Fitting In or Freedom?

In this blog I have tried to point at the prevalence of assumption and preconception, raised a few taboo things and maybe demonstrated what might be deemed as socially inappropriate behaviour. I have made drug references and highlighted kudos obsession and snobbery, inter alia. No doubt were I working for an august institution someone would have had a word with me about my on-line behaviour. It is very simple. Insofar as I can tell I cannot be myself, express myself and fit in. Too many noses would be out of joint. I could kowtow and shut the fuck up, maybe be a good little boy but a part of me would die.

I cannot both be free and fit in. There is no possible both-and here.

I am a wasted resource. Even if people wanted what I have to offer, they do not want it and me, how I am. They would want me to fit in and comply with social conditioning. I don’t see this is as a drama myself. I am clear in my thinking. I understand the price of my relative freedom.

If you want to be free you need to understand this, you cannot be a fully socially integrated being and a free being. Because full social integration implies lack of freedom. You can be socially integrated and have some freedom, but it will be limited.

I can and do behave in public in a manner which does not look so very different from anyone else. I pay taxes, break virtually no laws and do not inflict myself on others, I make very few demands. My mind however is not with the hive or the heard. It left a long time ago. You can judge for yourself whether I am a loony-tune or not.

The crux, in my view, of so many things, is letting go of both-and thinking. In other words, deciding.

This is the $64,000 question:

Which appeals to me more, belonging or freedom?

Only you can answer it, for yourself.

The Unacceptable Solution

Have you ever faced a problem where the only solution to that problem is unacceptable?

This would be a way of framing “impossible situations”. They are not really impossible, but one is unwilling to accept the “solution” to that problem, it is definitely not to taste and so one puts up with the ongoing problem rather than grasp the thorny stem of the solution. That which stops is a little fear, a large dose of stubbornness and plenty of will; most of all that potential loss of face is unbearable. And so, one is stymied in the problem because of unwillingness for the solution.

To give a pictorial illustration; imagine that, for whatever reason, you are walking along a deserted beach with a partner, a lover. He or she has chosen that beach because they need to tell you something. As the walk continues they reveal that they have, for many months, been cross dressing and having “extra-marital” affairs at your home and in your bed. You become utterly enraged at the betrayal, scream and shout and storm off into the distance. The only way back from the deserted beach is the car you arrived in together. It is some considerable distance away. You have called your erstwhile partner every name under the sun. In your anger you get stuck in some sandy-mud, it goes up well over your knees. You cannot get out of the mud easily, so you wriggle, struggle and start to sink deeper. In the distance you can see your other half walking back to the car with their back towards you. You cannot wave at them. In your hand is your mobile ‘phone, there is some signal. Rather than call, you struggle and sink some more. The tide is now starting to turn, and, in these parts, it comes in quickly. It looks as though the only person who could help you is that bastard down there at the other end of the beach who looks to be climbing into your lovely 4×4. You are absolutely livid with them and do not want to lose face by calling them and asking for help, not until hell freezes over will you talk to that bastard again.

How long do you wait until you make the call?

This is an example of an impossible situation that is not really impossible, but in order to get out of it you have to conquer self. There is no other way, you must grit your teeth, bite the bullet and get on with it or die. Although this scenario is manufactured it does relate to real-life situations in which people will die rather than lose face. The solution is simple enough, but it is unacceptable.

Having cued this up:

Have I ever had a problem, a situation, in which the only solution was totally unacceptable to me?

Was this largely due to fear of loss of face?

How long did I let that situation go on for?

Immersed in the Babel Problem

“Without mentat overlay integration, you can be immersed in the Babel Problem, which is the label we give to the omnipresent dangers of achieving wrong combinations from accurate information.”

I suspect that this Babel Problem is very widespread. People get some data, some information, some hearsay, some of which may be accurate much of it not, and they put it all together and come up with some ersatz which isn’t coffee. It might look like coffee, sound like coffee but it doesn’t smell like coffee, so it isn’t coffee. Yet they drink it as if it was going out of fashion.

When I was in Cardiff in 1989 (previous) things were very different. Joking aside I would be very at home in an establishment as portrayed and this says something about me. Yet even when I say to people that I am Welsh, because I sound private school educated(ish) there is an assumption that I am Engl-ish. But I am not. Lacking the mentat overlay integration certain behaviours and thinking are expected of me. And when they don’t materialize on cue, it can be disconcerting.

This is a part of a wider problem. People think they have it “sussed” when they don’t. In some cases, people are damn sure they have it “sussed” when they haven’t even begun to scratch the surface. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will have noted some eclectic and esoteric flavour. I also swear like a fucking trooper from time to time. Believe it or not everything herein is somehow integrated in my mind, at least there if there alone, it is all joined up. I suspect that I am a little difficult to compartmentalize, maybe you could use the broad brush of nutter or lunatic.

The trouble is that when one is thoroughly immersed in the Babel Problem that is all one can see. It never occurs that we have the wrong end of the stick, that our conclusions and suppositions are fallacious.

Having cued this up:

Have I ever been immersed in the Babel Problem?

If so, for how long?

How did I get out?

Am I still immersed in the Babel Problem but unaware of this?

Can You Remember Doing?

It seems a very long time ago when we actually did stuff instead of watched stuff. Now there are devices all over for us to watch and observe. Many houses have more than one TV, plenty of ‘phones, tablets and computers. We as a species do a lot of watching. Information comes at us, to our homes and we absorb some of it, we enact less. And the habit of “intelligence gathering” is widespread. I have just done it myself, I have booked a holiday and then used Google maps to explore the environs. We like to get loads of information before we do anything. It seems to me that this habit presents something of a problem, because the passive nature of watching is not the same as doing.

Whilst we may engage on social media our behaviours thereupon are different to how we would actually behave face to face. There is a false-courage afforded by distance and the relative “anonymity” of the internet. Whilst we might be all brave on-line, that courage fails in person. We do not actually have much real-life face to face experience. I was on the ‘phone for nearly two hours this morning trying to get human intervention in a problem I was having making a payment. The script driven interaction failed to encompass the actual circumstance, so it was a very frustrating experience, the operatives had to stick to script. I know my postcode and I know when I have entered it accurately into some software. I don’t need to be asked like a moron. OK so I am not overly keen on the “service” provided by this kind of interaction, I am an old git after all. But that is not what I am getting at, rather it is to do with when the script fails. When this happens, we do not know what to do or how to handle the situation, improvisation is frowned upon. As a consequence, our abilities wane. Much of life is very prescriptive, it seems. This is a shame.

For the last sixty years or so, we have increasingly been watching. We watch this, we watch that and then we talk about what we watch. The goings on in soap operas and the actors therein, are news items. This watching has taken over our lives. It eats time.

Do we really want to become an entirely virtual species? Maybe. But the edge which real reality affords is lacking, perhaps we are becoming blunt.

There is less apparent risk in observation, but if we are serious about learning there has to be real-world physical plane interaction for depth to develop. We are getting so very risk averse.


This is a major obstacle to doing anything meaningful at a retreat centre as suggested to me by my dream a while back. How could one persuade people to stop watching and being distracted by watching so that there was a sufficient detox for them to engage? I don’t know the answer…

Can you remember doing?

The One-eyed Man

There are these two expressions; “the blind leading the blind” and, “in the kingdom or land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”. Seems to me that there are a lot of one-eyed men / women out there. How does one know if one is blind, partially sighted or one-eyed?

Maybe we have 20:20 vision?

We may think we can see more than we actually do, but how do we know for sure?

And there are a lot of people claiming to be the putative one-eyed person of indeterminate gender and/or sexual orientation. Many of whom sell some ware or other.

There is money to be had in consulting, training et cetera. But it looks to be a rather full market place already full of one-eyed people.

So how does one go about convincing people with no eyes that you actually have one fully functioning eye? Who could tell if you were making shit up?

Or does this saying, about one-eyed men, refer to the Anja centre?


I know you would have to do a Google search.

What is it that convinces people that they have expertise to sell?

Who buys the claims of these one-eyed people? What do they pay for them?

If there are more than one, one-eyed persons, how does one differentiate between them?


Wider Karmic Implications

If you have chosen to give allegiance to the Lodge of Materialistic Forces, that is your choice. If you are still somewhat on the fence you are wavering in that general direction. Earlier on in the blog I asked; “Hawk or Dove?” Now why did I do this?

If you look at the blog content much of it points at an elevation of consciousness upwards through the emotional (astral) plane towards the detached mental plane. At the lower echelons of that plane the forces of justified materialism hold sway. At the upper end the Soul reaches down, via the conscience to infuse and advise. The evolutionary journey upwards must pass through this sedation of justified materialism to the higher intuitional (Soular) climate. But only you can decide where you linger, so to speak.

Whether you like to admit it or not you are already on the plains of Kurukṣetra, facing the adventure of a material incarnation. How you use your time, a precious commodity, is up to you. You can succumb to greed, importance and petty self-advancement, or you could choose otherwise.

In this respect you could take your bow and shoot the person trying to get a message across (me) or learn to think and discern for yourself and by yourself. Whatever you do has karmic implication, and that may be much wider and long lasting than you can imagine. Suffice it to say what is going on here may pass well beyond the face value of this blog. I am not so keen on being target practice.

If you are so important that “you” deem karma and the Soul of no or little import, then that is a choice. But think about it a little, what or who is the “you” which is making this decision?

Karma is not individual alone, it is group and even national in nature. Do you really want to share aeonial karma with the group(s) you associate with, or would you prefer to cut your own swathe?

I’ll make a statement here and it does not come from self-pity. By and large I have not been treated well in this country (England), I have experienced exclusion and gossip. I have had people endlessly arguing the toss and been subject to much political manoeuvring. There has been much which is unpleasant. I am just one being. But the microcosm reflects the macrocosm and I sample the collective behaviours. This kind of shit is commonplace. Is this what we seek for life in the 21st century?

There is but one question pertaining:

What are the wider karmic implications of aligning yourself with the Lodge of Materialistic Forces?

Observing the Armies on the Battlefield of Kurukṣetra

“After that, the conchshells, drums, bugles, trumpets and horns were all suddenly sounded, and the combined sound was tumultuous.

On the other side, both Lord Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna, stationed on a great chariot drawn by white horses, sounded their transcendental conchshells.

Lord Kṛṣṇa blew His conchshell, called Pāñcajanya; Arjuna blew his, the Devadatta; and Bhīma, the voracious eater and performer of herculean tasks, blew his terrific conchshell, called Pauṇḍra.

King Yudhiṣṭhira, the son of Kuntī, blew his conchshell, the Ananta-vijaya, and Nakula and Sahadeva blew the Sughoṣa and Maṇipuṣpaka. That great archer the King of Kāśī, the great fighter Śikhaṇḍī, Dhṛṣṭadyumna, Virāṭa, the unconquerable Sātyaki, Drupada, the sons of Draupadī, and others, O King, such as the mighty-armed son of Subhadrā, all blew their respective conchshells.

The blowing of these different conchshells became uproarious. Vibrating both in the sky and on the earth, it shattered the hearts of the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.

At that time Arjuna, the son of Pāṇḍu, seated in the chariot bearing the flag marked with Hanumān, took up his bow and prepared to shoot his arrows. O King, after looking at the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra drawn in military array, Arjuna then spoke to Lord Kṛṣṇa these words.

Arjuna said: O infallible one, please draw my chariot between the two armies so that I may see those present here, who desire to fight, and with whom I must contend in this great trial of arms.

Let me see those who have come here to fight, wishing to please the evil-minded son of Dhṛtarāṣṭra.

Sañjaya said: O descendant of Bharata, having thus been addressed by Arjuna, Lord Kṛṣṇa drew up the fine chariot in the midst of the armies of both parties.

In the presence of Bhīṣma, Droṇa and all the other chieftains of the world, the Lord said, “Just behold, Pārtha, all the Kurus assembled here.”

There Arjuna could see, within the midst of the armies of both parties, his fathers, grandfathers, teachers, maternal uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons, friends, and also his fathers-in-law and well-wishers.

When the son of Kuntī, Arjuna, saw all these different grades of friends and relatives, he became overwhelmed with compassion and spoke thus.

Arjuna said: My dear Kṛṣṇa, seeing my friends and relatives present before me in such a fighting spirit, I feel the limbs of my body quivering and my mouth drying up.

My whole body is trembling, my hair is standing on end, my bow Gāṇḍīva is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning.

I am now unable to stand here any longer. I am forgetting myself, and my mind is reeling. I see only causes of misfortune, O Kṛṣṇa, killer of the Keśī demon.

I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle, nor can I, my dear Kṛṣṇa, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom or happiness.

O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? O Madhusūdana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra?

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

O Janārdana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one’s family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?

With the destruction of the dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.

When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Kṛṣṇa, the women of the family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vṛṣṇi, comes unwanted progeny.

An increase of unwanted population certainly causes hellish life both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition. The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.

By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children, all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated.

O Kṛṣṇa, maintainer of the people, I have heard by disciplic succession that those whose family traditions are destroyed dwell always in hell.

Alas, how strange it is that we are preparing to commit greatly sinful acts. Driven by the desire to enjoy royal happiness, we are intent on killing our own kinsmen.

Better for me if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.

Sañjaya said: Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief.


Sañjaya said: Seeing Arjuna full of compassion, his mind depressed, his eyes full of tears, Madhusūdana, Kṛṣṇa, spoke the following words.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life. They lead not to higher planets but to infamy.

O son of Pṛthā, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy.

Arjuna said: O killer of enemies, O killer of Madhu, how can I counterattack with arrows in battle men like Bhīṣma and Droṇa, who are worthy of my worship?

It would be better to live in this world by begging than to live at the cost of the lives of great souls who are my teachers. Even though desiring worldly gain, they are superiors. If they are killed, everything we enjoy will be tainted with blood.

Nor do we know which is better – conquering them or being conquered by them. If we killed the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, we should not care to live. Yet they are now standing before us on the battlefield.

Now I am confused about my duty and have lost all composure because of miserly weakness. In this condition I am asking You to tell me for certain what is best for me. Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.

I can find no means to drive away this grief which is drying up my senses. I will not be able to dispel it even if I win a prosperous, unrivaled kingdom on earth with sovereignty like the demigods in heaven.

Sañjaya said: Having spoken thus, Arjuna, chastiser of enemies, told Kṛṣṇa, “Govinda, I shall not fight,” and fell silent.

O descendant of Bharata, at that time Kṛṣṇa, smiling, in the midst of both the armies, spoke the following words to the grief-stricken Arjuna.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead.

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

O son of Kuntī, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

O best among men [Arjuna], the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation.

Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul.

The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata.”

Excerpted from : Bhagavad-gītā As It Is