The fact is that insanity is everywhere. Our very society is held together by this common insanity, and if we were to collectively become sane, this way of doing things would come undone.
We usually think of “falling apart” or “collapsing” as a negative thing. But what about in the case of a fire burning away a dead forest in order to give rise to new, healthier growth? What about a human suffering a breakdown to emerge as a healer or simply as an awake version of his/her prior self? (Also, there is no rise to glory post-enlightenment, though the ego loves this idea.) What about demolishing a diseased, cockroach-infested hotel to install a beautiful park that everyone could enjoy? Such would be the result of all humans waking up to reality, from stepping outside of our constant, delusive streams of thought.
I am not talking about the commonly-thought of cyclical nature of the world. This would imply that we should allow our system to fall and then rebuild a “new,” “better” one. This would only be more delusion. Yes, it would go a long way for us to implement policies such as universal basic income, healthcare for all, paid maternity leave, immigration wherever forever, upheaval of the social order, etc. But even these things will not make us free and sane. They can improve our external situations, but they cannot free us.
The only way we will survive is if we do not construct yet another “system” when this one collapses. Until we are completely awake on our own, the hivemind comes to rule the individual mind. In this way, humans come to serve the machine rather than the other way around, and then, in addition to being enslaved to our minds, we are enslaved to this machine. We depend on it for our very survival even though it’s killing us. All that, and we can’t stop thinking! This is double-enslavement, inner and outer, and each form depends on the other.
The good news is that we can can escape both simultaneously. How do we do this? We realize the Truth; we see what’s right in front of us and always has been; we become actual humans. This realization should not result in an immature rant about other humans as “sheep,” because if we catch ourselves criticizing the way “others” live and think, we are just as delusional as those we find so stupid. On the way to the Truth, we often do this. “Others” are eternally irritating and impossible (see “Hell is other people,” by Jean-Paul Sartre).
But in reality, no thought is less delusional than any other, and no thought is closer to the Truth than any other. Reality is only ever seen completely or laid over with the filmy screen of the thinky mind.
The way is simple, but not necessarily easy: We must learn to interrupt our patterns of thought and do this over and over until we’re timelessly awake. I am definitely not always 100% awake, and the choices I make (not to mention the way I feel) during my less-than-fully-conscious moments tend to be regrettable at best and clinically insane at worst. Multiply that by 7 billion and we have an idea of why the world looks the way it does.
We are unconscious, even as our minds insist “we are awake.” Wakefulness is not about having the thought “I am awake.” It is not about being aware of worldly problems, forming complex opinions about said problems, and defending these opinions to death. It is about being in a space outside of thought, lucid and alert in this moment now. (Sidebar: It’s amazing how often you can read cliche phrases like this in spiritual literature and still not see what is meant. When you do, you realize that there actually is no better way to put it.) It is knowing thought is there and utilizing it as necessary, but not taking it seriously, not letting it suck you in.
Without seeing the insanity we allow to control us, we are destined to keep repainting our jail cells and calling it “progress.”
We should not make the mistake of thinking we can eradicate certain parts of our current social mode while holding onto those parts we find personally agreeable. The whole thing leans in on itself like a teepee. If one pole is removed, the others fall, too.
For instance: We cannot realize equality of the sexes if any other part of the social hierarchy is still in place. By this I mean that femininity and masculinity, as principles, would be regarded as equally important to the world. The nurturance, softness, and beauty generally associated with femininity would have to be seen as exactly as vital and respectable as the assertiveness, hardness, and “provider” features of masculinity. (Of course, masculinity and femininity do not always correspond to biological sex, and we all have some amount of both.)
As it stands, our system sees feminine attributes as “fluff.” For women to succeed, they often have to forsake femininity altogether. This is a tragedy borne only out of a deep-seated egoic desire for men to be “more powerful” than women. This desire is a form of madness, and this is known on a deep level. Seeing and fearing that they truly are not more powerful—based on the simple fact that women and men depend on each other to exist—the longstanding, systematic subjugation of women began.
Warmth and nurturance are things all humans need. Without them, we die in infancy, and yet we treat such qualities as secondary to being financially savvy or competitive. Can we even imagine how different this world would look if we valued femininity in such a way? Nothing of this way of life could be preserved if these things were held in actual, equal importance.
We will have to bravely accept the complete dissolution of our society if we desire equality. Dissolution does not have to mean chaos and destruction, only a clear movement towards harmony and a respect for the Whole. Civilization as we know it has rebuffed these things in order to exist at all.
We can make the necessary changes as easy or as difficult on ourselves as we want. The harder we cling to thought and illusion, the more difficult it will be.
A favorite Zen quote: “Equality without differentiation is bad equality; differentiation without equality is bad differentiation.”
Right now we sort of have differentiation, but without equality. (Our differentiation is also sub-par because we tend to lump whole groups of people together even though each human is a unique entity.) We see each other’s differences, and then go on to place each other into categories, usually based on their usefulness to our own egos.
We often see ourselves and one another as means to an end: How can this person get me money? How can my partner make me feel loved and special? How can my relationships and conversations inflate my ego? (This kind of thought would actually take a lot of awareness.) How can that guru get me enlightenment? In short, the sad mode we operate in is this: “How can I use everything and everyone to get to something better?”
This kind of thinking is very common and problematic. It’s important that we notice when we’re doing it. It presupposes “more important” people who can get us to “better” things. Any notion of “better/worse,” “higher/lower” is hierarchical and hierarchies are the obvious enemy of true equality. Even thinking, “how can enlightenment get us to equality?” is a reflection of the delusive way of thinking. It sees some concept of “enlightenment” (which is anything but a concept) as a stepping stone to something else, when there is nowhere else but here.
The very notion of “equality” is not based on “equal opportunity.” This is a nice-sounding phrase that does nothing because it’s all wrapped up in capitalism. It assumes we want to take part in these competitive, soulless systems. (I, for one, do not.) It assumes we believe that the right arrangement (job, benefits, vacations, and stuff) can bring us happiness, and that we are all excited and willing to spend our lives chasing such an arrangement. This notion of “equal opportunity” implies that we’ve already bought into way more delusions than I could even begin to list.
Equality is actually based on recognizing the literal sameness that lies within you and every other being. Underneath everything, this there is this sameness. There is an animating force, a living, dynamic thing that imbues everyone and everything. Everything else that is not this thing—Reality, Truth, pure consciousness, what-have-you—is a fleeting illusion.
And illusion doesn’t mean bad… unless we make it that way. Many humans, rooted in complete egoic unconsciousness, have made (and continue to make) this thing into something that can be very bad.
We must keep close in mind that true equality requires egolessness. “Me” and “you” must disappear conceptually so that we can see what it is that’s actually equal underneath these constructs. You look in front of you and see that it’s all still there (your body an another’s), but all you’re doing is seeing these things. You are not placing labels on everyone and everything; you’re only seeing.
In time, we learn to look right in front of us and see that our separation isn’t really there. And there may be times along the path that you feel like you actually do not exist, or that “you” are being destroyed. I’m not going to bullshit you: It’s scary! Death is an experience we instinctively avoid. You can get severely insane trying to preserve this sense of self. This insanity, on a low, background level, is the one we almost all suffer from. It can become acute, however, and this is usually where “psychotic episodes” occur.
And yet, after such an experience, we can come away with something very valuable: The lived understanding that at our very cores, underneath physical appearance, thought, and story, we are not separate or different. At the deepest level, we do not even retain individual souls (the “special individual soul” idea is another thing that the ego delights in). This is what equality means. From this mindset, giving to another is giving to you; liberating yourself is to liberate all of humanity. They are us, we are them, and this is literal. We are all inhaling each other’s exhalations, and separation is neat mental trick we learn to stop taking so seriously.
The constructs of “me” and “you” fall apart if you start to analyze them psychologically: What exactly makes “you,” you? Your personality, your history, your beliefs? What if you have a brain injury and your personality changes? What if you were to cease believing in your personal history, or if you could no longer remember it? And don’t beliefs change when we’re open-minded people?
If we follow this line of thinking down, we will say there’s just an “essence” about us and others, some type of energetic signature we can detect that is unique to every individual. Fair enough. I very much enjoy my friends and family members’ unique energies, but we should not fool ourselves into believing even these essences are unchanging, eternal, and separate. One day we’ll all die, and where will those “essences” be? What happens when there are no humans left to hold in memory the energetic qualities of those they loved? This is similar to the “individual soul” idea, which, while ego-pleasing, is actually groundless in the end.
The physical body (ultimately held together by who-knows-what) is the only thing holding this “you” in place. And yet, on an atomic level, if we were to hold hands, we would not be able to tell where my hand ended and yours began. (Any sciencey people, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.) If “me” and “you” have no grounding psychologically and no grounding on the furthest physical level, where exactly do “we” exist?
The answer is nowhere at all.