There was recognition of deep flaws (the flip side of the potential beauty) in human nature; but, the ‘answers’ seemed to be none or at least weirdly conflicted. There were clues aplenty in various cultures throughout the ages, that had considered this problem, with little or no long term results. Problems kept arising, ‘enlightenment’ (whatever that may be) for the populace as a whole never arose; ‘Gurus’, ‘High Priest/Priestesses’, every age, society, culture had those that sought the answers. On the localised, individual level even for large numbers but, profound problems kept cropping up; maybe that was because, ultimately there was no ‘solution’ and that it was entirely a biological mechanism of the brain.
In all this and more, doubts, contradictions swirled like a noxious pea-souper fog within my brain. There where no ‘definitive’ proofs one way or the other; whatever ‘answers’ if there was one, had to resolve the seemingly irreconcilable differences we all (knowingly or not) experienced. Yet, all these questions could be resolved if the ‘mysticism’ was simply a way of training the brain, to behave in a coherent ‘logical’ form. There again, the experiences and social problems described by the Ancients could have resolved relatively ‘easily’, either way in a brutally simple way – eradication. This may not seem ‘enlightened’ to the casual reader, but wars, killing, cruelty are a part of all our histories; evidently, either for either side (‘good’ or ‘bad’, terms in themselves rather problematic) the problems kept reoccurring.
This indicated, problematically, that it wasn’t entirely ‘biological’ in nature; for if there was a entirely ‘biological’ cause to societal problems, then somehow this could be affected by social cleansing; not absolute proof by any means, for ‘problems’ arose regardless of culture, gender, sexuality, family/parental lineage. These themes are extremely uncomfortable reading/consideration for the vast majority of people; this does not mean they have not been examined in depth by our ancient predecessors – even in coded form.
Unpalatable thinking is one those things that people rarely consider, especially when it comes to considerations of ‘enlightenment’; maybe, this is one of the reasons Maharishi often spoke of is, “Speaking the sweet truth”, for there is great discomfort and even danger speaking the plain ‘truth’ – especially, if one doesn’t know the identity or nature of ones ‘enemy’.
Funny, the spiritual path is oft considered highly honourable, with internal and external discipline a priority for gaining ‘mastery’ over oneself; rarely, does this ‘hidden’ alternative history – not in a separate sense, come to the fore. Again, why was this ‘story’ hidden and from whom? Was I reading to much into history, or asking the same questions that had been asked before innumerable times throughout the ages, and why (aside from social sensibilities) was this so dangerous.
Seeking answers to these points is not dangerous, but it did point out some remarkable similarities: race, gender, beliefs, politics, biological history (family etc.) were almost entirely irrelevant when it comes to societal problems.
Still, all this ‘proved’ was that it did not contain the ‘solution’, or that somehow any ‘solution’ (if there was one) must transcend these problems; we were reminded that we were living in the ‘Age of Aquarius‘ or Kali Yuga, cultures (including the Vedas) throughout the world had eschatological indicators of the present age. If there was a universal answer, from a global cultural perspective, then the indicators were extremely disturbing from all points of view. That was the fascinating problem, but how in hell did they retain a focused perspective over the ages if there was a biological basis for ‘consciousness’; was it a form of group (global) psychosis that had genetic predisposition to channel into a focal point (present time)? Given the nature of the global mindset over the decades, none of the potential ‘answers’ were edifying; and all of profound interest to any Government.
Of course, if it turned out ‘consciousness’ did have a basis ‘external’ to the biological, this of course raises the question as to why then have a ‘biological’ brain at all? So many questions that arose from this, but the potential value of the answers, especially if they could be put to ‘use’ was/is staggering. Irony has a special place in all this, history tells us ‘enlightenment’ was rarely – if ever – attained by ‘committee’, so it turns out the only way to ‘truth’ is through individual endeavour. Governments should have heeded this most obvious pitfall, and sought such answers for themselves, but like ‘committees’ they are bound by group dynamics of ‘authority’ and the greatest delusion of all – denial of accountability.
Even though on my todd, my quest had the advantage of knowing from direct experience the nature of the experiments performed, and the meaning.
Therein was the crux of the issue, their access to any ‘knowledge’ would always be a distant ‘second hand’; knowledge was not a ‘given’, it had to be experienced. That could only be gained through experimentation, differentiation, and active and profound study of the subject. May I remind those seeking a chronological study of the events, that such does not exist; as I indicated in the letters to the BBC, I never kept a diary, or record of events, this and the information I sent are indicative of the thought processes – not necessarily those or in that order.
A long way from the ‘Bucket list’, this is to show some of the complexities that were involved in trying to reduce back to a simple set of rules, that in turn could give rise to the extraordinary complexity and richness of the world we see around us.
Simplest whole solution, doesn’t mean a simple pathway to that answer, the next part is a ‘simple’ answer to that problem (I hope 🙂