

On top of that, if you bear in mind that the neurotransmitter glutamate is implicated in both, epilepsy and NDEs, it becomes obvious that the same thing (abnormal electro-chemical brain activity) probably causes both experiences.

Of course, this does not mean that all those people who had near-death experiences actually suffered from epilepsy. The similarity of their testimonies and the symptoms of the first epileptic phase only points to the similar occurrences in the brain during the more or less conscious process of dying (of some 10-20% of people) and before the real epileptic fit. Energy discharge which appears after the neuroprotective system becomes activated occurs in both cases. The difference is this: the result of death is stiffening of the body (absence of further neural activity), and the result of "aura" is convulsing of the body which appears when "normal brain tissue becomes strongly affected by abnormal neural activity which originates from a single, limited centre". (Medina)

~

Reincarnation

Even though there is a verse in _Bhagavad-Gita_ which literally says: "... _of created beings before birth is unknown, between birth and death is known and after death is again unknown_ " (II: 28), many people support the "past lives theory", and back it up with a number of testimonies. One must admit that some of them are quite interesting, convincing and, of course, scientifically unexplained. Among hundreds of such reports which make up "the previous lives documentation" one of the most famous is the case of a man called Arthur Flowerdew, a British who, since he was twelve, has had vivid mental pictures of a large city in a desert. It turned out that it was all about the city of Petra in Jordan. Allegedly, he had lived there in the first century BCE and had been killed at a guard post.

Then, there are many cases of children who (according to Dr. Ian Stevenson) gave details from their previous lives. And, there is also a well-known story of Kamaljit Kour, a teacher's daughter from India. One day she was with her father at a county fair. As they were walking, she started to speak of how she had been killed in an accident while she had been riding a bike; she had been hit by a bus. Together they entered the house in which she had lived before. There she recognized her cousins and former belongings. The people from the house confirmed that a girl called Rishma had lived there, and she was 16 when she died in a car on the way to hospital.

Beside these, there are also many cases of people who remembered their previous lives under the influence of hypnosis. During séances, some of them "lived" dozens of lives in different times, cultures, and places all over the world. However, the reports I had the opportunity to read are, in my opinion, quite unconvincing. These are the reasons:

\- Under hypnosis the human brain works in a similar way as in a dream. Actually, hypnosis is often described as a sort of a dream, with various stages and depths. Under hypnosis people become less cautious and restrained. Even without hypnosis the brain will sometimes (if it is allowed) create a whole film out of a single scene. All it takes is a germ, an association, and the right emotion or the state of mind. As in dreams, in a delirium caused by an illness, or while daydreaming, your brain can take you to the most unusual places: you will fight the aliens, make butter in Korea..., or your head may be (as mine was, when I had a flu and a very high temperature) swarming with the most complicated mathematical formulae and problems, although you never knew much from that subject at school.

Do we get these images, ideas, and skills from another world, or life? I think the answer is no. In my case, all those problems and formulae were nothing more but a chaotic workout of some feeble memories (under extreme conditions) without any real meaning or truthfulness.

\- Hypnotized people who talk about past lives during séances use facts and knowledge from their present life to describe events and circumstances in, for example, ancient Egypt or Greece. They often use expressions like: "The year is 2127 BC" or: "It is the year 324 before Christ...", thus showing that they observe the "events" they are talking about from their contemporary time perspective. Wouldn't it be more logical or convincing if they said the year which was "in effect" then?! A person who (mentally) returned to the age of Archimedes should not talk about Jesus and "the new era".

\- One person can "live" several different lives in completely different material circumstances, but his/her moral values, interests, inclinations, attitudes... _always remain the same_!?

\- The accounts of the past lives of the hypnotized always involve people from their present life, with different names, age and looks, but they all retain the same mental characteristics and relationships with the hypnotized person, which tells us that the experiences and emotions of this life are transferred to "previous ones" – unless you think that all the people we meet in one life always follow us in others?!

It is very difficult to establish what is true or false in these stories of the hypnotized, as well as where certain pieces of information come from: sub-consciousness, universe, or the past? Under hypnosis or in other trance-like states of mind people speak words or sentences from foreign languages they have, supposedly, never learned. Scientists say that there is no need to learn them: it is enough for us to hear something once and, under certain conditions, those words will emerge from the "warehouse" in our brain. That is why it would be good to hypnotize, let's say, a person born and raised in the Kalahari desert whose parents and ancestors have never been anywhere from the desert. In other words, a person with very little information of the outer world – can that person, in his/her sub-consciousness, the unconscious, or anywhere else, have any notions or data of previous lives in imperial Russia, China at the time of the Ming dynasty, or perhaps a downloaded grammar and vocabulary of the Polish language?

Now let's go back to the testimonies. If only one of them is authentic, irrefutable, one can say that it is sufficient proof for the whole story of reincarnation.

Yes, that way of thinking is possible, but so is this one: Is the fact that someone has visions of "a past life" also _confirmation enough that he or she actually lived it_? Is the fact that we sometimes have sexual intercourses in our dreams, even though we have never been so intimate with a man or a woman in this life, indisputable proof that we were in a previous?

And finally, could it be that Buddha's, or anybody else's, "insight in the previous lives" in the course of meditation or "consciousness cleansing" was rather a consequence of the combination of a specific way of focusing (very similar to autohypnosis) and the traditional religious training than of a real memory of the past lives taken out from sub-consciousness, or the unconscious?

Quite simply, to claim that _someone who talks about past also (really) lived in the past_ is the same as to say that _someone who talks about future_ (and even guesses the order of events) _also lived in the future_! This is extremely important, because the people who believe that the accounts of the hypnotized prove reincarnation somehow forget that, if properly directed, the hypnotized will also talk in detail about their future lives!! It is interesting to point out that, after hypnotizing 2500 people (!) and telling them to "go" to the future, psychologists Helen Wambach and Chet Snow established that drastically reduced human population will live in approximately four different scenarios:

a) Gloomy and sterile future in which people live in space stations, wear silver clothes, and eat synthetic food;

b) Happier and more natural future, in which people live harmoniously with each other, in clean environment, devoted to learning and spiritual growth;

c) Somber future in which people live in underground cities or under huge domes;

d) Post-cataclysmic future in which, after some global catastrophe, people live in ruins, caves, or isolated oases. (Talbot)

*

The entire scientific learning unambiguously speaks against reincarnation in Hindu or Buddhist way. In order for a part of some person to go on living in another body that person must have direct descendants; the other possible way (cloning) is, I suppose, still in the experimental phase.

Nonetheless, the testimonies are there, as well as the people who allegedly have visions or get different messages from the dead or the living. And for this reason a number of researchers approached the problem in another way. We have reached something that is popularly called _cosmic or universal consciousness_ , and which is (for many people) the other name of god – "scientifically discovered God".

~

" **The Unified Field"**

Fred Alan Wolf said in an interview: "Many quantum physicists, including myself, believe that the entire universe, the entire creation, was created out of the 'absolute nothingness of the vacuum of space.' It appears that this 'vacuum of nothingness' is intelligent, active and has a consciousness." He explained that, 15 billion years ago, "the ultimate source of everything, 'God', or whatever name you want to call it," started to transform consciousness into matter. "I don't see the soul and consciousness as an epiphenomenon, or product, of matter. It's just the other way around. I see matter as an epiphenomenon of consciousness. The material world has evolved from the absolute vacuum of space – the home of the soul."

He also added that "According to the tenets of the quantum physics (...) there is no reality until that reality is perceived.", and "Atoms are mostly made of space." In other words, physical objects are over 99.99% empty space – nothing but an illusion.

Unfortunately, we were denied an explanation on how _God transforms_ consciousness (or, to be precise, _himself_ ) _into_ matter or, should I say, _an illusion_.

About ten years before this interview was published, in 1992 Robert Lanza wrote that "We are all the ephemeral forms of a consciousness greater than ourselves." and all human minds are united in a field of mind that cannot be limited within a restricted space or period of time.

But, even then this idea was not anything new. In fact, it originates from an ancient Hindu teaching. What is new is the notion which says that the principles embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for the human mind in determining the very nature of the universe. (Wolf: "You are changing reality simply by observing it.") And, it has become rather popular. It seems that the main reason is this: It sounds nice! Still, it has nothing to do with the truth. Ordinary people, just like the scientists mystics, do not want to accept the simple fact that nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement! In our everyday world matter exists regardless of whether we are conscious of it or not and, long after humanity has disappeared from the scene, matter will still undergo the transitions that we call quantum effects.

The material reality around us is not an illusion or a hologram. _The illusion is our subjective perception, our picture of that reality which is created in our mind_ and which can be changed how and whenever we want it.

One of the scientists who have tried to provide more details about cosmic consciousness/the unified field is Dejan Rakovich from Serbia. He presented a theory which in some segments reflected the already mentioned ideas of Karl Jansen, David Bohm, and others on the issue.

According to Rakovich, Ionosphere (the upper layer of the Earth's atmosphere) is filled with "the electromagnetic microwave and ultra-low-frequent ionic energy", and the existence of consciousness is connected with this electromagnetic energy which is below the threshold of senses. The author also explains that consciousness exists on different structural levels "living and non-living" and neurons are, in fact, "quantum-hologram, electro-optical network".

Our individual, "local" brain waves are "delocalized" or sent throughout Ionosphere and all over the universe which is also filled with this gigantic network of electromagnetic energy, i.e., consciousness. Every individual consciousness of man, or any other species, becomes "the constituting part of the collective cosmic consciousness or God" at the moment of conception and, therefore, this universal consciousness "represents the dynamic collective memory of all biological species."

All this leads to a conclusion that God (or cosmic consciousness) represents the entire objective reality and is also basically energy which cannot be perceived by senses. Human consciousness is the same kind of energy whether it is inside the body or outside it. Finally, this cosmic consciousness is the sum of personalities or individualities of all living (and dead) beings which means that it contains all the movements, sounds, thoughts, ideas, sentences, emotions, images... that have ever been (or, as some people add, will be) created or produced in the entire universe!

This theory, together with other similar theories, has also paved the way for another theory which says that all psychic abilities, "contacts with the dead", details regarding somebody's past lives... come directly from this collective cosmic consciousness. It is supposed that waves of electromagnetic energy transmit the information/consciousness people continuously emit, and sometimes receive, following the model of radio-telecommunication. Furthermore, since electromagnetic energy is below the threshold of senses, the possibility/ability of receiving signals is explained with "extrasensory perception" (ESP) and/or telepathy.

In both cases "a gifted person" is able to receive somebody's thoughts, emotions, signals or brain waves directly by the brain. I suppose the main difference is that so-called extra-senses or mediums are also able to hear and see dead people and report their messages, while "ordinary" telepaths can only "read" emotions (or thoughts) of the living.

However, one thing should be absolutely clear: The "energies" or signals which are "picked up" by the medium's brain and are rematerialized into "messages" do not come from the dead. Those could only be the waves and signals sent into space by the living (no matter when). The dead do not send messages because _they do not have the necessary means to do something like that_! They neither have the "transmitter" nor the "receiver" any more. The conviction of individuals that they get messages from the dead is a consequence of their own interpretation or way of thinking, and not of an actual, live communication which has taken place.

*

Both of these phenomena have always attracted a lot of attention and have frequently been subjects of many experiments and different studies, but they still remain scientifically unexplained and unconfirmed, which actually means that we do not know what happens, how it happens, or if anything (unusual) happens at all. Nevertheless, at this moment it is very important to understand the following: The (possible) existence of cosmic consciousness, together with the indisputable ability of individuals to get in touch with it, might probably give a plausible explanation for certain anomalies in human behavior which we now consider as paranormal events, but it is utterly wrong, even stupid, to identify that immense "body" of information (which only occasionally welcomes a tiny bit of real wisdom) with the Universal mind, God, Absolute, or a similar kind of supernatural being.

It is also necessary to realize that "universal" consciousness, testimonies, ESP, and telepathy _are not_ in any way proofs that conscious, personal life _continues_ after death of the body. I mean, you can say/believe that information you "get" comes from your previous lives, from the dead who are in no way related to you, or from anyone else who is still alive..., but all that (if there is no other concrete explanation such as brain tumours, epilepsy, drug abuse, schizophrenia, lack of calcium, lead poisoning, chewing of hallucinogenic plants, excessive use of alcohol...) _could_ only prove that:

1. Once produced consciousness really "travels" around the universe;

2. It is possible to "catch" it by our brains.

Everything else is only a matter of subjective interpretation or "intellectual gymnastics" without any real significance.

Scientifically speaking, it might be possible for consciousness to continue its existence in the universe, but it is uncertain whether our brain waves are that powerful (provided with enough energy) to reach the vacuum in the space and survive there. Besides, we also do not know if our brains are capable of receiving signals apart from producing them. In any case, and once again, if both of these or, as a matter of fact, only the first assumption proved to be true, it would only confirm that individual consciousness which was created by some body in its lifetime outlives that body in the form of waves and vibrations but not that someone's conscious, personal life continues "up there" or, perhaps, "down there".

In the same way, there is no need to argue at all if our entire "brain stored" personal consciousness is going to turn into energy after death of our body, because it is the universal law, but the question of all questions is: _Does this energy still retain all the qualities and characteristics that it had as consciousness "with" the body_?!

*

We are almost at the end of the first part of this book. Is anything clearer after all these pages? Some facts are here, ideas and theories too, but there is still a lot to be discovered. We have just left the hall and entered the first room of a large house in which the ultimate knowledge we are searching for is hidden. We have opened only two doors. In order to move on, we need three more keys. They open the third door. Only when we come through that door everything will begin to reveal itself and fit in the big picture.

## The Keys

One of the most important things one could read on these pages so far is the indisputable fact that "the soul" or, to be truthful, elementary consciousness comprised in a DNA molecule does not "enter" anything – it is "transmitted" to us by our parents at the moment of conception. This consciousness creates the body, and the body generates self-consciousness. This should not come as a surprise to anyone since it is a well-known fact that the basic principle of life is survival, and if a life form wants to survive, its attention must be focused on the body (to satisfy its needs) and the environment (as a "storehouse" of everything that is necessary to satisfy these needs).

All that insects, birds, and other species do in the course of their lives (although they are not equally aware of it) is done strictly for the sake of their bodies – to keep them alive. And, the more complicated nervous system a species has, the more complex its consciousness is.

Even the slightest "amount" of consciousness is manifested in restlessness and movement. Any external influence or change in the environment will, together with the synchronized response from the body, induce a reaction, and in some cases a result may be a change in (or of) the being itself: not a real mutation but gaining of new skills and abilities, or losing the old ones! Thus, consciousness is developing and the body is changing, learning, improving..., or the opposite.

A good example of the latter is the chicken. Some time ago, it used to be able to fly, but the way of living has made that ability obsolete. Also, its former preying consciousness has disappeared, because the chicken has no need for it any more – this species has been provided with food, shelter, and protection for thousands of years. The results of such living are diminished usage of intelligence and physical degeneration.

It is similar with people. In the past, the constant battle for survival made them use their physical and mental faculties more and they were, in a way, forced to look for the answers to many existential and other questions. Consequently, their consciousness developed rapidly and their knowledge increased, which sometimes led to meaningful quality shifts.

However, technological progress, especially in the 20th century, was followed by a considerable decrease in the quality of human consciousness, both individual and collective. As it was mentioned in the beginning of the book, today's people have turned their brains into common warehouses, or mere servants obliged to satisfy every desire of their bodies. Our children are versed in computers and mobile phones but unfortunately have very little practical, applicable knowledge about nature or the world around them.

It is no wonder at all that a great deal of modern science is predominantly directed towards some practical aims: how to make us beautiful, how to prolong life, how to completely abolish pain and suffering – of the body, of course.

So, despite the fact that we are equipped with the most sophisticated information processing "machinery" which enables us to see "beneath the surface" and separate _the self_ from _the body_ , our consciousness is still (in its largest part) just a little bit more than a conditioned reaction dictated by the survival of our body. It appears and develops due to the function of senses and the body in general, and then spins around a _virtual creation_ which is a product of certain knowledge and outside influence.

This fact is the key for the first lock.

*

" _Words are the raft which is used to get us across the river, not to carry it on our head after it served its purpose_." (Buddha)

The second key is a lot more difficult to get. A special effort has to be made, and the usual way of thinking has to be changed. Since only few people have been ready or willing to do that through the centuries, real knowledge has always been the subject of constant perfidious corruption and degeneration, for various practical reasons. That is the reason why science has become so incomprehensible and limited to a (small) number of "the chosen ones". That is also the reason why all religions or, to be precise, teachings have been adjusted to "ordinary mortals" and the priority has been given to strange mystical things which have little, or nothing at all, with the original messages of the enlightened ones.

What am I talking about?

The majority of people have always learned about the world indirectly. At first, they usually listened to the stories and experiences of elders and travellers. After that, knowledge was obtained from books; and, finally, our teachers have become television and computers. Even our knowledge about ourselves is largely a result of the same principle: we are told what we need to know and we think that is it.

Unlike most of us, the greatest minds of the world acquired their knowledge on their own, through practice, using the existing information only as a lever which introduced them to the reality they personally experienced and understood. They described their findings by using terms and names, and that is all right or very helpful from the aspect of communication, learning, science..., but they forgot to tell us that the characteristics of terms/words are stillness and invariability. Their usage breaks and stops reality which is always whole and in motion. _It is impossible to describe reality with words_. Once you say: "a tree", you have already replaced that what you are looking at with a term, a name, and that particular, individual tree in front of your eyes is lost in everything that the term "tree" signifies, or is supposed to represent. It still exists, it is still there, but only as a general term – we do not really see it any more.

Words are just an indication, not the description of reality. That is the _elementary truth_. From there begins insight or _knowledge_. Anyone who sees himself and the surrounding reality in this way realizes that terms are no longer so necessary and important.

_Knowledge_ is kept and passed on in the form of words and languages, but it also _disappears when we tightly hold on to words and names_. This explains why people are constantly bored, and why our childish curiosity and wonder are inevitably replaced with the state of indifference in which we often remain for the rest of our lives. We talk, explain, and generalize but actually do not see, hear, know, live... The more we describe something, the vaguer picture we get. We think or are convinced that we know something, because we repeat some(one else's) words or sentences and follow certain rituals and traditions but, in fact, do not differ much from a parrot or a trained monkey which imitates what it sees.

When you understand all that, it becomes obvious why Buddhists prefer turning those hollow tubes and endless talking about reincarnation to trying to figure out and apply the teaching which clearly states that _a new life is not the ultimate aim of their religion_. Christians, on the other side, talk (on and on) about Jesus' resurrection as "the crown of his teaching" or say that he "conquered death", but never stop to think or ask themselves if it has anything to do with them, their present lives, and approaching death.

The widespread ignorance and the wrong way of thinking make people limit themselves or look for wider paths and easier solutions, and, therefore, they refuse to accept the world and life as they are: transient, unstable, beautiful, ugly......Neither ugly nor beautiful.

That is why most religions promote the idea of a sublime meaning or purpose of the universe, nature, life... Almighty God (the creator and director), eternal life, or "resurrection at the end of days", are there primarily to give meaning to our existence but also to hide our ignorance and weakness. How true this is we can see from the following statement: "Only God who is also a person (alive, active/involved) can be significant to the man." (Tomovich) If he is just an ordinary initiator who by doing so completes his mission, then he is of no importance or interest to the human kind.

Other creationists have a similar attitude: "If our universe, and the fact that we live in it, were only a matter of accidence," (and not God's will and work) "our life would not have permanent meaning. But, if our life in the universe is the result of providence, then there must be satisfying meaning for it." ( _Is There a Creator Who Cares About You_? JW)

Now supplement this with the most important part of this story: the belief in life after death which has meaning only if self-consciousness or human personality _continues to live on_ (not merely exist) after death of the body, and you will understand that almost all of the contemporary religious-philosophical talk of God and the soul is nothing but indulging human need and ignorance!

When we reject this way of thinking and stop being addicted to words and their frozen meanings, the second lock is unlocked and our eyes start looking at things differently. We begin to see one very well hidden but crucial discord in the Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu religion: the discord between the original or genuine ideas of rare individuals on the one side, and various, subsequently standardized doctrines about the soul and afterlife on the other. After this discord is revealed, the third key will open the third door.

*

When a Christian is asked what the purpose of his religion is, or rather, what he hopes to achieve by being a member of a Christian church, he will readily answer: salvation of the soul and the eternal life in heaven (after rejoining God).

A Hindu will reveal that his final goal is liberation of the soul, and a Buddhist will tell you that he aspires toward enlightenment of the mind (or liberation of the soul).

So the question is: What does the soul have to be saved or liberated from?

Apparently, these are the problems which, according to religious authorities, have everything to do with life but appear after death: Christians want to prevent the damnation of the soul and its eternal torment in hell, while Hindus and Buddhists want to break free from the cycle of rebirth(s) or, in other words, acquire the supreme, liberating knowledge.

Now, we have seen that for most people and religions the soul is a broad term which encompasses living processes, energy, consciousness..., but it is obvious that consciousness (individual, personal consciousness) is in the center of attention both in life and after death.

Furthermore, most religions agree that the soul, i.e. consciousness, is "given by God and returns to God", or is "a separated part of God". This is very important because they also say that God is, among other things, omniscient. As mentioned before, today many people also describe him as cosmic or universal consciousness which comprises "all past and future knowledge and experience of this and all other worlds."

???

God = some kind of cosmic "container" in which all human stupidity, frustration, ignorance... have found an everlasting sanctuary!?

God = a gigantic hard disc of a computer?!...A person whose head is filled with all kinds of facts and information about everything and everyone?!

I have already said that I find these ideas nonsensical. God's knowledge should not be about quantity but about quality. As you know, there are many levels of consciousness, and the highest level should be the one with the ultimate, supreme knowledge. Logic says that the consciousness of God must be the one of the highest level and, accordingly, the highest state of consciousness is identical to the original state of the soul – the state of God. Therefore, a few questions arise: What is the _consciousness of the highest level_ – _god_ – the _one who knows everything_ like? What is the supreme knowledge?

In order to get the answers to these questions people start from the following "facts" and assumptions: they are "the spitting image" of God; consciousness develops fastest in the human body; human consciousness is the most complex on the planet, or even of the highest level, so it must be the closest to God's consciousness.

But, here is the catch: The (right) answers cannot be obtained if we assume that human personal consciousness is some important or significant cosmic category. Why? Because it is, in its greatest part, nothing but a lengthy "description of silence": _it rises from ignorance, develops from ignorance, and consists of ignorance_. And this ignorance is the only reason why we are so keen that our personal consciousness or soul survives death of the body! (This will be explained in detail in the second part of the book.)

If we want to weaken the "fortress of ignorance" or at least have an insight into godlike, first-class consciousness or knowledge, first we have to erase so many things from our memory and use the key number two. Once we do that, some astonishingly simple and enlightening conclusions will come to our mind.

Let's start from the generally accepted facts: God is free, omniscient, omnipresent, bodiless... GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING!

Think about this: What are thoughts of the one who knows everything like? What does he think about? Well, I suppose, about nothing – _the one who knows everything has no thoughts, because "he" has nothing to think about_ _._

"He" does not reason. "He" does not have anything to reason out – what is unknown to him?!

Likewise, _the one who knows everything has no desires, no feelings_... "He" is in the eternal state of freedom. That is why "he" _does not need a body_ which will enable him to accumulate experience, or satisfy needs and desires.

If God is omniscient, omnipresent and free, then "he" can be observed as an initiator (since constant movement is in his nature) and perhaps even as a creator, but certainly not as a manager, director, or supervisor! Management involves commitment and concern, and those things exclude freedom. A supervising god is neither free, nor omniscient, and it can hardly be omnipresent too.

What does all this mean?

Well, it means that if something has no body, thoughts, desires, emotions, needs... _identity_ , then _it does not satisfy any requirement to be a person_! "He" is not _he_ at all!

And, the belief that God is a person is the corner stone of most contemporary religions!! The opposite learning changes everything on such a large scale that it is hardly imaginable.

Now let's go further.

If God, the soul, or consciousness is identified as energy (electromagnetic or any other) which puts into operation, develops and keeps alive various beings and forms, we must recognize one extremely important fact: _energy always remains energy_ – even when it is in a material form. Electric current/energy, as everyone knows, sets in motion and keeps in operation different home appliances but never, _never assumes the characteristics of these appliances, does not become any of these appliances_! Similarly, one and the same force, or energy ("God") sets many beings in motion and creates many forms, but _never identifies itself with its own creations_.

Another good example is water: in gaseous condition it is pure, primary, and when it is completely materialized (as a drop of rain), it starts to "accumulate experience", that is, to tie itself to different elements, and thus becomes contaminated. It also creates different shapes. After they "die", or "dehydrate" it leaves "the body" in the form of steam and returns to its original condition and quality.

If the soul is a part of God, of the same quality or nature, and as such "lives" in every life form, then _we mustn't ever identify it with the body, personality or identity of a human being_ – with consciousness "wrapped" around the body. And yet, that is exactly what people do by saying that the soul loses its freedom and knowledge of its real nature after "entering" the (human) body.

And this is where the discord I have been talking about is hidden. It is in the conviction which says that the "Self" _we have built_ or _"discovered"_ in the course of our life is identical to the _Self_ we _were given_ at conception: elementary "DNA consciousness". It originates from the fact that religious authorities could not (or did not want to) understand that _the essence of our being has absolutely no problems at all and has no need to learn anything_ ; it is _us_ , as individuals, _who have the problem which arises out of the ignorance of what the essence of our being is_!

That which is alive or conscious in us " _cannot be influenced by anything_ " and that is exactly why it _cannot be judged_ , and why _it does not have to be liberated or saved_.

The thing which can be judged is the idea of what we think we are – the "Self". But, whether there is any point to that we will see when we find who or what that "Self" is.

~

### Part 2

I?

~

In the text that follows, words "Self" and "I" refer to our self-consciousness, personality, or identity. On the other hand, words _the_ _Self_ and _I_ refer to the so-called "essence of our being", to that which is aware/conscious or alive in us. However, a reader has to understand that the _Self_ or _I_ is not the right word. In fact, the "right" word does not exist.

## From the Womb to the Tomb

I tried to imagine and describe the beginning of my life after emerging from my mother's body....Undoable. I have to use words, names of organs, terms designating bodily reactions; and keep on saying "I", "my", "me"... But, I, a newborn baby, have no idea what I, a 46 year-old-man, am talking about. The baby watches and sees something, listens and hears some sounds, but _there is no I or Self in its "mind"_!

Then, a thought went through my head: "It must be terrifying." But, I instantly remembered: "Terrifying, for whom?" It surely isn't for a being which still has not got a single thought about itself (or anything else) in its head; which is informed of its existence only through a stream of (un)clear electro-chemical signals which are received and transmitted by its newly created neurons. In the beginning, baby's consciousness is just a number of impulses which enable the body to function and produce noise (tearless crying) as a reaction to light, discomfort, pain...

However, in a few hours, new consciousness will irrepressibly start to develop. The body is constantly exposed to all kinds of external influences: presence of people, bathing, changing of clothes, breastfeeding..., and the senses are continuously doing their work: "feeding" the fast-growing brain.

I do not know what a newborn baby "thinks" about these first pieces of information received from the environment, but the fact is that it reacts to everything that has anything to do with its body which accepts and rejects numerous external stimulations or, in other words, has pleasant or unpleasant sensations. That is how the first vague outlines of thoughts: "This is good." "This is not good." appear. Those are also the proto-forms of all our future emotions.

Practically from the day we were born, our individual consciousness has been formed on the basis of impressions from the environment and the body. These impressions, from the first excitement, and then pleasure and displeasure, slowly form into knowledge about us and everything around us. Gradually, we become accustomed to smells, material forms around us, their sounds, appearances... We recognize the creature that feeds us, changes our clothes, bathes us... and look in wonder at unusual faces of those who sometimes take us in their hands and produce unintelligible sounds. These "people" often bring us some colorful things which soon become boring, because they do not change.

Whenever we are hungry, or wet, all we have to do is scream, and that woman comes running. We enjoy when people carry us in their arms around the house and we can watch different things. When they put us back to bed, all we see is that boring linen and the "old" rubber duck. We start making noise and soon people take us back in their arms and carry us for as long as we go to sleep. After the same thing has been repeated two or three times, we suddenly realize that we have the _power_. It is enough to cry out, or point at something with a hand, and other people jump on their feet to fulfill our wishes! We are very angry when it does not happen. This anger is the first or the best proof that we have become self-conscious.

These initial experiences teach us that the source of our content (most people would say happiness) is in our surroundings, and also that people are willing to adjust themselves to our needs and desires. Then, we learn that the same people, or the environment and things, become boring after some time. The cure for boredom is something that adults call fun and which always involves new people, new environment, and new things.

At the end of the first year of our life outside the womb our mouths start producing sounds which differ from the usual screaming or cooing, and soon we become so good at this activity that we can easily imitate the words which people around us pronounce. We also understand that some words have something to do with certain people or things and become aware that some of those things are "personally" ours.

In the second year (give or take few months) we begin to use the word "I" when we speak about ourselves. Until then we do not talk about ourselves, speak in the third person, or use the name: "Mark wants...", "Jane goes..." This is when the process of building something which psychologists call "ego" (just a Latin word for "Self/I") is officially started, and for many people this process lasts for as long as they live.

This first semi-conscious "I" also marks the beginning of our (un)conscious drifting away from the real, essential _Self_.

This is the time when we begin to tie ourselves to the products of our brain: ideas, experiences, thoughts... And, consequently, the consciousness of "Self" is rapidly developed. The more we "learn", the more we get to know fear and other emotions – the unmistakable signs of an already conceived and developing ego.

~

A little later...The World

At the age of 4 or 5 a child goes out of the house alone and meets other children from the neighborhood. Suddenly, a little king or queen (whom everybody bowed to until then) is surrounded by other kings and queens. "Me, me, and only me" is in the presence of other "Me, me, and only me-s".

Naturally, children are not all equal and they have to know who is better, stronger, faster, richer... Competition and self-assurance become very important things in every child's life. The one who is not fast enough must have a nicer pair of trainers; the one who has no money for the trainers must be stronger than the one with the trainers. A girl with a bigger doll is better than the one with a small doll, but only until she finds out that that girl's father owns the latest model of Renault Clio!

It is almost unbelievable how quickly and easily children learn to identify themselves with what they have or don't have. They are "happy" when they have and "unhappy" when they don't.

In the sixth year (or sometimes even earlier) children start going to school and the people called teachers become involved in further forming of their personality/consciousness. Since then a young ego is constantly exposed to very powerful influences of the cultural world it lives in – it gets more and more new layers. We are educated and taught different things which additionally explain to us who and what we are, and also who and what those people around us are.

Slowly, life becomes unimaginable without friends, social nets, television, radio, mobile phones, computer games, sport stars, Latin American soap operas, betting...

As little "royalties" grow up their demands start increasing and parents work day in, day out to fulfill "the necessary conditions for happiness of their children". Gradually, some sooner, some later, children distance, insist on their right to choose (also very closely connected with the development of "Self"), and try to be independent. On the other side, parents are not willing to waive their proprietors' rights regarding their "own" children. This period of conflicts usually starts when children reach the "teen age" and is characterized by the exhausting battles of egos. What kind of person will a child become, largely depends on how (if ever) these duels ended: who surrendered first or won more victories.

From their twelfth or thirteenth year, boys and girls spend more and more time in front of the mirror and mostly do not see what they would like to see: "I don't look right." "I am too fat." "Should I dye my hair?" "I am too thin."... Everyone is dissatisfied with something. And, of course, unhappy! "No one notices me!" "I am not popular!"...

Since reality is not the right one, and usually they cannot change it, the youth are left with nothing to do but to be somebody else. Therefore, they try to find themselves in sports, music, fashion, a sort of a club, street gang... and imitate famous actors/actresses, singers, sportsmen... In order to be happy, loved, in, or "cool", they must "like totally" change their looks, behavior, speech... To be distinguished, or noticed, is a priority.

But, at the same time, it is important to belong to something or someone. The meaning of life is found in "hanging out with the guys" and fighting the old enemy: boredom. Children even go to school not to learn something but to make friends. It is not good to be alone, because "loneliness kills". So, authorities from television advise all of us to have more fun and to fill in the (already sizeable) emptiness in ourselves with "recreational activities"!

However, the prescribed "medicine" does not really help and life often becomes an endless confusion. One rather interesting phenomenon is noticeable in teenagers' lives. Namely, although they are completely self-absorbed, and try to satisfy their own needs and desires, their heads are, in most cases, ruled by chaos which is manifested in a complete lack of concentration and absence of ability to recognize any long-term interest at all.

The way of thinking which takes everything for granted, and to which most teenagers have been subjected from various sides for many years, causes disturbance in their minds or, as experts say, "disorder in values and priorities". All that, together with their strong desire to become adult, recognized, free, excited... as soon as possible, and sometimes with absolutely no regard for consequences, frequently makes young people treat themselves and their bodies in an entirely wrong manner, which often opens the door to different kinds of vices.

And that is how we get miserable ex-kings and queens who undergo something that psychologists refer to as the first identity crisis. Whatever they think they are – it is not what they want to be. No matter how much they change their physical appearance, it is never good enough. They long for recognition but are usually unwilling or too lazy to do what it takes to get it.

"Neither children nor adults" slowly but inevitably become torn apart and painfully confused human beings: insecure, scared puppets which can be driven to despair or the state of indescribable "happiness" by the simplest remark regarding their hairstyle, the color of eyes, size of feet, a clothing item...

Some of them will soon turn into deceitful, malicious creatures who find their own meaning of life in mocking, humiliating, and hurting others.

A (small) number of children will accept the "defeat", become introverted, or seek the company of equals – perhaps the best they can do.

And the majority will still go on trying (more or less successfully) to adapt to the ruling minority. The ones better adapted will become "the pillars of the community" and the others will become their "potential voters in the elections".

*

At the age of puberty, human relations (particularly between opposite sexes) become dreadfully burdened with so many things. Just when you think that all of what you have read so far is more than enough to make their lives unbearable, young people start feeling and seeing some changes on and inside their bodies, and their eyes intensively search for members of the opposite sex. They look for somebody to love and to love them but, of course, not like their fathers, mothers, brothers, or sisters. They know very little about "all that stuff" and only realize that it has something (or everything) to do with sex – one of the most important things in the world. Or, so they have heard from their friends. Naturally, they do not dare to ask the elders, and their parents are not too eager to explain either. Something is studied at school: there are thousands of poems and novels about love, and there are many learned teachers, but, still, the largest source of information is teen magazines and the Internet.

The first thing children learn about love is that there are different kinds of it. Love is also linked to happiness and suffering: it has the power to make you happy or sad. "If you want to be happy, you must be loved!"

The way you look is very important too, and if you are not beautiful (according to the prevailing television or magazine standards), your chances for love or, more precisely, to be loved, are minimal. Hence, bad looks must be corrected or compensated with money, fame, ambition...

Then, love has everything to do with the heart. It will tell you who the right one is; when you fall in love you think with your heart; the heart suffers when love is not returned...

It is necessary to remember: "Love is blind."

When you are in love you can do everything and everything is nice and easy – the world is beautiful.

Love must be constantly proved and, therefore, there are many proofs of love: sacrifice, jealousy, anxiety, addiction, frequency of sexual intercourse... The more a person you are in love with is ready to renounce his/her happiness or some vital interest for your sake, and vice versa, the more you love each other. Also, the more jealous you are, the more you love somebody. The more you worry that your partner is going to leave you or stop loving you, the more you love them. If you cannot imagine your life without "the love of your life", this is it – you've got it. If you never leave each other alone for five minutes and are always in a passionate clinch without a break, bravo, you are maximally in love!...And so on and on.

Some players of this moronic game again have more, some less and some no success at all. All our "love" experience(s) and reasoning are filed on the already existing ones and they all have a profound impact on further formation of our personality. But, let's not get carried away. Mainly, it is the well-known walk down the well-trodden path. Everyone is still afraid of everything: that they will become a laughing-stock, that they will be left alone for five minutes or abandoned completely, that they will not be accepted, that they are not "cool"...

We are jealous, possessive, emotionally addicted to other people and everything around us. And, when we depend on others, we can never relax, because we have to fulfill their wishes, demands, and expectations, just as we expect exactly the same from them.

Only a small number of people can understand that the largest part (if not all) of what we learn and talk about love is, simply put, a load of bullshit. That which our cultures (in all those novels, poems, films...) call love is nothing else but plain egoism and possessiveness. If you take a closer look, underneath all that you will see well hidden manipulation, fear, and ignorance which follow us from our birth. We are light years away from love.

Therefore, our everyday life looks like this: We tightly hold on to somebody or something, and again, somebody holds tightly on to us. None of us can move or breathe freely – we are choking each other. Like some invalids we keep on looking for support and recognition, but somebody or something always disappoints us, or betrays our trust. We become aware that something is wrong. At first glance, it turns out that people, the world around us, are the problem. So, people must change, the environment has to be changed: the house, the weather conditions, the tree which "bumped into us" while we were walking and looking in the other direction...

That is what we have been taught.

We have a problem, but somebody else is responsible for it. Our suffering (as well as happiness) is always caused by somebody or something outside us.

That is how everybody thinks.

These are the main reasons why life often turns into a continuous struggle or even nightmare, only sometimes interrupted by these things we call happiness, joy, or positive emotions – the reality completely unlike the one we crave for. And, what is even worse, this nightmare cannot remain a problem of an individual. It haunts other people too, because they have also been exposed to a similar, relentless brain poisoning. Almost everyone is convinced that it is something normal and inevitable: "that is life". It is very difficult to resist. It takes a firm decision and a lot of courage. It is also necessary to start thinking differently – to become "abnormal". So, most people do not resist. They "swim downstream" and let their already overinflated ego lead them to new "victories".

~

The Final Layers

Many cultures and societies regard the age of 18 or 21 as an imaginary borderline between child and adult. At that age the average ego is supplemented with two more (final) layers: "ideological" and "existential". Both of them consist of several sub-layers.

In well-organized countries, up to that period, words like tradition, nationality, ethnic origins, religion, homeland, patriotism, culture, morality... are still only secondary (or imposed) part of growing up, because they have little, or nothing at all, with the needs and desires of young people. National or religious affiliation can sometimes be a part of fitting in, identification, or even a trendy thing, but is not an essentially important component of a young ego. It is only with the right to vote that we begin to pay more attention to those words, seeing that all human societies, ours included, are founded on those "very important" things.

In time, due to the influence of the family, environment, educational system, our individual interests..., we accept certain facts and ideas and they make us nationally conscious, religiously determined, culturally versed, and morally acceptable. The more we identify with some national, religious, political, cultural... affiliation, the stronger we react if someone negates or underrates our beliefs and convictions, because they try to negate and underrate us, our feelings.

All sorts of politicians and authorities from various parties, institutions, and media remind us of our own traditions and historical values, and encourage us to cherish them. So, we follow our own traditions, take pride in our own history, and do the same things ordinary people have been doing from time immemorial: bow to symbols, slavishly use words and names, strictly hold on to their meanings, and thus describe ourselves convinced that it is the only truth in this world.

*

The existential layer of our "Self" is (most often) inseparable from these words: success, career, sex, money, fashion or trends, things, comfort... The race we started at the age of seven or eight (or even earlier) continues throughout adolescence and speeds up in the twenties. Naturally, the starting positions are different, but the plan is more or less the same: to finish school and/or get a job, to meet the person of your life, to get married and have children, to buy a flat or a house, to move up on the social ladder, build a weekend cottage, buy an extra car... In a few words: to be happy and successful.

As usual, some people realize their dreams more, some less and some not at all. Nevertheless, we all try to satisfy our "basic needs". We spend holidays with our friends at the seaside, or at least have a barbecue in the nearby forest. We work and make plans for the life in retirement. Everything becomes accelerated and the most frequently used sentence is: "I have no time!" We long for a vacation or free time, but when we get it we are bored and do not know what to do with ourselves. We drink or smoke too much, or both. The children make us crazy. We surround ourselves with more and more things, more and more comfort, and the only purpose of life is to take care of all that and keep it as safe as possible.

The years go by... Immediately after we get out of bed, alone in the flat or not, we turn the TV or radio on: "...to keep us company in the room"; "It is better when someone is talking or singing." At work, we surround ourselves with people, and when we come home, we turn the TV on. At weekends, we are surrounded by people and when they leave, guess what: we turn the TV on. Sometimes we cannot even go to sleep without a book, a film, or music.

Life goes on like a dream until some serious illness, somebody's death, or some other misfortune rouses us from drowsiness. Then we surround ourselves with people and try to keep our brain busy. There is a whole industry, an enormous business, developed everywhere around us with a single purpose to amuse us and distract our thoughts and attention from whatever it is that bothers us....With a single aim to make our lives better, or at least bearable.

What is it that we are running from? What thoughts are we trying to avoid? Why are we afraid of being alone? Is it only because we are "social beings by nature"?

What kind of emptiness is it that cannot be filled with recreational activities, fun, other people...?...Nothing from the outside.

## The Delusion

What is our self-consciousness? What is our personality?

It is a huge, more or less tightly linked, set of ideas, memories, experiences, concepts, convictions, knowledge... acquired in the course of a lifetime through interaction of our senses/body and environment. It is added onto elementary consciousness given to us at conception. The greatest part of that "upper" consciousness (and sub-consciousness) spins around the thing we call "Self", "I", or ego. It is the "storage" (source of information) from which we learn about ourselves and explain ourselves to us and others.

Even though a large amount of information is put into our brains as we grow up, it is us who eventually create our own state of mind, independently of the objective reality. It offers one thing, we want another and, consequently, worries and disappointments appear. Pain and fear are everywhere. In order to get rid of them we invent dreams, hundreds of things which can make us "happy", and millions of ideas which we can cling on to and thus keep our mind occupied. There are sedatives in the form of "fun" too, and many other forms of self-delusion which bring us what we need: a momentary delight, relief, or illusion of these things. Gradually, all this becomes _normal_. So people bear suffering, voluntarily and persistently. They even describe the ways to some of their "aims" (love, God, happiness...) as sublime suffering.

In brief, it can be described like this: You are climbing a mountain and carrying a load on your back. The longer you are going upwards the load is becoming heavier and heavier, not only because you are getting tired of walking but because as you are climbing you are adding more stuff on your back, thinking they might be useful someday. You do not ask yourself if that is good for you, or a clever thing to do, because everybody else around you is doing the same. Occasionally, with the load on their back they take a short break, tell a few jokes, and go on climbing....Until death stops them....Until it is your turn. And then, your soul takes your load over and carries it to eternity, or into a new life.

How interesting! I wonder who the first genius was to come up with such a "bright" idea to comfort the exhausted masses. Apparently, it was someone who could not even imagine that _moving is much easier without a load_ on our back and that _moving directly upwards is not the only way to climb a mountain_!!

*

The easiest thing to do is to say that the one to blame for this "donkey life" and the way of thinking of most people is this or that man, this or that religion or ideology, but by doing so we only blur the picture. The one who makes us simultaneously carry the load and sing odes to our stupidity (to glorify ignorance as some genial accomplishment) is inside us, each and every one. It is not hard to understand that we are talking about its majesty _Ego_. Some authors define it as "a continuous motion of mind" which hangs on to the idea of "I" or "me"; to other people; to all the words, concepts, desires, and activities which will keep this enormous (apparently very real and indisputable) construction together.

However, despite being surrounded with so many layers or being protected by a very thick shell, ego itself is, as (not so many) people realized a long time ago, untouchable and impossible to show. It is the energetic center which creates and moves the contents of consciousness around, arranging them in any particular order. Ego is "the place" where decisions are made and free will appears. It is, therefore, the synonym or a professional term for the soul.

Some people also realized that a person who cried for his/her mother when they were two years old is the same person who suffered because of the lost love at the age of twenty, or grieved for a dead spouse at sixty! Thus, they came up with the idea that a person or ego does not essentially change in the course of life. Although "many attributes of ego are developed and changed, particularly in the aspects of learning, self-knowledge, identity, abilities...," there is "an important continuity in the heart of ego." And, if the essence of ego is unchangeable in this life, why confine it to one life only – why not extend it to eternity? This is where the belief of so many people that the essence of ego/the soul does not disappear when someone dies (but goes to the place of eternal rest, or is born again in another body) originated from.

But, the real question is: What is _the essence of ego_? What is our real _Self_?

~

Empty Words

\- My name is Desiderio Musso. My social security number is 1309965240025. I am 179 cm tall, and weigh 73 kg. I am a son, grandson, father, husband, citizen of Rome, Italian, European, good Catholic, engineer, inventor, member of "The Green" party, cultivated, moral person, without criminal record... My dream is... My favorite singer is... My color is... I think... I feel... I know..., I know everything about myself.

Oh God, I feel a strong pain in my chest. A thought rushes through my head: "What if I die tonight, in an hour?...No, it's nothing, I am just a little bit tense." I cannot stand still. I get up in panic, look for the remote controller, and automatically turn my thoughts to something that has to be done tomorrow morning. I go into the kitchen and start a casual conversation with my wife.

What a pity... I buried my head in the ground. And I had a wonderful opportunity to understand everything.

Why are we afraid of death?

Because we instinctively want to live and go on living, and death is (we know it consciously and subconsciously) the end of everything that we hold dear. Perhaps this ubiquitous fear reveals the real "strength" of human faith in life after death teachings/theories and other similar things. Or, perhaps it concisely informs us how much our sub-consciousness is satisfied with the way we live our life. Even the smallest crisis can pierce the balloon of strategies, convictions, and "truths" behind which we hide ourselves. One single moment of panic is more than enough to show us how fragile and uncertain everything is. It explicitly shows us the value of our identities, thoughts, emotions...

Sometimes, at a moment like that, it happens that we are left alone, without any support, and suddenly realize that we are in the presence of someone we do not know; some alien who we persistently avoid or refuse to meet. Whenever he/she tries to introduce himself/herself we run away.

Is that the real reason why most of us fulfill every minute of our free time with noise or activities, no matter how futile they may be?

Can it be that the fear of death has something to do with the absence of genuine, true knowledge of who, or what, we really are? The fact that we find it impossible to live without holding on to other people, things, and our "tangible" consciousness filled with mental contents unambiguously shows that, deep in our mind, we know or feel that something is very, very wrong.

We do not have the true information of our real nature, because we have been caught in the net of deception which nobody else but us has woven around our _Self_. We believe in that personal, unique identity of ours which consists of many things supporting it. Security, we are convinced, comes right out of these things: "This is me"; "This is mine"; "I belong to this"...

Nobody has told us that identity is only a pile of terms which often signify non-existing things....The things which are fixed only in our brains and are very susceptible to change. Problems appear when people start fighting for these non-existing things; when various fantasies begin to stir human minds up usually leading to quarrels, hate, murder, or sometimes even war.

*

Have you seen the film _The Map of the human Heart_? It is about an Eskimo boy who eventually becomes a pilot in the World War II. At the beginning of the film, this boy is sent to a sanatorium for pulmonary diseases because he has a tubercular infection. There he meets a girl who is a patient too. Soon they become friends, even more than that. They help each other, encourage each other, and have a lot in common. But, at some point of the most innocent game and laughter, the girl says: "...that is because I am half-Indian!" The camera "catches" a sudden, terrifying expression on the boy's face and his hands start choking the girl: "The Eskimos hate the Indians!!"

In the blink of an eye everything changed. Two words turned love into hate, seeing into blindness, but, fortunately, only for a brief moment. In the next scene the boy became aware of whom he was choking: not "an Indian" but his friend. He stopped identifying with some Eskimos who, long time ago, had had some troubles with some Indians, and who, for that reason, told all their descendants that all Indians were their worst enemies. Luckily, in the boy's case the idea of nationality and hate were not deeply implanted in his brain – there was no time.

Another story is not from a film but from a book called _Awakening_ , and it is as striking and picturesque as the previous one. A man, for example a Macedonian, is caught in an unauthorized activity near the border by the Albanians. They take him to a city in Albania and put him in jail. Ten days later, a guard comes to the man's cell and says: "Come on, today we'll take you to have a look at your country." And so they drive the Macedonian to a hill. He looks towards the east and, with tears in his eyes, thinks: "Oh, this is Macedonia, my beautiful country. I see villages, mountains, valleys... This is my homeland." Suddenly, the guard grabs his arm: "I am sorry, we have made a mistake. We should have taken you ten kilometers in that direction, that's where Macedonia can be seen from."

To what did the poor man react?...In fact, to nothing. He was overcome by only one word: Macedonia! But, those valleys and mountains in front of him were not Macedonia. Valleys are valleys, and mountains are mountains. In reality there are no borders, they are only in our minds.

*

It is similar to some other, very important things in our lives. For example, we are taught to be proud of our culture and are sometimes even chosen to represent it in another country. It is very likely that we never ask ourselves: How can anybody represent a culture of a whole country, created by many people for many centuries? What is the "representative's" relation to all that? He or She was, perhaps accidentally, born in that country and became a citizen who, in the course of education, learned something about some painter, poet, or a building...

Likewise, for years, all kinds of authorities have been telling us stories about morality and tradition, and their ideas have gradually become our own. We start to identify with our ancestors and their perception of life and the world in general. Therefore, a man from Montenegro reads a book titled _The Examples of Kindness and Heroism_ , and a man from China a book called _24 Examples of Son's Kindness_ and both of them think: "This tradition of ours is rather beautiful." And then, sometime later, after reading another book ( _Tao Te Ching_ , Lao Tzu), they find out that the fact that somebody bothered to collect and write down the examples of kind or moral behavior anywhere in the world means only one thing: that _such behavior is not a common, ordinary thing in that country_ – something which does not need to be _emphasized_ or _pointed out_ , because _it is a normal thing to do_ , an ordinary part of daily life.

In the same book they read, and their life experience confirms, that morality, tradition, and culture are very "fluid" things. Something which is acceptable, good or moral in one country, or time, does not necessarily have to be as such in another. A certain tradition can be regarded as sacred by one person and as a plain stupidity or backwardness by another. Furthermore, morality and culture are the subjects of interest or long "expert" discussions only in times of widespread immorality, malice, and indecency. These subjects become the focus of attention only when people are not naturally but forcefully or conditionally kind to each other. Oddly enough, when relationships between relatives are cordial, _nobody talks_ about family devotion and love.

It is rather interesting (and also true) that nobody, nowhere in the world, has ever written down _The Examples of Slander, Deceit and Stupidity_.

*

Our addiction to empty words, or our identification with them, imperceptibly turns us into slaves who imagine that they have control over their lives and that they can change something. We think we are free, but there is probably no single thought, feeling, attitude, or conviction in us that does not originate from somebody else, or something outside us. We have only embraced all that as our own and now that "property" is holding us tightly in its claws.

So many people have died for "freedom" over time. There have always been perfidious politicians and religious authorities who told them that it was the brightest or the best thing they could do for their country, church, family... That is how a place beside God, in heavenly kingdom, or at least, in the "alley of the famous" was, and is still earned.

Their illusion is tragic and, of course, has a fatal ending, but the real tragedians are the survivors who, even after they have liberated something, still remain the slaves of a party, ideology, religion, revenge, national interests...

However, true freedom has nothing to do with conditions, emotions, fulfilling of desires or dreams and is not some kind of inaccessible ideal. We can be free in marriage, in a prison cell..., anywhere and anytime, because the thing which causes our suffering, or desire to break free, is inside us. It is us (our "Selves") who create or impose conditions, fabricate wishes, thoughts, words..., and all that keeps us in chains. All the time we keep on adding something to (or taking away from) the reality around us and consequently get a distorted picture in our brain which continues to generate further distortions, one after another, and on into infinity.

Freedom "appears" when we wake up and see the real value of all those things we regard as so important. In that way the cause(s) of suffering, pain, and insecurity are eliminated. The more illusions (or burden) we get rid of, the less we identify with empty words and more liberated we get. But, only few people manage to actually achieve this. It is very difficult to change the way we think. All our life we have been told exactly the opposite, and that is why all this appears to be abnormal to most _normal_ people. Yes, and indeed I know, in the beginning it very much looks (or sounds) like some foreign, incomprehensible language.

The fact is that many people believe that we cannot or mustn't, so easily, erase all those words mentioned above from our minds or dismiss their organizing, defining role in our lives and societies. Allegedly, the entire human civilization as we know it would disintegrate into pieces. This is probably true, but does that necessarily mean that _it would be something bad_?!

What it would be like, or what our lives and the world in general would be like without strict holding on to identities, we are going to see in the third part of this book. Now let's go back to knowledge.

The words like nationality, culture, religion, tradition... are _no problem at all_ , and they cannot be blamed for anything. They are part of, or a result of a conditioned way of thinking generated by the human kind from its earliest days. Those words, by themselves, do not provoke any conflicts, suffering, or wars. The problem is the _concepts_ (filled with emotions and convictions) _of those words which people create in their minds_. The problem is lack of consciousness, basic knowledge which would tell them: "It is not your (or anybody else's) _true identity_." Those are only the outer shells which ignorant people mistakenly take for their _Self_. It is useless, or, as a matter of fact, feeble-minded to argue or fight with somebody about these things.

When you find out who you are, and what you are made of, suddenly all those things (history, beliefs, ethnic origin, cultural or "emotional values"...) become completely insignificant.

Identity is an ordinary set of ideas, implanted thoughts, conditioned reactions, and pieces of information which switch us on or off, depending on the situation. However, sometimes something unexpected happens, shakes the very foundation of our way of thinking, and we are very surprised when we realize how fickle our "Self" is.

It happens that in a poker game, or in an earthquake, we lose everything we have, all that we have been building for years.

It happens that we lose our job, and after twenty years of being a teacher start a new career as a farmer.

It happens that we change some political conviction for another, maybe even the opposite one.

It happens that, for whatever reason, we stop being a "great" Montenegrin and become a "king-size" Serb.

It happens that our best friends die, or move away, and yet, we soon find new ones.

It happens that we convert from one religion to another or, even better, stop being a communist and become an orthodox, catholic or Islamic fanatic.

It happens that we change our name, surname, or both.

Yes, it really happens..., but the essence of our being stays the same. It is influenced by nothing of the above. It cannot be depicted with the social security number, kilograms, or centimeters...

We are none of these or any other things.

~

The Last Lines of Defense

Is the essence of our ego/self/being represented by our thoughts, emotions...? Or, is it our body?

We have just seen that all those pieces of information that make up our "identity" do not describe or define our _Self_. Our elementary consciousness is not the same or of the same quality as self-consciousness. Unlike elementary consciousness, self-consciousness is filled with "knowledge", fantasies, experience...

In other words, thoughts are the stuff our "Self" is made of, and all of us can, at least theoretically, separate consciousness from its contents. Some practical examples of that "ability" are often seen in medical practice: as it is well known, it is possible for someone to suffer a complete memory loss, to survive a stroke and to be left without different functions of "ego consciousness" (speech, recognition, thinking straight...), but they can still be very well aware of the surroundings – as a newborn baby. This clearly shows that elementary consciousness does not depend on self-consciousness and its contents.

_Consciousness exists even without thoughts_ **.**

Finally, thoughts come and go, change in accordance with our state of mind, and the _Self_ _remains the same_. Hence, thoughts do not represent the essence of our _Self_.

It is the same with emotions. They come, go, change... and the _Self_ _remains the same_. All our emotions start developing approximately from the third month of life. First comes excitement, then content and discontent are noticed, and after that anger, fear... Each emotion represents our physical and mental reaction to environmental and other influences – _they reflect our own experience of reality_. But, one thing must be crystal clear: the mental component of any emotion appears exclusively as a result of _our subjective estimation_ , i.e., _our acceptance or rejection of these influences_ , and most often our mental reaction has nothing in common with the reality itself. The way we will mentally respond to some situation or a condition in our body depends on how we usually process received information, or how strongly we become attached to it.

Here is a story which confirms this assertion:

Two Japanese Buddhist monks, Tanzen and Ekido, were travelling together. It was raining hard all day. While passing through a small town they met a beautiful young girl in a silk kimono. She was standing at the sidewalk unable to cross to the other side of the muddy road.

" _Let's go girl." said Tanzen, and without hesitation he took her in his arms and carried across the road._

Ekido did not say a word and remained silent for the rest of their journey. Finally, when they arrived to the temple where they were supposed to sleep for the night, he could not restrain himself any longer: "We monks do not approach women." he said angrily, "Especially if they are young and pretty. It is dangerous! Why did you do it?"

_Tanzen looked at him in wonder, "I left the girl over there, why are you still carrying her?"_ (Zen Flesh, Zen Bones)

Additionally, we can consider the feeling of rage manifested as a reaction to, for example, someone's offensive words. Such conversations often end with a fight, don't they? Still, does anyone's true _Self_ really feel anything? Is it really threatened by the words or behavior of other people? No, in both cases; it is not threatened and so it cannot or does not feel anything.

A strong emotion is usually the unmistakable indicator of ignorance. Shouting and the bloated veins on somebody's neck only reveal that the person in question hasn't properly mastered the matter he/she is arguing about. ...Or that they do not know that the reactor is their constructed, false ego/I/self. It is the one who is angry or happy, who suffers or judges. It is the one who fears death of the body. They are so connected that ego thinks that when the body dies, it will disappear as well.

However, any believer will tell you that it is not true. Religions say that _you_ are not your (physical) body; your soul transcends the body. It is just a "temporary vehicle" which carries the soul on its way to the final destination. After death _you_ (your identity, thoughts, and emotions) will live on in an astral, immaterial, or spiritual body awaiting the Resurrection or a new birth.

Is this the answer to the third part of the question from the beginning of this sub-chapter? Of course it is not. As we have already seen, those who support and promote the idea of afterlife do not understand that "knowledge of the unity of our personality which does not leave us from childhood to maturity" and which is supposed to "live on after death" _has nothing in common with the essence of our being_. Therefore, I am not interested in this misleading story about souls, immaterial bodies..., and I do not care what will happen to my personal consciousness when I die.

The question was: Is the _essence_ of our ego/self/being represented by our body?

It may come as a surprise, but the answer to this question is not that difficult to get. Yes, consciousness and matter/the body are tightly connected because (in the living beings) one cannot function without the other. Remember: In order to become "conscious", or reactive, consciousness requires a body. But, still, we can have almost any part of our head corrected or operated, thus completely changing our physical appearance, and it will not change the _Self_. It may affect our behavior or personality, but the essence of our being stays intact. It is neither prettier, nor uglier than it was before "the nose job".

Similarly, when we lose a leg or any other (not vital) part of the body in an accident, our self-consciousness or experience of ourselves, is almost always altered, but that which is alive or aware in us is not damaged in any way. It remains the same even when our heart, liver, or a kidney is replaced with another, matching one.

The body that we have now we did not have when we were conceived even though we had the elementary consciousness which would eventually generate it and bring to awareness. Nevertheless, there is no qualitative difference between the initial awareness of the first cell and the complete body: that which is alive in a zygote is identical to that which is alive in a newborn baby. "It" is not affected by the body in which it "resides", and that is why _I_ or S _elf_ is not the appropriate word. It is just the least wrong word.

~

The Discovery

We live in a neurotic world from a fairy tale, very much alike the one from _Alice in Wonderland_ , and our lives are founded on a (false) belief in continuity and invariability. Such a world/life can appear to be wonderfully real and convincing up to the moment death, or its overture, destroys the illusion and shatters the shelter called identity.

The body we have loved, or hated but always relied upon and tried to keep it alive, is betraying us. There is no wealth, no success, no convictions... We cannot expect any support from the mind either. Watch it for a few minutes if you can. You will see that it is like an ordinary fly which constantly flies up and down, left or right. Thoughts sometimes appear without a cause and deeper connection. Every second they are sucked in by "chaos" and we become the voluntary victims of our mind's instability.

We are tense and it is difficult for us to face death, because we persistently ignore impermanence as a truth of life. So all our life we grab whatever we can and feverishly hold on to things, people, empty words... trying to do the impossible: to throw instability and impermanence out of our lives. But, _instead of liberating ourselves from pain and suffering, we are increasing them_.

Then, one day, when we are fed up with everything, confronted with the stranger in us, we set "the wheel of truth" in motion, catch the sight of the "constructor", and make a decision that it will "not build us the house" any more. (Buddha, Dhamma pada 153-4) We start throwing the load off our back and simultaneously reject the convictions we have piled in our brain for years. Soon we realize that our _Self_ , or the essence of our being, _is nothing of what we think we are_. Simply, it cannot be described in any words: whatever you say that "it" is – it is not.

And so we acquire a higher level of consciousness. We become aware that:

a) Fear of death is proportional to the amount of ignorance, i.e., to the strength of our connection to ego.

b) We spend our life building and studying our own personality or self-consciousness but somehow fail to understand that _without a body_ (material, immaterial, or any other kind) _all our thoughts, concepts, emotions... have absolutely no value or importance at all and completely lose their purpose of existence_. Our consciousness may survive the death of the body but without that body it has no meaning.

c) Everything that happens in our brain in everyday life, and particularly at the moments of dying, _cannot hurt us in any way, because it is not real enough_. The mind is the one who (in the form of ego) gives power and the means of influence to our own consciousness and the reality around us. Yes, of course, death is there, but it represents a problem only to _the body and the illusions we are wrapped in_ , _not to the essence of our being_.

d) Dreams are a wonderful opportunity to gain an insight in everything said above. Our behavior in the course of dreaming implicitly shows what our consciousness will be like at the last moments of our life. The way we react in dreams, nightmares, or during real daily hardships is the way we are going to react at the moments before death. It is a consequence of training or habit, whichever you like.

We all know that in dreams we also have the "spiritual" body which goes through different experiences. That "body" is our "Self". We scream when it is in danger, and feel great if something nice has happened to it. But, how much are we aware of the changes in our consciousness after we have fallen asleep, or while we are falling to sleep? How much are we aware that we are dreaming, while we are really dreaming, and that it i _s not actually happening to that which is alive or aware in us_. The "spiritual" or "immaterial" body from our dreams is just a hologram or illusion.

The delusion which rises from the belief that we are (the same as) consciousness which continuously moves taking different forms becomes obvious. We reject this delusion and ask the ultimate question:

_If we are not what we think we are now when we are alive, how can we be that when we die_ **?**

## The Answer

According to Buddhist and Hindu religions the cycle of births and deaths or reincarnations can be stopped if/when a man ends his craving for life, his passions, addiction to illusion, and suffering....When the soul acquires the absolute knowledge that it is the same as God.

Therefore, a new life after death, or a new birth, is a positive fact, but it will not happen if certain conditions are met. In most cases the search for knowledge lasts for a very long time even though it can be ended in the course of a single lifetime. It all depends on a person and its abilities.

However, such reasoning is untenable, because:

a) A new birth either _happens_ , or it _does not happen_. Life after death either _exists_ , or it _does not exist_. It cannot be both. Logically (and practically) observed, if it does not exist, then there is nothing we can do about it. Likewise, if it exists, then that fact will remain unchanged regardless of whatever we do or learn.

b) It is based on inconsistency. Namely, for centuries, every Hindu or Buddhist has known and accepted the teaching which says that "all things are a mirage, a castle made of clouds, dream, illusion, without essence..." (Buddha) and _we are not our minds_ – the so called "I" consciousness which continuously moves and takes different forms. (Vivekananda) And yet, at the same time, for the sake of their religions, they have also believed (and still believe) that after death someone's personal memories, experiences, and emotions (i.e. _"I" consciousness, mirages,_ and _illusions_ ) continue their existence/life in another body.

c) It cannot be corroborated by any (known) scientific principle or discovery.

The other explanation of after death events, according to which "something" goes somewhere or back to "something", can be accepted as generally true, but it has to be cleansed of all those inaccurate, imaginary, emotional descriptions and theories which have done nothing over the centuries but blurred the truth beyond recognition.

The thing which undoubtedly survives our death is the energy previously materialized in the form of our body. We get it from our parents and, in most cases, forward it on in the form of our children.

Then, there is the energy the body supplied itself with from the environment (breathing, eating, absorbing...).

And finally, there is the energy manifested in personal consciousness – naturally, the most intriguing part of this story. While we are alive this energy is constantly released or materialized in many forms (movements, things, buildings, books, drawings...) thanks to the abilities of the body. When it ceases with its function, the possibility of materialization ceases as well.

The same law applies to thoughts. When the brain stops with its work, the thought manufacturing process also stops. Still, we do not know what happens to our thoughts after they have been produced and "used". Do they immediately turn into energy or become a part of some "cosmic radio/TV broadcast"?

The good news is that, in either case, it simply doesn't matter. Perhaps the electromagnetic microwave energy really carries consciousness or our brain waves all over the universe, and perhaps it is (or, will be) possible to "catch" those waves and telepathically communicate with other people, but _all that has nothing to do with life after death_ , and does not, in any way, affect the correctness of the following facts:

\- Energy always remains energy, even when it is in a material form, and never takes on the characteristics of its own creations. Accordingly, the energy which "leaves" the body after death has the same quality at "that moment" as when it started creating it – it does not carry with itself any characteristics or the personal consciousness of that body. And, when you think about it, what would be the point of that?! _All segments of our consciousness produced in a lifetime, down to the most insignificant thought, were given their own energy at the moment they came into existence and should already be in the universe_!!;

\- The energetic/material creation we call personal consciousness has as much importance or power as we give it by identifying with it, or tying ourselves to it;

\- That bondage is broken, and the power of personal consciousness disappears when we die or realize that _we are not our consciousness_ ;

\- The "Self" is, in fact, an illusion.

That is the real knowledge. Everything else is the assumptions and ideas which cannot change the complete picture which appeared in front of us. It clearly says: _Life after death does not exist in the form people imagine or describe it, because that which should be living it does not exist in life before death._

Therefore,

" _Recognize the infinite diversity of appearances as a dream, as mere concepts of your mind, treacherous and unreal._

... _You are about to die soon, and then nothing will be of any help to you; All that you_ (think you) _experience in death is only your conditioned reasoning._

... _That which clings on to everything existing and non-existing, good or bad, is only your mind;...Do not hang on to appearances, do not turn them into terms, do not accept or deny them..._

It is the essence of the Teaching...

_Samsara is your mind, and nirvana is your mind; all comfort and pain, and all illusions do not exist outside your mind. To achieve the control over mind is the essence of the practice..._ " (Tsele Natsok Rangdrol, a Tibetan teacher from the 17th century; slightly adapted)

~

### Part 3

"...To Live in Clarity"

~

A long time ago in Japan, people had lanterns made of bamboo and paper with candles burning inside. One night, a blind man who was visiting a friend was offered a lantern to carry home with him.

" _I don't need it." said the man, "Darkness or light is all the same to me."_

" _I know you don't need a lantern to find your way home," his friend replied, "but if you do not have one somebody else might run into you, because he wouldn't see you. Take it all the same."_

The blind man took the lantern in his hand and left. He hadn't gone far when somebody ran squarely into him.

" _Watch where you're going!" he shouted at the stranger, "Can't you see this lantern?"_

" _Your candle has been blown out my friend." answered the stranger._ (Zen Flesh, Zen Bones)

*

This story introduces the final part of the book. It will be interesting to see how this newly acquired knowledge affects some practical, important issues of our everyday lives; the things we "know" so well.

## Without Armor and Arms

"The birth of man is the birth of sorrow. The longer he lives the stupider he gets, because his anxiety caused by avoiding thoughts of inevitable death becomes more and more acute. What bitterness! He lives for something that is constantly slipping from his grasp! His desire to survive in the future makes him incapable of living in the present." (Chuang Tzu)

*

You are driving through the town... At about 300 meters away from the crossroads you see the traffic light changing from green to red. You move your foot off the gas and let the car go slowly to the crossroads, hopefully to reach it just when the green light turns on again. However, two cars, one after the other, speed past you and at no more than 20 meters away from the traffic light "the pilots" suddenly hit the brakes and stop – most probably _surprised_ by the fact that the red light is still on! They are waiting impatiently...

This happens in the streets of my town all the time. I have to tell you: I enjoy looking at their strained faces in my rear-view mirror while they are getting ready to move on.

*

Every day somebody dies one way or another. Sometimes it is someone we know, but usually those are people we have never heard of. Of course, we cannot be particularly moved when we hear that "tsunami took 134 human lives" somewhere in the Philippines. Perhaps we only think: "Why do they build their houses so close to the shore?" or "Thank God, we don't have those things here.", and go on with our daily routine. We commit ourselves to various arrangements and activities and in that way prevent any thinking of death. It is only when somebody close to us "passes away" or we ourselves are carefully informed of the diagnosis that we become aware of "the red light" which has been on for quite a while.

_Surprise_ , _surprise_! Isn't it fascinating, that always fresh astonishment caused by the "unexpected" awareness of the improbability which suddenly becomes very probable and which "has always happened to somebody else"?

Sad, but true: The greatest part of our upbringing and education turns out to be worthless. Our religious and other beliefs are useless. We are prepared for everything, or are getting ready for something that might happen, but not for that which is inevitably waiting for us at the end of the road. Our parents and teachers have done nothing but programmed us to be weak, addicted to lies and ignorance.

I can only suppose how _surprised_ some of you might have been when you read that our life and consciousness are filled with illusions. Suddenly, everything turned upside-down and the "Self" was replaced with an incomprehensible, giant hole which swallowed the former meaning of life.

"What is all this for?" "What, then, is the purpose of life?", wonder people who have been trying to fill _the already existing and disturbing emptiness_ in their lives with God, the belief in life after death, lovers, fun, fighting for survival, recreational activities, children, friends, things, money... for years, secretly knowing that it cannot be done.

Consequently, they are, as always, _surprised_ when they discover the obvious and cannot understand that this "newly discovered emptiness" is not the same as the existing one. In fact, _it is not emptiness at all_!

It does not have to be _filled_. It is there to be _used_ : to serve as a window through which we unmistakably and clearly see ourselves and the world around us. It is the opening through which we directly enter reality.

Many years before me, Lao Tzu expressed it like this:

"... _The potter turns the clay to make a pot, but it is not the clay which gives the pot its usefulness – it is the empty space within the shape._

When houses are built for windows and doors the openings are made; and it is on the spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.

_Therefore, just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not_." (Tao Te Ching, 11)

*

Our societies are obsessed with the body, youth, strength, sex, wealth, and success. We pretend not to see the old age, sickness and decay. Life is filled with trivialities, stupidities, fighting, raping of reality, inaccessible aims, permanent discontent, and short-lived pleasures which we tirelessly want to prolong but somehow never manage to do so – there is always something in the way, or missing. This is true, isn't it?

We talk about change, peace, freedom, love, progress, protection of this or that but at the same time tightly hold on to the world we have inherited, or even created, and satisfy ourselves with petty, cosmetic changes. We keep on shining our personal/collective armor and occasionally add another layer of protection. This is also true.

And then, the elections come. Some genial "leader" (or a revolutionary with the vision) appears from somewhere and offers the "oppressed" and "deprived of rights" masses a new world, freedom, and "a better future". They all enthusiastically go to the polling places or, if necessary, take up arms against "the hateful enemy" (whoever or whatever they may be), and when it is all over: these slaves argued or fought with those slaves, only to remain the slaves again. The created "brave new world" is never better (or is, sometimes, but only for a short time), because it is, the same as the previous one, based on the same principles and interests. The leading roles are reassigned and some new players appear; the scenario and the scenery are slightly altered; the effects (illusions) are improved, but _the director is always the same_!

Strange, confusing, but also painfully true: people will rather go to war led (from the rear lines) by some second-rated hypnotist than try changing themselves and their way of thinking. When shown that they live in illusions, and when given the first insight into the value of their personal and collective identity, their first reaction is fear that the social reality they know and cherish will go to hell.

But, why not?! What is so good about it?!

Is it really so hard to imagine a world populated by people who do not fight and kill over religious beliefs, national or traditional issues, sports, politics..., because their parents and teachers taught them to differentiate their _Self_ and their ultimate interest from some personal choices, historic, geographic and other similar, but essentially irrelevant, labels and divisions among humans?

Imagine that _words_ lose their "emotional" power and that we all recognize the true value of so many things, ideas, phrases... which rule our everyday lives.

In such a world a person who defines himself/herself as Japanese would still be a Japanese, would live in Japan but would also know that "Japan" and "Japanese" are only social or geographical terms which are in no way related to his real _Self_. He would love his country, respect its laws, drink sake and eat whatever he eats every day, go to work, play with his children, pay the bills, grow little trees, go hiking with his friends..., but it would never come to his mind to insult his Irish neighbor because he was (accidentally or not) born where he was born; to break the TV because the Japanese national football team lost a match from Morocco; to hit someone because that person offended the late emperor; and particularly not to traditionally kill himself because some train was 2 minutes 14 seconds late...

Imagine the world in which Donald Trump and those like him who invest their fortune in building golf courses, expensive apartments, hotels, casinos... and spend millions on football teams and footballers, fear to fall asleep or go out in the street, because the public wants them to:

\- Use their money for renewal of American (or any other) electro system which is falling apart from the old age and overload;

\- Invest it in finding a new source of energy; (Picture the Sahara desert covered with billions of solar cells producing enough energy for the entire continent, or even half of the planet.)

\- Do something on the climate control so that the rain which is constantly falling over the sea between Australia and New Zealand might one day wet the Australian desert areas...

What do you think of the planet on which politicians are redundant; religious "workers" in retraining programs; and used-to-be highly paid sport players on strike, since there they are paid (much) less than doctors, teachers, policemen...!

Imagine... Yes, I could go on "selling you a pup" for hours. But, what's the use of that? It will probably never happen. There are too many obstacles, at the moment about 7 billion of them. Ignorance, fear, and habit keep us enchained. It used to make me angry, but now I am OK with it. I understood... Instead of dreaming about Utopia, or getting nervous trying to change something we cannot change, it is better for us to let the knowledge we have just acquired do its thing. When we learn how to _use the emptiness_ , perhaps the normal world, with its problems and all those "important" words, will appear different to us.

Perhaps the change we are so eagerly looking for will come by itself.

~

" **The Root of All Evil"**

Humans are the lying creatures. They often lie to each other, but most often they do that to themselves. It seems that self-delusion is a necessary requirement for most people if they want to function normally in our normal society. If it weren't so, nobody would (after everything he/she read in this book) ask these questions: "If things are really as this man says, then why shouldn't we do evil things, steal, kill...? How can we go on living if God is not what we imagine and describe him to be?"

If it hadn't been so, humans would have stopped being weak, confused, terrified... long time ago, and until now they would have stopped blaming others for their own wrong doings, or asking forgiveness from somebody/something whose influence was not obvious to everybody!

But...!

Many people say that without careful guidance of the supreme intelligence (God) the living world would have disappeared in chaos long ago. If there were no God and his benevolent influence, the human kind would surely live on this planet for a very short time – the mutual annihilation would be inevitable. Even today such tendencies are noticeable.

However, bearing in mind the enormous number of species which have become extinct on this planet so far, and the fact that the history of mankind is actually the history of wars, I sincerely doubt that these are the finest examples of God's good will and influence. And, furthermore, there is another thing which is neglected in this theory: such tendencies or inclinations have not been recorded in behavior of other species. Yes, it sometimes happens that a male lion, deer, or monkey... hurts, or rarely kills another in the fight for dominance, territory, females..., but the circle of violence ends there and the survival of the whole group is never at stake.

The other side usually comments this reasoning in the following way: "That is why the man has been given something that no other being on Earth has: conscience." You can see it neither in the case of a wasp which "cold-bloodedly" turns a tarantula into food storage for its offspring, nor in the case of a lioness which "cruelly" drives away a strayed cub of another female, because it already has two of her own.

Right, they do not have conscience. But, have you ever wondered why that is so? Both of them, the wasp and the lioness, exactly know what their and the interest of their "children" is. They intentionally do what they do and do not think about it later. "Lower" beings do not need conscience since they do not enjoy killing or hurting others; death of one is a necessity or food for the other and nothing more than that. There is no hidden agenda, greed, or malice in their actions, because their lives are based on the simple principles of survival: multiply, live, kill and eat or be killed and eaten. Animals eat plants; animals eat animals; plants eat animals.

Unlike them, we kill each other for so many reasons (pleasure included) and in some cases do not even need any particular reason to hurt somebody. We also steal, rape, torture, and do other despicable things, but yes, some people do have conscience!

So what is conscience?

It is often identified with "superego" and is defined as "person's awareness of right and wrong with regard to her or his own thoughts and actions." Conscience is not inborn or inherited and it has always been associated with the feeling of guilt. It is a product of a conditioned way of thinking which is implanted into human beings from the first months of their life; of a gradual external influence on the development of human personality. This statement can be confirmed by the following: most people do not feel guilt while eating fish, lambs, chickens and other animals even though they know that their food had been alive and kicking before it arrived on the table in front of them; they do not think it is something bad to do. Quite the opposite, they were told that it was OK ("it is good for you"). It is not a sin. Religious authorities told them that these species "have no soul".

If conscience were inborn, _there would not be any need for us to learn what is right or wrong_ and, moreover, there would not be any cases that it didn't work. Similarly, it would be inconceivable that one day our leaders and, of course, religious authorities appeal to our conscience demanding the abolition of abortion, because "It is murder!", and that the next day the same people encourage us to go to war, this time appealing to our patriotic, moral, or even "holy" duty to kill and get killed!?

The awareness of good and bad has always depended on a value system developed and accepted by a group of people in a society. The evolution of consciousness went hand in hand with the development of legislative activity the intention of which was (and still is) to punish the evil-doers by depriving them from some important things or rights and to prevent others from doing the same or similar deeds.

The "chosen ones" in the early societies who were in charge of spiritual matters and moral guidance also threatened the disobedient members of the community with "God's punishment", "judgment in the other world", different kinds of hell..., but it was soon realized that all that did not function, or was not enough, unless some visible punishment in this world was to be expected. Humans, as well as other animals, have always understood power, pain, and fear the best. From those primary, semi-chaotic times and relations in which everyone tried to be "the boss" up to now it is these "arguments" that have always been the real organizers of all human communities. We have never found it easy to accept or understand something solely on the basis of a good talk, someone else's experience, or obviousness.

Somehow, the development of consciousness, a huge number of laws, and various systems of moral principles have not helped humans to decrease the amount of violence and evil on this planet. On the contrary, they have only taken different forms and are sometimes disguised with perfidious political, moral, religious, and other motives. But, today, the same as before, most humans are going to restrain themselves from committing a crime for some very explicit, earthly reasons. For example:

One night, 10.000 years ago, a youth from the Hotu tribe stole a fire log from the cave in which members of the Totu tribe slept. Tomorrow morning 30 Totu men (let's not say warriors) invaded the Hotu territory and slaughtered half of the population. Then they victoriously returned to their caves with fire in their hands and human heads on their spears.

8.000 years later, a man form the Totu tribe raped the wife of a prominent member of the Hotu tribe on the bank of the river. The chief of the Hotus assembled the "army" and surrounded the huts in which the perpetrator lived with his relatives. Then he asked them to come out and surrender the rapist, otherwise they would all be killed. After a short conference the man was handed over. The Hotus took him to their village where all the women tortured him to death. The corpse was taken to the border and left in a plain sight to the passers-by.

In 1921, the members of both tribes lived in the city of C... A woman from the Hotu tribe was a maid in the house of a famous doctor from the same tribe. One day the doctor reported to the police that some valuables had disappeared from his home. Those were some personal objects he had brought from London. The police investigation showed that the maid's husband had sold those objects on the market. He was arrested and sentenced: his right hand was cut off. The woman lost her job. (These stories are fictional.)

...A crime > awareness of the loss, damage or danger > feelings > decision > reaction > punishment. It is the same now as it was in the prehistoric (and not only) human community. Any menace to an individual or a collective ego causes a defensive reaction and emotions. When you hit somebody's child, try to prove your superiority or defend a weakness, steal something, kill somebody..., you always attack someone's ego, interests or feelings, and consequently provoke a reaction the aim of which is to punish your misdeed. When two men have a fight or two countries engage in a battle, the two egos are at war.

*

As you see, ego is the major factor which disturbs and then (re)arranges relations within human, lion, or canine communities, both at individual and collective level(s). The fact that conflicts of two egos in, for example, a wolf pack end with rare and only individual casualties is assigned to their weaker ego, lesser intelligence, fixed hierarchy (based almost exclusively on physical attributes), and a rather limited number of situations in which some privilege or interest of the ruling minority can be endangered.

On the other side, human relationships are more complicated because intelligence is higher and so is the ability to learn and change things; hierarchy is more unstable; the number of conflicting situations is huge. However, the main cause of conflicts, evil, and violence is identical, both in wolf and human communities. It is called _fear_. All evil and violence (weather justified or not) arise from fear. It is the origin of insecurity, greed, ruthlessness, hate...

And, where does fear come from?

It usually comes from the awareness that life is threatened for some reason: hunger, thirst, physical danger... But, people do evil and behave violently even when they are not physically endangered. Take a look at any newspaper or a TV journal. The variety of violence, stupidity, and malevolence is terrifying: insults, humiliations, beatings, theft crimes, rapes, murders, mass (aggressive) demonstrations, burning and demolishing, terrorist actions, wars...

This is the "normal" world we live in exposed to individual and mass hypnosis from the day we were born. We have been programmed to live in fear of other people, other nations, races, religions, opinions... We are scared of the dark, spiders, cows, open spaces, closed spaces... We hate ourselves and others. So we spend our lives building an imaginary or a real protection around us with a single aim: to keep the enemies, danger, and the inevitable end of our life as far away as possible from _that which we think we are_.

The interruption of that "normal" life is something we never think of, because we do not know that there is something better. Even if we try to break the hypnotic trance under the influence of some religious teaching or psychotherapy, the initial enthusiasm usually gives in to the lies and deceits of the one that creates the social reality around us – the builder and the magician called the "Self" or "I". As soon as we begin to see the "shells" of identity clearly, suspicion and fear arise: "Oh, my God, if we get rid of the armor we will be naked, unprotected!"

_That is just another delusion we raise in our mind_.

Yes, it is true, everyone around us is fully armed, but they do that for the same reason we have done it: to protect or promote their "self", the illusion of themselves. That is the only reason why normal people want to hurt or eliminate others who "endanger" their reputation, nationality, faith, tradition, culture, career, personality... When you finally realize that, people suddenly become ridiculous and pitiful, and you become aware that sticking to the false self (identifying with all its fantasies) is the root of your and their fear and suffering. _All evil and violence among people come from their fear for that false, imaginary "Self" and from the ignorance of the real Self_ _._

We cannot change people, but there is something we can do with/for ourselves. If we courageously set off on the path of enlightenment, we will soon see that _when we get rid of illusions_ (the unnecessary shells), _there will be only few things left to be protected_ , and suddenly life becomes easier and better. Naturally, we are stuck with the body, interests, family, property..., which are the basic means of attachment to life, or "self", but that is something we have willingly chosen or given priority to. That is the burden most of us have decided to carry, but it is much easier to carry, maintain, and protect it when our mind is cleared of confusion, unnecessary emotions, and everything else that makes us (too) dependent on other people and, therefore, more liable to conflicts and suffering.

~

Religion

\- Mummy, mummy, where is heaven?

\- Heaven is where God is.

\- And, where is God?

\- God is everywhere.

\- Hmm... Mummy, where is hell then?

\-...Dear boy, God does not like curious children!

*

A man called Democritus (the first one who said that matter consisted of atoms) said that religions (of his time) were evil. Somehow, I think that he talked not only about religions themselves but also about religious institutions and authorities. Experience tells us that people have always been the ones who corrupt and destroy everything they get in touch with, regardless of what it is: the nature around us, little children, or the teachings of the wise.

Whoever reads Buddha's speeches or Lao Tzu's verses can easily see that the essence, the basic message of their teachings is not that different from the essence of Jesus' teaching. All these accomplishments of mind, although from different environments, cultures, and traditions, complement each other and are founded on the similar uncompromising principles and ideas the aim of which is enlightenment, liberation from suffering, or self-realization through knowledge.

And yet, today (the same as in the past) we have billions of "believers" with their religions which are so antagonistic to each other. Their representatives frequently talk about equality, freedom, and reconciliation of differences but still firmly insist on being whatever they believe they are, positioned in their trenches, without any intention to change anything. The reasons for that are obvious: these people are professionals with incomes and privileges. They are managers of highly profitable companies which have interests, properties, sources of income... and cannot allow themselves the luxury _to turn the other cheek when struck on the right_.

They are also successors of a long line of extremely skilled manipulators who perfectly understood three things:

a) The core of the teachings and the way the aims are achieved are so different from the everyday, normal way of living and thinking;

b) Most people will never be able to understand the teachings properly, let alone apply them in practice;

c) The teachings are actually dangerous for the ruling minority, whoever they may be.

So the first manipulators adjusted the messages of the enlightened to the level of consciousness of not so intelligent majority; then, to the current historical circumstances; and eventually presented the "improved" messages as religions.6 All that modern manipulators are doing today is (re)selling the product to the masses.

With all that in mind, it becomes clear why contemporary religions insist so much on their own particularity and also close relationships with the government(s); why most of them still hold on to the concept of "human-like" God and support the life after death theory; and finally, why traditions, rituals, miracles, and "supernatural powers" of the saints are more important to believers than the teachings themselves. It is also understandable why religious people and institutions are so opposed to any other kind of knowledge but their own which is, naturally, "the only right one" since it has been acquired through faith and has survived through so many centuries.

However, there is a major problem there. And no, there is nothing wrong with the term _faith_ itself. When you do not know something, and you want to find out, faith should be a necessary part of the learning process. But, the problem is in understanding and practical application of that word. Believers and religious authorities do not use faith as a means to search for (the) truth, but as a kind of refrigerator which is supposed to preserve _their knowledge_ from corruption. Therefore, once a man becomes a believer, his search for truth and knowledge is over and the answer to everything is God or anything else his religion says that it is.

Over time, faith has become a petrified word with altered meaning: the adopted knowledge, or the greatest truth in the world. Hence, it has become quite normal in our normal world to identify the strength of faith with the strength of convictions, the thickness of the armor, or the quantity of "spiritual suffering".

But, that is just another in the long line of delusions. The strength of faith is demonstrated in exactly the opposite manner: _by throwing the armor away_. And, the best proof of faith is to stand alone, "naked" and fearless in front of the mob which has just sentenced you to be crucified and hails your final walk to the place of execution.

You do not ask the question: "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" at the last moments of your life, because it will only show that you are a confused, terrified or disappointed man who has lived in delusion.

You demonstrate your faith when you listen and _hear_ , look and _see_....When you are ready to learn and to change yourself.

_Faith is opposite to conviction_. If we already describe it as "the road towards the truth", then the road must be cleared from everything that hinders the search or the passage, and it is good to know that the biggest obstacles are illusions, convictions, and emotions – the things our life and religions are based on.

*

Throughout entire history wise men, and those not so wise, saints and sinners, mystics and ordinary individuals have been looking for the truth, or God, and have been talking about it to whoever wanted to listen. Eventually, a few of these people fell silent.

Contrary to them, others have continued to explain, describe, and interpret their experiences or, perhaps there is a better word, achievements in many ways and have given them different names, faces, and characteristics although they have essentially experienced or discovered one and the same "thing". Once they described it, they started holding on to their pictures as the only truthful ones. But, soon they became restless and something had to be added to or erased from it – for the sake of improvement, better understanding... A listener or a reader himself would immediately create his own picture about it in his mind, and that which had been depicted became something else. (The thing, or whatever it is, that people call God is found in the mind but also lost in it.)

And, this is when religious experts came into play. Those who "understood" various descriptions of "God" best decided to simplify things: "No, we cannot allow people to walk around with so many visions of that God in their heads. It is senseless. It might be dangerous. And finally, it is not profitable!" So they quickly produced the most appropriate image which would be easily accepted by the masses, "went public", and announced: "God is this and that. He looks like this and that. From now on you must believe in it. If you don't, you will go to some very ugly place when you die!!"

In short, that is how people started believing in (and searching for) something that does not exist!

Indeed, this story has had some variations at different times and in different civilizations, but one fact has always remained unchanged: the people who constantly talk about God, Allah, the Absolute... know nothing of the subject at all! _They have only heard something from somebody or have been taught about it from books_. If they knew anything, they would not talk!! Quite simply, they express their own, or even worse, _someone else's_ ideas about God and are convinced that they are close to him. There they are, almost hugging him.

Any concept of God is a result of only one way of reasoning or, even better, of (mis)understanding the real nature of mind. All those who think they have a detailed knowledge of God, or have the clearest vision of him in their heads, _do not know anything and see nothing_.

If people could release themselves from the chains of standardized, conditioned way of thinking, illusions and false knowledge, they would be able to see that there is something else, completely different, beyond (or beneath) this everyday instability and agitation of our consciousness and life in general. Something that _cannot be named_ , _nor described_ and is hidden behind all changes, births, and deaths in the world.

Everyone would know that retelling of "the vision" is a futile thing to do, because the biggest obstacle in seeing _the true nature of mind_ , or "god" is the mental concept, the image we created in our brain: _the spiritual idol, matching our own personalities and needs_. The best thing to do in reference to god is to "recognize" it as indefinable and indescribable. Whatever they tell you – it is not it, and the last obstacle is the word itself: _god_.

*

I hope that, by now, everyone has realized that teachings and religions should not be considered as one and the same thing. Teachings are all about work, and religions are mostly make-up and acting. There is an example which will prove this claim. It perfectly shows how a beautiful teaching has been replaced with weakness, ignorance, and misunderstanding.

It is a matter of a very important part of the Christian religion accepted by all Christians, whatever they call themselves. Namely, they all preach that "God sent his only son to redeem the world from sin" and believe that Jesus really did it, or saved the world, by sacrificing himself (his earthly life).

More than once I have heard that story and always stared at delighted tellers in wonder, trying to "get into their heads". I was looking for reasons why some fainthearted episode or a prophecy from the Jewish tradition (represented by few sentences in the Gospel) screened the big picture in the background.

I realized that there are several different reasons, but the most important one is this: those people, unfortunately, do not hear themselves. If they did, they would probably not be trying to exalt, justify, and explain somebody's (I simply do not know how to define it) reasoning according to which _it is normal or OK_ that someone who is "the embodiment of goodness, purity of the soul, the best there has been..." _should get killed for the sins of others_.

Conscious people would reject such an idea and, let's be honest, would not do sinful deeds. They would consider Jesus' sacrifice to be meaningless, or useless, because they would know that _such a mere act_ (regardless of whoever did it and how noble or superhuman it may sound) _could not change_ , and had never changed anything.7

Conscious people would understand that, from the beginning of his mission and right to the end of it, Jesus took over not the _sins_ but the _suffering_ of people. The difference is enormous, since the former is called lunacy or masochism, and the latter is called _compassion_. Not pity, but compassion. Unlike pity, which can sometimes be a rather ugly thing because it comes from fear or even concealed joy, compassion originates from the awareness that people around you have similar desires, problems, fears... as you do. Observe them as your other self and the meaning of "Love your neighbor as yourself" will become obvious.

Jesus can be regarded as a savior but only through his stories and The Sermon on the Mount. And, that is enough. For the people who understand this magical healings and other miracles are, even if they were all credible, completely irrelevant. They are only a means to an end, a good way to attract someone's attention, and to emphasize that as some really important thing is in opposition to the teaching: "But when you do your giving, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."

Jesus showed one path to enlightenment, to peace... People must change themselves. When they become _like little children_ again (without armor, arms, and fear) they will find love, freedom, clarity... again.

*

In order to set off on a search for the truth, to find out who we are, religions and religious institutions are not required. All we need is the "road signs" set up by the men who had the insight into real knowledge and some sense for analysis and synthesis – to detect the essence.8 Buddha said: "The truth is found by the wise, and each of them has to do it individually, on their own." Therefore, we do all the work alone, get the answers, and stop being afraid of words, loneliness, ourselves, death...

In order to be happy and content we do not have to be a believer or a member of some church: take a look at little children and it will come to you. They do not think about god, life after death, and religion at all, and yet, most of them live quite happy lives; sometimes even without all those necessary conditions which, we believe, are required for a good life and happiness. Their world is not overwhelmed with empty words, hate, and complicated relationships.

The change begins when parents, teachers, friends... infect them with the virus of "knowledge" and they start sucking in all kinds of information through the process of upbringing and education. It is only then that everything which has been pure and good in a child slowly but inevitably turns into "normal", and the child becomes an adult, more or less adapted to the world he/she lives in.

In order to be like little children again or, even better, as grown up people "aware of their unconsciousness", we need to realize that inequality among people exists only in the area of genetics, circumstances, and opportunities, and not in some historical, religious, ideological, or a similar, later on invented aspect of life.

When we reject all false knowledge, we will begin to see that many things are not as important as we thought they were. Finally, we get to know "our" _self_ , change our "self" and thus change the world.

~

Love

One of the words "normal" people frequently use and about which they "know" everything. There are thousands of books, novels, poems, essays... written about it. Love is identified with God, suffering, happiness, freedom...

They say that everything can be learned about love and that knowledge can be put into practice. The success in love is a matter of statistics, subjective evaluation, and some generally visible results have already been discussed in this book as well. Let us now have a closer look at what we learn and see if the teachers are right.

For example, one of the things every child in our world quickly learns is the "fact" that the way a parent loves his/her child, or a man loves nature, is not the same as the way a man loves a woman and vice versa – mostly because the last "kind" of love involves sex.

So, according to this teaching, it turns out that a man and a woman who have been married for 40 years and have not had sex for a long time, do not love each other anymore!? Or, that they are now in "a different kind of love"?! Or, again, that those who "make love" every day necessarily love each other!?

The common element in all these kinds of love should be (I hope you have already guessed) love. If it is so, and it really is, then we are talking about one and the same thing. But, it seems the trouble is (as this first step explicitly shows) that we have a completely wrong idea of what love is.

The simple truth is that there aren't many kinds of love, only many kinds of relationships: parent-child, brother-sister, teacher-pupil, man-woman, man-nature... Relationships can be different in many ways, but _the one thing in common to all of them can be love_.

Another thing we learn concerns the heart. The teachers say it holds the key to love. But, even a not-so-bright pupil of elementary school can understand that the heart is an important organ, a powerful energy center but, basically, nothing more than an ordinary pump which supplies the whole body with blood. There is nothing you can see, learn or feel by heart. Yes, emotions and the state of mind influence the beating and the overall condition of your heart, but it does not produce any feelings and is definitely no "the center of love" whatsoever.

Normal people usually make no difference between being in love and love. In my "abnormal" world children would immediately learn that being in love could be a good thing and could also arouse the most beautiful and strongest feelings in people but is not the same as love. Those children would also know that blindness has everything to do with being in love, and nothing with love itself. It is because of this blindness that people who are in love act silly, do stupid things, and tend to get disappointed a lot. For some reason they imagine that he or she is going to make them happy (satisfy their desires or requirements) without any objections for as long as they live. Somehow, our lovers are always expected to fit their (new) image which we created in our heads.

Contrary to that, "abnormal" children would practice every day to see people (and the world around them) as they really are, and not as they painted them in their heads, because those portraits are mere distortions of reality; products of our unstable moods and emotions.

Such children or young people would soon be able to see without any difficulties that there is something wrong with the "love-proving" concept. As we have seen, the list of proofs of love is rather long, and by ticking the items on that list off normal people try to overcome insecurity, anxiety, and, of course, fear. However, they do not understand that the harder they try, the more insecure and worried they get. And, that is the key reason why boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, or partners are so often asked to sacrifice themselves, their interests, and happiness for the sake of their loved ones or "love" in general. If he or she does not want to do that, then they do not love the person they are with and get the title of an _egoist_.

Hence, egoists are people who love themselves and live the way they think is the best, without compelling anyone to adapt to their attitudes, needs, or desires?! What then, is a person who, in order to be happy, _demands of somebody to subordinate themselves, their life and happiness to that person's interests_?!

Jealousy, anxiety, addiction... are "the spices" without which love of the normal is impossible. If a normal person wants to be happy, he/she needs other people, and the lover's attention is obligatory. Consequently, all those people have to be controlled and kept close, or away from other people. And, when you want (or force) somebody to remain yours, and only yours, you have to blackmail, manipulate, be funny, better, prettier than others... over and over again.

Let me see if I got all this right: possessiveness, hypocrisy, fear, egoism, and lack of confidence = love?!

Normal?...Perhaps.

...Sane? No way!

*

So what is love?

Observe a healthy child, not more than two years old. How does it approach some unknown, normal person? Always in the same way: curiosity, estimation, and then a smile or fear, depending on the situation at hand. The child still has no, or at least should not have, any prejudices or implanted conditions in its head. Little children only react instinctively when they are physically endangered. After that crucial smile, they unconditionally and endlessly enjoy your company and playing with you. That could be it, don't you think?

Now imagine the following situation: normal people are on an outing and they have climbed a mountain or reached the shore of a lake... They are so thrilled with the surroundings that they start to shout: "Oh this is so wonderful! Splendid! Look at this, that...! Pass me the camera... Take a picture of me this way, that way, here, there...!" All the time they are looking and telling others that they adore nature. They are "nature lovers".

What happened to them? Simply put, they fell in love with a new, different environment. The change of everyday ambient induced the excitement and outburst of "positive" emotions. However, if they visited the same place next week, the emotion would be much weaker: "Well, it is nice." And, if they went there for the third time, they would probably be bored, especially if the weather was bad: "Let's go somewhere else!" The reflection of some vague feeling appears again when they show the photos to a cousin or a friend, but the euphoria is gone and this remains: "You see how beautiful it was, how happy I was."

They look, but do not see. Emotions were actually there, but if they do not go to another, even more beautiful place every time, they do not enjoy the scenery. They were in love but, in fact, do not love nature.

A man who loves nature behaves quite differently. He does not shout that he loves nature, he looks and sees... Perhaps he is at the same spot for the twentieth time but he does not care; there is always something interesting or new. The weather conditions are different, the light, the man himself..., and the attraction is always there. While sitting at the top of a mountain he does not talk about politics, sports, cars... like an ordinary "nature lover". He does not talk at all. He enjoys himself. The only "feeling" in such a person is serenity. Nature and the man are on a date, but it does not want anything from him. He is completely free and there are no conditions, desires, or anxiety. When he responds in the same way, that's it!

The love of a man towards a woman is identical to the love of a man towards nature or music, or of a mother towards a newborn child. The thing which is different is the complexity of relationships. And that is why people have difficulties in "finding" love. Without interests, mutual expectations, sex..., everything would be much simpler, but in most cases all those things are inevitable part of human life. If you bear that in mind, you can easily see where the naïve reasoning and the ideal concept of love that we sometimes detect in the words of mystics, monks, and other more or less secluded people come from.

Namely, many of them were unmarried and had no family of their own... And they did not exaggerate in sex, either. It is really easy to say: "Love is like a flower, it offers its scent to everyone equally."; "Love all people!" but, as you know, in our everyday world it is not so doable. When you are without responsibilities, detached from the world, or not dependent on it, everything is easier, relationships are less complicated and visibility is better. However, the trouble is that the vast majority of us do not live like that, and it takes a lot of courage and skill to go on living in the world without succumbing to the infernal surrounding in which people relentlessly drive each other crazy.

All in all, when you love people, i.e., clearly see how fragile and frightened they are, the brightest thing you can do is to say what you have or, even better, remain silent and walk away; otherwise you might even end up on a cross.

In order to understand what love is (not), we must throw so many things out of our heads: all those conditions, emotions, addictions, convictions... which overload relationships and bring suffering. Love is the state of being liberated from all that and interests as well. But, there are no relationships without interests in their base. Perhaps we have no material or any other benefits from the person we are with, yet it is in our interest to see that person well, to become fully aware of all his/her faults and virtues without any additional emotional input. The more complex a relationship is (sex, children, mothers/fathers and other in-laws, school...), the more important this interest becomes.

Only people with the clear mind can have a harmonious marriage or relationship: they know that lasting attraction has everything to do with clear perception and very little with emotions. Troubled people cannot return love; they can only complicate things, exchange desires, expectations, and disappointments.

The only proof of love can be the fact that we are willing/ready to learn, work on ourselves, change... and not just because somebody wants us to do so, or because it is good for us (though, indeed it is), but because it is the key to reality and a higher level of consciousness, or, in this case, good relationships with your husband, wife, children, friends, neighbors... If such readiness exists in those people too, that is it. Nothing is sacrificed. Nothing of value is lost in order to get something else. The only thing we get rid of is a considerable quantity of junk which we have collected in our heads in the course of our normal life.

*

No matter how much one writes or says about this topic it may seem to be too little, and again, at the same time _it is always too much_ since the truth is as follows: when you experience love, even for a brief moment (when you suddenly open your eyes), everything will be clear and explained without a single word.

I hope I have given you some hints of what love is not. In a sentence: Love is _not an emotion_ , love is a _state of being_ , or mind if you prefer. It originates from clear, undistorted seeing, hearing, understanding..., i.e., natural cognition of reality.

~

Four Steps

" _Real nutcases should be left alone. It is the normal ones who should be treated, to become sane_." (This one is mine.)

The greatest miracle we can witness is not when someone turns water into wine or the other way around but when that person overcomes a single emotion. In our normal world it is such a rare occasion since emotions are regarded as the living proof that "we" exist. They are "given by God", and are also something we should be thankful for, because, as it is written in the high school Psychology text book, "...without them life would be boring." (?! And without war too, if you already think like that.)

Now, since I can "hear" you saying: "Listen mate, we are not robots!"; "Are emotions really that bad for us?"; "Emotions make us human!"..., this could be the right time to clear something up.

Yes, it is true, we are not robots, and the last thing I would like to do is to imply that it would be good for us to be emotionless. If you remember well, the similar problem arose when we talked about identity and empty words. Everything that was said about empty words applies to emotions as well. They are not to blame for anything: good or bad, suffering, or foolish behavior. But, _our attachment to them is_. We are trained _not to experience_ emotions, but _to be_ emotions: "I am angry!", "I am sad." They teach us to bow to emotions, to read and write about them, to observe the world through "emotional glasses", to pursue them and live for them...

However, after some time, entirely unaware of how that happened, we become addicted and imprisoned. Some people sense that something must be done and would like to regain control, but it is not easy. It is never easy. Our superficiality, false knowledge and way of thinking tell us to suppress negative emotions by sheer strength of will or by grabbing every opportunity to have fun or lough. In some cases people try to get rid of negative emotions by screaming, crying, punching the bag... But, these things can only provide a temporary relief. For a while we forget everything that bothers or haunts us but the source remains intact.

If we really want to do something and significantly change our lives, we need to reset and deprogram ourselves. The first task is to locate the real "culprit" and to set the wheels of learning in motion. Once we do that, it will be easy to understand that, on most occasions, emotions do not help living but hinder it: they produce a distorted or untrue picture of reality in our head which complicates relationships or even destroys them.

Remember this: " _When our attitude towards the world and ourselves changes, the state of our mind also changes; the very nature of our thoughts and emotions_."

The second task is to learn and practice, step by step, a wonderful lesson of a teacher called Anthony De Mello.

Step 1: _Become aware of your emotions_ , both positive and negative, through self-observation. At first, it is good to talk about them with somebody, you know, to break the ice, but that is only introduction to awareness. The rest of the work should be done on your own.

Self-observation does not imply self-absorption or obsession with your own life and problems, because this is exactly what many people already do and yet they do not see, hear, or know anything. It is necessary to do something completely different: to take a long look at your life and yourself from a safe distance as if it is somebody else whom you are not emotionally attached to. This will help you get the clear picture, without any stains and distortions. Of course, here the acquired knowledge of "what you are not" is of the utmost importance and assistance.

Here is an example of this exercise: a scientist observes the behavior of ants only to learn something about them. He does not interfere in their life, does not try to teach them anything or to change them. He does not judge. Eventually, he gets the objective information.

When we learn to see ourselves in that way, we start getting insights and the change begins, without any effort.

Step 2: _Realize that the cause of every emotion is inside you_ , and not around you, not in reality. If people knew that, they would not waste their time, energy, and health trying to change the world, their wives, bosses, friends, or enemies.

Take a look at this situation: Your car will not start and you are angry at it or worried about that. Please try to understand two things: something inside the car is to "blame" for the malfunction and something inside you is to blame for your emotional outburst – the car has nothing to do with it. It will not start and that is all, but the cause of your anger is most probably fear manifested in many forms and varieties. Perhaps you are afraid that you are going to be late for a date; worried that you will have to repair the car with the money intended for something else; or annoyed by the fact that all the women from your neighborhood are watching you go to work on foot...

When a ventilator on your computer "whistles" it means that something has gone loose, but if you are annoyed by the sound, should we shoot the computer to end your suffering, to get you rid of your negative emotion?! Do you know what that, actually, means? You have been concentrating on the whistling sound instead on the job you are supposed to be doing on the computer, nothing more, or less. And yes, somebody should definitely fix the ventilator on the computer, for its sake.

Or, situation number 3: Your wife's boss is "a bald screaming monster" and every now and then she cries because of him. She is so afraid of his shouting that she freezes every time he starts doing it. But, is the boss responsible for her fear? No, he is responsible only for his fear. He is even more terrified than your wife! If he wasn't afraid of something or somebody, he would not be screaming at her, and perhaps he wouldn't mind at all that she did not finish something on time.

Step 3: _Learn not to identify with emotions_. They have nothing in common with your _Self_. Do not forget, the _Self_ is never endangered. It is not: "I _am_ angry.", but: "I _feel_ anger." When we become aware that anger is inside us and that it is a result of something within us, every time it will manifest itself with less and less strength. This is the meaning of the phrase: "Walk with your demons.", and also of Jesus' words: "...if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two."

Rage will come and go, joy will come and go, and soon they may be replaced with something else, quite the opposite. If we long for delight and excitement, we should also prepare ourselves for depression or sadness. As long as we "are" emotions they are going to rule over us and our moods. Then we can only talk about control but in reality it is gone, we do not have it, and if it is not there, the composure is missing. When we are not composed we cannot adequately react to a certain situation. In order to take proper action, it is important to see things clearly, from a distance and without emotions.

Step 4: _Realize that when you change, everything else changes_. Once we change our way of thinking, the perception of ourselves changes and so does the world around us. Simple, isn't it? But, what is it that most people do? They blame somebody or something else for everything bad in their lives. They try to change the environment they live in, their friends, cousins, colleagues...

Now think about somebody you live or work with and you do not like that person, or even hate him/her. Try to see what is going on, visualize or observe. First, accept the fact that the negative feeling is inside you. You are responsible for it, not that person. You probably see something in the wrong way, do not see it at all, or do not understand it. Somebody else is perfectly relaxed and happy in the company of "your enemy". Then, notice this: you expect something from that person, perhaps to change his/her political views, behavior, opinion, hairstyle... In short, to fit the picture of that person you have painted in your mind. However, wouldn't it be better if you (or that woman who is frightened of her boss) told yourself: "He (the boss) is the way he is and maybe he has some problems of his own. It is good to know that, but I am the one who has to change, starting by doing my job right and on time. Then, I am going to erase 'his image' from my head and practice steps 1, 2 and 3. After that, he can do whatever he wants and whenever he wants for as long as he does not physically endanger me. And, if something like that happened, I would respond much better, because I would not be misled or obstructed by prejudices and emotions."

~

Happiness

Five or six years ago, I worked on a project with a group of government employees. After the work had been completed, they prepared a small feast. The atmosphere was relaxed and friendly, but somehow conversation drifted towards family problems. Namely, a divorced lady with two adult children (a "boy" and a "girl") complained that they lived their own lives and she felt neglected. She was deeply unhappy. An elderly gentleman immediately seized the opportunity and expressed dissatisfaction with his two troublesome sons and a (still unmarried) daughter. He was very unhappy about that. Soon, it turned out that the younger gentleman had three daughters, and the woman who was in charge of the project had no children at all even though she had been married for 9 years. Both of them were, naturally, unhappy for obvious reasons.

I did not say anything.

*

For thousands of years, intelligent people, mystics, and the enlightened ones from all civilizations and parts of the world have been speaking about happiness, wealth, life... in a more or less similar way. But, it seems that some parts of that story are not so simple and always applicable. As you know, a few of those people were of the material world, in a sense that they had families to support, bills to pay, and children to look after. And, for most of ordinary people dealing with these problems is a daily routine. Therefore, what is the purpose of quoting sentences like "Look at the birds in the sky: They do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns..." or "...Think about how flowers of the field grow; they do not work or spin." to people who do the honest work, sometimes barely make ends meet, and yet every day watch others live easy and abundant lives?!

Somebody walks into a store and buys whatever he pleases, and somebody else is "just looking", sad or maybe angry. One is driving the latest miracle of the car industry, and the other is trying to keep his twenty-year-old "pride of domestic production" in motion. An "honest man" cannot go to the seaside for five days, and a "thief" has a house there, "four minutes away from the sea".

Is the warning "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for rich person to enter into the kingdom of God." a comfort enough to a poor man? Can it be that something is missing there, that it is just a way of thinking which avoids responsibility or justifies someone's inadequacy, laziness, or lack of ambition?

On the one side there is a sentence: "Nobody will take either a rake or a pitchfork to his grave." And, on the other: "Don't spend your whole life looking at others fulfilling your dreams." How to be clever? Is being rich really that bad, or good? Or, being poor? What, in fact, is the problem?

Well, we all know what it is that any young man or woman wants in their life: happiness and success. In order to achieve these goals, some people work hard all their life; others look for short cuts; and the third often get lost on their way. They all struggle and do everything they can to satisfy the conditions for happiness forced on them while they were still kids. They try to realize their dreams until finally some of them get tired and give up. Once again, the winners have, and the losers do not. However, wherever you turn you see envious and jealous people; you hear people endlessly complaining of this and that..., and then it strikes you: well, these are both, winners and losers! People content with their lives are on the verge of extinction.

When someone says that they are striving to survive, most often they are not aware of how much they are lying to themselves and others. People generally fight for much more than that and you can see it everywhere around you. An average man has probably more than enough to survive but is not satisfied with that; he works and struggles to buy the objects of his desires which will make him happy. He wants to improve (or, perhaps there is a better word, to embellish) his life, and so he tries to change the environment and adjust it to himself and his dreams.

It sounds so familiar, doesn't it?

There are, indeed, machines and devices which make people's lives or working routine a lot easier, but we are not talking about these things. Here the focus of attention is on all those countless toys and gadgets without which everyday competition, self-assertion, and showing off are unthinkable. These luxurious items which are supposed to make us happy do the trick for a little while but, generally looking, they only complicate our life. Once people feel the urge to possess them they begin to work more (to earn the money) and to spend more. Shortage of time becomes chronic, the load gets heavier, worries multiply, more alarms are installed...

Nevertheless, I am not at all inclined to declare the so-called material wealth to be something bad, as it is often done in "spiritual" books. The problem is _not in wealth_ , but _in people_ , in their ignorance. And, this claim is easy to prove.

Let's have a look at the following example: In the sixties of the 20th century many poor men from India started buying transistor radios which were, at that time, still luxury items there. The reason: "Everyone has a radio but me, the wretch. I am so unhappy!" A man takes a carpet from his house, sells it, and buys a transistor radio – to be happy.

Until the first resident of that village bought a radio everyone had been perfectly happy without them, because they did not know that radios existed. Sometime later, somebody bought a record player, then a tape recorder, then a hi-fi stereo system...

So, we buy things or show off with our fortune because we want others to see how happy we are!? We will be happy only after we satisfy all our desires and fantasies!? Somebody should tell us that we completely missed the target. We live in a terrible delusion – "Mission impossible", real life version.

In order to live and be happy, clever people do not need all those expensive cars, huge TVs, mobile phones, clothes, bathroom equipment, things, things, things... Happy people are happy with children and without them, with their "loved ones" and without them...

The real issue is not whether we have or do not have something. The problem is, as always, in the way of thinking. Poor people are unhappy for the same reasons as rich people, and those who have children are unhappy for the same reasons as those who do not have children: _they direct all their energy and attention to something that they do not have or that is not the way they would like it to be_. They are convinced that they cannot be happy until the environment is adjusted to them, or until they buy, get, steal and show something.

The main reason why some people make theirs and the lives of other people miserable is the fact that _they tie themselves_ (what they think they are) and happiness _to the things they have or do not have_. They identify themselves with their wealth, poverty, or desires.

However, desires, the same as wealth, do not necessarily have to be a bad thing if we do not suppress them or let our happiness depend on their realization. Desires are energy and it can be directed and controlled. It is not good to willfully renounce the objects of our desires, for we remain attached to them and suffer because we do not have them. Instead, we should become fully aware of their real value, estimate if they are something that is called priority or something the purpose of which is only to satisfy our vanity, someone else's opinion, or an emotion which we confuse with happiness.

Happiness is _not (an) emotion_. Happiness is a _state of being_ , just as love is.9

Poor people usually become unhappy and remain poor because they agree to the rules of the game and accept the foolish way of thinking which is perfidiously imposed on them as normal and obligatory. Instead of reasonably considering their options and abilities, and making the best of what they have, they agree to competition and, unless some miracle happens, lose. In most cases the head of the family starts drinking, everyone in the house smokes, buys lottery tickets or bets, and unnecessary things are bought so that others can see that they are not complete losers.

The easiest thing to do is to lament or complain that you "cannot go to the seaside for five days". It is somehow more difficult to even think that it might be better to spend thirty days at the nearby lake and do exactly the same you would do at the seashore.

~

Success

According to this world's criteria, a successful man is popular, famous, president of something, director... "Successful" people are usually rich and "happy". Or, at least, all unhappy and unsuccessful people who would like to be in their place think so. Yes, all unhappy people who _direct all their energy and attention to something they are not_ , and who would like their petty, boring lives to be "spiced up" with glamour, fans, journalists, beautiful people, sex...

"Successful" people, as well as those who want to become ones, have many ordinary daily duties and worries, and in that respect they are very much like anyone else. But, there is something that makes them different. Their life is completely subordinated to one additional, all-pervading concern: 'What do people think about me and my work?' In order to be/stay "successful" people have to prove their qualities to everybody and on every occasion; do everything they can to beat the competition; keep on finding ways to be in the media...

Now what exactly is this success based on?

On _someone else's opinion_. Think about this: Madonna's success depends on your, my, their opinion of her! Some "successful" party official or an actor have tied their lives and careers to the opinions and moods of any Tom, Dick and Harry anywhere in the world and, therefore, are constantly worried about image, rating, news reports... They have been convinced that without general approval, without being recognized as king/queen by as many people as possible, there is no success! Allegedly, everything is about control, or being in control, but, in fact, it has been placed into the hands of those who are not aware that they have it.

And, this is not all. Yet another thing is related to almost every "successful" person you know of. How many times have you heard them say that they had to sacrifice something, or everything, to get where they were, or to have what they had? What is it that they sacrificed?

I think you cannot even imagine. These are some or all of the things they had hoped to get or buy by fame and fortune! Love, family, friendship, freedom, happiness... All these "things" had already been in or around them but were not recognized. They thought: "No, this is not it. This is not what people, magazines, and television are talking about. Something has to be added..."

And what happened? Everything they had sacrificed began to haunt them or even became its own opposition. Finally, on their shoulders they loaded something they could not control: tastes and criteria of those who their success and wealth depend on. Life has become a never-ending battle which cannot be won.

Who is really successful?

It is a man/woman who knows who or what he/she is not. These people think, work, and live in a way which enables them to depend on other people as less as possible. They know their ultimate aim.

Real success does not require anybody's approval or recognition. This is something any good craftsman or farmer knows. A wise man does not appreciate being honored, and it is not because he thinks he is unworthy but because he knows that the thing he has made or created is good, serves its purpose, and for him that is enough. When his work is completed, he does not get too attached. He knows perfectly well that there will always be people who like or dislike the product. In the meantime, he enjoyed working and enjoys the results of his work.

A successful man is not inconsiderate or arrogant, and yet he does not demand anyone's apology, has nothing to explain to anybody, and does not care what other people think or say about him. He has not identified himself with his work, wealth, audience... He knows that all that has nothing to do with his _Self_.

Such a man overcomes first of all himself, his own weaknesses and fears. Thus he gains self-confidence which does not diminish or disappear when his ambition, position, money, beauty, popularity... are gone. He has rejected vanity, ignorance, and everything else that used to make him vulnerable, and so he: "... _needs not fear tigers and rhinos in the wilds, not wear armor and shields in battle. The rhinoceros finds no place in him for its horn, the tiger no place for its claw, the soldier no place for a weapon, for death finds no place in him_." (Tao Te Ching, 50)

That is where the real power comes from.

As a little while ago, when we talked about wealth and poverty, the actual issue here is not whether someone is popular/famous or not, but the fact that they have lost contact with their _Self_. They became their success, or failure. A "successful" man dances to somebody else's tune, even though he is completely convinced that he is the king everyone bows to.

## Instead of a Conclusion

In the beginning of our life reality is a whole. Words do not exist.

The world is reflected in the eyes of a new born human being. Reality lives in that initial, natural state of a new man/woman but, unfortunately, not for long. Once self-consciousness becomes noticeable, when the first word is uttered, and concepts, things, ideas, wishes... start living in their brain, little people slowly leave their natural state of being and reality starts to break.

Nevertheless, it is an unavoidable and, in our case, necessary stage of life which enables us to join the rest of the human population and become like everybody else: _normal_. The original state of silent wonder, curiosity, innocence, and freshness of a child slowly fade away until they are almost entirely replaced with "knowledge", names, identity, beliefs, convictions – words behind which emptiness, boredom, and ignorance are hiding.

Faith, love, freedom, happiness, consciousness... become the separate pieces of broken reality and inevitably turn into dogma, fear, addiction, suffering, unconsciousness, blindness, and stupidity.

And this has been going on for thousands of years!

During all that time some people have been trying to do something to change the reality around them and to make it somewhat prettier or, at least, more bearable. So, they invented art, philosophy, religion... These things were, and still are also the ways to get the answers or find the truth and the meaning of life. However, somehow we fail to see that we are not getting any closer to these things but rather moving further away from them, because right from the start we have been riding on the spiral of ignorance and illusion.

Therefore, it is understandable why most people never come out of the _normal_ stage. They live their whole life without becoming aware of their genuine nature and never again get to see the world around them with the eyes of a child: without distortions, prejudices, and judgments. People spend their old age lost in illusions and obstructed by fear, living in a cage they have made themselves and are unable to get out, because they have thrown the key away! They just do not get that death itself is not the cause of the fear of death. It is actually as follows: _life based on illusions makes people fear death_.

Anyone who wants to eliminate this fear has to leave the _normal_ and enter the third, _clear mind_ stage. In it we transcend our "Self" (everything it encompasses), accept it as a necessary evil, gain the insight, and start putting the broken pieces of reality back together.

To tell the truth, it is not something that can be easily done, because it is never easy to break any habit; and the life we are living is just that – one bad habit. But, on the other hand, it is not too difficult either, especially if the decision is made and the right buttons are pressed.

*

Picture yourself in the grave. You are dressed in your best clothes, and on your feet you are wearing a pair of new shiny shoes. You are lying in the most expensive coffin and you are dead!

Now look at your life, your problems, suit, shoes, the coffin... from that perspective. Think about your family, friends, enemies, convictions... The more realistic the picture, the better it will be for you. Do not be scared of decomposition, bones, and dust. You are not your body. It is not disgusting. It is simply the way it is! Think about these things as often as you can, even when everything is beautiful. No, you will not be depressed or sad because of all that, just as you were not (although you thought you would be) devastated when you found out that god or your _Self_ were not the way you imagined them to be.

On the contrary, everything changes and becomes clearer. This exercise, which is slightly adapted in respect to its original, De Mello's version, is the best "mistake detector" there is and it is also the ideal way to understand impermanence, death, and life. There are no words, teachings, or theories which could open our eyes more quickly and make us realize that we destroy our life by:

\- Paying attention to things and problems which are not important (or which simply do not exist);

\- Wasting our energy in vain trying to change everything and everyone around us;

\- Living in ignorance which drives us away from ourselves and our ultimate aim or interest.

"Lying in the grave" can help us see the ways of our own mind – how it actually works. It does not take so much wisdom to find out that we are everywhere, dispersed in all directions, and there is nobody home. If we wish to find our way home or at least know our whereabouts, we should use the time we still have to put the theory into practice. Thus we will become aware of our delusion and accept the inevitable. Thus the candle will remain lit. There is nothing more important than that because:

(Your) Life and death are in (your) mind and nowhere else.

The human mind reveals itself as the source of all knowledge and ignorance, suffering and happiness, wisdom and stupidity. Unfortunately, most of the time we use it as a factory of illusions unaware that _the state of our mind is the only "thing" we really have at the moments which precede death_! The only "thing" we could rely on. That is why we have to know, discipline, and cleanse it.

This process has already been started. I mean, if you are still reading this book. At this moment you are changing the way of thinking, rejecting illusions and false knowledge, practicing self-observation and control of emotions... Some people supplement this with physical training and something that is usually called meditation.

I also find physical exercise indispensable, regardless of the type. Try whatever makes you feel better: Yoga, cycling, swimming, mountaineering... Each of these activities teaches us to breathe and concentrate. Exercise of the body is also exercise of the mind.

But, what is meditation? How does one meditate?

There was once an old lady who, after she had heard that some people "did meditation", came to see Buddha and asked him if she could meditate too, and how she could do that. He told her to carefully follow every move her hands made while she was getting water from the well, knowing that if she did it a few times, she would find herself in a state of wakefulness and attention which could be applied to other actions and situations as well.

You may notice that he talked about self-observation, discipline, and awareness....About _practice_. While you are sitting, walking, washing your car..., and observing yourself, your thoughts (all those dispersed pieces of mind which usually fight each other) and movements become calm, settled, and united. At moments like these you begin to understand yourself and everything around you better, and sometimes even get to meet your true _Self_.

Therefore, the objectives of meditation, or practice, are a higher level of consciousness and the clear mind. To get there, there is only one real rule to follow: _never do two (or more) things at the same time_.

If you are eating, just do that: eat, chew the food and feel its taste in your mouth and do not think of the things you are going to throw at your husband when he comes back drunk from the pub.

If you are watching a good film, watch it and see everything: the quality of the scenario, acting, the way it is made, reality of effects... but do not try to remember if you locked the car. Press "pause", go and check the doors, return and enjoy yourself.

You are here, at this moment, and your mind should be here, at this moment. If it tries (and seemingly manages) to be somewhere else, at some other time, the result is that you are _neither here nor there_ , and, on top of everything, you are always invaded by some indefinite, anxious feeling which causes tension. The " _now_ " is passing, but you are not aware of it and eventually you have missed it: the lunch and the film have ended, and _you have not been there_.

Instead of grabbing to which we are addicted, it is necessary to do exactly the opposite: to loosen the grip, let go, and not try so hard. This is why practice starts with self-observation – in the coffin.

We step out of the crowd, get rid of the imposed conditions, prejudices..., and start living. Lots of people think that we are crazy, but now we do not care, because we know or are aware that we are not mistaken. Finally: _Words and emotions do not bend and break reality, boredom disappears, solitude becomes the favorite state of being, and fear turns into curiosity. Emptiness reveals its purpose_.

People who _live this life_ do not seek or need another chance in another existence. Their final aim is to use their present existence in the best possible way: to tie the loose ends and _to leave everything behind_. There where they are going any kind of luggage is obsolete.

And, I have almost forgotten: " _The meaning_ _(of life)_ _is to live in clarity._ "

##

A "Piece" of Mind

April 20th, 2003.

Mt Borovnik (Montenegro), 1935 meters above sea level.

...Alone. There is no other human being for at least five kilometers around. The snow under your feet is hard and dry. A spring breeze, not so cold... The air is crisp and clean. A bird, or two (!?)...up, down, on the left, right... everywhere. White clouds in the sky.

Mountains wherever you turn: some with clear edges, glistening in the sun, and others almost hidden in the haze. Your eyes are searching and absorbing...

_Close them_. Let the sun touch your face. You do not feel tired. Fatigue always disappears when you reach the summit.

Suddenly and inexplicably – complete silence. You become aware of it just like that: suddenly and inexplicably! You hear silence.

The Emptiness...

_Open your eyes, slowly_. Everything is perfectly still. The mountains are still there, but they are not as important as they were five minutes ago. They are simply there, and that's it. You can hear the birds again... feel the wind, sun, smell, freshness... A clear, intensive sensation, but somehow you don't stick to it... No thoughts...

Exactly, no thoughts!

An extended moment... There are no troubles, desires... Even your own wife and children are no longer yours. You have nothing, need nothing, and you do not want anything.

There is no past: can't remember anything, good or bad.

Now some thoughts are coming back, but they fade away in a second, become completely insignificant. You don't push them away – they fade away by themselves!

There is no future.

...The ideal time to die, with no fear and regrets at all, because you have just lived.

###

About the Author

Zeljko Mussovich was born in 1965 in Niksic, Montenegro. Works as a teacher of English in secondary school, but his interests largely exceed the limits of his profession. In the last twenty years he has studied history, science, religion, psychology... _The Sound of a Hand_ is his fifth book, but it is the first one in English. He has also published:

\- _A Contribution to the Study of Montenegrin History_ (BG, Matica Crnogorska, 1996.)

\- _A Degree of Essence_ (collection of essays) (Podgorica, ANIZ, 1997.)

\- _The Origins of Montenegrins_ (Niksic, ANIZ, 2000. Niksic, Cultural center, 2006.)

\- _The Mountains of Central Montenegro_ (A Guide-book for Mountaineers) (Podgorica, 2012)

He lives in Niksic, with his wife and two children. mailto:zeljko.mussovich@gmail.com

## Bibliography

Bhagavad-Gita. <http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html>

Bible. <http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm>

Crick, Francis and Koch, Christof. A framework for consciousness. Nature Neuroscience, volume 6 no 2, February 2003.

Dhammapada Sutta. http://www.egreenway.com/meditation/dharmapada1.htm

De Mello, A. Awakening. Beograd: Lom, 1996.

Dennett, Daniel. The Magic of Consciousness. Video.

Eric, Ljubomir. Strah od smrti. Niš: Prosveta, 2004.

Evolution and Genetics. Britannica Illustrated Science Library. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 2008.

Freud, Sigmund. Id, Psychology of Self. Beograd: Nolit, 1987.

From, Erich. Psychoanalysis and Religion. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1950.

Gawain, Shakti. Creative Visualization. Beograd: Mono – Manana Press & Tomić Book, 2000.

Gross, Richard. Psychology (The Science of Mind and Behaviour). London: Hadder Arnold, 2005.

Hawking, Steven. On the Shoulders of Giants. Beograd: Alnari, 2006.

Human Body I & II. Britannica Illustrated Science Library. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 2008.

Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1998.

Jahi, Harun. Wanders of Creation. Beograd: Centar za prirodnjačke studije, 2003.

Jansen, Karl. The Ketamine Model of the Near Death Experience: A Central Role for the NMDA Receptor. <http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/jansen1.html>

Jansen, K.L.R. (1999) Ketamine (K) and Quantum Psychiatry. Asylum 11 (3) 19-21.

Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth. On Death and Dying. New York: Collier, 1970.

Life – How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1977.

Livergood, Norman D. Brain, Mind, and Altered States of Consciousness. <http://www.hermes-press.com/altstates.htm>

Liu, Da. Tai Chi Chuan and Meditation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1987.

Mai, Larry L., Marcus Young Owl, and M. Patricia Kersting. The Cambridge Dictionary of Human biology and Evolution. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.

Mankind's Search for God. International Bible Students Association, 1999.

Milinkovic, Aleksandar. Tesla – dosije FBI. Beograd: Beoknjiga, 2004.

Medina, Fillipo. Dizionario Medico per la Famiglia (Serbian edition). Milano: R.C.S Libri S.p.A., 1997.

Moody, Raymond JR. M.D. Life after Life. New York: Bantam, 1985.

Morse, Melvin M.D. The Right Temporal Lobe and Associated Limbic Lobe Structures as the Biological Interface with an Interconnected Universe. (1999)

Narby, Jeremy. The Cosmic Serpent – DNA and the Origins of Knowledge. Copyright © Jeremy Narby, 1995.

Near-death Experiences & the Afterlife. <http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts01.html>

Ouspensky, P.D. Tertium Organum. San Diego: The Book Tree, 2004.

Lommel, van Pim. About the Continuity of Our Consciousness. http://www.consciousnessbeyondlife.com

Russell, Peter. What is Consciousness; The Primacy of consciousness. Videos.

Reincarnation in Hinduism. http://www.spiritual-wholeness.org/faqs/reincgen/hindrein.htm

Reps, Paul. Zen Flesh, Zen Bones. Beograd: Babun, 2001.

Rinpoche, Sogyal. The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. San Francisco: Harper, 1993.

Rouz Serafim, K. Ikskul, and Fotije Kondoglu. Posmrtna iskustva u svjetlosti pravoslavlja. Podgorica: Perun & Unireks, 1994.

Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: The Random House Publishing Group, 1996.

Science of Self-realization. The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1977.

Stein, Murray. Jung's Map of the Soul: An introduction. Carus Publishing Company, 1998.

Stenger, Victor J. The Myth of Quantum Consciousness. The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, number 3, pp. 13-15.

Stevenson, Ian. Children Who remember Previous Lives. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1987.

Talbot, Michael. The Holographic Universe. NY: Harper Collins, 1992.

Tao Te Ching – The Book of Meaning and Life by Lao Tzu (Translated into English by H. G. Ostwald). Beograd: Babun, 1997.

Taylor, Gordon R. The great Evolution Mystery. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.

Todorovic, Momcilo. Hipnoza za svakoga. Beograd: IP Babun, 2001.

Tomovic, Slobodan. Bog je stvorio zivot. Podgorica: CID, 2001.

Universe. Britannica Illustrated Science Library. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 2008.

Veljacic, Cedomil. Budizam. Beograd: Opus, 1990.

Vivekananda, Swami. Raya Yoga.  http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_1/vol_1_frame.htm

Weiss, Brian L. M.D. Many Lives, Many Masters. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1988.

Woerlee, G.M. The Unholy Legacy of Abraham. <http://www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/>

Wolf, Fred Alan. The Soul and Quantum Physics, an interview with Dr F.A. Wolf. http://www.fredalanwolf.com

**Endnotes**

The date and time of birth which are used as a starting point for creating a horoscope do not represent the exact moment of the beginning of our life. It is only the time when we replaced one environment with another. This also means that every horoscope is wrong from the start.

 Somehow Christians have always surpassed others in these activities. One of the first cases of annihilation of scientific or different thought took place in the year 415. One day a fanatical mob of believers led by the patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, intercepted Hypatia, a woman scientist on her way to the famous Alexandrian library. They pulled her away from the carriage, ripped her clothes and murdered her in the most horrible manner: they used shells and tore her skin off. The remains of her body were burned. The library was destroyed. Cyril became a saint...

 Of course, it is true, the Earth really looks beautiful when watched from space shuttles, and there are indeed some wonderful places on it, but when you come closer you begin to see that things are not as great as they seem to be. Have you ever read or heard anything about how many species have become extinct on this planet so far? How many of today's inhabitants of Earth live in deserts, semi-deserts, mountainous areas, on infertile or semi-fertile ground, without enough food or drinking water?

There is a huge difference between spending a few beautiful days in the mountains of Montenegro in the summer, and actually living in them all year round.

 In order to get an idea of immateriality (what something immaterial might "look" like) let's remind ourselves of some elementary facts. All kinds of energy have material characteristics: energy is measurable, can be used, felt...; magnetic field is invisible but is of a material origin, and can also be detected and measured; X-rays, which are used in medicine, cannot be seen or heard but are, nevertheless, of material nature. They "get in touch" with our body and can be detected with electromagnetic radiation detectors. Unlike them, the soul cannot be detected with anything.

 The belief in life after death has survived through centuries for many reasons, but the "higher causes" have always been of crucial importance. For example, the already cited description of the soul from Bhagavad-Gita has yet another part which is usually left unquoted. Namely, the description gets its full meaning only after you read the verses that precede it: "The embodied soul is eternal in existence, indestructible and infinite, only the material body is factually perishable; therefore fight O Arjuna. Anyone who thinks the soul is the slayer and anyone who thinks the soul is slain both of them are in ignorance; the soul never slays nor is slain." (II: 18,19)

Then follows the definition: "The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created. The soul is birth-less, eternal... and is never destroyed when the body is destroyed." (20)

After that Krishna encourages Arjuna: "...there does not exist a more appropriate endeavor than a battle for righteousness." (31), and finally warns him: "...if you do not engage in this war of righteousness... you will incur sinful reaction." (33) "...all people will speak of your infamy and infamy is worse than death..." (34)!?

So, the message is clear: one can kill in war, because the soul cannot be killed. Besides, those who get killed fighting in a war have privileges in the "other" world. For centuries, the same message (in various forms) has been repeated in many Christian churches. The one that follows was sent to American soldiers in 1950: "Death in the battle field is part of God's plan to settle the heavenly kingdom." (Cathedral of St. Patrick, New York, September 11th, 1950)

6 The teachings were adapted or even put aside (which is particularly noticeable in the Christian religion), filled with mysticism, and connected to the already existing traditions and rituals. Otherwise, they would not have been so accepted! It is very likely that even most of Jesus' or Buddha's disciples were sometimes clueless of what their teachers had been talking about!

7 The sacrifice itself or a habitual restraint of any kind in our everyday lives cannot lead to a visible change or liberation from anything. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite: you only tie yourself closer to the thing/habit you want to break up with, or replace one addiction/need with another. Sacrifice and restraint usually lead to deception, delusion. But, when you realize why you do (or want to do) something, and became aware of its real value (for example, when a man tries to starve himself to near death in order to beat cancer or some other serious disease), then you stop having problems with temptations; you liberate yourself and sacrifice ceases to be sacrifice. However, this only goes for those who understood and did what had to be done. Yes, knowledge can be given in the form of information or a theory but not lived without practice and awareness.

Now, to claim that Jesus consciously sacrificed himself to redeem people/the world from sin(s) means to consider him as an extraordinary stupid man who actually believed that all the humanity (individually or as a whole, immediately or in the long run) would convert into good-natured people or saints only thanks to his sacrifice and without any single effort of their own!? An apology is the least his "followers" owe to him.

8 If, for instance, you are reading the speeches of Buddha, and neglect everything else but the line: "I have passed in ignorance through the cycle of many rebirths..." you are missing the core of his teaching and become an ordinary follower of the religion which glorifies the (older) idea of reincarnation.

The same thing happens when you read the Gospel and find out that: "...the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."; "For this is my blood, the blood of covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." and "naturally", think that it has to be the aim of his mission – he came to sacrifice himself in order to redeem you from your sins!

9 When you buy a new fur coat which has been the object of your desire for a long time, you are thrilled, delighted... You wear it all the time. After a while you become indifferent – the interest (emotion) is gone. And then, one day you see a beautiful necklace. You want it so much that you become restless, even nervous... When you buy it, thrill and delight are back again. Emotions are really there but not happiness.
