What is this all about?

On the 13th of July 2010, a man worked out a way

to disrupt the core mechanism that underlies
destructive feelings, thoughts, behaviour and
needless human suffering. He discovered the means
to trigger a psychological change in the way the
world is perceived. This psychological trigger is
called Liberation.

What did he discover?

He actually discovered that there is no "self"
involved in the thinking processes in the brain, or
any resulting actions. Thinking just happens and so
do actions, there is no "thinker" or "doer". The
perception of self is nothing more than a thought,
which means it does not actually exist in real life.

Say what?
There is no "you", you do not exist. "You" is an
illusion of the mind.

You is a vague pronoun, what exactly do you

mean?

I mean what you perceive as "you", "I", "your life",

etc... it doesn't exist it is an illusion. Life actually
lives itself, there is no experiencer engaged in
experiencing life, there is no separation between
experience. The perception you have is that you are
having thoughts and experience, in actual fact, there
is no division between you and these things, it is
false.

Well I seem pretty real to me! I can move

my body, I'm here reading this, how can you
say this?
There is a body, there is life, there is thought, the
world, it is all completely real but what you perceive
to be you is not. "You" do not exist in any way,
shape or form. No matter how incomprehensible
this sounds, it can be demonstrated and observed
directly in real life. There is no you, there never was.

This is a load of rubbish, have you seen a

shrink yet?
Have you actually checked to see if it is real? Ask
your self this question:
Is there a me?
If you answer yes or no straight away this is called
dishonesty. This is because you have a belief and

you have not put it to the test, you have just

assumed you know the answer and have not tested
it to see if it is true.
You have to be honest with yourself and admit it is a
belief that you hold. Obviously you have a lot of
evidence to support this belief i.e. your entire lifes
experience and it is logical we think this way.
Without actually testing this belief, you are only
making a reasonable assumption, nothing more. We
used to take the premise that the earth was flat, to
be a truth. This was because there was a gap in our
knowledge.
You have never questioned or even considered this
possibility once, let alone weighed up any evidence.
I will admit that this whole idea sounds completely
counter intuitive but I do not expect you to believe a
word I say, I do expect you to test what I say.

I don't need to put it to the test, I already

know it to be true, this is a ridiculous idea.
Why is that? Lets look honestly at this. What if I
told you there was a god? There has to be evidence
to support the claim. As our world view goes now,
the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the
christian world view, being about as real as the
flying spaghetti monster creating reality.

The only evidence they have to support their claims

are a series of deranged ramblings and wonderful
insights in the bible. The new testament was written
25 years after the event (even this is being very
favourable to christians, estimates range up to 200
years) so it is not even a direct account. Christians
have staked absolute faith (actually circular logic) in
the bible but there is no way to prove if it is
conclusively true or false. Add to that, their
irrational lines of argument, their assertion that no
evidence amounts to actual evidence, the glaring
contradictions and intellectual surrender and then
you have a compelling case where they have been
virtually debunked but we just don't have the actual
hard evidence, to present to them and snap them
out of their delusion.

Atheism and theism are merely beliefs at the

moment. No one can prove conclusively either way,
with 100% certainty. There are strong cases for
each, with some arguments being more reasonable
than others. It is no less a belief to say there is no
god, how do you know for sure if there is, if you
have not conclusively seen for yourself?
If we look at the evidence, it seems more likely that
no god is true. You can only believe what either side
says, it is therefore nothing more than a belief either
way. If we use honesty, the only thing we can
confirm here is that there is evidence to support

either side, we can not prove there is no god

with a certainty of 100%. You cannot prove
there is a self either by the same virtue, you simply
have a very strong belief that there is a self. This
maybe difficult to swallow but if you strongly
disagree with me, then I invite you to put it to the
test.

But I exist, its true.

You believe you exist. Answer honestly, it is a
belief. There is evidence to support this belief i.e.
your life experience but you have never tested the
foundations of this statement in anyway.
You have lived your life with the assumption that
you are the thinker behind your thoughts. This is all
an assumption, although it made sense to all of us.
Until you test this, you can not have anything more
than a belief about this. Any statement of what it
really is, either affirmative or negative; is a
statement of dishonesty, because you have not
tested it out in real life. Once you test out a belief
and see if it stands in the light of reality, then you
can say it is a statement of fact.

I believe in god, law of attraction, higher

consciousness yada yada....

Cool, whatever your beliefs are thats fine. Everyone

is entitled to their beliefs. I'm not asking you to
drop your beliefs. If these are truths in your eyes,
then can more truth really hurt? Or will it enhance
what you know to be true? Truth is indiscriminate.
When truth is seen, it will burn through anything
that is not true. If your convictions are so strong,
then they will always stand up to the truth
regardless of what they are.

This is what it actually means to have faith; to test

your convictions in reality. This is a leap of faith
with your current beliefs, do you have the faith to
put your belief to the ultimate test, against
REALITY?

So to put it plainly, if you already believe the idea of

no self to be false, then you should have absolutely
no fear about testing out my claim and trying to
falsify it.
If you won't even test it then quite simply you are
afraid, there is no other explanation. If you are in
this camp now, notice how you are weaving a little
story, where I must be crazy, you are above testing
this claim, that you are right, I'm wrong and if you
mentioned this to anyone else, they would think you
were crazy.
Likely you will be saying It can't be true, its just not
possible, so my challenge to you, is to ask yourself

could it be true? and take the test. If you are so sure

of your convictions, then you should have nothing
to fear, right?

Whats in it for me, why should I?

Well as we discussed earlier, the false self is the
main component of cognitive dysfunction in human
beings. Once the truth is seen, it cannot be unseen
and you are liberated. This is not the end of the false
self, since it was never there, it is merely the seeing
of what it truly was all along; an illusion.
This is not freedom from anything, this is the
freedom to live life free from the influence of
disruptive thinking, negativity and the mental
baggage that we believe is real.

I don't need liberation.

Ever since we were born, we have been constructing
an intricate mental fortress. We build up barriers to
other people and the world. We cling to notions of
identity that allow us to conform, we create a
changing persona in relation to other people, we are
chasing after fleeting feelings of happiness, only to
get there and wonder why we don't feel like we
expected to. We believe we are good people, we
believe our story is what makes us the person we are

and we size up the measure of our own worth, in

relation to other peoples standards.

We even believe that everything will be all right in

the end and we cling hard to this notion and blindly
hope everything will work out for us. This is a lie
that we tell ourselves because our life is empty and
devoid of meaning and we cannot face up to reality,
we think the truth would destroy us, so instead we
lie to ourselves and keep running from the truth,
never looking back. We believe that material things
will bring us happiness but like the new car feeling,
these things evaporate around us and then we fixate
on the next big thing that will bring us happiness,
whether it be a new job, holiday or whatever.
You are being led through this world like a rat,
stumbling from one reward to the next frantically
trying to escape the maze but all the time running
towards the next bright neon sign that tells you that
once you have this thing, or achieve this goal, then
you can be happy, like it is something you can just
decide to be suddenly.

Maybe you don't go for this consumerism thing,

maybe your a vegan so you boldly declare to
everyone, how you don't eat meat and you buy only
natural and ethical products. The difference here is
none, you are still clinging to the same notion of
making an identity but because you are intelligent,

you make up a more intricate fiction and think

yourself different and unique from everyone else.
You will never escape your fortress because your
mind made it all up. The fortress is nothing more
than a fantasy that has been conditioned in to your
thought patterns, you don't exist, it is all a complex
and convincing illusion.

There is just life left after liberation. Freedom to live

a life of meaning and value. A life unfettered with
the trappings of materialism and identity. There is
life, there are thoughts, there are feelings but there
is no you. "I" is only a thought that does not actually
refer to anything. It can refer to the physical body
when we use "I" in language (see semantics) but
that does not make it real, any more than the word
unicorn makes that real.
There is a complex web of thought and because it is
all intertwined, it actually gives the illusion of a
thinker behind the thinking. When we directly
observe this in reality, it is simply not there
whatsoever, it never was. It is only a fictional
character that the mind invented.

This sounds really freaky and weird

It is actually not so freaky and weird as you might
think on first glance. Numerous religions in the

world have formalised this no self teaching and

inserted metaphysical dogma and formalised rituals
in to the process and it goes by the name of
enlightenment. Such religions as Buddhism,
Advaita, Yoga, Zen, Cha'an, Tantra, The Upanishads
all teach no self in their doctrine. Likely it was
present in Christianity, Islam and Judaism before
they were poisoned.

Whilst this no self idea is not new at all and is

thousands of years old, western philosophers are
starting to jump on this bandwagon of thought
finally, after David Hume in the 19th Century,
realised that we cannot actually perceive this self.
Such modern philosophers go by the name of
Derrick Parfit, Thomas Metzinger and Julian
Baggini.
Two books by these you can check out at Amazon:
The Ego Trick by Julian Baggini
The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger
This idea is actually widely accepted in philosophy
however, they have not actually seen this no self
proposition in real life, although they have an
intellectual understanding of it. Otherwise, I would
like to think that they would be excitedly trying to
tell the world about it.

Here is a video presentation by Julian Baggini, for

RSA animate:
http://youtu.be/TF2A3rKqoY0 In this video he
directly contradicts me by saying that there is a self
but he concedes that it is not what we think it is. He
has not experienced that there actually is no self, or
he would be telling everyone to look and he would
see that life lives itself! He is merely theorising
about no self but I will concede that there is the
psychological phenomena of a narrative self,
which we all know too well, however, it is not a true
'thing' and seeing the false nature of this illusion, is
your liberation. It is the same as seeing a mirage, it
does not mean the water really exists but the
phenomena arises.
I made a response to Julian's presentation here:
http://ghostvirus2011.blogspot.com/2011/12/whatdoes-it-mean-to-be-you.html

This is reality, right now, I am here

Yes it is, are you observing reality or experiencing
it? The metaphor that people like to draw is that you
an observer that watches an interactive 3d film with
stereo sound and feelings. You are the thinker
behind all the thoughts feelings and emotions. You

observe the input and then make a decision based

on the input that cause an action. If there was a you
involved in this equation, it would have to be
outside of reality. To observe reality, you have to be
separate from it by the nature of it. This means that
no one is observing reality. There can only be the
experiencing of it. As we cannot observe reality this
creates a dichotomy. Where is the thinker? Is the
thinker inside reality or by necessity would it have
to be separate from reality?

What about the cogito: I think therefore I

am?
The cogito presupposes a thinker, if we remove the
thinker, it becomes a guess, therefore it is fallacious.
An improved proposition is 'think therefore am'.
This relates to thinking and being and removes the
presupposition of a separate thinker.

I am me, its my life

There is no ownership of your life, this is an illusion.
How can anyone own life itself? There is the
perception of ownership, take a pet dog for instance
but at what point do you actually have ownership of
the life of the dog? You influence its life but you
cannot take ownership of life. Same as the dog
cannot own its life. It is the same for a human being.
The nature of the false self creates this idea of

separation between the self and experience. In

reality, it is merely an illusion.

I've experienced so much, are you telling me

that when I went snowboarding last week, I
did not do it?
There was the experience of snowboarding and
anything else that has been experienced, where does
a "you" actually fit in to this, for any of this to
happen. There is snowboarding and the experience
of snowboarding but no "experiencer" behind the
experience and no "doer" behind the actions, there
are just things that are experienced and actions that
have been taken.

I can remember snowboarding whenever I

want to, its my memory, I can recall stuff
whenever I want to. They are my memories
you can not take them away from me. I was
actually there "I" did it.
The reason for memory recall is due to a stimulus of
some kind, sometimes they even appear to arise in
our minds for no reason we perceive. Either case,
there does not need to be a thinker behind the
thinking, it just occurs anyway. There is no
ownership of memories or experience, something
was just experienced.

The memories cannot be taken away, we have

already seen that they arise. This is just the false self
twisting this in to a commodity that could be
potentially lost. Nothing could be further from the
truth, all the life experience is real, you are not, you
are an illusion.

They are my memories, my future, I own it

all, it is mine
Wrong. There is only this present moment. Nothing
exists outside of the present moment. The past no
longer exists and the future doesn't exist yet.
Anything outside the present moment, only exists in
our memory or imagination. This gives the illusion
that we are the same abiding self over time. This
philosophical problem has been solved now, it is not
even regarded as a philosophical problem any more.
The view that we have psychological continuity over
time is an illusion. Really we are a complex bundle
of thoughts, that as a result of a feedback lop in the
brain, we identify with I and believe it to be real.
It is a fiction created by the mind, you don't exist it
is an illusion.

What about free will?

Free will is an illusion. On one level as a human
organism, you are free to take whatever action but
you can't choose what action you feel like taking.

Allow me to illustrate. If you look at the menu, you

can choose between chicken and the fish but you
cannot choose what you feel like eating. Don't
worry, there is an in depth article about it here:
http://ghostvirus2011.blogspot.com/2011/09/freewont-part-i.html
http://ghostvirus2011.blogspot.com/2011/09/freewont-part-ii.html

What about collective consciousness?

Insert a "you" in to the equation at whatever point
you like. Is there a collective consciousness? Can't
prove it either way but if there is, or not, it doesn't
need a "you" to work. If there was a collective
consciousness, how could you be part of the
collective, if you are separate?

What about semantics?

Yawn. The body is aware that the thought arose to
write something about semantics even though it is
not relevant to this. The body is aware of a thought
that is not interested in doing it. The mind thought
that it should not be done. Resultant action is none.

Compute = I was gonna write something but I can't

be arsed.
Language is inherently dualistic anyway, its easier
to just say I or you than go through that hassle.
Does that make the words "I" or "you" any more real
in reality, than the words "flying" and "pig" just
because the words exist?
Because the word unicorn exists, does it make it a
real entity? Seriously semantics has no leg to stand
on here. Pronouns are a structural requirement of
purposeful communication, getting rid of them is
nonsensical, therefore there is no need to get rid of
them, although we should inspect the content of
what pronouns refer to in real life.

What is conscience then, describe

conscience
To have a conscience by the nature of the language
presupposes there is someone to have a conscience.
If we look at what is happening on a biological level,
our brain is hard-wired to give feedback via the
nervous system. Feelings such as fear, guilt, all arise
due to a stimulus in the environment. Fear is
important to survival, what about guilt, what use is
that? Guilt usually involves a perceived loss of some
kind. Our mind is hard wired to seek out advantages
in work, social sphere etc..(If you don't understand
this read up on evolutionary psychology). The body
interpreting things as taking us closer to survival,

gives us good feelings and things that take us away

from survival, the body interprets and gives us
"bad" feelings. From the organisms point of view,
emotional feedback can not be judged as good or
bad. Sure "bad" feelings are not desirable but
labelling them bad is missing the bigger picture.
Any emotional feedback is useful to the organism.
Conscience is merely a convenient label given to this
part of the emotional feedback system. The feelings
that arise are specific to our sense of right and
wrong, which is related to surviving within a social
hierarchy, it is actually just mental programming.

What about morals, morality, you have those

don't you?
Morality = the adoption of someone elses
belief system.
Morality is actually social conditioning (even brain
washing in some cases) when the veil is removed.
We claim to have morals but really, they are not
usually our morals. They become ingrained on us
from an early age and we don't have a choice about
adopting them for the most part. They are just taken
as a given and dictate how we need to behave in a
social structure. We can't really say its a bad thing,
as it keeps some semblance of a cohesive society
together. If there was no moral code then we would
have gang warfare, random attacks and lots of
crime. Oh wait we do. These people aren't

conditioned as strongly with a moral code as others

to put it simply.

Other people such as psychopaths, it has been noted

by recent research, have been shown to have
defective neural networks and hence, they can not
grasp morality and are able to experience remorse
or guilt. Others still, will hide behind the perception
of a moral code and use it to judge others as "bad"
people. They create the illusion of a higher moral
standpoint, which they use to attack others and they
identify with this position strongly more often than
not. This is a projection of grandeur when you strip
away the thin veneer of sincerity and you find it in
misguided individuals and religious people, trying
to prop up their notion of belief. People blame the
breakdown of morals on the decline of the church,
family values, or whatever. It is happening thats all
we need concern ourselves with and primarily, most
of this crime is driven by greed, as a fundamental
aspect of their dysfunction.

I've meditated before, I have watched the

thoughts arise, since I am there to witness
them can I be described as awareness?
No you are not awareness, there is no you at all. You
would be identifying self, with something else, there
is no self. Awareness is real, there is awareness but
no you.

I actually refers to nothing other than the physical

objective human. You just took it to mean that the
I label was reason enough for you to assume that
you existed.

Is the realisation that there is no you

equivalent to enlightenment?
This is not a difficult one to answer, the answer is in
two parts; Yes and No. Many spiritual teachings,
especially Buddha's point to this state as part of
being enlightened. Anatta or no self, is part of the
journey. Through all the arguments that were
caused with the spiritual crowd in the past, at no
point did anyone who was genuinely enlightened
disagree with the core teaching, there is no self.

However, enlightenment is the end of the journey.

In Buddhism after seeing Anatta, the next stage is
the total annihilation of the false self. In the Advaita
tradition, the self is not annihilated, it is seen that
you are god and part of the universe.
Even the main traditions disagree on what
enlightenment actually is but we have managed to
distil it down in to two main parts.
1. See no self - Annata

2. Break the conditioning or ignorance we

accumulated Destroy the false self.
Don't get fixated on destroying the self though, it
was never there, some people take it to mean sit in
the mountains for fifteen years to annihilate the
ego. This is insanity and unhealthy!
So there is parity between no self and the main
traditions. In Advaita, it takes years of meditating to
dissolve your ignorance and then you are given the
final teaching of no self at the end. So essentially,
Advaita runs the process backwards. Personally I
have had more success in diffusing my conditioning,
since I have had the clarity of seeing through the
false self. Others may argue which is the right way
but one thing is for sure, this is A WAY.

How can you be so sure this is

enlightenment?
Basically this no self insight dovetails perfectly with
different descriptions. For instance in the 6th
Patriach's Platform Sutra, Hui Neng talks about the
void and Buddha dharma. Essentially, this is exactly
what we see after no self has been seen. Zen koans
make perfect sense, such as produce a thought
nowhere supported. I'll spoil this one for you, when
you see no self in your thoughts, it is actually the
narrative centre of gravity that supports the idea
of self. Quite simple really but to the layman it

sounds mysterious and deep. It isn't quite simply, it

is a fancy dressing to a simple proposition that can
be observed.

In all the Eastern tradition, rather than sounding

deep, I am able to fully comprehend what they are
saying when they talk of enlightenment. I see clearly
what they are talking of and I experience non - dual
awareness. I will admit that some of my ignorance
remains and certain ego structures that were
conditioned still remain but there again, these
things don't vanish overnight and it will likely take
me some time.

This insight is new, we were just some normal

westerners who were living a life blissfully unaware
but now we find that we are all exploring this
uncharted territory. There are pitfalls and trappings
abound but we see that the no self lynch pin, is the
core mechanism of human dysfunction and we have
managed to render the mechanism inert in
ourselves to a large degree. I would not say we are
entirely free from dysfunction but we have yet to
clear out our accumulated ignorance. The mind still
holds certain judgements and ideas but these are
seen for what they are. The other alternative is
meditating for 10 years. So is this rapid
enlightenment? I would say no. Is liberation real
freedom from the human condition? I would say a
resounding YES.

Is this spiritual?
No, not in the slightest. All the spiritual claptrap
that comes from the so called "enlightened" is about
confusing people. It just provides snippets of
wisdom of what the enlightened state is like and
doesn't give people the tools to actually cross over.
Take this from Buddha: "Theres nothing that will
attain and nothing that won't attain". Compute =
There is no you. Clarity is what is needed and that is
what is lacking in Eastern philosophy. What
Buddha said was true but its all shrouded in riddle
speak.

Really there is no mystery.

Buddha's followers misinterpreted him and then

produced a religion and 000's of times more useless
monks, than anyone liberated from the self. He took
ten years to free people. We free people in a few
days or weeks. I could write a book about all the
insights I've had already but they wouldn't liberate
anyone, hence they are useless when there is a
whole world stuck suffering in a delusion.

Have you heard of Eckhart Tolle? Isn't some

of what he says true?
Yes, Eckhart is enlightened and what he describes
as presence is absolutely spot on. His insights are
amazing and once you have gone through this
liberation process, you can understand what he says
with absolute clarity. I read his stuff a while ago and
thought wow, I would like to have what he has.
Unfortunately Eckhart is providing you a glimpse of
what it is like to be liberated, he's not freeing people
although he is trying to. I don't think he knows the
process he used himself, he just woke up
enlightened, so he can't explain to people how to
become liberated. I experience presence very often
and if I ever get tied up with thought, I can simply
slip in to the present moment.

Wait a minute, get caught up in thought?

You said there was no you though?
There is awareness of thought, thinking does not
stop! Just because there is no self, it does not mean
there is no thought, that is ludicrous. Just because
you see an illusion, doesn't mean the illusion is not
there any more! You see that there is an illusion
there and once it is seen as an illusion, it loses its
power over you.
Instead of the mind feeding back in to itself through
an illusion of self and believed as real, it is seen for

what it is: a complex web of thoughts, projection,

labels and memories that refer to nothing. The word
you, does not refer to anything when we are talking
in terms of a self, a thinker or a doer. There is
nothing there.

But I have a big ego, there is no way I can

drop my ego
It depends on what your definition of ego is. My
view is that the ego is the myriad of beliefs,
judgements and memories stored in the minds
pattern matching faculty multiplied by the basic
human drive for power. Rather the ego is not an
entity that exists but there are thoughts that are
"egoic" in nature. There is just awareness of egoic
thoughts but no ego. A stand alone ego is a concept
conceived by Sigmund Freud. I will stand here and
tell you there is no entity called "the ego", this is a
fallacy. What Freud did was attribute thought
patterns to a false sense of self and categorised
them. His work was well intentioned although he
used a presupposition of a self being there.

What is the liberated state like? It sounds

like your a nihilist and it sounds like "no
you" means there is no point to life.
Of course the lie of self would have you think this
because it is threatened. I will describe it to you.

It is a subtle shift in consciousness, yet there is no

real change. Your perception changes slightly in the
same way that as you see a mirage and know it is
not water you are seeing. There is a sense of
happiness and calm being your default. It is not
overwhelming bliss or anything, serenity would be a
better word. The emotional changes that I used to
have, are not very pronounced any more.
Everything works the same way as it did before. All
the deep beliefs I held are still there in some ways
and beliefs such as Lions are dangerous in the wild
are useful and serve us well.
I still desire to do things but theres no attachment
to the outcome any more. I have grand plans like we
all do but nothing hinges on whether they come to
fruition or not any more, I enjoy life regardless. My
motivation dropped off at first and I was happy to
Zen out initially but as the state deepened, I got the
desire back to help people see this delusion.
After my liberation, I had some big trouble in my
life. I had just split up with my girlfriend, lost a
friend in a motorbike accident and nearly lost my
job in the same week. Yes there was a lot of pain.
Something like that could have triggered a
depressive episode but I see it for what it was, raw
emotional pain. Pain that I was no longer identified
with, so I was unable to suffer. It did not make it
any more pleasant but I was not consumed by it in
the same way.

This was the proof I needed to see with my own eyes

and I clearly saw that the lie of self actually is the
core mechanism responsible for needless human
suffering.
If you are afraid of spiders, you will still be afraid of
them after liberation. If you were a shit person, you
still will be after liberation. This ain't a magical cure
for everything however it is freedom from
dysfunction. I'm not going to say it is enlightenment
and freedom from pain, that is not true. However, it
is liberation from the core mechanism of
dysfunction all the same.

Why are you trying to push this on people,

were you a member of ruthless truth?
Yes, I was a member of ruthless truth. At the time,
we were blown away by the fact that we were free.
We actually had a vision of freeing the world and
tried our best to execute it. We were very militant
about it and in all fairness because of the way we
went about it, we made a lot of enemies, got
branded a cult and we were vile to a lot of people.
We were being compassionate in the same way that
you push a kid out of the way of an oncoming bus.
People did not appreciate this approach and
because you cannot keep up this intensity of rage
and fire, it burned out.

Most people who had this insight walked away,

instead of helping ruthless truth and paying their
freedom forwards on to others. I walked away to
start with but came back and then walked away
again. At no time did I doubt the movement but I
didn't have the time to throw my energy in to it
fully. I managed to free three people and now my
focus is on helping people who want it.

So now this stuff is not going to be pushed down

your throat, it is here if you want to be free from the
false self. If you choose not to look that is fine with
me and you are welcome to live out your fiction.
However, if you want to go down the rabbit hole, I
well help you find this insight for FREE.

To wrap up...

Ok... now we have two types of people.

Cowards and those who are brave enough, to put

their beliefs to the test.

So if you are afraid and your answer is along these

lines: 'I'm happy with how my life is, you can't
possibly know more than me because I'm so great',
then that is fine. I hope you live a happy and
worthwhile life, free from needless suffering. The
door is always open, should you wish to return.

If you are brave you may be thinking 'I can

conceptually understand what you are saying, I'm
willing to take a look at your evidence but I think its
very far fetched'.
This next step does require courage. If you can at
least do the investigation and conclude that I am
wrong, then I will accept that you at least tried and
at the very least, you will learn about some false
beliefs that you held. Not everyone has the courage
to see this through to the end.

I will say that your very sense of self is threatened

right now and you will be weaving a story to try and
convince yourself to walk away. This will happen
throughout the investigation and your courage will
be tested many times. If you get beyond these
experiments to the stage where you have to do a lot
of deep inner looking, you may encounter a little
anxiety and possibly even a headache from thinking
too hard! Funnily enough, thinking is the last thing
you need to do, you need to LOOK. Saying that, if

you feel anxiety, then that means you are on the

right path, the falsehood of the self, does not appear
without a little turmoil.

Ok before we go any further, you have to drop any

notions that you know about what is real or not.
Any thing you know or think you know needs to be
dropped before you do the experiments. They have
to be done with absolute honesty and you must go
in to each experiment with no expectations.

What I am asking you to do from this point on, is to

conduct an investigation in to the construct of your
reality and rebuild your knowledge from the ground
up. That means dropping any notion of what you
think the reason is, for something happening.

For instance, open and close your hand. DO IT

NOW.

ACTUALLY DO IT.

All you know for sure is you read the words on the
screen and the hand opened, then closed. This is the
level of sincere honesty that is required from you, to
do these experiments. It is on the premise of what
you can directly observe, not what you 'think'
should be observed.

OK... lets do it, first we have to explore honesty and

courage fully, then we will go on to the experiments.

L@@K - Honesty and courage

I have written this section because at the start of my

journey in to liberation, I was hearing the terms
look and see all the time. My question was how do I
actually look. This may seem counter intuitive but
Maxi Jazz (lead singer of Faithless) came out with a
good quote in his lyrics "You don't need eyes to see,
you need vision". That sums it up really, you need to
look with your inner vision. Now I'm going to cover
the process of looking and what it really entails.
I'm attempting to write the post I wish I had, before
I started looking but as language is so limited for
conveying this, it will probably be a vague guide to
looking like I actually encountered. So this is merely
my effort to try and make it clear...
Ok there is a difference between looking and
thinking. To see the truth of no "you" you need to
LOOK at existential reality. Thinking about it will
not do you any good. Thinking too much in to things
is not healthy anyway and my advice is not to think
about it at all but just look. Thinking will only
obstruct you from looking.
This is not some logic puzzle you can solve, this is
something that can only be witnessed with
awareness. So whilst many people will try and work
it like a puzzle or riddle to crack, in actual fact, this
is diverting your attention away from looking at
existential reality.

Seriously... I will give you the tools you need to do

this and you can crack it in five seconds.
Here you go: LOOK in reality, there is no you, there
is no thinker behind the thinking, no doer behind
the actions and no experiencer behind the
experience, there is just thought, action and
experience but no you, it is an illusion.
Take a look in reality now and LOOK at how there is
no entity that is called self there whatsoever, to have
the thoughts do the actions and have the
experience.
This is all you really need, nothing more than this is
required but in practice it very rarely works like
this. All it takes to become liberated is a few
seconds. The problem is because the mind has been
conditioned to have its reality processed in terms of
a self, this inner looking becomes tricky and
frustrating. If you have meditated before, you will
have some experience of looking at your inner
reality but really this is not a pre - requisite to go
through this process.
Some people can get this quickly, others take
longer, others come back after a month off and
some will just eventually give up. Not everyone is
capable of seeing it through.
To go through this to the end requires
courage and honesty.
Courage
Courage is required to see this through as the lie of

self being threatened, will twist and turn and throw

up every excuse not to look. It will throw the idea
that no self is oblivion and will obstruct you from
looking.
Why is this? If there is no self then how come this
happens?
Ok.... basically we have established that self is an
illusion, there are thoughts but no thinker, this is
the illusion of self. So how does this illusion then
arise? Basically from the myriad of thoughts and
projections, you have the assumption of an entity
being there in control of the thinking. As far as the
mind is concerned, there is no problem and
everything is working fine.
The idea of no self is a disturbance to the
equilibrium and I'm sure when you first looked at
the idea there was a lot of resistance to this idea at
first. Now hopefully by doing the experiments with
honesty, you will agree with my observations and
now rather than being 100% skeptical, you are only
90 - 99% skeptical. That is at best all I could hope to
achieve in this blog.
My aim is to sow a seed of doubt and give you the
information you need to start looking at reality for
the truth, nothing more.
If there is the tiniest shred of doubt in your mind as
to your previous belief, then you have something to
work with. Seriously, the observations made in the
experiments can not be explained by anything else.
So if you think you can explain why these

observations occur then thats a good thing, you

have something to start working with. If you don't
have something to start working with, you have an
untested assumption that there is a "you" and you
can get to work trying to prove that "you" exist, is a
good starting point.
Honesty
Honesty is also required to see the lie of self.
Take a look at the picture below and tell me what
you see:

Its a flag right, it is the symbol of the English

nation, a symbol of nationalism, an isnpiration to all
English people....
No no no. This is not honest looking. What is seen is
a picture of a flag on the computer screen.
Here is a metaphor I told a friend:
Me: Basically all you have to do is look and you can
prove it, for instance take a look at that flag, tell me
what you see.
Friend: I see the national flag, it stands for the
nationalism of the country, the people....
Me: Hah, there you go, you weren't looking at the

flag, you were telling me what it means. This is what

I see... a metal
pole and some material flapping in the wind.
This is the level you need to look at reality on. If you
see what the flag represents, you are interpreting its
meaning and thinking about what it actually means.
You are not in fact looking at it for what it is.
The problem with trying to see no self is this
impression that you are looking at something for
what it is. This is what a flag is, it has meaning, it
represents something. So it is with a false self there
is so much meaning tied in to this illusion that one
will find it difficult to really see it for what it is at
first.
This is the problem right here. Your current logic is
processed in terms of a self, so your logic will never
disprove it existence. When you observe this
processing of the self i.e. take a step back and look
at the actual process behind the idea of self itself,
then you can see that "self" is only a thought.
Seriously, this realisation is about as deep as a
puddle: "There is no you". It really is that simple. It
takes 5 seconds to see the truth in this statement.
Trying to understand it is futile. It's not a logic
puzzle, it is not nihilism, it is simply universal truth.
Just LOOK in reality. If you need help check out
ruthless truth or contact me but first, I suggest you
do the experiments to give you an idea of what is
really happening.
Ok this is the level of honesty you need.

THIS IS THE LEVEL OF HONESTY YOU NEED

If you get one thing from this page it is this and the
fact you have to look and not analyse.
Imagine an alien trying to understand how a
humans mind works. The alien has no knowledge of
our thought processes, maybe it only uses feelings
and does not even process in terms of sight and
sound as well. Now lets presuppose the alien was
interested in learning about us and didn't want to
eat our brains just for this instance... See
presuppositions are worthless, aliens might be
very kind?
If we were the first people the alien met, you would
tell it that there was a soul or thinker in charge of
having the thoughts and experience and I would say
that that there is only thought and experience. All
the alien would have would be our testimonies. So
what we need to do is look at this whole thing from
the third person. I.e. We have no knowledge
whatsoever of what is happening. How do we
emulate this ourselves? We simply drop our
knowledge and rely on observations. We use
honesty to just observe each scenario and do not try
and overlay what we believe is true. This is
starting again and building a case from the ground
up, with no presuppositions.
The way we start this process initially is to go about
doing this the opposite way round; by finding out
exactly what self is NOT.

That is why its a good idea to get your stock

questions out of the way first. So we will start with
our first one that despite being a very good question
that everyone will ask to start with, actually just
pisses me off now. So I will write out the answer to
this one and get it out of the way once and for all:
So...
I'm going to put a discussion I had on a forum here
where I have addressed the answers to some basic
questions that crop up initially...
But here is the simple answer to the question:
Well if I didn't exist, then who decides to go and
make a cup of tea?
Seriously this answer is boring me to tears already,
just because I am liberated, doesn't mean I don't get
annoyed any more, so I'll spell it out for you simply.
There is an organism called a "homo sapien". It has
a highly evolved brain and is capable of complex
thought. Sometimes the organism likes drinking tea
especially if it happens to be made in England. This
is what we call free will. An organism has the
freedom to have a preference for the type of drink it
wants, if given the choice, it is not dictated by
anybody. So the kidneys send the signal to the brain
that the water tank needs topping up. The brain
responds by producing the thought about a cup of
tea on this occasion. The body then goes towards
the kettle in order to start the procedure of making
a cup of tea.

At what point is a self necessary to perform this

action? You can insert a self in to this equation if
you like but if we use Occams razor, we can say the
simplest explanation is the most probable. So go
ahead and insert the self in to the equation. It still
works but it is not proof in any shape or form of a
self. It also does not disprove it either. But all we
have done is shown that there is another
explanation for your current observations, i.e. your
whole lifes experience.
Now going back to our alien metaphor... What
would the alien decide in this instance? Who would
he believe? Lets try and map what happened on to
an organism lower in the food chain.
Lets use a pig. A pig is thirsty, it decides to drink
some water. If it is a captive pig it probably doesn't
get a choice. Unfortunately, it probably does not
have a kettle or teabags. So it is safe to assume that
the organism is thirsty and it walks over to the
water and has a drink. Insert the self here.
Do pigs have a self? If we have then why haven't
pigs? They are biological organisms, in order for a
biological organism to work it needs a self or it
doesn't?
This creates a problem... but we can gloss over this
if we want to and find a nice excuse but if we use
honesty we cannot be 100% sure. We have ditched
all our knowledge, so from our observations, we can
start to build up a case for and against.
All we have observed is this:

There is a case for no self in humans

There is a case for self in humans
There is a case for all biological organisms having
a self or no self
Any other observations are not based in honesty
since to do so would mean we have inserted a
presupposition of facts. This is the level of honesty
with which you must look... THIS LEVEL OF
HONESTY IS REQUIRED. Always remember
the third person view with no prior knowledge of
how things should be and build it up piece by piece.
The fatal blow
Now... at any point a hole can be found in the fact
that there is no self, then the whole thing gets shot
down in flames spectacularly. And what will be
proven is that I am insane. If that day comes I will
bow my head in shame and walk away to the nut
house. BUT... what we have actually discovered, is
every time we have tried to explain our observations
of no self in reality, it always works no matter what
argument of a case for the self is presented. In fact it
actually makes more sense as you go through that
there is no self. It becomes highly illogical for there
to be a self and then, we get to the stage where we
have an intellectual understanding.
Understanding the concept of no self
We can use logic to get us so far and we can come to
the conclusion that there is in fact no self if we spent
long enough using logic. However, this is futile as
really all you need to do is look at reality. So to start
with you will be using a combination of logic and

observation in the experiments that I have put up

on this blog. Your observations will be based purely
in honesty and many people get to the stage where
they can comprehend logically there is no self but
they are not yet liberated.
Now...
When this stage is reached we have the problem
that we know too well the truth but we cannot see it.
This was the stage I was at for about two weeks.
This part was the most frustrating part of it if I'm
honest. I had come to the logical conclusion that the
self was an illusion however I would come out with
a description that went something along the lines of
"I know there is no self but the ego keeps on taking
over again".
This is actually the thought of self clinging on
desperately. Why does this happen? Ok basically the
brain has a conditioning mechanism and the input
is filtered through the conscious mind. I don't like
the idea of dividing the brain but this is a good way
to explain it to the layman.
We know this to be the case because if I said "you
are a monkey",
you would not be convinced that you are a monkey
straight away. Of course the brain has to interpret
the input and evaluate it accordingly. Now I could
hammer on like this and literally brainwash you in
to thinking you are a monkey. Very unlikely but
with enough persistence, I could get you to say
finally "I am a monkey".

This would probably be more out of irritation than

anything but at this point nothing has happened. I
would stop, satisfied that you think your a monkey
and then you would think "I am a human, I am not
a monkey at all".
We could carry on for years but you cannot convince
the brain logically of something. If a belief is
conditioned, you can not unthink this conditioning.
This we know for a fact. Or else you could simply
just decide one day that you were not afraid of
something. This obviously doesn't happen.
If this time I dragged you to a mirror and said "you
are a monkey look". When you looked in to the
mirror, you saw the reflection of a monkey then
your whole world view would shatter. You look at
your body, its covered in hair, you were always quite
short, you look at the very primitive opposing
thumbs and then at this point the brain would
accept that its model of reality needs updating.
Of course this would be quite a shock if you had
been turned in to a monkey over night with my
genetic transmorpher ray but what we are
illustrating here, is how the brain works when it
comes to accepting an updated view of reality. Once
you see there is no self, then reality is updated to
incorporate this new fact.
This is the nature of the operating system that the
brain uses. We cannot change this faculty which is a
good thing but this provides certain obstacles to
overcome.
How did you see it Gh0$t V1Ru$?

Now this description may or may not make sense

depending on where youre at but I will describe the
main milestones that really hit me. First of all, I did
a few experiments and it was obvious to me very
quickly that it was logically possible that there was
no you, then came the hard task of seeing the truth.
Now check out experiment no.4. The one where I
told you to wear the frame of mind that there was
no you for a week. Nobody told me to do this but
what happened is by chance, I noticed certain
responses were automatic and there was no way a
thinker could be involved in the process at all.
This is what happened to me to give you the idea..
I was sat there watching Viet Nam playing Malaysia
on ESPN. It wasn't the best football match I had
ever seen but anyways, with ten minutes to go, the
Vietnamese made a fast attacking surge and
overwhelmed the Malaysian defence.
The striker had only the last man and the keeper to
beat. He knocked it past the defender on the edge of
the box, he had beaten him but as he went past, the
defender made the slightest contact with him.
Instead of carrying on for a golden opportunity to
slot it past the keeper who was rooted to the line, he
decided to dive on the floor to try and get a penalty.
Then the replay came on, as the slow mo ran, at the
point where the slightest contact was made, I
lurched forward and screamed "you cheating
f****** b******".
Then it hit me like a ton of bricks. I had reacted to
the replay. In the process of doing this, I had seen

that the cognitive process of the thinker just simply

wasn't there. Usually people would attribute these
such outbursts to "my personality" or whatever but
I had witnessed firsthand that in fact any such
outbursts, are a result of the brain reacting to the
environment and the whole idea of a thinker being
responsible for all thought was an incorrect
assumption.
The whole point of that experiment is for you to re create this realisation in your own view of reality.
From this point my reticular activation was set to
keep noticing when I was running on auto pilot,
which was a lot more than I would ever have
dreamed of and this gave me a good shove in the
right direction as I was able to start looking at the
inner processes and start to remove the parts that
the self wasn't responsible for...
I had various Satori's while I was doing my inner
looking and I had a lot of false positives/ false
dawns of what the truth was. I started looking so
hard at the fact there was no self, I had a head ache
constantly for a week. I devoted all my energy to
this process and it does take its toll a little bit. This
is common from what I can tell and this part is
tough.
Here is where you must hold your courage. The
mind is resisting this with all its might and you
pretty much know its the last stand of the false self.
I literally noticed that the mind was blocking my
awareness from seeing the truth in the end.
I was literally sat in the chair and I had to summon

up all my inner reserves to take a look at reality. At

this point the mind was screaming NOOOO!! and
then I had to make one last push to look in reality.
This final look was actually using the same
awareness that is used in meditation, the kind of
awareness where you are looking at the mind.
Its so hard to describe this and I vowed I would try
my damndest but words cannot explain it. It is not a
special kind of looking, there is no special way of
looking, it is just using your awareness to see but it
is not thinking, it is LOOKING.
You have to force it in the end, the mind resists
hard, you literally have to muster up something and
bust through the resistance. Well thats how it was
for me anyway, other people have had it easier!
How do I know I'm done?
When youre done, youre done. Some people are
looking for the heavens to open and a light to shine
down on them. This ain't a happy ending or the end
of your problems, this is just seeing the truth that
you was an illusion all along. I saw it and then I
chuckled to myself and I felt pretty good. There is
no change, no shift everythings as it always was
except there is no you behind it all.
There is just the experience, or what they
call non - duality in Neo - advaita teachings.
Top ten tips for looking
Go to Experiment no.1

If you are thinking, then you are not looking

Smack the crap out of this from every angle
Logic becomes an obstacle to looking, always
make sure you are looking instead of expecting
an answer
Honesty must be used at all stages
Write your thoughts down on a piece of paper
or on the computer. Write everything down
right from the beginning no matter how crazy it
sounds. Only you need ever look at this.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT HOW IT SOUNDS,
write for the sake of writing and then scrutinise
it
Get help, contact me or check out the Ruthless
arena, we can help you to see no self there
If its frustrating and causing you discomfort
then you are on the right track
Try and focus on the absence of a self behind
the thoughts, actions and experiences and
describe what it means
Do not trust anything that can not be seen
directly in reality

Experiment no.1

Experiment set no.1

Ok in this section, what I aim to achieve is to bring
you to a level where you can accept what is being
said on an intellectual level. At this point you will
not be liberated but you will understand what is
being said intellectually. From here, you can go on
to some deep inner looking. And then you can see
the truth. Here we are using thought experiments to
highlight the kind of functions you attribute to a self
and demonstrate that we create a dichotomy by
assuming there is a self.
Really liberation is only a short step away, once you
understand it although, the difficulty arises to find
the gate itself. This is where you can get our help
but you are responsible for LOOKING, we can not
liberate you, only you can do that. The main
problem is people thinking instead of actually
LOOKING.
You cannot unthink a thought (which is what "you"
is) but you can see the truth and it will burn lie on
contact. Its ok we all had to go through this stage, so
we can understand what you are going to go
through. The stage after this will be frustrating but
you really need to see this, its very important, more
important than anything else you have going on in
your life.
Seriously the work that needs to be done is this. You
have a belief, prove to yourself 100% that it is a
solid belief. Usually in the West we like to stand
there smugly and fold our arms and come out with
something along the lines of "Well this is what
current knowledge says, so unless you can prove

otherwise then its a load of BS". What we need to

do is take the unprecedented step of actually doing
the work ourselves to find out the truth. Treat this
as a scientific experiment and use this as a
hypothesis...
Hypothesis:
It has never been questioned whether or not, what
is perceived as the self is actually real until now.
In this experiment the observer will attempt to test
reality for the existence or non- existence of self by
means of using direct observations.
Expected observations:
Conjecture 1: The brain is a highly evolved machine
that is capable of conscious thought and real time
decision making. In order for this stimulus response
system to work, there must be a master controller
overseeing the cognitive faculties of the brain. What
is perceived as YOU, I or self is actually a
necessary functioning component of the brain.
Conjecture 2: The pattern matching faculty of the
brain has falsely labelled actions done by the body
as the result of a phantom YOU in the brain. This
is due to the nature of the cause and effect model
that the brain uses. This phantom YOU causes
feedback loops, pattern cascades and self
destructive thought patterns. What is perceived as
YOU, I or self is actually an illusion of the
pattern matching faculty of the brain.
Are "you" your thoughts or are "you" an
entity that has thoughts?

Are "you" a thought? Well this actually couldn't be

further from the truth when you have seen it for
yourself. You is just an idea, a thought but straight
away though, you will probably be on the defensive
and answer that you is an entity that has thoughts.
An entity that has thoughts
Lets take this example from the FAQ's
I can remember snowboarding whenever I want to,
its my memory, I can recall stuff whenever I want
to. They are my memories you can not take them
away from me. I was actually there "I" did it.
This is a typical response that comes up but I want
to dissect what is really being said here.
Ok there are thoughts. Memories are thought forms
from direct experience that appear to us with a mix
of kinaesthetic, visual and audio data. A memory
has to have been experienced for the data to be
stored. At what point is there no experience and no
memory? It is there, we can be certain of this
because we have already seen it. The event was
experienced and the memory of the event is real,
this we can be certain of.
Why would an organism store memories? The brain
is a sophisticated pattern matching device and this
from an evolutionary standpoint, is absolutely
necessary. Imagine if every time you came across a
hole in the ground, you had to stop and figure out
what the hole was. There is no way the human mind
could function in the way that it does, let alone
figure out how to make a wheel. This is the greatest
asset of the human mind, it allows us to quickly
accomplish routine tasks.

Essentially the mind is an organic learning

computer, it learns through matching experience
from the senses. If we think in terms of a biological
computer, it is programmed to run set operations to
a given stimulus. We wouldn't be much use if we
had to re-learn stuff all the time.
EXPERIMENT NO.1 ~ THOUGHT CONTROL
PART I
Sorry to repeat myself again but I have to remind
you before we go any further: You have to drop any
notions that you know about what is real or not.
Any thing you know or think you know needs to be
dropped before you do the experiments. They have
to be done with absolute honesty and you must go
in to each experiment with no expectations.
For instance open and close your hand.
RIGHT NOW
= DO IT
= All you know for sure is the hand opened then
closed. This is the level of sincere honesty that is
required from you, to do these experiments. It is on
the premise of what you can directly observe, not
what you think should be observed.
Ok, lets do it....
I want you to think of a random memory about
something.
Ok...
go....
.....
.....

What memory did you come up with and how long

did it take? Don't stop until you have a specific
memory, it can be about anything, it just has to be a
specific and very clear memory.
....
....
If youre like me, you probably took a few seconds to
do this and you had to look at something in the
room to come up with a memory.
Now think about this, what have we observed? We
have observed that as there was no stimulus to
trigger a memory recall of an event, no memory
appeared instantly. Well thats obvious really.
BUT... Do you see the problem that has been
created? Because you had to look around for a
stimulus in the room to trigger a memory or wait for
a chain of thought to go along to trigger a memory,
you have demonstrated to yourself that "you" are
not actually capable of having a memory at will. We
have to wait for the brain to draw a parallel from
something in our experience for a memory to be
triggered.
This makes a "you" pretty redundant in the whole
process, as "you" never recalled a memory, it was
triggered by a train of thought or a visual cue. This
is important. We have the belief that we can recall
any memory we want instantaneously.
This is just a projection attributed to a self. The
brain actually needs some kind of cue to trigger the
memory bank. This could be a conversation, a

picture, an action or whatever. To put it simply the

brain requires input. If there was a "thinker", no
such input would be required, the whole "library"
could be randomly accessed at any point, if we
subscribed to the statement that "we have control
of our thoughts".
EXPERIMENT NO.1 ~ THOUGHT CONTROL
PART II
Ok try and select another random memory. This
time I want you to close your eyes and the rules are
this time:
You cannot use a memory related to the last one
You cannot use a memory from this past week.
So quickly go now...
Go....
One doesn't just arise, there is always a stimulus
preceding the memory. There is no visual cue this
time and I'll bet it took you a lot longer to come up
with a memory. Try it a few times and you will see
there is always a chain of thought first to act as a
stimulus. Just don't forget to use sincere honesty
though! Use a new memory if you already have one
in mind when you close your eyes.
What we have demonstrated is there actually is
nothing random about memory recall at all. As you
read the writing here, this triggered a chain of
thought and that chain of thought ran until a
memory was located. This means the origin of the
thought was triggered by an external stimulus i.e
this experiment.

EXPERIMENT NO.1 ~ THOUGHT CONTROL

PART III
Ready?
Ok... don't think of a cat.
Don't let the imagery of a cat appear in your mind,
Go on, keep it going, resist it....
Awww... unlucky.
Nice try though.
So what does this actually tell us? Apart from this
experiment has been done countless times before.
Well, it tells us in no uncertain terms that the brain
is wired to respond to an external stimulus with
thought. There cannot be any control over this
process, we have just demonstrated that no matter
how hard the attempt to suppress thought, it cannot
be accomplished. The stimulus triggered the
thought and this process is completely independent
of intervention. Try and stop the thoughts of the
mind right now. See if a minute can pass without
thinking occurring. I'm willing to bet you are not a
shaman who can go in to a trance at will. Maybe if
you practice meditation, you know the noise that
comes from thought is difficult to switch off... there
is just no off switch!
This proves that you have no control over what is
thought. If you could control thought, it would
figure you would easily be able to stop this from
occurring. Why can we not do this if we are a

thinker who has thoughts? What we have proved

here is the brain is hardwired to respond to the
environment. Thats all we need to prove for now;
that at least some of the thoughts that we have, we
simply do not just "choose" to have. They are
beyond our control.
Very often thought is linked to something that is
happening in the environment. It may be about the
future, the past, or whats going on now but thought
just happens anyway. We can't stop it. If there was a
you involved in the equation, it would figure that
you would only think when you needed to and there
would be no need for the constant internal dialogue
you have.
Implications
Experience dictates that there is an ongoing internal
dialogue that can't be turned off. This dialogue is
what we believe to be ours but it is just thought, it
just happens anyway whether we want it to or not. If
there was a thinker, would it not make sense that it
would be able to control when thoughts arise and
the contents of the thought? This idea of a "you" in
itself is nonsensical when we consider this. If there
was a thinker, it would make no sense to have
negative thoughts about yourself. In reality negative
thoughts are useful to an organism and necessary.
But to a thinker, would it not select and edit the
thoughts, or maybe even make them sound nicer?
After all its for the benefit of you...
Or would you subscribe to the statement:
"I don't control all of the thinking, I only choose to

have some of my thoughts".

This is self contradictory. Either you control the
thoughts or you don't. Its really that simple. You
can't have it both ways. Either you are flying the
plane or you are not. This answer insinuates that if
this were so, then there is some kind of autopilot
mechanism that kicks in as soon as you stop
controlling the thoughts.
A conversation:
Or could it be thought just arises anyway, its always
on automatic?
No, it goes on autopilot when I'm not in control!
Then who flicks the autopilot switch?
No one, its automatic, its subconscious!
So the brain automatically knows when you stop
thinking... so the subconscious resumes control of
thinking again from you. Or is all thought sub
conscious?
No there is subconscious and conscious thought
So whats the difference?
Subconscious thought is like my mood and stuff,
some times negative thoughts arise, its all down to
the subconscious.
Hang on then, does the subconscious have its own
thoughts or does it influence thought?
Well it influences thought, its called subconscious
because you are not conscious of it.
But you said the subconscious takes control of the
thinking again, the autopilot?
Well it just influences thought, it provides the

content of thought. I just intervene when necessary

How can it have both control and influence at the
same time? Either it cannot control and uses
influence or it has total control and influence is
redundant?
It has no control its not in our conscious awareness,
it just generates the internal dialogue which we are
conscious of
So how do you disengage the autopilot?
Look, theres no need I am a separate entity from
my thoughts but I control the thinking when I
choose to.
Ok then, retrieve a random memory or don't think
about a dead cat.
But its my subconscious that thinks about these
things, I have no control over that part
So what constitutes the difference between
subconscious thoughts and conscious thoughts?
I choose to have the thoughts, when it is conscious
Then think up a random memory right now
Err ok... I'm thinking about... oh wait I'm having a
conscious thought about today... er there, I just
thought
consciously... there I don't need a memory. I
decided to have that thought.
Then tell me what caused you to start thinking?
You told me to..
Exactly so was that a subconscious decision or a
conscious one?
I consciously chose to do this.

But you said that the subconscious is in control of

the content, you said that you can't control what the
subconscious thinks, so how do you know it was the
subconscious or the conscious that was thinking
these things? If the subconscious generates the
thoughts, then that means that you are not the
thinker, rather you are an observer of the thoughts.
Thats probably fair to say. The thoughts arise from
my subconscious and I can intervene when I want
to.
Maybe you could subscribe to this next
statement:
"My brain thinks the thoughts, they arise
subconsciously, I just direct them at times when
needed".
This would also mean that when you are not
directing your thoughts i.e consciously intervening,
you are simply observing the sub conscious
thoughts. What you are saying is you can choose
between intervention of the chain of thoughts or to
observe them.
The trouble with this statement is we create a
dichotomy. One cannot observe thought, we can
only experience it. If we are observing thought, that
means we are separate from thought.
How can one be separate from thought, if they are
an entity having thoughts? How can you be separate
from anything in your body? Thats like saying my
heart beats independently from me. We know full
well if I suddenly punched through your chest and
tore out your beating heart, you would not be

independent from this. To observe reality means to

be seperate from reality and as we know nothing
can exist outside of reality.
"Ok, I am experiencing the thoughts, I just direct
them at times when needed"
Now essentially you are saying you are the thoughts,
you can't do that if youre having thoughts.
We have gone round in a circle. You maybe thinking
circular logic but that is exactly what has been used
to come to this point.
With the bible we hear: the bible is the truth = the
truth is the bible.
It takes an outside observer from this closed loop to
point out that the whole premise is fallacious.
Objectively we can look at the totality of what has
been said if we subscribe to the presence of a
thinker or a "you":
"I" am not just a thought
I know I exist because I have thoughts
I do not have total control over thought because I
cannot choose a thought randomly or stop having
them ergo its subconscious to a degree.
But I can direct thought when I choose to.
I cannot be separate from my brain because I am
the brain.
I cannot observe thought but I am experiencing it in
some way
The brain does do the thinking.... but if I can be
aware of having thought, then that means....
I exist because "I" am not just a thought
Here we have the process of circular logic. This is

the long winded version, we can whittle it down to

this:
I exist because "I" am having thoughts = "I" am
having thoughts because I exist
The next problem we have is:
I cannot observe thought because to observe
something means to be separate from it.
So...
I cannot experience thought because that means I
am thought.
To sum it up:
In a vehicle: I cannot experience what its like to
drive WITHOUT actually driving. When I am
driving the car, I am experiencing what it is to be
driving.
In another vehicle: I cannot experience what it is
like to think WITHOUT thinking: When I am
thinking the thought I am experiencing what it is to
be thinking.
SO WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU?
When you look at it on this level, we create a few
dichotomies in what we thought to be true, simply
by looking at the basic arguments on how you
engage with your thoughts. It is difficult for us to
explain in anyway how we control thought or in
what capacity a "you" can do so. When we just say
there is thought but not thinker, we solve all of
these dichotomies.
If we use Occam's Razor, we can say the simplest
explanation is the most logical. When we remove a
"you" from the equation, that is the simplest

explanation for removing all of the anomalies. The

only anomaly we have left is the experience of a you.
Fortunately for me, I have seen that "I" is the
experience itself and that fallacy for me has been
removed and the whole premise has been solved.
Unfortunately you are missing the last step in the
equation at the moment. Soon, you should be able
to witness this in reality.
We could also insert a metaphysical argument here
but then again we could present no evidence other
than belief and Occams razor dictates that the most
simplest solution is the most probable. This is on
the subjective side of an argument of course, so lets
make it more objective.

Experiment no. 2

EXPERIMENT No. 2 ~ LOCATE THE

THINKER
In this experiment we need to find the master
controller of the body. We need to get a fix on where
"you" is located. So first of all one would assume
that a master controller would be in the brain.
Where exactly is it?
In the centre, to the left or the right hand side of the
brain.
Where exactly are you located?
At the front towards the back?
This may seem a little obvious but if you exist then
where are you? The body exists, the brain exists,
the world outside your body exists, thought exists,
feelings exist. But if there is a "you" to think where
are you?
What physical properties do you have?
The problem here is we again create a dichotomy. If
you exist, it has to be a quantifiable object in reality.
The brain exists, we can prove this by cutting open
someones skull and inspecting the contents.
Imagine if we started to scoop out the insides,
where are you located exactly?
You see in this physical universe, for something to
exist, we have to be able to see it. If we cannot see
it, or observe it or measure it in anyway, its safe to
say it doesn't exist for the most part.
We cannot see atoms with the naked eye, we could
prove they existed but this was only a strong belief
until we had a mass spectrometer. Then once and
for all we could see what was theorised was what

was in reality. It was predicted that this was the case

due to repeated experiments, providing a consistent
correlation between results. The atom bomb was
theoretical but due to the model of reality that
particle physicists and chemists had formed, we
could use a chemical or mathematical formula and
we could predict an outcome. The outcome itself
was evidence that the theory was true.
Eventually with the advent of electron microscopes
we could see with our own eyes what we thought to
be true was in fact happening. This just confirmed
what our observations told us.
Quantum theory is based in mathematics. What is
observed is the collapse of a wave function. Whilst
this is
mathematically possible, some has been proven to
be true already by concurring with direct
observations. Unless it is seen directly it can only be
a belief, although well founded. Incidentally
quantum theory hasn't been proved to be wrong
once. But there again... it usually deals in theoretical
physics.
We must use the same logic in this deduction here.
Since we cannot find tangible direct evidence of a
"you", it must be conceded that it is just a well
founded theory. Without physical evidence of a you,
you have nothing to prove that you do exist. Its just
circumstantial evidence. We don't even have pages
of the maths of quantum theory and a wave
function.
What about the outcome of chemistry and particle

physics, we didn't need to see an atom to know it

existed. Well lets take another mammal, lets take a
bird for instance. Do birds have a thinker doing the
thinking? Or is their brain so small that they just
run on instincts? If we look at outcomes in reality,
animals do things, they hunt or forage for food, find
shelter and reproduce. Do animals have thoughts
then? Well they have the capacity to see hear, taste
and touch. There is a basic pattern matching faculty
involved, we have seen pigeons learn to repeat
tasks.
What is to say that the neurons in a birds brain are
not capable of producing primitive thought
patterns? Whether we think this is the case or not,
we can see that there is instinct and the actions of
moving towards survival and moving away from
danger and a very limited learning capacity. This
happens with even a brain the size of a marble.
What about thought? How can we prove that
thoughts exist then?
Ok, our objective experience dictates that we have
thought. So just as 6,000,000,000 claim there is an
"I", the same amount will claim to have had
thoughts so we have that to begin with. Thought
forms exist in visual, auditory and kinaesthetic
forms. We know about these because we have the
faculties in our body.
If we cut someone open we can find the nerves that
make up the nervous system with some skilled
blade work and the eyes and the auditory system
can be easily located on the average human. We

know we have sight, sound and sense data, we have

already observed that in reality.
We also have a memory recall function, which we
proved is heavily reliant on stimulus. Our memories
by experience are in this format and if youre really
lucky, you can even remember tastes and smells.
We already know that the brain comprises of
neurons that are fired and different parts of the
brain serve different functions like short term
memory, long term memory, pattern matching,
motor skills and monitoring of feedback like body
temperature etc... This has been done by testing
different parts of the brain and looking at the scan,
which part of the brain is activated when doing
certain things.
So, whilst we can't actually put a thought on the
table to show you, we can slop the apparatus used to
have a thought down on the table. Like a TV picture
isn't technically real, it does in fact exist in reality
because we can see it. Its probably beyond our
technology to put thought on to a screen but I dare
say one day we will find a way to do it, hopefully we
won't be using a puddled mess of slop and a car
battery connected to a TV to do so... Try not to
think about that image.
In our brain example we couldn't find a you. So we
have to attribute you with something. Either you are
thought, you are motor skills or some entity in the
brain. Or maybe you are all of these things?
Remember there has to be a physical property to
you, to prove a thinker exists. Again we run in to a

problem with what to identify with. What is it that

we control? Basically our heart, body temperature,
water retention, whether or not to be hungry and all
that kind of stuff, is all automatic.
There is no conscious decision of the BPM of the
heart (although it can be influenced ~ does it
require a you though?), how much water we should
retain etc... We can't really identify with this, its not
a faculty of a thinker its out of the domain of
conscious control. The you are thought idea doesn't
work too well either from our previous discussion.
You like to think you are the one having thoughts.
Maybe you are pure energy? I can see how this
would work, but theres actually no you, so all the
spiritual and new age claptrap about this, is just a
load of baloney, it doesn't even fly.
Sure life requires energy, you could even say that
experience is energy itself but there is still no you
whatsoever, there is just life and energy. Then this
premise works.
What about motor skills and movement then? Ok
lets take a look....

Experiment no. 3

EXPERIMENT No. 3 ~ SUB ROUTINES

PART I
Ok before we do the main experiments just stand up
(or crouch down if your standing) and then return
to your original position. This has only got to be
quick.
Go on do it before you read any further....
Ok this first one you might be a bit annoyed with
but hang in there. Did you just decide to do the
action then? Did you choose to stand up/ sit down?
Wrong. Would you have done it if you had not seen
the message on the screen to do so?
Seriously think about this. Was there any benefit to
you doing this? The brain thinks there is benefit to
be obtained so it does the resulting action.
The benefit being furthering your understanding.
The idea to do this came from the message here on
the screen. Would it have happened otherwise?
Now next, to the lazy ones, did you decide not to do
it? Maybe your chuckling thinking you chose. But
did you or did you not witness a thought arising
signalling that it would be of no benefit in any
capacity? Even if it was literally the thought "f**k
that" arising. It is still a signal. Where was the
thinker? At what point did you consciously have
both options in front of you for you to consider, to
make a choice?
Think about this one, where was the thinker here?
Did a thought just arise on its own?

Now we have to do some experiments that involve

movements of the body. Do you have a cup of tea or
coffee? You may want to get a drink here. All I want
you to do is consume the drink at your own leisure
through these next experiments, all will be revealed
at the end.
Anyway on to the main experiments.
PART II
Ok for this experiment I'm going to need you to take
a walk. Only a short one. Just walk around the room
a few times, you need to be able to walk back and
forth or in a continuous circle but I want you to
notice what part the thinker plays in walking
around the room. Just notice how much control you
have over walking. Just go and take a minute to do
this and then come back. What did you notice?
Well for me as I have already seen that I don't exist,
I noticed that my body just moved for me anyway. It
was just down to motor function.
Did you have to think about each step that you
took?
Did your attention wander on to thought as you
were walking?
Did this impair your walking in anyway?
My answers were:
No
Yes
No
Ok, so we can now draw the following conclusions.
We call these motor skills or muscle memory
because it is an inbuilt programmed response that

the body has. We can see its beyond conscious

control because we were not focussing on the task
the whole time. Have you ever walked home and not
remembered the walk? This is because this faculty is
an automated response of the body. Therefore
awareness switches to the internal dialogue because
its deemed to be more important than the task of
walking itself?
Don't forget walking is very complex. The field of
robotics has found it very hard to mimic how a
human walks, it is one of the most complicated
things to model. How can something so seemingly
complex be done without thinking?
PART III
Lets repeat the experiment but this time what I
want you to do is be conscious of each step that you
take. Try and be conscious of every part of the
process of walking.
Walk at a normal pace, don't slow down the pace for
this but you can try manipulating it after you have
tried the following:
This time I want you to try and take total conscious
control of the whole process. I want you to override
the brains control of walking and notice what
happens. I want you to try and assume command of
every step and every single process of the walking.
From raising your leg, to placing your foot. I want
you to assume full control.
Ok lets go....

Right, what did you observe?

I noticed the following:
I started walking and when I tried to take conscious
control, I was unable to do so.
The body was pretty much on autopilot, doing it all
by itself.
I was able to manipulate the speed, distance of step
height of leg but as for actually walking I couldn't
assume direct control over the motor function of the
body.
There was no way I could assume command of the
actual walking process itself, it could only be
manipulated.
What does this imply? Well it implies that we
cannot control motor functions in the way that we
thought. We can only manipulate the process. But if
you can manipulate the process, can we not
attribute that to a thinker?
Ok lets take care of this once and for all.
PART IV - "the falcon punch"
Ok this one sounds crazy but I want you to go
through with it and I am 100% serious about this. I
have done it and I didn't get hurt. Ok I'm going to
get you to punch yourself but don't worry you will
not get hurt!
The idea of this is to trick the bodies survival
mechanism. You see we think we have control over
decisions and this nifty experiment just shows how
much control we really have over manipulating our

bodies movements.
So you actually have to be serious about going
through with this and your job is to override the
lockup that happens in the mind.
As I say you have to be sincerely honest about going
through with this but I can guarantee you won't get
hurt.
Right... I'm going to ask you to punch yourself in the
nose full bore and I want you to seriously consider
this.
Clench your fist and then put your fist in front of
your chest. Now what I want you to do is psych
yourself up and take a good hard swing as hard as
you can in to your nose. You have to seriously want
to do this and I want you to try as hard as you can to
take the swing and smash you nose and override the
bodies desire to not do it.
Pay careful attention to the process that happens
once you are ready to do it.
Ok go.

First of all, a thought arose about punching myself

in the face.
The thought to clench my fist arose and my hand
moved in to position, to take a swing and strike
myself.
At the point where I was ready, the image popped

up of me running to the bathroom with my hand

over my nose and blood dripping over the floor.
Then the memories of the pain arose from previous
times when I've been struck in the nose, particularly
one a month ago where I was practicing martial arts
and twatted myself in the nose with a bo.
Then my arm relaxed and the tension left my body.
This would be the urge I described not to do this
and it was not overpowered. Why would it be?
Did I do it? No.
What possible gain could this bring?
Something that has no possible gain, why would the
mind decide to follow through with this action. This
is honesty. I had to actually go through what it to
experience the thought process.
These are my direct observations. When my fist was
clenched and the images popped up, there was
absolutely no "I" to make this decision, there was
just an outcome. I could not in any way override
this process.
I am not capable of overcoming my instincts,
because there is no "I" involved in the process
whatsoever.
The bodies survival mechanism kicked in and it
could not in anyway be circumvented.
If you actually managed to override the survival
mechanism then the brain decided there was some
benefit to be gained from doing the action. This
would be down to attributing so much to a sense of
self that you would go to any lengths to protect it.

We can therefore draw this sound conclusion: If you

are willing to punch yourself in the face to prove you
exist then you are completely deluded are you not?
The lie of self IS delusion.
(Note: the author does not condone self harm)

Experiment no. 4

EXPERIMENT No. 4 ~ Catch the thinker

Ok this next experiment is ongoing and I want you
to take at least a week over this. After a week your
reticular activation will be focussed on spotting
more of these occurrences and this will help you in
the seeing.
What I want you to do is wear the frame of mind
that there is no thinker behind the thinking, no doer
behind the action and no experiencer behind the
experiencing for one week.
I want you to catch yourself throughout the week
whenever you can and become aware of what is
happening. I want you to start becoming aware of
what is actually coming up in your conscious
domain when you are taking action.
For instance you might be doing something at work,
when someone asks you a question out of the blue.
You suddenly blurt out an answer but where was the
thinker? You are having a conversation and then
you realise you are doing a complex action of some
kind but where was the doer?
All I want you to do is catch when you blurt out
things automatically without thinking and when you
take any actions, for instance eating food or driving,
without thinking. Really home in on the autopilot
nature of the body.
I want you to look for a thinker or a doer in your day
to day actions and watch how much work the body

does without you telling it to. The results will startle

you.
For instance right now the thinker is in control
right? Have a look at that drink that you have
finished, the tea, coffee or whatever I told you to
grab before. Now can you think back to when you
set it down. Can you remember at what point the
thinker was involved in consuming this drink. Once
you started reading this and had sat down do you
actually remember thinking about taking a sip from
the drink or did it just happen anyway? Remember
to use honesty here.
Ok check back here in a week or so and then if you
can see what I'm saying, I can help you to do some
deep inner looking. Do your observations concur
with mine? If so please tell me about your
observations, I want to hear them
Maybe youre ready to purge the lie...
The next step will require some courage and honest
looking but if you are able to have the courage to be
honest to yourself, then the courage to look will also
come to you.
The next stage is seemingly tricky but there really is
nothing to it. Its no big mystery. "you" is just a
thought, it doesn't actually refer to anything. It is a
series of labels, projections and memories
intertwined that give the illusion of a thinker behind
the thinking. All you need to do is see it in reality
and then your popped in to reality.

What can I do next?

Ok see the free resources section, there are plenty of
resources there to help you along your way
I suggest you contact a liberated to help you with
the autolysis, it makes the process quicker and some
people are getting really good at it. Go to the
ruthless arena and sign up there if you need some
help or get stuck, some people opt to do this on
their own but what ever way you choose, see this
through to the end, its too important.
You can ask for me by name, my username is chan
You can do it and remember don't trust what we
have to say, test it out for yourself.