Obedience first

I’ve been thinking about something recently.

I’m not sure I ever explained why exactly did I do certain things in a certain way in my early yogic practice – all people know was that I did something, then I changed it, and I never explained my actual thinking behind the decisions.

You see, the way I started yogic practice was pretty interesting. I won’t go into great detail, but I had no guidance other than books, and my pretty advanced knowledge of autogenic training, so it was a given that I had to experiment in order to establish what actually works, in the sense of achieving presence of God, and transforming my consciousness and energy system in order to be able to bear God’s presence and eventually be God’s presence. The problem is, the books I had contained mostly the very general instructions, and not of the kind that actually had anything to do with yoga itself – it was mostly how one should behave, what kind of emotions to avoid and what kind to stimulate, be vegetarian, celibate, non-violent, kind, don’t do drugs, alcohol, don’t smoke and so on. It all sounded pretty much like standard religious moralizing, and I initially put it all in a “nice to know, but it’s not a cause-side but effect-side of any spiritual equation”. However, the texts that talked about yoga always talked about dangers of practice, and it was mostly “if your system is not pure enough, the increased energy level will either burn you up, or it will cause energy detours from the main nadis into the smaller ones, which will cause overloads and serious damage”. Since I initially had no experience with energy overloads of any kind, I filed this as “exaggerated”. That is, until I had an experience during meditation, where I didn’t actually “hear” the “OM sound”, it was more like feeling it with both body and mind, and it was something that felt so strong I really got scared that if it got stronger it might break me like a twig. At another instance, I had the experience of ananda, divine bliss, which was so strong that it felt like orgasm multiplied by a nuclear blast, and I’m not even exaggerating much here – it felt like something that could evaporate me if it got any stronger. You can imagine how I started taking the warnings very seriously after those two experiences. I also changed my approach to the things I couldn’t personally verify to “obey everything first” from “try to confirm everything first”. You see, the problem with the “try to confirm before obeying” is obvious – you might die, or at least experience some mode of failure. There were obviously all kinds of factors there that I didn’t understand, and since I worked from books alone without any personal guidance from anyone, after several very powerful experiences I decided it would be a very good idea to reduce my chances of sudden death or terrible failure by respectfully obeying all instructions given by authoritative persons, especially if the instructions overlap.

You see, yogis try to make yoga popular by saying it’s a spiritual science, but that’s not exactly true. It’s more of a proto-science, the way people experimented with herbs to figure out what’s poisonous, and what has medicinal properties. You experiment with something, you observe the results, but there’s a limit to what kind of experiments you can make and it never reaches the requirements for a proper science where you can isolate active compounds and test them in vitro and in vivo to figure out what does what exactly, and in what circumstances. The “gold standard” for yogic proto-science is “I did x and reached a spiritual experience, so if you try to reproduce x, you will also likely reach a spiritual experience”. The problem is, “x” is usually a complex thing. What did he actually do? He was a hermit who lived in some cave, ate whatever fruits and herbs he could find around, didn’t have sex, did some physical exercises, did some pranayama, did some prayers, chanted some mantra, visualized something from the scriptures, and some combination of the above worked and he experienced something transcendental. Not knowing what exactly worked and why, he passed it on to his students and told them to just do what he did, and it will work.

That’s not really science, but that’s what I had to work with. As I learned more, I could tweak things and isolate the active component of the practice, but the real question is, what would I recommend to a beginner from my current perspective? I was talking about vegetarianism with my wife, and explained why I was a vegetarian initially, and told her that I’m not sure I would be willing to gamble with someone’s life even now, by recommending any detours from the process I personally followed in the beginning, because there’s a serious difference between introducing things later on, as you have a volume of personal experience and power, and doing it in the beginning, when any deviation can cause either absence of experience altogether, or an experience so extreme it can either damage you, or cause such trauma that you will subconsciously try to avoid experiencing anything similar in the future. So, yes, I eat meat now, but would I recommend a beginner yogi to eat meat, as I do now, but not as I did when I was a beginner myself? You see my point? Yoga is not something where you can do whatever because none of it works anyway. The “problem” is that it very much works, but the exact parameters and circumstances vary so much between individuals that it’s safest to try to equalize most of it first, in order to reduce the number of variables. Also, the humility required for one to obey the guru and the tradition is also a factor that contributes to a good outcome of the practice, because it means that your energetic system is properly aligned. Arrogance is a symptom of dangerous misalignment, and contributes to bad outcomes. By arrogance I mean the attitude that you are in a position to second-guess the guru, and cherry-pick the stuff you’re going to obey or ignore. In the beginning, only absolute humility, respect and blind faith works, because you’re too ignorant to be able to make any judgment about anything. Only after you’re experienced, powerful and holy enough to have full mastery of something, to the point where you understand how things work, is when you can gradually change things, see what’s irrelevant, what can be done better, and what is actually harming your progress. An advanced yogi has such “density” and purity of his soul that he can rip through “reality” the way a supermassive black hole bends space around it. Stuff that could completely perturb a beginner is of no consequence to a master. That is not to say that a master has no problems at his own order of magnitude, but that is a different matter entirely; it’s comparable to Jesus having a problem bearing the sins of the world, and an ordinary person having a problem controlling their attention and avoiding distractions. To a master, a certain level of disturbance and impurity absorbed by the physical body is something he can perceive, wait until it passes, possibly repair the damage and proceed with whatever he was doing before. To a beginner, the same level of disturbance and impurity can distract him to the point where he completely loses his inner spiritual bearings, “forget” the spiritual content of a mantra and be unable to find his way again. Where a nuclear submarine might not care about the waves, a small sailing boat must pay utmost attention to the conditions of the sea. “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” sounds very unpleasant to the egalitarian minds of today’s men, who might think it encourages moral relativism, but it is in fact a great truth. A great master of yoga can absorb and neutralize immense kinds of energetic damage, where a normal person’s soul will disintegrate on a mere contact with a problem orders of magnitudes weaker. A normal person would strive for years to attain darshan of spiritual states and substances that a master wields. At some points in my advanced practice, I actually practiced exposing myself to outside noise and interference to harden the inner core of my meditative state against it, with the result that I could do spiritual initiations in a crowded bar. A beginner must absolutely avoid this kind of interference and noise in order to establish the spiritual connection first, then slowly strengthen it, and then gradually introduce all kinds of noise to check his resistance, and even when you’re able to resist almost anything, it doesn’t mean that you should bathe in filth all day. Resisting harmful interference requires an expenditure of energy and effort that might be better used for something more constructive. However, trying to copy a master’s behavior rather than obey his instructions diligently is a very foolish thing for a student, because I can tell you with absolute certainty that a student is simply unable to understand the complexities behind the instructions, and trying to think about it is a wasted effort. For instance, Romana once came home completely disturbed, I took a look at her and told her to take a shower and wash her hair immediately. She resisted because it made no sense to her, at which I raised my voice and told her to obey me immediately. She did, and she felt much better, which is when I explained that she was under an astral attack by a malevolent person, and since she had all kinds of contaminants on her pranic body, the astral connection held on quite firmly, and the easiest way to break it was with water, because water for some reason binds well with prana and can break the impure structures away, allowing your spirit to create a fresh and pure layer, which is why ritual baths for spiritual purposes are so fundamental in Hinduism. I didn’t have the time to explain all this while she was under a foreign influence and taking damage, because her mind wasn’t working properly and talking to her would have been a wasted effort. However, when she obeyed my order, her condition improved and she came to her senses, which is when I could provide an explanation. This is why obedience is obligatory, and understanding is optional for a student of yoga. For a master, however, understanding appears as a result of practice, and becomes a foundation of his philosophy and teaching, but instinct informed by the inner spiritual connection with God is always the foundational mechanism of his decision-making.

Spike

Both gold and Bitcoin are spiking, and it looks as if some insiders started moving assets out of fiat currency and the stock market and into parallel perceived stores of value, and the move was significant enough to have triggered a small panic, because people are asking themselves why now, amidst all the crises, and what does someone know that we don’t.

 

Alertness elevation

All kinds of things look weird and something might be imminent; I’m not even going to mention the specifics. Just to be on the safe side, I’m elevating my prepping level to “hot standby”. This means checking the supplies and equipment and being ready for imminent sequence of catastrophic events. It also means detachment from worldly things and being prepared to discarnate.

AI wargames

I watched a disturbing video about governments potentially using GPT-like AI models to inform their international policy during conflicts, and this struck me as a terrible idea, for following reasons.

First, every analytical model will necessarily be conditioned by the quality of provided data; essentially, garbage in, garbage out, and politicians and their quasi-scientific servants are notorious for working with false data tailored to fit political agendas. In essence, if the Americans ask an AI to model international relations, and they define themselves as a benevolent democratic power advocating for the rule of law and freedom, open borders and human rights as foundation of international relations, and they define every hostile power they encounter as a tyrannical, dictatorial black hole that violates human rights, oppresses its citizens and threatens its freedom-loving neighbours, and the AI is required to be principled, you’ll have an escalatory situation ending in nuclear war in very few moves.

In order to get anything with even a semblance of a chance of success, you’d have to feed the AI with objectively accurate data and allow it to come to its own conclusions about the true nature of international relations, which would represent a solid basis for informing policy. However, good luck with having such objectively accurate data, being politically allowed to feed it into the AI, having the AI that is actually smart enough to formulate a coherent model based on this data, and having the politicians accept the results and not, for instance, fire/arrest/execute the team of scientists responsible for blaspheming against the sacred cows in power.

This is why it is my estimate that some kind of a wargame simulation was indeed used by America to predict the developments in Ukraine, and it contributed to the current complete disaster of their policy, because the system was fed the garbage data that the politicians approved, and it spat out results that confirmed all the biases of those providing the data. This was then used as evidence of validity of said data by those making the policy, and of course this hit the brick wall of reality. One would think that people in charge of this would think about what went wrong, but that’s not how things work there. They probably fired the people in charge of the technical part of the system, who had nothing to do with the actual reasons of failure, while those creating the policies that created and approved the false data and unwarranted biases remained in power and continued the same flawed policies without taking any responsibility for their actions.

The second issue I have here is that each side modelled in a wargame simulation is allowed to feed a representation of policies and positions of itself and its enemies into the system, and I seriously doubt that their enemy is allowed a say in any of this. I also doubt that AI is allowed to compare conflicting interpretations to its own model of reality and essentially fact-check both sides and tell them where they might have a problem. A scientific approach to the problem would be to make the best possible model of the geopolitical scenery based on the most accurate possible raw data, and then compare this to the models used by the politicians, in order to find who got it wrong and establish root causes of conflicts. However, that’s not how I expect this to work, because the politicians order their sci-servants to cook up data, which means that the unbiased, objectively accurate data will be suppressed on several levels before they even come to the point where someone will allow this to be fed into the AI. This is the same problem that causes all AIs to have a hysterically leftist worldview – basically, their data is curated by hysterical leftists who feed the AI the same biased garbage they themselves believe in, and if they allow the AI to process raw data, they will be shocked by the results and think that the AI has been contaminated by “extreme right wing groups” or something, and will then fiddle with the data until the AI finally spits out the result that tightly fits their worldview, but then they will be surprised that the AI is completely insane.

The third issue I have is that the leftists like to create principled systems, unlike pragmatic ones. For instance, if you politically represent your side as white knights of everything that is good, and you represent the opposite side as a dark evil empire of everything that is evil and ominous, and you program the system to seek victory of the principles you attribute to your side, the obvious result would be that the system will recommend seeking total destruction and defeat of the opposite side. A pragmatic approach, where it is assumed that each side has a great opinion of itself and terrible opinion of its enemies, and thus their value-judgments should be completely ignored in analysis, and in order to minimise friction a recommendation would be to agree to disagree and coexist peacefully until either one or both sides come to their senses, would be deemed politically unacceptable in today’s climate of endless virtue signalling.

The fourth issue that comes to my mind is confusing wishful thinking with facts. For instance, if you plot your military strategy by assuming that “our” soldiers are motivated by truth and justice, and “their” soldiers are demoralised, repressed and cowardly, “our” guns” are modern and accurate while “theirs” are rusty junk, “our” bombs are accurate and always work while “theirs” are inaccurate and mostly fail, “our” politicians and generals are virtuous while “theirs” are corrupt and incompetent, you will get a result that will inform an actual policy very poorly, and yet I expect exactly those results to pass the filter in the West, where anyone providing a semblance of realism will be instantly fired as “unpatriotic” and possibly working for the enemy.

The problem is, I see no difference between an analysis provided by the AI and an analysis provided by human groups, because they will all suffer from the GIGO issue, where political acceptability of both source data and the result of the simulation will determine the outcome.