Persuasion

Persuasion has a bad reputation, but that’s not her fault. In reality it’s nobody’s fault, and the negative or positive meanings that some words awaken in us have little to do with the words themselves. They have to do instead with the meanings that have been built, sometimes over centuries, for certain words. Unfortunately or fortunately, Persuasion has a cousin named Manipulation who looks a lot like her, but in reality they are very distant relatives whose similarity is only apparent.

Probably the most significant thing about persuasion is that the person using it isn’t trying to get anything out of using it. In other words, persuasion isn’t used for one’s own benefit. Persuasion is the ability to empathize with others, and requires putting oneself in the other’s place, not just in order to understand them, but also - in some cases - to be able to help them.

On the contrary, to use persuasion’s cousin, manipulation, a person needs only their own self-interest. It is important to note that manipulation of all kinds begins and ends in the individual or group that has decided to manipulate. There are no benefits for others except imaginary ones, which in reality do not exist as such. Manipulation generally comes into play when I want something that I can only get through others, and this speaks to me of possession, of desire, of fear, of psychological violence.

It is common and accepted that to impose something on others one has to manipulate, and this manipulation can be grossly or subtly expressed. To manipulate whole groups of people one needs only to appeal to some baseless fear - and most fears are baseless. Others resort to threats, promises, lies, etc. It doesn’t seem to matter how one arouses in others the doubts, hopes, affirmation or negation that are necessary for obtaining benefits. It’s also common and accepted that when I want to convince someone else of something that would benefit me directly or indirectly, I resort to manipulation.

Feelings of guilt, fear, and insecurities of all kinds are the perfect tools for getting something from others. The best manipulations are the ones that appeal to the “common good,” the “needs of the whole,” “our fatherland,” “the neighborhood,” “the community,” etc., calling on guilt, either covertly or up front, to produce or obtain something from that group.

Fortunately, or unfortunately - once again, because I am not sure - persuasion has nothing to do with manipulation. Persuasion truly is an aspiration of the human being, an aspiration that has to do with what is best in us and in others. An aspiration without ulterior motives, with only respect, recognition, and an ability to put oneself in the other’s place. If fears and resentments come together in manipulation, they completely disappear in persuasion.

It is good not to confuse these two young ladies. Persuasion is joyful, warm, sincere, generous, and perceptive. The other is the opposite, but both wear the same dress when they are introduced. They can be recognized by what they produce internally. Persuasion always appeals to what is best in others. She almost never tells me what I should or must do, but simply asks me, “And what would you do?” She always puts me in touch with what is best in me, which is how I keep discovering how different she is from her cousin, and how I keep understanding more and more deeply the meaning of the words, “We aspire to persuade and to reconcile.”


Fernando Aranguiz

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards

Do Not Imagine

 

Reflections on “The Path”

At the end of the book Silo's Message, there is a section called "The Path" in which we find very short phrases suggesting a mental direction. Among these phrases are three that begin the same way, with the words "Do not imagine...":

"Do not imagine that you are alone in your village, in your city, on the Earth, and among the infinite worlds.

Do not imagine that you are enchained to this time and this space.

Do not imagine that upon your death, loneliness will become eternal.”

I have often wondered about the meaning of these phrases, and also about the way they are presented. First, they take the form of a warning, or a suggestion about “where not to go.” It is interesting that a path points out possible mistakes or detours to avoid, and it is good to keep this in mind since we will be traveling this path internally.

But before delving into this topic, I believe it will be helpful to look at the beginning of the Path - in other words, the beginning of any inner journey is the most important condition for undertaking it. This is explained in the first section, which states the following:

"If you believe that your life ends with death, what you think, feel, and do has no meaning. Everything ends in incoherence, in disintegration.

If you believe that your life does not end with death, you must bring into agreement what you think with what you feel and what you do. Everything must advance toward coherence, toward unity.

If you are indifferent to the pain and suffering of others, none of the help that you ask for will be justified.

If you are not indifferent to the pain and suffering of others, in order to help them you must bring your thoughts, feelings, and actions into agreement."

These sentences contain two key verbs: "to believe" and "to be." Belief is obviously based on what we believe, and what we believe determines where we start. We have to believe something, whether positive or negative. That's how beliefs work, and depending upon them, action and everything else appears in the world.

So, what we believe or don't believe determines our basic direction, and I find that very consistent with everything Silo proposes. We don't start from nothing, and our options are clear. If I don't believe, it's good for me to question my lack of faith or belief; after all, it's much more interesting to believe than not to believe. Someone might intellectualize all this and say that beliefs are beliefs, and that's that - but in this case I want to use the idea of belief to go a little further. That's what I've been reflecting on. Beliefs in general don't have much of an intellectual or scientific basis, but that doesn't stop them from moving us. In fact, it's almost the opposite; a mathematical formula doesn't move anyone, but some beliefs are capable of mobilizing crowds and entire countries. All of this has given me food for thought, so I've dedicated myself to rereading some of Silo's writings on the theme, reviewing them in order to better understand the proposals of the Path.

In 1997, Silo spoke with Enrique Nassar in Buenos Aires about the basic belief system we possess as humanity and as a species, saying:

"People change if their basic belief system changes. Since Descartes, consciousness has been defined as a thing, as something with extension. From there, consciousness is considered just another instance of evolving matter, like an organ that can be manipulated through drugs and electrical stimuli. Consciousness is not a passive, reactive organism; it is much more than that. It is an intentional, evolutionary structure. The true dynamic of consciousness is to transform itself, to transform the body, and to transform the world."

Silo describes consciousness according to its true importance and function, which is not what the system describes when studying consciousness. In this statement, the notion of transformation appears: transformation not only of itself, but also of the body in which it resides and of the world in which it acts. This is an extremely important point, because it directs everything toward the understanding that there is an evolutionary intention in this human consciousness, which is truly what drives all progress, all understanding, and, in general, what defines humankind as such.

Silo continues:

"The fact that astronomical research is revealing that the world does not move mechanically, as explained by the Big Bang theory—the random mechanical collision that, by chance, supposedly lead to the evolutionary process we know—but rather that there are universes that coalesce and move according to a direction that is not mechanical but intentional; in other words, the universe has a meaning in its development."

Silo explains the concept of “intentional direction,” summarizing it with the idea of a universe or many universes that are developing and expanding with an intentional, not random or mechanical, purpose.

The same applies to what he calls “the basic belief system,” which he defines as follows:

"Today, despite research revealing solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, universes, and multiple universes, despite the evidence of the immensity of the universe, we maintain three things: life on Earth is the only life in the universe; life on Earth is the only form of intelligence in the universe; and Homo Sapiens is the only form of human life. In other words, we maintain that we are the only form of life, of intelligent life, and of human life. We believe we are unique, the entire universe is for us, and we are the center of the universe. In other words, we remain geocentric. This is a part of our basic belief system that we have not yet modified."

So from this perspective, as humanity continues to function with these kinds of beliefs, Silo says something that I believe is important to mention: that despite all the research, despite the discoveries that are happening every day, we keep imagining that we are unique, that we are alone, and that this loneliness will be eternal.

He continues:

"The evidence that there are other forms of intelligent life in the universe, in other words that we are not unique; an understanding that consciousness is not something mechanical and reactive, but rather an intentional evolutionary structure; being on the verge of accepting that the human body is a primitive relic whose development does not correspond to the speed of evolution of consciousness; and possessing the knowledge and technology to modify the body; being close to liberating humankind from the slavery of work… all of this is a clear sign that humanity is seeking to free itself from its basic belief system."

Here he adds an idea that sometimes provokes rejection in many who consider the body "sacred": the idea that the body can be intentionally modified. But the truth is that, sacred or not, the body is susceptible to significant modifications, especially when these changes can actually increase its potential, as is the case with organ and limb replacement. Prostheses and artificial hearts, lungs, kidneys, etc., are excellent and last longer than the body itself. In the field of medicine, great strides have been made since the last world war, and body modifications are a reality experienced daily. This is a specific topic, but it can be investigated in more detail with concrete cases presented in medical documents and studies conducted in different parts of the world. But perhaps the most significant point here is that the body does not change at the same pace as the modification of consciousness.

To continue with the topic of body modification, and from a biological perspective, the following news item appeared on May 20, 2010:

Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that lays the groundwork for the design of organisms that instead of evolving, are built.

The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40 million, was described by one researcher as 'a watershed moment in biology.'

Craig Venter, the pioneering American geneticist responsible for the experiment, claimed that the achievement heralds the beginning of a new era in which new life is created for the benefit of humanity, starting with bacteria that produce biofuels, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and even manufacture vaccines.

Critics, however, including some religious groups, have condemned the work. One organization warned that the artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or become biological weapons. Others claimed that Venter was playing God.

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is a completely synthetic genome constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

The single-celled organism has four 'watermarks' written in its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to its creator, should they become lost.

"We were euphoric when the cells started with all the watermarks in place," Dr. Venter told the press. "Now it's a living species, part of our planet's inventory of life."

On that occasion, Silo, while at Manantiales Park in Chile, raised a toast to this extraordinary moment when artificial life was created for the first time.

Continuing the conversation with Enrique, Silo says the following:

"When all these things become evident, the basic belief system will be deconstructed: Opening the way for such ideas as that there is an intention in the universe, that there are other forms of intelligent life, that individual consciousness is intentionally evolving, that the body is a primitive relic susceptible to modification, that the best thing to do is stop working and let machines take over."

In this phrase, Silo introduces the idea of “deconstruction,” not as something negative, but rather as something necessary for the emergence of another kind of apparatus with a different set of beliefs—the opposite of what we have now. Therefore, it is worthwhile not only to “not imagine” but also to consider all these options that are already springing up.

Silo continues the conversation, adding:

"Human beings don’t feel according to what they think; they feel according to what they believe. With the deconstruction of our basic belief system, our image of the world will crack, and with it, a whole new system of possibilities for the development of consciousness will open up.”

In this paragraph, Silo explains something significant when he clarifies that our feelings depend not on our ideas but on our beliefs. The image we construct of the world is based on what we believe, not necessarily on what we know. If these beliefs lose their value and their influence, then great possibilities and new directions open up for the consciousness, which is obviously intentional and evolutionary, as Silo explains, and does not correspond to the mechanical and random universe to which present beliefs are anchored. The simple act of questioning what exists and imagining future possibilities puts our consciousness on a different path and expands our framework of beliefs.

Finally, Silo closes this conversation with the following:

"Human beings of the future will not want to win and possess things; they will want to feel, to create, to build, and to learn without limits. They will not want to possess, to have, to control. They will understand that there are millions of ways to develop emotion and thought, that there is an unimaginable diversity of ways to feel and think. Today humanity's vision is very behavioral and limited, but in the future, EVERYTHING WILL BE ALL RIGHT, EVERYTHING WILL GO WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO."

From my point of view, this faith in the future that Silo so clearly expresses carries great weight, and opens up the decades to come for a world that is currently in crisis. The current crisis is absolutely necessary because what is truly in crisis is not the economy, politics, form of government, etc. These are merely manifestations of something much deeper, something related to the fundamental human belief system to which Silo refers.

The image of the human being of the future is a powerful one, and when I contemplate it in relation to the Path, I find it has an inspirational effect.

If I do not imagine that I am alone, then I can imagine that I am with many others on a mutual quest. If my existence is more connected with the existence of others, that liberates me and propels me toward a different kind of relationship with the world, and especially with others.

If my death does not perpetuate loneliness, then I can open the door to transcendence and the future.

By allowing myself a glimpse of consciousness as intentional and evolutionary, I can increase my faith in the future and in others; then my optimism is not naiveté but a genuine effort to move in the evolutionary direction that Silo presents regarding the future of humanity. Our old framework of basic beliefs is increasingly and rapidly crumbling, and new forms of thought, feeling, and action are emerging. In this fleeting present moment, I feel that we are living through one of the most special and profoundly transformative moments in history. Therefore, it is good NOT TO IMAGINE that which leads toward death, but rather TO IMAGINE that which leads toward the growth, transformation, and expansion of life itself.

At the beginning of this labyrinthine writing, I offered a proposal about believing and being as mentioned at the beginning of the Path. If I believe that my life does not end with death, and if I am not indifferent to the suffering of others, then I will orient my life in a direction where what I think, feel, and do is unitive and coherent. I feel very motivated to reflect on this proposal and to practice daily what Silo suggests on this Path:

If I believe that my life does not end with death, I must bring into agreement what I think with what I feel and what I do. Everything must advance toward coherence, toward unity.

If I am not indifferent to the pain and suffering of others, in order to help them I must bring my thoughts, feelings, and actions into agreement.


Fernando Aranguiz

June 2026

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards

Involution

The process opposed to evolution is involution. One characteristic of involution is a low level approach to dealing with everything. Right now, institutions, politics, economics and even spiritual currents work with what is minimally accepted, also known as the lowest common denominator. The great problem is that in this situation, we are not progressing, we are not evolving; instead, we remain stuck in the same groove culturally, politically, economically and spiritually. We should not be surprised if our best elected or potential government officials reflect precisely this very low level that we have come to accept and, in some cases, to defend.

Our institutions are decaying, and are not at the service of the people. Our science serves a technology owned and manipulated by oligarchs. The best we can aspire to is having gadgets that we can periodically renew. Sensing that we are not moving forward as a society or a species, we admit that something feels wrong. If we are brutally honest, it feels as if we are betraying something. We say, "It is what it is," but deep inside, we don't like it. I don't think it is just a matter of accepting things as they are, but I am afraid that people can do nothing to change this process of involution unless we come to a profound and clear realization about the direction we are going. I also doubt that we can accept a vision based on beliefs about the past, and that is precisely where our low level approach is anchored. Our inability to build a future with faith in the human being and with the courage to overcome difficulties keeps us locked in this unfortunate situation. It is time for us to question whether this model truly moves us forward, towards a more luminous, fair and human world.

Fear is a great motivator, but it will not serve to build our future. To leap over our fear is the first step. I hope with all my being that we take this step and do not succumb to fear.

In taking this step we might encounter a faith that exists in all human beings. This is a faith in humanity and in the human being capable of doing their best, as history shows. What we are facing today is by no means a tragic end, but rather a great opportunity for all who want a better future - an opportunity to start today, within our own internal silence, a process of humanizing ourselves, others and this society in crisis. My friend Trudi was able to put it in simple words: “I have a feeling that the most coherent response will be small, even invisible, and humorous, and tender…”

May 2026

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards

Willingness

From time to time, I find myself thinking about concepts that are common but seldom used. One of them is what we call "willingness." Interestingly, the dictionary definition and etymology of the word explain its origins quite well, as well as the fact that it is something innate. They don't quite consider the concept as an attribute that doesn't exist but can be acquired. In other words, disposition, if you don't have it, can be acquired. That is, it is an attribute or quality that can be "cultivated" and that has the potential to transform our responses to events and, in general, to the so-called reality we experience every day.

This disposition or willingness is a kind of frequency I can adopt when facing situations, especially difficult ones. It allows me to respond differently than usual, because I can stop my compulsive reactions and find myself with this internal disposition to understand, to see beyond what I am accustomed to seeing.

In the book "Silo's Message," Chapter 2, entitled "Disposition to Comprehend," some things are explained regarding this topic. One of the points that has most helped me to deepen this disposition is number 3, which proposes the following: "If you ask me what attitude is appropriate, I will tell you that it is to meditate profoundly and without haste on what is explained here."

Regarding meditation, it has little to do - at least for me - with closing my eyes or assuming a special posture or being in a specific physical place. For me, to meditate is to reflect in the moment and afterward. Meditation is a reflective attitude, a way of questioning myself about what I perceive, feel, do, or think. In meditation, I consider external objects and my internal responses. I am interested in both because it couldn't be otherwise. Sometimes this reflective or meditative attitude leads me to study more deeply what I believe or what I want to know. Such study leads me to reflect again, and thus I deepen my understanding by alternating between study and reflection. All this inner work helps me create an attitude, a necessary disposition that I don't normally have, and I've discovered that I can develop it by repeating this process many times. I call this "cultivating" my disposition or willingness.

Regarding meditating without haste, I can only say that it is an effort I always need to make. It is an effort to not seek results, an effort to not get distracted, and an effort to quiet the inner noise. Again, I find that this transforms into an attitude of letting go of expectations, of silencing compulsions, of developing patience, etc., and that this too can be cultivated.

This willingness that I can generate helps me greatly to maintain a kind of enjoyment and interest in everything that appears in my life, and it is something that I feel is new, and also very useful, in my relationships and in the effort to better understand myself and the world I live in.


April 2026

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards

Vengeance

“Let us save man from vengeance, preparing the way for the new humanity that is approaching.”

This sentence has been forever engraved in my memory since I first read it, more than fifty years ago. I still remember it word for word, and it is still one of those themes for reflection that never leave me.

The impression it made on me is still working on me today, because I could not precisely comprehend what it was saying, and even today I don’t understand it.

Let me see if I can explain...

Considering our history, saving the human being from vengeance is a monumental task. It is striking that our whole judicial system is based on vengeance, and this is not easy to digest or to justify, because we know no other form of justice. What we call justice is simply vengeance, and every time a crime is committed we resolve it vengefully.

All of this sounds like an accusation, but I say it without the slightest intention of accusing anyone, and even less of judging anyone. I see this situation as a done deal. It is what we do, and our societies function thanks to judicial mechanisms in which the crimes committed are punished. Nobody really knows why, except that this is how we “do justice,” and there’s almost always a tacit internal agreement about it. Yes, it’s true, we call for justice, we find the guilty party, and give them the punishment they deserve. It is not possible to justify a “crime,” and it’s not for nothing that nobody wants to or is able to say that “impunity” is a possibility. I cannot imagine a society that doesn’t think about punishing its “criminals.” Not to do so would set off a commotion as complicated as a civil war.

I cannot imagine someone murdering another human being without somebody doing something to “punish” them for it. The desire for vengeance is much stronger than we believe or want to admit. We call it “justice,” and that’s fine - but even though we use this more acceptable term, the problem hasn’t gone away.

I don’t know exactly how this mess came about, but I understand that the Hammurabi Code, which has been with us for at least 4000 years, has a lot to do with this problem. To say it as succinctly as possible, the Hammurabi Code is one of the first efforts to codify laws of protection and retribution. The idea is to protect those harmed by the acts of others, and to punish those who do such harm, by applying a similar action as retribution or retaliatory justice. If someone breaks someone else’s leg, that person is punished by having his own leg broken. In other words, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” and as someone said a long time ago, “we’re all left blind and toothless.” It’s an interesting form of equality, but not very convincing.

Two thousand years after the code attributed to the Babylonian King Hammurabi, and two thousand years before the current time, teachings that unequivocally opposed this code appear in the document known as “The Sermon on the Mount.” In a kind of public talk, this document explains what is, from my point of view, the purest essence of original Christianity. If there were a way of synthesizing the Christian doctrine, the Sermon on the Mount does it, establishing the foundations for a form of behavior completely different from what had been known up to that time. It begins with the Beatitudes, continues with the offering of the “other cheek” when confronted with violence and vengeance - a novelty for that historic moment - and explains that you must not judge others, and that you should not do to others what you would not like them to do to you (the negative version of the Golden Rule). It gives many guidelines for behavior, and ends with an explanation on loving both one's neighbors and one’s enemies.

This sermon, plus some other unusual interventions like when Christ is arrested by soldiers and one of the disciples cuts off the ear of a servant of the high priest, and the Latin phrase, “Qui gladio occidit, gladio occisus erit” - “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword” is explained, is a teaching that has been written and rewritten over and over in all the known languages - yet we do not practice it, and it is truly extraordinary that something so essential, so purely and clearly expressed, is not practiced.

Almost 1900 years after these “recommendations” appear, a Russian writes a book that is censored in his own country until 1894, when Tolstoy’s book titled “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” based on what was said in the famous sermon mentioned earlier, is printed for the first time in Germany. Tolstoy again shows the relevance of the idea of “nonviolent resistance to violence,” and his book is without any doubt one of the most important precursors of today’s pacifism. Nevertheless, despite all efforts to offer another path, human societies have not managed to practice the most important teachings given over the course of millennia.

Probably inspired by Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi shakes British Imperial India by means of pacifism and nonviolent protest, until, on January 30, 1948, he is assassinated. Martin Luther King, inspired by similar ideas twenty years later, does the same in the struggle for the rights of African Americans in the United States, launching the Civil Rights Movement. Unfortunately, on April 4, 1968, he too was assassinated.

One year and one month after the violent tragedy of King’s assassination, on a mountainside in the southern part of the American continent, a place unknown to the rest of the world, a young man of 31 launches a talk called “The Healing of Suffering.” And once again in our short human history so full of tragedy, violence, revenge, wars, oppression, intolerance and all the rest, someone proposes a way out of this vicious circle, offering a proposal of faith, hope, love, etc., but above all of overcoming the violence inside us and in the environment we live in.

It seems that the only possible way for us humans to save ourselves from violence is by overcoming the internal suffering caused by a disjunction between what we think, feel, and do. This is much more than simply being “good.” It effectively means achieving inner peace and bringing it to others. This inner peace appears when contradiction disappears and when human lives achieve a transcendental meaning. But this does not happen without internal work on oneself, or just because it is correctly proposed. Since the root of the problem of revenge, of making another suffer the way I have suffered, is so deep in our western mental form, transformation does not seem possible without effecting a profound transference of values in society, beginning with oneself.

And here I will stop, because I recognize, as I said in the beginning, that I do not precisely understand the problem. I need to study it in myself, I need to see how this desire for revenge is produced within me, and that is what I am working on.

Up to now I have encountered only two situations in my life in which I clearly saw and was able to resist the desire for vengeance when it began to take me over internally. In both situations I had an energetic register of comprehension, a register I have not yet been able to put into words or to integrate well. But without a doubt these experiences have been for me a source of reflection and intuition that there is another path for overcoming vengeance… and consequently that a future humanity will truly be able to find the reconciliation we need to save ourselves from vengeance.

 

March 2026

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards

Freedom

 In January 1969, Silo gave a short talk in Quintero, a small coastal town in Chile. These were his words at the beginning of the talk: “Learn well what I am going to tell you: there are no good human beings or bad human beings. Where there is no freedom, there is neither good nor evil; everything happens despite human beings. Understand that you are not free at the moment of your birth, nor when you love, nor at the moment of your death.”

For me, when I came across those words a year later in a small book entitled Silo and Liberation, it was a great discovery. 

It is true that no one chooses to be born, and no one chooses where to be born either. No one chooses what family to be born into, or what social stratum. No one chooses the economic stratum they’re born into, or the language they speak.

Perhaps because of these extreme conditions we become obsessed with the idea of freedom - not with freedom itself, but rather with our almost complete lack of perceived and real freedom. We don't choose anything about ourselves - not the color of our hair, the color of our eyes, the color of our skin, our physical constitution, or any of that. We don't choose anything, but neither do we accept that fact or take it seriously, so it's easy to convince ourselves that we are “free.”

An interesting belief, despite how overwhelming the reality is in the face of that belief. Not only overwhelming, but incredibly determining.

However, despite the most absolutely obvious evidence, the belief stubbornly and blindly persists. We don't even choose our first and last names. Everything, absolutely everything, is given, not chosen.

Believing oneself to be free and wanting to be free are quite different attitudes, and they bring with them very different depths. While one attitude is based on a belief without foundation—that is, an “unfounded” belief—the other is based on a reality that, despite being brutal, is correct. We must all fight to want to be free, since we clearly are not.

That simple acceptance leads us to understand much of what I call our “condition of origin.” If we are fair in our assessment, freedom (under certain conditions) exists only if we are making an ongoing effort to free ourselves from the conditions to which we are subject from our birth to our death.

We do make efforts to modify some of these conditions, but only the most superficial ones, and that does not contribute much to the proposed liberation. I can change the color of my hair and eyes, I can wear shoes that make me look taller, I can change—with difficulty—the gender I was assigned at birth, and undoubtedly there are other ways to change our appearance. We are not freer because of these changes. I have nothing against any of these changes, quite the contrary, but I accept that they do nothing to move us toward a deeper liberation, a liberation that manifests itself more than anything else in our behavior and in our way of being in the world.

If I sincerely admit my lack of freedom, I realize that there are other more internal aspects that condition me, and that it is precisely these that are worth transforming because that is something that can be done. So, to want to be free is to want to be internally in the best possible way.

That way is coherent. That is, it goes in an evolutionary direction, it goes in an internally unifying direction. 

The longing for freedom is one of the most interesting desires we can have. Freedom, or rather, liberation, is an aspiration we have had since we acquired the capacity to feel and think. And precisely because it is a human aspiration, it is important to conceive of it correctly, and for that very reason to see liberation as a process. Static freedom does not exist, but the work does exist that goes from less free to more free. 

We can also look at this as liberation from the oppressive conditions imposed by the environment, by society, by our own body, and by our own mind. The conditions imposed by the environment and by the body can be alleviated and, in some cases, resolved, through the correct application of justice and scientific advancement. 

Liberation from the oppressive conditions imposed by our mind and emotions can only be brought about and resolved through personal work aimed at fully understanding our limitations and at engaging in sustained effort to transform everything that prevents us from being internally free, since all these "difficulties" produce internal suffering, and it is this suffering that prevents the true manifestation of the mind, of the true spirit, of true love, and of true compassion.

And how can I "let go"? How can I "release"?

The simplest yet truest answer is: By doing it, by practicing it...

When I am in the presence of what makes me suffer, it is almost always a fear of something, or a vague feeling of internal insecurity, a manifest "indignation" at being questioned, a vast range of emotions that are not of inner peace or self-acceptance. Far too many to be explained in this brief writing, but... I feel all of these things internally as violence, and the root of violence lies in desire.

I have tried to learn to recognize these things and let them go. Learning to recognize them involves a whole process of paying attention to my responses to the environment, to my interactions with others and with myself. Many times I treat myself badly, and that doesn't help. I need to let go of my inner judgment. I need to let go of the ideas I have of myself, I need to let go of my beliefs and my justifications.

I need to let go of my grudges, let go of the image I have of myself, let go of my fears, my resistances, my illusions, my disillusions, my resentments, my frustrations, my obsessions, my prejudices, the ideas I have about everything, etc. In simple words, to let go of what constitutes my nucleus of suffering, the greatest generator of my frustrated desires. And when I am able to do this—even briefly—and in other cases more permanently, I have noticed that a great void is created internally that allows me to learn, to listen, and to observe in a different way, and perhaps the most important thing about this is that it tastes like freedom. When I don't need to defend anything about what I believe myself to be or to have, that's when I experience true inner freedom.

It's useless to talk about all this without having any experience. It is essential to actually do what is being proposed, and thus be able to experience it. The more sustained effort we make in that direction, the stronger our feeling of liberation. Such efforts are completely worthwhile.

February 2026

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards

Spirituality

 “THE SPIRIT IS THE NEW PRINCIPLE IN THE HUMAN BEING”. SILO

“According to the life we live:

If it is centrifugal, it will have a basic structure without development.

If it is centripetal, the spirit will evolve without limits and you will obtain what you want.”

The concept of “spirituality” is in general difficult to define. It seems that it is so ample and sometimes so personal that it complicates the effort in trying to define it. Nevertheless, there is a ceremony in Silo’s Message that explains at least the spirituality from the Message perspective.

Recognition is a ceremony of inclusion in the Community; inclusion through common experiences, and shared ideals, attitudes and procedures.

In this ceremony the concept of spirituality is explained by pointing out other forms known as “spiritual” but that are not what we understand by spirituality. 

We affirm our right without denying any other form.

“Moreover, just as no one has the right to discriminate against others because of their religion or their non-religiousness, we affirm our right to proclaim our spirituality and our belief in immortality and the sacred.”

“Our spirituality is not the spirituality of superstition, it is not the spirituality of intolerance, it is not the spirituality of dogma, it is not the spirituality of religious violence. It is the spirituality that has awakened from its deep sleep to nurture human beings in their best aspirations.”

This spirituality or what could be called “spiritual development” is directly related to the main points explained in the book “The Inner Look” in the first chapter named “Meditation”. 

“1.Here it tells how the non-meaning of life can be converted into meaning and fulfillment.

2. Here are joy, love of the body, of nature, of humanity, and of the spirit.

3. Here sacrifices, feelings of guilt, and threats from the beyond are rejected.

4. Here the worldly is not opposed to the eternal.

5. Here it tells of the inner revelation at which all arrive who carefully meditate in humble search.”

Point number 2 is very important. Joy first, then love. Love for what is closest to us, our body, then our natural environment, then our human environment and finally the intangible, which encompasses everything, the spirit.

Point 3 explains that some elements accepted in other types of spirituality are not accepted within our spirituality, for example sacrifices, feelings of guilt and threats from beyond the grave. Also, what is worldly is not opposed to the eternal.

“The human being in its kindness, in the elimination of internal contradictions, in its conscious acts, and in a sincere need for evolution, brings to birth the spirit.

Love and compassion are necessary for evolution... Whoever works for themselves in love and compassion also does so for other beings...”

In this sentence, the elimination of internal contradictions is from my point of view one of the most important work we can do for ourselves. A lot has been said regarding kindness and compassion, but little about internal contradictions. When we think, feel and act in one direction, we feel internal unity and when we feel one way, think differently and act in a different way, we experience internal contradictions. The effort in uniting our actions, feelings and thoughts is what contributes the most to a true spiritual development. A unified behavior is built on what we call “valid actions”.

The basis of a valid action is not given by the ideologies, nor by the religious commandments, nor by beliefs, nor by social regulations, even when all these things in themselves are important. The basis of a valid action is not given by any of them, but is given by the internal register of an action.

There is a fundamental difference between the other evaluations - which appear to come from the outside - and this one according to the registers which the human being obtains from their actions.

And what is the register of a valid action?

The register of a valid action is that which one experiences as unitive. It is the one which at the same time gives a sensation of internal growth and also the one which one wishes to repeat because it has a taste of continuity, that is to say, that it is extended in time.

Important to notice that all 3 components are necessary: 

1. Experience unity within ourselves

2. Experience internal growth

3. Desire to repeat it because it opens the future

The best way to frame these so-called “registers” of valid actions is through the Principles which are centered precisely on understanding the different kinds of “actions”.  Comprehended actions, Timely actions, Adaptation, Acceptance, Pleasure, etc., including the most important one of all: “Treat others as you would like to be treated” or the golden rule as it is commonly understood.

These Principles are not commandments, are not rules, are not static beatitudes printed on paper. They are ways to act in the world with unity. Unity necessary to give birth to the spirit. The spirit in the human being is what is most important to develop. 

Spiritual development leads to transcendence and the sacred. The sacred is within us and around us.

To transcend death is to develop the immortal spirit and to live a life without internal contradictions. It is meaningful, joyful and internally fulfilling.

When talking about “registers” we can also consider “experiences” or ways to feel what we talk about. In general, there are a lot of words in the “spiritual” subject. For us, it is important to experience what we say. 

Most likely, one of the significant experiences in a spiritual sense is the one of asking and the one of being grateful. Both are connected to the world in which we exist. When we ask for others, when we wish the best for someone we care for, we connect with that spiritual part of us. That connection is sometimes felt as a deep affection for the other. This is independent from the results of the asking. To feel what is human in someone else or to wish the best for others is a way to also develop the spirit.

The human being is in conditions to develop spiritually without the help of organized forms traditionally associated with religions, cults, etc. All we need in these confusing and chaotic times is a connection with our interiority, a way of developing a center of gravity that can be used as a compass to navigate our times. Contrary to popular beliefs, we have all of the answers within ourselves and we are capable not only of this type of development, but also to evolve as a species as well. This spirituality can’t be conceived as a “personal” endeavor. It just doesn’t correspond to what internally happens when we are able to experience this path. There is a recognition that we are not alone and that we are walking the road with others. Such recognition arises when we can freely interpret these concepts, when we discover in others the same needs and difficulties, when we actually discover and select what is best within ourselves, when there are no external boundaries and limitations produced by fear and the need to control others and the world around us.

Spiritual development has finally reached adulthood in our species. 

Art by Rafael Edwards