😨 MEDITATION is? Seriously 🤔

[Music] I thought I'd leave the screen off for this one, actually. My mouse battery died—so stupid Apple design. You actually can't use the mouse while you're charging it. Almost, you know, they could have put the charging port on the end. This way, that way you could still use the mouse, but no, they they put it on the bottom of the mouse. That way, when you need to charge it, you can't use it. Some really smart person at Apple—not very smart—and they still have that design. He's like, "Yeah, that's pretty good design; we're gonna go with that."

Um, this is a video that might very well tick you off, and that's okay. I'm all about facts, logic, and wisdom. People should actually seek facts, logic, and wisdom, and they should never seek things that other people desire or want to find approval with. Well, I'm going to join the herd; I'm going to agree with them because that means I'll belong. You know, if I agree with them, that that means they'll like me, and that's—it's never a good thing. You know, there are some benefits, like a strength in numbers, but ultimately it always fails in the end.

So this is a nice little video about, to me, the most useless word in the world, and uh, people get asked me that—people ask me this all the time—about the word "meditation." First, we'll actually define it, and even if you go to Wikipedia or any other place, they'll flat out tell you it's like, "Well, no one's really been able to define it because it points to many, many, many countless different things, most of which are completely dissimilar." I never use this word because it's extremely—its denotation is almost non-existent; it's completely a specific—technically, when you're sitting on the toilet and you're counting the holes in the ceiling, that is, by definition, meditation. When you're uh, floating in the bathtub and your, you know, your your eyes roll in the back your head and you think about what you're going to do tomorrow, it's like, "I was meditating on nothing." "What were you doing?" "I was like, soaking in the tub, was meditating." So the word doesn't mean anything.

And we had a discussion about this in live stream, and man, I made a lot of people really angry. They didn't like that; they they don't—and let's actually get to the heart of the matter and actually apply facts, logic, and wisdom regarding things. And a lot of people like to "do this word," and of course, when you say "do this word," I can't be specific because the word itself doesn't point to anything specifically, and that's the reason why I never use this word. What people really want—okay, they fundamentally, and this is a metaphysical fact and it applies to 95 percent of humanity—they neither acknowledge transcendence; they don't uh, believe in the liberation—liberation of one thing from another; they just want to have a calmer life. Now, having a calm life and being at peace is a good thing, you know; it's good for your body, it's good for a lot of stuff; makes you a happier person.

People say, "When I go home, have a stressful day, I just burn some incense—sandalwood incense—and I sit on my zafu and zabutan, which are cushions, by the way, you know, and I uh, I bend my legs in the lotus position and I meditate. Man, all the stress of the day, you know, it just fades away." That that's that's that's wonderful; that's that's helpful; it makes a person feel better, and when they de-stress, it does all sorts of beneficial things for your psychophysical body. This is undeniable; I'm not refuting that. If someone, however, wants to be completely stress-free, they could—and I don't advocate for this—they could get a frontal lobotomy. Yeah, they could sit you in an adult diaper in a chair in an adult care facility, and you could drool on yourself watching the Cartoon Network for the rest of your life, and you will be, on this entire planet of six billion-plus people, the most stress-free person alive. You will you will never again worry about bills or, you know, your nagging wife or your crazy children or the taxes or the car insurance; you'll never worry about any of that stuff again; you'll be completely stress-free. You uh—and a lot of people, they fail to make the connection. People say, "Why do you keep attacking meditation? It just makes me feel so good; it just de-stresses me." This is true; I'm not denying this, but I I never use that word because it doesn't apply to what is taught in the Upanishads, original Buddhism, which is no different than the teachings of the Veda, and Buddhism is nothing other than neo-stromanic monism; it's a liberation ontology based in wisdom; it's it's no different than the original—the epistrophe teachings of Plotinus. We'll talk about epistrophe here in a second.

So let's actually go for—in the Wikipedia—even the Wikipedia is absolutely horrible. Uh, this is accurate, and it doesn't give you a reason why I never use "meditation." "Is a practice for an individual; an individual uses a technique such as mindfulness or focusing the mind on a particular object"—key word there being "object"—thought, which of course is a mental machination, a thought—and probably the word or activity to train attention and awareness. Awareness is another word that is part of mental machination. This is one of the five khandas for the psychophysical, which are all mara, which are all equal to anatta, which are not a basis of liberation, not a basis of transcendence, have nothing to do with wisdom and transcendence logically necessitatively, so and achieved a mental clarity and emotional calm and a stable state. Well, you get your doctor to prescribe you, you know, something; it'll give you that emotional calm in a stable state, or you get a frontal lobotomy. And this is where people get upset at me because they have no clarity of vision to understand what it is I'm talking about. So are you attacking meditation? This is what happened in the live stream; it was quite brilliant. I had hundreds and hundreds of people there, and there's about maybe 10 or 15 people I get mad—"Listen to this guy attacking meditation because I do it; it makes me feel so good; I get stressed out of work and I meditate and I feel so much calmer." Well, I was not attacking meditation; I said, "I will never use that word because it has nothing to do, in its connotation specifically, but definitely so in its denotation, regarding what either Plotinus thought or Porphyry or Amelius or Pemenius or Pythagoras—original Buddhism—none of those people taught that English meaning." And when you say "meditation," first thing that pops into your head, most of you will probably be some person sitting—awful—sitting as a Zen. It's mindful awareness, and it's like, "Blank; I'm going to crush out my thoughts; the stress is going to fade away," and I know that makes people feel good. This is undeniable; I'm not denying any of the side effects from this, but—and here we go—in the further explanation, which is impossible for this nonsensical word which doesn't point to anything. Yeah, "meditation is proven difficult to define as it covers a wide range of dissimilar practices of different traditions—many, many countless endless ones—and popular users the word 'meditation' and the phrase 'meditative practice' are often used imprecisely to designate practices found across many cultures. These include almost anything that is claimed to train the attention of the mind or to teach calm or compassion." Now, being calm and, you know, training the mind towards peace and/or compassion has nothing to do with wisdom; it has nothing to do with transcendence; that has nothing to do with this objectification—yet again, reason number ten thousand why I never use the word "meditation." I'm not against it; it's effective, but people fail to realize that the only thing that they care about is de-stressing. "I want to feel better; make me feel better; it raises my endorphins, and I don't think about work, which sucks, or my nagging wife or my alimony payments to my ex-wife." All of these things are true, and I say, "Well, I never mention this word because it's a horrible word that doesn't point to anything specific," but it's also—to nothing—in direct denotation or connotation to the epistrophe of the anamnesis taught by, you know, original Boethius and Porphyry, Plotinus, Amelius, Pemenius, Syrianus, on and on and on, specifically, you know, this focus on—and it cannot be an object of focus because, you know, this objectification is this objectification.

Let's talk about the word "Zen," by the way, which is a Japanese word which comes from the Chinese word "Channa," which comes from the Sanskrit word "Dhyana," and that Sanskrit word preceding to it is the Prakrit or Pali word "Janma," and the root of "Janna"—what "Janna" actually means—then it goes Zen, Chana, Dhyana, and then Janna, the word which means "to burn." Yeah, "burn"—same way you find a needle in a haystack. Well, you don't go looking for a needle in a haystack. Once again, the needle is still an object, so we can't take this analogy too far. Needle, of course, is analogous to the odd monitor, the soul, the pneumatic principle—not literally the breath. Let's talk about—I engage in breath meditation, actually, and if you want to have a debate with me on this fact, let's do it, and you'll lose. There's no mention of actual physical breath meditation when you're actually focusing on the physical carbon dioxide and oxygen and nitrogen passing in and out of your lungs; it is a reference to the pneumatic principle, i.e., the animus, the spirit, the sanctum. We actually have, fascinatingly, the same word in English: the word "atmosphere" or "atmospheric," for example, the root of which is the word "Atman." Yeah, I know you know this word "Atman"—reference to the soul. Yeah, and in Pali, the word is "Otten," by the way. All the primary words in Pali are the exact same words in Ancient Egyptian. In Ancient Egyptian, the word is "Aten." Yeah, I know you've probably heard of the Ancient Egyptian—if you don't know Ancient Egyptian, which of course almost nobody does—you've certainly heard of the word "Aten." Yeah, so—or like "Unk." A lot of these words, fascinatingly—not really—since the 13th Pillar Edict of King Ashoka mentions the teachings of Gautama being observed by King Ptolemy II, who is the Ancient Egyptian king. Fascinating. There's actually a lot of trade back and forth between Ancient Egypt and what we consider Northern De Mega Valley or India—which India didn't exist back then—philosophical trade of ideas. You know, people talk about spice trades and so on and so forth; there's also two huge trade—and ideas, philosophies, and insights—because people were hungry for wisdom in the ancient world—not everybody, you know—but uh, it was the case.

So we're talking about epistrophe. Yeah, "prohodos"—we could talk "prohodos"—Ancient Egyptian—and we see the Ancient Greek—the word "prohodos" is no different than the Buddhists' word for "patica samutpada"—contingent manifestation—which of course begins with "avijja"—each of course is extrinsic attribute—meaning agnosis, diagnosis, relevant to what thou art—me—such that people don't see that which they truly are. People identify themselves as that which they see in the mirror when they brush their teeth—the psychophysical corpus—that that's me, that's Bob, that's Sue, that's Larry. Wisdom, of course, is not distinguished from the Atman—not in any form of monistic metaphysics vis-a-vis the Greeks and Indians—it is not—wisdom self-seeks itself, and wisdom, of course, is the self-seeking itself—not the existential self, but the transcendent self. So I'll never use the word "meditation" because it's not a reference to epistrophe; it's not a reference to sati, which is recollection—not recollection like what you had for breakfast yesterday, but Platonic recollection—remembering that which you cannot remember—the uh, even the old Zen—the faceless face—"What was the face? What was your face before you were born?" It's engaging in this netting—eddy—this via negativa, dis-objectification methodology, i.e., apophoticism—meaning speaking away—not literally speaking away, but objective negation leading to subjective synthesis—same thing in gold. We all think of gold purification, but of course, gold is never purified. Analogously—talking about an analogy—in reference to the gold, of course, being an analogy to the Atman of the soul—gold is never ever purified because gold is gold as gold—what of course is the case is that it's diluted—yes, is diluted in host rock; it's actually scattered amongst the, you know, the the mother rock or host rock that it's in. It is undiluted; it is made concentric. People say, "Well, it's concentration—right there—that's what I do in meditation." Well, what is it that you're concentrating on? You know, you can't think your way out of a thinking box. People actually do this; they will concentrate, but what is it they're concentrating on? They're literally still in that mental box and engaging in mental machinations; they're trying to think their way out of a thinking box, and that's completely impossible. This is the reason why the word—this jyoti—in reference to Janna—yeah, the the Sanskrit word that everything—will—"meditation," in true Indian sense—we talk about masteries of meditation—is Dhyana. Yeah, we talk about that; it's like, "Well, what does Dhyana mean?" You know, it comes from the Prakrit word Java, and that word is from the noun Jyati, meaning "to burn." What's being burned, and what is being left after what is being burned? This objectification or neti-neti, i.e., this via negativa methodology—is setting fire. If you want to find a needle in a haystack, you don't go looking for it. Yeah, we could have induction and deduction, i vis-a-vis Sherlock Holmes, and we have retroduction. Yeah, speaking away—this retroductive analysis of finding something—of course, it cannot be found objectively because the subject is never an object to be witnessed; it is burning away objectivity. This is the real word, and I once again I hate to use the word "meditation," but if you want to make reference to that, let's talk about the Dhyana because it means concentrations, but distressing—like, you know, Jayati Rajada—was never used for de-stressing from daily life. While that is beneficial on many, many levels—of course, that's beneficial to your existential life—that is not transcendence; that is not wisdom. Yes, people don't believe that—they don't actually fundamentally—most people, they don't believe in transcendence or liberation; they literally think that, you know, they're gonna make the roller coaster better, you know, the roller coaster of—so—older—the ups and downs—like, "Well, I'm gonna accept it; I'm gonna just accept this horrible life the way it is; you know, I got bills and taxes and a nagging wife and my kids suck," and they think that's it, and they are made peaceful by this, and it helps them cope; they use it as a coping mechanism, but Giannatti—meaning "to burn"—burning away objectivity—was never ever mentioned by any of these masters or gurus as a coping mechanism for daily life; none of them did that; it was about transcendence, dis-objectification with the psychophysical, which the common ignorant person identifies themselves with; they see themselves as that which they see in the mirror when they brush their teeth or comb their hair—not that I've combed my hair in 25-plus years—but so gold is never purified; it is extracted. Gold is diluted in host rock; gold is gold is gold. Purification is the opposite of dilution. Yeah, you take a couple drops of red dye and a gallon jug of water, and you see the red dispersed, and once again, the water is clear again; the red dye is still there, but it's so diluted. Yeah, so what's the opposite of dilution? It is being concentric—yes—extraction away from the wisdom of dis-objectifying with the psychophysical—that which one incorrectly, due to primordial agnosis—which is not conventional ignorance—primordial agnosis, diagnosis—a false identity. So the same thing—and this is an imperfect analogy—between a light bulb and a laser. Yeah, you're making the soul—just like gold is extracted—a point source; it is being undiluted—yes. What is a point source like? Let's take a 5-watt light bulb versus a 5—I don't have—you ever use the 5-watt light bulb? They're kind of used in little book lights sometimes—pretty useless. Yes, let's call it incoherent light. What about a 5-watt laser? Now, a 5-watt light bulb is almost useless, but a 5-watt laser is not only dangerous; it will permanently blind you instantly, and it will burn a hole in your butt; it is a dangerous tool; you could almost call it a, you know, it's something that you could do bad stuff with. I have a 5-watt laser, by the way—wickedly dangerous. So what's the distinction? 5 watts is 5 watts. A white light bulb, for example, will take upon itself the attribute of anything that it falls upon. Yeah, white light on a red wall, you'll see red light; white light on a blue wall, it will take upon itself dilution—instantaneous dilution. What about a laser? Doesn't matter if it's a blue laser or a green laser or a conventional red laser—then that would be a 5-watt red laser on a blue wall; you'll see red laser; red laser on a white wall, you'll see red laser; red laser on anything; it will not take upon itself attribution and consubstantiality or a mixing with that which it encounters. This is a near-perfect analogy of what Java is; it is the inverse of dilution; it is making concentric and purified the soul from that which it is not. The false identification phenomenology is ended and reversed. Why does a—a person meant to be a woman, you know—cry at a sad movie? They're not in the movie; they're not part of the movie; they're not connected to the movie in any way, shape, or form. People go to the movies to be moved, so why does a person get sad and upset at a sad movie, for example? Why this immersive—immersion of identification? Why do people suffer, you know, the pangs of life and, you know, the miseries of existential exist because they see themselves as that which they see in the mirror when they brush their teeth? Once again, I never use the word "meditation" because it doesn't refer to anything specific, as even the definition itself admits to—"meditation is proven difficult to define as it covers a wide range"—wide range is an understatement—"does it refer to anything specifically?" But when people use the word "meditation," they immediately—99 of them—about 99—think about distressing. It's like, "Well, that's good; it's beneficial on so many levels," but, you know, Gautama, Pythagoras—none of these people taught that; they taught about wisdom and the liberation ontology of this objectification. The Greeks called it epistrophe, which is a reversion or a return, but how are you returning? You're returning through burning away all objectivity of that which you are not. The most repeated phrase in Ancient Pali, for example, is "Isaya." [Music] The body is not the soul. You can't say "my soul" since that implies possession—like "I have a soul"—meaning one thing has something else. There's no soul in the body; it's not a denial of the soul; there's no radio signal inside the radio; it's not a denial of a signal; there is no radio signal in a radio; there's no little people inside the TV set. Correct? Yes, of course I'm correct. So point source—the laser analogy is in your perfect one—does not take up attribution with anything else. So how do you tune in an unmodulated frequency? Yeah, primordial agnosis would be similar to modulation. You have a frequency—like a radio station—was a frequency of 91 megahertz—that's my favorite radio station. Well, imagine that frequency—that radio station—being unmodulated; it would therefore then have no wavelength; it would have no transverse component; it would be unmodulated; it would be untunable. That is wisdom in your perfect analogy. Imagine a signal or a frequency without modulation; well, then it wouldn't be a frequency anymore because it would have no frequency component; it would not be tunable; it would be nowhere discoverable; it would literally be forever and always in perpetuity for all time—and forever time doesn't apply there—however, in counter space, unfindable, untunable, and unobjectifiable. That is wisdom by definition and your perfect analogy.

So if this video pissed you off, as it did—and people in live streams—"Dare you attack meditation?" I'm not attacking meditation; I'm simply saying that that particular word and what it makes reference to is not what you think it means, and I certainly never advocate that and I never discuss it for many countless reasons. I just said "meditation," in its connotation and denotation in English language, is not a reference to—directly or indirectly—to epistrophe, sati, Platonic recollection, to the apophoticism or the via negativa, i.e., the Janna, which is objective burning away, which is the culmination of more subjectification or becoming concentric. The opposite of concentric, of course, to be diluted—seeing yourself as the psychophysical corpus that you see in the mirror in the bathroom. So I hope I made this thing clearer, and if this video pissed you off, maybe you're not actually mad at me, but you're mad at something that you didn't understand and you probably didn't think about ever—probably—and most people don't because why do people think about something like that—so esoteric? "It's not going to get me rich; it's not going to make me money; why do I care about that? I got to worry about the bills; work harder, but I need to come home and meditate—de-stress." There's a lot of ways to de-stress, but distressing has nothing to do with wisdom, liberation, transcendence. The word of the Mukta, "suv nirvana," means the thoroughly liberated cheetah, and distressing has nothing to do with nirvana, this year. It's just about being mindful; I just sit there, and I can hear the birds chirping outside, and I'm mindful of passing gas, and I'm mindful of—that's just being conventionally—conventionally aware, and that's not wisdom; that's not dis-objectification; that's not epistrophe. Does it help your daily life and help you cope? It is—that's what people use it as. When people say "meditation" in the Western world, what they're really talking about is a coping mechanism—methodology for dealing with daily life—that's wonderful; it works, but it is not liberation, and it is not wisdom as such. Yeah, you could hate me all you want for what I just got done saying in this video, but I am right, and that ultimately is all I care about. I do not ever say things to please other people; I never started out of video thinking, "How could I please a lot of people? Talk out of both sides of my mouth?" Different than that. Thanks so much for watching. Is this video ticked you off? Then it's to be sure an issue that you have with the understanding of that term, but it's not with me. Yeah, it's not because it can be. Thanks. Goodbye. [Music]