HomeAbout / MissionScience deconstructedPseudo-skeptics deconstructedConsciousnessNondualityDMTThe control systemMSM destroyed

Articles by topic

The truth about ...


or: How your beliefs create your reality

Nothing is so firmly believed as what is least known.

Michel de Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592)

Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.

Mark Twain

My technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite.

Terence McKenna

As has already been said many times on your planet, all the great changes that have ever occured on your world are usually the product of a single individual vision. And then, eventually, the mass consensus starts to come around.


You have to have a belief first in order to have any feeling at all, because you have to have a definition in order to know what you're feeling about. The Physical Mind (the ego) is made of belief systems. Thus, when one's Physical Mind is (in part) made up of the belief systems of others, one may become misaligned with the energy that represents one's natural self (one's core signature vibrational frequency, or Divine Purpose, or teleological Attractor).

Don't believe in anyone else's BS (Belief System)

All the controversy around the truth movement these days and petty little hate filled comments i come across, which i very rarely read to be honest. Reminds me why i am so grateful for Robert Anton Wilson's thoughts and theories on life and the universe. Perhaps you can also see the wisdom in this short segment from one of Roberts talks back in 2000. If not, then the meaning just doesn't fit into your reality tunnel and hey thats ok i guess. Full lecture here for limited time only https://youtu.be/v09vvwqBmgk

Belief suspension exercise

Belief is a toxic and dangerous attitude toward reality, I think. After all, if it's there it doesn't require your belief, and if it's not there why should you believe in it? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Terence McKenna

The idea is to assume everything you have ever learned (except that you exist; cogito ergo sum) is a lie — that everything you've ever known is wrong. Why? Because this is literally true.

How is it literally true? Because it is belief, and only belief, that determines what reality you experience. Your beliefs and definitions determine what already-existing parallel reality you will shift to.

Most of the things on your planet you have backwards. For example, "seeing is believing". No — believing is seeing.


One's belief system matrix is influenced by the beliefs of the species (collective consciousness/"unconscious") and the template-level reality (4th density), the "blueprint level" of physical reality which sets the general rules, or board, of the game. The (5th density) Higher Mind transmits one or another parallel reality frame for the (3rd density) Physical Mind to experience, flowing first through the template-level reality and then through its unconscious belief system constructs (automatic definitions assigned to the intrinsically-meaning-less circumstances and situations in its perception) and projected onto the "screen" (perception) that the Physical Mind experiences and may be misperceiving (defining) as a separate, "external" world that it exists in.

Human with angelic wings

In other words, there are aspects of reality — collective agreements — that we agree to experience very similarly (think Jung's collective unconscious and Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields), but these agreements exist between the 4th-dimensional Physical Mind structure and the 5th-dimensional Higher Mind structure.

The latter part is what we have believed ourselves out of. We have constrained (limited) ourselves by believing ourselves out of divinity.

Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly.

G. K. Chesterton

Circumstances don't matter

Only state of being matters.

Bashar - Circumstances Don't Matter Only State of Being Matters

Excerpted from the DVD Beyond The Secret Into Abundance

This understanding can be realized at any point in life, and one's previous experience has no bearing on it whatsoever. A splendid example is Byron Katie:

In February 1986 while in a halfway house for women with eating disorders Byron Katie experienced a life-changing realization: "I discovered that when I believed my thoughts, I suffered, but that when I didn’t believe them, I didn’t suffer, and that this is true for every human being. Freedom is as simple as that. I found that suffering is optional. I found a joy within me that has never disappeared, not for a single moment." People immediately began seeking her out and asking how they could find the peace that radiated from her.

A Conversation With Byron Katie

In August 2014, I was lucky enough to get to chat with Byron Katie, spiritual teacher, creator of 'The Work' and bestselling author of 'Loving What Is', 'I Need Your Love; Is That True?', 'Tiger, Tiger Is It True?' and 'A Thousand Names For Joy.'

Katie described the process of waking up out of thought, what happened afterwards and how she experiences the world now. It was an enlightening experience for me, and I hope (as Katie would say) that it serves you.

And it is entirely true. You can — literally — choose to not believe in negative thoughts. Let the trigger for this action-mindset be the identification of the thoughts as such (as negative, hence non-serving), and therefore as not believable. So when a non-serving ("negative") thought manifests, notice it and say to yourself: "I don't believe it."

The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

The idea is to redefine all (previously defined as) "negative" thoughts and emotions and beliefs (which manifest as thoughts you keep thinking) in neutral or positive terms — understanding that everything happens for you, not to you, and that every situation has many (higher-dimensionally-causal) hidden positive intentions behind it — thus not rejecting or ignoring (i.e. energetically amplifying) experiences previously defined negatively, thus integrating and transforming the unconscious beliefs you picked up since childhood that no longer serve you.

Belief, knowing, intention, and action

Knowing is more powerful than belief because knowing is synonymous with action:

Intention VS. Action | Bashar

This is from Bashar's "Flipping the Switch".

That which one knows, one does, without beliefs getting in the way of action. Beliefs are thus the definitions of limitations that one is embracing as true for oneself — but there is really no solidity to them, intrinsically/structurally/mechanically/fundamentally speaking.

Beliefs and neurological pathways

The neurological pathways that neuroscience investigates and attempts to use to build models of consciousness within the objective reality metaparadigm and physicalism (as an emergent phenomenon arising from insentient matter complexly interacting with itself) — if Bashar is to be believed — are actually physical representations of beliefs and definitions of the mind (i.e. Physical Mind):

Every single thought you have, literally, physically, reorganizes the neurological pathways in your physical brain. Every moment of time you do not have the same brain. Literally, physically. There are neurological pathways right now in your brain that were not there a minute ago. And some that were there a minute ago are no longer there — and I do not just mean that some of them are closing and opening and they were there to begin with. New paths are actually created; old paths are actually dissolved, absorbed back into the mass of the physiological brain. Some of your scientists are beginning to realize this now — that with every thought you have, you already literally change the physical structure of your brain.

Now your physical brain is responsible in that sense for, shall we say, "monitoring" the physiological structure of your body. The only thing that would create there to be a seeming "block" between your understanding that your thoughts alter physical reality, would be if you have been taught to buy into a definition that says [that] somehow the alteration of your physical structure is more difficult then simply having a new thought and allowing your physical body to take that form. This is what many of you have been taught, that "physical reality is fixed", and that your thoughts are simply ethereal ideas that do not really have a great effect upon physical material; but you are beginning to realize just the opposite — in fact, you are beginning to realize that physical material absolutely has no structure without the definitions of your thoughts.

Bashar, 1987

Objective beliefs?

It is important to realise that two conflicting statements can both be equally true depending on the level from which you observe the same situation.

David Icke

In the objective reality metaparadigm, beliefs can be based on "facts", which are unchangeable. As the 5th Law of Creation (of the subjective reality metaparadigm) states: Change is the only constant, and everything changes, except the first four laws.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.

Oscar Wilde (Irish dramatist, novelist & poet, 1854-1900)

Objective beliefs (or the appearance of such) are obtained by the scientific method — i.e. observation and measurement — but notice that measurement is just one activity that we do. Scientists spend 99% of their time doing something other than measurement / the scientific method — and all these experiences are subjective. The one type of experience they have that appears to yield objective truth — repeatable, i.e. falsifiable by experiment, time-invariant truths — is the one they have put all their faith in. More right-brained individuals know that this is a constricted view.

Restricting our understanding of existence to an objective reality model seems absurd when considering that measurement is clearly not fundamental to living. And when we do measure, we come to observe that the apparently unchanging objective truths (the "physical constants" that define the laws of physics) appear to be "fine-tuned" to support life:

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood. The proposition is discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism.

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently". Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes. George F. R. Ellis observes "that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained."

This whole idea is predicated upon the assumption of physicalism (fundamentalist-materialism), which cannot see the apparent fine-tuning as anything but a coincidence — a fluke set in motion at the Big Bang singularity.

Bashar - Your reality can only ever be a reflection of a belief that already exists first

Objective truth?

If reality exists only subjectively — as the subjective reality metaparadigm proposes — truth becomes digitized; i.e. it's not a binary true/false, it's an atomic .999999999 (however many nines) probabilistic "certainty", because reality is VR-like.

In other words, truth becomes synonymous with love, which in unconditional, nondual, in recognizing that all truths are true from different perspectives, because that is the nature of truth — "for all truths are true and were it not so all that is would not be all that is", as Bashar put it.

Even the apparently objective truth of basic arithmetic (that 2+3=5) cannot be proven in mathematical logic, according to Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible, giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem.

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems logically disproved Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, which was "an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy, being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may be achievable."

Terence McKenna interpreted this — which he thought of as "maybe the most important intellectual step taken in the 20th century" — as meaning that "2+2=4" is not an absolute (i.e. objective) truth, but rather a very strong tendency (or habit in the Sheldrakean sense):

Terence Mckenna heckled about science, maths, probability theory and Kurt Gödel

As McKenna points out, any system may have hidden dimensions to it, such as orthogonality. Wikipedia says about hidden variable theory:

Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete, and that a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism. The existence of indeterminacy for some measurements is a characteristic of prevalent interpretations of quantum mechanics; moreover, bounds for indeterminacy can be expressed in a quantitative form by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, objected to the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and famously declared "I am convinced God does not play dice". Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance.

Polish logician, mathematician and philosopher Alfred Tarski took this a step further in 1936 with Tarski's undefinability theorem, which is "an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic."

There is a term used in epistemology to refer to this idea, known as the Münchhausen trilemma or Agrippa's trilemma, which is "a term used in epistemology to stress the purported impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics".

Beliefs and causality

In the subjective reality metaparadigm described by Bashar, everything exists here and now, simultaneously. Therefore:

Bashar - Building a house does not create the house

So working out does not create muscles or a fit figure, it is the belief (that links the two events) and makes it appear this way in physical reality. The change in the belief and/or the state-of-being actually creates a fit figure, not the act of working out.

The belief that 4th-dimensional causality determines outcomes, rather than the emotional state-of-being's vibrational resonance reflected by the 5th-dimensional Higher Mind, is an artificial limitation of the ego construct, not of the Physical Mind itself.

Beliefs and psychedelics

Entertain any idea but believe in nothing. As McKenna observes, Creation will "rain great gifts of knowledge on the doubter":

“The Evolution of a Psychedelic Thinker“ - Terence McKenna


What you believe to be true creates the state of being that is responsible for shifting you to the frequency of the reality that is commensurate of that state of being. And the state of being comes from what you believe to be true, or know to be true.


In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.

Mark Twain

He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.

Charles Peguy, poet and essayist (1873-1914)

The world we think we see is only a view, a collective description of the world that we create through our belief systems. Accepting this fact seems to be one of the most empowering things one can do.

David Wolfe

There are two things you need if you are to uncover and communicate what is really happening in the world. One is to be free of any dogmatic belief system. The second is not to give a damn what people think and say about you, or, at least, not to let that influence your decisions.

David Icke

What we believe is usually an unexamined idea or conviction uncritically received from others and shared with many others, hence, it is basic to our identity. In most cases, children believe what they are told to believe, period. (The truth is, children can resist with determination what they are told to believe, but with no one to confirm their resistence and support their dissent, they gradually comply and come to forget their objections, stifling the feelings that came with them.) In adopting beliefs, children naturally identify with those who share those beliefs, and who insistently impart them. The transmission of belief, hugely celebrated in high-toned rhetoric about spiritual and cultural "tradition," is actually one of the great, unadmitted tragedies of the human condition.

Unlike other animals, human progeny are neotonic, taking a long time to mature. When we are born, the brain is not yet developed as an organ. It takes many years to ripen a brain. While it accounts for the exceptional scope of learning and innovation of our species, this neotonic handicap makes offspring excessively dependent upon what is inculcated in them by adults. The sight of children cramped in a madrasa, an Islamic kindergarten, nodding like zombies and repeating the Koran eight hours a day is only one example (an obviously flagrant one) of how children are programmed to believe. Such practices, which exist in many forms in diverse cultures and religions, ought to be regarded as child abuse.

John Lash [source]

One of the most important keys to knowing anything is a willingness to question *everything* that we think we know and believe. I do my best to avoid believing something without experience or evidence, because to me, believing in something means simply accepting something told to us by an “authority“ because that is easier than finding out the truth for ourselves.

Living from this place of non-belief means being ok with saying “I don’t really know… I don’t have enough experience / information to really know the answer to this.“ It also means saying “In my experience“, “From my perspective“, “Based on my research“ or “As far as I can tell“ rather than proclaiming absolute knowledge. There are some absolutes, but most of reality at this level is very subjective and prone to distortions as well as deceptions.

I do know for a fact that what I know is a small portion of the knowledge of my High Self. The human condition is one of amnesia and not knowing, so rather than spending too much time and energy lamenting this fact, I accept it as the way things are, while working on improving this condition within myself and sharing my insights with others.

In other words, it’s ok to not know, since that is the current reality, as long as I do not choose ignorance or “comfortable beliefs“ over learning truth.

I take in a lot of information, but I am constantly rejecting aspects of this information based on my intuition as well as my internal filtering system. In this filtering system, I have determined certain types of information to be “most likely false“ as well as having categories such as “possibly true“, “possibly false“, “probably a manipulation“, “probably a partial truth“ and so forth. Notice that this is based in possibilities and probabilities, and not in absolutes.

Only when enough probabilities towards truth or falsehood are determined do I then decide that I (probably) know the veracity of some type of information. At the same time, each of those filtration categories is subject to revision based on new information. The expansion of awareness never ends.

Cameron Day [source]

[Each and every belief] is true from from its own point of view, but not true from you; not true from your point of view. Every belief is aways true and is always right from its own paradigm of understanding, otherwise the belief would not be there. If it was not true from a particular paradigm, that belief would not exist, because it would not have a ground to believe from. So there is a context, there is a paradigm domain, there is a frequency domain, from which, from that limited understanding of life, that belief is a relevant belief and it's absolutely true, within that paradigm. That makes sense?

Bentinho Massaro [source]

You must understand — fundamentally, all truths are true. And the truth is made of all truths. Now there may be certain ideas that have a little bit more efficacy as you may say, in certain applications in your day-to-day reality. They may not necessarily be germane, some of these ideas, to manifestation in your reality, maybe not as probable of a manifestion as other ideas might be, but your reality is changing every day. As many of you now know, there are many different kinds of discoveries, many different kinds of realizations and ideas, that are opening up new fields of awareness, new understandings of your consciousness, and therefore your reality, your physical material reality, is going to become a lot more slippery as you say. Space and time are losing their grip upon you, because you are creators of space and time. You are the creators of the physical reality in which you think you exist. And as you change your idea of yourself, as you expand beyond the notion that you are merely physical entities, and explore other realms of consciousness, and other levels of consciousness within you, so too will your physiological reality become that expanded, that nebulous, that fluid, that transmutational and transitional.

Bashar, 1995

It is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life, whilst the brain is impressible, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct; and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)