Monthly Archives: November 2022

Spiritual semantics

Posted on by
Reply

I was thinking, related to the line of thinking from the previous article, about several issues I’m having with the ideas I expressed there.

The first is in regard to the concept of spiritual growth by expanding the domain of self into the domain of non-self; basically, including things that are “other”. I didn’t explain what I meant by that, and I think I should, because most people will not find it intuitive.

I think the easiest way to explain this is if I say it’s the opposite to “cancel culture”. In the “cancel culture” of the contemporary Marxists, you basically never argue with the “enemy”. You just recognise that the “enemy” fits into the pre-defined groups that need to be destroyed, or at least “excluded from polite company” until their physical destruction becomes practical – you call them something-ist, and then you try to prevent them from talking or existing. The irony is that those cancel people justify their behaviour with the argument of compassion, but I will return to that later. For now, what matters is that cancel culture deals with non-self, with “other”, by separating it decisively from “self”, and designating it for destruction. This is exactly how one should behave if they want not to grow spiritually, because such an approach builds impenetrable walls around “self”, where “self” is good, and “non-self” is the evil Nazi enemy of all that is good and proper, with whom there can be no compromise or understanding.

Compassion, as I conceive it, means to understand that it could be you in that “non-self” entity position, and when you are skilled enough in yoga, you can extend your area of “self” to engulf either a person and an object, and think and feel from their position, and if their understanding is flawed, you bring it to correct understanding by introducing proper arguments that improve thinking, and you apply yoga to the disturbances of your mind – because it is now your mind, since you expanded the definition of Self to engulf it – and process the karmic impurities that are now your own. This, of course, is dangerous, because if your own spiritual core isn’t very firmly established in dharma (and by that I mean initiation into vajra and a prior experience of samadhi) you can quite literally “lose yourself”, and I don’t mean that in a good way, but in a psychosis and spiritual destruction way. In yogi terms, such process of expansion of self to engulf “other”, is very close to the definition of samyama, where for instance samyama on a tree means to exist as a tree, in a sense where you don’t think about a tree as a human would, but you “feel compassion” with a tree to the point where you exist and feel what that tree exists and feels. I used to practice this quite extensively, by sitting on a bench under a tree from late afternoon to deep night, and doing samyama on a tree, being the tree, learning to first calm my own mind completely, and then expand my perception, identity and range of “self” to engulf “other”. I was basically in the process of initiation into vajra at this point so I had both the ability and maturity, and I wouldn’t recommend this to beginners, because they either won’t be able to do it, or, even worse, they will be able to do it, but it will overwhelm them to the point of serious imbalance. Basically, one should achieve perfection of self first, then expand perfection outwards. Not having achieved perfection, work on that until you do, and abandon other silly ideas. I’m defining “perfection” as the ability to enter the state of samadhi at will, and feel its aspects in any direction of consciousness. Examples of this are, for instance, the ability to “bless” food; I would do it by entering samadhi and expanding consciousness/awareness/perception outwards, to food, where I would feel it within self and as a structure within the mind of God, so to speak. If I felt any karmic impurities or disturbances, I would do kriya to release them until all was at peace and depth. I would then proceed to eat food.

This is the process I call “compassion”, and here we arrive to my second issue; that of semantics. It is obvious to me that the words people commonly use, and the same words when used in literature of Yoga and Buddhism, have vastly different assumptions and meanings, which is fertile ground for all kinds of misunderstandings. When people commonly use the word “compassion”, they mean emotion, and it’s hardly a subtle one at that. When I use this word, I mean entering samadhi, and directly feeling the “other”, as self but with different body/mind/circumstances, and while compassion as it is commonly understood implies agreement and unity of emotion and thought, yogi compassion doesn’t exist at all at this level. There is no emotional exchange, and there are no own thoughts, because those are interference and disturbance that stands in the way of direct perception by means of samyama. When a yogi “feels compassion” with someone, it means “to exist as”, or “do samyama on that someone”. It doesn’t include thinking and feeling emotions; sure, thoughts and emotions do arise as secondary aspects of identification, but they exist in the same way in which two fluids would exchange heat and kinetic energy when mixed; it’s physics, not an emotional exercise. It means to become “other” karmically, and to solve those problems from that “other” position, while at the same time retaining the perspective of dharma, and “enlightening” the joint karma by application of yogic effort. Compassion, essentially, starts from the position of dharma, “spoils it” by engulfing karma of “non-self” and making it the karma of self, and then applying the force of dharma to, metaphorically, “compress” the chaotic, turbulent karmic substance, feeling suffering, and doing kriya to release, which would be the thermodynamic equivalent of releasing the excess heat. Eventually, a state of peace is achieved, where the greater-self entity is in the state of dharma, devoid of disturbance, and in the high-energy state (which is comparable to the state of physical matter where the atoms are close together, a solid or something even denser). So, when you see mentions of “compassion” and “suffering” in Buddhist literature, have in mind that those words don’t have the same meaning one would associate with them in common speech. It’s the same with the word “love”, which is used by everyone and could mean anything, which is why I find it contaminated and useless. As an anecdote, I once heard small children saying how love is the most important thing, and I was initially shocked, because I know how children are inherently incredibly selfish and completely unable to feel empathy, so what would they possibly know of love? I then understood that they don’t mean love as something they feel or do; it’s how they feel when others feel and do something towards them, when they feel safe, included, accepted and cared for. This, in turn, creates the idea that one loves you if they do everything you like, and exactly your way, which is an incredibly selfish way of perceiving others. How is it at all possible that people say that God is love, when it is obvious that God is as far from this spiritual state as one can imagine? I thought about this, and the conclusion I came to isn’t simple, because the statement that God is love is really an over-simplification of statements that were made by the actual saints who actually experienced God. The saints didn’t experience what a child would assume by love – the feeling they have when their parents care for them. Sure, there is one aspect of it – being completely understood and known, being accepted and part of, but there is more to it; as St. Theresa of Avilla described the feeling when an angel pierced her heart with his spear, and she felt pain so terrible she couldn’t bear it for even a moment, and so delicious she wanted it to last forever. This feeling of terrible power, that is wonderful beyond dreams, and at the same time both accepting and judgmental, because it carries implications – you need to act of that in order to be of that, so to speak. In order not to reject God, you need to affirm your belonging to God by acting the way God would act, both in the world and beyond. So, you can say it’s “love”, but honestly, a word that can mean anything to anyone is hardly of any use at all, and the danger of misunderstanding is greater than the possible utility of conveying a meaning.

I’m having similar issues when using the words people think they understand, but they truly don’t, for instance the word God. When I say the word “God”, I touch samadhi. When people think the word “God”, who knows what rubbish they think; the only thing I’m certain of is that it contains very little in terms of a transcendental component; it’s mostly misconceptions accompanied by frustrations and resentment. To me, God is the deep transcendental reality from which I raise up thoughts and words, and this manifestation of thoughts, words, deeds from God is dharma, as I understand it. Dharma is the state in which thought, action and deed arises from brahman, without disturbance.

So, basically, if a common person thinks they understand what a saint, avatar or an enlightened person is saying, just because they use words that have a commonly understood meaning, they are most likely wrong.

On restrictive theory

Posted on by
Reply
(I’m forwarding a part of a very interesting private discussion I had with Robin, because I think it might be useful to more people)

robin wrote:

I agree, the self realised state appears to be normal once the body is removed, this is also reinforced by many NDE experiences. In that sense, its not an achievement or anything special and I’m not sure how useful it is for the soul to manifest it while in physical form. It would definitely improve the pleasantness of ones physical existence, make life here more bearable and change ones physical perspective. However, if the goal is to become self realised and everything is already self realised once the body is removed than how can it be of any value to the soul? Maybe the goal is manifesting the self realised state by overcoming the physical limitations and attaining liberation but somehow it doesn’t feel like the point of it. On some deeper level we must be each trying to achieve something specific which is lacking and gain experience, wisdom and refinement of qualities.

Yes, that’s my line of thinking as well. Remove the body and suddenly both a flower a saint and a god are “self realized”, but then there’s the obvious difference between them. The only thing Vedanta has to offer is “a flower will need to be *more* self-realized”, but it’s a completely hollow argument that shows the inherent weakness of the philosophy, because it has only the atma-brahma-jnana card to play as the explanation for all the problems and quantitative differences, and once that is removed, it has nothing. That’s actually something I noticed in 1994 when I was in samadhi; that there is an obvious difference between a saint and God, and it was obvious that the answer wasn’t that the God was in samadhi more, or that he removed some remainder of duality and what not. It’s something else, and it was a mystery to me. The second mystery were the descriptions of God in Bhagavata-purana, that looked like descriptions of name and form, which Vedanta would dismiss outright as mere limitations upon brahman, but they obviously weren’t limitations, but somehow God-aspects; relative and Absolute both, in a strange way that created relative divine presence phenomena, similar to how Buddhism would explain Dakinis, something that exists in a superposition state between nirvana and samsara. I incrementally introduced non-vedantic elements to explain reality, because Vedanta simply lacked cognitive instruments for processing the actual empirical evidence that I gathered, and it’s not that I just replaced Vedanta with Buddhism, because I find most interpretations of Buddhism lacking and unsatisfactory; however, the part of Buddhism that deals with high-energy spiritual states, such as the elements, vajra, dakinis, bodhisattva-states etc., corresponds very closely to my experiences and I found it very useful for modelling, in combination with the aspect of Hinduism that describes the Gods. Combining the descriptions of Vishnu and Shiva, for instance, with the understanding of how vajras and dakinis work, and then understanding that Self-realization is the underlying current somewhere in all that, not some generic emptiness Buddhism keeps harping about, well, it creates a much better framework.

robin wrote:

danijel wrote:

Yes, Self-realization is probably one of the “names of God”, or at least that seems to be the effect of darshan of God. However, I keep being bothered by the fact that Vedanta collimates the experience by focusing only on that, the way one would collimate an x-ray source by absorbing everything but a very small sliver by a block of lead. There are so many things I experienced that I hardly have names for; for instance, the combination of deep understanding and kindness, but with the undercurrent of immense depth and power; there isn’t a simple word for it, such as “ananda” or “jnana”, but it is nevertheless one of the main things one feels in the presence of God, the power of a thunderclap but lasting, and not momentary; and yet not necessarily explicit, merely hinted, and it still strikes you with unbearable force. Also, the weapons of the Gods, things like the sudarsana cakra or the trident, when you look at them there’s a whole story in it, the intent, kinetic motion, intent that seeks the narrow line of dharma and follows along, there’s so much there and I’ve seen nobody talking about it, just the same five fucking sentences about how tat brahman aham, so ham. If that were all there is to it, God would be the most boring fucking thing ever and all the saints would have committed suicide just to get it over with finally. 🙂

Probably most people stop at tat brahman aham realisation because the majority of souls lack the capability of realising and manifesting the awesome things you described. They probably cant go any further and there is literally nothing they could do to arrive at the quality of depth of understanding, kindness and power you are talking about. The best most of us can hope for is feeling those qualities in God as a result of Darshan (if we are lucky), being struck by how great God actually is and praising his awesomeness. But there doesn’t seem to be a realistic way of actually having the same quality and realisation and I don’t see how a soul could develop into that within a short period of time any more than a cloud of hydrogen gas could become a neutron star by trying or a hard rock could become a diamond by exerting effort. That cloud of gas or rock would have to go through a long process over millions of years and it doesn’t look like something that can be easily attained. So most people end up settling on self realisation and calling it a day 🙂 .

That’s all true, but the real question is, if “more self-realization” isn’t the path forward, explaining the difference between a rock and sudarshana-cakra, or a flower and the mind of Shiva, what is? Compassion, in the sense of “becoming more”, expanding what you are into the realm that is presently beyond you? That seems to be the closest, because, obviously, things like suffering and yoga might be side-effects and tools, not the working principle; for instance, when through compassion you expand to include non-self things, they are usually what Patanjali would call “disturbed”, they create terrible whirlpools of citta that emotionally translate as “suffering”, and then yoga comes into play, as means of working through the suffering and “thermodynamically” calming the spiritual substance, the way a compressor in a refrigerator “calms” the gas by extracting the excess heat. This seems to be the basic Buddhist explanation for the phenomenon of spiritual growth, and I can’t presently think of problems it doesn’t solve.

Red lines

Posted on by
Reply

Geopolitically speaking, a “red line” is something that is declared by a sovereign nation as something that can’t be tolerated and will be treated as a declaration of war, which is presumed to eventually escalate, and eventually turn into a nuclear exchange. Basically, it can be seen as something that’s worth not only dying for, but also having everybody die for. As a side note, America behaves as if it’s the only power that is allowed to draw such red lines, which is incredibly ridiculous and arrogant.

The problem is, America is drawing an increasing number of red lines, at increasingly more tactical places, which is also incredibly dangerous and arrogant. During the cold war, the red lines were obvious – if someone inhibits global oil traffic, it’s a red line. If someone fires a nuclear weapon at a NATO member, it’s a red line. If someone performs a massive ground invasion of a NATO member, it’s a red line. If someone strikes American homeland with a weapon of mass destruction, it’s a red line. Sink an American aircraft carrier, it’s a red line. But the red lines kept multiplying and becoming less clear – if someone attacks American infrastructure, including cyber-war, it’s a red line. Attack American military satellites used for war against you, it’s a red line. Attack American bases used for war against you, it’s a red line. Attack American troops on the ground waging war against you, it’s a red line. There are already more red lines than on a Scottish kilt, for fuck’s sake. Basically, the message is “we’ll do whatever we want but if you do absolutely anything to hurt us back, it’s getting nuclear”, and this is a bluff that absolutely needs to be called, because if it isn’t, you accept your status as America’s bitch.

The problem is, America actually wants a nuclear war, so a “what are you going to do about it, launch nukes?” posture won’t work. This red-line inflation reminds me of what Americans did with the definition of “weapons of mass destruction”, inflating it to include pressure cookers filled with firecrackers, because they found it convenient for sentencing some Muslim terrorists. My response to this was “ok, but what then is a MIRV ICBM?” If you increase your sensitivity to violence performed against you, and simultaneously increase your involvement in violent and disruptive actions against others, someone will eventually decide not only to cross your red lines somewhere, but be done with you altogether. Too many sanctions, too many red lines, too many dangerous, threatening actions infringing upon major powers. America created a situation where global trade will not work unless America is destroyed, world banking system of financial transactions won’t be free again unless America is destroyed, Russia and China won’t be able to develop freely unless America is destroyed, and the minor countries of the world will not feel free to behave normally unless America is destroyed, creating a multi-dimensional topology where everybody will be much happier and more free if America is destroyed. Combining this topology with all the red lines placed at every single place where America’s position of dominance is threatened, we get a situation where the countries of the world will try not to trigger American red lines but subvert the present situation, to which America reacts by introducing further red lines, and this sequence is quickly converging to its limit.

Basically, the only way we can avoid a nuclear war is if something else takes America out first. I don’t know what – a supervolcanic eruption, an asteroid strike, aliens or God, but if they are not humbled in a very extreme and radical way, they will keep cooking up a scenario that makes an extreme explosion of global violence inevitable.

 

Ambiguities

Posted on by
3

Russia did a very strange thing; they withdrew from Kherson city. The strange part is that they had enough troops and soldiers there to keep killing the Ukrainians indefinitely, without suffering significant losses; the Ukrainians basically got a gift they could never have conquered militarily, and not for the lack of trying – they’ve been trying for months, and the result was lots of dead Ukrainians. The strangest part about this is that Kherson is an ideal bridgehead for the Russians for taking Nikolaev and Odessa.

The first-order analysis indicates that the Russians abandoned the plans for using this bridgehead in order to advance towards Odessa and connect with Transnistria.

The second-order analysis asks the question “why”. It is possible that America sold the Russian leadership some bullshit about averting nuclear war by freezing the conflict at the Dnieper river, without any political solution, basically allowing things to cool down. The actual American plan would be to “refurbish” the Ukrainian army which is in very dire straits and would collapse if the Russians were to perform the anticipated winter campaign with the additional 300k troops. The Russian people fear something of the sorts, but are giving their leadership the benefit of the doubt, and if there isn’t a winter offensive, heads will roll, and I mean Putin and his people. This might exactly be the American long-term plan. Another possibility is that the Russians have abandoned the partial plans for Ukraine, which the south belt connecting Kherson with Transnistria through Odessa would be, and that they intend to come into Ukraine hard, pulverize their army, kill their leadership, throw out NATO and send a firm message – anyone fucking with us ever again will end like this. This is what the Russian people want, and if the leadership doesn’t produce this goal, the people will produce new leadership, which might be very bad for everyone, because all the candidates are hot-headed and inexperienced.

I don’t know which one is it, so we basically have a ternary tree, where one branch is armistice, where America and NATO regroup, fix the failing Ukrainian army, and proceed to try to weaken and isolate Russia, where Russia isn’t willing to strike at the core of the problem directly, so by definition their only hope for a victory is America crumbling down due to their own internal issues, or, alternatively, from a war with China over Taiwan. The highest-probability outcome in this war is still nuclear, only with a delay that would give America a better, less chaotic situation, and Russia would have internal political turmoil and wide-spread popular dissatisfaction with the situation preceding the war. This puts Russia in a precarious situation where they enter a certain nuclear conflict weakened and demoralized. They would lose, and they might not even manage to strike at the enemy properly, similar to the 1990s situation. Russia loses, but China performs a full strategic strike at America, because it becomes obvious to them that they are next, and with their main strategic ally lost, the nuclear option is the only alternative to total defeat and eternity of servitude.

The second branch is that the Russians are deciding to be done with Ukraine altogether, and are now giving up on partial solutions, where they would take the south and everything east of Dnieper; no, Ukraine needs to be rinsed of both Nazis and NATO, and the job needs to be done thoroughly, by tearing the filth down, killing all the problematic people there, and rebuilding everything on solid grounds afterwards. Giving up on the Kherson bridgehead means giving up on the concept of having a costly breakthrough in the South, that doesn’t give them a stable outcome in the end, but only increases the front line that is locked in perpetual conflict. This branch means the Russians wait for the ground to freeze and their reinforcements to be ready, and they most likely pulverize everything with aviation and rockets first, and then do a blitz from multiple vectors. As Ukraine falls, NATO goes in from the West, there is a direct conflict, and the Russians decide that the war with the Americans is no longer something they could avoid or limit, and they start taking out American command and control assets in Europe and in space. The Americans retaliate by striking Russian command and control centres with tactical nukes. The Russians perform a full strategic retaliation. What is left of America retaliates at Russian and Chinese cities.

The third branch is something that is usually ignored, because of Putin’s very strong psychological and ethical resistance to being the guy who started the nuclear war with the West. The third branch means to realize that Russia is already in a war with the collective West, and needs to win it. Strike decisively, strike first, strike with the element of surprise, take out all enemy assets, and strike so hard that the enemy never again poses a danger. This branch is something I am listing as an option only because I’m being thorough; it is a single digit probability option.

So, basically, I don’t know what’s going on because at this point everybody is lying and trying to deceive the enemy with everything they have, so I have to basically ignore everything I see and hear, and stick only to what I know. Strangely, it might be the economical factors that push America’s hand – for a while now everything’s been balancing at a knife’s edge, and something will eventually give and we’ll have the entire house of cards crumbling. What I do know is that everything is rotten, and there’s no healthy tissue anywhere in the Western sphere, and it will certainly collapse. I don’t know the exact immediate cause, or the exact conditions of the moment, and I honestly don’t care, because that’s the pastime of fools. I care about the thermodynamics of hurricanes, not which houses will be the first to lose power when it strikes. However, it is very likely that the Americans will have some advance knowledge of the exact circumstances of the collapse, and this will force their hand.