Resistance

The topic of resistance is more complex than it seems. Resistance is generally considered a kind of difficulty in maintaining a positive attitude when facing a challenge or something similar. “One resists…”

Indeed, we resist many things, and often this has a lot to do with what is called “inertia,” which is a physical law.

“Inertia is the property of matter that causes a body to resist changes in its state of motion or rest. That is, an object at rest tends to remain at rest, and one in motion tends to continue moving in a straight line, unless an external force acts upon it.”[1]

“Newton’s First Law: Also known as the Law of Inertia, this is the fundamental physical principle that describes this phenomenon.

“Mass Dependence: The inertia of a body is directly proportional to its mass. A heavy object (with more mass) is more difficult to move or stop than a light object.”

Setting aside the concepts of physics for the moment, there is an internal inertia, as well as a type of resistance that is internal. These resistances sometimes become habits or patterns of behavior. They manifest as forgetfulness, procrastination, justifications of all kinds, lying to oneself and others, concealment—sometimes even to the point of concealing one’s body or hiding—in a wide variety of ways to avoid working on one’s difficulties.

In any case, the general consensus is that we must overcome these resistances because it seems we have the drive to “move forward,” and I think the effort is worthwhile. Perhaps this is the key to overcoming resistance. It is precisely my “effort” that gives me the possibility, and it is simply inertia that tends to prevail—not only as a physical law but also as an attitude.

Much can be said about how to transform resistances, and I think that is an important discussion, but first and foremost, I think it is important to understand as much as possible the very nature of “resistances” because they show the root of the problem. Whatever one resists, that resistance is pointing exactly to what we need to work on, so it is worthwhile to undertake the work of “recognizing” such resistances.

When I recognize what I am resisting, then I can begin to resolve it.

At at meeting with Silo in October of 1980, someone asked about the three pathways of suffering—imagination, memory, and perception. I think it is appropriate to quote the question and the answer below because, at least for me, Silo’s perspective on the subject of resistances has been important.

"Question: If these three pathways are what make life possible, as a possibility for development, why or how have they become distorted? If it’s assumed that we human beings are seeking happiness, we should be adapting to managing these three pathways to our advantage. But how is it that these three pathways suddenly become our main enemies?

Answer: It seems this didn’t happen suddenly. It seems that at the very moment human consciousness expanded, when the human being wasn’t yet a clearly defined entity within our species, it seems that right then, as imagination, memory, and historical awareness expanded, as perception of the world expanded, at that very moment, as a function expanded, resistance arose.

Just as happens with internal functions. Like when we try to initiate a new activity of consciousness, we encounter resistance.

In the same way that resistance is found in nature. The very instant it rains and the water flows down the rivers, it encounters resistance along its path. And in overcoming these resistances, and navigating them, the water reaches the sea.

It is through this interplay of actions and resistances, which respond to universal laws of action and reaction, that consciousness, in its unfolding, and human beings in their development, keep encountering resistances. And in encountering resistances, they grow stronger, and in growing stronger, they integrate difficulties, and in integrating them, they overcome them.

And so, all this suffering that has arisen in human beings in their development has also strengthened them, enabling them to rise above it.

(CENTRAL AMERICAN CONJUNCTION. MEXICO, OCTOBER 1980)"

This way of seeing resistance, associated with universal laws of action and reaction, seems important to me to understand as fully as possible. Especially when the current trend is to look for causes and effects—at best—or simply to avoid any effort to overcome resistance—at worst. Viewing resistance as an indicator of the necessary inner work is the ideal approach.

It’s important that Silo speaks of integrating difficulties through the effort to strengthen oneself in relation to the central theme of all Siloist doctrine: The overcoming of pain and suffering.

From my perspective, I have approached this theme practically, and I summarize it in a few words: Every resistance is an opportunity to understand my suffering and to overcome it. Every act of overcoming suffering generates energy and is cumulative. Every effort made toward overcoming suffering clarifies the meaning of my life.

In the Guide to the Inner Road (in Silo’s Message), there is a phrase that also explains this phenomenon of resistance. It is framed in the same way:

“If you impel your being in a luminous direction, you will find resistance and fatigue at every step. There are things to blame for this fatigue in the ascent. Your life weighs; your memories weigh; your previous actions impede the ascent. The climb is made difficult by the action of your body, which tends to dominate…”

The context here is different and even more precise. If one wants to “ascend,” it’s good to be aware of the difficulties one will encounter along the way…

Finally, there is a form of “resistance” that is understood positively or coherently and is explained in the following phrase from the section of the same book called “The Path”: “Learn to resist the violence that is within you and outside of you.”

From this perspective, there are also forces that are important to consider. External and internal violence are not merely “difficulties” but impulses that do not lead in an upward direction, much less give meaning to our lives. On the contrary, all types of violence move in a disintegrating direction; therefore, it is advisable to “learn to resist” it both internally and externally. And the word “learn” is meaningful when one transforms daily activities into true learning

[1] https://www.britannica.com/science/inertia

Translated by Trudi Richards

Photo by Rafael Edwards

Processes

 In 1992, Silo made the following comment: “It is difficult to grasp the nature of a process. Processes are phenomena that unfold from within; they cannot be understood from the outside. History is the process of human beliefs manifesting as behaviors and transformations in the world. We are in a moment of historic change—a shift in beliefs—and we will continue to say that what we see is incredible. What is truly incredible is failing to realize the depth of the change we are living through.”

I have always liked this statement because it clearly explains at least a couple of things: one regarding processes, and the other regarding beliefs. I am deeply interested in understanding processes—and, more specifically, the process of our human history.

The context of this statement about processes relates to the explanations given when a line of thought—one that is, from my perspective, highly coherent and rich—is presented, yet someone inevitably asks what ideas are actually being put forward. Asking this is akin to asking a musician, after a concert, whether there was any music in their performance.

Of course, one hears this and thinks it is absurd to ask such a thing—wondering how anyone with even a modicum of brainpower could ask such a question. Yet, it turns out to be far more common than we think, and it reveals something much more interesting. The person did not hear the music, despite it being a concert. This happens because what is structured within their consciousness does not correspond to the present moment; instead, it is tied to those well-known beliefs we hold—specifically, the beliefs characteristic of our era, which exert an enormous influence on us.

More than fifty years ago, a group of scientists decided to study the possibility of nuclear fusion. Naturally, both the scientific and non-scientific communities dismissed them as dreamers. They argued that fusion requires more energy input than it produces—due to the extreme temperatures at which the phenomenon occurs—and was therefore an impossible task…

All this was said while our sun—and millions of other suns in the universe—were operating via nuclear fusion; a process for which we should be grateful, as it makes our existence on this planet possible. So, despite all this evidence and the research conducted by brilliant minds, the prevailing belief of that era—lacking expanded knowledge of quantum physics or artificial intelligence—was limited to the notion that nuclear reactions could only be produced through fission, and that even if fusion were possible, it was not economically viable. In other words, it was considered "practically impossible."

Today, we have nuclear reactors that operate via fusion and generate temperatures higher than those recorded in our sun. This is merely the beginning; the key point is that this reality is now part of the prevailing beliefs of our time, and it has little to do with people's innate cognitive capacity.

Reaching this point has undoubtedly been a process, which is why it is important to frame what we know in terms of processes. It is clear to all of us that our lives are a process—especially if we make a small effort to look at the different stages of our biographies and the beliefs that surrounded us at the time.

The words "impossible" and "incredible" are intrinsic to the fabric of these processes; both reveal the beliefs held by an era. Again, it does not matter if the evidence is right in front of us if it has not yet been "structured" as such within the collective consciousness of the times.

I have always loved the story of Newton (regardless of whether it is fact or fiction); the image of a man watching an apple fall from a tree to the ground is one I cherish. Countless apples must have fallen over thousands of years, yet in all likelihood, none of them sparked a thought in the people who witnessed them drop. That was not the case for Newton, however; structuring phenomena was likely his favorite pastime, and consequently, he ended up formulating the law of gravity. Today, the law of gravity is nothing extraordinary, yet humanity has advanced significantly thanks to our understanding of it. It has become part of the beliefs of our era.

All of this holds true for historical processes, just as it does for "discoveries" of every kind. When the prevailing beliefs of an era begin to waver due to a historical process that advances not linearly, but rather in an ascending spiral, we can sense that what lies ahead is a process of destructuring: the best elements of the historical moment continue to move forward, while what is no longer useful collapses, declines, and falls into oblivion. These are “incredible” moments—not because they are unbelievable, but because the beliefs of our era interfere with a proper understanding of the phenomenon. After all, Newton simply framed the phenomenon differently. The phenomenon of falling objects had been present for thousands of years in our history, yet it did not become evident until that consciousness was able to structure the phenomenon from a new perspective.

I believe it is highly appropriate at this moment to make an effort to understand that what we are witnessing historically is not unlike realizing that many of the stars we see at night actually vanished long ago; we only see them now because, after thousands of years, their light has finally made them visible. Humanity’s future is already here, and what we “see” is what has already passed…

Who knows what is coming—or what is already here—but it is coming… or it is here.

Fernando Aranguiz


Art by Rafael Edwards

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