Q.  What is a brain jockey?
A.  A brain jockey is a yogi without all the unscientific beliefs and excess cultural baggage of Hinduism and Buddhism.  A brain jockey utilizes intense self-observation to know himself before he dies.  Brain jockeys practice authentic meditation techniques for years in order to rewire their brains to make them more conscious.

Q.  What does a brain jockey believe?
A.   A brain jockey does not cling to philosophical and religious beliefs.  He observes that human beings have existence on two levels:

1. On one level of observation he sees that we exist as temporary individuals, just infinitesimally small parts of the universe.  Brain jockeys accept that the individual is mortal without trying to cover up our vulnerability and impermanence with religious myths.
2. From the greater perspective, the brain jockey also factually observes that we are also the whole universe.  The Big Bang Theory aside, the universe is basically immortal in terms of concepts of time that humans can comprehend.

Q.  Who is the leader of the brain jockeys?
A.  Brain jockeys have no leader, no heroes, and do not follow any individual or cult.

Q.  How much does it cost to become a brain jockey?
A.  It's free!  A brain jockey only spends his own time and patient effort to meditate. 

Q.  Isn't "brain jockey" a silly name?
A.  Yes!  A brain jockey maintains a sense of humor because he knows that life is short and entertainment is the only purpose of life.  If you are not being entertained, there is no point in being here.

Q.  Will meditation make me wiser, healthier, and give me supernatural powers?
A.  Meditation will not make you smarter and has little to do with intelligence.  Phony gurus over-sell meditation in order to increase their profits.  If you have no profit motive in meditation you can tell the truth about its limitations.  Meditation will not solve all the world's problems, will not improve your health dramatically, and will not make you all-seeing and all-knowing.  Meditation will not give you the power to walk on water, but it may make you feel as though

Q.  Should everyone meditate?
A.  No.  Meditation is not for everyone.  If meditation does not spontaneously interest you, then do not force yourself.  The stars will not fall out of the sky just because you decide to live a life without formal meditation practice.  There are other positive things you can do to improve your life.  For example, jogging and swimming are excellent physical exercises which will reduce stress, make you more relaxed, and improve your health.  Meditation is only something you do because you want to gain the indescribable experiences it brings.  Meditation is one of the few things that improves with age.  Your looks and your sex life are not going to get better as you grow older.  Your power of meditation will continually improve with age if you practice regularly with intensity.  If you just give meditation lip service, without regular practice, you will gain nothing.

Our ultimate destiny as individuals is fixed no matter what we do.  Death is just around the corner for all human animals, and there is nothing you can gain from meditation that will not be lost by your death.  It's all in the brain, and when your brain dies your meditation will come to an abrupt and permanent end.  There is no coming back.  Meditation may make you more relaxed, sleep better, and reduce your level of fear and tension, but it will not solve all of your personal, financial, and political problems, or turn you into a saint.  Those who pose as saints, superheroes, and reincarnations of famous historic figures are either sincerely self-deluded or cunning frauds.

Gurus who sell quick meditation methods, encounter groups, seminars, and PBS specials are just taking advantage of the innocent.  The very synapses in your brain must be rewired to reconnect in new ways to gain progress in meditation.  This organic transformation takes a long time, and there is no way around patient practice.  All authentic meditation methods can be done alone, at home, at no financial cost to you.

The Brain Jockey Club © 2004 Christopher Calder.

How do we define good? If good is something "positive" how can we know "positive" if we have no idea of "negative" in the first place? Would we know we are on the "positive" side if we only knew about the "0" point? Wouldn't we still need to know about the "negative"?

Here is an example :

Think about an apple. What defines a "good" apple? Its texture? That totally is not the one, different apples have different textures, each has its own definition of good within its class. Is it the smell? Maybe, but not absolutely : the smell is still a comperative form of definition : you have to compare it to something. Is it the taste? Could be. The color? Nope. Let's focus on taste then. We are holding an apple in our hands, we weigh it; means nothing, we smell it; means a little; we look at it, nothing; then we take a bite and we taste it. Aaaah, there we are : this apple is "good". Why? Where did we get it?

Let's pick a "bad" apple from the bunch, wrap it up and take it to a remote island, where the inhabitants have no idea of what an apple is - let alone a good one. We unwrap the rotten apple, it's gone bad, but it is not actually rotting ok? Don't assume any flies or colonies of mold on it. It's just turned brown and soft. We know it is not the best representative of its kind. But these people don't, so don't ruin it. We hand the apple to the tribe chief, and tell that the apple - something they are seeing for the first time in their lives - is a delicious fruit, with a little sour taste. The chief takes the apple, takes a bite, and likes it !!! The whole tribe shares the apple, and have the time of their lives. Now ask the chief what a "good" apple is. There you go. Until the chief tastes another apple, a better or a worse one - in terms of taste, he will think that a good apple has a sour taste, and looks soggy and brown. If the next apple he tastes is worse then this apple is still a better one; if the next apple is "better" - from our point of view - and the chief thinks that it is, then this apple is no longer the "good" one. Don't forget, there is a high probability of the chief's not liking a "better" apple, maybe he will prefer the soggy and sour taste to the hard to bite and sweet one!

The whole infrastructure of "good" comes from "evil". This of course is quite a harsh way to put it Let's smooth it out : the definition of good or bad relies on comparison