On the Nature of Reality and Truth

Just too simple and ordinary to be true!

It's really so incredibly simple! My mouth drops open in amazement as I hear yet another supposedly learned scientist or medic speak of what we call the physical universe as being 'reality', as opposed to what is going on in our consciousness, and dismissing healers and anyone with broader outlooks, such as myself, as nutters, cranks, 'schizotypals', or at least fundamentally mistaken or misguided. They speak with such conviction, and yet they have missed something amazingly simple and fundamental that is staring them right in the face - the nature of consciousness itself (including their very own consciousness)!

What I find easiest to describe as the materialist-reductionist belief system (also known as materialistic reductionism and reductionistic materialism) is the basic belief system espoused by Western cultures and to a fair extent other modern cultures too. It is rampant in Western science and medicine, including most disciplines of psychology. Variants of it are taught too by most of the organized religions, which have produced a particularly materialistic version of "spirituality", which latter, however, as I make clear in Exit 'Spirituality' - Enter Clear-Mindedness, is in itself intrinsically problematical for us in diverting us from the grounded and aware clear-mindedness that is the true natural state to which we need to be pointed.

Materialistic reductionism teaches us that there is an enduring 'physical' or 'concrete' reality that is outside ourselves. Each of us is thus a transient bit of that physical reality, endowed with a mind or / and 'soul', and so, what we experience in our lives is simply the processes of the physical reality, which are based on what are quaintly called physical laws. Mind is, according to many, just a manifestation of particular very complex biochemical reactions and consequent electrical currents in particular physical matter (i.e. what we call the brain). If you experience things that aren't in the physical 'reality', they are discounted as imagination, dreams and so forth and assumed to be something other than reality. If there is a 'higher' reality (as taught in the religions), it is something outside both ourselves and the physical reality, and is something towards which we're supposed to strive. The highest or ultimate reality in that type of scenario is a being, called God or an equivalent name, who is like a glorified, omnipotent human being and in one way or another has created the physical reality, including ourselves.

Now let's see what's wrong about all that...

I remember a revealing article in the New Scientist magazine quite a few years ago now, by a certain Susan Blackmore, a psychologist and science writer who, in her various writings over the years, had gained a certain reputation for posturing as very broad-minded while actually never managing to let go of the materialist-reductionist belief system completely. In particular, she gained herself quite a track record as a writer about near-death experiences and how they could allegedly be explained by certain processes in the brain as it becomes starved of oxygen and no doubt various toxins build up there, so that the experience was supposedly nothing but an illusion caused by biochemical processes in the physical 'reality'. This was particularly nonsensical in the face of accounts like this one of an actual death-and-reincarnation-in-same-body experience.*

* I must give a very big caution, however, about that particular case. I'm pretty clear from my own understandings derived from masses of tough personal experience, that what the person experienced was NOT wholesome at all, even though he believed it to be tremendously so, and actually that event represents something pretty sinister and indeed disastrous that happened to him. If my understanding is correct on this, the dark force managed to ensnare him by exploiting his going out-of-body, and landed him with a partial walk-in, which accounts for his changed behaviour and outlook upon his 'return'. The supposed higher reality that he experienced while out of body would have been NOT a genuine 'higher reality' at all, but an astral realm (a type of illusory reality) presented to him by the dark force in order to instil into him a belief in a supposed higher, 'Divine' reality, which would be a further snare for him when he reached the end of his full life. His experience of an apparently supreme 'God' would have been an early stage in his being progressively (over successive soul reincarnations) programmed to accept power hierarchies and control agendas and to increasingly incorporate personal control agendas into his life experience.

Now, in no way do I intend here to discredit Susan Blackmore for her errors; we all make errors, and errors are an essential part of learning - and I've certainly made my own share! But that is the point - we must learn and move on and not be stuck in a belief, consistently repeating our errors because we dare not let our minds really open and perceive directly the true nature of what we experience. So far Blackmore has not moved on from her quite negative and restricted view. I heard her on a BBC radio programme some years ago, and to me she gave off the 'vibes' of a religious evangelist, full of a belief system that she sought to spread to others. She was 'right', in that there was no reality beyond the physical, and any other view was 'mistaken'.

Actually I have come to have reason to think that Blackmore may have a more open mind in private than she has been revealing in public. The signs to me are that she is, like many people, in considerable and uncomfortable conflict between, on the one hand, a real and sincere desire to be open to deep inner awareness / knowledge, and indeed to become enlightened, and on the other hand, her already established professional status, which has been gained publicly by her psychology writings that have sought to examine broader understandings of the life experience within a materialist-reductionist framework - something that just produces confused writings that please the materialist-reductionists and so gain her professional and personal status.

To start declaring publicly that one's long sequence of publications, upon which much of one's high-profile professional and public status has been built, is seriously flawed, and to declare that the broader, truly clear-minded view (which actually embraces rather than excludes science) is the fundamentally correct one, would be an extremely bold step for people like her to take - every bit as intimidating for them as it is necessary!

Blackmore said some very interesting things in that New Scientist article that I read. She had been into some sort of Buddhism and expressed some of its teachings about the nature of reality. In particular she pointed out that everything we experience of the physical reality comes to us through signals to the brain, sent from our sense organs. The brain then interprets all this data and produces the experiences that we have....

Okay, pause here a moment and think about the implications of that. Is it true? Is there any way a physical being could know about his / her physical surroundings except through the sense organs? ...For myself I certainly didn't and don't know of any other way. Neither did Blackmore.

She did pretty well, actually, for she then stated the inevitable and challenging conclusion - that everything that we experience, including everything about the external, physical reality, is a construct of the mind, built up from all those incoming sensory signals.

But that's where she baulked at taking the next step. She went on to say that for years she'd been studying or following various spiritual disciplines and (if I remember correctly) examining alternative therapies, looking for verification of some higher reality to explain and make sense of our experiences, and at that point she had finally given up and was declaring that her having drawn various blanks proved to her that there was no higher reality than the physical, and that we were no more than bundles of physical processes.

She then saw the Buddhist view that the life experience is illusory as being true in the most negative way - that there was only the physical reality. According to her we needed to live 'in the present' (so far, so good - an enlightened person would be doing that), because there was no other 'dimension' to 'reality' (which is not a claim that would be made by an enlightened person, unless that person had particular interference from the dark force). She also expounded yet again on how all the main elements of near-death experiences could be explained as hallucinations caused by sensory deprivation and an oxygen-starved brain, the rest simply being auto-suggestion*, and there was no external reality apart from the physical one. In fact she could explain everything about the near-death experience except the experience itself - and more to the point, consciousness itself!

What was completely wrong about her outlook on this, regardless of the specifics of any details, was that she was effectively declaring a negative hypothesis as categorical fact. That is just belief, and ALWAYS, belief represents non-intelligence - an element of complete stupidity within all areas of life experience that are affected by that belief. She herself hadn't found any evidence that at least she could accept, within a very limited time-scale, and therefore, according to her, there was no such evidence. That is the complete antithesis of proper scientific method, and downright stupid - especially from such a supposedly educated person.

Surely she must know at some level that a negative hypothesis intrinsically cannot be proved as categorical fact. All one could ever 'prove' is that one has so far not found evidence that one recognises as supporting the positive hypothesis - but that doesn't actually prove that the positive hypothesis is untrue, nor that there is no evidence (indeed even overwhelming evidence!) to support that hypothesis, even though failure to find that evidence may make the positive hypothesis appear to be less likely to be true.

* That, too, is nonsensical - again a pronouncement of a belief that is not supported by any truly aware and clear minded examination of what those 'hallucinations' actually consist of. Any fool of a Joe Bloggs or Sue Blackmore can come along and pronounce that near death experiences are 'just hallucinations and auto-suggestion', clearly because they do not want to countenance what really lies behind them. Indeed I myself could easily do so - but the difference is that I have done my homework and I have a very good idea as to what near death experiences really are, and indeed it's something seriously problematical, involving a non-physical aspect of reality.

For more about what near death experiences appear really to be, please see The True Nature of 'The Dark Force' and its Interference and Attacks. The same considerations also apply to the issue of night hells (aka night terrors) and the whole phenomenon of 'hearing voices'. The latter phenomena, when properly and awarely investigated, show masses of evidence of a non-physical aspect of reality, and, specifically, the operations of the extremely troublesome influence that I call the dark force. However, I would go along with Blackmore on what people generally think of as 'higher realities' as being illusory and not 'real', because, so it appears, they are all illusions created in people's minds by the dark force.

The night hells page linked to above is prefaced by a section that I have written specifically for intransigently ignorant people like Susan Blackmore and all the other psychologists and psychiatrists who seek to explain human experience in terms of brain chemistry and 'the medical model', and who proclaim themselves as experts on the human 'mind' while refusing to do even the most basic things that would really gain them some understanding of 'mind'. With regard to the true nature of 'mind' and human experience, psychologists and psychiatrists are among our most ignorant people, and the world would be a better place if those people were relieved of their current 'professions' and retrained to do something actually useful.

I really found Blackmore's article not only saddening but also very funny and breathtakingly bizarre, because she had come within a gnat's whisker of exposing the most fundamental error in the whole of the materialist-reductionist belief system, and yet had failed to take the next and crucial step in her correct reasoning, and had consequently fallen into hopelessly confused and inaccurate conclusions.

So, what had Blackmore missed - a simple and obvious point that was staring her in the face?

STOP! Don't read further yet!

If you don't already know what I'm about to say, enjoy taking a moment to think about what she'd missed and see if you can 'get' it yourself first.

The key that most 'intellectuals' miss...

What dear Susan and countless others in the supposedly learned scientific and medical fraternities - no matter what their title or number of letters after their names - have failed to notice is the following simple point: If the whole of our experience of 'reality' is a construct of mind gained through the sense organs and put together and interpreted in the brain, then, dear friends, the very notion of sense organs and the brain and indeed 'mind' is itself a construct of mind, or rather, of consciousness.

Stop and think about that and its implications for a moment before continuing...

So, no matter whether you are a professor or a street sweeper or a gay three-legged salamander, or are addressed as Sir, Madam, Your Royal Highness or Your Holiness, there is available to you a mind-bogglingly simple key to your beginning to grasp the true nature of reality, and in a stroke this simple key demolishes the basis of the materialist-reductionist belief system that is so arrogantly proclaimed to be 'scientific', 'objective' and 'rational' as distinct from the supposedly irrational and unscientific viewpoints that do not see the physical 'reality' as the only or at least the primary reality.

If you think I'm talking twaddle, just stop and do a quick re-run. Ask yourself:

1. How does your mind know about and experience physical reality?

2. Are there any means to do so other than from input to the brain from the sense organs?

3. If you can't accept that the brain and sense organs are themselves constructs of mind and you believe that they really do belong to an enduring 'external' reality, then how might you demonstrate that that is the case?

4. If everything that you experience really is just a construct of mind, is there any means at all by which you could ever know of an enduring reality 'out there', outside yourself?

Well, I'm not personally aware of any means by which anyone could establish the existence or non-existence of some external reality. But before we all throw up our hands in horror at such a seemingly claustrophobic and nihilistic scenario, let's look at the great liberation that this simple realization brings us.

The Great Liberation

Why so many of us get so confused and misled about the nature of reality is that we have been taught to look for it in the wrong direction. Materialistic reductionism and most of the organized religions have taught us that there is 'reality' outside ourselves. From that viewpoint we are small and imperfect beings in a larger reality, and the usual religious claim is that any perfection is outside ourselves and has to be striven towards. The concept of karma is dismissed because events and situations are not seen to all have intrinsic causal relationships with each other; if you have a happy upbringing and apparently happy and successful life overall, that has simply 'just happened' that way as a result of an array of chance processes. If you'd been tortured to death by Saddam Hussein's crew, your being in the right time and place for that merry fate to happen to you 'just happened' or was 'bad luck' through a particular configuration of chance circumstances. Scientists and mathematicians talk of 'chance' and 'randomness', with no real understanding of what these mean except in terms of statistical analysis.

Now that we see that there is an intrinsic reason why we can never know of any reality outside our own consciousness, we need to look in the other direction - that is, inwards, into consciousness itself, for that is the only reality that we can ever know. It therefore becomes nonsensical to try and discriminate between real and non-real in the way that we've been doing.

Once we are thus looking inwards we can get a whole new perspective on the meaning of 'reality' and existence. Instead of deciding whether or not a person or object exists or is real in any absolute sense, for example, we need instead to see in what aspect of consciousness he / she / it apparently exists or doesn't exist. I can perceive that there are many aspects of my consciousness, even though as yet I can't 'see' anything within most of those.

One thing that becomes naturally evident when you become enlightened is that the mind itself is a greatly unhelpful illusion, and actually there appears to be NO SUCH THING as a 'mind'. You don't have a mind, but you are consciousness / awareness. I thus write of 'the mind' only as a convenient shorthand that enables me to communicate with people who otherwise wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about. What there is, is simply consciousness or awareness, which is like a sort of metaspace within which all experiences and phenomena (including the whole Universe) arise. Consciousness cannot be described as a 'thing' at all, and actually nobody in all of 'Existence' could ever understand what it is, because in order to do so you'd have to view it from a higher order of existence - but if you did that you would at once have simply begged the same question for that higher order of existence, and so actually nothing would have been understood nor explained about it...

Physalia Gorgon does exist!

If the above all sounds very confusing, no cause for alarm. Let's take a simple case. Some good while ago now, I wrote some stories and novels. Let's take one of my characters, supposedly a 'monster' but actually one of the most endearing and 'human' beings in a particular satirical novel (The Awful Destiny of Physalia Gorgon), with the unedifying name of - surprise, surprise! - Physalia Gorgon. Now, according to the materialist-reductionist belief system Physalia Gorgon doesn't exist. You can carry out any amount of scientific research and study, and almost certainly you will find no evidence of such a character in what you are calling the 'real' world. Therefore on that basis you would say that Physalia Gorgon doesn't exist and is just an imaginary character who a certain Philip Goddard, an author of dubious sanity, has written into a novel.

But we have already seen that we have been making a fundamental error in regarding the physical 'reality' as an external and more enduring reality than our consciousness; the physical 'reality' is actually nothing other than a particular level of experience within a vastly multi-aspect manifestation of experiences that manifests as what we minght identify as 'mind'. So, if we now look at experience in this way we discover something really quite wonderful about our friend Physalia Gorgon - he does exist!!! He really, truly does exist! Not in what we're calling the physical 'reality' of course, but in a certain aspect of consciousness. And because at certain deeper and more subtle levels of consciousness we are not separate beings as we are in the physical 'reality', Physalia Gorgon and all that he represents in my novel is in human consciousness and could theoretically be accessed by anyone whose awareness could open in the appropriate way.

By the same token, when I compose a new work of music I get the powerful impression that I have not created it at all but have merely uncovered something that was already composed and had existed over the aeons. Many artists report a similar experience, and this points to our task as artists to manifest in the physical 'reality' certain areas of experience that already exist in deep layers of the consciousness where we are not separate beings, and to which most people are as yet more or less closed - though the situation is greatly confused and distorted by the dark force attaching parasitic lost souls to people, so that they are affected by past life memories and traumas that are not their own. I'm aware that there appears to have been this type of influence in my own music creativity, which has distorted the real and quite strong impressions that have come from the deepest levels of consciousness. Thes latter impressions, as I understand it, would be non-narrative in nature and would come from creative experiences that may have been from not only other civilizations in this Universe but even from other, previous universes.

Of course here we appear to be tying up with the increasingly accepted notion of the so-called 'common unconscious' - except that it isn't intrinsically unconscious at all; it's just that in the vast majority of people it is more or less shut off from the superficial, 'ordinary' mind.

However, my understanding now, as I've been clearing myself of dark force deceptions and influence, is that there are two very different phenomena that tend to get labelled as 'the common unconscious' or 'the collective human consciousness'. One is what I would call the genuine one - the very deepest levels of consciousness, based in fundamental consciousness (aka universal consciousness), from which we get various beneficial impressions that may enrich our own lives, and the other is the astral sub-reality, through which the dark force interferes with us and presents us with myths, archetypes, fictional stories about our past and about supposed higher realities, and other illusory manifestations, all with a seriously troublesome agenda. The 'common unconscious' as recognised in various schools of psychology appears to be pretty well exclusively the latter - the astral sub-reality, with all its tremendous problems.

Take another example. You have a dream in which an elephant carved totally out of ivory is dancing on top of an imposing tower of gleaming marble some 200 metres high among resplendent shining palaces. Suddenly you hear very strange organ music playing in the distance and wonder where the particular church or cathedral is. The elephant is now your partner, with whom you have an argument about what you are going to have for evening meal, and you wake up with a banal image of the two of you trundling a supermarket trolley down a very dull and tatty shopping street.

You had the dream, but did all that actually happen? From the level of the physical 'reality' you could certainly say it didn't happen, just as Physalia Gorgon doesn't exist, and there was no such elephant or marble tower - even though some aspects of the dream creatively reflected elements (or maybe elephants) in the physical world. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the consciousness level of the dream, all that really did happen*. Not only that, but from the dreaming level of consciousness all waking-life experience seems not to exist. On the other hand, from the higher perspective there is nothing more real about the waking-life experience than there is about the dream experience. They are equally real, but simply in different aspects of experience. However, the waking-life experience could be labelled as more 'real', just because it has a certain consistency, whereas the 'realm' of dreams is relatively chaotic and volatile - and experience consistently shows that to concentrate one's main life attention and focus on the 'dream' aspect of experience is much less helpful for a happy and meaningful life experience than a well grounded focus on the physical aspect of experience (while still being aware of all the non-physical aspects of experience).

* Actually, to be more correct, it appeared really to happen - for we can never know for sure that anything we experience is more than just an appearance - even in the physical 'reality'.

Excuse me, Your Holiness, but your Truth is only relative, you know...

This brings us to the distinction made in the Buddhist teachings*, between relative and absolute truth. All our everyday, conceptual experience is in the realm of relative truth. Something can be said to exist or be true only in relation to a particular viewpoint and aspect of consciousness; you cannot say that it has an absolute existence or truth outside that aspect of consciousness, or indeed transcending the viewpoint of an individual person. The reason why there appears to be a sameness of experience of the world and physical 'reality' between the perceptions of each human is the similarities in make-up of each human individual. The differences in the world and the Universe between each individual's perceptions thus tend to be small and subtle so that they are overlooked, beings of each species** sharing a roughly common set of perceptions. On the other hand more different types of beings will have markedly different perceptions of any apparent external reality. A whale or an ichneumon wasp will have extremely different experiences and perceptions, which will be 'reality' just as much as a human's view of the cosmos - but all these are only relative reality / truth, because they are experiences that are based on interpretations of 'What Is' - not based in any conscious manner on direct experience of 'What Is'.

* I don't mean this to imply that I have any time for the Buddhist teachings in general, for I have come to recognise that they are full of seriously troublesome distortions of the apparently real situation, due to dark force influence - a feature of ALL religions and 'spiritual' traditions. Please see Exit Spirituality - Enter Clear-Mindedness.

** And indeed different 'belief groups' of human-type beings

By contrast, absolute truth is what is beyond all concepts and can only be experienced. It's sometimes described as the truth of experience itself - the very underlying nature of 'What Is'.

The moment you start saying or thinking "Yes, this is it", or "This exists" or "That isn't true" or "I am like this and you are like that", you are focused into conceptual aspects of truth, which are all aspects of relative truth, not any sort of absolute truth. At the 'level' of absolute truth it is no longer meaningful to perceive 'this' as differing from 'that', 'I' from 'other' or indeed 'existent' from 'nonexistent'*. This is what is often referred to as non-duality, and it would seem strange and even loony to most ordinary people, who are unaware of anything but mundane, dualistic, conceptually-based experience. Even the majority of philosophers are stuck at that level so that their reams of writings and convolutions of conceptual thought are largely futile beatings about the bush.

* Actually this doesn't mean that there are not such differences within non-duality, but simply that such concepts have no meaning - which leaves our ordinary 'minds' in a peculiar circular argument here, because the very notion of any concepts having no meaning is itself a concept, and within non-duality you cannot say that even the notion of non-duality or no-concepts is meaningful. Non-duality, thus, is pure, naked experience, free from whatever the thinking 'mind' might try to make of it. This is all we could ever honestly call 'absolute truth', because it is simply 'What Is' and is beyond all attempts to interpret or 'understand' it - which would all produce 'relative' - i.e. subjective - experiences out of it.

Absolute truth is effectively the ultimate level of consciousness, and it cannot be described directly - it can only be experienced. While it is the underlying true nature of each of us and is staring us in the face the whole time, it is very subtle and had been widely thought to require a lot of mental discipline and meditation practice*, normally over many lifetimes, to open and still the mind enough to 'tune in' to it and, in so doing, to cross the threshold of enlightenment - what the actually highly problematical Dzogchen teachings of Buddhism refer to as recognition of the nature of mind, but what I am now more precisely calling gaining of fundamental clarity [or awareness]. You cannot find it through scholarship, nor through philosophizing.

* Actually the truth is far from that. Many people could get themselves speedily to that point by diligent use of a combination of the affirmations and insights in The Guide to Complete Self Actualization and appropriate methods given in Healing - The Safest and Quickest Way.

Interestingly and significantly, the god of ALL religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam, is thus clearly in the realm of relative truth, and is far from being 'the Absolute'. This points again to the limited and actually quite materialistic view of such religions. Buddhism has actually recognised fundamental consciousness ('the Absolute' as far as anyone can tell), which there has gained names such as Dharmakaya and Rigpa - BUT the teachings have in general twined around the very simple reality a huge amount of esotericism and misinformation that has all come from the dark force to lead people astray, into illusory realities and serious trouble for themselves. You can read more about this in The True Nature of 'The Dark Force' and its Interference and Attacks, where you can also read about the true, unedifying nature of the 'God' of any and all religions and spiritual traditions.

"You are what you think" - and "You create your own reality"

There are individuals who believe that they have some sort of advanced 'spiritual' state (supposedly enlightenment or self realization) who repeat one or both of those statements at people almost as if they were mantras. Let's look at them and see what the 'reality' (sic) is.

"You are what you think" - Is that true?

No, it isn't! The reality is that you are what you are (whatever that is)!

What you seem to be, or what you think you are, is most unlikely in the extreme to be exactly what you are, because nobody can absolutely know anything, and thus nobody can know what one is. One can only make assumptions about what one is - which may be helpful or unhelpful, but which don't reveal what you actually are! Therefore, if you become attached to a notion of what you are, and hold that as a belief, you are creating for yourself an illusory reality, which might subjectively seem to be just fine because it appears to you to be 'How Things Are', but nonetheless it's part of the dark force's strategy for ensnaring you, and so is actually worth dropping like a hot brick, in favour of having a completely open view as to what you are.

"You create your own reality" - Is that true?

No, it isn't! The 'reality' (sic) is that reality is simply 'What Is', and if you create an apparent reality of your own, it's bound to be an illusory reality!

In my own experience, people who said one or other of those quoted statements had considerable awareness limitations, and used those statements typically to people who were more deeply aware than them, in order to try to convince them that they've got things wrong about the way they experience life. What those statements do NOT show is that the people who repeat them really 'know the score' about enlightenment, deep knowledge or indeed plain common-sense. Indeed, it is the reverse. People who use such statements show that they do not properly understand what they're saying, are not thinking clearly, and, in short, are not being genuine and authentic. Also, they're making fools of themselves through making out to be some sort of expert on what they're demonstrating that they actually don't understand at all.

Now that I've said that much in order to make an important point, I can add that of course in certain respects the statement appears to be true, though actually its 'true' aspects of meaning are generally not what people have in mind when they use that statement. As far as anyone can tell, fundamental consciousness, which is our very deepest aspect, 'creates' the underlying reality of 'What Is', and so in that respect you could be said to create your own reality - but that doesn't allow for the phenomenon of dark force interference that diverts us all into the the creation of subjective illusory realities that distort our perception of the underlying reality of 'What Is'.

Also, you can in many ways change the nature of your life experience, for greater freedom / happiness or for more restriction / unhappiness and pain. So, in that sense you can be said loosely to "create your own reality". But that doesn't explain the various apparently external factors such as dark force influences and indeed other people's interactions with you, which cannot fully be controlled by you.

Rather than "You create your own reality", I would be inclined to say "You can be in a fair degree of command over your life experience". You cannot be in full command over it, without having absolute control over every single person and indeed phenomenon. The notion of total individual freedom is thus a myth; the most that can be attained is a state of maximal freedom of all people - which necessarily also contains constraints on each person's freedom in order to maximize the overall freedom of people generally.

Transience / impermanence

Whereas the materialist-reductionist belief system sees each person as being a transient one-off within an enduring external reality, the liberated view sees consciousness as having neither beginning nor end (as far as anyone can tell), with each lifetime being simply a particular sequence of experiences that arise and pass, which can be followed by further such sequences (incarnations)*. Similarly everything that is observed or experienced in the physical 'reality' arises and passes, so is transient - even each universe.

* This is an area of general misinformation, even in supposedly 'enlightened' traditions such as Buddhism. Basically, if we want to find out what the true situation is, we need, for a start, to keep clear of ALL traditions, and all channelled information. I explain how reincarnation appears really to be operating, in The True Nature of 'The Dark Force' and its Interference and Attacks.

And finally...

It's important, then, to remember that from the more liberated viewpoint that I have expounded in this article, you are not a small, imperfect being within a vast 'external' reality, but instead are consciousness itself - a 'metaspace' within which arise all experiences and possibilities. The physical 'reality', far from being the external, true reality, is merely one particular aspect of experience, albeit a particularly important one, that arises within the 'metaspace' that is consciousness itself and thus indeed you. From the enlightened or truly liberated viewpoint, each one of us is fundamental consciousness (aka universal consciousness), and is thus 'All There Is' and 'What Is'.

Okay, now let's go and enjoy some healthy herbal tea. In the relative truth of the physical 'reality' it does appear to exist, and tastes good...

Some implications...

Once we see that consciousness itself is the underlying reality - at least as far as anyone could possibly ascertain - we can see the insane crassness of the so-called 'scientific' (i.e. materialist-reductionist) view of life and of reality. Scientists and mathematicians often refer to 'randomness' and 'random' events, implying (and indeed often overtly stating) that things can happen without a cause.

While there is no way to prove that some things can happen without causes, actually that doesn't make sense when you have the deeper, liberated view of reality. Materialistic reductionism puts the blinkers on and raises the old chestnut of 'randomness' or 'no cause' wherever sufficient causality for some event cannot be established purely within their own 'physical only' model of 'reality'. It is laughably considered to be more 'rational' to ignore (and indeed to categorically deny) all aspects of causality that arise in aspects of reality (consciousness) other than the physical 'reality'.

How can you possibly know that an event - even a specific atomic decay - has no specific cause, just because that type of decay occurs within a mathematical pattern that is generally known as 'randomness'? -- You can't!

And similarly, if you claim that it is 'just chance' (i.e. with no specific cause) that you are who you are, with your particular skin and hair colour, gender, sexual orientation (etc), and were born to the particular parents who you had, in the particular place where you were born, and then had specific life experiences, and that there was no particular cause of any of that, simply demonstrates your unawareness and ignorance, and your inability / unwillingness to open your mind to the whole picture. Indeed, on the basis of my own findings about what appears really to be our broader context*, you would very likely be absolutely horrified if you properly understood what, through your compulsive ignorance, you have been allowing to progressively happen to you.

* For the sort-of 'nice' bit, you can see Crossing the Threshold of Enlightenment, and for what you may want to pretend isn't happening, a great place to start is The True Nature of 'The Dark Force' and its Interference and Attacks.

Is it really 'just chance' that a fair proportion of very young children (from the age of two) suffer the most horrendous night hells (aka night terrors)? The materialist-reductionists seek to evade the challenge of that by invoking the old bogey of 'mental illness' or 'brain malfunction', which supposedly can be 'treated' - though it's not much of a treat for the unfortunate people who get such 'treatment', for that does them nothing but harm, and diverts attention from doing anything effective towards addressing the fundamental cause of the problem, which just happens to be a non-physical influence - the so-called 'dark force', which, so far, the scientific and psychological / psychiatric / medical Establishment, especially here in the West, has resolutely shied away from countenancing.

The problem is not science, but the materialist-reductionist belief system of the vast majority of the scientists, doctors and so on. Nobody in the whole of Existence has found genuine truth, nor any bit of it, by means of belief - even a materialist-reductionist belief.