02-02-01 CRT is necessary to achieve continuous EPs
Achievement of CRT is one of the happy wishes that appear when you eradicate NEs. Besides, CRT is necessary for consistently realising EPs and that includes experiencing the EP Clarity. If you have a conceptual way of thinking and use words lacking exact perceptions it means you have no clear distinction of perceptions and you are not able to recognise them as welcome or unwelcome. Strong, happy wishes cannot reveal themselves and no changes will take place.
When an individual pursuing CRT faces arguments for or against an opinion, he will either investigate or not depending on his happy wish at that moment, he will eradicate any emerging NEs. A dull person will experience and demonstrate anger, aggression and an irresistible desire to oppose and alienate. A person aspiring to CRT is interested in working through his concepts and they meticulously investigate the concepts regarding how complete and reasonable they are.
If you ask an ordinary person about anything you will not get an answer like “I have to think about it” or “I do not have enough information for a reasonable opinion”, or “I was thinking about it but I could not understand it”, or at least “at the moment I reckon that… as I have such and such information”. They will have a presumptuous point of view for anything, starting with the issue of life on Mars and completing with trichomoniasis efficiency as a remedy for fighting the Colorado beetle and the issues of the meaning of life. They may know nothing about the subject, never thought about it but they will still have a point of view. If you try to challenge his opinion, especially challenge with reasonable arguments, you will have to face aggression, a radiant NA.
People always “know” everything about anything and the set of these concepts compose their world they live in. It is hard to break down these concepts because every one of them is an illusionary support for satisfaction, restfulness and other reactive patterns. The destruction of concepts reminds me of a hole in a stocking, when this hole gets bigger it causes runs through the stocking. Multiple fractures through the set of certain perceptions cause wild fear because the whole world is ruined! People are afraid of thinking sincerely and consecutively because they will have to say goodbye to their principles or dogmas, “precise knowledge”. All that remains for them will be their opinions supported by more or less good arguments that can change any moment if some new significant information emerges. The world will stop being definite and stable, it becomes a mystery with a flexible system of perceptions on the basis of observations and you will feel like you are thrown out of your nice, comfortable bed. Only when you are free of concepts do you start realising that it was not a nice comfortable bed after all but a gloomy grave.
Most people do not bother to think about it, they do not wish to have clarity, all they want is a new drug fix (TV, food, orgasm or domestics), consume beer and get a little tipsy until tomorrow, when, thanks to God, there is no time to think, you have to get out of bed and rush to school, to university or work. Thus people cultivate both stupidity and dullness. Stupidity is an incapability to contemplate consecutively, when people do not have enough concentration and skills. Dullness consists of reluctance to think and investigate (even if this is a topic they love talking about), and it usually goes with an aggressive-defensive position and a splash of NEs, accompanied with phrases like “I am not in a good mood to talk about it” or “you are not thinking reasonably but just manipulating words”, “everybody understands me, it’s only you who does not want to understand” and so on. If a dull person agrees to your way of thinking, usually the reason is he wants to avoid confrontation and not because he achieved clarity. It is easily revealed if you observe his behaviour after the discussion.
There is a widespread opinion that life is complicated, intricate and practically impossible to understand. If you go to the library and open a book of some popular philosopher what do you see? Monad, immanence, constructors, justice, consciousness, sub-consciousness, super-consciousness, emanation, God, kindness, benefit, damage… – real terminological bacchanalia. These terms stack over each other without any clear definition of the precise set of perceptions they imply.
A person that is pursuing CRT first records in the mind a certain perception or set of perceptions, then gives a definition to them. A dull person will use the terms without investigating exactly what set of perceptions is determined by them. As a result he will receive hopeless mess called “philosophical works” and a unanimous pre-assurance that the laws of psychic life development are intricate as hell. But in actual fact it is different. They are very simple indeed. People wander and try not to lose their way between three pines and still get lost because they believe it is unavoidable. Their “intellectual guides” (philosophic, esoteric and psychological books) make it only worse, but they feel scared to start investigating perceptions on their own. What, shall I have to ponder over?? If it were so simple wouldn’t those intellectual guides get such clarity? Does it mean I am so clever and they are so dull? Yes, they are dull. They couldn’t find the path but you can, you are already reading this book that is your guide to Clear conscience. You have a chance and how you use it depends only on you.
Thus on your way to CRT you have to reason your opinions. It seems to be such a triviality! Everybody knows that if you have an opinion it should have reasons. But no, all people find themselves sensible and for them it means to accept they do not know “elementary” things if they start this work of reasoning. Here is Vincent, even he knows what “violence” is, there is Tanya, ask her and she will tell you what is “kind”, and what about me – am I the most dull? I was talking with many professional intellectuals – mathematicians, physicists, economists, lawyers, philosophers, psychologists and so on they must be the pioneers of clear consciousness – if not them, then who? But the paradox is that these “intellectuals” get enraged and frustrated when they are asked questions like I ask here: “why is the husband guilty if he leaves his wife?” or what is “justice”. This is because they are not intellectuals at all, but they are within the limits of commonly accepted consensuses like all other people.
Take a book of any acknowledged intellectual. Who do you like more? Heidegger? Hegel? Jose Ortega-y-Gasset? Kant? Schopenhauer? Can you find in their works at least one clause free of horrors like “immanence” or “transcendence”? Have a look in the philosophic glossary where there are explanations of these terms. This is an electrical chair! You experience a real shock from the flood of these meaningless words. Of course, if you want to pass the exam on philosophy, you better do not tell the teacher that you do not understand the words “immanent” and “transcendental”. Definitions from your book of the word “immanent” – taking place within the mind of the subject, phenomenon or the process and having no effect outside of it”, and of the word “transcendental” – beyond any knowledge or experience” do not explain anything to you. You do not have a perception of a “within the mind of a subject and having no effect outside of it” or of a “beyond experience”, and in this case you will be sentenced as “dull” and “hopeless”. Do you know what is “transcendental notion”? These are so called the “ultimate common notions” – “kind-heartedness, sincerity, existing” and so on. Instead of calling these words meaningless, because they name groups of perceptions that do not identify anything exactly, and not using them, they were called “ultimately common”. More than that, they nailed your brain with the word “transcendental” to prevent you from an attempt to think over it.
Look what a poetic attitude there is towards “philosophy” or “esoteric”. If you see a wild mess of incomprehensible words, instead of wondering “where are all the clear definitions of the terms” you close the book thinking “oh yeah… giant… not for me to understand…” There are also lots of words that are not easy to understand in physics, but all physics is constructed on the basis of analysis of observations, logical conclusions, and every term is surely determined, and if determination is not in this book, it will be in another. Imagine such a phrase in physics book: “well, an atom is when a substance is as it is, revealed in its immanent quality”. Is it absurd? But in philosophy similar foggy intellectual discourses became a rule, they are attributed as the laws of nature.
We have accumulated a fog of meaningless words, we are covered with scabs of endless concepts based on the terms that strangulate CRT and EPs.
02-02-02 Freedom from the words-parasites. The word-parasite “benefit” as an example
To achieve CRT it is necessary to purge yourself of word-parasites, because using the words that do not determine a precise set of perceptions are absolutely incompatible with CRT. Imagine an engineer working with the symbols that have the meaning he does not understand. He will never build anything.
Elimination of word-parasites can be accompanied with a feeling of pity and loss because it makes it impossible to support concepts that include these words. Further more, if you use such words with indefinite meaning, you will be able to juggle them, find endless contradictions, and lose your direction in discussions and all these manipulations bring on impressions that you are now going to miss. Work with word-parasites will be described in further sections, for the moment I will examine the word “benefit”.
This concept can be examined in two aspects, as the “benefit” “in general” and as the “benefit” from a certain process. People use this word in both cases.
If we talk of benefit in general we make an assumption that a certain process can be finalised without consequences. But with any process there are always consequences we may know nothing about, this is why this notion “benefit in general” makes no sense at all. I’ll make only a couple of examples because it is simple.
For example, I have earned lots of money and believe that this is “good” and “beneficial”, because I can buy some pleasant and “useful” objects. However this is different. Whether I buy a house, or go on a trip, or buy a present, or make an investment in a bank, it will change my life unavoidably and generate other events. This is speaking nothing about receiving lots of money, we have an assumption that the following events will be extremely desirable and pleasant, or, at least the pleasure will be better compared with what I would have if I did not receive this money. If it was this way, then any event, “beneficial in general”, would be a step to an inevitable betterment of life. If money was “beneficial in general”, then the rich people would be happier than poor people. No need to be clairvoyant to see it’s wrong. The change of life style does not change its quality – the concerns and distresses are replaced by others, which are often much worse.
Another example: I started running, swimming, my body became fit, my health improved. Anybody will say that these changes are “beneficial”, nevertheless it is wrong. If this was right, then people with strong healthy bodies would be happier than people prone to diseases. A person started running and broke a foot. Became more energetic, started a business and went bankrupt. Improved his health, went on a journey to India and got infected with typhoid fever. Went for a run instead of going to movies and did not meet a girl to be happy with… and so on. We never know what consequences this or that circumstance will bring. Money found – “benefit”. Started a business and went bankrupt – “damage”. Being desperate went to the forest to hang himself and met a lovely girl – “this was all good”. The girl happened to be a bitch – “no, that was all pointless”. But her father turned out to be a good guy and helped me to get employment in one of the institute’s departments – “that was good”. But as a scientist I was not successful and was fired – “that was bad”. I did not care about it and found something else I liked doing – “that was good”, and so on and so forth, such a circle of events is endless and there is nothing sure in advance will lead to happiness, because happiness is not how everything is organized, but experiencing perceptions you enjoy.
There is also no “benefit” when we try to give a definition to it within certain frames.
Let us examine “benefits for health”. If you are not well and started taking medicine from a doctor’s prescription, it is considered to be “beneficial”. I can also take a tablet when I am not well, because I think it will improve my chances for recovery. But it is wrong to find it “beneficial for your health” because you do not have true and complete information of how these tablets will affect you in a given scenario and what the side effects will be. There is no such available information and unlikely to ever be. For many years Paracetamol was found to be the most effective remedy for colds and only recently has been discovered that it has a negative effect on the liver. For years appendicitis and tonsils were considered to be unnecessary parts of the body and even were removed from children. Later discoveries proved these organs play a significant role in the immune system. Medicines cannot be completely researched. A giant pharmaceutical corporation can produce a medicine for years and sell it globally, later it can be discovered that it provokes cancer. There are a lot of such examples. You take Aspirin for fever and Laevomycetin for dysentery, this is your choice and you receive the desired result, but if it’s “benefit” is unknown, because the word “benefit” means “goodness” and we do not know what is “good” for your body and how we can measure this “benefit”. A body stuffed with medicines is losing its independent capability for resistance and requires more and more tablets. As a result when you have fever you have to take a decision whether to take antibiotics (which is going to reduce your immunity, poison your stomach, and attack your liver) or ride it out (and risk complications and probable longer period of sickness). An ordinary person will take a decision on the basis of what he conceptually thinks “beneficial”. A person that got rid of the concept of “benefit” will scrutinize the available information and will make a decision in accordance with his happy wish. Such behaviour will reveal that what we call a “physical body” is not a dull and helpless log to be looked after the way a crazy mother looks after her child controlling his every move. But if you follow your happy wishes you discover a new world of amazing wonderful senses, resonating EPs.
Let us examine a “benefit for a business”. It must be clear to everybody that it is a “benefit” to have profit. But according to statistical data 80% of bankruptcies are due to the company’s growth. A small company occupied its niche, but a big company can fail to find such a niche; the management were knowledgeable enough for a small scale works, but may well not be qualified for the bigger scale; the structure of business should have been changed, new people employed and trained, accounts department expanded, new billing system adopted, new premises leased; the business will have to compete with stronger rival companies, improve management policies, deal with bureaucracy and so on… and other expected and unimaginable issues, and there will be no way back. And the owners can go on resting on their laurels not suspecting of problems and the company will crash.
There is no “benefit for business”, because with these words we imply that business will “improve”, but this is disproved by experience. Any action that we find “beneficial” will cause a lot of consequences, thus we confirm that these consequences are “beneficial” as well. It means if my company makes some money, then logically it will bring growth to the company no matter what. But how can it be called “beneficial” if the final result is unpredictable?
Now let us examine the word “benefit” in relation to time frames. I cannot make a forecast for the future, but for the moment I know that it is “beneficial” for the company to make more money, this is why I will not think about airy fairy matters but work at what brings profit right now. My bank account and creditworthiness will increase, the rating of my brand and the shares value will grow and these indexes are the criteria that this operation is “beneficial”. Thus making one “beneficial-now” action after another I will lead my company to grow and prosper. This is what companies do, they identify the criteria of the “benefit” and act, but they forget that these criteria are just the tools of the conformity of the given action to the accepted concept of the “benefit” and these concepts are not the everlasting truth, they also change constantly. One model of economic efficiency is changed by another, so there is no “benefit” here, there only are actions aimed at achieving set goals.
The position of a person free from the “benefit” concept is the following: I want to achieve a certain goal, I take into account certain information and I want to perform certain actions. This position provides absolute flexibility, clarity in the happy wishes and the possibility to follow them, freedom from mechanical and cheerless actions.
02-02-03 Principles of identifying the meanings of the words
We use words with indistinct meaning and the result is often a lack of mutual understanding or self-understanding. I do not want to try and identify precise meaning of words, because it is (a) principally impossible due to relativity of any borders, (b) not necessary for my goals. I just want to make meanings as exact as it permits to realise my wishes, such as a wish of clarity and of exchanging experiences with other practitioners, etc. While “pigeon” language gives way to the language with the words of more definite reflection for perceptions, there appears a wish to continue further purging.
The technique of terms definition consists in the following:
1) I give a definition to the term.
2) I make a dozen or so word combinations, which contained the term I used.
3) I replace the term with my definition and check: is the meaning of my phrase as I wanted it to be expressed, clear enough?
4) If the meaning of the phrase in most cases gets clearer then the term is right to be used with this definition. In the remaining minority of phrases where the meaning became obscure I will use other terms.
See the examples below. There may emerge a question: how do I give a definition to the word “argument”, for example, using words of vague meaning like “result” and “observation”. Is it identifying via indefinite? I do not do mathematics or physics, my sphere is a practical discipline – perceptions engineering. I do not have a wish to defend a thesis, receive a prize and become a “scientist”, this is why I am not interested in achieving abstract goals, solving abstract tasks, building beautiful theories and axiomatic fundamental systems. I am interested in a very precise task and this is receiving more and more pleasure, including the pleasure of clarity, and I receive great pleasure if I use a word which has now more definite meaning due to my investigation. I emphasize that this is not “complete”, not “absolute”, but “more definite”. Those people who allegedly seek an “absolute clarity” and ignore precise steps of intermediate clarity as a result remain hopelessly dull like those that do not endeavour to eradicate NEs but “look for” “absolute enlightenment” and finish as a bubble of decaying biomass.
When I give a definition to a term and start using it I discover that:
(a) a significant clarity and preciseness emerge in the phrases, a mutual understanding with your conversational partner gets better, there is no need to have explanations, return back to the conversation and so on,
(b) it is easier to describe perceptions, to structure models free of contradictions, to discover and explain interconnections.
(c) it is easier to make analysis and synthesis, i.e. the process of random dividing of the phenomenon into groups of elements and the process of discovery for interconnections between them (which reveals the positive influence of intellectual clarity on the evolution of differentiating consciousness).
(d) I receive more pleasure from the intellectual process and a better resonating of CRT and different EPs appear.
(e) I receive more pleasure from the consequences of such clarity as they improve planning and realization of my joyful wishes and lead to their revealing, intensifying and evolution.
(f) purging of the language is compatible with the practice of “consolidation” – see the section “Strategy of effective practice”.
If I was guided by the argument of an “academic” character and for a start tried to give definitions of the words “I”, “result”, “pleasure”, “like”, I would not be able to identify them in a more precise way than I use them now and I would brain freeze. But IN ANY CASE I would continue to use the words with their previous vague meaning as my wishes do not disappear, including happy wishes (for example a wish to talk) and for their realization I would have to use them. This is why I advance from less distinct to a better clarity. As an outcome of giving a more precise definition to a word I receive a result I want regardless of the fact that this definition consists of words of less exact definition. If in the future I will wish to give a definition to the word “result”, I will return to the definition of the word “argument” and either I will correct it or I will understand it with even a better clarity. We cannot even give an exact definition to the word “chair” as there is no clear border between a chair and some other thing, for example there are chairs in the form of ottoman (bean bag), or it’s possible to make a “chair” so different from the seat based on four legs that nobody will not even think of calling it a “chair”. Nevertheless, when we say the word “chair”, meaning a horizontal piece of timber on legs, we imagine better what we are talking about comparing to understanding when we say “a disposition of Providence”. The word “clothes” is much clearer than the word “comfortable”, which was used wherever, not only to identify unpleasant physical feelings. This is why after having defined the word “comfortable” as given below, I made the level of its clarity approximately the same as for the word “clothes” and with that I am quite satisfied as it’s not interfering now with the realisation of my happy wishes.
Of course there are obstacles in the language purges. For example:
(а) initial stupor, when you want to “avoid” the issue, to delay it for another time, because you do not want to start watching what you say, to make the effort and to crawl out of your dullness. You prefer to glide along with a usual flow of words usage and you do not want to concentrate, because you will regularly have to choose your words carefully.
(b) skeptical thoughts like:
*) “this is everlasting work” (this thought gets weaker when you start the process, because words obtain more and more precise definition and become part of your vocabulary in this new meaning. It becomes obvious that regardless of when this process finishes, I enjoy my welcome results now, because I start feeling pleasure from the process and so on, as has been listed above).
*) “it is impossible to achieve clarity, in any case everything will remain obscure” (this thought also weakens while you are practicing).
*) “anyway other people will not understand me, they will not use my definitions” (there are no grounds for this kind of thought as the technique of definitions options implies that people you are talking to, will understand you according to the level of clarity they have regarding the term, and not worse than earlier. But if you explain to them what you mean, they will have a chance to understand you better).
02-02-04 Utilisation of words; examples of definitions and disposal
Some words are 100% parasites, they express moral categories and lack any preciseness. These words I want to be excluded from my vocabulary completely, for example words “bad” and “good”. When people use these words, they do not mean anything precise, but just express their positive or negative attitude. “You behaved badly” – what can it mean? That I wanted something different? That I lost what I desired to have? That now I experience physical pain? That I have these or those NEs? Whatever, and nobody bothers to think about it.
Other words can have a vague meaning and be used thoughtlessly, still people sometimes identify something with them, although give different meanings every time. Some of these words can have clarity if we limit their use by a certain border, e.g. the definition of “comfortable” is limited by the sphere of unpleasant [physical] senses, in all other spheres I will find different terms and as a result I will find my freedom from confusion.
Of course I want to completely remove from my vocabulary classical word-parasites (c-parasites), communicative word-parasites (com-parasites) and jargons supporting NEs.
As I understand c-parasites, they refer to a group of additional obtrusive small words like “well”, “kind of”, “sort of”, “that is”, “in principal”, “simply”, “anyway”, “somehow”, “as a whole”, including allegedly scientific jargons “as a matter of fact”, “in general”, “would be good to say that”, “yes, but…”, “somewhere like that”, “let’s think that” and so on.
Com-parasites are the group of obtrusive phonetic additions to the words and they do not have meaning. As a rule it is hard for a person to discover them. Many snouts find out with amazement that they have continually used com-parasites and did not even guess one year later of intensive practice regardless of good progress in attention development. Examples:
*) slight doubling pronunciation of the initial consonant in the first word of the phrase: “whwhat I say…”
*) Closing eyes with eyelids more than usual in the beginning of a phrase
*) wider than usual opening eyes (ogling)
*) pronouncing a vowel with a longer interval between the parts of a phrase: “I think thaaaaat… today I….”
*) different “Aaa…..”, “mmm…..” between phrases
*) an endless list of different obsessive movements while speaking – distorting the face, scratching, stretching, most various movements with different parts of the body, etc.
Jargons are the words that replace ordinary words and accompany this or that NE. Finally the jargon blends with the word and it becomes usual and not noticeable. For example, instead of the word a “name” – a “handle”, a girl – a “chick”, to eat – “to scoff” and so on. “Cool”, “super”, “bugger” and others belong to this group.
Negative consequences of using the word-parasites are not limited with causing dullness and incapability to differentiate perceptions (one of jargons fans was writing the following about his problem: “after an attempt of an everyday recording in my mind I realized that I do not differentiate my perceptions and I do not know what to record. It all merges into one rapid stream, and flows into a hopeless swamp”). Another problem is that every parasite is blended with a flash of NE and it services and supports this NE. NEs are the reason that have led to the use of word-parasites, this is why unconditional eradication of the parasites will hit the continuous succession of “minor” NEs flashes that are responsible for the ongoing, poisonous and intense, but quite often unnoticed NB.
Eradication of the parasites will bring a radiant effect of clarity.
The list of terms is in the section “Terms”
Examples of words that are worthy of being dumped:
“Benefit”. There is no way to know what is going to happen as a consequence of an action which is called beneficial, you can even recognize some of the consequences as unwelcome. Sometimes the word “beneficial” is used meaning “positive” and “worthwhile”, and these are the words I choose to use in the situations of the kind. These words are not associated so strictly with moral categories that express certain absolute “goodness” or “badness”. The derivatives should be dumped as well: “beneficial”, “useless” (though the word “useless” most often means “worthless”, not “absolutely bad”, I still refuse using it in order not to generate duplicates and not to resuscitate even a reminder of this deeply rooted infection – the word “benefit”).
“Help”. This word is also used in its absolute meaning of “goodness”, when a person “helps” he thinks that he is doing something “good” indeed. If I want to dig a hole and somebody comes and “helps”, it means he has the aim to dig it only because I am doing it. Upon that he is not interested maybe I like doing it on my own, maybe vice versa – it is a hard work for me and halfway I will think whether I want to do it or I push myself to do this for the sake of some concept, and so on. Very often “help” appeals to certain abstract “help”.
For example, somebody wants to have a drink of vodka, and you throw away his bottle. Your behaviour is against his wish, but you call it “help”. In 1939 Soviet troops together with the German fascists ripped Poland into two parts, declared war on Finland. After the war the Soviet Army occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Baltic countries, this they called “help”. Informers “helped” Soviet authorities to incarcerate dissidents, Soviet communists “helped” other “brother nationalities” supporting dictatorships in Yugoslavia, Cuba, and Chinese still go on “helping” Tibetans to be liberated from the poison of Buddhism and they are not yet satisfied with the blood of one and a half million Tibetan monks. People use the word “help” because it has no clear meaning and you can call any action “help” to evoke a positive attitude for yourself as there is a concept that “help is good”.
I suggest that instead of “help” the word “assistance” is used. It is clear what “assistance” means. Somebody is doing something, he declares he is doing that and these are his intentions and the results he desires, and you assist him in achieving this result. It’s all clear enough.
“Must”. This is the worst virus. Synonyms are going to the same garbage bin: “necessary”, “ought to”, “should”[do something], “is worth” and “have to”.
“Cooperation”. It is impossible to use it because it implies an extremely vague set of possible and impossible ways of information exchange. Eradication of the word “cooperation” will not cause any misunderstanding as every possible way of information exchange has its own label and can be easily classified and used accordingly if there is a wish. Synonyms also should be in a trash can, e.g. “communication” (“we had communication” – how is it supposed to be understood? Talked to each other? Exchanged phrases like “hi – see you”? Bonked? Exchanged the results of concepts investigation? Exchanged glances frowningly?). Derivative – “to communicate”.
“Bad”. The antonym of “good” also goes to the garbage bin, same with “appropriate”.
“Functional”. It sounds so scientific and is a synonym of the word “worthwhile”.
“Friend”, “friendship”, “close [person]”, “kinship”. These words have no preciseness at all. They mean a certain extremely indefinite degree of people’s loyalty to each other, but more often they express a simple customary relationship that is nowhere near loyalty and affection, but just dislike and frequently even hatred.
“Neutral”. It is a synonym of “indifferent”.
“Impressions”. It is a substitute for the term “positive emotions”, this is why it has to be dumped. When a person says that he has impressions from NEs, it means that he experiences NEs alternating with PEs. For example he can suffer from jealousy and imagine how sorry his girlfriend will be later when she realizes that she lost him and got instead that idiot, which means this person has a feeling of gluttony and a wish for revenge. If he says he receives impressions from playing chess, it means he feels self-satisfaction or supersedes dullness and so on.
“Pleasure” is a term expressing a very wide range of perceptions from PEs to sexual enjoyment, this is why it is going to the dump if not used within the precise context. The same with “like”.
“Important”. It expresses a certain high significance, like the word “benefit”. To be dumped.
“Sensible”. Does it correspond to decencies? There is a word “adequate” if it corresponds to the existing assumptions and knowledge. Most often it means corresponding to the concepts of your conversation partner. To be dumped. The same with “justified”.
“Pleasant”. It has an extremely indefinite range of meanings – physical enjoyment due to sex, or not related to sex, thanks to PEs, EPs – whatever, regarding the PE a person experiences at the moment. “Unpleasant” should be dumped as well.
“Sense” – should be dumped. If we are talking about the meaning, it’s better to say “it means, it denotes”. Same with “senseless”.
A separate issue is eradicating the word combinations which are absurd from the point of view of practicing, those word combinations that fortify false interpretation. When snouts keep using such word combinations, it drags them back into the dump. These are: “It causes NE”. Typical phrase: “His impoliteness caused my irritation”. The variant of substitution is: “he was impolite and I felt irritated”. Even more precise variant is: “He was impolite and I wished to feel irritation and experienced it”.
“NB drags on”. Typical phrase: “The NB dragged on for a long time”. As a result it looks like that it’s not me who supports the NB, as if it drags “on its own”, I have nothing to do with it, I am a victim. The variant of substitution is: “I experienced the NB for a long time”, or more precise: “I wished to experience the NB and I did”.
“It didn’t happen” [NE was not eradicated, etc.]. If you failed to eradicate a NE it means your wish was not powerful enough and the wish of the NE was stronger than the wish to eradicate it. Substitution: “the wish of experiencing the NE was stronger than the wish to eradicate it”.
02-02-05 Four steps of achieving EP-Clarity
I find it right to highlight four steps of achieving the EP – Clarity (Clarity with the capital letter to distinguish from rational clarity).
1) Memorising
2) Practising reasoning and argumentation
3) Formal practices
4) Integrating in the behaviour
1) Memorising is getting familiar with information and remembering it. For example the practitioner is memorising that there are four steps for achieving clarity, what the steps are, what formal practices there are and what is integrating with behaviour and so on.
2) You can read about the fact that there is no perception of “I”, you can agree with it… and go on living as before. This is what the majority of people are doing, they read, agree or do not agree and continue to live not aware that nothing has changed in their life. Practising reasoning and argumentation assists in the comprehensive analysis of the issue. It is especially effective to do it together with an experienced practitioner, when you change party roles, one defending the concept “I exist”, the other disproving it. The participation of an experienced practitioner facilitates this stage as quite often the concept under consideration is so deeply rooted in the person that he is unable to look at it from a different perspective.
3) Formal practices consolidate the achieved rational clarity. Among these practices there are:
(а) multiple repetition for many hours of the phrase that expresses the achieved clarity.
(b) re-reading of the argument process, reconstructing it to a clear and easy presentable form.
(c) in case of “I” concept it can be listing perceptions one by one and recording in the mind: “this is the thought and not “I” and so on.
(d) suspension of the loud inner dialogue which intensifies the effect, e.g. you set a task of stopping any distinct thought for 5 seconds during one hour: 2-3 seconds are enough to be aware of the thought and 2 more seconds are needed to stop this thought.
4) An intermediate rational clarity may be achieved but it’s possible you will continue to live as if it did not happen and the previous concept is still in power. It is good to exercise special practices for the achieved clarity to penetrate deeply into your behaviour. For example if you achieved the clarity of absence of such a group of perceptions that is specified as the “past” and the “future”, then you can perform the practice changing the confidence in the “past”. When I am sitting on the grass near the lake, there is no necessity to support the confidence in what my name is, what city I am in, you can eliminate thoughts containing words “was” and “will be”, you can practice the cyclic change of confidence: “I am in Paris ”, “I am in the Himalayas” with recording the confidence intensity in both cases. When as a result of the cyclic change of confidence exercises you discover that confidence of your thought “I am in Paris” is the same as the confidence in the thought “I am in the Himalayas”, and you will find that other mechanical confidences (of the existence of “I”, of the “past”) are significantly weaker and you can handle them as per your wish. At work you support the confidence in your business future, in your agreements in the past and assists in achieving the desirable result. On the lawn at the lake you support another confidence that assists to achieve radiant EPs and a freedom from the concept of the “past” which is the source of other concepts of “succession”, “gradation of changes” and so on.
Flashes of Clarity will appear as a result of this 4 step practice.
02-02-06 Freedom from the poison of analogies
So called “analogies” are quite in noxious and even effective when they are used as “resonating images”, such descriptions, that cause resonating EPs including clarity. But same analogies become horrible poison that intoxicate your clear mind if they are stupidly used as arguments.
Analogies cannot be arguments in any circumstances (!!!). It is easy to prove that in any discussion you can find without any problem an analogy allegedly “supporting” any point of view. This is natural, because the surrounding world is so versatile that it is always possible to find a phenomenon which is developing by similar laws that we want to find in the issue under discussion. If we substitute objects, we can receive so called “proofs” for fools.
Example: somebody says to me that I am dull fussing around my child like an old clucking hen caring about him all the time, imposing on him what he does not want and thus making him an infantile jerk without happy wishes. I object to it and say that “if you put a flower in a freezer it will die, the same will happen with a child that lacks being cared for…” It is amazing, but such an argument persuades 99% of the people. Having exchanged the arguments of this kind people will leave either with “achieved clarity” (having agreed to the point of view of the conversation partner under the influence of these analogies) or with certainty that regardless how much you discuss, nothing will be clear.
Analogies will always be used as arguments by insincere and stupid people, because this is an extremely successful way of psychological pressure (any person will change his confidence more or less being influenced by analogies).