Thursday, 11 April 2013


To solve the problem of fear it is necessary to not assume that we know what fear is. In fact this is the problem, we start by assuming we know what fear is. We tell ourselves all the things we are afraid of and exactly how afraid we are of those things. This I think of as knowing too much. It could be said that we know what we do not know. All thinking is knowing what we do not know. A word or a thought can only have meaning when we decide what that meaning is. Language works because of this principle, the words of a language are given meaning and we all agree on the meaning given. This can be useful but it is also possible to forget that the meaning given to words was made up and agreed upon. Words have enormous power when they are believed. This power can be used for great good or great evil. Fear is always the result of believing something to be true that is not true. To be free of fear it is necessary to conceive that this is possible and also to find out precisely what it is we believe that is not true. If we are told as a child that we are not good enough then it is likely we will grow up with this belief and it will rarely be questioned. In fact rather than question this belief we are more likely to reinforce it by repeating it to ourselves and proving to ourselves that it is true. Nothing can be assumed to be true, and if what we believe to be true is in any way negative then that negative is the proof that it is not true. Fear is obviously a negative feeling and so you can be sure it is based on a belief that is not true. Physical feelings I take to be true so long as there is no meaning attached to those feelings. When physical feeling is divested of meaning its true meaning appears. In the case of physical feelings that we usually associate with fear we may find that without meaning these feelings naturally dissipate. We may also find that without meaning what we take to be fearful may be a source of great learning. The difficult part of this process is just the ability to look at these feelings without attaching meaning to them. This usually takes time and practice, it will take less time when the principle is clearly understood. This understanding is very simple - we are the creators of meaning and whatever meaning we create we have to live with. This is optional, we can create meaning or we can-not create meaning.  By keeping our attention only on physical feeling we begin to free ourselves of all unnecessary and negative meaning. We are addicted to meaning because this is the mechanism whereby the ego creates the illusion that it exists. The ego does not wish to know that it does not exist and yet because the ego tries so hard to create the illusion that it does exist suggests that the ego itself is not convinced.The problem is circular in that the ego creates fear as a means to prove that it exists and then becomes trapped by that same fear so that living is equated with fear. Fearing that the ego does not exist is the same as the fear of death or non-existence. We get so caught up in this illusory fear that we do not notice what it is we really are. What we really are is consciousness, consciousness comes before fear; fear arises in consciousness and without consciousness fear could not exist. Everything arises in consciousness even the universe but all the things that arise in consciousness are secondary to consciousness itself. The things that arise in consciousness are attractive or they are fearful but either of these are illusory in comparison to consciousness. Consciousness is subtle but what we are attracted to or afraid of is not, so we take the easy road and focus on what is obvious and ignore what is subtle. Free of the obvious we live in the subtle but wondrous world of consciousness.
Immediately after writing this I found I had been sent this link to a Youtube video 
John Hagelin on Consciousness part one
John Hagelin on Consciousness part two


  1. This sums up a majority of what you say very neatly and simply.
    However I am still unsure about the natural fear mechanism that every creature has regarding its survival. How can we disassociate the illusory fear of the ego from the fear that may be necessary for one's safety. For example: If say one is driving and you notice a pedestrian suddenly walk in front of you, there is a short intense fearful feeling and the subsequent bodily changes which involve adrenaline pumping through you in order for you to react quicker. Or in a caveman analogy if one sees a predator the fear that is necessary in order for survival (flight or fight).
    I understand that you may mean something else in your description of fear (as words can be misleading) but it is important to understand what form is necessary and what is not, not just with fear but the other emotions as well. Anger for instance may also be necessary on some level to defend oneself for example or guilt in order to not repeat certain mistakes and so on. After all these emotions are natural and can be helpful as are the positive ones that clearly are necessary for a meaningful life.

  2. From the point of view of the ego everything you say seems correct but without beliefs the ego does not exist and the point of view is very different. The natural intelligence of consciousness without the obstructing nature of the ego is more than adequate to solve the examples you mentioned. This is the problem in a nutshell we trust the ego to solve all our problems when it is the ego that is the source of all of our problems. As long as we do this the natural intelligence of consciousness will be unavailable to us. It may be that fear and all the other emotions had a place for us in the distant past. I see no place for them now. Our emotions are mostly the creation of false beliefs and whatever arises from something believed that is not true is not of value. The ego has an agenda which is to make it appear that its pronouncements are meaningful and of value because when we begin to distrust the ego its days are numbered.

  3. I'm really not sold on the idea that we are consciousness, or even that consciousness is essential to what we are. For one thing, I don't know if you're conscious so in order to treat you as essentially human (if that has to include you being conscious), I have to go through some 'argument from analogy' reasoning that doesn't stand up philosophically. This is because everything we think and can talk about is learned socially, that language is social, and that (in parallel to this fact) we are not better known to ourselves than others are - arguably we only know ourselves through our relationship with others.

    Also. I'd like to point out that people talking about consciousness and unified field theory don't know the science let alone the philosophy of what they're attempting to say. This Hagelin guy says that ''life is fundamentally one' on the basis of science that, once understood, actually says the opposite. Physics ultimately wants to account for the maximum of diversity in nature, not prop up sloppy thinking.