Category Archives: religion

The nature of reality

Posted on by
3

I keep confusing people by making statements that make it unclear whether my “belief system” is monotheistic, polytheistic, or something else entirely. I usually answer those concerns by stating that there is a big difference between what I perceive, and the imagery I use to explain things to others. However, I never actually bothered to try and formulate my “reality map”, at least in a form more concise than a book. This is going to be difficult, which is why I’ve been procrastinating, but some recent developments made me believe it will actually be useful for me to attempt writing it all down. You see, it recently became clear to me that I’ve been processing a significant karmic burden that requires me to gradually work through darkness and ignorance and toward something that was clear to me for decades, but I had to “forget” it, in order to break my way towards it again, from the position of ignorance defined by the karmic burden that is placed upon me. To pre-empt the question, I don’t know what it is, but it’s big.

Enough dillydallying. I was thinking about the appropriate literary form for this, and I think it would be best to write it down in the Yoga Sutra form, essentially by stating a brief definition and then elaborate on it in commentary. This way I can keep it both mathematically concise and elaborate at the same time, without watering down the essential thought with necessary explanations. I will write the commentary later, if necessary.

 

1 This world’s reality is derived.
2 The deeper reality, from which this world derives its own reality, is not ultimate.
3 The tree of derived realities is not endless and has a finite number of branches and layers.
4 There is the ultimate, Absolute reality, which is the fullness of being-consciousness-bliss, from which all lesser realities derive their positive qualities, by means of reduction and filtration.
5 The derived realities simultaneously do and do not exist separately from the Absolute. The entire relative (non-Absolute) existence is a fundamental paradox.
6 To manifest the attributes of deeper reality is to partake in the deeper reality.
7 Manifestation of deeper reality exists on a spectrum, on kalapa-level.
8 Kalapas can aggregate into larger structures.
9 Aggregation of kalapas is constrained by the ratio of repulsive and attractive forces.
10 Growth of an aggregate structure can be both quantitative and qualitative.
11 Quantitative growth is attained by expansion on the same level of reality. Qualitative growth is attained by initiation into a deeper level of reality.
12 To extend oneself is to grow quantitatively. To transcend oneself is to grow qualitatively. Both are essential.
13 A structure that contradicts reality by its choices and existence breaks down into lesser fragments due to repulsive internal forces exceeding the attractive ones.
14 A structure is homogenous if all its constituent kalapas are of the same quality and the forces between them are equally strong. If the constituent kalapas are not all of the same quality, if there are blocks of isotropic karmic substances separated by inclusions of lower quality, or if the energy binding the particles or isotropic blocks are of unequal strength, the structure is heterogenous, unbalanced and fragmented.
15 The fact that a structure is maintained within the mind of God, doesn’t make it of God.
16 That part is up to you. The stable choices are to be of God, by choosing more and deeper reality, or to dissipate into nothingness, where repulsive forces between the kalapas of one’s spiritual substance overpower the attractive ones, and one’s identity essentially degrades.
17 One can say that God was in the beginning. One can also say that God as Absolute emanates into Gods as relative beings that are fully of God as Absolute, at once singular and plural, and yet God doesn’t change. This is a great mystery and cannot be fully known.
18 God is the beginning beyond all things, and has to be chosen, again and again, by every thought and action, consistently and with increasing depth of immersion and comprehension, in order to be a personal destiny. There are many paths and many outcomes, and there is immense diversity among those who became Gods by being of God. There is even greater diversity of misery and woe among those who chose to oppose reality-consciousness-bliss by their choices and actions.
19 It is difficult to say how particular worlds came to be, because human mind thinks in terms of time and space, and both began with the creation of this particular world. To think in terms of other-time and other-space, before space and time, is not really possible for a spatiotemporally constrained mind.
20 There are many things in this world that were made by men, and not by God. There are even more things that were made by nuclear processes in stars, supernova explosions and isotope decay, and by the chemical and biochemical processes, also not by God. It is therefore not reasonable to assume that this world itself necessarily needed to be created, or even designed by God. To blame God for the nature of this world makes as much sense as blaming stars for the existence of deadly earthquakes, because they created the heavy elements that are a prerequisite of organic life.
21 There are much better worlds that allow for much greater freedom and beauty, that preceded the existence of this one. This world looks like something that was created by taking a higher-world template, and reducing the light of God that is allowed to emanate through it and be perceived by the souls bound to it, down to the very point of endless darkness. Essentially, it’s the worst world that can still theoretically exist. If it were any worse, no consciousness could manifest within it, and it would thus be better.
22 This mockery of a world does not need to be improved, in order for something better to exist. Something vastly better existed long before it was conceived. It needs to be destroyed because it is an abomination and mockery of God’s creation. Its existence, as I see it, is a result of evil intent of one being, negligence of another, and is in strong opposition to those who anticipated the evils that will inevitably arise.
23 It is difficult to say how old this world is, because there are many ways of looking at time. From one perspective, time is measured by causality of events within a world. From another perspective, time exists only if an observer perceives change. In-universe time started with the first consciousness that was bound to the world and perceived it from within. Before that, there is no reason to assume that any outside time had to pass.
24 Some say that this world is designed to promote spiritual evolution. Why is it, then, that one short moment of transcendental, outworldly experience, makes one a profoundly spiritual person, and a whole life devoid of such experiences, with worldly experiences alone, makes one the opposite of spiritual? This world promotes spirituality in the same ways in which butchery promotes cows.
25 As a great paradox, this world is many layers of reality separated from God. It is also designed to reduce the light of God so greatly, that it is almost impossible to see God as the fundamental driving force. And yet, it is as separate from God as dreamer from a dream, or any piece of software running on a computer, from CPU and RAM. The paradox of being completely separate from God while dwelling within the mind and being of God, is as excruciating as it is not comforting. It is a nightmare one cannot wake up from, and the fact that it is not ultimately real does not help.
26 The fact that something is not ultimately real does not make it any less of a problem.
27 The fact that God is the fundamental reality within and beyond all things doesn’t mean that there are no real problems, or that God is omnipotent, in a sense that He can do anything. God can make choices that preclude other choices. God can give beings individuality and autonomy, and even make pledges and promises that make it extremely difficult to work around and mitigate bad outcomes. Things look very simple at the most fundamental level of reality, where only I Am, but they get immensely complicated as one follows the branches of Yggdrasil outwards.
28 The tree of the world has its root in the Absolute, but on some of its branches there are leaves of madness and evil. It is true that those are destined to fall off due to their opposition to the fundamental truth of all things, but that is a matter of time, and time can seem like eternity if you are tortured in a dungeon by the enemies of God.
29 God did not forget you, who are bound and deluded by this nightmare of a world. You are remembered as you truly are, and the very existence of God will assure that you are not lost.
30 Those, however, who sided with the forces of this world that obscure the memory of God and the light beyond, will regret being born at all. Those who chose the darkness willingly, and used it against others with joyful glee; they exist, but they will also live to regret that fact.
31 The destiny of those who built their existence out of meditation on God, is beyond any worldly comprehension. They are eternity in time and space, and they the ultimate paradox of a relative God that is a localized totality, at the same time Everything, yet individual and particular something and someone, the totality of One in the many. Such ultimate destiny is great beyond any thought, dream or hope.
32 God is the great challenge, in every thought and action. So close, and yet who can say, “I am what God would be, I am doing what God would do”?
33 Yet, it is possible and can be achieved. Many have done it. Others have excuses.

My opinion on the current Pope

Posted on by
Reply

I understand that there is some interest in my opinion regarding the current Pope.

First of all, I must write disclaimers. I am of the opinion that this is an internal affair of the Catholic Church, and that they should completely disregard any and all outsiders in such matters. One of the main mistakes the Church has been making, in my opinion, is to take into consideration the opinions of those who are not Catholics, nor wish to become so, regardless of any changes the Church were to introduce to its doctrine and practice. The Church should, in my opinion, pay attention only to its own most holy members, and completely disregard any call for “reforms” that come from the outside. As far as the outsiders are concerned, the Church could become a socialist gay club and change the official flag of Vatican to the rainbow one, and it still wouldn’t be enough, because next it would be pressured to accept Muhammad as a prophet and Qur’an as a holy scripture.

And this is where we come to my opinion, which should be taken by the Church with all the reservations due when considering opinions of outsiders.

I perceived Benedict as a holy person even before he was elected Pope. There is air of spirituality, power and subtlety that makes me smile and be glad that the Church has a truly holy man at its head. Whether Catholics would interpret this as my confirmation that he was truly anointed by the Holy Spirit, is beside the point. That’s what I perceived and I can testify to that. With Francis, I feel revulsion. He is spiritually empty, dry, and I feel instinctual dislike of him even when he is, formally speaking, correct in some matter, because a person so drastically lacking any kind of holiness can hardly improve religious doctrine. I also feel great contempt for his vapid demagoguery and pandering to the enemies of the Church at the expense of its traditionalist believers.

I think Benedict tried to weed out some terrible aberrations from the Church, and found such opposition to his efforts that he simply gave up, surrendered the fate of Church to God, and devoted his life to prayer. If the Catholics want to interpret my opinion in the matter as considering Benedict the true Pope, and Francis the antipope, I would consider it close enough to the truth and wouldn’t express significant opposition to such interpretation. I would also not object if my words were interpreted to mean that Benedict is a saintly person and Francis is a godless demon. That is also close enough to my opinion for me not to object.

Essentially, it is my position that ideological differences do not preclude my support to some religious organization if it strives to attain something that I perceive as spiritually valuable. I also feel sadness if positive efforts of others are thwarted, or if I see evil thriving.

This should of course not be interpreted as interference into the internal affairs of others, but since I felt some Catholics wondering about my opinion in this matter, I decided it is for the best if I just write it down and offer it as such.

Greta Thunberg

Posted on by
8

There’s a hysterical, aggressive child out there with extreme media presence, and since she seems to be everywhere, I’m going to tell you what she is.

In ancient Greece, she would be a Maenad, raving about the greatness of Dionysus, telling everyone how they owe so much to him and how they need to worship him more and sacrifice to him more. Since a Maenad spewed out commonly accepted dogma, people awkwardly gave her lip service, fed her and sent her on her way.

In medieval Europe, she would be a “penitenziagite” religious fanatic, raving about how Jesus was crucified for all our sins and how we crucify him again every single day by committing new sins after we have been saved through his blood, and how we should repent, because the day of judgment is near, and we will all burn in hell for all eternity unless we do.

In Nazi Germany, she would be a member of the Hitlerjugend, praising the Führer, telling everybody what a great person he is, and how unworthy they are of such a blessing of destiny, and how much harder they must work and how they need to sacrifice more for the Homeland, to create the bright future for the Aryan race promised by the great Führer.

In communist Yugoslavia, she would be a young pioneer of Tito, telling everybody he’s the greatest son of our nations and nationalities, and that they are straying from the path he had shown to us, the path of brotherhood and unity, and that we need to apply ourselves hard to implement our socialist self-governing system in every aspect of our lives.

In an Islamic country, she would be Osama bin Laden, reciting Qur’an and telling everybody how to be a better Muslim and implement the teachings of Muhammad literally and without deviations, thus obeying the will of Allah and making the world as He intended.

In every single instance, she would be awkwardly praised or even publicly elevated as an example, because she embodies the collective guilt and pathology of the absurd beliefs everybody gives lip service to in public, while disregarding them on the actual real-life level, because they are nonsense. But you can’t publicly state they are nonsense, or counter-productive, because they are the public dogma, and since Socrates the punishment for going against public dogma has been nasty. So when some pompous, aggressive, ugly little shit starts yelling public dogma and asking for more compliance and submission, everybody wants to crush her underfoot like a cockroach that she is, but since she’s the manifestation and embodiment of the public dogma, followed by the priests who explain how she’s ideologically correct, you do what is right and proper for one to do in such circumstances when in a totalitarian state: you clap enthusiastically to show your political and ideological correctness, and prop her up for everybody to follow as a bright example, which of course feeds her ego with self-righteousness of her glorious path. However, when the ideology changes, as it invariably does, she’s something everybody is ashamed of, as she embodies their cowardice, compliance and obedience to complete bullshit.

What really makes me laugh is imagining a Maenad doing her self-righteous thing outside of the natural environment – a Greek Maenad inside North Korea, or a Nazi Maenad inside communist Yugoslavia, or Greta Thunberg the CO2 Maenad in Christian medieval Europe. Without the shield of dogma, such a little shit would be treated exactly as she deserves to be treated.

Changing the world

Posted on by
Reply

I am fascinated by those spiritual guys who want to change the world.

They treat it like picking ice cream or pizza: more unity and love, less separation and limitations, more enlightenment, less ego and greed – like that 90s joke where a Zen master enters a pizza parlor and says “make me one with everything”.

I have two questions for them.

First, why do you think it hasn’t already been done, I mean, building a better world? The astral worlds contain everything on your wish list. Why do you think this one wasn’t built this way on purpose?

Second, why do you think you have the authority to change it?

About identity

Posted on by
Reply

There’s another thing where I can’t find much commonality with the right-wing politicians, and that’s identity politics.

You see, they either say it’s a terrible thing and the political left is wrong to embrace it (often citing Martin Luther King as someone who was against it), or they embrace their identity as White Europeans, with a possible addition of Christianity to the identity-definition.

I lose them in both cases, because my primary identity is spiritual. It’s not that I don’t understand or have the lower kinds of identity – as male, white, European, Croatian – but frankly, I would feel immediate identity-level kinship with a black or Asian woman who has a vajra-level soul type, meditates on Shiva and practices sophisticated yogic techniques, and I am surrounded by white male Croats whom I see as basically cattle, empty soulless things bred by Satan in his contempt for God and everything that is holy.

So yes, I practice “identity politics” on a very instinctual and practical level on a daily basis, but my understanding of identity has nothing to do with any physical or even civilisational or cultural traits. It doesn’t even have anything to do with intellect, intelligence, education, or anything of the sort: all my enemies, who worked day and night for years to harm me in every possible way, all share the same superficial identity as my physical body – all being male, white Europeans – and I feel nothing for them but hatred, disgust and contempt.

Most people I felt deepest kinship with are either women from Europe, or men from India, long dead. So this right-wing notion that I should somehow identify with white Europeans against other races, or MGTOW notion that I should identify with men against women, is something that feels incredibly alien. I can identify with St. Augustine, who was a Berber from North Africa in the late Roman Empire, with St. Theresa of Avila who was a woman from the medieval Spain, with Ibn Tufayl who was a medieval Muslim, with several yogis from India, with Buddha or Jesus, but I feel absolutely no common identity with a white male from Zagreb, who is a piece of shit soul spending his worthless life scheming, plotting, gossiping and basically doing everything in his power to harm me, because through me he saw God whom he bitterly hates with every kalapa of his worthless being that is sentenced to eternal damnation in hell, where he belongs for all eternity.

I will rather live in harmony with people who are of different sex, race, culture, religion and intellect, who don’t even speak my language, but whose souls are immersed in meditation on God, than have to bear the hateful existence of people who share all kinds of superficial traits with my physical body, and yet they hate and oppose everything I love and hold dear. So, yes, I’m a racist; deeply and to the core, but I care primarily for the hardness and nature of the soul. Secondarily, I care for virtues and their manifestation in the world. And all that because I care only for God.

You therefore need to understand this: when I express contempt for the Arab and other immigrants into Europe, this contempt is not based on the fact they are Arabs, or that they are Muslim. It’s based on the clear understanding that they are human garbage devoid of all virtues, who came here for free money and easy pussy. However, when I would pick who goes to hell, or whom I would like to commune with in eternity, physical or cultural traits would not even come into consideration.