Yesterday I had a reason to think about some of the presuppositions of Satanic ideology, namely Thelema (the Will). Essentially, they idolise the Will as if it were some kind of a cornerstone thing, not realising what smarter religions do instantly: that Will is merely the first derivative of one’s nature. The Buddhists would say that one’s Will, defined as a general force behind one’s desires, will be a vector sum of all the energetic momenta that make up his soul. Translated to English, after the different things that fight for supremacy within your soul cancel each other out, if there’s any of the momentum of force remaining, it will be directed at something, and you can call this remainder Will, if you like, and this vector always powers Samsara, investing energy into one’s further bondage. The Hindus would say that your Will is conditioned by both your past karma and the disorderly state of your mind, making your will essentially a result of your conditioning and limitations. This is why only God and liberated souls have free Will, while others are merely oxen bound to the plough of the forces that enslave and condition them. The Christians state this in a less analytical way, but with the same purport: a human soul is conditioned by both sin and the nature of the body, which condition the direction and quality of its will. Without God’s grace, or as they would say, without Holy Spirit, a human soul is destined to wallow in the mud of the world, being motivated by pain of existence to commit sin, which then causes further pain of existence, motivating it to further sin, until death, and without redemption such sinful soul falls into hell, which was originally meant as Gehena, which was a name of a pit outside Jerusalem where the Hebrews threw corpses of diseased cattle and other trash to rot – essentially meaning an endpoint of total destruction, death without a future or afterlife. So, essentially, what the Christians are saying is that unless the light of God is lit within one’s soul, his inner darkness and depravity will cause him to think the thoughts and do the deeds of further darkness and depravity, his nature bound in a vicious circle that ends in his doom.

So, what do I think, which of those three is right? I think they all are. All of them formulate the problem correctly, with various degrees of poeticism or mathematical exactness, where Buddhism looks like someone applied mathematical analysis to the problem, where you can literally work with vectors, matrices, function derivatives and so on, and use them to explain things, which has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is the analytical clarity that is not clouded by emotionality, and the disadvantage is that it’s easy to forget that the fundamental vector elements it’s explaining are emotional momenta of all kinds, and while this abstract interpretation is useful to an expert, a beginner who is completely bound into this snare of unclear emotions will hardly benefit from it, which makes the Hindu model more useful, and the Christian one more useful still, if you want to explain things to a complete beginner who might not care for the analytical exactness, and just wants to understand his problem and solve it. Unlike the foolish Satanists who say that this is your life, this is your Will and you need to live your life and impose your Will upon the world, in which others are either tools or obstacles, the Christianity makes a very radical statement: you are dead, rather than alive. What you see as your life and Will are merely death-throes of an empty, godless existence. Since everything that motivates your Will is either ignorance or suffering, everything you do will just shovel manure on the shitpile that is your life. The only way to get out of this doomed position is to stop trying to save yourself and impose yourself upon the world, but instead recognise your worthlessness and helplessness and reach out to God, who is the true Life, and the true Meaning, or Logos in Greek. Rather than wallow in darkness or curse it, one is saved by accepting light and meaning of God into their life, and only at this point can you truly see the darkness that was your former life; if there’s no light in your life, you can’t understand you’re in darkness, because darkness is all you know; it’s “normal”. Only after the light appears can you understand your former darkness in contrast. So, essentially, Buddhism explains things as they actually work, and Christianity explains things as they feel. Both are perfectly valid and accurate.

The further issue I have with Satanism is that it’s teenage rebellion against parental and societal authority that’s somehow codified into ideology. It’s basically a scream of a frustrated teenager who discovered that he is a person and wants to live his own life, and not be defined by external authorities. What this fails to understand is, of course, that this is not a valid model for interpreting the human condition. You are not an inherently free being that is being bound by external forces. You are an inherently conditioned being, bound by your past karma multiplied by your ignorance, and in this quagmire that defines your soul, the more energetically you move to free yourself, the deeper you sink. You are not a free being surrounded by things that limit you. You are a conditioned, ignorant and sinful being, surrounded by others of your kind, each wallowing in the mud of your inner depravity, interacting in selfish and sinful ways and causing each other further suffering and ignorance. So, basically, as much as others limit you and contribute to your suffering, you likely do the same to them, and this creates the collective mess of sin and depravity with very little redeeming light, if any.

So, the way out of this predicament is not found through attempts of emancipation or self-assertion, since that’s what everybody tries and invariably fails at, because you can’t pull yourself out of the mud by your hair. No; your salvation is not in your hands. Your salvation is possible only by identifying what light it is possible for you to perceive in your darkness, grasp at it and give it preference over whatever you think you are and over whatever you think is your Will and desires. As you feel the light and allow it to heal you, the fractures in your soul will heal, and its nature will improve, having been healed by the light of God. Your thoughts and emotions will then be more of the nature of God’s light, than of the darkness that preceded it, and, paradoxically, as you surrender your Will to God, your Will becomes more free, as conditioning upon it is removed; it’s a paradox, but the path of self-assertion and emancipation only strengthens the chains that bind you; as you let go of self, you gain insight, freedom and power, because you understand that “self” is not your miserable darkness, “self” is what you find only in God’s presence, in the light of truth, when you understand that emancipation of true self comes not from a struggle against Other, but through release from the bondage of spiritual darkness and depravity that defined your miserable existence.

So, no, you’re not a spark of light in the darkness of the world, where God is a limiting force that tries to make you conform to expectations, where you heroically rebel against bla bla bla. Nonsense. You’re a fool, ignorant and depraved, weak and cowardly, and God is the light you reject, and since this light is the necessary prerequisite of courage, heroism and virtue, you possess neither. God is not that one great being that wants to keep you small, as Satanist fools assume. No, God is the Force that can make you a Jedi. God is that greatness that makes all that embrace it great. Without God, there is nought but depravity and darkness.

So, no, Satanism isn’t a struggle of light against darkness, it’s a struggle of darkness against fictions of its own foolishness and delusion. It’s a struggle of darkness that sees the light as a terrible beast that threatens its existence and wants to dispel it, to which I say, good. Die, then, so that truth and virtue may be born.

I was thinking about the concept of persistence in spirituality, and this might actually be a more layered and important issue than anyone thinks.

You see, I was thinking about my mistakes, about why I made them, whether they were “unforced” or not, to use the tennis analogy, about what I could have done better, how I handled the fallout, and what’s the reason why I could essentially walk away without so much as missing a step.

The reason why I could “fail gracefully”, to use a programming analogy, is because I think like a scientist, which means that I understand that failure is always an option. Once you think you can’t possibly be wrong and all that is needed is persistence and diligence and the attainment of perfection is guaranteed, you are either an omnipotent and omniscient God, or a stupid cultist.

I was a zealot and a fanatic, but I was never a stupid cultist. The difference is, I was absolutely dedicated to attaining the ultimate goal, but I knew better than to assume I know what that ultimate goal is, which is why I could fail an arbitrary number of times and not lose a step – you see, my assumption was that I am lost, in the dark, with everything stacked against me, that everything I know about transcendental realities is based on very powerful experiences that were short, translated very poorly into concepts that can be intellectually processed by the human brain, that all the theory I had to work with is merely someone else’s attempt at making an intellectual system out of something his brain was as poorly suited for interpreting as mine, and even when I discovered mechanisms that work repeatedly and reliably and could be made into “spiritual technology”, I could hardly even attempt to explain the actual theory, the way scientists can tell you everything about how gravity works, but they know nothing about what gravity actually is, and how mass actually bends spacetime.

Sure, I always had some kind of a theory about how things work, what’s going on and where I seem to be heading, but I knew it was a theory; or a working hypothesis, to use scientific terms. You need to have some kind of a roadmap in your brain, and if you don’t, your brain will basically refuse to cooperate. However, the way my personal roadmap works is that I absolutely need to know what my next step needs to be. I need to know what to do at the next intersection. This is where my roadmap works the best. As things get less immediate, I care less about knowing details in any kind of a resolution. I don’t care about things some religious people seem to fuss over – how many wings and eyes does some type of angel have, does God have a throne, and similar nonsense. No, I understand that physical brain has limitations, and interpolating nonsense and pretending it’s resolution doesn’t contribute anything to the probability of actual spiritual achievement and success. What I need to know is whether meditation needs to be separate from all other activities or do I have to extend meditation into daily activities and basically make it the underlying state in everything I do. The latter; good, spend years perfecting that.

That’s why I am annoyed when some supposed Buddhists talk about renouncing Nirvana at the very beginning of their path, as if it were possible for a beginner to even know what Nirvana is and what it feels like, and as if it made any sense to accept or renounce something that might be the ultimate goal, from a position where you can’t even know anything for certain about realities three steps away from your current position.

That’s where we come to the issue of persistence. You can’t know whether persistence on your current path is good or bad if you don’t know your ultimate destination, because you’re in the process of learning. Yes, you are currently moving South, but you don’t know whether South is your ultimate destination, or merely a direction of the next important junction, where you will need to re-evaluate your entire situation because you learned something new and important. Essentially, your entire theory is good if it brings you to your first transcendental experience. Then you will know much more about higher realities, you will have something practical to check your theory with, and you will have fresh understanding that will make possible for you to learn new skills and acquire new abilities, making you into a whole new kind of being that can now understand things your previous version couldn’t even comprehend. When I think about this, I remember myself and other kids in the fourth grade trying to imagine what mathematics in higher education looks like, and all we could imagine was working the same basic operations but with bigger numbers. It turned out that bigger numbers were never a thing, and I learned something about expectations based on experience. Basically, what you need to worry about is the general trajectory, and doing the immediate next step properly, not the ultimate goal, not remaining faithful to the religion you started with. The idea that a religion will take care of you from beginning to end is incredibly naive; you will eventually experience something that will make your religion seem naive and superficial, and you will then either switch to something that explains your new experience better, or simply carve your own path into solid rock, if nothing else works. Sometimes there are no paved paths because you’re on your own, doing something nobody else did before, because that’s the trick with Creation – to believe that God created souls only so that they could all end up in the same place, or at least sorted in several known boxes, is to believe that the whole thing is essentially pointless. Also, since there’s a risk of failure, the reward for success must be something much greater than what you had in the beginning, or it would just not be worth it.

You can now say that making sure that the next step is on a generally positive trajectory is, in a sense that it leads to God, is paramount. Honestly, you’d have to be God in order to know what is on a generally positive trajectory. I’d rather trust God to guide my next step than try to figure out whether a negative present slope of the curve means I’m doing something wrong, or do I need to climb down a smaller mountain top before climbing a taller one, because I learned long ago that being in the driver’s seat while blind, drunk and not knowing how to drive is not the best thing, and in most cases having control over your situation just gives you enough rope to hang yourself. It is much better to just trust God with choosing the path, and take care of the immediate things that you can actually do well if you apply yourself to it.

So, yes, do the immediate next step like your ultimate destiny depends on it, and with absolute dedication and diligence. Also, understand that you’re not a train, you’re a leaf in the wind, and act accordingly – learn what God is trying to teach you and go where He leads you. Don’t be persistent, consistent or right. It’s not about being right, or about always maintaining the upward trajectory, because you’re not in a position to know. You’re in a position to keep your mind on God, and figure out how to make that next step so that you can still keep your mind on God. If you keep your mind on God and focus only on what you need to do, God is your ultimate trajectory. If you try to figure out the path, the trajectory and the ultimate goal, the illusory forces of this world control your path and your outcome. Basically, if you try to be in control of your path, you are ceding control to Satan, and the ego trip of being in control of your situation claims another sucker.

There’s another thing I thought of while writing the previous article, but I decided to separate it into another article due to its importance.

You see, spiritual experience usually begins on your own terms; your limitations, preconceptions and general qualities determine how you will allow God to approach you and be perceived. You are a set of hurdles God needs to jump over in order to be experienced, and what you will experience is going to be primarily determined by you – your limitations, your ability to conceptualise spirituality and God, and so on. You will approach God as Jesus, or heavenly Father, or Mother, or your friend. Your human condition determines almost the entirety of the “interface”; everything is taking place on “your ground” and on “your terms”.

However, if you are to make spiritual progress beyond this initial phase, you must transcend your human conditioning and meet God progressively on his terms. This is when things get very hard to describe in terms that will mean anything to humans, which is why I don’t even try, instead choosing to put everything in terms very much resembling a fairy tale – something that’s of course not true or real, but conveys a message that is very much real, and I would rather be understood than formally accurate.

What does it mean to meet something on its own terms? It means to feel the spiritual state of a tree the way the tree itself perceives existence. It means to feel another being the way this being perceives from within itself. It means perceiving a spiritual being’s inner consciousness and position, and understanding how it exists, and what it is in itself. It means not drawing Sun with a smile because it makes you feel happy, like children do, and not thinking God is love because God’s presence makes you feel loved.

You start from your human condition and limitations, but if you fail to transcend it, it’s not a journey. It’s stagnation on square one. If you keep forcing God to meet you on your terms, and fail to transcend yourself and your conditioning in order to start meeting God progressively more on his terms, what are you even accomplishing?

Thinking about all those supposed issues that turned out to be non-issues in spiritual practice, such as eating meat or whatever, there certainly are things I encountered that turned out to be harmful, in the sense that they inhibit spiritual advancement or even produce spiritual degradation. So, let’s make a list of those, with a special accent on the problems people might actually struggle with today.

Overload. Whether it’s overload of sensory inputs, information, contacts with other people, overload of any kind will keep your mind in a state of chaos and superficiality, and you can’t get anything done in such a state. I recently saw ads/reviews for a digital version of a typewriter, essentially a keyboard with a rudimentary computer and e-ink screen that isn’t connected to the Internet, because obviously some people have a problem trying to write something on a computer that is connected to the Internet and provides an endless source of temptation to alt-tab into the web browser or chat or something that will distract you from what you need to do. Apparently, the problem is significant enough for some that they find it easier to just get another, inherently disconnected device, than to control the impulse to superficially surf the chaos, watching hundreds stupid video clips in a row and wasting yet another day. I kind of understand that, since human bodies are not designed for this; the closest you will normally get to this experience is a chaotic market where everybody is constantly pestering you with stuff and you’re not even sure you’re interested, but stuff is shiny.

Another thing that causes overload are video games, and not just any video games, but specifically those that require very fast movement and reaction time, below the threshold of thinking, the kind that motivates people to buy fast-refresh monitors and graphics cards because 60 FPS isn’t enough; the first-person shooters, mostly. My first encounter with this stuff was Duke Nukem 3d, in the 1990s, and playing that would have my mind look like a hive of angry bees, basically incoherent chaos, for hours. On the contrary, games that have a slow pace, like Diablo, Warcraft, Elite, or Witcher 3 as a modern equivalent, produce no such adverse effects. Basically, human brain doesn’t lend itself to overclocking, and the adverse effects of overloading it with information or forcing it to work on maximum speed are severe.

Superficial interpersonal connections. In times before the Internet and the social networks, our elders used to warn us against wasting time sitting in some bar hanging out with people, talking mostly about nothing in particular, because you end up wasting your life that way. Unfortunately, with the social media this became the default mode of behaviour, and I mean wasting your life away on stupid bullshit and nothing in particular. This is one of those “games” where the only winning move is not to play.

I think there’s something about human brain that makes “socialising” both attractive and superficial, and the bigger the group, the worse the problem. Basically, when you’re alone, you are capable for your greatest spiritual depths. When you’re with another person, you’re limited to the weakest link of the two; basically, the best case scenario is that you are the weakest link, because then you can learn and be pulled beyond your limits by the other person. If the other person is the limiting factor, you can either waste time by functioning below your potential because the other person isn’t interesting in exceeding their limitations, or you focus and amplify your thoughts by explaining them to the other person in attempts to improve their understanding, or you give up and leave. However, as the group increases, the likelihood of the group dynamics being defined by everybody’s fears and fake personality, posturing, trying to maintain a likeable facade, and keeping everything superficial and “safe”, increases with some kind of a logarithmic curve where everything beyond a certain number that can be counted on fingers of one hand is a chaotic, superficial mess that is of no use to anyone; an even better description is a graph of 1/x function, where x is the number of people involved. Basically, at that point you’re not even a person, you’re a group member. Also, groups make people into not-really-themselves, and they act in ways that are more of a reflection of group dynamics, than their own personality, which can create all kinds of stupid nonsense. So, it is my experience that keeping an “open connection” with other people is completely incompatible with the kind of “inward-sight” that is essential for being aware of the transcendental, and, specifically, maintaining your personal connection to God. Being in the presence of God and keeping live horizontal links to humans and worldly things just doesn’t mix well, because it’s either one or the other. The circumstances where a connection to God and connection to another person can actually coexist are the very rare and extreme cases of either spiritual initiation or true tantric sex. Basically, if you are trying to establish a transcendental connection to God, avoid being distracted by people, because that’s what they are – distractions. It’s like having a radio connection that can maintain only one contact at the time, God competes for the position of that one active contact, and the channel is constantly flooded by superficial “handshake” connections, the stupid “hi, how are you doing?” things. Obviously, it’s an excellent way of remaining on a superficial level of spiritual experience forever. As I said already, the only winning move is not to play the game, or at least constrain it very deliberately.

Entitlement. If people think they have rights, they start whining and complaining and acting like victims of some injustice or another. This is spiritually extremely harmful. The only way to achieve results is to understand that you’re fucked, it’s nobody’s duty to help you but your own, that making yourself feel worse by whining merely creates another problem for you to solve later, that “social signalling” is worthless because it doesn’t work on God, and instead of complaining about God abandoning you or some other stupid nonsense, just make the spiritual move that will get you in the presence of God. Your mammalian emotional signalling is not transcendental, it has no redeeming quality, your whining and regressing into a cub crying for mommy is not attractive to God. It’s just disturbance that stands in the way of achieving transcendence. If you’re a complete beginner, some angel might take pity on you and try to show you the way despite your animalistic emotions, but if you then start thinking that your emotions actually caused the darshan, and try to repeat them in order to repeat the supposed result, you’re in a world of hurt. Which brings me to the next thing:

Your emotions are not “justified”. They are not even “yours”. They just are, and for the most part they “are” slavery, bondage and delusion. Emotion is just energy of a certain frequency moving through a certain part of your energy system, and resonating with some animal bullshit or another that is inherited from either primordial goo or jumping on tree branches. If you stop feeding it you get to see just how transitory and unimportant it all is. Feeding your emotions, or allowing them to persist because you think they are justified, or being in habit of being angry, cynical or whatever, is merely a result of poor training and upbringing. Emotions need to be completely flexible and you need to allow them to start, possibly act on them, and have them end, without introducing artificial persistence.

Trying to impress others. That’s one of those bad ideas that everybody has and they never seem to go away, and they are universally harmful. No, you don’t exist only because others perceive you. No, if you trick others into having a good opinion of you, you won’t actually be worth more. No, if others have a poor opinion of you, that doesn’t really diminish who you actually are. So basically, others don’t matter. What matters is what your connection to God actually is, what virtues you actually possess, what flaws you actually removed, and what your spiritual body actually is, and if you talk about it to others, that’s one of the most effective ways of losing it.