Meta-Trinity: Self-Reference


Thought, Mind and Consciousness; the Meta-trinity. The machinery that makes the machine-tools that make the machines that make the machine-tools…that make the Models. The Epicenter of Self-Reference.

There are two aspects which define the Meta-Trinity.

Their self-referential nature, a repeated readiness to slip into the Self-Loop. And their intimate, inviolable relationship to ‘Me’.

The elements of the Meta-Trinity are nothing if not fecund and vigorous. They reflexively appropriate the Divine Ability to recreate in their own Image, double while remaining single, multiply and divide while all the time remaining themselves.

They can in other words effortlessly become Objects to themselves as Subjects.


There are levels and levels of Self-Reference. There is a Subject to the sentence: ‘Thought explains the World’. There is a Subject which claims ownership of the ‘Thought’ [It’s My Thought. Mine! Mine! Mine!]. Then for many, the ownership of the Subject by a Higher-Power or a grander ‘We’. And so on. It’s a good idea to keep them apart.

Listened in recently on a major convention of international scientists on ‘Consciousness and Science’ [I think that’s what the title was] in India, presided over by the Dalai Lama.

The word Self-Reference, let alone the Self-Loop, never occurred even once. All participants left convinced they had listened in on the most penetrating discussions on the subject. I need a beer.

‘Giving Birth to Myself’


The Axioms of Sight: ‘I cannot see what see’s. Anything I see, by that very fact, is not what see’s’. And what I see is only in counterpoint to what it is not.

The Axioms of Sight are the Inviolable Virgins. If I get them pregnant, I then: ‘Give Birth to Myself’.

I look into a mirror. And I am absolutely certain that what I see is the source of my vision. I have violated the Virgin.

In claiming to see my own eye, I become an Object to myself as Subject. The fall into the Self-Loop. The ‘Cycle of Birth and Death’.

Deux Factus Sum: ‘I am become God’. I double, I multiply and divide, while all the time remaining myself.

You possess this wondrous thing called ‘Mind’. Right here, atop the synapse and betwixt the neuron.

You model yourself and the world around you in great sweeps of analytic glee. And then the conflicts and contradictions show-up.

No fear. You simply turn this formidable apparatus, this ‘Mind’, on ‘Mind’ itself. [A spot of grease should fix things nicely.]

You just violated the Virgin. You are re-born [‘Born-Again’!]. 

You only have two practical options. One is to continue using ‘Mind’ as if you understood what ‘Mind’ was, which is what most of us do. That’s the same as implicitly ‘Turning Mind on Mind’ in an un-investigated presumption of knowing what it is.

The other is to buy yourself a durable Meditation Mat.

The Empty Mirror


I can Understand; but I may not try to Understand ‘Understanding’.

I can do a lot of things with ‘Understanding’. But I may not try to Understand it.

Mind may not mentate about Mind. You can mentate about all things in this great and grand universe of ours. But you may not mentate about Mind.

Consciousness may not grasp at consciousness. Thought may not seek its beginnings in another thought. Concept may not conceive itself in another concept.

Logical Symbol may not grasp for its genealogy using other symbols of Logic, nor Mathematics in the axioms of Mathematics.

Language may not seek its source using Language. Word may not seek its meaning through other words.

I may not seek for the definition of  the word ‘Knowledge’ while in the ‘Know’. I may not search for the ground of ‘Being’ while in the ‘Be’.

And ‘I’ may not inquire about ‘Me’.

So what happens if I do? Does the sky collapse? Do the mountains crumble? No. Something much more strange. You: ‘Give Birth to Yourself’.



The answer to the question: ‘What is Nirvāṇa?’ lies in an understanding of the misunderstanding that underlies the question itself.

The self-scuttling has to be done at the level of the questioner. And to properly sunder the Self-Loop is to comprehensively answer the question.

It is dangerously facile to talk about the possible absence of an ‘Independent ‘Self” to one firmly ensconced in it. It is markedly unwise to try and explain the nature of ‘World’ to one who can interpret the explanation only from the platform of a presumed observing and separated ‘Self’.

[In other words, don’t write Sites like this one. It’s what the ‘Diamond Sūtra tries to do recklessly risking all credibility.]

Nirvāṇa in its proper definition has nothing at all to do with any empyrean ecstasy, cosmic peace or any of that later rubbish. And no, upon reaching it you still will not be able to part the Red Sea.

The word Nirvāṇa long predates the Buddhist literature. And the problem of ambitious Guru’s unknown to Shūnyam, who have pinned a plethora of enticing and outright misleading attributes on Nirvāṇa is a very old one.

The word Nirvāṇa, literally a ‘Flaring-Out’, has its etymological roots in a fire that has ‘Come to Rest’. In its earliest Buddhist elaboration, the MadhimaNikaya says it is like asking the direction taken by a dead fire: ‘To ask: ‘In which direction has [the dead] fire gone?’, is a question that: ‘does not fit the case’.

In the common analogy, its like explaining life outside water to a fish that has known nothing else and cannot conceive it with any credence.

The fish is an easier case. With us humans, explanation is both unconvincing and deleterious. What we conventionally mean by ‘Understanding’ itself begins in the presumption of a separated ”Self’ and World’.

It’s sort of like the situation at the counter at the Rolls-Royce dealership. If you need to ask the price you probably can’t afford it.

If you need to have Nirvāṇa explained, you won’t understand it.