Consciousness – what arises from


There is no God. We shall start this essay by saying this. I write WE, but it’s only me who is writing these words. Nonetheless my knowledge and ideas are built on the efforts (in all directions – not even only on those related to the topic) of many thousands of humans that have come before. These words are destined for a few alone though, who might take from them much more than what a text could possible convey.

For whom it may concern. Why do I start by stating such a thing? I believe you should be aware of such before reading further – at least you have to be aware that that is my belief.

When we take into consideration a God that is an individual entity, above all, omnipresent, self conscious and self driven with objectivity and morals, that God, cannot exist. We will see though, the role such a God can play in the outcome of human business. You see, some people use the idea that a God is watching you, that everything you do is in a way to be weighted against you, both the good and the bad (If we look beyond humans and into some other mammals, specially primates we’ll see that there’s a sense of justice, empathy and probably ethics at play in their social relationships, so a conscious idea of God isn’t needed nor abstract thought, still, the kind of ethics of humans go beyond that of sharing equally, they have much more subtleties and repercussions – so please bear with me)

This simple assumption creates in itself a moral and ethical need. You are to be judged by something external to you, something all-knowing and all-seeing (EYE), not only of your acts and doings but also of your heart and consciousness. This alone creates a moral filter for your actions. Since you believe in such a thing you’ll do good – at least apparently and publicly – and refrain from doing evil – at least apparently and publicly. So this idea of a transcendent individuated being, incorrupt, with the ability to peer into whatever manifestation and action, is poised to act as a very profound socio-behaviour medium, specially for the ones who accept such idea. And notice this, it doesn’t need to be real or to exist whatsoever, it doesn’t matter, its effects on the fields of ethics and morality are manifest as long and as soon as such idea is embraced.


Now in some doctrines God isn’t an external entity but an internal one. These are much closer to the atheists and non-believers. In effect both of them are the same, they just call it different names. For an atheist he will call the ability to discern good from evil as consciousness, or ethics. Many argue that you don’t need an external God to have a moral and ethical compass due to this. In a sense though, they don’t realise they too believe in God but they want so much to rationalise it that they do so, stripping such an idea – that of God – of its religious garments but nonetheless accepting the core of it. For the believers in the inner God it’s the same. They see themselves as part of this entity or idea so their God is effectively their Consciousness – it comes from within but is similar in all other aspects.

We can see how such is important in the setting of moral and ethical behaviours. Because it’s your own consciousness that ultimately sets the inner psychological repercussions of your ideas and ways of being. Imagine you do something good, something you think of as a good act. This will set in motion biological processes that are related to well being at an hormonal and bio-chemic level. Your psyche behaves accordingly to your beliefs even though this beliefs may not have anything to do with the immanent reality.  Imagine you do something that your consciousness, or the teachings by which you guide your life and take as Truthful, considers bad. Having the consciousness of such an act will affect directly your psyche and in turn your psyche will affect your biological and physical being – not as in shaping the material world way but as in psyche controlling the feedback loops of your material being kind of way.


Ultimately it’s your psyche that sets many of your biological processes in action and not only that but it’s also your psyche that shapes the world you perceive. Why and how come? Not in a mumbojumbo way of the consciousness affecting directly the characteristics of the immanent materiality of the world – like bending a metal spoon with the power of your mind – but in the way that the world can only be perceived by you in a particular and subjective way – since your psyche is at the basis of how your perceptions unfold and since you can only experience the world in this individual way, it follows, the psyche shapes the world. Once again I repeat it. It doesn’t shape or transform the materiality but the perception of these immanent states and by doing so we can say, that for all it matters to you as an individual, that it shapes the reality.

If you’re feeling purposeless, without self-worth, depressive or in a continuous bad mood your body (your material organic biological body) will follow the clues and hints of your psyche. Its natural defences will go down, you’ll be vulnerable in a bad way. Your perception of both the internal and the external world will darken and this will render it gloomier. Notice this, the world hasn’t changed at all but your perception of it, which is filtered through your psyche, has, so it’s like you’re using a filter to see it. In the case you’re depressive, this will be a dark filter and it can render the world a dismal place to be in. Following this chain of thought, when you do something that you perceive or deep inside you know to be bad, it will affect you. We have to rescue the idea of God or Consciousness to follow this. Once you place such a judgement upon an act, behaviour or idea, it manifests. This is the moral and ethical compass emerging. If you believe it to be bad, then it holds grip of your psyche as that. It can manifest itself as being unable to sleep well, your mind becoming unrest, paranoia regarding others, anxiety, whatever. So you see, besides the tales of hell & heaven, there’s a much more tangible field in which God – or the idea of such – can act to curtail human behaviour. Something external to you – or internal in the case of consciousness – knows not only what you have done but also if it’s good or bad. So being afraid of God, or in a simpler way having an ethical consciousness, is imperative in controlling and keeping humans in place and society functioning in a peaceful way.


On the other hand, if you do the same thing but you are able to justify it in a plausible way to your inner judge you won’t suffer from any of these side-effects. You can see this in high-functioning individuals, working for entities (governments, movements, groups, corporations) that are transcendent of the individual dimension. As individuals probably they wouldn’t do such acts but since it’s not about their individual beings but a super-organism, it becomes justified. Military personnel in wars for instance. CEO’s that don’t mind how to obtain their objectives. As long as it is justified by the role of the super-organism their psyche can withstand their consciousness or the ethical judgment. But, if by any means such a justification is shattered, so is their psyche. You can see this in war-veterans and others. Their minds completely shattered by the weight of what they have done – even when in the grand plan it was justified. Other people might go through all their lives without even faltering.

In a way it’s under your control. There are obviously ethical and moral questions to be asked regarding this and the power of such ideas. There are also consequences and side effects of either accepting chaos or embracing order. Accepting the idea of God or refusing it, and by refusing it I mean beyond the pseudo-refusal of atheists, for they embrace the same idea simple under a rational set of mind.


When you accept the idea of God – not the all-knowing objectively conscious being – you rest from the continuous struggle. You may and should force yourself to ORDER but you leave the ultimate outcome out of your hands. This is relieving up to a certain point. Some people may call it irresponsible depending to what length it’s brought. On the other hand, the total freedom from the idea of God, although setting you free from some of the side effects of believing in God – creates high levels of stress. Since outcomes are dependent on your actions alone, or since you believe so, there’s a very natural tendency for the increasing of stress – all your choices are weighted by importance, all your actions have determined repercussions, your silly little being is so full of consequences and importance that your organism has to operate in a high rotation mode. This can be helpful for existing in a certain way, in our particular human societies, but it ends there.

Sometimes we see people talking about achieving success, being acknowledged, being meaningful in this human world – after all it’s the only one we have – but we should let go of such narratives. No individual being is ever meaningful or important alone. It can be that one individual had a lasting effect at some point in time, in a certain field, or for another individual beings. But if critically observed, this importance is meaningless. It can be important for some time but soon will stop being. Kings, emperors, CEO’S, presidents, killers, philosophers, the guys who understood how to make fire, the ones who created the first written systems. All of them are only culminations of fluxes, parts of something much bigger and beyond the wildest imagination possible. We have a fetish for individuality, we always had and we will always have. But the thing we have to understand is that each individual, although important is nothing more than a vessel of consciousness – he’s only the culmination of processes started a long, long time ago when there weren’t even humans, or mammals, or life as we think of it today.


You see, what can God be other than life itself? Not an individuated entity but this will to know and manifest itself. This is God. God as the unicellular organisms that dominated Earth so many ages ago. This same will that took these unicellular beings and made out of it such an abundant diversity of life. The same will that drives your circadian rhythms, that pumps your blood through your body, that compels your spermatozoids to enter the ovule.

This is just the will of the Universe to Know ItSelf. It’s the Universe, God, materialising itself. It isn’t a God worried about anthropocentric notions such as Good and Bad. It isn’t a dogmatic God either, it’s a God that wants to know what it is and so experiments. This God isn’t specifically obsessed with your individual Self and it isn’t your consciousness either. He’s the Unified Field, the emanator, the transcendent reference. It’s you, or better and more correct, you are It as well, but It isn’t you alone, much on the contrary.

Individuality though, is important as well as individual actions – it’s meaningless in the great movie of life – but is meaningful in the small events of life – since every individual is It as well, every time we look into each other it’s different parts of the Universe getting into contact with each other so your actions all contribute to the unfolding of God, or the Universe.

If you give a bit of yourself to something, if you without the need of recognition or public acknowledgement give, if you set yourself to live your life as a free person – and to do so you have to treat others as free as well (if you treat them as part of a social scheme or narrative, then you aren’t free, for you’re placing yourself inside such a scheme and placing others inside it as well – effectively renouncing any freedom).


A black man will never step out of his socially perceived inferiority as long as he behaves as an inferior being, either by acting as a slave or by victimising himself – even if he’s right about it. Look at Django Unchained, what sets the main character apart from the remaining slaves is that he doesn’t act as if he was a black man imprisoned by the social expectations. He acts as a white free man, and by doing so, becomes so. What the black africans did by refusing to sit on their “defined” seats or getting served where they should be was exactly this. They didn’t not follow nor expected to be treated as blacks. They discarded it.

The same with women, or anything else. It can not be given and/or regulated. If women want to be free in all the senses they claim they want, then they have to act as such. The problem comes much from education both at home and schooling, which transpires to society. the weight of such expectations can be overwhelming. What is really important is that older women assume this and profess a different education. And it’s not only treating their daughters as free from the normative constraints, you also have to treat your sons as equals and not as entitled. This means dropping the idea that women are more fragile than man. If in any way they are, it probably is the result of such an education, for we have already seen how your psyche and ideas shape the inner and external worlds.

Everyone is at the same time ridiculous and meaningless, but through symbols and things that can have symbolical resonance (money, power, partners, family, possessions, job) we can shape the way people perceive us. So if I’m a base man, uneducated, arrogant but I’m also the heir to a great fortune most people – specially the great majority of slaves – will look at me as somehow respectful and powerful – due to the pecking order effect. You could say that I’m a great man for everyone, or the great majority, would respect me – the truth though is that in a core level, I wasn’t. But the perception of power, success, wealth and health sends signals that other conscious human beings pick and send back in feedback loops. So me, even though I am a base stupid man, would be perceived by others as powerful, in turn their perception would make them act accordingly, and their actions would in turn send me the signals that I am powerful, successful, wealthy and healthy. If I live with my head inside my ass, I can actually believe this and my lovely psyche and organism will act as if I am really this – no matter how base I am. Although if I have a minimum of self-consciousness I would know it to not be true and there would be a conflict between feedback loops and self perception. So if you’re successful you’ll be fed more empowering feedback, no matter what. It’s as if a baby, when their parents express empowerment clues and hints gets more confident. It doesn’t matter that he hasn’t said a meaningful word, or that he walks like a retard. The feedback loops will make him believe he is doing something great and in turn that will drive him to become better.


So if we now jump a bit ahead, the difference between a Slave and a Free person is the level of bondage to these feedback loops. If you are a Slave your self-worth will be accessed through these feedback clues; you’ll pay homage to the signals and not to the emitter, nor to the state of emission. Although if you’re successful in life, or perceived by others as such, the state of emission will be itself “better”. It can’t be totally because the emitter always emits part of himself in the process, but it can be up to a level faked by all other feedback clues, specially if you aren’t very sensible to the subtle clues. If you’re a Free Person, then you know that yourself go much beyond the social spectacle and you’ll pay homage to the core/essence (whatever it is) instead of the signals. You’ll be more worried with being the person you want than being the person others expect you to be.

The greatest act of freedom is to close your eyes and meditate.

_MG_0494 copy-behance

When you do this you’re clearly drawing a line between your will and the external world. You’re saying to yourself that you’re aware of the illusory nature of the external world, you immerse yourself in nothingness and by this immersion you practice on being dead. It’s the ultimate act of homage to God as well, as you clearly let the random and chaotic unfolding of your mind happen. It’s also non-dogmatic. I may say to you: you have to meditate but this is meaningless because for it to work it has to be your choice. To meditate you don’t presume any reality to be true, any idea to be absolute, so it is in this way that it is non-dogmatic. What happens when you meditate happens only between your consciousness and your Self. I cannot tell you: meditate to see this, or you’ll see this when you meditate. I can only tell you, meditate. What happens in that fraction of time is absolutely intimate, although connected to the cosmos at large. I can not bring it to words. I can not show it to someone. It’s an abstract experience and a personal one, perhaps the most personal possible one. It is rooted in nothing else than sheer will power. If you want to do extreme sports you have to get a set of conditions happen, if you want to get a certain dress, or car, you have to have the money to do it. On the other hand, meditation only requires your will to do it. You don’t need money, you don’t need a house, you don’t need anything at all but the will to sit down and close your eyes without sleeping. I met a Vietnamese guy, named Mahn, who noticed this. He told me – yes, anybody can do it, but you have to want to do it, it’s the secret. This is very important.

Going back to our question about God, or the Universe, or the Atma, or whatever you choose to call the pervasive consciousness that permeates everything – I use consciousness not in the anthropocentric definition (something that is capable of thinking in concepts and objectivate reality) but simply as something that is aware of its own existence. Accepting his existence is the closer we can be to the Universe itself. The Ego consistently puts the results as a direct consequence of itself. If you’re up high in the society circles you may think that it’s all due to your self-worth – which may be the case mind you – or that there’s something else that separates you from the mediocrity. All this can be so, but it can also be that you were simply lucky.


It’s in a way the arrogance of assuming what we are and want and the humbleness of understanding our ultimate insignificance that can drive us up.  It’s the acceptance of an individuated Self and of an undivided cosmos, from which everything, you included, arise.

You see, your work choices, your actions, all are important of course, but everything else is too. Were you brought up in abundance? Materially and emotionally? This itself can be being lucky.

Nowadays even if you’re from a low income family, in any European country, you have an amazing access to wealth, you live in abundance. You have more options than the most powerful emperors and kings had some centuries ago. Not in all senses of course, but in many senses you do. Food, traveling, education, leisure, health care. Just think about it for a while. Not only you have access to all this abundance you’re probably going to live much longer.

So what is there to whine about really?

Give it a thought. All that wasn’t a result of your efforts but of others and how that has played such a role in your success, your conquests small and big.

So lets go back again.

If we call the Universe by the idea of God, the Universe willingness to materialise (know) itself, without an a priori objective, without a moral code, but just the sheer will to manifest itself, then we may agree on saying that God exists. So when we cut-off any other idea of God we may say that the God most religious people believe in does not – CAN NOT – exist at all. Living without such a God, even without the atheists idea of consciousness (and ethics) requires much effort. In a way you’re left with your will alone  and the consequences that may arise from executing your will. You can use such ideas in a personal way, which is undoubtedly empowering, but if taken to extremes these ideas are in themselves very dangerous because they can, depending on the amount of will power you can gather and the extents to which you want to try boundaries, lead to some disturbing acts. Some people argue that being evil – or not properly evil but in a way not being good – is much more interesting and fun. It can certainly be. One must understand though the core of oneSelf in order to prevent it from being the build-up of the mountain of Sorrow. One must become aware of what propels him. Having done so, the definition of Good and Bad vanishes. What is funny though is that at a very intimate level we always seem to know if something is good or bad, we have certain ways of perceiving it. Sometimes though one thing may seem morally bad if analysed through convention but in its practical outcomes be a good thing. Imagine you have no other way of preventing the spreading of an infectious disease than by killing it’s host.

Imagine you have a little child. Your little child is throwing a scandal, with crying and yelling, because he wants something – something that isn’t needed but also something that you can get him without a problem. Now, if you don’t give him what he wants he’ll cry more due to an imagined pain or imaginary sorrow of not getting what he wants. You’re directly negating his will and consciously making him experience that. On the other hand you could just buy the freaking lollipop and he would shut up, everybody would be happy.

But you see, if you do that, and if you do that every time, he’ll grow up thinking he can just get upset and he’ll get what he wants. On the other hand, if you go through all the scandal and crying you’re giving him the right clues that he can’t always have what he wants, more importantly even, that he won’t get them by acting like a spoiled brat.

What this means, when taken out of the baby context and applied to other parts of our life is that sometimes, obliterating your will in the name of giving others what they want, so to not do “bad”, or to prevent them from “suffering” isn’t always – and most of the times it’s not – a good choice. Let’s leave the child and return to our main topic again.


So social behaviours and society well functioning seem to be intimately connected to ethics/morals, so in a very clear way to the belief in God. We can therefore say that God is the reason for Order, even though that at its core it’s essentially the Chaos principle.  Social cohesion and social stratification are also derived from the idea of God (beyond the God of monotheism). The idea that there’s an order and purpose in the way social relationships exist prevents big upheavals and unrest. For it to work you need the acceptance of the slaves and their belief in the fairness of the system.

If the great majority believes in the fairness of the old monarchic kingdoms and the social order in which they rested, like we saw happening for so many years, these systems would work without much problems. Only if a great deal of scarcity endangered the great masses would there be a problem – or not enough richness poured into those who believed they deserved it. For this to work you had to have a group of people capable of assuming certain roles and telling certain narratives. Nobility. This narrative said that groups of people – families or blood lines – were endowed by God. The most endowed one was the royal family of course. Now for this to work, the great majority of people at the basis of the pyramid would have to believe in such a narrative. For this to happen you have not only the noble families who bring order and achievements to the table, but a second class who mediates the relationship to God, this way validating the position occupied by the Noble families. It sounds silly in light of our modern conception of the world but lets look a bit more into it.

If we think about it, if we take into consideration the previously explained idea of God as will to materialise and know itself, then eventually, we can say that these actors were endowed by God. For what is to say of someone who gathers enough will to agglutinate a tribe, lead them, construct and materialise systems that allows them to live in less danger and more abundance, expands and provides for his tribe, his group. And once arrived at the position of title (leader, king, emperor whatever) and another individual gathers enough will power to overthrow him and occupy is place, what can we say about the will that moves such individuals. Aren’t they moved by this idea of God? Because even the simplest of peasants could begin his own ascension he just has to get rid of the interiorised conventions of his place in society. If he had the will to kill other tribes, or groups, annex their lands, protect them and swear loyalty to the “King” he too would be elevated to another condition.

So in a sense it’s the will that sets apart human beings. If you look at history you’ll see that families have risen to nobility throughout ages all the times. Even today when we for a great part of society we don’t use such nomenclature, we see people doing it.


The only thing that really matters is the will. But maybe one may say that the way you’re brought up has a definite impact in your perception of this. Let’s say that you’re that child to whom everything was always given, because you were so loved – another insignificant human being among billions. Maybe you would not learn until quite late that importance and role of your own will power in the outcome of your own life. If so then your will has no relevance, you’re in a submissive way subordinated to God. Everything is beyond your control and as such you’re mostly helpless. You take what comes, you accept destiny, not in a free way but in a slavish way. On the other hand if you knew the value of your will power and if you know that your will is itself the manifestation of the only possible God, then you’re in a very deep way empowered. You’re subordinated to God but in a very different and empowering way. Both can bring with them an ethical ruler.

Morals, ethics and dogmas are ways in which we settle the rules for the great majority. Although limiting in a sense they allow for a great majority to be mundane (mediocre) in exchange of safety. This trade is essential to stability. But lets look a bit closer into humans, in order to explore the idea of God as the will to manifest and know itself. If we look at what is believed to be the tree of life we’ll see how life started as something basic and through biological ingenuity grew into such diversity as experienced now. If we look more specifically to animal species we can even se how the brains of such have evolved. How such brains, by each adding of newer parts, allowed for more social complexity and interactions. If you look at reptiles, or fish, you can see that their interactions are quite limited. Although still very complex they aren’t even close to mammal interactions for instance. As you go further in time you’ll see the brain receiving newer parts and with each new adding, more social behaviours arise – many of which now go beyond the scope of sheer reproduction, feeding and survival.

So by the time we reach humans we can see some clear distinctions between us and the primates that are close to us. It seems that these areas allow for even more interesting social behaviours. They bring with them the capacity of linking emotions, having memories and thinking and expressing abstract thought, which leads to an increase in empathy but also gives rise to written languages and many others technologies, that act as extensions of the brain.


The funny thing is that probably if we traced such brain developments and social outcomes we would clearly see God, the will to know and manifest itself, permeating such evolution. From the unicellular organisms that once were all, right up to humans, what else can drive itself to manifest in such higher complex forms over time? Some will agree up to the extent that they’re talking about an individuated objectively conscious being. But if we look at the other definition we might just have to agree that the material conditions aren’t enough to propel life. It needs at its basis a will to manifest and know itself. Because without this will we would have stopped when we were unicellular organisms and pivoted all of Earth. But we didn’t stop there. Why? Since there is no objective answer possible, the only one that can be assumed is that there’s a transcendent will – will not as an objective anthropocentric knowledge or directed thought – that searches to know itself and in the process manifests itself. We can only know that what we are.

If we are greedy, envious, avaricious, all we will ever know about the world is that. No matter how much better things there are, we will always perceive the world through our psyche so, it goes, we will always see ourselves in it – in this case we will see those attributes.

On the other hand if you’re tolerant, helping, you’ll see in the world these same attributes. Even if you see all other attributes, you’ll definitively pay more attention to those that reflect yourself. When you become aware of such, you become empowered to take control over how you perceive the world and you can no longer put the weight of such at the external world, but instead over yourself.

This can be stressful, because if you know this but still your mind reacts and perceives in a negative way, you become more unrested, because you know it’s your fault but remain helpless in assuming and changing the situation.

So how can you modify that? Meditation is the most powerful tool at your disposal. Exercise helps definitively, really, but should come second after meditation.


It takes effort and more than that a strong will. If you manage to do it everyday for a long period of time you’ll build your will, just like you build your muscles by going everyday to exercise. The difference is your muscles can only affect the material strata of the Universe, your will on the other hand has the potential to affect every strata of reality.

I know not many people will take this advice. That’s ok. That’s why there are slaves and Free people. We need them both. Some think it’s mambojambo. They think it’s new age shit. They think they don’t have the time to do it. They think they can’t do it. Well the thing is, such rewards are only for those who have the will to recognise that the material manifestation of the world is but a small part of the whole thing. Meditating is also an action and a statement. It’s saying to yourself that although you live in a material world you’re not a slave to it, nor to time, and by doing so you empower your will, because will isn’t material either. And it’s will alone that commands all things. The fact that meditation isn’t dogmatic is something to take into account too. Praying to a God, executing symbolic rituals, reciting verses, all these can tune your psyche and by doing so help you, but all of them assume many things. Meditation is abstract, non-dogmatic, effortless and can be done by anyone in any situation. More. It doesn’t require a master, a guru or whatever. It makes one out of you in the process, even if only for yourself.

Lastly, you become more aware of yourself and from where your desires emanate. You become aware of the illusion of societal norms. You realise many other things, that can help you being happy – and you don’t even have to become a mambojambo hippie preacher.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s