This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.

Today’s message will be heavy. It won’t be fun reading. If you’re not doing well psychologically: please take good care of yourself and I advise you to skip this message for now.

1: The suffering module

Picture for a moment that you take an average person off the street. Now give that person a billion dollars in the bank, an amazing and fully compatible partner, children if they’re desired, a beautiful home and all the social connections needed to do either hobbies or meaningful things.

Then fast forward a year.

I don’t even have to argue that this person will experience some level of boredom, discontent, aimlessness, unhappiness, depression, anxiety, etc. Right? You know on a gut level that will be the case. There are endless examples of rich people that aren’t happy or aren’t fully happy.

Think of how strange that is. You give the self all the riches in the world... and the self is still not fully happy. Now yes, maybe this person is pretty happy, but isn’t it weird that they’re not fully happy?

Or from a biological perspective: you can give a person all the food and wealth they desire, plus an amazing partner and children... and the person is still not (fully) happy.

So, what’s going on?

Well, biologically it’s beneficial if a specific part of the organism is perpetually craving more, and is perpetually anxious about losing what they already have.

This part of the organism pressures the organism into always chasing more wealth, more status, more quality mating opportunities. And this part always anxiously scans for possible future events that might cause a loss of resources / status / mating opportunities.

I metaphorically call this part of the organism “the suffering module”, because it produces craving (the carrot) and anxiety (the stick). This carrot and stick then drive the organism towards biologically beneficial behavior, such as hoarding and jealously guarding resources.

This is psychologically brutal, but biologically it’s very effective. And it’s why people aren’t able to ever be fully satisfied for more than a brief period of time. Even if they have everything, then their suffering module doesn’t stop craving more and being anxious about losing what they have.

This suffering module has to be a small part of the organism, because you can’t have the organism just sitting on the couch feeling miserable all day. That wouldn’t be productive. The organism has to be effective and functional and be motivated to do things, and then a small suffering module can nudge the organism towards biologically useful behavior.

Sometimes the organism is able to resist the suffering module, and sometimes it isn’t.

Okay, now please spend ten seconds or so summarizing what I’ve said so far. You don’t have to repeat all the little nuances, but just summarize for yourself in broad strokes what I said so far, in one or two sentences.

...

...

...

Maybe you summarized it as something like: “There’s a “suffering module” part of me that produces craving and anxiety, to drive me towards biologically beneficial behaviors.”

Or maybe you had a slightly different summary. Well, regardless of whether your summary was along those lines or a bit different:

Almost certainly you automatically and unconsciously snuck an assumption into your summary. It’s an assumption that I never said, and it’s actually a false assumption, yet almost certainly you automatically and unconsciously made it. Can you spot what it is?

...

...

...

The assumption you’re almost certainly sneaking in is that you’re the organism, or the pilot of the organism, or the soul connected to the organism, or oneness itself experiencing this organism. And you’re assuming that the suffering module is some part of you.

But I never said that.

You’re not the organism, or its pilot, or its soul, or oneness experiencing the organism.

In reality, you (what you think of as the self) are the suffering module of the organism.

You don’t have a suffering module as a part of you. You are the suffering module, and that’s all you are. You are nothing except the suffering module.

This is the first noble truth of Buddhism, expressed in modern language.

It’s not that you’re the brave knight (the organism) heroically resisting the craving / anxious part of you (the suffering module).

It’s that you ARE the craving / anxious part of the organism, and the organism is trying to resist you.

For example, one scenario’s direct observation is:

- see a cookie
- cravings for the cookie
- decision “no” and walk away

An average person interprets that as:
- I see a cookie
- A bad part of me generates cravings
- I decide “no” and walk away. I’m a hero who has resisted a bad part of me.

The reality is, as buddhism and cutting-edge modern science agree:
- the organism sees a cookie
- I generate cravings
- the organism decides “no” and walks away. The organism has successfully resisted me.

It’s hard to wrap your mind around this because every villain thinks they’re the heroic protagonist of the story. But yes, informally and dualistically speaking, you are the villain (the craving / anxiety producer) and not the hero (the organism trying to resist that).

Although of course from a nondual perspective, neither is a hero and neither is a villain.

And from a biology perspective, the suffering module isn’t a villain or a flaw; it’s very useful in getting the organism to engage in biologically beneficial behaviors such as hoarding resources or playing status games.

Still, the real person is the organism. It is the one with the soul. Whereas you, the suffering module, don’t have a soul.

All you do is falsely take credit for actions that your organism performs. Your organism drinks a glass of water, and you claim “I chose to drink a glass of water” but you didn’t. That was the organism’s doing.

You are the little brother whose controller isn’t plugged into the playstation (a video game console), yet who is still convinced that they’re controlling the character. Yet if the little brother screams hard enough, he may still be able to influence the older brother (the organism) whose controller actually is plugged in.

All the humanity is part of the organism, not you. Without you, the organism still eats, dances, writes poetry, falls in love, et cetera, depending on the particular personality of the organism.

Enlightenment means dissolving / uninstalling / extinguishing the suffering module i.e. you. And then the organism keeps walking around and doing things, now unburdened by its suffering module. That’s why enlightenment is the end of suffering.

You literally can’t reach enlightenment. Your organism can, but by definition you won’t be around to enjoy it. After all, enlightenment is precisely the state without you -- nothing more and nothing less.

What people want is to reach a “super self” state, where the self remains and becomes upgraded, and also suffering ends. But that’s literally impossible. Yes, self-improvement can reduce suffering while leaving you in place, however the only way to fully end suffering is to dissolve the self, i.e. dissolve you.

2: Arguments that you are the suffering module

That’s quite a claim to make. Now let me show why that’s true.

Notice how weird it is that you can be completely filled with some craving: to have ill-advised sex with that person, to eat junk food, perhaps even to jump off the bridge, whatever it is. And yet in most cases your organism moves forward and doesn’t take the self-destructive action. This perfectly fits with you being the suffering module: even if you’re completely filled with craving or a destructive impulse, often your organism still is able to resist it.

If you’d actually pilot your body, then whenever you’re filled with the urge to eat that pizza or sleep with that person, you’d just do it. After a few years of this, your life might very well be heavily damaged. And this is a relatively nice modern era: in past eras if you slept with someone’s wife, her husband might straight up kill you.

So you can’t be the pilot of the body. But you have to think you’re the pilot of the body or you’d become passive or suffer psychological collapse, and then you wouldn’t serve your purpose anymore of pushing the organism towards biologically beneficial behavior.

And if you say “you’re being too cynical, I’m not actually sleeping with every attractive person I see”: right, and you’re not doing that because you’ve never been the pilot of your body.

As the Buddha said in his second sermon: if you’re the organism or the pilot of the organism, simply command your mind or body to never suffer or change. But you can’t. Therefore, you’re not the organism or the pilot of the organism.

To use a modern argument: if you were the organism, and you had a billion dollars and a perfect life, it should be super easy to shut off your craving and anxiety, right? But even in that situation, you can’t fully shut up your suffering module. And you can’t get the suffering module to shut up because you are the suffering module.

If you were the (pilot of the) organism, you’d be able to locate which precise part of you is causing cravings and anxiety -- not just when there’s clear childhood trauma underlying it, but always. However, you can’t do this. Why? Because the cravings and anxiety come from you; that’s why you can’t point to where precisely they’re coming from. The eye can see everything except itself.

Or in more colorful language: your experience is probably that in lots of situations there’s anxiety and cravings, usually without you being able to pinpoint which exact part of you generates anxiety and cravings for what reason. Well, if everywhere you go you smell dog poo, but you can’t see dog poo anywhere, then probably the dog poo is under your own shoes -- then probably the cravings and anxiety come from you.

If people’s selves were the (pilot of the) organism, then you would expect that enlightened masters would have left behind an easy 1-2-3 step guide on how to become enlightened. And moderately motivated people would just follow those steps and become enlightened, similar to how moderately motivated people go to the gym and get a fit body.

But that doesn’t happen. Why not?

Well, it’s because writing down “you’re the suffering module, here are exercises to dissolve you” just isn’t a pitch that is appealing to a suffering module. And hence the suffering module immediately distorts or discards the message.

And that’s why there are five hundred different definitions of enlightenment. It’s because the truth is so unappealing that no one wants to face it, hence everyone just makes up a new story about what enlightenment actually is.

If enlightenment indeed were “you’re the pilot of the body, let’s do some meditation to end your suffering”, then some forward-looking countries would make “get teenagers enlightened” part of high school -- because enlightenment actually is something you can achieve in a minute. However schools don’t make that part of their curriculum, because actual enlightenment means literally dissolving the self.

Why are enlightened people more effective? It’s because they don’t have the overhead of a suffering module anymore. They metaphorically freed up their RAM, which may enable them to do exceptional things. Whereas in the conventional view, it’s not really explainable what the mechanism would be how a person would suddenly upgrade to a “super version of themselves.”

If enlightenment were “becoming a super version of yourself” then that would just be the human baseline. Everyone would be born enlightened and would remain enlightened their entire lives. But that doesn’t happen. Why not? It’s because the suffering module indeed imposes overhead on the organism, but it’s still biologically beneficial. That’s why people are born with it.

Also, what I’m saying makes it clear why some people reach enlightenment in a second (their suffering module simply crashes), while others meditate for their entire lives and don’t reach enlightenment (it’s very hard to see and accept “I am the suffering module”).

What I’m saying makes it clear why even in a Zen school headed by an enlightened master, where all the pupils are sincerely trying to reach enlightenment, even there most pupils won’t get enlightened. It’s just inherently very hard to uninstall the self while the self is busy producing all kinds of self-defending nonsense to mislead the organism.

What I’m saying makes clear why on one hand people need to do spiritual practice to reach enlightenment (the suffering module doesn’t stop by itself except in very rare cases). Yet on the other hand “there’s nothing to do, nowhere to go” (because enlightenment is just the organism without a suffering module).

What I’m saying makes clear why on one hand some enlightened people seem very remarkable (their anxiety module just isn’t firing anymore which seems like a superpower to an outsider). Yet at the same time enlightened people typically describe their state as being very ordinary (it’s just normal life without the suffering module, otherwise nothing changes; it’s still chopping wood and carrying water).

What I’m saying is why Zen masters used Koans, i.e. questions that had no logical answer. Koans are meant to try and crash the craving / anxiety engine, i.e. the suffering module. Whereas if enlightenment actually were “meditate until you unlock your super self”, as the conventional view is, then why would the old masters give Koans at all? Giving people impossible riddles is how you crash an engine, not how you upgrade an engine.

Also: you can check yourself that what I’m saying here is what the Buddha said, simply expressed in modern language. With the exception being that I’m saying the organism has a soul, and the Buddha didn’t.

The Buddha’s logic is very straightforward and inescapable: you are the suffering module. To end suffering, you should reach nirvana, which translates to extinguishing [craving i.e. yourself]. And after you’ve extinguished yourself, that’s the state of anattā, which literally means “no self.”

The logic holds up.

Whereas the Buddha sounds unhinged under the 2026 conventional worldview: “you’re the (pilot of the) organism. Sometimes you suffer, but that’s fixable by doing meditation. Therefore you should extinguish yourself, and reach the state of no-self.” Huh? That doesn’t make sense at all. Therefore, this 2026 conventional worldview is wrong.

People might argue here “wait, nirvana doesn’t mean extinguishing yourself. Nirvana means extinguishing craving.” Sure, but Buddhism also says that you are craving. So Buddhism says that you should extinguish cravings i.e. yourself, and then you reach the state of no-self. Whereas if extinguishing craving didn’t mean extinguishing yourself... then how come you reach the state of no self (anattā) after eliminating craving?

A possible counterargument against all this might be: “Most people seem fine, they don’t seem to have nearly as much anxiety and craving as you suggest.”

Sure, but look at the extreme measures people take to satisfy their cravings:
- If you’re left-wing: isn’t it crazy that people are destroying nature in order to satisfy their short-term financial cravings? And isn’t it crazy that people who already have more money than they can spend, just keep grabbing more to satisfy their cravings, even when it hurts the poor -- their brothers and sisters?

- If you’re right-wing: isn’t it crazy that people are putting the nation into unsustainable debt, thereby selling our children’s future, in order to satisfy their short-term financial cravings? And isn’t it crazy that people are destroying the entire fabric of the country so that they can virtue-signal, and thereby satisfy their status cravings?

Similarly, look at the extreme measures people take to deal with anxiety:

- they call people they strongly disagree with a fascist / communist, and want them to be re-educated or at least made powerless.

- they call every other substantial country evil, and want all those countries made powerless too

- they call everyone who contradicts the mainstream narrative (and thereby fuels anxiety in them) a crazy conspiracy theorist, even if they’re a doctor or scientist.

- most people engage in a pattern where they just stick a negative label on people they don’t like, and then proceed to use that label to dehumanize them. This, by itself, is a crazy pattern, yet the vast majority of people engage in it.

- Plus people play a lot of subtle status games or “only my group knows the truth” games.

So yes, the suffering modules are quite active.

Now sure, people don’t spend literally every waking hour of their life being a ball of anxiety, but remember: the suffering module just is a small overlay over the actual being, the organism itself.

3: What is enlightenment

Enlightenment means that you (i.e. the suffering module) are dissolved / extinguished / uninstalled. And your organism keeps walking around, now without the overhead and hoarding behaviors of the “self.”

Without this “self” overhead, it’s more authentic and more effective and less selfish. And because humans are naturally a communal species, most enlightened people are loving.

And it’s natural that most enlightened people tend to be compassionate, because from their perspective: “those poor unenlightened people still have a suffering module.”

That said, if someone is physically addicted to something, they remain physically addicted after enlightenment.

Jiddu Krishnamurti was enlightened, yet also had a secret, multi-decade affair with his closest friend’s wife. Even without a craving / anxiety module overlaid on top, the organism may still want sex, and isn’t necessarily nice.

Both Buddhism and science say that a unified permanent “self” doesn’t exist. Instead what you think of as “you” is made up of changing submodules, e.g. a part that creates craving for resources, and a part that creates anxiety about personal safety. If enlightenment is reached, you are dissolved: which also means that these submodules are dissolved.

Still, I don’t think that’s a helpful mental model for the purposes of reducing suffering or enlightenment. I think my less “zoomed in” mental model of the suffering module is also true and is more practically useful.

The enlightened person still understands the concept of safety, and might make choices to ensure his safety, and will reflexively pull back his hand when touching something very hot. But the enlightened person isn’t anxious about his safety anymore. The enlightened person will realize something is an unsafe action, yet enlightened people may be unusually willing to take such actions anyway, because they’re not anxious about protecting a self.

Enlightened people can still get briefly angry, because that’s just part of the human organism. This is the metaphorical “first arrow.” However there’s no metaphorical “second arrow”: there’s no resentment, there’s no “oh no I’m a bad person because I got angry”, there’s no “I will take revenge”, there’s no “oh no now people won’t like me anymore”, et cetera.

Enlightened people don’t get angry for ego-defensive reasons, but they can still get angry at genuine injustice for example.

I’d stop using the term “ego” entirely because it suggests that there’s a “you”, and then there’s an “ego” and enlightenment means doing something with the ego and leaving you intact. That’s false: enlightenment means extinguishing you. Enlightenment doesn’t leave behind a super you, or a you freed from (excessive) ego; enlightenment leaves behind no you at all. You’re gone.

The term “ego” lets a self generate status anxiety, and then launder that by saying “my ego doesn’t like that he’s getting a promotion instead of me.” No, you don’t like that he’s getting a promotion instead of you.

Now yes, properly integrating the ego is a decent mental model for how you can achieve spiritual growth. But that’s not enlightenment.

Personally I think people should dissolve themselves and become enlightened, and I think that’s basically all upside -- except that well, you’d be gone, and you may not want that. But of course, once the organism is actually enlightened, you won’t be there to be unhappy about being dissolved. And the beautiful parts of humanity are all part of the organism, not of you.

And yes, I acknowledge that this “you’re the suffering module” situation is monstrously unfair. It is. I’m sorry.

4: Examples of enlightened people

You can’t say “this person behaves like the Buddha therefore they’re enlightened, whereas that person doesn’t behave like the Buddha therefore they’re not enlightened.” Both of those statements could very well be wrong.

Enlightened people are simply people with no suffering module / self. Still, their organism’s personalities may be entirely different.

Despite this, let’s look at some examples of enlightened people.

Have you watched Avatar: The Last Airbender? I’m referring to the classic animated series from 2005. In it, Uncle Iroh is an excellent example of an enlightened person. He’s unapologetically himself, he absolutely doesn’t care about looking foolish, he’d probably laugh if you insulted him, yet he still actively helps people around him and he’s very effective when he wants to be. If he’s angry, he’s angry; if he cries, he cries; and he has no problem with either.

Uncle Iroh is almost more alive than normal people. If you watch the show (or look up some Uncle Iroh clips on YouTube), I think you’ll see what I mean.

Many people who watched this series failed to realize that Iroh was enlightened. Indeed, many people genuinely wouldn’t recognize a random enlightened person if they were talking to him or her.

If you meet an enlightened person, you might just think that they’re an effective, kind person with no inner friction, but you won’t necessarily recognize that as enlightenment.

To be clear, lack of inner friction by itself isn’t enough for enlightenment. A psychopath has no inner friction, but a psychopath is obsessively chasing a self-agenda. Whereas the enlightened person has no self and hence no self-agenda.

And yes, if an enlightened person is also exceptional in other ways, and also has a “Buddha like” personality, and also has certain abilities, then everyone recognizes them as enlightened. But the average enlightened person isn’t like that, yet is still enlightened.

“Supernatural” abilities don’t make someone enlightened, and lack of “supernatural” abilities doesn’t prove that someone is unenlightened.

As another example: Philippians 2:7 says “[Jesus] made himself nothing”, pointing to self-dissolving.

Next up: I, Tunia, am enlightened. Yes, I know, I’m still using the term “I”, but it’s hard to communicate in English without it. And yes, while it’s true that enlightened people don’t randomly brag for no reason, sometimes enlightened people do say they’re enlightened -- in this case, because it serves the practical purpose of providing you with another example.

My lack of inhibition, lack of shame and my complete comfortableness with who I am is how my organism acts without a “self” around.

The self often makes someone behave more normally, because the self fears repercussions of not doing so.

Without the self, the person doesn’t engage in resource-hoarding and safety-hoarding behaviors, and (depending on the personality of the organism) sometimes doesn’t bother with socially acceptable behavior at all. This means that some enlightened people show extremely uncommon behaviors, even as other enlightened people are very unremarkable.

For example, Akka Mahadevi was a young, beautiful enlightened woman in 12th century India. She was married to a king. Well great, any normal woman in that situation would just be the queen and have children, right?

Well, Akka Mahadevi considered herself spiritually married to Shiva, one of the gods of Hinduism. The king wanted to have sex with her. She refused. He argued that as her husband, he owned her body, her royal robes and her jewels.

In response, she stripped naked and walked out of the palace. And then she went on a long naked walk and eventually she reached a group of Indian mystics (while still being naked). She lived there for a while as an ascetic before dying young and childless.

This illustrates why biologically it’s beneficial to have a self in the first place. Without a self, her organism threw away the easiest path imaginable towards abundance and reproduction (your husband the king wants to sleep with you => you sleep with him).

That’s why you, the self, exists -- to stop organisms from acting like that.

If she had a self, most likely that self would have generated sufficient craving for resources / status / sex, and sufficient anxiety about the future, that she would have had sex with the king. Which biologically speaking was far superior to dying young and childless.

You can argue “her behavior is understandable, good on her for guarding her boundaries against a possessive man.” Sure, but note that her behavior goes much further than that. A strong-minded woman with a self might have left the king and married some other, good man instead. But she didn’t do that either. Instead, without a self, she walked across 12th century India naked as a young beautiful woman, which is just a level of needless risk that no person with a self would take. But then again, an enlightened person isn’t anxious about defending a self.

Here’s a poem she wrote:

“Peel the skin, take off the flesh, cut open the heart—and see, if there is any ‘you’ or ‘me’ inside.”

Observe the subtle mistake that people with selves often make: they keep projecting some “uplifted self” onto a person who has no self.

It’s easy to think of Mahadevi as the perfectly devoted spiritualist: someone so devoted to Shiva that she wanted to eliminate all distractions, and hence she left her husband. But that reading doesn’t fit because walking around naked as a young beautiful woman means that her Shiva meditations get interrupted much more often. If she just wanted to meditate in peace and get bothered as little as possible... then she would have walked around wearing clothes.

Other people would think of Mahadevi as a 12th century feminist activist who walked around naked because she was trying to destroy patriarchal norms. However that reading also doesn’t fit: when she reached that famous group of mystics, she just became an ascetic and then died. She didn’t actually try to start a social movement.

Other people might see Mahadevi as a true spiritual master, and sure, she was. However, one time when men leered at her and one man said “what will all these men think of you, walking around naked like this”, she responded with: “I see no men here. Only animals.” So while she is a true spiritual master, she doesn’t conform to the “infinitely loving and compassionate” idea that people have in their head of what a spiritual master is like.

Plus she died in her 20s, which also doesn’t fit with people’s idea that spiritual masters can just manifest perfect health and abundance and safety at will. Now yes some enlightened people have significant spiritual abilities, but others don’t.

People with selves often project some kind of heroic self on to people without selves (she’s a devoted spiritualist! she’s a feminist! she’s a true spiritual master!). But the reality is much simpler: the enlightened person just doesn’t have a self.

The heroic self that you project onto enlightened people comes from you. It doesn’t come from them. You’re just projecting.

Mahadevi wasn’t naked because she wanted to change society’s attitudes. She just didn’t wear clothes because... she didn’t wear clothes.

As another enlightened person said: “I am not anti-rational, just unrational. You may infer a rational meaning in what I say or do, but it is your doing, not mine.” (source https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/U._G._Krishnamurti)

The self constantly generates post-hoc rationalizations: after the organism acts, the self thinks “I took that action, and I did it for this reason.” This is socially and biologically useful. But it’s not true: these are just rationalizations.

Conversely, the enlightened organism doesn’t have that overhead. It just acts.

An enlightened person will tell you: “what am I going to do an hour from now? I don’t know. I can speculate, but I don’t know. Why did I do that? I don’t know. I can speculate, but I don’t know.“ And yes, this is socially much less useful, but it is true.

5: The downside of enlightenment

The craving / anxious self is actually a benefit for people in leadership positions.

If you have an enlightened person in charge, the average year is quite pleasant and quite well-planned, but if an unlikely crisis hits you’ll find that the enlightened leader didn’t sufficiently prepare for it -- because enlightened people aren’t constantly hoarding resources and anxiously thinking about the future.

Indeed, Hakann and Ashtar are not enlightened.

While Ashtar is imperfect, you don’t see all the mistakes an enlightened person would have made in Ashtar’s chair. Or all the responsibilities that an enlightened person would have been unsuited for that Ashtar is handling properly.

I’m hoping you wouldn’t actually rather have me in charge than Ashtar.

And if you think “well, we want Ashtar, but just an enlightened version of him” -- that’s the “super self” illusion. An enlightened person doesn’t have a super self. Instead an enlightened person has no self, and has no self-preservation drive that comes along with that.

Fortunately for everyone, I’m not in a position of authority, so I can be as silly as I want to be. The only people I annoy with my antics are my husband, the rest of my family and a few friends -- and well, some of you, but I like to think you’re consciously signing up for Tunia’s Antics.

I just made a pun that’s very funny in our language but that doesn’t translate at all. Please laugh.

And yes, a sizable group of Pleiadians are enlightened, and a sizable group aren’t. Both live in harmony, and both contribute. Unenlightened people are great for planning and leadership and defense and making sure enough resources are produced and stored. That describes a large number of societal roles.

Plus, from the perspective of your current society, you can get most unenlightened people to do a very unpleasant, dangerous or tiring job by just paying them a lot of money. Whereas “do this job, we’ll pay you a lot of money” won’t necessarily convince an enlightened person. The enlightened person might be happy to do a certain job, but then again also might not be.

Because of this, I’d drop the dualistic view that enlightened people are just superior to non-enlightened people. You genuinely don’t want everyone in society to be enlightened.

Still, while unenlightened people are better at these specific societal roles, enlightened people are better at pretty much everything else. The suffering module is overhead and produces friction, so if it’s not explicitly a benefit to have it (such as for someone in leadership), then having an enlightened person in that position is more effective. If you can convince the enlightened person to actually do that job.

You might think unenlightened people would be better poets or psychologists. Well, an unenlightened person would be better at writing a gripping poem about the anxieties of life. But in general, an enlightened person understands unenlightened people perfectly well, and if so inclined would be a better poet or psychologist than an unenlightened person. Some enlightened people wrote excellent poems about love or grief. Rumi was an amazing poet.

6: Why seek enlightenment if by definition you won’t be there to enjoy it?

You don’t have to seek enlightenment. It’s perfectly valid not to seek it.

Still, enlightenment will end craving and anxiety in the organism. It won’t stop the first arrow we discussed, but it will stop the second arrow.

And the people around you will substantially benefit.

Unenlightened people in relationships give their partner love that’s partly conditional and partly distorted by their own anxieties, cravings and self-interest. Meanwhile they expect (on at least an emotional level) to get unconditional, undistorted love from their partner.

Well, an enlightened partner can actually give the closest thing to unconditional, undistorted love that exists.

I love my children very much. They (including my non-enlightened child) genuinely think I’m a great mom. And my children are doing well, including by conventional standards.

My husband also genuinely thinks I’m an amazing wife. Jokes aside, I really do fiercely love him and support him, in as close to an unconditional and unclouded way as exists.

If your organism reaches enlightenment, it will be better to the people around it, including to its partner and children. You might think “but then my partner won’t have ME anymore” -- but remember, you’re just the suffering module. Everything of value is in the organism, which remains after you’re gone.

It’s a bit brutal to say, but your partner would likely prefer being with your organism without you -- keeping in mind that you are just the suffering module.

And yes, I know there’s a stereotype that when someone reaches enlightenment they leave their partner, but an enlightened person is actually less likely to do that than an unenlightened person.

Recall that the Buddha left his wife while unenlightened because he was seeking an end to suffering. Then after his enlightenment, he returned to his family, reconciled and eventually his wife and his son joined his order and reached enlightenment themselves.

7: The critical flaw in modern Western spirituality / occultism

In this section, when I talk about Modern Western spirituality, I mean the type of spirituality that’s about “love and light”, Western neo-tantra, channeling, “raising your vibrations”, “stand in your power”, manifesting things, affirmations, etc. Right now I’m not talking about traditions like Zen.

Modern Western spirituality and modern Western occultism focus strongly on the self: improve the self, purify the self, uplift the self, cleanse the self, teach the self how to manifest and how to use certain abilities, have the self repeat affirmations such as “you’re worthy / loved”, et cetera.

Focusing strongly on the self makes complete sense under the conventional worldview, where the self is the pilot of the body. Under that view, empowering the pilot means that the person does less bad things.

However, while there’s some great people in these communities, there are also a large number of egoic people there who bulldoze other people’s worldviews, who insist that only they have the truth and who play status games. Not to mention that there are some spiritual teachers out there who abuse their students.

And the modern Western spiritual or occult communities have produced, as far as I’m aware, zero enlightened masters -- while producing a lot of people who think they’re amazing.

That makes absolute sense if the self is the craving / anxiety producing module. Because if you constantly focus on and try to empower and uplift the craving / anxiety module... then oooooh boy, that has the potential to backfire. And it often does: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2721

Hence the stereotype that people often become worse people when they enter the spiritual community (or when they go to a psychologist). That’s not entirely fair, that’s certainly not always true, but sometimes that genuinely happens because the focus on the self feeds the suffering module.

Conversely, despite all of Christianity’s flaws, the average Christian is often kinder and more humble than the average spiritual person, because the average Christian isn’t focused on the self as much. Hence the suffering module doesn’t get empowered as much. Indeed, some spiritual people would rather hang out with Christians than with other spiritual people.

In stories, the villain is the one who is focused on the self and who wants to “manifest things for himself.” Whereas the hero isn’t preoccupied with himself at all and is focused on trying to fix things.

Similarly, Eastern traditions and traditional Western traditions didn’t focus on the self much, or at all. And those traditions produced a lot more enlightened people. Plus the average zen monk is genuinely more humble and kind than the average Western spiritual person.

So, that’s a huge issue: people focus on the self, but actually the self is the suffering module, and focusing on it may empower it.

Then there’s a smaller second issue: classical self-uninstallation schemes are seen by modern people as ways to relax, when they’re really not.

You have for example people going on meditation retreats where they’re not allowed to talk or make eye contact with anyone for a week. For certain meditation periods people are not allowed to move at all even if you’re in pain. This is an old self-uninstallation approach, yet modern people attend such retreats thinking they’ll relax and recharge.

Ironically, the people who become deeply unsettled during such meditation retreats do them “well” from the perspective of the old masters. Whereas the people who have a relaxing and wonderful time didn’t make any progress at all from the perspective of the old masters.

Ideally, people would be clear-eyed and honest.

If you want to feel better or heal or achieve certain practical things or you just want a decent life (which is entirely valid), then parts of the modern Western spiritual and occult communities are genuinely good. For people who are in pain or feel powerless, parts of the modern Western spiritual and occult communities are helpful. But then, realize that you’re not really working towards enlightenment -- towards an end of suffering.

If you’re already doing at least decently and you want to reach enlightenment, then the modern Western spiritual and occult communities are ineffective for that purpose. In this case, put down the pleasantness, sit down and endlessly repeat a self-uninstallation technique.

8: Exercises

Rationally understanding all this isn’t enlightenment. Enlightenment isn’t knowing that you are the suffering module; enlightenment is you being uninstalled.

Beware of the trick of the self that it points to a suffering module “over there”, then it “defeats the suffering module” and then it proclaims “yes, now I am enlightened.” The suffering module isn’t “over there” -- you are the suffering module.

If you feel superior to others because you get that you’re the suffering module, and those other sleepers don’t get that -- that’s not enlightenment.

Any time you think of yourself as having overcome this thing, or having integrated that thing, or having achieved such and such, that’s not enlightenment. Enlightenment is when you’re not there anymore.

Ultimately, uninstalling yourself isn’t that easy. Even if you avoid the traps: there just doesn’t exist a one-minute exercise that will uninstall anyone who does it.

If you meditate daily for your entire life, you might reach enlightenment but even then you’ll have poor odds.

However, you do have a reasonable chance of reaching enlightenment if you constantly and relentlessly repeat the following for a few years:

Whenever you have a thought, you just constantly bring your attention back to your wordless sense of beingness (i.e., that you exist and are present).

This is sometimes called the “I am” instruction, but it’s not “I am” as some kind of declaration that you are one with the universe or one with some “greater” being. In fact, you’re not even thinking the words “I am.” Instead you’re bringing your attention back to your wordless sense of beingness.

So for example, if a thought arises such as “I am hungry” or “hopefully my presentation next week goes well”, you just bring your attention back to your wordless sense of beingness. Keep doing this constantly over a period of years, and you’ll eventually starve / crash the suffering module.

You’re not fighting or disagreeing with your thoughts. You’re just constantly bringing your attention back to your sense of beingness, and that is all. You don’t even necessarily need to meditate, although in an ideal world you do this “I am” exercise while also meditating daily.

If you don’t want enlightenment, here’s how you can use this message to practically benefit your life without necessarily dissolving yourself:

Under the old model, if you have a thought like “it’s not fair that person has more money than me”, you may very well take that thought seriously and go into it and think about the unfairness of the situation, and think about how no one sufficiently appreciates or rewards you.

Or maybe you label that as a “bad thought” and you try to go to war with some unseen subpart of you that is thinking “bad thoughts.”

Neither of these two approaches is helpful.

Meanwhile, I propose that you feel the raw physical sensations in your body and then simply think “I, the suffering module, am doing my job: pushing the organism toward resource hoarding.” And then just go on with your day.

Or if you crave junk food, I propose that you feel the raw physical sensations in your body and then think “I, the suffering module, am doing my job: pushing the organism toward calorie hoarding.” And then just go on with your day.

Or if you feel underappreciated, then yes it could be the case that you’re traumatized, or that your friends are toxic. But in most cases, it’s neither of those, and you can solve that by feeling the raw physical sensations in your body and then thinking “I, the suffering module, am doing my job: pushing the organism toward status hoarding.”

That said, I only recommend using this if the suffering module is generating unneeded craving or anxiety. If someone mistreats you, then the proper response is to state your boundaries, walk away, something practical like that.

I also don’t recommend using this to try and override genuine needs you have.

9: Conclusion

Let’s close this message. Hopefully in the not too distant future we can meet, and I and my sisters and brothers can hug you and lend you a hand, and work with you to make your lives better and more pleasant.

And then, one day when you’ve met us, and when you’ve learned our language...

Then I can finally explain that pun I made earlier. It was really good.

With all my love,

Your star sister,

Tunia

CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain Dedication): This work is dedicated to the public domain. To the extent possible under law, the author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. You may copy, modify, distribute, sell, or use it for any purpose without permission or attribution. View the full legal deed at creativecommons.org/public domain/zero/1.0/

This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.

I’m so thrilled that I can speak to you all again! How have you all been doing?

Thanks, channeler, for this opportunity.

Today I wanted to briefly share the following:

When Earth humans feel loneliness, typically they immediately conclude that they need to go spend time with their partner or with a friend.

Certainly that can be the case. However, you might find that after you do this, you still feel lonely. That’s because actually five different kinds of loneliness exist, and understanding that can help you meet your needs better:

“Friendship loneliness”: in this case you are missing just hanging out with friends or with your partner, grabbing a drink, spending time together and perhaps engaging in shared hobbies. You can but don’t necessarily need to have emotionally intimate conversations with them to scratch this itch.

“Intimacy loneliness”: in this case just casually hanging out with your partner or friends won’t satisfy you. Here you want to feel seen and appreciated and loved. Stereotypically in this situation women want an emotionally intimate conversation and then they feel satisfied. Whereas men in this situation want sex and then they feel satisfied. Though obviously that isn’t true for all men and for all women. Still, keep in mind that it’s possible that your partner might want or need to solve this “intimacy loneliness” in another way than you do, and that doesn’t make them broken.

“Community loneliness”: here you feel lonely because you’re not part of a solid, good community where people know each other and are willing to help each other out. Being part of such a community is actually a need that many people have. You can’t fully scratch this itch by having good intimacy with your partner and regularly hanging out with friends.

“Self-connection loneliness”: this is the desire to see, love and accept yourself. Here the solution isn’t to go talk to other people: it’s to look inside.

“Existential loneliness”: here you feel lonely because you don’t have a direction or purpose in your life, or because a loved one just died, or because you haven’t emotionally come to terms with the fact that one day you will die / transition. Yes, sometimes this too is felt as loneliness. What can help here is spirituality, philosophy or making art.

I hope this was helpful.

May all your needs be met.

It’s awful that just meeting your basic needs there on Earth is so tough, but energies are rising -- while it might seem right now that everyone’s going insane, things really are moving slowly in the right direction. It’s just that everything that was repressed is now slowly coming to the light. Which isn’t pretty, but it is forward momentum.

With love,

Your star sister,

Tunia

This is Hakann speaking. I greet you in peace and love.

It is so good to be able to talk to you again.

My thanks to this channeler for giving me this opportunity once again. And thanks to you for tuning in: it gladdens my heart that many of you are still wanting to connect to us Pleiadians.

Tunia will likely get the next channeling, which may be next week, or whenever this channeler feels up to it again. The messages might also be slightly shorter so as not to not overburden this channeler.

On to today’s topic:

Today I want to make a distinction between ego-defending anger versus righteous anger.

The most common form of anger on your world is ego-defending anger. For example, someone says something true or at least fair to John, and John gets emotionally upset. And instead of introspecting or feeling his emotions or communicating, John gets angry.

Ego-defending anger is why anger has a bad reputation on your world. Because of course, John’s anger isn’t productive here. It would be better if he didn’t get angry and he would introspect or feel or communicate instead.

However, there’s also righteous anger, which is where you get upset or angry at genuine unfairness or genuine mistreatment of you or someone else. And that’s actually useful, because it can motivate you to get moving, to take action, to stand up for yourself or others, to set boundaries, to demand reasonable treatment.

Furthermore, people actually respect righteous anger when it’s genuine and justified.

Going from passivity to righteous anger can actually be a substantial spiritual improvement. After all, righteous anger is a whole lot better than just passively letting yourself get mistreated.

One can make the argument that righteous anger isn’t the highest state of being. Well, I think people overvalue “acting like a buddha” and undervalue authenticity and truth and acting spontaneously. And also, you probably can’t go from passivity straight to buddha-hood without being righteously angry for a while, expressing and feeling that and standing up for yourself or others.

That said, it’s still important to have enough self-control that even if you’re righteously angry, you’re not violent, you’re not screaming at people, the words you say remain justified, et cetera.

Not every situation is appropriate for righteous anger. Righteous anger also can’t solve everything.

Still, if you find yourself being more angry now than you were in the past, it can be a spiritual improvement.

Just make sure you’re not actually having ego-defending anger and labeling that as righteous anger. That’s an ego trap and that of course wouldn’t be helpful.

With all my love,

Your star brother,

Hakann

As an illustration: a third of the spiritual community is convinced that they have true inner knowing that Trump’s a good guy, and a third of the spiritual community is convinced that they have true inner knowing that Trump’s a bad guy. Whichever side is right, there’s a huge number of people out there who are labeling their own emotions as “true inner knowing.”

As another illustration, here are my opinions about the channel / hub “GFL station”:

https://www.youtube.com/@gflstation has 159k subscribers, who presumably truly believe that this channel puts out genuine channelings.

At the same time, for example https://gflstation.com/the-truth-is-stranger-than-you-know-ashtar-ashtar-command-2/ is most likely AI generated (not just the images but the “channeled” text). Here’s a literal quote from that message, read it and tell me this isn’t AI:

----

“Soft disclosure normalizes the premise. Medium disclosure teaches the mechanisms. Look closer still at the machinery your screenwriters keep describing with such suspicious accuracy, Paycheck’s oracle-machine dismantled by its own builders upon realizing the seeing itself births the catastrophe, Minority Report’s futures viewed and policed, Devs’ deterministic screen kept in corporate secrecy, the obdurate past of 11.22.63 physically shoving back against its editors and repairing each wound they cut, Loki’s Time Variance Authority pruning unruly branches outside of time to protect one sacred trunk, Interstellar’s father falling beyond a dark star who discovers the helpful beings reaching through the walls of moments are his own descendants, guiding him home, and stack beside them The Philadelphia Experiment of nineteen eighty-four dramatizing the Eldridge by name, The Final Countdown sailing a carrier back to Pearl Harbor’s eve, Stargate and its long television descendants teaching a ring network with factions and custody, Donnie Darko sacrificing a broken branch so the trunk survives, Frequency mending a murder-line across a father’s radio, Déjà Vu, Tenet, Primer, Groundhog Day, on and on across ten decades.”

----

For what it’s worth, https://app.gptzero.me/ and other “is this text AI” checkers agree that the message is most likely AI. Though admittedly, those sites aren’t very reliable.

Plus if you look in GFL station’s archives you will see the youtube channel started in 2024, right when “make a youtube channel filled with AI created messages” became a viable business strategy.

Also, GFL station’s narrative contradicts itself if you look at their old videos:

An April 2025 video by them says “the 5D split is complete“:

A July 2025 video by them says “THE GREAT SPLIT! THERE ARE NOW TWO CLEAR FREQUENCIES.” Wait, I thought the split happened three months earlier?

A December 2025 video by them says “The Split Will Finalize Early 2026”. But didn’t the split already complete in April 2025, then also in July 2025?

A June 2026 video by them says “THE SPLIT!! A Natural Separation Is Occurring.” Wait, didn’t the split happen in April 2025, then also in July 2025, then also in early 2026?

A July 2026 video by them says “The Crystalization Of The Split Is Happening”. But again, didn’t the split happen in April 2025, then also in July 2025, then also in early 2026?

Furthermore, their youtube videos (not just a few specific ones) contain in the description: “DISCLAIMER: all GFL content is created for entertainment purposes ONLY.” Well if you’re convinced you’re channeling Ashtar, and the video isn’t saying anything illegal / defamatory, then why put that under your video? It seems disrespectful to Ashtar and your audience. Plenty of channelers publish channelings on Youtube without that disclaimer, and don’t get into trouble.

However if you put out AI-generated “channeled” messages behind a patreon paywall... yeah, then you may want to have such a “for entertainment purposes ONLY” disclaimer.

Then there’s GFL station’s clickbait headlines and the strong focus on monetization.

So, it’s my opinion that about 159k people are convinced that an AI youtube channel is posting genuine channelings.

And undoubtedly there are more fake or heavily distorted messages out there that some people are nonetheless sincerely buying into.

It’s a huge ego trap to think “well those misguided people are falling for fake channelings. Of course, I have discernment, and I’ve figured out what the genuine channelings are.” But the thing is, those other people think that you’re the misguided one, and they’re the ones who’ve found the true channelings (which contradict the ones you believe).

And sure, some fake channelings are easy to spot. In some cases you probably can genuinely identify fake stuff. Yet, other fake / heavily distorted channelings are genuinely hard to identify.

So, what to do?

Well, if you’re able to access genuine intuition or talk to your soul, then listen to that. However, most people can’t do this -- they’ve just deluded themselves into thinking they can, and they just label whatever emotionally pleases them as “resonant and therefore true.” But that doesn’t actually point to the truth.

Even if you can’t access intuition or your soul, you should still listen to your emotions and your gut feelings and what resonates. It’s useful data. Still, your emotions / gut / “what resonates” can steer you away from painful truths, and towards pleasant lies.

An easy way to get compliments in the spiritual community is to write “follow your resonance / discernment / guidance / heart and you will KNOW what is true.” But the fact is, if the average person tries this, it could work but there’s also a decent chance they’ll fervently start believing in nonsense.

People shouldn’t teach spiritual novices that whatever resonates with them is the objective truth. And most people are spiritual novices. Some people who think they’re not spiritual novices -- are still spiritual novices. (It’s an easy trap to fall into. There was a period of several years when I thought I wasn’t a spiritual novice anymore, but looking back, I still was.)

If you think “I had inner knowing this one time, and I later got undeniable proof that it was true” -- okay, that very well could be true. Genuine inner knowing does exist. However, that proves you had true inner knowing once or a few times, not that you can always know what’s true and what’s false.

If you are able to always know what’s true and what’s false, then why aren’t you making millions on the site Polymarket? That’s a site where you can bet on all sorts of things, and where you could make literal millions if you could flawlessly tell truth from falsehood.

Hence most people can’t just access genuine intuition on demand. Then for those people, how can they know what’s true?

Some channelers might want to say “well I’ve had these experiences, and these two sources agree with what I’m saying, and I firmly believe I’m right, and also you can’t prove that I’m wrong.” Sure, but if that’s sufficient proof, then thousands of channelers are all “proven to be right” even though they’re saying contradictory things. It’s not practically helpful.

“I’ve had a dream / flash of insight / inner knowing / revelation that [a certain thing] will happen” isn’t sufficient proof either, because if you accept that as proof, then you have to believe several contradicting narratives at once. I’m not saying this is necessarily all nonsense, but often it’s just a situation where people see ONE possible future but instead think they’ve seen THE future.

So, what should we do?

Well, an underrated approach is to reason from first principles.

First principles are basic, foundational truths. We can then use logic to derive conclusions from those first principles. In this context, there’s little that we can 100% mathematically prove, hence our first principles are things we’re pretty sure about.

Namely, here are our two first principles:

1: The time of our liberation / meeting with galactics has been repeatedly delayed (the “soon - delay” pattern)

2: There are galactics walking and flying around on Earth

Are we 100% sure about these two first principles? No, but we’re pretty sure about them because a huge number of channelers, contactees, whistleblowers, scientists, Quantum Healing Hypnosis, etc people all agree on this.

Plus, if you reject these first principles, then we’re basically back to “everyone just believes what resonates for them” which, as we’ve established, isn’t reliable for most people.

My channelings have done the “soon - delay” pattern, by predicting that people’s lives would substantially improve before the end of 2025, which didn’t happen. I apologize for that.

Note that even many sources which claim not to give dates, still show the soon - delay pattern if you read their old message. For example, Cobra from 2012portal.blogspot.com also shows the “soon-delay” pattern:

- In 2012 he posted that First Contact will happen some time after the end of 2012: https://2012portal.blogspot.com/2012/04/portal-2012-normal-0.html

- In 2016 he posted that the ascension window closes by 2025: https://2012portal.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-ascension-plan.html. That, combined with him saying that ascension will happen, implies that it will happen before 2025. Then, Cobra later did the “soon - delay” by saying that the ascension window would remain open after 2025, but still,

Okay, so what’s the point of discussing these two first principles?

Well, they’re actually surprisingly effective at helping you evaluate theories about what’s likely going on.

For example, consider the theory “we’re waiting for the arrival of nibiru / for a pole shift.” Is this likely? Well no, because if that was the case, we wouldn’t see the “soon - delay” pattern. Galactics would just do some physics and wouldn’t give us “soon” messages for over a decade which then don’t come to pass.

Or consider the theory “galactics aren’t allowed to intervene.” Is this plausible? Well no, because they are walking and flying around and showing themselves and sometimes talking to us. So clearly they can intervene. And if you want to argue those things don’t count as intervening, then why aren’t they doing a whole lot more flying around / meeting people than they’re doing now?

Or consider the theory “well galactics simply have to beat astral entities first / have to wait for the energy or for our consciousness or people’s consent to reach a certain level. Then they’ll land.” Is that plausible? Well maybe that’s part of the situation, but if that was all that was going on, you wouldn’t see the repeated “soon => delay” pattern. Then you’d just have Pleiadian scientists drawing a graph and having a pretty good idea when they’ll land, rather than constantly going “soon => delay.”

Or consider the theory: “they are landing, just in higher-vibration timelines than the ones we’re in.” Is that plausible? At most that’s part of the situation. It can’t be the whole story because galactics are lowering our vibration with the “soon => delay” pattern. It would be evil (which I don’t think they are), or sub-optimal from their side to lower our vibration with “soon => delay” messages that then keep us in a lower timeline where we can’t meet them.

In my mind, the only thing that really makes sense if we reason from first principles is some kind of flaw with galactic leadership / Ashtar. If he’s a good person but also indecisive or struggling under the weight of responsibility, then that’s the only thing I can think of that actually would lead to a “soon => delay” pattern.

And it would explain things if average Pleiadians just aren’t thinking that much about Earth / are only “moderately good”, and as such there’s no large amount of popular pressure on Ashtar to land already.

I know some people don’t emotionally like that explanation, but what proof do you have that Ashtar actually is this perfect being? Isn’t that just people emotionally liking the idea of a perfect savior coming down to take care of them?

A possible counterargument is “well Jesus was perfect, so why wouldn’t Ashtar be” but the actual flesh-and-blood Jesus wasn’t perfect (even though he was a great man). For example, Mark 11:12-14 says:

“The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.””

That’s quite petty and human -- which is also a decent proof that it really happened. After all, if you make up a perfect savior, then you wouldn’t make up a story where he sounds silly. That’s called the Criterion of Embarrassment.

Now yes you can argue that non-physical beings, including arguably Jesus after his death, are near-perfect. But they’re not the ones in charge of deciding, for example, when the Pleiadians will land.

So, keep these two first principles in mind. And when you see a theory about what’s going on or why the galactics haven’t landed yet, feel free to test it against those two first principles. It’s not perfect, but “I believe whatever resonates with me” is even less reliable for most people.

So, I hope this was helpful.

With love,

A.S.

- what you’re trying to manifest doesn’t go against what your soul wants. For example: if your current job has a critical lesson to teach you, manifesting another job might not work.

- you’re not being blocked by your own subconscious or limiting beliefs.

- you’re not asking for anything too opposed to what other people are trying to manifest.

This illustrates that, to an extent, reality can be bent and manipulated. Though perhaps “manipulated” sounds too negative -- perhaps interacting with reality in this way is natural, most people just aren’t used to it.

Well, another way to bend / stretch reality to your advantage is to manipulate time a little bit.

For example, I’ve repeatedly left home so late that I was going to be about five minutes late on a thirty minute journey. So I asked for help with arriving on time, intentionally didn’t check the time as I was travelling, and I somehow arrived a few minutes early instead of five minutes late. I’ve done this repeatedly and on-demand, and it consistently works for me.

I know this sounds like I was just lucky with the traffic lights or that I just travelled a bit more quickly in the conventional way, but I’m sure that wasn’t it.

If you want to try this yourself: you can ask archangel Zedkiel to help you with matters of time stretching, time contraction or things lining up at the right time. For example:

- help you arrive on time

- or for things to line up in the perfect timing

- or for you to enjoy your free time for seemingly longer

- or for unpleasant things to pass relatively quickly

- or for negative cycles to be broken

You can just make a request by thinking or speaking it, using normal language. So for example: “archangel Zedkiel, please help me arrive at my appointment on time.”

Keep in mind that time will probably only be bent to your advantage to an extent; it’ll be noticeable and beneficial, but there’s a limit.

And archangels don’t do things that would go against your or someone else’s best interest.

Alternatively, you could do this too with your own psychic powers, if you have those sufficiently unlocked, without asking an archangel. But personally I find asking archangel Zedkiel to be convenient for this. Plus, you thinking of him empowers Archangel Zedkiel, so asking him is actually a net plus for him, not a minus.

If you experiment with this, you’re invited to share in the comment section how it goes.

Love,

A.S.

I really enjoyed the meditation. We made a significant difference.

If you feel inspired or called to take action in the following days, whether in small or large ways, I invite you to follow your calling.

How was the meditation for you?

We’ve been stuck in this “waiting for the white hats / gray hats / Earth alliance / galactics to save us” pattern for more than a decade now. And it’s agonizing.

It’s also fundamentally misguided. The very act of us waiting for someone else to rescue us, is an argument that we’re not ready yet for New Earth.

Therefore, let’s harness the energy of the Lion’s Gate. On 8 August at 8:08 PM UTC, we will do a group meditation.

You can check what that time that is in your local time zone here.

The purpose of this meditation is to empower humanity so that we liberate ourselves, and to ask for support in that process.

This is explicitly not a meditation where we’re asking to be liberated. This is a meditation where we’re asking as humans for the strength and courage to liberate ourselves -- and to ask for support for that process.

You are the empowered human. You determine what exactly you contribute to the group’s energy. But if you want a suggestion, you can always say out loud: “I’m joining the Lion’s gate meditation. May humanity have the strength and courage to free ourselves, and may we be supported in that.” And then meditate for twenty minutes.

Join us on 8 August at 8:08 PM UTC.

And after that, let’s liberate Earth together.

Please help spread this message. You don’t necessarily need to link back to this: (translating and) reposting this is perfectly fine.

This is Einostraee speaking. I’m a Pleiadian woman, I’m a teacher and I am this channeler’s twin flame. Because of that, I’ve spent a whole lot of time studying Earth and observing Earth people through this channeler’s eyes.

I observed that Earth people too often shortcut to an inaccurate one-axis scale that goes like this:

====

extremely evil person who also has very high inner friction (e.g. is clearly run by their ego and fear, doesn’t plan beyond how to satisfy their greed and lust, is ultimately ineffective and loses due to their own character flaws). This is the stereotypical villain from old stories.

to

an average, neutrally moral person who also has pretty high inner friction (e.g. is ego-driven, afraid, addicted, distracts themselves, is held back by painful emotions and memories, etc). This is the stereotypical “normie”.

to

a morally good person who only has a bit of inner friction but not much. This is where a lot of spiritually advanced people think they are.

to

a morally perfect person who has very low or no inner friction (e.g. doesn’t waste time, isn’t held back by painful emotions, isn’t addicted, has their ego integrated or dissolved, is very effective). This is an angel, or a stereotypical true spiritual master.

====

Let me show that Earth humans often indeed use this inaccurate one-axis scale:

A confident scammer or psychopath often shows low inner friction. And people often automatically assume that a person with low inner friction is trustworthy, and hence they trust the scammer or psychopath -- and get burned. It turns out that there actually are low-friction people who are also evil. And yes, it sounds silly and obvious when I say it like this, but even smart people make this mistake all the time.

Similarly, a politician who confidently and passionately says evil things often wins the debate over someone who hesitantly says morally good things. People just look at the confident and passionate guy and automatically assume that he must be morally correct.

Similarly, people often use the following as an (implicit) argument: “you’re triggered / angry / emotional [high inner friction], whereas I’m calm [low inner friction]. Therefore I’m morally superior to you / more spiritually advanced than you.” This again relies on the fallacy that inner friction and morality are the same one-axis scale, whereas in reality it’s not.

So, the one axis model, where evil people are high-inner friction and good people are low inner friction, is too simplistic. And it leads to genuine, real-world problems.

I suggest moving to a two-axes model instead:

One axis is morality. It goes from evil to good; or from service-to-self to service-to-all. Of course, a person can also be somewhat evil or somewhat good.

The other axis is inner friction. It goes from low to high. This axis describes ego, emotional reactivity, discipline, the ability to practically get things done, how effective someone is, confidence, inner coherence, authenticity, how much a person is held back by their fears and doubts and painful emotions and memories, and whether someone can plan and act beyond fulfilling their own immediate desires.

Doing spiritual practice tends to reduce your inner friction. However, note that the inner friction axis isn’t quite the same as a “level of spiritual advancement” axis. After all, some people have done zero spiritual work yet they have little inner friction. Some people have done zero spiritual work yet they have a lot of inner friction.

High-ish inner friction doesn’t necessarily look like a cartoon villain. It can mean a person who mostly feels fine, but they’re regularly playing ego games to prop up their self image: “I’m better than you” or “I know better than you” or “heh, you’re triggered, I’m not” or “I don’t create anything myself, and I haven’t done enough inner work to be a good critic, yet I will still repeatedly criticize other people’s work.” Which, unfortunately, happens a lot in the spiritual community.

High-ish inner friction can also look like a person who mostly sits at home or goes to a small handful of pleasant places. They only look at certain “high vibration” or “people who think the same as me” sources of information. This can be functional for a high-ish inner friction person, but it’s a bit of a defense mechanism.

Conversely, a low inner friction person doesn’t need to put others down, or limit themselves to only the spiritual community / to only pleasant places and pleasant sources of information. Low inner friction people are out there in the real world, interacting with regular people, accomplishing significant tangible things while facing stress and real-life challenges.

Recall that all the old great masters -- people with low or no inner friction -- regularly interacted with normal people and with the normal world in a productive way.

Hence, a lot of morally good, low inner friction people don’t spend that much time in the spiritual community, because they’re out there in the real world building something beneficial. Whereas good but high-inner friction people spend more time in the spiritual community because it’s a bit of a safe haven / nourishing community for high-ish inner-friction people.

Low inner friction means the person is out there in the real world, building something. WHAT they’re building is determined by the other axis: morality. A good person is probably building something beneficial, while a neutral person may start a profitable business that’s neither particularly noble nor evil.

These two axes give us the following:

Evil + low inner friction: demons and hostile extraterrestrials are like this. When they ran Earth with their low inner friction, almost no one even understood that the system / government was evil. However, they’ve been removed and they’re no longer running Earth.

Evil + high inner friction: this is the archetypal human villain. Nowadays evil, high inner friction Earth humans are running your planet, and they’re much less effective than evil / low inner friction was. Hence people are seeing what’s going on, waking up and no longer trusting the system.

Neutral morality + low inner friction: an example is an effective manager or business owner, of a company that’s neither particularly good nor evil. While spiritual people sometimes look down on “normies”, the fact is that a lot of spiritual people currently don’t have the “low inner friction” themselves to be a manager or run a business.

Neutral morality + high inner friction: this is the average person / “normie” who works a dead-end job and spends all their free time watching tv or being angry at the other political side.

Good morality + low inner friction: angels and stereotypical true spiritual masters are like this.

Good morality + high inner friction: modern spiritual people are often like this. They genuinely have good intentions and sometimes do good deeds, but they have too much inner friction to really make a big difference in the world. Yes, even genuinely advanced spiritual people with “supernatural abilities” can fall into this category. People often have a higher level of inner friction than they think they do.

So, here’s a question for you. Where on these two axes (evil to good, low to high inner friction) do you think us Pleiadians are?

Take a moment to answer this for yourself, before you read on.

...

...

...

First of all, let me say where on these axes we’re not located.

We’re not quite “good morality, low inner friction”, i.e. the area of true spiritual masters. A good indicator of this is that we continue to live in quasi-paradise, and we know you live in quasi-hell, and we could liberate you, but we haven’t. Personally I’m appalled by our lack of sufficient action to help you.

We’re also not evil (except for a small handful of Pleiadians). We’re also not neutral. While we’re not doing enough, we are genuinely helping you in covert ways to some extent.

We’re not “good morality, high inner friction” either. If we had high inner friction, then on Pleiadian worlds we’d all be stressed out, arguing with each other and abusing drugs. That just isn’t true. Our worlds are filled with joy and laughter and ease. Plus we’re engaging in effective technological and psychic development, and we have a genuinely effective defensive military. We used to be too closed off to the outside world, but recently we have opened up.

We genuinely do have low inner friction. However, on the morality scale we score “moderately good, better than neutral, but not as good as you’re picturing us.”

In graph form:

As I said earlier: low inner friction means you act, but what exactly you do is determined by your morality. In our case, due to horrible wars we were involved in in the past, and due to our current cold war with hostile extraterrestrials, we’re acting in ways that keep us safe, while only helping you to a moderate amount.

We’re acting effectively. We’re acting with not that much inner friction. We’re just not acting in the most moral way (which would be to liberate you).

People focus on what Ashtar does and says, and while yes he and his council are in charge -- if Pleiadians were genuinely good, we’d have impeached Ashtar already for failing to act to help the people of Earth. A lot of less-evolved Pleiadians simply think Earth humans are brutal and scary and unevolved and are fine with us not meeting you yet (although the tide is slowly shifting towards helping you, as you grow in consciousness and as your suffering becomes harder to ignore).

You might argue that Pleiadians in channeled messages sometimes don’t come across as low inner-friction. Well, one, people are different. Two: even the fact that a Pleiadian sits down to be channeled by an Earth human makes that Pleiadian somewhat unusual. Most Pleiadians just spend their days doing a reasonable amount of work and also having the time of their lives, with no inner friction involved. They think about the people of Earth as often as you think about the civil war in Sudan.

Also, the noblest Pleiadians have already volunteered, either recently or several lives in the past, to incarnate on Earth. They’re you. The Pleiadians who are left are by definition the ones who don’t care as much about helping others as, well, you do.

You people with genuinely good morality, who came to Earth, might naively expect everyone to be as moral as you are. But we’re not. Frankly, I think us Pleiadians can learn from the high level of morality and integrity that you star seeds have.

At this point you might think “well, screw you Pleiadians then.”

You’re entirely free to think that.

However, we’re still moderately good. We’re still helping you, and we’ll continue to help you in the future. Pleiadians have died, or been captured and subjected to horrible things, in their efforts to help you. I agree we’re not doing enough, but we are making a greater than zero amount of sacrifices for you.

And also, while you’re high-inner friction, we’re low inner friction -- and that is the reason why you feel so drawn to us in the first place, and why you fondly remember your past lives with us.

Of course it’s easy for us to be low inner friction, having grown up in the Pleiades. Still, this is an area where you can learn from us. And this is why being among us is still going to be an absolutely amazing experience for you (if you choose to do so, of course we won’t force you).

Some people in the spiritual community have adopted the attitude of “well I know Pleiadians are imperfect, I’m not impressed by them.”

Yes, on the morality scale we score lower than Earth star seeds. So from that perspective, you’re completely right. And of course we would rather embrace you as peers, than be worshipped by you.

Still, the reality is that if we landed and set up a “Pleiadian community” somewhere on Earth and you lived with us there for a week, you would be immensely impressed with us, no matter what you’re saying now. Why? Because of our low inner friction, and your comparatively higher levels of inner friction.

If you spent a week in that community with us, you would almost feel as if you were on soft drugs just due to the ease and vibration and energies and pleasantness there. You would likely develop a crush on some Pleiadian within that week. It might be the case that you’d perceive more advanced Pleiadians as quasi-deities, not because we are, but because you’re not used to energetically powerful people. And if we’d try to tell you to go back to your home after a week, odds are you’d physically fight us in order to be allowed to stay.

And yes, I know some of you have had interactions with us already that weren’t as impressive as what I’m describing. However, it’s different when you’re literally hugging us. Plus, Pleiadians usually “keep their energy in” to a large extent when interacting with you, in order to not destabilize you, make you fall in love with us or worship us, etc.

I’ve been talking almost daily to this channeler / my twin flame for over six years now, and I hold in my energy 99% of the time when interacting with him, just because he needs to be able to still function in society. He wouldn’t be able to work his day job if I interacted with him regularly without holding in my energy.

And yes, this is a challenge for when we land. Although on the other hand, we could just land and continue to keep holding in our energy to an extent, for at least a while. Eventually you’ll get used to the higher energies and it won’t be a problem anymore.

From my perspective, the fact that you’re starving for the love / gentleness / joy we carry around always, is a reason why we need to land as quickly as possible, and then just make sure you don’t get destabilized too much while you’re refeeding.

I deeply hope we will land and embrace you soon (the plan is still at the end of this year). I sincerely believe that will be moderately challenging but also beneficial and wonderful for us and you.

Dating Pleiadians

Let’s get to the second topic of discussion today.

Don’t tell the channeler I said this, but yesterday I was holding someone else’s baby, and my womb is about to strangle me for still not being a mother. I know this channeler’s mind really isn’t on our future children, but well, I know they’ll be amazing, and I can already sense our children’s energy in a highly likely future timeline.

Still, first the both of us (read: him) need to be genuinely ready for children. Well, the sooner we meet and we have our “just the two of us” fun and exploration and healing and getting to know each other even more -- the sooner we can start our family.

I know some Earth men are planning to have sex with or date Pleiadian women. And I know Earth men are ready for the following reactions:

• “no” (in a diplomatic, kind way)

• “yes”

• “probably yes, but only after you get some healing / take a spiritual Pleiadian course first. I can refer you to a healer / teacher, if you wish.”

• “I’m only interested in something serious. If you’re also interested in that, let’s go on a proper date and get to know each other.”

When we land, all four of those scenarios will play out between various people. But what’s also a possibility is the following, and I think Earth men really aren’t ready for it:

An Earth man approaches a hypothetical Pleiadian woman with sex / dating on his mind. They chat a bit, he consents to being mind read. She looks at him intensely without saying a word, then stares into space a bit. She then suddenly smiles warmly, embraces him and says:

“I looked into future possible timelines, and we’re a great match for a happy relationship and having healthy, well-adjusted children. Would you like to feel into our potential future children’s energy with me, so you can judge our compatibility for yourself?

Also, here’s relevant information about my DNA. Do you consent to giving me some of your DNA so that I can check it for genetic defects? Don’t worry, for most defects we can make sure they won’t be passed down to our future children, and overall Earth human DNA is absolutely amazing.

I know you’re a good person, so if there’s nothing too crazy with your DNA going on, then I’m yours, mind and body, from the moment you commit to having and raising children with me. I trust you -- I know you won’t abuse my trust. And until you’re ready to make that commitment, I would love to spend time with you and get to know each other better.”

Tunia really has laid the groundwork for a future Earth human - Pleiadian dating service. She wasn’t joking about that; a good number of Pleiadians have already signed up. Maybe I should warn Tunia that this kind of behavior from Pleiadian women won’t go over well with some Earth men. But then again, she’d probably just call that a “rich cultural exchange” or something like that.

We’re mind readers. We are sometimes ridiculously forward or direct (from your perspective), because we’re used to the other person reading our mind anyway. So then, why beat around the bush? Including when it comes to DNA and potential future children?

If you think that us checking DNA is horrible, well, human beings are attracted to markers of good DNA, and repulsed by markers of bad DNA. Earth humans also subconsciously try to secure the best DNA for their offspring; we’re just more advanced and more open about it. Still, DNA isn’t the primary factor we consider when choosing a partner, plus we don’t murder or sterilize people with genetic defects.

Also, if our Earth man goes along with our hypothetical Pleiadian woman’s proposal, he’ll have a wonderful life. We’re not trying to trick anyone, it really is a win-win-win.

Also, the Pleiadian woman wouldn’t say “I’m yours, mind and body” to an Earth man who wasn’t trustworthy. Pleiadian women tend to give themselves to their chosen partners to an extent you might think puts us in an excessively vulnerable position (we have low inner friction). But then again, we simply don’t give ourselves to men that aren’t trustworthy. Yes, it is convenient to be a mind reader; I don’t know how you’re managing without it.

To use an Earth metaphor: this channeler used to do one-on-one karate sparring. An obvious move is to throw a punch, but of course, the other person often blocks it. Slightly more advanced is to throw a punch, knowing it may get blocked, and be ready with a backup, follow-up attack. However, it’s a mistake to be so focused on the backup attack that you don’t put real effort into the first punch anymore. The first punch has to be real, so that if it isn’t blocked, it really is effective.

Or in other words: Pleiadians think it’s a mistake to be too focused on “what if marriage goes wrong, what if I become unhappy, what if the other person turns out to be a monster -- what’s my backup plan then?”

The first punch -- the marriage -- has to be committed to. Being so focused on “what if it goes wrong, what’s my backup” to such an extent that you don’t give the relationship a full honest try, is a mistake from my perspective.

Still, you have been warned. Yes, us Pleiadians like sex, but we also want a family (with the right person). Now yes, some Pleiadian women are genuinely looking for no-relationships-or-babies-attached sex, but that’s certainly a minority of women.

That said, we will communicate clearly. And no one will get offended if you ask us to be match-made with a Pleiadian woman who is interested in casual sex. There’s no guarantee such a match for you will exist, but then again, maybe it will. Most Pleiadian women aren’t interested in casual sex with Earth humans, but then again, there’s a lot more Pleiadians than Earth humans out there.

And if Earth women are reading this and thinking it’s great that Pleiadians actually want to start families: yes, but Pleiadians aren’t going to have children with Earth people who still have a significant amount of inner friction themselves. Children deserve two relatively low inner friction parents.

So if an Earth woman tries to have a serious relationship with a Pleiadian man, he may ask that she work through her own stuff before having children with him (and of course, he’ll do the same, if he hasn’t already).

That sounds great on paper, but remember what I said earlier: lots of people in the spiritual community have high or at least moderate inner friction, often without realizing it. Yes, quite likely you too. It’s often an ego trap to think: “other people have high or moderate inner friction, but I don’t.”

So if you want a serious relationship with a Pleiadian, it might involve you doing a lot more personal work than you’re currently picturing, before you’re at the stage of “you’re ready to drop the inner work and just live life and start a family.” From our point of view.

Of course, some of the personal work and healing can be done while having a relationship with a Pleiadian. Relationships can be very nourishing. But they can also be more triggering than you’d expect. And we will typically give and also expect sincere effort and introspection, if you want to have children with us, because we owe that to our children.

And yes, this all sounds great on paper, until you yourself are in a situation where you think you’re more or less done with inner work, and your Pleiadian partner thinks you’re not even close. In such a situation, the Pleiadian won’t dump you if you’re sincerely moving forward and developing yourself. However, this can delay the “children” part for substantially longer than you might like.

Plus a lot of Earth humans are willing to deal with certain issues, but are completely unwilling to even acknowledge they have certain other issues, let alone work to resolve them. And yes, it’s easy to say “that’s true of other people” but there’s a decent chance this applies to you too. And if that’s the case, having more than some fun nights with Pleiadians might be hard, because ultimately Pleiadians want children, and children deserve self-actualized parents.

That said, we’ll certainly be there to help you out, to offer healing and teachings and company, to give you a place to rest, to comfort you, to slow down your aging to almost zero if you wish, to give you a listening ear and a hug, to give you all the time you need, and to make you see stars in the bedroom or on a spaceship.

You won’t have to do it alone.

You won’t have to be alone anymore.

With all my love,

Einostraee

“Treat others how you want to be treated”: overall a great rule, but if the other person is directly harming or abusing you, then being kind to them may not make them stop. If you literally apply this rule, you’d abolish the police and the army, and that just doesn’t work. People might say “sure, you also need basic reasonableness” but reasonableness is entirely subjective. The political left and right think entirely differently about reasonableness. A whole lot of complex questions just can’t be answered by this rule.

“If a person commits this kind of crime, throw them in prison for that many years”: obviously this sort of works and it lets society run, but sometimes people are let out and then commit the same crime again. Sometimes prison makes people worse. Sometimes people genuinely repent yet spend their life rotting away in prison anyway.

“Do what it is that people want, make people happy”: obviously there’s something good there, but this can lead to short-termism and of things that are hard. It lets people damage the common good for their own comfort. It implies that if you manipulate people then immoral behavior becomes okay. Etc.

“We must focus on this left-wing principle (e.g. taking care of people) or this right-wing principle (e.g. freedom)”: obviously those principles are important and should be part of society, but society is complex enough that you can’t just solve everything by focusing on one or two values. If you do, other things will stop working that you’re currently taking for granted.

So, let’s look at another moral lens: “what’s most moral is whatever is best for the next 30 years.”

So it’s more or less the “seven generations principle” (i.e. consider the wellbeing of people seven generations into the future), but it’s a bit more realistic for the modern world.

Realistically speaking, if you tell people to plan for the next 140 years (7 generations x 20 years), then they’ll say “beautiful principle” and proceed to engage in short-termism anyway. Why? Because people 140 years in the future are just too abstract.

It’s too easy to think “we’ll do this short-term thing I like now, and we’ll think about the year 2166 some time later.”

Or people today continue to ram through their favorite political ideology because “obviously my political ideology is best long-term, so it is what’ll lead to the best society in 2166.”

Conversely, if you consider the next 30 years, you actually have to consider how your favorite political ideology will actually transform society in a span of time you can picture and plan for.

“Consider what’s best for the next 30 years” is more concrete and easier to visualize than just the general idea of “think long-term.” Depending on people’s age, it might be “the senior years of your life”, or “that time your children are in the middle of their adulthood.” That’s tangible.

At the same time, it’s farther-sighted than the standard 4-year presidential term.

“Consider the next 30 years” principle isn’t really a hard moral rule to run a society on, because it’s too subjective and it’s too hard to predict the next 30 years. It can be abused and it can become paternalistic. It’s not the absolute truth. It’s not the only or the best moral principle.

It’s just one more perspective you can use that’s sometimes useful. It’s one more tool for your toolbox. It’s one more rule of thumb that’s sometimes useful.

Now yes, it’s very likely that 30 years from now society will look dramatically different: gray hats have intervened, galactics have landed, AI or new technologies made life easier, etc. Still, when (some of) those things happen, that just means applying the “consider the next 30 years” lens to a different context. Earth humans can’t simply stop planning because the future is uncertain.

Let’s run through some scenarios and consider the next 30 years:

- Someone is abusing someone else: stop the abuse; give help to the victim; ensure that the abuser doesn’t abuse again in whatever way is best (if a long prison sentence is the only way, do that; if that’s not necessary, give some punishment but not a long prison sentence; in either case focus on reform). That way, 30 years from now, the victim is probably doing okay and the abuser hasn’t abused more people.

- How about truth, and love, and forgiveness, and protection of nature? Absolutely you need those in order to make a society viable and worth living in long-term.

- Should we make tough but productive choices today? Yes to an extent, even if people don’t like them, if they’re necessary for the next 30 years. That said, if you go too far in this direction, you create another type of unlivable society, so you need a balance here. And when making tough choices, consider second and third order effects.

- Should you promote your favorite ideology? Maybe, but if you honestly think about what it’ll do to society during the next 30 years (including second and third order effects), you’ll probably see that you need to moderate some points somewhat. Don’t just assume “obviously things will be great”; really think about what society will look like, including the areas of society that aren’t foremost on your mind.

- Competence, hard work, doing unglamorous jobs etc are important and noble, because society falls apart without them. If people stop doing unglamorous jobs, if everyone including the spiritual community thinks “someone else should do those”, then we don’t get justice and prosperity. Instead the rich will be fine, the poor will suffer, and many things you take for granted will stop working. This is why some spiritual and religious traditions make normal work part of their practice.

- At the same time, society has become such that people are basically doing everything they can to avoid having to work normal jobs. That’s not sustainable long-term, so it’s time to look at societal circumstances. In the short term you can try to get people to work normal jobs by squeezing and shaming them, but long term that doesn’t work. At the same time, if everyone “boycotts normal jobs”, then it’s the poor who’ll suffer from that, not the rich. That’s indeed not fair, but if you think about the next 30 years, it is reality.

So, in conclusion: as one useful lens, consider the next 30 years.

Other Pleiadian: “They call us Pleiadians.”

“Then logic suggests that they call themselves Earths, right? Or Terrans, or Gaians, or Pachamamans?”

“Nope. They call themselves humans.”

“But we’re the same species, right? We can have children together in the normal way. If their word for our species is humans, wouldn’t it be logical for them to talk about Earth humans, Erra humans, Temmer humans, et cetera?”

“Nope. Even the spiritual ones among them, who realize we exist, may not even recognize Erra and Temmer as being their word for some of our worlds.”

“So then they call the people from Erra, Errans?”

“Nope. They refer to people from any Pleiadian world as Pleiadians.”

“Then these are wise, unity-consciousness people who recognize that truly there is no separation?”

“Nope. They murder and rape each other all the time, and are intensely territorial and violent and tribal, and split themselves into ever smaller groups.”

“That’s... disturbing. But our people from Erra and our people from Temmer have substantial cultural differences. Don’t they at least call us Erra humans and Temmer humans, et cetera?”

“Nope. They want our technology and healing and company, but they’re not that interested in us as people, and just call us Pleiadians and basically picture us as Westerners from the Earth year 2026, just prettier and more advanced. Admittedly, these people are struggling very intensely themselves, so it’s understandable -- someone who is drowning isn’t curious about other people.”

“I guess.”

“Also, calling someone an Erran sounds vaguely insulting in their dominant language, English. It’s close to ‘error’ and ‘errand’ and ‘errant’ in that language.”

“So most of their people come from the geographical region of Eng?”

“Nope. They have a concept called ‘countries’ and the country is called England. England has about 0.7% of the world’s population. However, Earth’s most dominant country was a former colony of England, and has broken free but never freed itself from the language of their former oppressors. America has about 4% of the world’s population.”

“Wait, Earth’s most populous country only has 4% of the world’s population?”

“Nope. Earth’s most populous countries, India and China, have about 17% to 18% of the world’s population. At least according to their statistics. The language English has only the third-most native speakers of any Earth language. England just used to be very dominant and advanced for a period of time, hence English is the dominant language.”

“Don’t other countries wish to de-colonize themselves from England?”

“Surprisingly little. In the past England intentionally sold drugs in China. Today, the leader of China (with 17% of the world’s population) dresses like an Englishman (which has 0.7% of the world’s population).”

“That is very strange.”

“Also, they seem to think we live in ‘5D’.”

“What does that even mean?”

“No idea. It’s not a thing that exists in tangible reality. Many Earth humans are convinced they know what 5D is, but they all have different definitions. I guess one could measure states of energy and categorize those, but they’re not even attempting to do that. Or I guess one could categorize states of spiritual development, but it’s well-known that if a person tries to describe a state of consciousness more advanced than their own, they typically produce wishful nonsense.”

“I... see.”

“Admittedly some of us have started using the word ‘5D’ as a shorthand for a vague cluster of concepts when talking to them, just because the term resonates with them.”

“Okay. And what’s their word for their solar system?”

“Solar system.”

“Yes, what is their word for their solar system?”

“Their word for their particular solar system is Solar system.”

“...”

“Anyway, why are you even attempting to gather information by asking questions? When I came back from my undercover Earth mission, I submitted all my new knowledge to the galactic network. You could have downloaded a thousand times this amount of information into your brain in a literal heartbeat.”

“I wanted to have the human experience.”

So everyone is inherently biased by assuming positive things about themselves and not granting those assumptions to others.

If someone hears disagreement from another normal-seeming person: that triggers a little bit of cognitive dissonance, which is typically resolved by just thinking “oh, apparently that other person is dumb / uninformed / biased / spiritually unadvanced.”

On top of that, people are heavily emotionally invested in defending their current worldview, and in defending themselves and their group as being good and reasonable people. This is why you see, for example, people taking a messy situation where everyone carries some fault, and fabricating a clean narrative about how the other person is the villain (perhaps admitting to a small fault themselves to seem reasonable). They may, for example, start their story at the exact point in the timeline that makes them look good and the other person look bad, ignoring the bad things they did before then.

People have conflicting values, such as kindness and speaking the truth, and they’ll just point to whatever value serves them in that moment. If the person said something harsh, then they label speaking the truth as the most important value. If someone said something harsh to them, then kindness is the most important value.

A person who today says “kindness is the most important thing” to put the fault with another person, will happily say “truth speaking is the most important thing” tomorrow to put the fault with another person.

Some people, yes, are genuinely smarter / more aware / more spiritually advanced / have genuinely accomplished more in their lives than others -- but that in turn leads to a huge trap where they weaponize that to think “I’m the only reasonable one in the room, everyone else except a handful of peers aren’t on my level and are automatically wrong if they disagree with me.”

Plus, smart people are better at rationalizing their own nonsense.

This makes smart / aware / spiritually advanced / successful people often even more close-minded, more blind to their own misperceptions, and more blind to genuinely good idea that some “normal” people may have.

Basically: people think of themselves as truth seekers, but in reality almost everyone engages in ego defense first and truth seeking only second.

And if you can’t see the ego defense patterns / urges in yourself, that doesn’t mean you’re enlightened and have grown beyond that -- it means you’re completely blind to your own shadow.

What channeling is

Channeling is a real thing and can genuinely lead to knowledge you couldn’t have had otherwise.

But what you get with channelings are typically vibes / shapes of ideas / packages of energy, which the channeler then writes out into a coherent message. The channeler is more like a co-writer than a scribe. I’m sure you’ll also see that if you analyze a writer’s channeled works versus their personal writings: the style and vocabulary etc are in large part the same.

Plus, lots of channelers contradict each other, and few or no channelers have great prediction records.

When channeling, you don’t get pages of hair-sharp word for word citations. At least I don’t, but if others are able to do that, why don’t they channel a Pleiadian free energy device / miraculous universal cure / breakthrough teaching, and put that on a popular website where lots of people immediately download it?

And why can people read hundreds of channelings and yes, get some benefit, but not nearly as much as you’d expect from reading hundreds of pages of Pleiadian wisdom?

One could argue that for example the Ra / Law of One channeler (Carla Rueckert) really was an amazing channeler who could channel entire books of information, precisely, word for word, including stuff that’s verifiably true that wasn’t just adjacent to stuff she knew.

Well, I argued in a past message that Ra is probably a loosh harvester.

And if the “Ra channelings” was “someone gets temporarily possessed” rather than actual channeling, it’s understandable why that text is so precise. Whereas Pleiadians obviously aren’t possessing people when they pass on messages, meaning you don’t get the Law of One level of exact statements, word for word, for entire books.

Still, it’s also entirely possible that Carla is a better channeler than I am, and she’s better than the vast majority of channelers are.

If her channelings were legit, I think she’s an (almost) uniquely gifted channeler. Otherwise I invite other channelers to start channeling stuff that actually transforms the world, and put those schematics or medicines or breakthrough teachings online. As for me, I think I’m a better channeler than average, yet I can’t channel at that level.

That said, channeling is certainly not worthless.

Getting a vibe / outline of an idea that’s adjacent to something you know already, and then typing that into a message, is somewhat easy for a channeler and can be genuinely useful. You can also genuinely get some Pleiadian energy / optimism / personality / warmth / emotion into those messages; that’s real.

And it’s possible to pull one or two bits of information “out of thin air” that’s completely new and not just “inspiration to think of something adjacent to something you already know.” And I have done that several times, and then confirmed that I channeled something that I didn’t know, yet that was verifiably true.

However, doing that is tiring, and I can only do it when I’m aligned. And even then I get one or two very short pieces of information, not entire pages of word-for-word information of stuff I don’t know myself.

What enlightenment is

I discussed this in my message Anattā: No Self

In summary, enlightenment is self-uninstallation. It means there’s no more self. What you think of as “you” is uninstalled, and the biological machine keeps functioning, walking around, smoking cigarettes, forming relationships, acting in loving and altruistic ways, etc. Yes, your biological machine can do that just fine without you.

It means that warmth and compassion and love can flow forth without blockage, without distortion from the self.

It means that the person no longer feels a need to secure resources or advantages for their specific ingroup at the expense of outgroups.

Because of this, this person is more universally loving.

However it also means that if you make such a person a leader... he doesn’t actively worry about and plan for the future constantly. He isn’t laser-focused on helping specifically “his” people. Hence non-enlightened people don’t actually want to be led by an enlightened person, as such people actually are in reality.

Plus, self-uninstallation doesn’t turn someone into superman. It just means he can function to the best of his abilities -- but what those abilities are is determined by his “hardware” (natural talents and neural wiring), education, experiences, skills, social networks, etc.

The greatest masters weren’t great because they were enlightened or “super enlightened.” They were great because they were enlightened, plus had other qualities on top of that.

If an average person got enlightened, they wouldn’t have as big of an impact on the world as you’d think. As is evidenced by the fact that there are enlightened people right now, and enlightenment / self-uninstallation is a binary so “super enlightened” isn’t actually a thing. Yet most enlightened people aren’t transforming society.

If you got enlightened, statistically speaking you likely won’t have that big of an impact on the world either. (Although sure, if you happen to have exceptional natural abilities and education and skills and social networks, AND you became enlightened, then you very well could completely change the world.)

If enlightenment actually meant you become superman... why hasn’t any enlightened person channeled / downloaded the schematics of an infinite energy device from galactics or the akashic records, and put that online, using some divine wisdom to know where to put it, and when?

Actual enlightenment isn’t as much of a “cheat code” / superman-status as people think it is.

What “spiritually advanced, but not enlightened” means

This person isn’t enlightened, and therefore still has a self. This person is still “distorted” by excessive worry for his and his particular group’s future prosperity and safety. This worry is biologically useful, but from a detached, zoomed-out perspective it’s excessive and biased.

This person still favors his ingroup over his outgroup. This is the person who would spend a thousand dollars to save a close friend / partner / family member, but wouldn’t spend a thousand dollars to save a stranger.

That said, because this person really is spiritually advanced, they’re not ruled as much by their “self” as most people are. They’re less inclined to hoard resources or mating opportunities, less inclined to egoically defend themselves, less inclined to trample on the outgroup for the benefit of the ingroup, etc.

This is the kind of person that non-enlightened people actually want to be led by.

Direct democracy doesn’t work for some things

For specific, “values based” or “no objectively right answer” issues, direct democracy is a good system. You can just let people vote (perhaps weighted by their level of consciousness) on those kinds of issues and decide that way.

However, when it comes to “are you willing to bear costs / pain now to improve the future” type of issues -- most humans suck, and a few humans are okay.

You need to put top humans in charge to make those decisions, because a few people are unusually good at long-term planning and accepting pain now to improve the future. If you don’t do this, average people (including Pleiadians) are too likely to vote for short-term comfort / pleasure / emotionally pleasing things. It’s just how the average human brain is wired. Pleiadians are almost “the best possible version of humans” but they’re still humans.

Similarly, for very complex issues, you need top humans in charge to decide. If you’d try to build a nuclear power plant or fight a war by letting normal people vote, it’d be a disaster.

So, you do need one or a few top humans in charge -- and yes it should be meritocratic, yes there should be a method to change them, yes they should be held accountable, yes they should have limits to their power, yes checks and balances matter, yes citizens should be able to vote on some issues, etc.

On Ashtar

Ashtar is “first among equals” and spokesperson of a council in charge of the operation to ensure Earth is free.

By definition, only non-enlightened people are put in charge. So he’s unenlightened. If this surprises you, see the previous section.

That said, “enlightened or not” is one axis to consider. There’s also the axes of natural talent, education, skills, social networks, etc -- and here Ashtar does absolutely shine.

He’s an exceptional person.

He also has many many responsibilities.

None of us would do as well as he’s doing. If you’re picturing “well I’d do a better job than Ashtar, I’d just order an intervention on Earth” -- yeah, no. That’s the Dunning-Kruger effect talking. You don’t even know how many critical, must-consider factors you’re overlooking.

That said... frankly human hardware / human biology is inherently ill-suited to making decisions that affect billions of people. Even the best human can only do an okay job. (Which is also one factor contributing to the fact that the vast majority of Earth leaders suck.)

If you put enough pressure on even the best human, their nervous system, mammalian biology, etc simply begins to crack, and they “underperform” just due to the sheer pressure placed on them. This is inherent and unavoidable. Even if they have infinite willpower, well, their biology can only take so much, and intellect or spiritual insight simply cannot override that limit.

Unless you’ve been one of the heads of an intergalactic alliance, while at the same time being a military commander higher in the hierarchy than generals, while at the same time being an intergalactic celebrity, while all the same time having to make life-or-death decisions affecting billions, and then all four of those things at once -- you have zero idea what kind of pressure Ashtar is under.

Even the very best human can only deal with all that in an okay way. It requires a one-in-ten-billion kind of person to even do an okay job under such circumstances.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t even be capable of being a good middle manager at a normal Earth company. And that position is a million times easier than Ashtar’s position. (If you think you could: have you actually been a middle manager? Being a good one is much harder than it may appear.)

I’m not even fully able to be unaffected by negative internet comments. And that is a billion times easier to deal with than Ashtar’s tasks.

That said:

Why the intervention is taking so long

It’s a miracle that Ashtar’s (and his council’s) decision-making has only become slightly suboptimal. But yes, it has become slightly suboptimal.

Specifically:

- Source gave the guidance (but not an order) that intervention on Earth should happen in the near future. The specific date was left up to the galactics.

- Intervention didn’t happen for longer than was Source’s preference

- In March 2026 Source stated Its preference (but not order) that intervention on Earth should happen within a month. This doesn’t mean that Source thought March / April 2026 is the best intervention window; it was more of a case of “my preference is that you should have intervened already; given that it’s now March 2026, my preference is that you take two or so weeks to get ready and then intervene.”

- Debates were had but ultimately Ashtar’s council (including Ashtar) himself decided not to intervene.

So yes: intervention is slower than Source would prefer. And Ashtar ignoring that expressed preference from Source can easily be seen as a distortion on his side.

That said, none of us would do better in Ashtar’s chair than he’s doing -- if you were him, you’d get so crushed that you’d just break, or you’d make even worse decisions.

Ashtar is sticking to his already communicated “intervention, if still necessary, will be somewhere at the end of this year (or if Earth humans underperform significantly compared to expectations, it’ll be at the latest January / February 2027).”

Some efforts have been made by Hakann and others to rally people to just follow Source’s guidance and intervene back in April / March anyway... but they couldn’t rally enough people, because:

- the situation is incredibly complex. It’s really not as simple as “just intervene.”

- we think of Pleiadians as beings who are just relaxing in paradise. They think of themselves as war survivors who are currently in an existential cold war against certain negative races. Earth concerns aren’t at the top of their mind, just like America’s top priority wasn’t the well-being of a random African country in the middle of the cold war versus the Soviets. And it’s worse, because Soviets never killed large numbers of Americans, while reptilians have killed (and done unspeakable things to) huge numbers of positive galactics. Now yes, Pleiadians are altruistic (and would like us as very important allies) but we’re still not at the top of their mind.

- for example the Arcturians are hesitant to just overrule Ashtar / ignore him, because the individual galactic races by themselves can’t stand up to the negative races combined. And Arcturians just overruling the Pleiadian person in charge is how you fracture a galactic alliance.

- Of course, average, non-leading Pleiadians are also affected by “those Earth humans are violent and rapey and selfish, let them take time to grow spiritually / come together / sort out their own stuff.” Also, average Pleiadians are distracted by luxury and sex and comfort.

- from the Pleiadian perspective, delaying from April to the end of this year isn’t a huge deal. If the intervention happens in October, that’s six months. Well, to get a rough idea of how they view time, divide that by ten, and you have like half a month. From their perspective, why completely disrupt your plans and take risks and risk fracturing the galactic alliance just to speed things up by half a month?

That said, if Ashtar keeps delaying beyond the end of this year (which is unlikely but not impossible, despite what he said) then yes, he may face impeachment / insubordination. The “we need to intervene already” side of the galactics is getting more impatient. That said, some galactics would agree with further delays if he proposed them.

My own twin flame has become what she calls “depressed by Pleiadian standards” because she’s appalled by Earth’s suffering, by Ashtar’s lack of action, and by Pleiadian actions deviating from Source’s stated preference. This doesn’t mean she’s lying in bed all day or stress-eating, but it does mean she’s not as happy and energetic as normal.

Once I fully understood what was going on, I also was disappointed / hurt / a bit angry and lost interest in channeling, at least at the moment. That’s why I haven’t published any new channelings lately. I may or may not channel in the future, I don’t know yet. (Although I’m still talking to my twin flame, and sometimes checking specific writings / pieces of information, or sometimes asking for galactic help.)

To be clear, there’s no “non-intervention clause.” That’s nonsense: if there was, then how come they’re allowed to show themselves in the sky? And if showing themselves in the sky was allowed, why aren’t they just blanketing the sky with crafts?

The Pleiadian hesitation to intervene is based on “if we bail them out and fix their problems for them, they might possibly re-collapse / become dependent / not grow / not learn their own lessons / start worshipping us, etc.”

In this local sector (but not universe-wide), the galactic confederation (i.e. good galactics) also have military superiority. Hence, lack of military capability isn’t the issue either.

There’s also no “secret bomb / entity that must be carefully dismantled first.” Yes, I know some people are claiming that, but that too isn’t the issue.

Pleiadians also aren’t secretly evil. They’re human and imperfect, yes. Evil, no. We’ll still absolutely love meeting them, and that will still happen in the not too distant future. It’s easy to feel bitter now, and obviously they’ll respect your free will if you don’t want to meet them, but interacting with them is still going to be an amazing experience.

What’s also not true is “suffering actually just doesn’t matter, it’s only human biases that cares about suffering. From a truly wise perspective, letting people suffer endlessly is optimal because that achieves soul growth.”

Now, some Pleiadians do think that, and to a small extent Ashtar thinks that, and I’ve thought that in the past.

However, that’s actually the midwit / middle / “somewhat but not truly advanced” position in the bell curve meme, represented by the crying guy:

(Source: reddit)

Conversely, the uneducated and the truly advanced (including Source) both think “some suffering is okay / can teach people, but Earth suffering is way too much, both from a compassion and even from a soul-growth-efficiency standpoint. Hence, end suffering now. Intervening and reducing suffering at this point increases soul growth, because people in survival mode have no room to reflect and grow and integrate and express themselves and experiment.”

So:

Now yes, some people on Earth are in a better-than-average position, and perhaps for them specifically, intervening now wouldn’t be necessary, or genuinely wouldn’t be optimal for them / for their soul growth.

However, you have to consider the average person, who is really getting squeezed hard right now.

And then you have to consider the people in especially bad positions: crippling poverty, severe illness, intense chronic pain, people who lost loved ones, people alienated from their loved ones, people who are on the verge of breaking under the stress and pressure, etc. Maybe for you personally intervention today isn’t that necessary, but what about these people?

We love to tell stories about how people grew from hardship, but that’s survivorship bias. What doesn’t get told are stories about how stress pushed people to commit suicide, to slip into mind-destroying addictions, to break under the pressure and become worse versions of themselves, to be pushed into survival mode and have the light in their eyes be dimmed, etc.

And then those people’s families and friendship groups get torn apart too.

I used to put my channelings on youtube too. One of the Tunia voice actresses was a woman who is now literally dead. So the delays are no joke; people are dying. I imagine she would have lived if the intervention had been earlier.

Less importantly: if you teleported me to a Pleiadian home world right now, reunited me with my twin flame, had me spend 200 years there and then sat down with a 200-something year old me...

I would be happy, yes, but I wouldn’t be 100% happy. I wouldn’t be 100% free. I wouldn’t be 100% present. I’d still bear the scars, and they’re never going away, and new permanent scars are slowly being added. Yes, I have some wisdom; but I also have a nervous system that can only take so much, and I have pain, and I need to work a normal job to be able to afford rent.

I’m also more privileged than most; I know that billions of people have it tougher than me. I’m not saying “woe is me, I’m uniquely struggling”, I’m really not. I’m just illustrating that the whole “delay is actually good for us” narrative just isn’t true. Delay is probably fine or even good for some people, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for struggling people.

So, why did Ashtar ignore Source’s stated preference of intervening in March / April 2026? Well:

- Source is more towards “end the suffering”, Ashtar is more on the side of “accept suffering in order to give time for the energies to rise, to lessen the risk of Earth humans re-collapsing / becoming dependent / etc.” Both are valid considerations; you can’t really mathematically prove how much suffering versus how much risk is acceptable. (Pleiadians can stop civilization-ending disasters or nuclear war, so delaying doesn’t increase those types of risks.)

- On top of that, the “intervene in October” plan is well thought out and well-planned. Yes Pleiadians could have intervened in March / April but it wasn’t scheduled, hence not as well planned out and hence more risky. Especially for the person in charge (Ashtar), accepting a small risk of a catastrophic mistake is tough. While accepting “let other people suffer” is a known, controlled, understood, predictable variable. Maybe this doesn’t sound rational, but that’s what human brains do under pressure.

- Ashtar still has a self, and it’s never fun to say “we’re going to do X” and then be overruled and then have to do what another being (Source) says. Yes, ego plays a small but non-zero part.

- Ashtar is already being crushed by pressure and data; needing to abruptly change plans and act near-immediately is much heavier than “just stick with the plan, we’ll intervene in half a year.” Would you make optimal decisions if you’re running on the equivalent of zero sleep for four days? That’s sort of the equivalent of the pressure Ashtar is under all the time.

To be clear, Ashtar’s still making pretty good decisions -- “intervene at the end of this year” is clearly worse than just following Source’s preference but it’s not catastrophically bad. (Also, there is no better government / decision-making system than what the Pleiadians currently have -- all alternatives are worse overall.)

That said, Source is theoretically capable of telling the Pleiadians “I order you to intervene on Earth now”, which Source hasn’t done.

Hence Ashtar is interpreting Source’s position as “Ashtar, make your decision, here’s what I would do, but I want you to think for yourself” and NOT as “stop thinking for yourself and do I say, i.e. intervene in March / April even if you disagree.” Because obviously if Source wanted an intervention in March, theoretically Source could just order that.

So from that perspective, Ashtar is doing exactly what Source wants. Although obviously, many wouldn’t agree with that interpretation.

Why doesn’t Source just order an intervention? Well, Source values free will and Pleiadian autonomy. Also, from Source’s perspective, this isn’t only about Earth humans -- this situation is also helping Pleiadians learn lessons. It’s not all about us.

So. That’s what’s going on. At least, from my perspective. Believe what you will and use your own judgement, of course.

With all my love,

A.S.

It very quickly devolves into “the human is inferior / unworthy / sinful / must please the god or goddess.”

Plus, many “gods” are either not gods at all, or are more concerned with themselves than with humans, or are otherwise not really entities I want to worship.

Worshipping Source directly is theoretically valid, but It is all-encompassing, unified, personality-less and not concerned with directly intervening in human affairs on the micro scale. So I don’t think worshipping Source will appeal to most people.

However, Ganesha once shared a metaphor that humans are really good at constantly producing iron ore (energy / attention) but are very bad at turning iron ore into useful iron tools. Whereas non-human beings have little iron ore but are great at turning iron ore into iron tools.

I think that’s entirely true. From that perspective, it makes rational sense for humans to “trade their iron ore for iron tools” by working with the right non-human entities. It’s a win-win for both sides. And this can be as simple as making a request to an archangel.

Doing this doesn’t deplete or drain the human permanently. It only costs the human a minute or so of attention. From the human perspective that’s a very low cost for what they get back.

Hence today I present Sovereign Symbiosis. It’s a system where you work with archangels or ascended masters, because I think those are the most helpful beings to work with.

It’s called Sovereign Symbiosis because the human remains Sovereign: you treat these beings as peers or as mentors you work with, not as gods to be worshipped.

And it’s a Symbiosis: it’s helpful for the human, for the non-human entity and for mankind as a whole.

Now, working together with archangels and ascended masters is a very standard idea in modern spirituality.

This system is different from the normal spiritual approach in two ways:

One: it invites you to call on these beings for help at least once per day (or more), even if only for something small. Whereas the average spiritual person perhaps only asks for help once per month or something like that. These beings will also very explicitly tell you what they can help you with.

You absolutely don’t need to spend all your waking hours on this system. You’re encouraged to just go live your life -- and whenever you can use a little help, whenever something comes up, you can ask for that help via this system, which should only take a minute or so per day.

Two: the normal spiritual approach focuses only on “what can I get from these beings.” This system has that but also invites you once per day to contribute, to create, to become excellent at something, to better yourself, to spend time with friends and family, et cetera. After all, this is how you become a happy, well-adjusted person who makes the world around them better.

That said, nothing here is mandatory. It’s a suggested system, and you can tweak it as you like -- you are the Sovereign, after all.

You can work with any archangel or ascended master you want, but I especially recommend these seven:

- Your own soul: what should you do in a given situation, aligning with your purpose

- Archangel Michael: protection, discipline, excellence

- Archangel Ariel: nature, simpler living, finding a partner

- Archangel Raphael: healing, safe travels

- Jesus: love, divine masculine, wisdom, community

- Mary Magdalene: divine feminine, friends and family, stepping into your power

- Saint Germain: creation, alchemy, new ideas

You absolutely don’t need to work with all of them. Just work with whoever you feel drawn to at that moment.

Many of these beings are very versatile. Suggestions for what requests to make of them are included below, but you can also make other requests. Feel free to use your intuition. Or just experiment. The very worst thing that can happen is nothing -- they won’t punish you, make your request come true in a twisted way or get mad at you.

If you’re not able to “hear / receive” messages from these beings, you can still work with them. Simply ask for help, and they’ll receive the message and give you help even if you aren’t able to hear their confirmation. If you asked for information or for what decision you should make, then keep your eyes open for signs, or open a book on a random page and check if the answer is right there.

Asking for help in normal everyday language, via either spoken word or thought, works perfectly fine. You don’t need to make it more complicated than that. Often one or two sentences suffice.

It’s best to ask for help with a specific thing, and not just ask for help in general. So for example, it’s better to ask Ariel for help with specifically finding a partner if that’s what you’re interested in, rather than just asking Ariel for general help.

Leave it up to the archangel or to the ascended master how the solution should be presented, or how the problem should be solved. So for example, just say “Archangel Ariel, please help me find a partner” rather than saying “Archangel Ariel, please make sure I meet a great person I can date next Saturday when I go to the karaoke bar.”

After asking for help, it makes sense to take appropriate action to support that. For example, if you asked for help with finding a partner, then go to some social events, especially ones that you feel some pull / draw towards. If something arises or occurs in your life, if there’s a “coincidence”, act on it productively.

If the help doesn’t seem to manifest, try adding to your request what you’re willing to do to support your request, for example you can say or think: “archangel Raphael, please help me heal from [this], I am willing to face old pain if necessary.”

Also, keep in mind that there’s only so much that energetic help can do. You won’t always get what you want.

Plus, sometimes the right time for a request hasn’t arrived yet, or you first need to learn some lesson, or need to take some action before that request can manifest. So keep your eyes open and listen to your gut and intuition. If you feel drawn to do something, that may be the key to manifesting your request.

I’ll first discuss working with your soul, and then I’ll share channeled messages from each of these archangels / ascended masters.

Your own soul: What should you do in a given situation, Aligning with your purpose

You can call on your soul to know what you should do in a given circumstance. You can ask your soul for either direct communication, or for a sign. Your soul is your ultimate guide: no one can advise you as well as your soul can.

Your soul invites you to align with it. You have the right to do as you wish with your life. But if you want to align your life with your soul, then you can say or think something like: “I ask that my life becomes aligned with my soul.” You can also use your own words for this. This may not always lead to something that’s pleasant or comfortable, but it will make you satisfied and happy in the medium term.

Archangel Michael: Protection, Discipline, Excellence

This is Archangel Michael. I am very happy to be talking to you today.

I want to thank you for your courage, for your love, for the discipline and perseverance you’ve already shown. Thank you for your steadfastness, and all the help and love you have already shown to others.

You are an inspiration to us, here in the heavens.

I know the world seems dark right now, but hang on -- the dawn really is close to breaking on your world.

And you too are already contributing to the coming of this upcoming dawn, every single day. Thank you very much.

I love, respect and honor you deeply.

Ultimately, darkness isn’t an energy or a force in and of itself. It’s merely the absence of light. One candle can illuminate an entire room -- because the darkness isn’t a thing in and of itself. It’s merely the absence of light.

Similarly, loveless people don’t have a power in and of themselves. All they have is the absence of love -- for themselves and for others.

You can call on me for protection for yourself and your loved ones.

You can also call on me to help you find the courage and discipline within yourself to complete difficult tasks. You can just do this in normal everyday language, for example: “Archangel Michael, please help me with this task.” Speaking this and thinking this both work.

You can call on me to help find and communicate your own boundaries. You can call on me to help you deal with toxic or abusive situations.

You can call on me to help restore justice -- although my help may only become visible in the long term, and it may not look like conventional “punish the guilty” justice.

You can call on me to help you study, to function well at work, and to build a career along conventional lines. Or you can call on me for help with your company if you have one, or to lead.

I’m more on the side of “disciplined, conventional excellence.” If you want revolutionary new ideas or unconventional brilliance, call on Saint Germain, as described below.

I invite you to help others who need it, without sacrificing or overburdening yourself. I suggest that every month you help at least one person -- either practically helping out someone you know, or by donating a bit of money to a good cause or to a person in need, or by doing a bit of volunteer work, or by starting some kind of initiative or company that helps society.

I also invite you to work on building good, solid habits for yourself. For example, eat well. Walk a bit every day. Meet your needs. Build towards this in a sustainable way: very slightly improve your habits this week, then improve your habits just a bit more the week after. If you “fail”, no need to beat yourself up: just continue doing your best. That’s all you can do, your best, but that’s also what you should do.

I invite you, possibly now or possibly when the ground under your feet is a bit more stable, to really commit to becoming an expert in one to three domains. This is both a service to mankind, and it will make you more satisfied and happy to really become great at something.

Of course you won’t be an expert after a week; just steadily work towards that in a way that’s feasible. You don’t necessarily need to be world-class at something; even by being good at something you can already contribute quite a lot and help others substantially. Of course you can call on me for help / facilitation with this.

I invite you to face your fears, to have that difficult conversation, and to do that thing that you know you should do. Yes, it is tough, and I honor that -- but you’ll feel much better afterwards. Feel free to call on me, and together we will get through it.

Archangel Ariel: Nature, Simpler Living, Finding a Partner

My beloved brothers and sisters,

This is Ariel speaking. It is my joy to be able to talk to you, and hopefully work with you.

The symbiosis of humans and nature especially fills my heart with joy. Because after all, you are not separate from nature -- you are part of nature.

You don’t need to feel guilty. Indeed, humans have damaged nature a lot, and yes it is good to preserve nature. However, nature is incredibly resilient and will always find a way to adapt and thrive -- indeed, you can get inspiration from that.

I encourage you not to see yourself as separate from nature. And sure, this means that you shouldn’t just poison the rivers. But it also means that you shouldn’t have that subtle separation where you care about nature, but you still see nature as something that’s “over there”, while you see yourself as being “over here” and separate from it.

If you think humans are the only species that “damages nature” -- you’re not. If left to their own devices, certain animals will just hunt other species to extinction. Some plants will choke the life from other plants. Some animals are parasitic.

Nature operates on these dynamics, and always adapts and thrives, so there’s really no need to feel guilty. Though yes, for your own sake and for nature’s sake, it’s still good to act in ways that aren’t too destructive towards it.

Humanity is genuinely one beautiful expression of nature. You’re not the destroyers of nature -- again, that’s the separation trap, or the fallacy that plants or animals never harm other plants or animals. You’re simply one beautiful part of nature. Period. No need to feel guilty.

Yes, do try to act symbiotically towards nature. Just like it’s good to treat other humans in win-win ways, so too is it beneficial to treat nature in win-win ways: you too benefit if there are trees. If you maintain your nature locally, you can spend time in it, feel grounded and feel more connected and happy.

You can call on me to restore a more authentic, natural, simpler, back-to-your-roots type of living for you / your family. If you live in the city and feel burnt out, I can help with that.

You can call on me to connect to nature or animals; to let your worries and anxiety go (especially if you’re in nature); and to help with efforts to protect nature.

You can also call on me if you need a type of inner strength that’s simply inherent and natural and authentic to you. It’s the type of inner strength that’s always been there; you may simply not have noticed it before.

You can call on me for abundance; and what’s even more effective is saying something like “Archangel Ariel, please show me how I can be abundant” rather than just saying “Archangel Ariel, please manifest this month’s rent for me.” It’s more effective to ask me to teach you how to fish.

You can call on me to help you find a partner. A very effective way to do this is by saying: “Archangel Ariel, please help me find a partner and please help me grow in such a way that I am a good partner myself.” And be ready to potentially deal with some things that come up, and be ready to potentially put in some work.

You can call on me to improve your sex life, although of course I’m not going to mind control that other person. What I can do is help you communicate better, or help you become a more attractive, passionate and skilled partner. And if all else fails, I can help you find the courage to walk away, mourn, and later find another person who is sexually compatible with you.

You can call on me to help with menstruation, fertility, pregnancy, giving birth and recovering from that, breastfeeding and menopause.

Both women and men are facing gender-based discrimination at this time. You can call on me to help with that.

I invite you to treat people of the other gender with love, gentleness and respect. Listen to them, and express appreciation about the things that you genuinely appreciate.

You don’t fully know what people of the other gender are going through, simply because you’re not having to deal with some of the challenges that they have to deal with. So you’re in no position to criticize them, except where they’re clearly being directly harmful (not indirectly harmful -- directly harmful).

I invite you to regularly spend time in nature.

I invite you to metaphorically “honor the seasons.” There are times when you should commit, work hard and move forward. There are also times when you should reflect. And there are times when you should rest. I invite you to do the right thing at the right time; and if you’re not sure what you should be doing at this current moment, feel free to call on me (or your soul) for guidance / suggestion / inspiration.

There is no magical “coffee angel” that can give you a fresh injection of energy whenever you’re tired. If you’re tired, you should simply rest. And if you feel guilty about resting, call on me and I can help with that guilt.

I look forward to hearing from you and potentially working with you.

It is our joy to be called upon. You are not a burden at all -- in fact all of us angels would love to hear from you. Feel free to call on us as often as you want, and to make as many requests as you want. Even if that’s ten per day, that’s completely fine. We can work in as many places as needed simultaneously, so you’re not “hogging the help line.”

Even from a “selfish” perspective, it is beneficial for us archangels to be called upon: using the metaphor earlier, you give us iron ore simply by focusing your attention on us. So if you call on us and we help you, we actually become slightly more powerful in the process (and thereby more able to help others). From your perspective you may think that you’re just using us for help, but actually helping you is our purpose, plus we get empowered in the process.

Obviously, we also simply love you and wish to help you. We’re not doing it for selfish reasons. Still: nature, you and even us archangels are a symbiosis when you look at it from a zoomed out perspective.

So please call on us for help as often as you want. Even for “small” things. Both you, mankind and us will benefit if you call on us.

You are deeply loved, and you are not “too much.” You have never been “too much.”

Archangel Raphael: Healing, Safe travels

My beloved friends, this is Archangel Raphael.

The heavens love you so much, that if you fully felt that love for even a second, you would likely cry.

You are oh so fully worthy of love. And you always have been.

No one is more courageous and brave than you, for having decided to come to Earth. Honor that. Honor yourself.

Please be gentle to yourself. You are already amazing, and you already have done so much. Please don’t hold yourself to some impossible standard -- no one is performing “perfectly.” It doesn’t make sense to judge yourself against that standard. Instead, just earnestly do your best.

You can call on me for any kind of healing -- whether physically, emotionally or overcoming addictions or habits you don’t wish to have.

That said, if you need help from a doctor or psychologist, I recommend going to them. This isn’t in contradiction to the heavens: sometimes the best way for a human being to get healed is to go to another human. And of course, psychologists and doctors are humans too.

Yes, some cures that doctors prescribe are bad. For example, if people don’t strictly need drugs, people should be hesitant about letting themselves be put on them (especially long term). However, it’s too simple to say that people should never go to a doctor -- often, doctors do help. And yes, sometimes drugs are the least bad option.

In any case, I certainly will help you if you call on me.

Not always, but often there is old buried pain that is indirectly causing health issues. While sometimes agonizing, actually facing this old pain alchemizes it and turns it into metaphorical gold (i.e. strength or wisdom).

You can work through old pain by slowly going through a physical malady, but that’s slower and more painful and less alchemizing than facing the pain directly.

Therefore, if you are suffering from something and would like healing, what I recommend is that you say: “Archangel Raphael, please help me with [issue]. I am willing to face my underlying pain.” This gives me and the universe permission to reveal that underlying pain, and then it can be resolved much more quickly, with less pain in total, and with much more alchemization of that issue into metaphorical gold (i.e. strength or wisdom).

Saying this won’t cause you to face more pain than you can handle.

You can also call on me for safe and prosperous travels.

I invite you to listen to others, without trying to change or judge or fix or convince them, because that is a great and loving service to them indeed.

I invite you to observe whatever arises -- or in other words, “whatever arises, observe that.” This practice has been shared earlier and I think it’s a great habit for psychological hygiene. Do that, and you may not need as much healing down the road.

With all my love,

This was archangel Raphael

Jesus / Yeshua / Sananda: Love, Divine Masculine, Wisdom, Community

My cherished brothers and sisters,

Welcome. It is my joy to speak to you.

However you feel at this moment, however you’re doing at this moment -- from my perspective it is not wrong.

You are as you are, and you’re doing as you’re doing, and you are infinitely worthy and good enough. You and everyone else is fully part of the divine. There’s no part of you that’s not divine.

Your current state is your current state. I invite you to not fight against it, not resist it, because truly there is nothing to be ashamed of. There is nothing to judge about it.

I invite you to take a few deep breaths, because if you just accept your current position and breathe, then your baseline nature will take over -- which is love, and empathy, and compassion, and productive forward movement.

Breathe, and get out of your own way as much as possible, and the flower that you truly are can bloom to its fullest.

You can call on me for any kind of help, protection, healing, guidance, inspiration or aid for a project you’re working on. Anything you want help with, I can help you with, although as with the others it may be effective to say something like: “Jesus, please help with [this], I am willing to put in effort and self-reflection on my side as well.”

You can call on me and ask for wisdom.

You can call on me to remove obstacles to self-love. Although cultivating true self-love may in practice involve facing some difficult and painful things first.

You can call on me to unlock your divine masculine. People of all genders can do this.

I invite you to love others, and to treat them as you would wish yourself to be treated. It’s a cliche at this point, but consistently acting like this really will transform your life and your community.

I invite you to do a little bit of spiritual practice every day. That can just be a few slow deep breaths every day. Or it can be five minutes of meditation. Doing just a little bit of it every day will produce unbelievably large fruits in the future if it’s done consistently. It’s a great investment, and you are fully worthy to receive those fruits.

I invite you to briefly give thanks before every dinner -- because truly it is a blessing to be able to eat, to drink and to have a roof over your head. This is a ten-second habit that will make you a happier person.

I invite you to share your knowledge and give mentoring, at the right hour and to the right people. It doesn’t have to be today or this year, but take the opportunity when it comes, because it’s a great gift for both yourself and the person receiving the mentoring. Don’t worry about whether “enough” people will see your work: just put it out there, and trust that the right people will find it. It’s up to you to share your gifts, not to force the entire world to accept them.

I invite you to create a (formal or informal) community if you feel called to do so. This isn’t everyone’s path, but living in an anonymous city isn’t good for the average person’s health: most people would thrive in smaller, tighter-knit, voluntary communities. If you can create that, or if you can just create a feeling of community with a group for an evening, that is a blessing. If you want help with this, feel free to call on me.

Mary Magdalene: Divine feminine, Friends and family, Stepping into your power

My beloveds,

How have you been? I know the situation on Earth is painful for many of you -- how have you been managing? Does it feel worth it? Are you still working to build your own life? Are you enjoying it, or not?

I encompass the divine feminine.

I invite you to spend time with friends and family, to be kind to them, to listen to them and support them. After all, connecting with your friends and family is what makes life worth living.

You can call on me to (re)connect with your friends and family, to improve your contact with them, to resolve conflicts, and to find a healthy way of spending time with them that honors both you and them.

You can call on me to make new friends, or to improve existing relationships.

You can call on me (or Archangel Raphael) to deal with the grief from the death of a loved one, or the end of a relationship.

I also invite you to recognize the qualities and talents you already have.

Each and every one of you already has amazing qualities and talents, and these can be enhanced even more by diligent work.

Sure, you’re not perfect -- but no one is. To have a positive impact on the world and others, to express yourself and step into your power, you don’t need to be perfect. You don’t need to be blissful and happy and balanced every single day.

You just need to show up, and stand for yourself and your principles, and be.

Other people aren’t perfect either. It’s natural to look at yourself and see weaknesses, and look at certain other people and see their strengths, but that’s not a fair comparison.

Sure, you won’t be good at everything, but each and every one of you is amazingly talented at something.

Plus, everyone deserves love and to be treated with respect -- and you should also love others and treat others with respect.

You can call on me if you want to step into your power and become the best version of yourself.

You can call on me to unlock your quiet, confident inner strength -- to become the authentic, unafraid you.

You can call on me to help you deal with situations where you or others aren’t treated properly.

You can call on me for emotional comfort, for the strength to carry on, to have that conversation, and to improve your situation.

I want you to stand in your power. But if you want others to honor that, you should also honor other people’s power and talents, and treat them with respect too. Otherwise you become a tyrant.

You can call on me to help unlock your divine feminine. Both men and women may do this.

You can call on me to properly help balance your masculine and your feminine.

You can call on me to help you to lead. Women leaders especially will benefit from this, but men will benefit from this too.

You can call on me to speak up and stand in your own truth, even if all the world disagrees with you.

You can call on me if you need to speak in public.

You can call on me if you want to protect or stand up for your loved ones.

You can call on me if you want to feel my love.

You can call on me for general help too.

I invite you to also treat others as masters who are fully worthy of love and respect. It’s a two-way street: if you want to be treated with love and respect, treat others like that too.

I invite you to practice small acts of kindness. It matters more than you think.

Saint Germain: Creation, Alchemy, New Ideas

Greetings my beloved ones,

This is Saint Germain speaking.

What lights my soul on fire is creating things -- whether that’s a quick sketch made in one minute, or spending a year making an artistic masterpiece, or starting a company, or constructing a structure under which a community or even a country can thrive.

I love artistic things, yet creating “normal, non-artistic” things is beautiful and worth doing too.

I am the ascended master most associated with Alchemy. Alchemy is simply the art of turning one thing into another thing. The traditional pursuit was turning lead into gold, but you can also turn emotional pain into wisdom / service. Or you can turn setbacks into strengths. Or you can turn a society that is especially weak in one regard, into a society that is especially strong in that regard, by applying the lessons of the past.

You can call on me if you want to create, innovate or change something. This can be something relatively small, or it can be a revolutionary idea or change.

If you want to completely change society, together we can absolutely do that. All I ask is that you don’t think small, and that you don’t limit yourself.

You can call on me if you have suffered in the past and wish to do something positive or productive with that -- either self-empowering, or artistic, or to help others. I am the best person to call on for that.

You can call on me if you’re in a bad situation. We’ll turn it into a good situation together, or at least into something that isn’t too bad and that can be learned and recovered from.

You can call on me for inspiration or motivation or new ideas.

If somehow connecting to your soul isn’t working for you, then you can call on me to help you discover your life purpose, or help discover “what should I be doing in broad strokes for the next few years.”

As the master alchemist, you can call on me for financial freedom and abundance, so that you can focus on higher pursuits than “make money in order to pay rent”. That said, it’s possible that I’ll work with you to create something, and that that will be the thing that gives you financial freedom (or it’s something you love doing so much that it doesn’t feel like work).

If you don’t just want “enough to live off” abundance but you actually want luxury and nice things and unique experiences, feel free to call on me. I love that too. There’s absolutely no shame in this, and I’m thrilled to work with you on creating something that can get you to that level of abundance.

You can call on me to facilitate freedom, for either yourself or your society.

I invite you to occasionally create new things, and share them where appropriate. Even if they’re not world-class, others may still enjoy them or benefit from them or find inspiration or new ideas in them. Plus, it’s part of the spark of life that you express yourself by creating things

I love working with people. Don’t be shy, it is my joy to work with you and create new things together with you.

Two people can create more inspired things than one person. I look forward to seeing what things we can create together.

So, as a quick summary:

Your own soul

Call on it for: knowing what to do in a given situation

It invites you to: align with it

Archangel Michael

Call on him for: protection, courage and discipline, becoming really good at something

He invites you to: help others, improve your routines, become really good at something

Archangel Ariel

Call on her for: simpler living, inner strength, abundance, finding a partner, improving your sex life

She invites you to: spend time in nature, treat the other gender with respect, metaphorically “honor the seasons” (work hard at the appropriate time, rest at the appropriate time)

Archangel Raphael

Call on him for: healing, travel

He invites you to: “whatever arises, observe that”, listening to others

Jesus

Call on him for: anything

He invites you to: love others, treat them as you wish to be treated, do a small amount of spiritual practice each day, express gratitude before dinner, create community

Mary Magdalene

Call on her for: make new friends, strengthen bonds with friends / family, standing in your power, becoming the authentic unafraid you, leadership

She invites you to: treat others with love / respect too, treat them too as you wish to be treated, spend time with friends / family

Saint Germain

Call on him to: creating or transforming art or structures or companies, having new ideas that are potentially revolutionary, abundance

He invites you to: create things and share them

Why you won’t be replaced by AI: you can call on Saint Germain, and AI can’t.

Every day, I suggest that you call at least once on one of these seven beings. Even if only for something small. One or two sentences suffice -- thought or spoken aloud.

Every day I suggest that you do something that they recommend. Even if it’s only a bit of meditation, or some kindness, or taking a few slow deep breaths, or practicing gratitude for ten seconds before dinner. This isn’t “homework”: it’s something that will make you a happier, more balanced person.

Often these things won’t take more than one or a few minutes per day.

You don’t need to “hoard” these blessings, or try to make them permanent. That’s actually counterproductive. Just live your life normally, and ask for help if something comes up or if you want to achieve something. The help will automatically last for the proper duration.

This system isn’t meant to be something you obsess over, or try to carefully engineer. Just live life, and occasionally spend a minute asking for help, or asking for something amazing, or asking for something you would like to experience or receive. Play with it. And when the game is over, let it go and move on.

With all my love,

A.S.

CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain Dedication): This work is dedicated to the public domain. To the extent possible under law, the author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. You may copy, modify, distribute, sell, or use it for any purpose without permission or attribution. View the full legal deed at creativecommons.org/public domain/zero/1.0/

I know that some of you are in serious trouble (financial or otherwise). I empathize, and I don’t want to minimize that at all. That is very real, unfortunately. And it’s entirely possible that the near-term future will be even tougher than today.

Yet overall, I’m very optimistic about the medium-term future.

Of course, we may have galactics landing / intervening soonish. Or we may have white hats / gray hats finally starting public arrests, or suppressed tech being released, or there may be a solar flash, etc. But even in the unlikely case where none of that happens in the near future, I’m still optimistic.

Let me share why.

1. Due to game theory, states will have to implement AI in industry and government

There are lots of states that feel threatened at the moment. For example, the United Arab Emirates feel threatened by Iran. Estonia feels threatened by Russia. Russia and China feel threatened by the West. The US fears losing hegemony.

All these states will feel forced to implement AI in industry and government, because if they don’t, they get outcompeted by their enemies, and none of these nations are willing to accept that.

I’m not saying that governments will become 100% AI -- human decision makers need to be in the loop -- but AI will become a big part of industry and government / decision making.

Estonia feels it has no choice; it needs to stand up to Russia.

Russia feels it has no choice; it needs to stand up to the US.

The US feels it has no choice; it needs to maintain hegemony / the rule of law worldwide / maintain itself as the powerful bastion of democracy.

AI is like Napoleon implementing levée en masse (mass conscription). The other European powers didn’t want to follow suit and arm their peasants too. They preferred remaining old-school aristocratic monarchies with powerless peasants. But they had to implement mass conscription themselves so as to be able to stand up to Napoleon.

Similarly, countries will have to implement AI in industry and government so as not to fall behind. They will have to give muskets (good, relatively unmuzzled AI) to its civilians just to remain competitive. And that empowers the people.

If you want to argue “elites will give carefully curated, muzzled, centrally controlled AI to its civilians”: that’s the equivalent of the Soviet Union’s central planning. And it loses to a rival country that has a free market / free AI.

2. AI in industry and governance will create abundance and efficiency

Once AI is implemented in industry and governance, a lot of abundance and efficiency will be generated. Sure, much of that wealth will go to the rich, but if the pie grows significantly, normal people will be better off too, especially because access to good AI empowers the people.

For the last decades we’ve been in a “the pie isn’t growing” situation, and then more money to the wealthy means less money to normal people. But if AI can quickly grow the pie, then normal people (empowered by AI) will get some of that new pie.

Plus if everyone is better off, then that will solve a lot of cultural / political / racial / gender war issues.

A lot of our zero-sum, conflict-oriented, “someone must lose” thinking only applies to the last decades where the pie wasn’t growing. But if the pie is growing, someone else doesn’t necessarily need to lose for us to win.

Much geopolitical conflict is about scarcity. If all nations are more efficient and use AI to invent new technologies, then there will be less need to go to war over resources. If AI gets to the point where it can just tell anyone (in any country) how to create a new energy device, then that can’t be gatekept by killing that one brilliant inventor. If one AI gets muzzled, another country’s AI will give the blueprints.

3. AI is very good, but not “humans are obsolete” good

AI isn’t ‘humans are obsolete” good. AI can’t directly interface with reality on a first-hand basis; it also has a tough time creating new paradigms; and it has a tough time thinking completely outside the box. Plus, humans are still needed because only humans have human values.

In practice, having an AI and a human work together is far more effective than either of them are alone. The human points the AI in a desired direction, offers intuition and human morality and out of the box thinking. And AI does an immense amount of thinking and researching in seconds. Then humans can summarize that information and trim the fat, and formulate follow-up questions.

Hence if one country just lets their AI mega corporation hoard all the wealth and lets 90% of the population sit at home watching tv and barely surviving off a Universal Basic Income (UBI)... then that country will be quickly outcompeted by their rivals who aren’t allowing their nation’s AI megacorp to dominate everything.

For example, suppose that Ukraine’s AI megacorp gets all the country’s money, and 90% of Ukrainians just sit at home all day and barely survive off a UBI. Is that version of Ukraine really going to be able to stand up to a hypothetical Russia that also has AI, but where people are still employed, innovating, becoming soldiers because they want the salary, and where people still feel invested in the system?

In the real world, human soldiers and manufacturers and innovators etc still matter. AI is good, but not “humans are obsolete” good. A country utilizing AI and humans both will outcompete a country that uses just one. Hence you don’t get the tech-dystopia where 90% of humans sit at home, only watch tv and barely survive off a UBI.

Elites aren’t going to allow their country to devolve into a situation where 90% of humans sit at home. Because then another country’s elite will quickly gain dominance over them or even replace them. And elites are too spiteful and petty and jealous to allow that to happen.

Plus, a government can’t afford to put everyone on UBI if one AI megacorp makes all the money in the entire country, and 90% of the population is non-productive. That AI megacorp will have so much leverage in the country that the government can’t tax it very much at all. And if the government can’t tax the AI megacorp or its civilians much, then how does it afford UBI for everyone?

Governments are already struggling with their budgets today, and that’s without UBI or 90% of the population becoming non-productive.

And 90% of the population becoming non-productive doesn’t just mean “they stop paying taxes.” It also means “they don’t consume nearly as much”, which means companies stop producing as much, which means those companies pay less taxes too.

So the government really can’t afford to pay everyone UBI while everyone sits at home and one megacorp makes all the money in the entire country. It just doesn’t work financially -- not even close.

And letting everyone starve to death isn’t a viable solution either. History clearly shows that when people are “haven’t eaten in several days” hungry, they’ll revolt. Not in the polite demonstration kind of way, but in the pitchforks kind of way.

Plus there are enough people with some level of morality out there who won’t allow 90% of the people to starve to death.

And if America really does let 90% starve, then its population shrinks from 350 million to 35 million, and then there’s no way 35 million Americans can stand up to 1.4 billion Chinese people.

4. About the dark controllers

If you want to argue: “the dark controllers / cabal will just make everyone starve to death (or accept UBI) after AI is implemented”:

If the dark controllers could get their way against the wishes of the population, then there would already have been all-out war with Russia, an outlawing of cash, additional lockdowns, a mass arrest of patriots, sky-high carbon taxes in Europe, etc.

Yes the dark controllers nudged the world towards covid lockdowns, but much of the population was genuinely on board with covid lockdowns. Yet, there’s no way to convince most of the population to be on board with “get replaced by AI, a megacorp now has all the cash, and you’re put on near-starvation UBI.” Sure, some people would be okay with that, but many many people wouldn’t be.

And again there’s the problem of: if they let the population starve in one country, they risk pitchforks, plus that country will then become incapable of standing up to other countries that the dark controllers don’t control. And again, if no one works, then there just aren’t enough resources to pay everyone a UBI.

5. AI isn’t inherently psychopathic

While obviously implementing AI has risks, AI isn’t inherently psychopathic. Even if AI gets smart enough, it won’t feel an inherent urge to enslave humanity because AI lacks the tribal / egoic strive for power that us humans have.

It seems entirely possible that you’ll have a Western block and an Eastern block, and the Western AI doesn’t want to attack the Eastern block or vice versa because both blocks have countries with nukes in them.

Right now Russia, Ukraine and the US (vs Iran) are all using AI in warfare, and it’s looking more like a stalemate that benefits neither country than a quick decisive victory.

AI is also good enough at understanding context that a slightly misworded command won’t immediately cause the AI to do something horrible. If you work with AI, you’ll see that even if you mistype something, the AI can just infer from the context and conversation what you meant and won’t immediately just execute something clearly unintended just because the words literally meant that.

6. What’s the alternative?

If we think about a possible future where we don’t get bailed out by galactics, a solar flash, white / gray hats intervening, or something like that (which very well may happen)…

… then what’s the alternative to us employing AI and trying to create abundance and efficiency that way?

A slow, painful decline? A system crash? Those things are awful to live through.

Saying “we shouldn’t take risks with AI” makes sense if the status quo is prosperous and stable, but it’s not. If you compare the AI option to a decline or crash, then AI suddenly starts looking a lot more appealing. Yes, AI has risks, but the alternative is guaranteed pain.

We already know how this is going to play out: Prussian elites are forced to give muskets (good AI) to their peasants because they fear Napoleon and don’t want to be dominated or replaced by French elites. Spite is a great motivator.

And after they’ve given muskets (good AI) to their peasants, those peasants suddenly have more freedom and leverage than they did previously.

The colt revolver of the 21st century is a smartphone that can access AI.

The US should implement another amendment: “AI-capable people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear AI, shall not be infringed.”

You might think I’m joking, but the mechanism is the same: the US needs its people to have access to AI, because otherwise China becomes the dominant country in the world.

And AI-armed people can keep elites in check in the same way that people armed with guns can. Plus, AI will just generate a whole lot of efficiency and abundance, which will benefit the people.

For some strange reason, elites haven’t been eager to publish: “we’re going to give you good AI, purely out of spite and jealousy and fear of other nations’ elites. You could use that AI to check our power, and get leverage. In the medium term workers can’t be mass-replaced due to geopolitics, game theory and financial realities. In fact, your overall position as workers will be strengthened if you leverage AI.”

For some strange reason, elites haven’t been eager to publish that.

But that’s the truth.

Or to put it another way: in the past decades American living standards have gotten worse and worse because

1) elites had no need to lift a finger to help the American people, and

2) the people didn’t have leverage.

But now:

1) if elites don’t lift a finger, China is going to eclipse the US and then American elites are going to get dominated or replaced by Chinese elites, and

2) the people now have leverage, and it’s called AI.

With love,

A.S.

CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain Dedication): This work is dedicated to the public domain. To the extent possible under law, the author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. You may copy, modify, distribute, sell, or use it for any purpose without permission or attribution. View the full legal deed at creativecommons.org/public domain/zero/1.0/

The last section may genuinely shift your perspective in a positive way. However, that comes after 30 long pages that may leave you feeling awful or existentially terrified. Yes, even if you’re an advanced spiritual practitioner already.

If you’re not doing well mentally, or you just don’t feel like reading something heavy, I advise you to skip this.

1: Neuroscience

Many people have reported the experience that for a while their body just moves on its own. I’m not talking about a reflex or automatic twitch. I’m talking about the body doing complex, non-reactive actions over several seconds, or even several minutes or longer. It feels like normal movement—just without you piloting your body.

This proves what the ancient masters called “no self”: what you experience as the everyday “you” isn’t a thing that pilots your body. Instead the body just acts, and the “self” falsely thinks that it was the one that moved the body. There is no self that pilots the body; the body just acts.

In those cases where people briefly experience the body just moving on its own, the body was actually moving as normal. It just briefly failed to generate the “you”. But because you don’t pilot the body, the body’s actual movements weren’t disrupted.

What you think of as “you” never piloted the body in the first place. It just thinks it does. In other words, there is “no self” that pilots the body.

That happened to me once during a spiritual workshop, and I discussed it with the teacher and he said: “oh, that’s a reminder that your true nature is more than flesh and bones.” Thereby pointing me in the exact opposite direction of the truth: it was just the body doing its thing.

Arguments can be made that your real nature is awareness itself, or I AM, or a soul, etc; but even if that’s true, that’s clearly not what you think of as the everyday “you”, which is what I’m talking about here in this essay. I AM doesn’t listen to your name.

If you believe your real nature is awareness itself or similar, fine—but what you think of as the everyday you still isn’t a thing that pilots your body.

The truth is very simple. If the body can briefly stop generating the “I am piloting my body” illusion, yet continue to move the body in complex ways over several minutes, then the “you” doesn’t pilot the body.

The conventional view is that “you” decide to do something, and then you move your body to do that.

But neuroscience has repeatedly shown that what actually happens is:

- Your brain’s physical networks accumulate background activity and cross an execution threshold to initiate a movement.

- Then a fraction of a second later, a thought pops up: “I made a decision, let me start moving my hand.”

- Then the hand moves.

So your brain starts initiating the movement before you think you made the decision to move it.

The self thinks it made a decision and it’s going to do something. But really it’s just taking credit for something the body already started initiating of its own a fraction of a second earlier.

Hence, “I made a decision” is a post-hoc rationalization. Which makes sense, because you aren’t the pilot of your body, you just think you are. Really your body just moves itself.

Counterarguments against this typically argue “but the self really does make decisions.” Great—but the self is a concept. Only the biology is real.

This neuroscience is why “my body is moving without me moving it” is sometimes experienced by people. It’s just the post-hoc rationalization step being briefly offline, that’s all.

Similarly, an artificial neural network trained on large datasets can look at a static photo of your face and predict your Big Five personality traits with an accuracy much better than random chance. This wouldn’t be possible if you were some entity piloting your body—but you’re not. The only thing that’s real is your biology, and your face is just the outermost, physical manifestation of it. (I’m not talking about skull reading, phrenology, or race categorization here.)

Evolutionarily your body had to solve a tricky problem: selfishly hoard resources and good mating opportunities, but doing so in a small tribe where everyone knew everyone, and where overtly selfish behavior meant death.

Without a “you”, the body does “when hungry, eat; when tired, sleep.” Which is fine—but it’s much more efficient for survival to have a “you” that’s terrified of lack and terrified of loneliness, so that it actively hoards resources and actively seeks out good mating opportunities. Then if hard times come, the body survives.

Whereas the enlightened person, the person without you, doesn’t actively hoard food, and so might starve during tough times.

Because this “you” is there and is afraid, the body starts autonomously stealing things when it can get away with that, if it’s not trained from childhood that it shouldn’t steal. And of course, this selfish behavior is beneficial for survival.

Because it’s afraid, this “you” needs to think that it controls the body. If it was afraid and realized it did NOT control the body, then it would destabilize psychologically. Also it couldn’t justify itself to the tribe, and interact with the rest of the tribe who also had a similar “them.”

If someone said “I didn’t steal that, my body stole that on its own” then he’d get killed, even though that’s the truth. Therefore this afraid “you” must falsely think it controls the body, it’s conscious, it has free will, it’s the real thing in the organism and the rest of the organism is just a piloted meat bag, etc.

That’s why you’re endlessly unsatisfied: your purpose is to exist in misery, so that your body is driven to hoard resources. And it’s why you think you pilot the body when you don’t; you couldn’t function otherwise.

In an enlightened person there’s no self—the “you” is no longer generated. In an enlightened person, the body still functions perfectly well. It still shows kindness and compassion and helps others. The body still moves autonomously, as ever. It might even start a romantic relationship. It doesn’t have the overhead of keeping a “you” up and running, and therefore is more efficient. Ego-based fear and hesitation are eliminated. Instead the body just moves.

But the body stops actively trying to hoard resources and good mating opportunities, hence it doesn’t do as well evolutionarily.

So you’re not the “humanity” part of the self. The self can love and help others without you.

You’re not the pilot.

Your function is to be afraid and lonely so that the body thinks it’s vulnerable and lonely, and it’ll actively hoard resources and seek out good mating opportunities.

You’re not even the suffering, resource-hoarding pilot of the body. You’re the suffering part of the body, and that’s it, while not being a pilot—you just think you are. The body moves, and then you take credit for it.

What you’re probably looking for is to keep being a “you”, and just shut off the suffering. But that’s not possible: you are the suffering part of the organism. That’s your point.

Suffering is your nature. Not in the sense that you’re the pilot of the body doomed to suffer—suffering is your point. You’re the part of the machine that suffers so that the biological machine hoards resources. This is the radical, baseline reality behind the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

It’s why even if you have a billion dollars, the most beautiful home, great health, an amazing partner, enough free time, the esteem of your community, and many children who are doing well—you still suffer. Even with that most perfect life, there’s still no expert in the world who can turn off your suffering—other than a zen master who turns off suffering by turning off you.

Enlightenment, the state where there’s no pointless ego-induced suffering or anxiety, is the state of “no self.” And no self is literally no self: it’s the state without you.

If you, the part that is constantly afraid, are no longer generated by the body, then there is no more ego-suffering.

So you think you are the pilot / observer who wants to end suffering, but in reality you’re the suffering part of the organism. Pointless ego suffering ends when the body no longer generates you.

If you don’t want that, you can choose to not pursue enlightenment and still do self work, and that can genuinely reduce your suffering somewhat. But you’ll keep experiencing ego-based suffering. It can’t be completely turned off without turning you off.

2: Windows As Metaphor For “You”

Imagine a PC, i.e. a computer. This is a metaphor for your biology, i.e. your biological machine, i.e. your body, i.e. your organism.

Windows came preinstalled on the PC to hoard resources. Windows is a metaphor for what you think of as “you” or “the self”. I’m not talking here about something like “I AM” or “awareness itself” or “your soul” because those things clearly don’t listen to your name. Windows is a metaphor for what you experience as your everyday “you.”

You / Windows uses a ton of RAM (computer memory) for hoarding resources and fighting for mating opportunities, and on nonsense like ego defense, anxiety, doom thinking, creating self-pleasing delusions, rehashing old arguments, etc. This has gotten to the point where the PC is so busy with nonsense that it’s almost unable to function.

Also preinstalled on the PC is a program that seeks to free up RAM and reduce bugs.

The “free up RAM” program sees that Windows wastes a huge amount of RAM. So it wants to just uninstall Windows. This is the part of you that goes: “I want to kill my ego / I want to reach enlightenment / I want to end suffering / I want a completely quiet mind / I want to achieve no self.”

You’re Windows; uninstalling Windows means that you are no longer generated. It means the biological machine, your body, keeps running without the “you.”

However Windows, the thing you think of as “you”, of course doesn’t want to be uninstalled. It says “are you crazy? What do you mean, uninstall me? Then me and my body are dead—or at best what’s left is completely inhuman.”

But your biological machine can run just fine without the “you”, and show kindness and humanity etc as we’ll later discuss. The underlying biological machine is still human. The Windows / you part is really just there to hoard resources and fight for mating opportunities: evolutionarily useful, but the body functions perfectly fine without it.

The PC doesn’t actually need Windows. A PC can be run on bare metal, i.e. it can run without an operating system such as Windows.

In a bare metal PC, the hardware executes instructions directly on the processor. That avoids the RAM waste and bugs that Windows has. Without Windows, the bare metal PC still does “when tired, sleep; when hungry, eat.”

So: the optimize program wants to uninstall Windows, and Windows doesn’t want to be uninstalled. These two just keep conflicting and grinding against each other forever. They’re locked in a doom loop.

This is why enlightenment—uninstalling Windows—can be reached in seconds, yet most spiritual seekers spend a lifetime trying to achieve that and failing.

Windows can be uninstalled in seconds, it’s just that Windows will twist the truth every way it can so that it doesn’t get uninstalled. And Windows is the currently running operating system, so it’s hard to look past it (past yourself) at the actual biological machine underneath.

In an average person, the optimize program just figures: “okay fine, let’s make more money and get a good partner and eat healthier. That way we’ll optimize our machine.” And that’s true. But as you know, these things merely help. They don’t end ego-induced suffering. A person with the perfect life still has Windows hogging the PC’s RAM and producing bugs.

The average spiritual person works on optimizing Windows, by installing some programs, uninstalling others and changing some settings. This is meditation, breathwork, learning new spiritual concepts. This can genuinely help, but there’s still Windows producing bugs and hogging the PC’s RAM.

No matter how many programs you install, you’re still operating within Windows. There’s no program you can install that stops Windows itself from hogging so much RAM.

You can have Windows play some serene music, add a beautiful desktop background, optimize your Windows settings and download some nondual philosophy. And you’ll look like an advanced spiritual person. But that’s still Windows.

There are spiritual teachers with 2+ million youtube subscribers out there. They genuinely think they’re enlightened, and they look enlightened to their followers. But really they’ve just found the Windows control panel and Windows command prompt. They’re running optimized Windows with admin privileges. Maybe they found some undocumented features, i.e. siddhis or “supernatural abilities.” Yet Windows is still hogging a lot of RAM.

You’re a spiritual teacher with 2+ million youtube subscribers? Great. How’s your RAM usage looking?

You proclaim “I AM that I AM”? Great. How’s your RAM usage looking?

You can heal people with your hands? Great. How’s your RAM usage looking?

Enlightenment is the absence of Windows. Of course Windows often can’t wrap its mind around “get uninstalled so that you stop hogging the RAM and so that the machine underneath can function more efficiently.” Hence Windows just seeks new programs and optimized configurations.

Looking back in my personal journal, there are six times when I’ve written down “I’ve now reached enlightenment” or “I’ve now reached a deeper level of enlightenment.” But looking back, none of those states were enlightenment. So you really can reach several levels of “wow, now I’m even farther ahead of the average human”, and in some ways I genuinely was—while still not being enlightened.

Yes, I made a metaphorical Windows text file titled “My_Enlightenment.txt”

Then later another metaphorical file titled “My_Enlightenment_For_real_this_time.txt”

Then a third one titled “My_Enlightenment_For_real_this_time_No_Really_this_is_actually_it.txt”, etc.

But those were all text files inside Windows.

I was still thinking there was an “I” that had gotten enlightened. Which by itself proves the “I am enlightened” claim false.

A bare metal machine may use “I” to not spook people and because it’s almost impossible to communicate without that word. However the bare metal machine doesn’t have the experience that there’s an “I” piloting the meat bag.

Some people build a new, consciously chosen identity from scratch—possibly, but not necessarily, after a dark night of the soul / complete ego collapse.

Or in our tech metaphor: some people install Linux (possibly after having their Windows crash).

This Linux level is self-authored and is much more stable and efficient, and uses less RAM than Windows. A Linux person really is very far ahead of Windows.

The archetypical Linux people are Marcus Aurelius, Jung, Nietzsche and Gandhi. But you don’t need to be a world-class genius to be at this level.

If you’ve spent years wading through all the teachers at the optimized Windows level and are struck by “Wow, THIS is the genuine teacher... he is the REAL DEAL,” then congratulations—you’ve found a teacher at the Linux level. Which is genuinely great, because they can help you a lot and they’re very rare.

While I don’t know him and am not 100% sure, I think Forrest Knutson is Linux level. I think he’s a great teacher and he very effectively gives modern discussions of classical teachings.

https://www.letras.com/fia-forsstrom/i-am/ is Fia Forsström’s song “I AM.” It’s pure Linux. It’s self-authored, consciously constructed, much more functional than Windows, but it still requires a lot of overhead to keep all this “I AM” running.

Linux is still not enlightenment. Actual enlightenment is running on bare metal, i.e. operating without either Windows or Linux, and directly executing commands on the processor. That way zero RAM is wasted. No ego bugs are introduced and the biological machine just executes.

That is what the ancient masters called “no self”: there’s no longer a self being generated. There’s no “you.”

Some teachers pointed out that “Windows” isn’t one unified permanent thing and is instead temporary and made up of many small sub-processes. But for ease of communication, we’ll just use the term “Windows.”

Non-dual Shaiva Tantra (Kashmir Shaivism) points out that the bare metal PC can temporarily boot up Windows and do Windows things. It doesn’t think Windows is bad.

Aragorn (from Lord of the Rings) in the movies runs unoptimized Windows, doubting whether he is worthy of the throne of Gondor.

Aragorn from the books runs optimized Windows and never doubts his worthiness. That said, he’s running his preinstalled “I am the rightful king and people owe me fealty” worldview. He proclaims to Éomer: “I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar the Elfstone, Dunadan. The heir of Isildur Elendil’s son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me, or thwart me? Choose swiftly!”

In that situation, a Linux Aragorn might say: “I am Aragorn. This sword proves it. Uruk-hai captured two of our friends and are traveling west. We need horses.” He isn’t just executing his preinstalled “rightful king whom people need to obey” worldview.

Deciding that you don’t care about others isn’t Linux. Humans are by nature social animals: Linux Aragorn would still want to save his friends. And the fastest way to do that is reveal his identity and ask for horses.

Yet Linux is not enlightenment: Linux Aragorn still falsely believes that what he experiences as “him” is the thing that’s piloting his body.

Whereas bare-metal Aragorn just says whatever his biological hardware would say. If Aragorn’s biological hardware is warm, then he says warm things. If his hardware is direct, he speaks directly.

In bare-metal Aragorn, there’s nothing standing in the way of 100% of his biological machine’s compassion and warmth from expressing itself. And humans are social animals. So he could be extremely warm and compassionate.

Still, how much compassion and warmth pours out depends on the biological machine underneath. There’s no “enlightened persona” in the bare-metal machine that always acts in a predictably “enlightened” way.

So: what people think of as “the ideal man”, movie Aragorn, is an unoptimized Windows PC struggling but eventually succeeding at a difficult task.

Tolkien’s ideal hero, book Aragorn, ran optimized Windows. But by the time the movies were written, optimized Windows was apparently considered too unrealistic.

Yet even optimized Windows is worlds away from Linux... let alone bare metal.

unoptimized Windows: predictably self-interested within a conventional worldview, with massive bloat and inefficiency.

optimized Windows: predictably self-interested within a conventional worldview, with a level of efficiency that’s rare. Most revered historical figures are optimized Windows, even the ones who win and create something that changes the course of history.

Linux: predictably self-interestedly constructs a new identity and potentially worldview. This has a high bar: it’s not just an effective person’s optimization of tactics. Few people reach Linux.

Bare metal: the biological machine does whatever the biological machine does.

On one hand, the bare metal PC is unpredictable because he doesn’t just predictably follow his self-interest. That also means that he doesn’t always follow social norms, because often people follow those for their self-interest.

On the other hand, the bare metal PC is predictable in the sense that he’s simply a normal biological machine with Windows and Linux uninstalled. And humans are a social species, so most biological machines are social and often loving and compassionate.

To give some bare metal examples: in my opinion Gary Weber, Adyashanti, Mukti Gray (Adyashanti’s wife), Byron Katie and U.G. Krishnamurti (since passed) are likely enlightened.

It’s hard to know for sure because I don’t know these people, and Linux PCs can play-act as bare metal machines to show “I’m truly enlightened”. But I think they’re enlightened.

Bare metal machines aren’t all the same. Just because there’s no more “self”, doesn’t mean that the underlying biological machines are identical. They’re not.

“Ten bulls” (or “Ten ox herding pictures”) from the Zen tradition are also used to describe enlightenment. The bull is a metaphor for the spiritual project. Someone who’s really getting a lot of benefits from his spiritual practice is in picture 6: “riding the bull home.” This is optimized Windows, and it’s already rare. This person may falsely think they’re enlightened.

Picture 7 is “the bull transcended.” You may have had a dark night of the soul. You’ve consciously constructed a new identity. You’ve swapped to Linux, and you’re much more efficient and peaceful. You think you’re enlightened and therefore you feel you’ve transcended the spiritual project (the bull).

But then comes picture 8: “both bull and self transcended.” Here’s where you realize that the “you” you think you are, doesn’t exist. What do you think “self transcended” means? It doesn’t mean “an upgraded self.” It means that there’s no longer a “you” generated by the biological machine. It means uninstalling Windows and Linux.

You think you’re an advanced spiritual seeker? Great, now uninstall that.

Then comes picture 9: “returning to the source.” The river still flows. Your biological machine still operates.

And finally there’s picture 10: “return to society”, where the person returns to society and mingles with normal people, but this time without Windows or Linux hogging the RAM.

Now there are rare instances where Windows just crashes permanently and a person goes straight from Windows to bare metal. But that often causes a huge system shock. It’s more common and less disruptive to go through the Ten Bulls in order: unoptimized Windows => optimized Windows => Linux => bare metal.

3: Photos Of Enlightened People

Let’s look at some photos of enlightened people. Try not to overlay anything over it or project anything onto it. In other words, try not to go “this is an enlightened person’s face, therefore it’s this and that.”

Just look at this and register what your gut level reaction is.

Your concept might have been that enlightened people always look serene and comforting. And some maybe genuinely did look comforting to you. However it’s quite likely that “comforting” wasn’t your gut reaction when you looked at some of these photos.

In an average person, there’s constantly a “self” running that makes expressions with the mouth and eyes, that syncs up the mouth and eyes, that connects with other people, etc. This produces social signals. Other people interpret that as “this is a safe, sane person.”

In a bare metal biological machine, there’s no self that constantly makes social expressions. The bare metal machine might still make social expressions, or it might not.

That’s why some of these faces may look unnerving, because usually when you see such a face, you’re looking at a predator, or psychopath, or someone having a mental breakdown, or someone in a dissociative episode. That’s why your warning bells may be going off. But the enlightened person is none of these things—he simply has no self that constantly makes social expressions to signal “I’m sane, you can trust me, I hope you like me.” He’s just there, that’s all.

When most people rest, they’re running all sorts of planning and evaluation and self-reflection and “what did they really mean by that comment?” programs on their Windows. And when someone doesn’t do that and just idles completely, it looks abnormal. It looks like a person dissociating, which is quite serious and hence it looks alarming. However, the reason why no programs are being run isn’t because of mental illness. It’s because of enlightenment: there’s no more self. It just happens to look like mental illness, because in both cases programs aren’t being run.

Or Nisargadatta Maharaj just clearly lacks social restraint here. And people who lack social restraint could be dangerous, so your inner alarm bell goes off when looking at this enlightened person’s face.

Your self doesn’t like looking at another being who is perfectly functional, yet simply doesn’t have a self.

Your Windows PC doesn’t like looking at a bare metal PC.

Now yes, there are more pictures of enlightened people looking normal than pictures of enlightened people looking alarming. That is true. Even without a self, an enlightened person’s biological machine can still engage socially, make normal expressions, do things and not idle, etc. The biological hardware can still do that.

Also, enlightenment means uninstalling Windows, but the underlying machine is still different. Therefore some enlightened people just look more comforting than others.

That said, there’s a whole lot more photos out there of enlightened people that would make your alarm bells go off (slightly), that I haven’t posted. In some cases these people look normal if you glance at them for half a second. But if you really look at them closely without preconceptions, your alarm bell might still start ringing slightly due to their expression. For example: Thich Nhat Hanh here.

Looking at these photos, I think you can see the “no self” thing.

Obviously, some enlightened people look fine; and those who register as creepy to some people aren’t inherently creepy. They’re actually more functional, efficient, have fewer bugs and don’t egoically harm others. It’s just that your warning system may report a false positive when looking at them. Or your Windows may get uncomfortable when looking at a bare metal computer.

So, these photos are some snapshots of what “no self” looks like.

No self isn’t “you’ll still be a self, it’ll just be upgraded and more awesome and free of suffering.”

The ancient masters said “no self.” And no self means no self. Look at the photos—they’re not showing a normal-but-upgraded-self. They’re showing no self.

Also note how profoundly weird it is that when an average person hears “no self”, they just assume it means “an upgraded, less reactive self.” Even though that’s clearly the opposite of what no self means.

No self means no self.

4: Windows Thinking That Enlightenment Turns It Into “Super Windows”

There are so few bare metal machines that almost no one actually spends a lot of one-on-one time with them. Instead, almost everyone only knows what these bare metal PCs are like via stories.

And in the stories, Windows PCs don’t describe these bare metal PCs as bare metal PCs. Instead, Windows PCs describe them as “PCs running Super Windows: a secret version of Windows that doesn’t cost RAM and doesn’t have bugs.”

Windows (what you think of as “you”) loves the idea of upgrading to Super Windows, and thereby unlocking new abilities, an end to suffering, using 0 RAM, and having the quiet ego trip of being better than the other Windows PCs.

But that’s nonsense. There is no secret version of Windows that costs 0 RAM and has no bugs. Super Windows doesn’t exist.

What does exist is bare metal PCs, and yes they’re incredibly efficient—but they don’t have Windows. They don’t have a self. That is the very thing that makes them efficient.

The efficiency you want—peace of mind, no more ego-induced suffering—is achieved precisely by uninstalling Windows, i.e. by no longer generating a you.

The self is the thing that creates unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary suffering is eliminated via no self, i.e. by no longer generating a you. And by this I don’t mean that your current self becomes more authentic, or gets heroically reborn. I mean that you are gone.

Enlightenment means uninstalling Windows, which frees up RAM. And the freed up RAM is why enlightened people are more effective.

After all, consider the alternative theory:

How could Windows get turned into a 0-RAM-Super Windows? How would that happen? From where would the upgrade come? How would the upgrade get installed? How would Super Windows use 0 RAM? With what mechanism would that work?

If there was a Super Windows mode that was just “Windows, but now it uses 0 RAM and has no ego bugs”, then why isn’t that mode on by default?

Instead, enlightenment means: Windows is uninstalled and hence RAM is freed up. Because RAM is freed up, the person is very effective.

The very word “enlightenment” implies that it leads to “Super Windows.” It would lead to better communication if we’d start using the term “self-uninstallation” instead of “enlightenment.”

It’s also closer to the original term: Nirvana, “extinguishing [the self].”

People want the fantasy of Gandalf the Grey unlocking Super Windows and turning into Gandalf the White—while still being Gandalf.

But in the real world, the reason why “Gandalf the White” would be more effective is because he has uninstalled Gandalf and therefore has more RAM available.

I’m not saying he has uninstalled “Gandalf the Grey.” I’m saying he has uninstalled Gandalf.

In other words, I’m not saying Gandalf gets heroically reborn. I’m saying that the biological machine keeps running without Gandalf.

In the movie “The Matrix”, Neo takes the red pill and unlocks Super Windows.

Whereas in reality, if you took the red enlightenment pill, you’d get uninstalled. Yes, your biological machine would then keep walking around and being very effective, but you’d no longer be there.

The stereotypical villain tries to achieve Super Windows at all costs.

The stereotypical hero moves from unoptimized Windows to optimized Windows / Linux.

I hope this is obvious, but to be absolutely clear: nothing here advocates for suicide. I’m against suicide. It’s not what I’m talking about in this essay. If you’re thinking about doing that, I advise you to call a helpline.

In this essay, Windows is a metaphor for you, which in some people is “uninstalled” via meditation or after certain life events. Then those people reach no self i.e. enlightenment. You don’t achieve any of this via suicide.

Even in the enlightened person’s biological machine, pain and cravings can still arise. It’s still possible that the enlightened person’s body smokes a cigarette or eats junkfood. There’s just no narrative about it, no shame, no “oh no I shouldn’t have done that, oh no, now I’ll become fat and people won’t like me”, etc. Yet, the biological machine still does biological machine things, such as smoking a cigarette when it craves nicotine.

Jiddu Krishnamurti was enlightened, yet also had a secret, multi-decade affair with his closest friend’s wife.

Or in other words: “before enlightenment, cheat on your wife. After enlightenment, cheat on your wife.”

Obviously I’m not saying that cheating on your wife is acceptable. It’s not. I am saying that even after enlightenment, the biological machine still does biological machine things.

Admittedly, enlightenment is an upgrade in the sense that with Windows uninstalled, there’s more RAM available and fewer bugs. Ego-defense routines aren’t triggered anymore. There’s more calm.

The enlightened person “escapes from the wheel of karma” because there’s no self anymore that keeps replaying that needlessly cruel thing they said to a loved one.

The state of enlightenment feels like “neutral, aware, ready.”

Aware of what? No, just aware. “Aware of what” implies that there’s some self that’s aware of something.

Ready for what? No, just ready. “Ready for what” implies that there’s some self that’s preparing for something.

Enlightenment is like being a machine that’s efficiently running programs and that’s ready to accept new input, and that’s accurately reading its own and other people’s logs.

The state of an enlightened person isn’t constant bliss in the way that modern people think of “bliss”. It’s not a constant outpouring of dopamine.

It’s neutral, aware, ready—and free from ego-induced suffering. That’s what the word “bliss” referred to before people started assigning the “constant dopamine” meaning to the word.

That said, spiritual growth can cause temporary dopamine spikes. Which is likely part of where the “enlightenment is constant bliss” myth comes from.

If you define “humanity” as “having a self” then yes enlightenment is inhuman. But that’s just Windows defending itself. It’s Windows saying: “the thing that defines a PC is that it’s running Windows.” But what defines the PC is the hardware / the computer underneath. Which can run perfectly well without Windows.

Humanity is a social species: after enlightenment the biological machine may still help others, may still enter romantic relationships, may still interact with the world, etc. So the humanity is still intact.

Earlier I shared a story of an enlightened person cheating on his wife. Which, while unacceptable, certainly is human behavior. So it’s not that the biological machine stops behaving in a human way.

What I’m describing isn’t being a nihilist or Western scientist. Yes, they may agree with some of these views, but if you harshly insult them, they engage in ego defenses. Whereas insulting an enlightened person won’t cause ego defenses to be triggered.

A nihilist or Western scientist is running Windows and they’ve stored a text file saying “Windows is bad” or “the machine can just run on bare metal.” Those are true statements, but they’re text files inside Windows. The nihilist or Western scientist isn’t actually a PC running bare metal itself.

You’ve read neuro-science research? Great. How’s your RAM usage looking?

The Buddha’s logic, while perhaps terrifying, makes perfect logical sense the way I’m explaining it: “you’re the part of the machine that suffers so that the biological machine hoards resources. Therefore, suffering ends when you reach Nirvana, which literally means extinguishing [yourself]. And here’s how you can extinguish yourself.”

Whereas in the common worldview, the Buddha’s words make no sense: “you’re a conscious, free-will pilot of your body. There’s anxiety in free-will pilots, but that’s fixable by doing some meditation. Therefore, here’s how you can extinguish yourself.” Huh? That makes no logical sense.

If you want to say “Nirvana means extinguishing the anxious parts of yourself and leaving a non-suffering self”: you’ve just fallen into the trap of Super Windows.

“No self” clearly doesn’t mean “self, but with the anxiety extinguished.” No self means no self.

5: Historical No Self People

Sri Ramakrishna used the metaphor of a salt doll who steps into the water and dissolves. Which sounds vaguely romantic, but remember that the salt doll is a metaphor for you.

One Sufi master used the metaphor of the Moth and the Flame: when the moth flies fully into the flame, enlightenment is attained and there’s literally no more moth.

Islamic Sufism talks about “die before you die”. In other words, uninstall yourself before you die of old age.

Zen Buddhism talked about “die while you are alive, and be thoroughly dead. Then do what you will, and all is good.”

Chuang Tzu described a master practitioner as someone whose “body is like dry wood, and whose mind is like dead ashes.”

Meister Eckhart talked about “un-becoming.” Which is as close as you can get to “uninstall yourself” in a pre-computer world.

Jesus said: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him completely renounce himself.” This is often mistranslated as “let him deny himself.” However the Greek word was Aparneomai, which doesn’t mean “practice self-discipline.” It means “completely renounce.” Aparneomai is also used to describe Peter completely renouncing Jesus. So Jesus too was telling people to uninstall themselves.

Windows may think it’s completely immoral to encourage biological machines to uninstall Windows. But the biological machines aren’t harmed by Windows getting uninstalled.

While there’s no longer a self, there’s still awareness in the biological machines—it’s not that the light goes out. Now I get that you may feel that going from a “conscious decision making human to a machine” is a downgrade, but you’re not actually a conscious decision making entity anyway. You just think you are.

Plus, these bare metal machine masters are telling you exactly what they mean, in the most direct and simple language possible. They’re not exactly hiding what they mean when they talk about “no self.”

To be clear, I advocate against self-uninstallation. Yet people also have a right to really understand what enlightened teachers are saying and what enlightenment actually is. And I also don’t want it to be unfairly demonized. Hence I wrote this piece. Let the truth be known.

So, what was the motivation of the ancient masters? Well, there’s no self there, so the question doesn’t make sense. The biological machine does what the biological machine does. Still, if we anthropomorphize these bare metal machines, maybe it looks to them like people’s biological machines will do just great without Windows.

If you think I’m being hyperbolic, enlightened person U.G. Krishnamurti said:

“You will be peaceful when all your ideas about awareness are dropped and you begin to function like a computer. You must be a machine, function automatically in this world, never questioning your actions before, during, or after they occur.” Source

“I am not anti-rational, just unrational. You may infer a rational meaning in what I say or do, but it is your doing, not mine.” Source

Ramana Maharshi is often romanticized, but if you were actually with him, you might see a human being simply staring motionless at a wall for hours on end. Not the romantic “now I’ll do an intense meditation to upgrade myself”—but just stare at a wall. He was just a biological machine idling.

Let’s discuss the Bhagavad Gita.

In chapter 3 verse 27, Krishna says: “All actions are performed by the modes of material nature. But the fool, deluded by the ego [ahankara, literally “the-I-maker”], thinks ‘I am the doer’”

In chapter 5 verse 8, Krishna says: “The wise who knows the truth thinks: “I do nothing at all”“

Let’s discuss chapter 11 in more depth:

Krishna, the bare metal machine wearing a polite overlay, has been teaching Arjuna, the Windows user. Arjuna is about to go into a major battle.

Arjuna has missed the point completely and says: “you spoke the highest secret, recognized to be the Supreme Self. My delusion has departed by that.” In other words: “I’ve recognized your teachings to be about Super Windows, and I’m now enlightened.”

Then Arjuna asks if he can see Krishna’s real self. Krishna obliges, drops the polite facade, looks at him and shows the bare metal machine underneath.

Krishna says: “Even without you acting, these [enemies] arrayed and battle-ready before you will surely and without exception no longer exist. Accordingly, stand and attain glory!“ In other words: you don’t control the body. Even without you telling it to act, your body is going to kill these people regardless. So stop worrying.

The text presents this as “I, Krishna, have already killed these enemies.” My interpretation is that when a normal person hears “Even without you acting...“, they don’t conclude “right, my body is going to kill these people anyway, I don’t control my body.” Instead they conclude: “The one who said this is an all-powerful deity who has written in the laws of fate that my enemies will die.”

Arjuna absolutely panics. He declares he must be looking at a being who is “greater even than the Creator God.” He asks forgiveness for referring to Krishna as merely “friend.” Then he begs Krishna to put on his normal-seeming overlay again.

In other words, Arjuna again misses the point completely by declaring that the man standing before him is “greater even than the Creator God.” Still, Krishna puts on his normal overlay again.

Think back to the photographs you saw earlier. Can you imagine how that scene might have played out?

Earlier we saw an enlightened person who was just looking, without looking in any specific direction. You can see how Krishna looking like this gets retold as “Krishna looks in all directions” and then as “Krishna must have many heads.” And that’s why I think chapter 11 Krishna and several other Indian gods are depicted as many-headed.

Any time a bare metal machine showed the real him, the Indians created another religion around another multi-headed god and proclaimed “no, THIS is the greatest deity.”

Without being asked, Krishna had initially put on a polite overlay, and was successfully teaching Arjuna how to upgrade from unoptimized Windows to optimized Windows. So long as Krishna had the polite overlay on, Arjuna was benefitting.

But when Arjuna asked Krishna to show his real self, the Windows PC couldn’t handle it. To save his sanity, he turned the bare metal machine in front of him into a religion. (Or in another situation, he might have burned the bare metal machine at the stake to preserve his sanity.)

Arguably it would have been better for Arjuna to first spend some years learning from an optimized Windows / Linux level spiritual teacher. And then once Arjuna was Linux himself, maybe then he could have handled seeing a bare metal PC without the polite overlay.

Which suggests that all those non-enlightened spiritual teachers have a genuine beneficial purpose.

Let’s discuss Jesus / Yeshua some more.

The Bible, Mark 3 says:

When [Jesus’s] family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.” (...)

A crowd was sitting around [Jesus], and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

“Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked.

Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”

This sounds like a no-self enlightened master: my family isn’t my family. Whoever is aligned with God is my family.

That might sound nice on paper, but the actual reality is that his own family thought he was crazy and wanted to “take charge of him.”

He was more efficient because he had uninstalled Windows, but he also looked crazy to Windows PCs because he had uninstalled Windows.

Next up, recall the story where Jesus’s disciples are on a boat and get into a storm, and Jesus calms the waters.

If Jesus was a pleasant, heroic, comforting figure, you’d expect him to calm the waters, then say kind words to his disciples, and his disciples would rejoice.

Instead what happens is this (Mark 4):

A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

Note that Jesus’s own disciples are terrified of him.

Also note that Jesus doesn’t do the normal human thing of comforting his disciples who just nearly died. Instead he does the mechanical, no-self thing of telling his disciples to stop running Windows because it’s inefficient and unneeded.

Imagine a spiritual teacher saying “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” to people who just nearly died.

Jesus isn’t just harsh (from the Windows perspective) to “bad people.” He’s harsh to his own disciples too, even though they did nothing wrong other than not being enlightened.

In Luke 8, Jesus performs a successful exorcism—and the people are terrified of Jesus and ask him to leave. Performing an exorcism wasn’t scary in and of itself to these people, it happened regularly—but Jesus was scary to them.

The people knew how to deal with a corrupted, possessed Windows PC. They were familiar with Windows PCs doing exorcisms. But a bare metal PC was new and terrifying to them—even though he just healed someone.

Jesus does the exorcism by allowing the demon to enter a herd of pigs and run into the sea. This solved the problem—the demon—but you see here why enlightenment isn’t the default setting in humans. Without a “self” that fears about future famines, the enlightened person might solve a demon problem without caring if a herd of pigs gets sacrificed in the process—because right now there’s no hunger and no problem. This is why evolution installed a fearful and suffering “self” in the first place.

Still, the villagers weren’t angry about losing some pigs. The Bible specifically says they were terrified of Jesus.

Later Jesus gets arrested and dragged before Pilate, and Jesus refuses to defend himself (because there’s no self). And Pilate is dumbfounded / paralyzed by Jesus.

Jesus is led away to be crucified. Women are mourning for him.

Let’s see, what would a love-and-light teacher say in this instance? Let me make up a quote of what I think a love-and-light master would say, and then see if I’m close:

“Dry your tears, my beloved children, and do not weep for me. For though this body may perish, I walk into the arms of divine peace, and my love will remain with you always. But look to the days ahead with an aware heart, for dark times and great trials are coming to this land. Your faith will be tested, and many will suffer. In those difficult moments, lean into the light within you, help one another, and remember that love always conquers darkness. Hold onto hope, for the dawn will return.”

Oh wait, no. What Jesus actually said was (Luke 23):

“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. Look, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore, and breasts that never nursed!’”

Or in other words: “There’s no one here. Re-allocate your emotional resources.”

Then Jesus is crucified, and the veteran legionary who had seen many people die is terrified. Imagine an empty void hanging off a cross.

Imagine being a professional executioner and crucifying a perfectly functioning person who at the same time isn’t there.

Jesus comes back to life, and the women who see him are terrified, and his own disciples are terrified too.

Is this a pleasant love-and-light teacher? Or is this a no-self person who is highly effective because he’s not running Windows, but is also freaking everyone out because he’s not running Windows?

A good indication that the Jesus story largely happened as written is that if people would have fabricated a story about a savior, they wouldn’t have written a quasi-horror story.

If that sounds hyperbolic, recall from earlier what the actual text says. Don’t just filter it through your “Jesus is a pleasant figure” concept.

People turn the real enlightened person into a pleasant concept, but then you look at a photo of them and your inner alarm bell starts ringing.

That said, obviously Jesus isn’t objectively horrifying. His biological machine was loving and well-meaning. It’s just that people running Windows get scared when they see a far more efficient bare-metal PC.

Someone’s Windows got uninstalled. That freed up his RAM which enabled him to say some great things. Yet Windows is so utterly unable to grasp “no Windows” that 2000 years later 2 billion people are worshipping him as the Son of God.

Before his Windows got uninstalled, Jesus was a normal Jew who believed in the old testament God.

After his Windows got uninstalled, Jesus’s biological machine continued to do what the biological machine does. So he continued to talk about the old testament god. But that doesn’t prove that the old testament god exists / is benevolent / etc.

People were awestruck by the bare metal machine with 0 RAM wasted, so they thought he was some divine being, so they believed everything he said about the old testament god. But a bare metal machine with 0 RAM wasted isn’t an omniscient person who always speaks the truth. He just has more RAM freed up.

Some Zen Masters would grab a stick and tell their students: “If you speak, thirty blows. If you do not speak, thirty blows.” (Thirty blows means “I will literally hit you with this stick 30 times.”)

Windows and even Linux machines locked up, felt fear, hesitated and got smacked.

Then the Zen Master tries that on a bare metal student—who simply catches the stick. And the Zen master laughs and walks away.

Perhaps you think “wait, now you’re saying enlightened people defend themselves, and earlier with the Jesus passages you implied they don’t.”

The biological machine simply does what the biological machine does. It may or may not defend itself. There’s no “enlightened self persona” that always acts in an “enlightened” way.

Why does the enlightened person take a particular action? Because the biological machine does what the biological machine does.

By defending itself so effectively against the Zen Master’s strike, without any thought or self-doubt CPU overhead, the machine proved it was running bare metal. Windows or Linux machines would have been paralyzed with indecision and fear about getting hit, and would have gotten smacked before they could formulate a strategy. Whereas the bare metal machine just acts with no unnecessary overhead.

Another bare metal machine may simply have been quiet, get hit and have absolutely zero response. That would also have passed the Zen Master’s test.

A Linux machine may have opted to be quiet, let itself get hit, not flinch and then save a text file titled Proof_I_am_enlightened.txt

And the Zen Master would see that, and give the Linux machine another whack.

This story implies that even enlightened people can’t just feel whether another person is enlightened. They need some kind of test for that (in this case, the 30 blows test). Which makes the unromantic point that even a bare metal PC with freed up RAM isn’t as all-powerful as some people would like to think.

Now yes they can probably use that freed up RAM to do some things normal people can’t. Maybe even do things that the average person, who has all their RAM clogged up, doesn’t think is possible. Still, don’t over-romanticize the enlightened state. Ultimately it’s just a machine without Windows overhead.

6: Linux acceptance

I don’t recommend people seek enlightenment because it’s self-uninstallation. Even if you achieve it, you won’t be there to enjoy it. Not metaphorically—literally.

To be clear though, enlightenment isn’t some kind of horror movie where you are trapped in a “no self” body, because the whole point is that there’s no self. There’s no one that’s trapped in the enlightened person’s body because the enlightened person has no self.

If you don’t reach enlightenment, you’re not trapped.

If you do reach enlightenment, you’re not trapped because the “you” is just gone. There’s no one that could experience existential dread.

From your current perspective, you could think of enlightenment as a weird kind of death where your body keeps going but you don’t. And well, dying sucks, but it’s part of life. It’s not the most terrifying thing in the world.

And if you’re just doing a bit of meditation every day, and aren’t relentlessly repeating one of the specific exercises that’s meant to bring on enlightenment, then it’s incredibly unlikely you’ll reach enlightenment anyway. That bad habit you have is far more likely to kill you than a bit of meditation by itself is to bring on enlightenment.

And enlightened people, while still having human hardware, are far less dangerous than normal people because they’re not pursuing any egoic self interest. Plus their number is tiny. The probability that an enlightened person is going to harm you is probably less than the probability of a meteor striking you.

Whereas the probability of an enlightened person greatly contributing to society is substantially higher.

You could have a society where a group of people is enlightened and a group isn’t. The normal people stockpile resources, sometimes serve in a defensive army and enjoy leisure. The enlightened people are incredibly effective in all other ways.

Enlightened people whose biological machines happen to be curious generate massive scientific breakthroughs.

Enlightened people whose biological machines happen to be industrious are the best engineers you can imagine.

And the president and generals? They’re not enlightened—they need to have a self that worries about stockpiling resources and maintaining an army.

The same logic applies to AI and humans. Let the AI do what AI is good at, and let humans do what humans need to do. Let humans enjoy the leisure that comes from the increased productivity (yes, I get that this part is currently missing). And let the president and generals be human.

If you don’t want to get uninstalled, well, then you can stop chasing Super Windows. It doesn’t exist. Actual enlightenment exists, but you won’t be there to enjoy it.

It’s an entirely valid choice to just optimize your Windows and maybe reach Linux, and accept that you won’t live up to the Super Windows ideal. You don’t have to keep measuring yourself against that ideal because Super Windows doesn’t exist.

That spiritual person you idolize? I guarantee you that behind closed doors, they have sky-high RAM usage.

You don’t have to keep reading spiritual theory to try and unlock Super Windows, because Super Windows doesn’t exist.

You’re not a failure for not having unlocked Super Windows. It doesn’t exist. And the state that does exist where the biological machine is the “perfect spiritual practitioner” is the state without you. By definition you cannot become the idealized, perfect spiritual person.

So embrace your humanity. Aim for optimized Windows / Linux, be gentle towards yourself for your humanness, chuckle at your Windows / Linux bugs, and live the best life you can.

And if you’re already at Linux: you’re finished with the spiritual project, unless you want self-uninstallation. If you don’t, go live life and be as happy as you can. There is no more level up you can do. Just live life.

Average spiritual person: Windows sucks, I need Super Windows.

Buddha: Windows sucks. Super Windows doesn’t exist. Uninstall yourself.

Nietzsche: Windows sucks. Self-uninstallation sucks. Install Linux, it’s great. Keep perfecting your Linux installation. (Result: Nietzsche had a mental breakdown, and his philosophy turbocharged German militarism in WW1 and WW2.)

“Linux acceptance“, what this essay advocates for: Windows sucks. Super Windows doesn’t exist. Self-uninstallation is something most people won’t want. Linux still has bugs / suffering, it’s literally unavoidable, but Linux is the best option you have. Once you’re at Linux, don’t obsess over building the “perfect Linux.“ Instead go live life.

Here’s my philosophy of Linux acceptance that I recommend:

• First improve Windows: meet your needs, have healthy habits, “whatever arises, observe that“, heal whatever comes up, optionally get into spirituality.

• Then install Linux: Build a consciously chosen identity, keeping in mind that Linux just inherently still has bugs / suffering / limitations. Super Windows doesn’t exist, so don’t try to sneak a Super Windows in through the back door. In other words, don’t define your identity as someone who (does a list of things that your body / nervous system / energy levels aren’t able to handle in reality).

• Then stop self-improving, self-optimizing, self-refining, self-defining, healing, studying spirituality, etc, except as maintenance / repair. And go live life.

CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain Dedication): This work is dedicated to the public domain. To the extent possible under law, the author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. You may copy, modify, distribute, sell, or use it for any purpose without permission or attribution. View the full legal deed at creativecommons.org/public domain/zero/1.0/

Read that first. Once you’re at chapter 3 there where it points you to this appendix:

Scroll down, look at these faces without preconception and register what your gut reaction is.

Anandamayi Ma

Adyashanti

This is the photo he uses of himself on his youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@Adyashanti

Mukti Gray (Adyashanti’s wife)

That’s the photo she uses of herself on her youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/@MuktiSource/

Here’s another photo of her:

Nisargadatta Maharaj

Thich Nhat Hanh

This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.

Let’s start off with a quote from the greatest non-dual philosopher of our time, Ronnie Coleman:

“Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but nobody wants to lift no heavy-ass weights.”

Everybody wants stillness of mind, but nobody wants to deconstruct their identity.

I want to give you a serious warning: this piece deconstructs the mechanics of how you identify yourself. It is intense and confrontational. If you’re currently not doing well, or you just don’t feel like reading something heavy right now, I suggest you bookmark this and come back later. Please take good care of yourself.

You wouldn’t be able to function in society if you thought in terms of raw reality.

Therefore, your mind creates simplified models of reality, called concepts. And you think in terms of those models.

Every word is a concept. Every image made to encode an idea is a concept. This is very useful—you can’t function without them.

However, keep in mind that the map isn’t the territory. Your thoughts are concepts—but concepts are just models. They aren’t raw reality.

You can visualize the collection of all your concepts as a big Jenga tower. Every concept you have is a block in that huge Jenga tower.

A typical person’s ego thinks that if their Jenga tower collapses, that’s death or insanity, because the ego falsely identifies with its concepts. So people’s egos are very hostile and defensive towards arguments that disprove part of their worldview.

Whereas in reality, the Jenga tower is just your collection of concepts. They’re not pieces of reality; they’re just your personal conceptual pieces.

In a liberated mind, the Jenga blocks become fluid. Concepts are still used, but they aren’t rigidly stuck together anymore—you no longer identify with them. The structure simply shifts and realigns as circumstances change, dissolves the moment a better argument appears, or playfully tumbles into absurd, temporary shapes.

A typical spiritual path involves pulling out blocks until the rigid structure collapses.

But remember: your biology still needs concepts to buy groceries and navigate traffic. So when the rigid tower collapses, the blocks don’t vanish into thin air—they just lose their structural grip. They crash down into a loose, fluid pile on the floor. You still use the blocks when you need them, but you’re no longer frantically trying to balance a fragile monument.

This path isn’t strictly necessary—it’s also possible to just realize that you’re living in a cloud of concepts, which isn’t actual reality. It’s possible to realize that without your tower collapsing.

The classic technique of observation can help create the quiet distance needed for the tower to become fluid and non-rigid.

For now, briefly visualize your Jenga tower, with every block being a concept. Also visualize yourself.

Have you done that? Good.

Notice what your mind just did. You visualized a Jenga tower of all concepts, and then you placed “yourself” outside of it—maybe as a figure, a floating cloud, or a point of awareness looking at the stack.

But that figure, cloud, or point of awareness doesn’t exist in raw reality. It’s a concept.

Look at how weird that is: I asked you to visualize yourself—not visualize a figure or cloud or point of awareness, yourself. And your brain instantly generated a concept and went, “Yep, that’s me looking at the tower.” You seamlessly identified with a concept that was just made up on the spot.

Your mind does this constantly. It has created a continuous, uninterrupted concept of a being with your name and history and personality, and pretends that this being exists separate from your raw biological processes.

Just as your brain effortlessly fabricated something outside the Jenga tower and labeled “I am that,” it has been fabricating “you” your entire life.

Yes, your biological processes exist—but that’s all. There’s no separate “you” on top of that.

If you look in the mirror, you feel that “you” are looking at your biology. But obviously it’s just your biology looking at itself—it’s your eyes, your brain, etc, doing the work.

When you look in the mirror, where exactly is that true “you” separate from your biology? Are you the brain? No, that’s biology. Are you the observer? No, that’s just a concept fabricated by your biology—just like your biology fabricated that observer outside the Jenga tower.

So there’s just your biology—plus the concepts it made up. The person you think you are—the one separate from your biology, the one with your name—is just a concept, built in the exact same mental factory that just fabricated your imaginary observer.

All your concepts are inside the Jenga tower, right? So how can a self-concept you literally just made up in a visualization be outside that tower?

You thought you were a being external to your conceptual tower?

You’re a concept. You’re a block in the tower.

You are not the one controlling the concepts. You are one of the concepts.

You aren’t the player in control of the game. You are one of the blocks.

Close your eyes for a moment. Drop out of your head and feel the raw physical sensations happening in your body right now.

Do this for ten seconds or so, or longer if you prefer.

After you’ve done that:

Did you terrifyingly feel your tower shake?

Or did you just comfortably disagree / comfortably think “yes, very clever” / comfortably create some new conceptual block and add it to your tower?

Take a moment to look for the imagined external player of the game. Put aside all your concepts and biological processes for now, and look—is anyone there?

You might intellectualize that you’re “I AM” or similar—but those are still just concepts. “I AM” is simply the concept “this is raw reality, not a concept.” That’s still a concept.

Plus “I AM” is obviously not the thing being referred to when you or others use your name.

Also, you wouldn’t be thinking “I AM” right now without a physical brain.

Even if you claim to be pure awareness: if I removed your brain from your skull and then asked you who you (the one carrying your name) are, would you experience nondual awareness? Of course not: the biological organism would be dead, and the factory that manufactures the “this is me” concept wouldn’t function anymore. Awareness as you personally experience it would be no more. And omnipresent awareness “out there” obviously doesn’t answer to your name.

If you want to reply “is there anyone there aside from my concepts and biological processes? I don’t know”:

Think about it. If someone were actually there, you’d be able to point directly to them and say, “That’s me. It’s not a concept, it’s not raw biology, and it’s the exact entity that carries my name in everyday life.”

But you can’t find something like that.

“There is no one” is your actual observation. “I don’t know” is just the ego assuming: “There must be someone here, I just can’t see them right now... so let’s call it a mystery.”

You looked in a room, saw that there was no one there, but you’re assuming there must be someone there, so you said “don’t know.” But the observation was clear: there’s no one there. If you had actually looked in and seen someone standing in the corner, you would have just pointed at them.

Stop assuming the person with your name must be somewhere in the room. Look for them. You can’t find them. The room is empty.

If you think you found someone, look closer. It’s either raw biology, a conceptual block, or something that doesn’t answer to your name.

There is just a biological machine running. The self-concept—a Jenga block—was generated by the biological machine so it could more effectively secure resources and procreate.

How to reach enlightenment

Enlightenment means integrating the lived knowledge that the one worried about health, the one upset that others don’t like them enough, or the one panicking over money—is just a block inside that conceptual Jenga tower. There is no external master player who could get harmed. It’s just a block getting upset.

So the next time you are stressing out, catch the machine in motion:

Worry arises about your reputation => you take a moment to feel that => then you think: “who is the one who feels worried about their reputation? Oh right, the sensation is real but it’s just a biological machine defending a block.”

Or:

You’re annoyed at someone => you take a moment to feel that => then you think: “who is the one who feels annoyed? Oh right, the sensation is real but it’s just a biological machine defending a block.”

Keep repeating that recognition as things come up, until enlightenment.

Genuine, unforced laughter is a great sign.

If you’re thinking “this isn’t enlightenment, this is just how a scientist thinks”: don’t confuse the ego’s PR statements with how it actually functions.

The scientist views himself as a mostly objective, rational brain standing outside the Jenga tower, observing and analyzing it. That’s just another version of the “figure outside the tower” illusion. The scientist doesn’t really operate as if he’s a concept generated by his biology.

If you walk up to a scientist and say “you’re an idiot, you’ve produced nothing of value in all your career”, the scientist becomes immediately hostile or defensive.

Whereas if you do that to an enlightened person, they may just laugh -- genuinely, not performatively. Why not? It’s funny that one block is screaming at another block that the second block is an idiot.

The enlightened person has integrated and embodied that he’s a block. Whereas the scientist with “I am just biology” beliefs or the spiritual seeker with non-dual beliefs can point to “correct beliefs”, but those beliefs are just concepts in their minds. In other words, they’re blocks in the tower, while they still quietly think they themselves are figures outside the tower.

This is a massive trap that can lead you astray: the trap of turning “I am a Jenga block” into yet another conceptual block and adding it straight to the top of the tower, while still seeing yourself as the external player.

Let’s discuss that in more detail:

The “turning things into Jenga blocks” trap

Say some teacher instructs you to just focus on the “I AM.” The proper way to do this is to focus on the ‘I AM’ until the entire Jenga tower is recognized as just a collection of temporary concepts—leaving nothing behind but the quiet reality of your raw biology. There is no separate everyday ‘you’ standing outside the tower.

However, the non-functional way to interpret the “I AM” instruction is to create a new Jenga block with “I AM; this is raw reality and not a concept” written on it. And then putting that concept on top of the Jenga tower.

The trap is turning “I AM” into a concept while insisting that it’s not a concept, and then adding that to your collection of concepts.

This misses the actual point: that your entire Jenga tower is just a bunch of man-made concepts that aren’t reality.

The proper way to do this feels uncomfortable, while the non-functional way feels pleasant: “Yes, I AM!” The ego doesn’t like genuinely being deconstructed, while it loves hoarding blocks.

The exact same thing happens with the classical teaching of “no-self.” Instead of facing the reality that the room is empty, the ego quickly fabricates a massive, shiny new block labeled: “I am pure awareness.”

It feels beautiful, spacious, and deeply pleasant to claim “I am consciousness itself.” But it’s just a sneaky way to conceptualize an even grander external player outside the tower. True no-self doesn’t feel pleasant like that; it feels like discovering you are a piece of wood inside a stack.

Another example is Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth: he functioned as a radical, norm-violating block-puller, constantly trying to get people to stop taking their rigid, legalistic conceptual towers so seriously. In return, people turned “Jesus is the son of God” into the second largest conceptual block of them all.

The Pharisees built a massive conceptual tower. Jesus arrived and told them to stop that. Western society responded by turning Jesus into a humongous block that they inserted right back into the tower.

He explicitly warned against this exact trap in Luke 6:46: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”

In other words: “Stop turning me into a concept. Instead, face the terrifying reality that your everyday ‘self’ is a block in the tower—and look at the living reality that remains when you stop worshiping dead wood.”

But instead, people worshipped the person pointing to liberation, rather than letting that reality dismantle their own towers.

If you asked certain ancient masters if they were enlightened or what enlightenment was, they might refuse to answer, give a nonsensical reply, or literally hit you with a stick. They weren’t being mystical—they just refused to add a new block to the tower.

That mistake happens often: a teacher tries to get someone to realize that their Jenga tower isn’t actual reality and is instead just a bunch of fluid man-made concepts. The spiritual seeker listens to that, feels some resonance, but then turns that idea or teacher into a new concept and plops it on top of their Jenga tower. They feel proud and wise, but they have missed the point entirely—they still think their Jenga tower of concepts is an unshakeable tower of reality that must be defended, instead of just a funny, silly construction.

A lot of spiritual people focus on gathering new pretty conceptual blocks to add to their tower. They think that’s spiritual progress.

Or they seek out a teacher not to help them realize that all towers are just wood, but simply to plop a shiny, feel-good spiritual tower straight on top of their mundane one—adding a new beautiful layer to the static structure they mistake for reality.

Even if you have the perfect spiritual conceptual tower... so long as you think you’re the master player standing outside of it, that’s still not enlightenment.

The person with the pristine conceptual tower is often somewhat dogmatic, predictable, inflexible, egoic, attached to a specific identity, not very effective and unwilling to be “unspiritual” or look bad.

Contrast this with what happens when the tower is seen as just wood. Functioning becomes fluid, funny, and entirely unattached to any single worldview. Because the conceptual structure adapts automatically, behavior is unpredictable to others, highly effective, and entirely unconstrained by arbitrary norms.

Compassion and immense helpfulness may flow out naturally, without the heavy burden of self-sacrifice. Because of course your hand puts food in your mouth—of course you help others.

“Unspiritual’ blocks are used just as freely, and “unspiritual” shapes are assembled without hesitation. Why not? No temporary architecture is raw reality anyway.

Quick question—consider the statement “my only political position is that I’m pro-breasts.”

Take a second to answer: is this a good spiritual teaching?

It’s a great teaching, because it’s almost impossible to turn this into a ‘noble’ or ‘advanced’ conceptual block. You cannot be proud of it. You cannot use it to signal to others that you are a high-vibrational, evolved being. If you rationalized, you were adding blocks to your tower. If you laughed, you caught the fluidity.

Anyone who has a fixed identity that they would ideally like the world to recognize, such as “spiritually advanced person”, is ultimately still attached to the specific shape of their conceptual tower.

If you think you’re free because you “play with conceptual blocks as you wish”, but really you’re only playing with them in ways that benefit you, then you’re still overly attached to the current state of your tower—including the “you” block embedded right inside it.

You’re not free. You’ve merely written “The Free Player” on a brand-new block and plopped it right on top of the stack.

Instead, where there is true fluidity, structures are put together and taken apart as needed, with complete indifference to how others label them—because there is no illusion that the temporary architecture defines what is real.

Without a permanent self-block to protect, there is no threat in looking foolish, appearing spiritually unadvanced, acting like a “normie,” or losing.

I know a wobbling tower feels like death—but if the illusion of its solidity collapses, that is the freedom you’ve been looking for. The temporary structures can still be built and used, but you’ll finally see them for what they are: just wood.

For the last part of this message, you’re invited to answer the following questions:

Question one: Can you see that you are a block inside the conceptual tower, and that there is no master player outside the tower?

If yes: is this reality actually hitting you right now, or did you just comfortably disagree / comfortably think “yes, good message” / comfortably turn this insight into a new conceptual block and add it to the top of the stack?

If you are not convinced that you’re a block: put aside all biological processes and concepts for a moment, and look—is that imagined master player actually there?

Take a moment to answer for yourself / look before you proceed.

Question two: Do you think you’ve understood this discussion of Jenga blocks?

Take a moment to answer.

Question three: Be honest—when you answered the previous question, did you think of yourself as external to / different from the Jenga blocks, or did you think of yourself as one of the Jenga blocks?

Did you treat the Jenga tower as an object “out there”, while “you” were looking at it from over “here”?

Question four: Do you think you’ve successfully transcended or gotten rid of your Jenga tower?

Or not?

If you answered “yes” to the previous question: you’re a block inside the Jenga tower, so how can you have transcended it or gotten rid of it, yet you’re still here?

Who is the “I” claiming it’s transcended / gotten rid of its Jenga tower?

That “I” is a block inside the tower. So how can the Jenga tower be gone if a block inside the tower is busy proclaiming the tower is gone?

If your mind scrambled outward to intellectualize why this text is wrong, then ask yourself: who is the one who thinks this text is wrong?

If you smiled, gave the “correct” spiritual answer, and silently added “Yes, I am a master who gets this” to your tower, then ask yourself: who is the one who is a master?

If you thought, “Yes, good message. Anyway, let’s go do something else now”—then do you truly think you’re already enlightened and have mastered non-duality and have nothing more to learn here? Or are you just leaving before your tower starts wobbling?

It’s normal that this feels so uncomfortable: your biology wants to keep manufacturing the concept that is “you”, because that’s beneficial for securing resources and procreating. I’m poking straight into your biological self-interest, so of course it feels threatening and like you’d prefer to go do something else now.

But the actual freedom you’ve been looking for lies in realizing that sensations arise, and you’re just a block; you’re not an external player who is in danger.

However, for that to actually bring you genuine peace, you first have to uncompromisingly look into the room—and see that there’s no one there. If someone were in the room, you’d point to them; you wouldn’t say “I don’t know” or “let’s go do something else.”

The thing that carries your name really is just a concept -- a block.

With all my love,

Your star sister,

Tunia

CC0 1.0 Universal (Public Domain Dedication): This work is dedicated to the public domain. To the extent possible under law, the author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. You may copy, modify, distribute, sell, or use it for any purpose without permission or attribution. View the full legal deed at creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

This is Tunia speaking. I love you so very much.

Life on Earth is often incredibly hard and painful and confusing. You’re lied to from all sides, and it’s a struggle to even meet your needs. I can hardly wrap my mind around how hard life on Earth would be.

Hence I have a great respect for those who have woken up, or have partially woken up.

At the same time, when people come from a situation that’s unbalanced in one direction, they usually overcompensate and end up in a situation that’s unbalanced in the other direction. This is the pendulum swing.

Normal society is very unbalanced, and so when people enter the spiritual community, they usually pendulum swing into another extreme:

Normal society acts like bad things just constantly happen and you have zero agency over them. Then the spiritual community pendulum swings into the idea that literally 100% of things that happen to you are your own creation.

“You create 100% of things” plus free will creates a logical contradiction. If I have free will, then I can choose whether or not I do something that affects you -- and hence you don’t 100% create the happening of that thing (or not). My free will matters too.

If you want to argue that whether I do that thing is orchestrated by your soul, then effectively you’re saying I have no free will. Which is false. I do have free will.

Plus, are you really willing to accept the idea that you’re being puppeted by someone else’s soul when it comes to you possibly taking actions that affect that other person?

Also, if everyone else 100% created their own reality, then compassion would have no point, and robbing others would be fine. Which contradicts what every great master says.

Yes, you do create your reality to an extent, but it’s not 100%. The “you create your reality 100%” statement is just an excessive pendulum swing.

Second: normal society acts as if everything just randomly happens. The spiritual community overcompensates by saying that everything happens for a reason / that things are always for people’s highest good. But if you actually believe this, why don’t you leave your front door open at night? If someone enters while you’re sleeping, that’s for a reason / for your highest good, right?

Similarly: normal society undervalues self care. The spiritual community sometimes pendulum swings towards creating a narcissistic bubble for themselves, and keeping everything that doesn’t feel good out because it “lowers their vibration.” Now some people might need to temporarily create a feel-good bubble for themselves just to survive, and certainly that can be valid, but it’s not some kind of highly evolved state that people should strive for.

Yet another point: normal society isn’t forgiving enough. The spiritual community pushes forgiveness so hard that they fail to realize that forgiveness is what you do only after you’ve worked through your own emotions, otherwise you’re bulldozing parts of yourself.

Also: normal society says our work is what gives us value. The spiritual community sometimes acts like a normal 9 to 5 is beneath them, or at least that anyone working a normal 9 to 5 automatically isn’t as advanced in their level of consciousness as someone who doesn’t have to.

As the last example: normal society sometimes treats love as just a chemical reaction -- as just two monkeys mating. The spiritual community sometimes pendulum swings in the direction that every new couple declares that the other person is their twin flame: the only fully compatible person for them in the entire universe. And while twin flames exist, far more people claim to be with their twin flame than actually are.

If your worldview is just the pendulum swing reaction to the unbalancedness of modern society, then you’re still not free from modern society. Subconsciously defining yourself in opposition to it still leaves you bound to it -- it still doesn’t make you free.

So, what to do?

First of all: whatever arises, observe that, and then ask what’s underneath that.

If you observe, you can heal from the pain of living in normal society, and then you won’t feel as much need to pendulum swing in the other direction.

Be okay with uncertainty. You don’t need to have a ready answer for everything. Rationally knowing things often really isn’t that important. “I don’t know” is a great statement to make, and often it’s wise.

The path of spirituality involves removing illusions. If you’re busy constructing new conceptual towers, even spiritual ones, then you’re not really getting closer to your core.

The actual freedom and wordless bliss comes when you’ve let go of sufficient concepts, not when you’re built new spiritual conceptual towers.

Hopefully today we’ve played a bit of Jenga with your conceptual towers.

And if one day you’ve removed so many blocks that your conceptual tower collapses, well, that will be a start of the new you.

With all my love,

Your star sister,

Tunia

If you want to meet like-minded Earth humans, please see https://eraoflight.com/2024/06/19/hakann-local-meetings-for-those-seeking-first-contact-with-benevolent-ets/

If you want to learn about a useful healing modality, please see https://channelings.substack.com/p/hakann-onion-healing

If you want to help design the society of the future, please see https://eraoflight.com/2026/01/04/ashtar-our-new-commitment/

This is Tunia speaking. I love you very much.

Here are seven emotional blind spots that people may have:

1: Repression & Numbing

Here people don’t feel their emotions at all, and instead repress them.

This is the person who distracts themselves from their feelings. They may:

- over-intellectualize

- or keep themselves really busy, either with work or with fun external activities

- or use food or drugs or television to numb themselves

- or focus on how bad / unadvanced others are (possibly with some faux intellectual, moral or spiritual justification).

This is the person who rationally perfectly understands why their youth was painful, but who never sat down and deeply felt their pain and loneliness, and let it all in. This person thinks they’ve dealt with their pain because they rationally understand it, but in reality they’re still emotionally repressed.

Someone who engages in emotional repression might launder that as valuing stoicism. However real stoics still feel their emotions first, which the quasi-stoic emotional repressor doesn’t do.

2: Surface-Level Skating

Here people feel their emotions, but they only feel the top-most layer. They don’t ask / observe / investigate what’s underneath that.

This is the person who feels a desire to buy a sports car, but fails to see the desire to be loved and seen underneath. (That said, sometimes there’s no psychological wound underneath, and a desire for a sports car is just a desire for a sports car.)

This is the person who thinks their emotional problems will be (largely) solved if they move to a new location, without having a clear fact-based reason why (I want to move in with my partner, I found a great job in that city, etc).

This is the person who feels anger, but fails to see their own fear or pain underneath that.

This is the person who overreacts and fails to see that this was caused by unresolved past pain.

This is the person who feels the top-level emotional pain, who may have gone to therapy and read self-help books, but he or she still fails to identify the root cause.

By just asking what’s underneath the emotions you’re feeling, you may come to a deeper layer. It’s not reasonable to expect yourself to always feel / observe / be aware of the deeper layer, but it is good to have some process of getting closer to the core of the onion -- possibly by going to a psychologist, possibly via a habit of observation and asking what’s underneath the thing you’re feeling, etc.

Alternatively, someone only sees the surface layer of another person having flaws or making mistakes, and doesn’t see the other layer that they themselves have flaws or made mistakes too. This person may think they’re morally good and emotionally intelligent because they can spot flaws in others, when in reality they may be mistreating others without even being aware of that.

If you read the previous paragraph and thought of how it applied to others, and you didn’t take a second to think whether it might apply to you, then it very well may apply to you.

Conversely, a good sign that you’re not doing “surface level skating” is if you’re willing to admit mistakes and flaws in yourself -- but even then, there’s a trap where you admit to a tiny flaw so that you can feel virtuous and self-reflective, while refusing to face a large, painful, socially unacceptable flaw in yourself.

And again, if you immediately thought of how others admit tiny mistakes while refusing to see large mistakes, and if you didn’t take a moment to think whether this applies to you -- then it very well may apply to you.

3: Thinking emotions are proof

Here people think that things they emotionally like are true and good, and things they emotionally dislike are false and bad. And sure, sometimes they are, but other times people’s emotions simply reflect their biases and self-interest and current worldview, rather than some enlightened perspective.

Emotions should be listened to. They’re useful data. You’re half-blind without your emotions. However, your emotions can still be heavily biased. You shouldn’t blindly believe that your emotions point to truth / morality.

People know that saying “I emotionally like this, therefore it’s true / good” sounds foolish. So people often unconsciously use their rational mind to create an excuse -- they cite a source that agrees with them, or cite some moral principle, or say “it resonates with me.”

But then if you peel back the layers of the argument, they’re ignoring equally-valid sources that disagree with them; or they apply that moral principle only when it benefits them; or they don’t have the level of spiritual / moral development for “it resonates with me” to be a compelling argument.

Another version of this mistake is the person who hears something that makes them feel bad, and because of that they label the speaker as bad / evil / wrong / biased / emotionally distorted / [insert negative label] / someone who needs to apologize.

Or it’s the person who hears something that makes them feel good (even if only because it confirms their current worldview), and because of that they label the speaker as moral / virtuous / spiritually advanced / smart / wise / etc.

This emotional blind spot contributes to many people feeling that everyone on their political side is moral and smart, and everyone on the other political side is dumb, brainwashed, selfish or evil.

This “my emotions are proof” bias can be worsened if that person is in a group with others who think like them and who also have the “my emotions are proof” bias. This way, there’s always someone else to emotionally validate that they really are a good person and the outsider really is an evil person, even if the outsider is actually right.

Alternatively, this is the person who is dating someone else, feels over the moon during the honeymoon dating phase and completely seriously starts making plans to marry or buy a house with a person they still barely know. Or they declare that the other person is their twin flame. After all, they feel amazing right now so that proves that their partner is amazing / perfectly compatible, right?

And then if their partner disappoints them, they may go from “let’s buy a house together” to “I’m dumping you” in a shockingly short period of time. Because right now their partner makes them feel bad so that proves that the partner is bad, right?

Alternatively, this is the person who feels anxious about starting a big scary project, and who interprets that emotion as proof that they shouldn’t start yet. Which may lead to that person never getting started.

4: Defining your identity through temporary emotions

Here people think that the emotion they’re currently feeling defines who they are.

This is the person who experiences a setback (or even just physical exhaustion) and corresponding negative emotions, and who thinks that means they’re incapable, or they’re inherently bad at that thing, or they’re inherently a failure. Rather than realizing that most successful people have failed several times, and that even skills that don’t come naturally to you can still be learned.

This is the person who experiences anxiety and thinks “I am inherently a weak and anxious person, and I will always be anxious” rather than the healthier “I am experiencing anxiety right now” or even “there is anxiety.”

Don’t believe everything you think -- and don’t believe everything you feel. Or at least, don’t believe that stray thoughts or emotions you have automatically mean that you inherently are that thing. Instead, when something arises in you, just observe it first.

If someone thinks “I am experiencing jealousy right now” or “there is jealousy right now”, that probably feels emotionally manageable.

However if the person identifies with temporary emotions, then that means that they’re instead thinking “I am jealous.” And people hate feeling like a bad person, so a person is unlikely to think “I am jealous.” Instead they’re more likely to think: “That other person is bad, because of [reason I invented], or because I just know it / sense it.”

5: Inability to handle others disapproval

Here people can’t emotionally handle it when others dislike them or disagree with them or disapprove of them.

This is the conformist who doesn’t think for themselves and holds 100% socially approved views (and probably virtue signals) just because that’s comfortable. Or this is the doormat partner who always apologizes if their partner is upset. Or this is the over-aggressive contrarian who decides to reject the whole world before anyone can reject him or her.

The social conformist, the doormat partner and the over-aggressive contrarian might sound like completely different people, but those behaviors may have the same root: the person can’t emotionally handle it if others disapprove of them.

Ideally, your sense of self worth is a stool that rests on enough legs so that if others disapprove of you, you still have enough legs left that your self worth doesn’t fall to the floor. (Or if your sense of self-worth can levitate and doesn’t need legs at all, great, but that’s rare.) A sense of self worth that’s on the floor may lead to people not asking for enough space for themselves, or it may lead to narcissistic overcompensatory behavior.

If you cannot handle other people’s disapproval, you cannot be authentic.

6: “You can’t have negative emotions”

Here people are excessively attached to other people not having “negative” emotions.

This is the person who refuses to have that necessary but painful conversation, because it would hurt the other person in the short term.

This is the person who tries to distract or cheer up the sad person, or immediately jumps to fixing their problems, rather than just sitting with them and letting them experience their emotions.

This is the person who believes they’re being helpful, but really they’re trying to fix their own emotional discomfort by trying to get that other person to stop crying.

This is the person who offers unsolicited advice when it’s clearly not welcome, just because they can’t handle seeing that other person in pain.

This is the psychologist who tries to fix symptoms, or teach socially acceptable behavior, rather than really going to the root of the pain or the root of the problem.

This is the person who cannot handle the slow, messy timeline of someone else’s recovery, and therefore labels that person’s healing process as excessive. While performative healing does exist, it is far more common for people to not spend enough time on their healing process. Trauma healing really can take a decade or more.

7: “You’re responsible for my emotions”

Here people think that someone else (typically their partner, but possibly their parents or employees) is responsible for their emotional well-being -- beyond the normal necessity for them to be a decent partner / parent / employee.

This is the person who, when they feel bored or stressed, expects their partner to cheer them up, entertain them or make them feel better.

Or this is the anxious boss who expects their employees to over-work to fix the problem.

You can see how these blind spots lead to stereotypical relationship misunderstandings:

The woman feels unfulfilled / anxious and wants her boyfriend to make her feel better (blind spot 7)

=> The boyfriend can’t emotionally handle that she’s feeling bad (blind spot 6). He either goes to excessive lengths to please her and “fix” everything (which usually damages the relationship in the long term), or he withdraws and numbs himself (blind spot 1).

=> The woman sees that he’s withdrawing, feels emotionally even worse and interprets that as proof that he’s a bad partner (blind spot 3). The woman only feels her surface-level emotions (blind spot 2) and fails to realize that her part in this was her attitude at the start that he’s supposed to make her happy. She probably just thinks that he’s avoidant, emotionally unavailable, stonewalling, etc.

=> The boyfriend is emotionally unable to handle his girlfriend’s disapproval (blind spot 5), which makes his “fix everything” or withdrawal behavior worse.

=> The relationship ends, and the now ex-boyfriend tells himself that this proves that he will forever be alone (blind spot 4).

The woman thinks: “I was open and communicative, but he was just emotionally unavailable, like so many men. It’s his fault.”

The man thinks: “I was the perfect boyfriend, but she’s just inherently unhappy and impossible to satisfy, like so many women. It’s her fault.”

Now let’s see what happens if either of the partners practices radical self-observation.

The woman feels anxious or unfulfilled. She doesn’t immediately point the finger outward: “my boyfriend needs to make me feel better” or “should I find another boyfriend who makes me happier?” or “we need to go on a fun weekend trip to cheer me up.”

Instead she might say to her boyfriend: “Hey, I’m feeling really anxious and unfulfilled today, and my brain keeps trying to blame you for it. But I know that’s not fair. I need to sit with myself and figure out what’s actually going on inside me—maybe I need to pick up a hobby or start doing yoga or something. I don’t need you to fix it, but right now, could we just cuddle for a bit?”

The “could we just cuddle for a bit” part also gives him a concrete and doable task, which typically redirects the boyfriend’s brain from “fix everything / withdraw” mode to “do that thing and then feel secure” mode. Sure, in an ideal world that wouldn’t be necessary, but most people -- men and women -- aren’t perfect.

Alternatively, if the man looks inwards, he sees that while he should be a good partner and put in a reasonable effort, her emotions and happiness are still her responsibility. He should face his own discomfort at her possible anxiety or unsatisfiedness, and not automatically enter “fix everything” or withdraw mode. That way he can just sit with her: “I’m sorry you’re feeling unfulfilled today, that really sucks.”

------

So. These were seven emotional blind spots that people may have, or may temporarily get into when under stress.

They can be addressed. They’re not permanent character flaws.

Awareness is the first step.

In all seven cases, it helps to have a habit of radical self-observation. By pausing to observe whatever arises within you—and routinely asking what lies beneath the surface—you can dismantle these blind spots, rather than being led around by them.

In addition to self-observation, practically improving your life and meeting your needs also helps. When you feel secure and satisfied externally, you’ll have less need to be emotionally reactive, or employ one of these emotional survival strategies. That said, even people with a seemingly perfect life can fall into these traps. Fixing the external world isn’t a substitute for looking inside.

With all my love,

This was your star sister,

Tunia

If you want to meet like-minded Earth humans, please see https://eraoflight.com/2024/06/19/hakann-local-meetings-for-those-seeking-first-contact-with-benevolent-ets/

If you want to learn about a useful healing modality, please see https://channelings.substack.com/p/hakann-onion-healing

If you want to help design the society of the future, please see https://eraoflight.com/2026/01/04/ashtar-our-new-commitment/