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. |
BTW, I’m not sure if and when I’ll get around to writing the commentary, since I’m under an immense amount of pressure and very much exhausted.
Is it really a complete mystery?
From human perspective it is for sure. But is it really something that cannot be understood by anyone, anywhere, anytime?
It all looks very much particular, personal, and it comes down to specific characters to create or do something.
However, what I wonder about while I’m reading this[1] is are there any underlying principles, laws, forces, or however it can be called, that would go against something that does not have a right to exist? And I’m not talking about kalapas or personal karma.
You said there was the opposition initially to the idea of this world. That opposition later initiated decisive actions against the perceived problem.
But what if there wasn’t anyone? What if everybody else was just minding their own business? Does that mean this world would continue to exist indefinitely? I find that thought to be completely disturbing.
What I’m struggling to formulate here: is it just a question of someone’s accidental good will to solve the problem, or is it an intrinsic quality of the Absolute to engage particular actions against something that would go against its true nature?
Although, you can say, if the one who’s actually solving the problem is the one with godly attributes, then the question is paradoxical in itself and makes no sense.
I think you left out a word here. It can still be understood perfectly well, but I’m just pointing it out in case if it ends up in a book or something.
[1]
Actually, just a small sidenote. While I was thinking about how to formulate this question, I had a strange realization that struck me for a second, and that’s the idea that this world isn’t actually a complete coincidence. It’s real in a way that all the protagonists on all sides are real, and their intentions are also real, and the effects of their doings are real; however, it’s almost as if somebody from a higher perspective knew long time ago that this isn’t going to work, but it was somehow allowed to happen anyway because it’s a necessary prerequisite for something else. Almost like both creation and destruction of this world is just one piece of a bigger puzzle.
I’m probably just tripping though… It doesn’t make much sense given that, as you pointed out earlier, some saints ended up permanently lost because of the deceitful nature of this world. Thus, it doesn’t really look like a game, even if it’s a big divine one.
Let’s say a human mind isn’t well suited to working with apparently contradictory things that are simultaneously true. Mathematics is a reflection of that: a typical approach to disproving a theorem is to try to prove the opposite. If you can prove that the opposite is impossible, the theorem is proven.
With God, with human mind you have unresolvable paradoxes. With what you could call a higher spiritual mind, you perceive all truths of the matter, understand that it’s a complex multifacetted reality and you recognize the apparent contradictions but they do not cause the kind of alarm they do in this ape brain that goes crazy if something can be both banana and not banana at the same time.
You basically want it all to be scripted so you’d feel safe. You want it to be a matter of some impersonal law that will decide things by automatism, so that you don’t have to rely on some person recognizing and solving the problem.
But let’s put it in somewhat different terms. If dinosaurs can’t nuke the asteroid in deep space, are they worth saving? If nobody with enough power to do something about it perceives a problem, is it a problem at all?
There is a line of thought that wants God to be as impersonal as gravity or Ohm’s law. Then there’s the line of thought that wants God to be an anthropomorphic entity with essentially human emotions, so that they could relate. Neither of those is even close to being true. When I talk about God as impersonal, we are talking about the foundation of everything personal in every person, about the very essence of “asmita”, or “selflness” in every self. We are talking about something that is the wellspring of everything real, substance that is both self and consciousness and pleasure of total fulfillment, sparkling intelligence that is so conscious and wonderful that a single glimpse of that can burn through you like a lightning strike. Impersonal God is incredibly personal, you just perceive that “tat tvam asi”, that you are That. That’s what I mean by paradoxes. It’s many things at once, and arguments about whether God is personal or not, are made by idiots who never actually tasted That.
This is not a fair formulation. Yes, the solution provided is personal. However, the problem itself is caused by another person. In a situation where you have laws that do whatever is right and proper, all automatically, you don’t have neither the problems nor the solutions, because you don’t have individual power and freedom that create new ideas that make creating the relative worlds worth while. If you have this power and freedom, it can occasionally create very bad problems that require creative solutions, and this situation where someone needs to rise up and think of something new that wasn’t thought of before and wasn’t done before, that appears to be more important than having a sterile little laboratory of a world where everything just does what it’s supposed to, so perfect that it’s meaningless and isn’t worth creating at all.
It’s both, I guess. Some things are so much of a law that they govern the way kalapas interact. You can call those laws impersonal, but are they really, if they are the foundation of the principles that make every person in existence? If you meet a person that is God and it reveals to you the reality, existence and principle that is God, is the personal fulfillment and realization you feel as a result something impersonal? If solution to some big problem becomes one or several persons manifesting something that resolves the situation, would you object, because it would feel more “elegant” to have it solved by some automatic force by necessity of a cosmic law? Would you want your girlfriend to be fucked automatically by cosmic law or would you rather do it personally? 🙂
That’s exactly the kind of things I meant when I said that God is intrinsically a paradox; both One and Many, singularity and plurality, supracosmic and microscopic, governing behavior of every kalapa yet complete freedom of choice and consequence exists. As Absolute allows all problems to manifest, and as a person manifesting solutions shows the nature of Self.
I don’t think I left anything out, it’s just one of those times when I have to play with language in order to break the linearity of mind in order to open it up to complexity. And yes, if I actually get to write the commentary I will publish it as a PDF alongside other books.
Yes, you seem to be on to something. If we assume that great problems need to exist in order for great solutions to arise, in a sense that you can’t have great heroes without great evils for them to fight against, the fact that those great evils are very much real and produce actual harm, is merely a given. Yes, some souls big enough to be made of “jewels” could be damaged or lost. On the other hand, other souls bigh enough to redefine all concepts known in the past can arise in order to solve the problem. Sure, someone will lose a “jewel” because he or she made some cowardly decision or sided with evil and was corrupted. It’s like a story of those Vedic gods stirring a pot of all things and at one point a great evil manifested and threatened to kill everyone. But then Shiva came, swallowed the poison and it did him no harm other than a small blue scar in his throat, for which he was given another name, Nilakantha.
I wouldn’t call it a game, because the word has wrong connotations. It’s a very serious game where you can make mistakes and die, and I mean the true spiritual death, because the souls are of course not immortal; as they were created by karmic accretion due to virtuous choices, so they can be dissolved due to sinful choices. Is safety possible, or even desirable, if it precludes the concept of a true choice? If you have nothing to choose between, how relevant and formative can your choice be? Yes, some choices are frightening because you can choose wrongly and die. But at the same time, you can choose rightly and attain higher initiation. That was actually the argument Sanat Kumar used to evade punishment for millenia, only he used it to deceive and his actual purpose was different. The fact that the argument was considered valid enough for him to be allowed to proceed says much.