Anti-Yoga

I frequently mention spending karma, and I know people have all kinds of ideas about it – from my idiot enemies who think I’m just making it up to rationalise my depression, to others who think all kinds of stuff, from question marks to “it can’t be all that bad since it’s not significantly altering his behaviour and he can write sophisticated stuff under it”.

No, it’s not depression, it’s much worse.

Patañjali defined Yoga as “citta vrtti nirodha“, cessation of the whirlpools/fluctuations in spirit-stuff. It’s a very easy thing to model thermodynamically; high energy molecules are having lots of kinetic energy, and if you imagine them in a container, they are bouncing around each other and the container in form of a gas. As they cool down, they form a liquid, simply because each molecule no longer requires as much space for its bouncing around, so they get closer to each other. As they cool further, they form a solid. This process of cooling down a substance from hot gas to a solid, when applied to mind-stuff, citta, is Yoga.

Translated to spiritual equivalents, all kinds of spiritual disturbance imparts spiritual particles, kalapas, with kinetic energy of sorts, which makes them bounce around and repel other similar particles, creating the opposite of cohesion within one’s spiritual body. At best, it creates weak spots that would fracture under pressure and thus need to be removed before any further growth. At worst, if there’s enough “hot stuff” in your spiritual body, it “explodes”, fragmenting fatally and ending your existence as a singular spiritual entity.

Conventional yogic practice is performed by a person whose spiritual body contains all kinds of issues; low-energy inclusions, fragmentations, and so on. In spiritual language, those are the wrong ideas about things, limiting beliefs, consequences of sinful actions, consequences of other people convincing you of things that aren’t true but you kept believing in them to your own detriment, latent desires, and karmic structures you inherited from your past lives or what not. Essentially, the worst problems are the beliefs that are completely intuitive to you, but are completely false; however, due to your conditioning you don’t want to understand that they are problems, and rather see them as solutions. For instance, someone conditioned in a certain spiritual tradition will see a priest as more holy than a carpenter; that would be simply intuitive, something he doesn’t even test. Of course a priest is more spiritual. However, then you encounter a carpenter by the name of Jesus who says he’s the son of God, and you encounter priests who accuse him of blasphemy, and if you go by your intuition, you end up being one of the guys who spat at Jesus and ridiculed him as he carried his cross to Golgotha. Basically, your implicit, intuitive belief that seemed self-evident got you in a world of trouble. That’s what the problems with karmic makeup look like. If you look at them energetically you see a low-energy inclusion in an otherwise uniform spiritual crystal, but that inclusion is a wrong belief that refuses to go away because it’s something you don’t see as a problem, you see it as one of the foundational components of your correct spiritual understanding. See how that can be a problem? If it’s an obvious problem, it usually has an obvious solution. For instance, you’re lazy, you see it as a problem and you get your shit together. But what if your laziness camouflages itself as detachment from matter, and any attempt to deal with it gets judged and discarded as material attachment? Then you have a problem, and it’s not one that can be easily attacked either, because any attempt to deal with it will face opposition from the deeply internalised wrongly assembled spiritual structures that see the problem as part of any acceptable solution. That’s how you end up with people who resist dealing with their core issues until something fundamental enough happens that shatters their entire core of confidence in their wrong beliefs, and they don’t just remove inclusions in the crystal; usually, the crystal shatters as the inclusion is removed, and is rebuilt from the ground up. In any case, obvious problems that are perceived as problems are easy to deal with. But if a problem camouflages itself as part of the solution process, the person might defend it to the point where the whole structure needs to be shattered.

So, what about karmic transfers, where foreign karmic mass is absorbed by your karmic body in order to make it grow? Well, if Yoga is calming your spiritual mass down, this is anti-Yoga. It’s like having a bowl of cold water with ice slowly forming on top, and mixing it with an amount of boiling water. What happens is that your entire spiritual mass becomes a turbulent mess of strong emotions, strong trouble-causing ideas, and strong emotional pain that wants to hide itself away because it’s too much to bear. To spend karma means to face each of those turbulent thought-emotions, and extract its energy from your system in form of suffering. Basically, to absorb such a wild mess of karma means to experience a karmic regression, to return your system into a past state where it was less cool, less calm, with all kinds of insane turbulences in citta, and if you have enough detachment, discipline and experience, you will gradually go through this mess and process it, eventually returning to your previous state of cool water with ice forming on the surface, only with greater amount of water.

The reason why inexperienced people should never do this is obvious – if you don’t have enough detachment, skill and holiness to begin with, you might lose yourself altogether in the process, and forget that Yoga is a thing. You’ll get angry at this and that, find more reasons to be angry, feed the karmic mess with your own energy and end up growing the problem instead of solving it. If that happens, the boiling mess becomes a bigger boiling mess.

The reason why I say it’s worse than depression is obvious – sure, this is spiritual darkness, because that’s what disturbance of soul-stuff feels like, but spiritual darkness is not just some depressing apathy; it’s anger, hatred, self-righteousness while being completely wrong and inventing all sorts of defensive worldviews for the wrongness, it’s making a religion out of your stupid ideas, and so on. People imagine sin as some kind of a stain on the soul, but it’s much worse than that. Sin is an active thing that defends itself. Sin creates rationalisations why it’s not sin, why it’s other people’s fault, why it’s God’s fault, why you’re a victim persecuted for your righteousness by a cruel unjust God. Sin bitches, moans and whines, it turns you into its servant, into its beast of burden, and that’s what Jesus meant when he said that he who sins is a slave to sin. It’s literally true, and sin would ride you into the ground, until there’s nothing left of you, rather than stop defending itself and admitting that it’s a sin, that it’s a bad thing, that you did wrong, that you thought wrong, and that you need to reverse course and rethink your life from a new perspective. When a sin is easily recognizable as sin, it’s a very easy problem to solve, and your core issues are never like that, which is why it is easy to spend decades and lifetimes dealing with such non-issues, while the actual problems pose as some kind of a glorious past that needs to become your glorious future.

So, Yoga is almost always misunderstood as a technical process of, basically, transforming nondescript energetic disturbance into deep spiritual calm. It’s not how this works, because in order to solve something you can’t keep polishing the surface. Sometimes you need to break the whole thing, because the root cause of your spiritual problems is too fundamental, and you need to suffer the pain of this breakage, and re-grow yourself from dust.

The only difference between a beginner and an expert is that an expert has lots of experience, technical knowledge and detachment that helps them endure the most traumatic parts of this process without going insane or evil. One would expect an expert to be facing only minor imperfections on the surface of their soul structure, but that’s not how those things work. If the imperfections are superficial, they are not an issue and you undergo immediate higher initiation. The reason why you don’t undergo initiation despite being apparently ready are the inclusions of low-energy stuff deep within the structure, meaning that you have fundamental misunderstandings that would require completely reworking your entire soul-structure, worldview and understanding, before you are ready to go forward.

Continuation

Since we came back from our short trip, we got plugged back into spending the karmic shit creek, which is as pleasant as you can imagine. Fortunately, someone up there pressed pause while we were on the road because that would have been actually dangerous otherwise.

So, while I wait for this to process, we’re going around and pretending we’re having a nice day:

So, is that a form of lying, when I’m having an incredibly bad time but I’m holding up pretence that’s making it look like I’m on a perpetual vacation in some kind of a heaven on Earth? Sure, I guess. However, what’s the alternative? I’m trying to make things work with what I have. If I’m having a shitty day, I might as well take nice pictures and make someone else’s day better.

That’s why it’s dangerous to assume that you can tell how I’m feeling from what I’m doing. I’m not taking gloomy pictures because I’m depressed, or taking bright pictures and writing motivating articles because I’m feeling good. Those things are completely detached; I feel how I feel, but you would never know it from what I’m actually doing, because those things don’t translate. I do things that will be useful. I write warnings when I think people should be warned. That doesn’t mean I’m feeling anxious; for the most part, my feelings are only visible in an article when I actually want them to be. That doesn’t mean that I’m writing things that are deliberately deceptive in order to present some front; no, it’s merely a matter of principle. When you’re having a bad day, make someone else’s day batter. Detach feeling from action, and attach action to the principle of doing good when possible. When I’m not having a feeling from above that I should be doing something, I’m basically doing generic, non-descript good stuff. Joke with my wife, go out and take some pictures, grill fishes, make coffee.

If my reaction to spending karmic garbage were to produce nastiness on the output side, I would hardly be the kind of a person to spend that stuff in the first place. Spending it means ending the cycle of reaction attached to action, reacting to having bad experiences by making other people’s day worse.

Dissatisfaction

I’ve been thinking about something recently, how “better” isn’t really a simple metric; as mathematicians would say, it isn’t a scalar, where 5 is bigger than 2. For instance, I have a 50mm f/1.8 lens that I like a lot because it’s small and light and it’s something I can take for a walk when I have no expectations to get usable pictures, but it still has good minimum focusing distance, excellent sharpness and so on. It has issues – focusing motor is loud and slow, and it has lots of chromatic aberrations wide open on contrasty areas. Also, it doesn’t have a MF/AF switch to turn AF off quickly when it starts struggling. So, I thought about upgrading it, getting a better 50mm lens.

That’s where we encounter a problem, you see, because optically speaking nothing is that much better. If a lens is ergonomically better, it’s also bigger and heavier, not to say much more expensive, and that removes most of the reasons why I like a 50mm. So, I could get a 50mm lens that’s slightly faster, has better focusing and more mechanical switches and controls on the lens itself, but is half a kilo heavier and costs a really significant chunk of money, and let’s say I bought it. Would I carry that to a walk when I want to carry the lightest possible camera? No, of course; I’d still take the 50mm f/1.8, because it’s light and small, it’s sharp enough, versatile enough, and looks unassuming. I can get a 50mm f/2.5 G, or a similar thing from Sigma, which has better controls and it’s still small and light, but I’m actually losing aperture and therefore photographic versatility. So, basically, something that’s technically not the best lens is actually exceedingly hard to upgrade, because gains and losses don’t come in simple packages; essentially, “better” is not a simple scalar.

This creates a silly situation where my cheapest lens is apparently here to stay because it almost perfectly fits the role I have for it. It needs to be cheap, light, small and good. It’s not something I use for stuff where I need absolute image quality; I just need it to be very good, and still small enough that I still decide to take it when I go out and there doesn’t seem to be much to take pictures of. It also needs to be versatile because I have no plan and no idea what I’ll see, if anything. I want something that’s better than the iPhone, and not much more hassle to carry around. I could get some small compact camera, which is another thing to charge batteries for and with different menus I have to learn, or I could just take my old Sony, which is as small and light as a micro four thirds camera, and put the light 50mm lens on it. The image quality of that setup is honestly stellar. Versatility, with its close focusing distance and aperture, is also pretty amazing. It’s just that it focuses like shit and has no AF/MF switch on the lens, and has strong CA when I shoot into the light, which I tend to do. Slightly annoying, as flaws go, but they are soon forgotten when I open the images in Lightroom.

I already had situations where something like that would annoy me, and then I would “upgrade” to something that solved one problem by introducing five bigger ones; for instance, I upgraded the old 13” Macbook Air to a 15” Macbook Pro somewhere in 2015/2016. It was faster, had more power and memory, had much better screen, but it was bigger and heavier, and actually less usable for writing than the old Air. I actually had to get a second ultralight laptop for that, the Asus Zenbook, because the “better” machine was so much “better” that it was less functional for the main task I actually used it for. I also “upgraded” from a Mondeo to a huge Audi A6 estate once; bigger is better, right, and also the kids were small so I wanted a bigger car to carry their stuff. I got rid of that car as soon as it was practical and got something smaller and more suitable. Also, a bigger house is better until it’s so big it becomes a hassle to maintain and you actually spend time looking for family members around the place because you don’t know where they are.

If your shoes are too small, bigger is better, until they become too big, which is when bigger is worse. When you drive a car that’s a bit too small, bigger is better until you feel like you’re driving a bus.

Recently Biljana and I were buying new laptops; she got a 16” Macbook Pro, and I thought about just getting one of those for myself, and then I remembered how that ended the last time I “upgraded”, and said “fuck no”. What I got for myself is the 15” Macbook Air; I just loaded it with enough RAM and that was it. Why did I get a “worse” computer for myself? I actually didn’t, I got a better computer for what I need it for, and I got her the better computer for what she needs it for. It’s like multiplying two matrices, one of requirements and one of actual hardware specs; what you use it for, how you use it, what matters, and then multiply this with actual hardware properties of mass, size and performance.

It’s not just about equipment. Most things in life require balance, where you think you need more of something until you see what it actually means. All those ideologies that feed on resentment are a good example. Communism wanted “more equality”, and produced universal misery. Feminism wanted power for women, and broke civilization to the point where it would now be easier to burn it all down than to fix it. Inclusivity sounds great until you understand that it destroys criteria.

You see flaws and you think something has to change. Then you change it and see it’s actually worse.

Satan seems to have started this resentment thing first – oh, it’s not right that some souls are so incredibly large while the others like himself are pipsqueaks. Something should be done to make everybody equal. So he made a world that limits everybody to the same playing ground, and that obviously worked great for eliminating inequality. Oh wait…

The answer to his “Some souls are so much larger than everybody else” should have been “Good; that means we have someone to admire and strive towards.”

Women’s answer to “We live in a patriarchy” should have been “Great, we love powerful men.”

The problem with resentment is that it’s a problem that presents itself as a solution. It’s not. You can point at a laptop and say “oh, it’s so small”, as if that’s a problem, and the right answer is “of course it’s small, that’s the point”. The answer to arguments that try to foment dissatisfaction is to think whether something is actually problem, or a set of features you actually prefer. Everything comes with drawbacks. You think you could always use a few inches more of penis size, but your wife might say “please no”. She might think she could do with bigger boobs, until they start jiggling around while she’s running or exercising, at which point she’ll start complaining about that. We seem to be incredibly sensitive to dissatisfaction and inclined to think change must be an improvement, but in reality, it seems that the only thing we actually need to change in most cases is perspective.

Hell

I need to write this down.
I talked to Romana again, and she said she finally saw what Hell looks like, as a level.
I answered this: “I know; it’s a place like any other, just without God.
There are protectors of family virtues, national or whatever identity, without God.
There are protectors of religious principles and regulations, without God.
There are Pandits who can recite all four Vedas, without God.
There are Muslims who can recite the entire Kur’an, without God.
There are Christians who cite Jesus and threaten infidels with hell, also without God.”

Be worth keeping

I was just talking to Romana about how one of the fundamental misapprehensions of my students in the early years was caused by their completely wrong understanding of the reality in general and reality of their situation specifically.

They assumed this is the real world – part of the “multiverse” that also contains Heaven and Hell – created by the actual One God, who is good and to whom they all matter to the point where all of Creation is their playground, and of course they will get second chances because that’s the purpose of Creation, to give them as much chances and opportunities as they need to basically run out of bullshit to try, and they are essentially the main characters in this play, where everything else, including me and other beings, is a mere prop whose purpose is to serve their needs. Basically, if I don’t serve their needs well, God will punish me, so I’d better behave.

I don’t know where people get this idea, but it seems to be ubiquitous and implicit. I know Felix helped convince them of this bullshit behind my back, telling them something along the lines of “if not in this incarnation, then in the next”. I was absolutely appalled when I heard this statement, because it’s not just completely wrong, it’s an absolute abomination, the worst possible thing you can think or believe. Considering the amount of damage he created, that guy must have been Satan’s pet, if not an outright avatar.

Their understanding of their situation couldn’t have been more wrong, because trying out bullshit is actually a choice. If they make a strong enough choice, why would they ever get a second chance? Why would there be a next incarnation? Why would their fate not be determined in a final judgment, because they had a choice between me and bullshit, they chose bullshit and that’s it? Why do they think people who choose against God get a second chance, as if God is stupid and doesn’t get it, or as if they have no agency and their choice will somehow be seen as not final? If anything, second chances are for people who chose God and only God, and they ran out of time to become their own “final form” along this choice-vector. Second chances for people who chose against God; what purpose would that serve, exactly? You think there’s a shit eating competition, and those, who didn’t eat all the shit there is, need to get a second chance? Why?

I think the fundamental mistake of religious philosophies is that they always assume that this world matters, in a sense that it’s an important place made by God and they derive all kinds of assumptions from this starting thesis, and none of that might even be remotely close to reality. For instance, if you play a complex video game, Witcher III for instance, and you are completely immersed to the point of thinking it’s the real world, and if you derive assumptions about theology based on your experience within the game, you’ll get all kinds of conclusions except the right one: that it was designed and made by a few Poles who had a blast doing it, and it’s loosely based on some aspects of this world, but mostly on a made up story from a book series. It’s not a real world made by a real God. It’s a nth order reality, where n∈N might actually be quite a bit bigger than 2, but no less than.

It’s interesting how my early students never actually thought they could catastrophically fail. They thought their options consisted of good and better, of safe and risky, where they had “safe” and I offered “risky”, and risky was also hard and demanding. They thought that saying “no, we’re good as we are, thanks” is a safe option, while in fact it was a decisive “no” to God, after which there would be no reason for further questions. They thought I was merely an option to upgrade the level of satisfaction in their personal playground of a life. They didn’t understand that they were here because Gods had enough of their shit and wanted a decisive answer whether they want to evolve towards God, or are they dry branches to be pruned. They didn’t understand that I, myself, didn’t live in the cozy world they thought they inhabited. I knew I could fail. I already had terrible experiences that showed me how hard I can get wrecked. I had no illusions that God will help me; in fact, I knew I was expected to be someone who helps others; I was the ice breaker that had to cut a line through thick ice, for others to follow quickly before it freezes over again. I myself knew that I was always one wrong important choice away from perdition. I was taking this incredibly seriously, and I was so not fucking around. I told them they don’t have much time, that it’s important that they get their shit together quickly, because the window is going to close. They chose to believe nicer tales narrated by idiots. We know how that ended.

Let’s assume God actually does care about you. You think that love is unconditional? He will love you regardless of what you do, regardless of what you choose? What evidence is that belief based on? God personally told you that it doesn’t matter what you choose because it’s all the same? I don’t think so. The Bible, where every “blessed are those…” is followed by a “woe to…”? Also, I don’t think so. An idea that God is a good and slightly dumb guy who just loves everybody and whose job is to forgive because he can’t help it? Yeah, probably. I never met that guy, however. I think he, Santa Claus and Easter Bunny might have a blast over a beer somewhere, but I never met either of them so I can’t say.

People, you should get your shit together and take this seriously. This is not your personal fuckaroundery. It’s a trap designed by Satan for idiots whose virtue and spiritual allegiance were already questionable when they believed his bullshit, and the fact that you’re in doesn’t say great things about you, unless you are by some chance Biljana, who was conceived without any participation of sin of any kind and is here for me. Even she could fuck up if she made wrong choices here, and the result would have been bad. What does that say about you? If you’re here, and if you’re not taking it extremely seriously, you’re an idiot.

Why do you think God cares about someone? Because you’re super likeable and irresistible? Or because God has a character feature that makes him like everybody, but somehow Hell still exists? How about, he likes you if there’s something Divine in you that reacts to him? Basically, God is simply God, and that aspect of Divinity within you makes you attracted to God and makes you want it, and you interpret that as God loving and wanting you, the way children think that the Sun loves them because they feel good under it, and they draw it with a smile, because it makes them smile? But what if you decide against that Divinity, if you reject God because something felt more attractive? What if that Divinity in you simply discards you as a failed path back to God, and you just wither in your illusions and nonsense? What if choice for and against God are merely physics, like the path water takes from the mountain to the ocean? Basically, seek the point of least gravitational potential; fill lake; then continue falling to the next point of lower gravitational potential, until there’s no lower point to fall? What if failures to reach God merely evaporate and stop being recognizable souls, and their constituent particles continue circulating in nature until they attach to something with greater potential of bringing them to God? You think failures to reach God have endless right to exist? Think again, because not really. Also, don’t think it’s all about you. God also has free will. In fact, only Gods have free will, because unlike yours, their will is not conditioned with attachments, misapprehensions and nonsense. They have their freedom, and preferences, and you can have all kinds of wishes and nobody is really obliged to give a shit. If you didn’t give a God reasons to like you, they don’t have to. It’s not that anyone is under any obligation to help you, or guide you, or teach you, or save you. Every single Divine being does only what they feel like doing. You think my wife is under some obligation to love me? No. She’s a God-person of unrestricted, unconditional freedom. She feels what she chooses to feel out of complete freedom, and nobody has any right to try to influence her. If you are not someone who makes a God feel that way about you, why do you even think you’d be worth saving? Give God a reason to care about you, and start by being a person other people will care about, because you make them feel appreciated, loved and important. If you can be a presence of God in lives of other people, chances are the Gods will love you and open doors for you. If you can only be hell to other people, chances are the Gods will give you what you worked for.

Everything matters. What you do matters, how you see things matters, how you choose to act matters, how you choose to treat other beings matters, what you accept matters and what you reject matters. It matters who your friends are, and who your enemies are. Whatever you do, someone will always hate you, unless you became such an inconsequential person that absolutely nobody cares about you enough to hate you. You want to make friends of angels and enemies of demons. Of course satanists will hate you if you made good choices and they can smell God on you. Of course good people will feel good in your company if you are a good person. If good people don’t feel good in your company, why would God love you or want to be with you?

If God has no reason to love you or want to be with you, why would you exist in Eternity and not just wither and die in Time? Instead of thinking God must have a reason to keep saving you, try being someone God will want to be with.