The life of Job

I’ve been thinking about the book of Job.

It was never one of my favourite parts of the Bible, because I always thought it portrays God as an unjust and cruel asshole, who gives more value to Satan’s desire to test a good man, than to this man’s wellbeing – essentially, God allows Satan to turn Job’s life into a living hell just to test whether he’ll spiritually crack under pressure and turn to evil.

But lately I’ve been thinking if maybe I got it wrong. Of course it’s an allegory, and I always understood it as such, but maybe it’s a different kind of allegory. Maybe it’s not about the superficial moralizing message, but a more profound one, with mythical power, in a sense where a myth is something that never happened, and yet it happens daily. Maybe the message is that we, here, incarnated on Earth, are Job. Not in a sense that we are surrendered to Satan to be cruelly tested, but in a more profound sense, where this world in its entirety was devised by Satan as a form of a wager with God, where he publicly claimed to have created a test that only the truly virtuous and noble souls can pass, and secretly hoped that nobody, even God were he to accept the same human limitations, could. Essentially, he hoped to create such hopeless darkness laced with deceptions and lures, at the same time separating the souls from their memory, from their powers, from the ability to leave, and he blocked their personal access to God, so that he could envelope them in darkness so completely, that the only pieces of light they can see are his own lures, set in such ways as to burden them with sin, attach them to this world, separate them further from God and essentially kill them. As they died, deceived into sin, drowning in filth they were convinced to embrace, Satan could always claim that they failed to remain faithful to God, that their spiritual virtue, so obvious in heaven, was but a reflection of the heavenly light and not their own nature, and when they were separated from what was not truly their own, they showed their true, base and lowly nature, and sinned against God.

The deception, of course, is in the fact that a saintly soul is not such due to the light of its own. Everybody shines but with the light of God, and if this light is taken from us, we are truly doomed. So this is essentially a trap for the arrogant ones, who can believe that their virtue and achievement are their own, and not merely the result of acceptance of God into their lives. I cannot claim this with certainty, but what I do know is that not all came here with the same intent. Some came here to show how their powerful spiritual being can shine with God’s light even in deepest darkness. Some were lured here with promise of spiritual evolution under pressure, which supposedly isn’t possible elsewhere. Some wanted to teach and help others who were trapped here, in essence displaying a trait of arrogance, thinking themselves above those who were ensnared and deceived, and those who already attempted to help them, and failed. Some came here because they wanted to hide from God, whom they hated. Some wanted to do evil deeds. Some were just stupid. There doesn’t seem to be a singular motive; however, the common thing is that they all perceived this place completely differently and did not understand what actually happens here, which includes the concepts of time, and process.

The error in my analysis of the book of Job is, perhaps, in the assumption that the situation was portrayed correctly. What if the wager wasn’t between Satan and God, but between Satan and Job? What if Satan told Job that he has a test for him, that only a true devotee of God can pass? What if Job was eager to show his devotion to and faith in God by accepting the challenge? What if God advised him against it, but Job was either ignorant or arrogant enough to dismiss it?

So, we are Job. Deceived, bound, stripped of our memory, separated from the light and certainty of God, surrounded with pain, darkness and evil, tempted with deadly lures that promise to ease our pain at the price of our soul, with no certainty in our hope that it will ever be better.

The book itself offers the unobvious way out: don’t assume you did something very bad to deserve your fate. Don’t repent. Don’t “curse God and die”, as his wife advised the protagonist. Accept that your condition just is. It’s not certain why it is here. Maybe it’s a punishment for your sins, and maybe you’re so perfectly pure that Satan wagered with God that he can break you, and God agreed. Maybe you wagered with Satan that he can expose you to all the rage and darkness of hell, and you will not lose faith in God. Many things are possible, and it is unwise to claim responsibility for your situation just because someone told you it’s a constructive approach. It’s not constructive to accept guilt and punishment if you are completely innocent. It is also not constructive to pass judgment and blame God for your situation, under the assumption that God created this place and He is omnipotent. The thing is, creation of this place seems to be a very complicated thing, and involved many parties, none of which seems to be God directly. Also, the parameters of this place seem to be such that God is very limited in what He can do here.

So, how can I say that God didn’t create this world? Does this detract from God’s greatness?

First of all, this place is such a nightmarish hellhole, that claiming that God created it detracts from His greatness.

Second, if you think that God needs to be attributed with the creation of everything lest his greatness be diminished, what about the computer I’m presently using to write this article? Was it created directly by God? OK, so you have to concede that God didn’t directly create some things, even very sophisticated and valuable ones. If we extend this further, did God create humans directly, or were they a product of natural evolution? It is much more rational to accept that God didn’t necessarily create most things directly, and that in most cases things that exist are the result of actions of either sentient beings lesser than God, or a result of natural forces in action, such as lightning, which wasn’t created by anyone, but is merely a result of an electrostatic discharge in the atmosphere. If lightning can exist without being created by God, why should this world have to be created by God? Why should it not be of the order of being similar to my computer, which can also maintain a simulated reality, or, should I say, reality of an inferior order? It is much wiser to say that God is the deepest reality, and that everything else in existence has reality inferior to God’s; things can exist that simulate virtual universes, and I hold one such device in my lap as I use it to write this, and the text on the screen is of reality that is less than the reality of the laptop itself, and yet it is quite real, in a sense that I write it, I can read it from the screen, I can post it on the web and then you can read it and know that it is real; and yet, is it more real than merely ones and zeros, represented by the voltage in the memory cells, mapped onto characters, and displayed on some physical device that conveys the information to your brain. Things can obviously exist in weird ways, once you accept the reality of computers, and differences in reality between hardware and software. Someone, who is not God, created a computer. Someone else, who is also not God, uses this computer, as well as the software which is on that computer, to modify the software for some nefarious purpose. So, what if this entire Universe runs on what is the equivalent of a smartphone in some higher-reality Universe, and only when you follow this rabbit hole of realities to its end do you reach God. I’m formulating this hypothetically, but to me it is much more than a hypothesis. It’s a theory, in a scientific sense, where a theory is a set of hypotheses that were experimentally verified, and form the intellectual framework for explaining the evidence.

And the most interesting thing is that, although this can all lead you to conclude that God is so very far away, hidden under a palimpsest of superimposed illusions, nothing is farther from the truth. Because, if we use the analogy of God as the computer, and various recursively nested illusions as software entities running on this computer, such as the BIOS, OS, applications, windows within the applications, and nested structures within the windows, how far is all of this from the computer? It is all the computer. It’s right here, and the entirety of software has any existence only within it, and it is given reality by having its instructions executed directly by the hardware. You are as far from God as any of applications on your computer is from its CPU and RAM. Not only does it mean that God is truly the closest to your being, it means that envisioning your existence as detached from God, or even in opposition to God, is madness – because, in the end, only God Is; only I Am.

The full circle

I’m going to write down a few thoughts on the present socio-political situation.

The problem is multi-layered.

The Western civilization is essentially conducting an experiment which started somewhere around the French revolution and American independence. The basic assumptions of this experiment are as follows:

  1. This life is all there is. If God exists, He left us to create our own destiny and laws according to which we will govern ourselves, so, for all intents and purposes, God is dead. It is up to the ones who are awakened to this fact to create a new future, one that will part with the gods and traditions of old. The past can no longer guide the future.
  2. All humans are essentially equal, and given the same opportunities, will have the same or very similar outcomes. Education and empowerment of the masses will have the result of reducing social inequality and essentially remove the social pyramid, by placing everybody on top.
  3. Since humans are basically the same, social hierarchy is not the result of superior nature of those in power, or the mandate of heaven, but of Machiavellian scheming and power grabs. Hierarchies are not to be trusted and instruments are to be put in place to limit the extent and duration of any individual’s hold on power. Also, all social inequalities are the result of the old obsolete system, and need to be removed.
  4. Science and technology are the means of human and societal emancipation and, since all problems are material in nature, if they are at all solvable, their solution is to be attempted through science and technology.
  5. The old system of government, that was based on tradition, religion, superstition and unjust initial distribution of wealth through robbery, violence and other forms of power, is to be completely removed and all its consequences reversed. All evil in the world can be explained as a consequence of the relics of the old system. Since this system creates and perpetuates all evil, all means are permissible in the war against it.

So, this was the blueprint for the slaughterhouse that was the French revolution, as well as the two world wars. However, this was not all; other parameters existed, which created the framework in which such a theoretical model was plausible:

  1. Religion was widely discredited. Due to the internecine wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, as well as the corruption within the Catholic Church which originally caused the problem, the moral authority of religion was largely destroyed, opening the door to other possible ways of interpreting and organizing existence.
  2. Sophisticated thinking within the Catholic Church gave birth to science, as well as leaving the greatest minds dissatisfied with the answers provided by religion. Also, the obvious corollary of renaissance was that the Bible obviously didn’t have all the answers and things can be improved if we introduce other factors, such as ancient Greek and Roman literature. Also, since it can be improved by Greeks and Romans, including reformulation of Christian philosophy using Plato and Aristotle, why not simply conclude that the Bible is only one source of information among many, and not necessarily the best one at that. Furthermore, if scientific experimentation can produce theories that are more valid than the biblical ones, why not simply dispense with the Bible altogether and just stick to what we can figure out and prove?
  3. Based on scientific experimentation, technological advancements were at first hinted, and then actually made. The level of technological advancement since the widespread adoption of the scientific method was unprecedented. This apparently confirmed the assumptions from the enlightenment era, weakened all possible criticisms, and created societal readiness for radical implementations of those modernist theories, as in the communist revolutions in Russia, China and elsewhere, and the ascent of fascism across Europe in the first third of the 20th Essentially, we can observe the communists and the fascists as minor variations of the same phenomenon: the fascists simply decided to dispense with the assumption of universalism, and decided to advance only their own race/nationality at the expense of others, deciding it’s not just the old system holding them back, but other races/nations as well, and were ready to dispense with them using brutality typical for modernist systems, as witnessed in the French revolution and since. Here I completely disagree with Slavoj Žižek, who claims that communism and fascism are two inherently different phenomena, where fascists were evil people who promised to do evil things, and, having come to power, delivered on the promise, while the communists were good people with noble ideas which somehow went wrong for some unknown reason – assuming, perhaps, that if someone else were in charge of implementation of those ideas and if the circumstances were different, those ideas could legitimately be tried out again, expecting more success. I completely and fundamentally disagree with that. Both communists and fascists in fact start from the same modernist assumptions, that God is dead and it’s up to us to dispense with the old system and create a better future based on science and technology. The difference is that the communists applied this idea to the working class, which needed to be liberated from the results of the unjust initial distribution of capital, the means of production need to be returned to the wide masses, and bright future will ensue. All who oppose this plan are evil, and need to be dispensed with mercilessly. Since humans are all equal, and some have more, this is necessarily the result of injustice, so the rich need to be robbed of their unjustly obtained wealth and it is to be returned to the impoverished masses. The fascists essentially replaced the working class with nation – in case of Germany, their nation is assumed to be superior, morally just and biologically more evolved, other races obtained societal superiority by deception and theft, the results of that need to be reversed and those who oppose such distribution should be mercilessly dispensed with. Since the essence of the problem is seen as biological, instead of class warfare and the purge of “kulaks” they practiced racial warfare and the purge of the “inferior races”. So, essentially, both fascism and communism are narcissistic modernist systems of belief who had no scepticism regarding their theories, who used demagoguery to appeal to the wide masses, and had absolutely no moral restraints on the use of violence and cruelty, including genocide.
  4. During most of this, the feudal system and therefore “old money” was still in place; essentially, a class of people no longer had the level of power necessary to keep the level of control of resources and the influence in society that they inherited. The vast transfer of power from nobility to capital was in place. Since it was obviously just that the captains of industry control what they created, and questionably just that the noblemen keep the vast property that they inherited based on the feudal divisions of power, the modernist ideas in the old world were hard to dispute from a moral standpoint. In America, there were no remnants of feudalism to speak of, and the entire country was based on the modernist enlightenment principles to begin with, which explains why both world wars started in Europe. One can perceive them as a process of societal thermodynamics, where the hold over resources was redistributed violently according to the new realities of power.
  5. Widespread education created problems that previously didn’t exist, such as abundance of educated people with essentially no jobs and no place in society for them. This created discontent in the intelligentsia, which tended to form and join revolutionary movements. The states tried to control this by trying to create workplaces for those people in the administration, but this had the unwanted effect of creating the huge state apparatus which created more problems than it solved, for instance contributing greatly to the dissolution of the Austria-Hungary empire. The revolutionary movements also used the ineffectiveness of the state administration as an argument in their favour, claiming that things would improve once they were in power. However, since both sides were working with the modernist assumptions about education, they were both contributing to the problem. Also, it turned out that education didn’t change much in the divisions of power in society, and the modernist assumption about education as the solution to all problems was disproved. Essentially, you can force-educate everybody, but most people simply don’t know what to do with the acquired knowledge, which indicates that lack of education initially wasn’t caused by external but internal limitations, which then disproves the assumption of equality of all people, and, also, the assumption of injustice of societal and economic inequalities.

Essentially, the modernist idea was that everything will be perfect once we disempower and kill those who try to hold the mankind back; with the Nazis, they recycled the Theosophical concepts of fourth and fifth race, stating that they are the pure fifth race and in order for mankind to go forth into a bright future, the remnants of the fourth race that hold it back need to be killed off. As for the communists, they drew a conclusion consistent with the thesis that all men are equal, and concluded that all societal and economic differences are the result of injustice perpetrated by those with power and possession, who need to be disempowered and killed off in order for mankind to go forth into a bright future. Essentially, those narcissists had no problem with the assumption that they got it all right and had no problem killing tens and hundreds of millions of people, especially since the population doubled since the ascent of the industrial revolution, so killing of a significant percentage of the population wasn’t seen as a big deal.

The problem with those theories is that they all work within the essentially identical moral and intellectual framework, starting with the similar assumptions, from which it is easy to come to very similar conclusions, which are basically that whenever something is wrong in society, it can be solved by finding and killing those who are to blame. When that doesn’t work, corrections are made by revising the concept of the oppressor-group and the victim-group, and finding more people to kill. When this worsens the situation immensely, the original assumptions about the world, man and society that created the worsening are never questioned; only the methods of implementation are. That’s why people like Slavoj Žižek are dangerous: he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with communism/socialism, he just thinks it was not implemented properly.

I, however, think that not only communism is wrong – both intellectually and morally – but it is also wrong in a way in which every single modernist system is wrong. They all assume that people are equal, and they explain the differences by the bad old system. They assume that if you lift the societal limitations, you will get some kind of a dreamlike utopia. When this was attempted, and the results were not as expected, instead of acting like scientists and admitting that the initial assumptions were disproved by evidence, they acted like ideologues and just found more people who are to be killed in order to produce their ideal utopia. The French revolution, as the first attempt at modernist reform of society, was the least refined in its brutality and hypocrisy, killing scientists in the name of a new system based on science and not superstition, all the while never actually applying the scientific method on their own societal experiments. One would think that they learned to be more subtle with time, but that never happened – the solution to all problems seems to be to forcefully introduce equality, and kill everyone who gets in the way, and they always assume to be right and morally justified, because narcissism is the fundamental implicit property of all modernist systems – God is dead, and they now decide who God is, what law is, what right and wrong is. They decide who lives and who dies, because they just took the power to do so, and they aren’t afraid of killing every single person who disputes them the right to do so, until only those in perfect agreement with them are left standing. No discussion about the fundamental assumptions of modernism and its corollary belief systems is allowed, because the very idea makes you a member of the enemy-group that is to be dispensed with mercilessly. So, obviously, the matter is never brought up.

And, of course, that’s what I do.

The problem with modernism isn’t that it wasn’t implemented properly. The problem is that all of its basic assumptions were faulty from the start, and when they were tried in practice, they resulted in disaster.

First of all, there is a God. Not only that, but God is the fundamental reality, the deepest and most profound level of reality, compared to which everything else is an illusion. Ignorance of God is akin to suppressing the physical reality with virtual reality goggles and immersion in simulations, only several levels more profound. This means you can’t just make shit up: you can’t invent your own morality, you need to discover the pre-existing one and adjust your actions accordingly. Consequences of not doing so are in essence reality-defying. If the reason behind resorting to science is to discover the pre-existing laws of the material Universe, the reason to use the same principle to discover the pre-existing laws of the underlying, deeper realities of existence is even more valid. If you can’t just invent your own laws of gravity, but instead you need to discover and understand the pre-existing ones, you also can’t just invent your own morality; you need to discover and understand the pre-existing relevant principles. Existence of soul that outlives physical incarnation and has purposes within and beyond it, changes things so dramatically that all genocidal attempts at “improvement” of the world, that we had to endure in the last few centuries, would have been avoided, had the fact of soul been acknowledged by the theoreticians of society.

Also, it is true that humans are very similar biologically; biodiversity within the human species is very low, despite all the racist narcissisms of small differences. However, human souls are vastly different, and they exist in the range between simplistic astral structures and God-aspects. Those vast differences do not necessarily determine the entirety of outcomes in human lives on Earth, and they also don’t mean that the better souls have better outcomes, but those differences contribute to the complexity of human existence and make it impossible to attribute inequalities of outcome to a singular causal principle. Also, there are evolutionary differences between races and sexes which contribute greatly to the differences in outcome. Some modernist systems accept that, while others do not, but the fact remains that differences in outcomes cannot be wholly attributed to extrinsic causes. Also, considering how “ancien régime” seems to acknowledge all of that, and the modernist revolutionaries deny it, and no amount of violent social experimentation of the modern times managed to solve the main problems it professed to solve, it seems that we can split the modern times into two parts: that of disastrously bloody and genocidal social experiments, and that of science and technology whose enormous successes in improving the quality of life of vast numbers of people masked the failures of political philosophy to a great extent. It is only due to science and technology that we can see the last few centuries as an improvement over the past. Unfortunately, when theoreticians of evil want to show success of their wicked ideas, the successes of science and technology are exactly what they point to, as if they had anything to do with it. Science and technology works in capitalist, communist and feudal societies. It works perfectly well in democratic America and Europe, and in dictatorial Singapore. If you pump enough oil money into a feudal dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, you get wealth and wellbeing.

Also, some things that are widely acclaimed as results of progress are possibly very dangerous experiments that might result in total civilizational collapse within a century from their introduction. If anything, the Western civilization is in a state of serious flux since the industrial revolution, and it’s all an experiment that might end very badly, and there are in fact signs that something of that kind might be imminent. The problem with societal experimentation is that you can’t just reset the experiment if things go wrong. You only have one civilization to experiment on, and if you kill the patient, it’s game over. There’s an assumption that equality is the ultimate goal, and that democracy is good since it promotes that goal; furthermore, universal suffrage is widely lauded as an achievement, and it might turn out that it was a fatal mistake that managed to wreck both economic and societal structure of the West, in only a few decades that it had been exercised. What if equality is irrelevant, and the true goal is allowing the worthiest individuals to achieve greatest success? What if a Confucian meritocratic monarchy is a better system than democracy? What if a republic with only the most powerful stakeholders having a say, and not the wide underachieving masses, is a superior solution? Why do I keep hearing that democracy is a better solution than all others, when I constantly see the disastrous results of egalitarianism whenever it is attempted?

We hear the arguments about all the empires that fell, and hear them compared with our democracy, always in a self-congratulatory manner, but those making the arguments forget that those empires lasted for millennia, during which time they had their ups and downs, and our democratic experiment, in its full suffrage version, started around the first world war, so it’s only a century old, and this century has been the century of slaughter and economic disasters in its first half, and of moral emptiness, virtue signalling and vacuous political correctness and the resulting purges of the “intolerant ones” in the second half, with the entire civilization showing signs of being unable to procreate, inability to exist without incurring debt, and inability to define itself as worthy of existence and defence, compared to the unwashed masses of Muslim invaders. Egalitarianism, eventually, produced its logical consequence of individuals being unable to explain why they are worthy of success, or even life, or why they should not be replaced with another generic individual. If you can’t say why you are better than others, and why you deserve to live at the expense of others, lest you be called a Nazi for thinking you are better than anyone else, you have a civilization of meaningless, not really individual existences, who define their own value only in terms of equality with others, and for both a civilization and a human being this is the end. At the very instant this civilization is faced with outsiders who have no problem stating they are better than you, you will yield and be either enslaved or killed to make space for those who don’t apologize for existing, and for thinking they are superior. By rejecting Christianity, the West also renounced its “mandate of heaven” – it renounced it claim to superiority that was derived from being the people who listened and accepted to God’s message, and accepted the duty to live according to God’s laws on this Earth, in order to become worthy of the eternal life. By renouncing this, it became vulnerable to any cult of idiots, such as Islam, which was on the verge of extinction a century ago, where even Ataturk renounced it as perfectly useless and counterproductive for a modern Turkey, and yet, as the West renounced Christianity, it created a vacuum that will be filled by all kinds of alternatives, mostly worthless and villainous.

Another problem is that this technological civilization is so complex, it is completely beyond intellectual comprehension of the majority of the population, and in their desire to have at least some degree of control over their existence, those people will resort to all kinds of weird conspiracy theories and religious cults, which will perform their eternal purpose of feeding the narcissism of fools. This problem is not a minor one, because a civilization always rests upon the foundation of acceptance of common goals, by the common people. If the common people no longer see themselves as participating in a greater common goal, the civilization is in free fall.

And the biggest problem is that people are starting to recycle old ideas, because everything has already been tried, and proved to be a dead end, so now they are recycling the dead-ends of socialism, of fascism, of nation-state borders, as if most of today’s failures aren’t the result of someone trying to remedy the failures of those past ideas and concepts. They are trying to go to Mars, as if it’s the 19th century when such an idea made sense, because we didn’t know that Mars is a lifeless wasteland without a magnetic field, bathed in cosmic and solar radiation, that makes no sense to colonize and terraform, and there are no Martians there for us to encounter, and nothing in our solar system is really appealing to a rational person. The 19th and 20th century Universe was a different place, mostly unknown, where many things could possibly be. However, we now know more, and all the possibly appealing worlds are lightyears, or even thousands of lightyears away, completely beyond the reach of our technology. In the 20th century, even the good, scientifically educated science fiction writers toyed with the ideas about intelligent life on Mars and Venus, and I mean people like Asimov and Clarke, not authors of Marvel and DC comic books. Nobody can write such things now, at least not with a straight face. As we learned more, we pruned the Universe of the 19th century, rejecting things that seemed plausible, and discovering things they wouldn’t have thought of in their wildest imagination, and yet the philosophers of that 19th century, who lived under the influence of ideas that had since been proven false, are still appealing to so many. Considering how Chaldean astrology is still considered plausible and authoritative by some people, I can only conclude that bad ideas never completely die; they just continue living in their niche parallel psychosis of a reality. For instance, materialism stopped being a viable interpretation of reality somewhere in the 1980s, when due to massive advances in reanimation of the clinically dead patients we managed to gather a large number of completely convincing evidence about soul’s survival of physical death and its independent existence. This evidence isn’t accepted by the so-called scientists not because there’s something wrong with the evidence, but because it negates their fundamental worldview, represented by the assumptions that I enumerated at the beginning of this article. Also, materialism was disproved by physics, which first found evidence for the existence of atoms, the indivisible fundamental particles of matter, apparently proving the basic precepts of materialism; and then almost immediately progressed to break those atoms into yet smaller particles, until it was left with mere symbols and entities which decay into energy within infinitesimally small fractions of a second. As far as today’s physics is concerned, multiverse and virtual reality theories are perfectly plausible, and nothing is really proven, except that it is completely implausible for our current Universe to exist as a singular reality. Its basic constants are so finely tuned, that the only plausible explanations are that it was created as such by an act of an intelligent being, or that there simply happen to be infinite Universes in existence, and anthropic principle mandates that the one in which we exists happens to be the one within which our existence is possible. And yet in the 1980s we had to endure that insufferable fool Carl Sagan who told us that Universe is all that is, was and ever will be. But yes, bad ideas never really die after they are disproved. However, some bad ideas result in individual lives, and lives of entire civilizations, that are so unsustainable that the entire thing ends.

I don’t se how it would be possible for this civilization to accept that everything it is based on was proven to be false. I think it will simply continue to reiterate on its errors until it is put out of its misery by another force. However, I have another theory. Mankind in general is out of ideas. It’s at an impasse. Everything that was supposed to produce a revolution proved to be a dead end. It’s extinction time.

And I have an even better theory. Jesus was right, and this world was originally created with a fixed, albeit secret, termination date, known only to God. This world was given to Satan to prove his wicked theories, and I can see no better time for it to end than now, when nobody really has a clear idea what else to try, when everything was already tried, all alternatives to God have been tried and produced nothing but hell, and now their best ideas are to recycle the past failures. No, I don’t think so. We seem to be at an end, and I come to the same conclusion regardless of the approach I take in the interpretation of what I observe. It’s harvest time, and it is up to God to separate the wheat from the chaff, which is where the idea of egalitarianism will face its final demise.

Living in a cave doesn’t make you a saint

I’m quite certain there will be misunderstandings regarding my last article, so I’ll explain things a bit.

I originally started this explanation by stating how you need to focus on God and not on what you need to do in the world, because if you have a connection with God, the world will not be able to overwhelm you. However, I decided it’s too abstract a concept for most people, and this needs to be explained somewhat differently, because for those people who didn’t experience either darshan or samadhi, God is a vague and abstract concept, something that can hardly outweigh the very real evils of this world.

On the other hand, I occasionally write about computers and show the equipment I’m using exactly in order for people not to think that I recommend living in a cave and eating nettle brew like Jetsun Milarepa.

So, what do I mean when I talk about withdrawing investments of your energy from the world? It means you don’t expect the world to do anything. It doesn’t have to be good, it doesn’t have to be evil, and it’s not your duty to make it different. You were put here for unknown reasons, and what you have to do is be yourself, remember God and don’t get lost. You don’t project your hopes into some future better life. You don’t fear future evils. What you need to do is live in such a way, that it doesn’t interfere with your efforts to remember God and not get lost.

Now, if you ever had a vision of God, and tried to maintain it in your consciousness, you will know that it’s incredibly difficult. Every evil or ignorant action will extinguish it immediately. Every unfocused action, every automatic reaction to a blow that came from the world, and it’s gone, you can’t remember God anymore. You address someone automatically, in a way inconsistent with God’s presence, and you lose God. Essentially, in order to just maintain that one singular condition that I mentioned, you need to become a saint, a living presence of God in the world, or you will fail.

The next thing to have in mind is that the result of this exercise will not be the same for all people. Dressing yourself up to be acceptable to God, and modifying your behavior to be the vehicle for your meditation on God will be vastly different for different people. As a result, some will attempt to be liked and approved of by God. Some will attempt to think God’s thoughts. Some will feel and manifest God’s will. Complete withdrawal from the world, or complete hostility towards the world, or an attempt to act in such a way as to remind other beings of God and show them the way out by personal example, by being outside while inside, those can all be the results of this kind of meditation. The saints are not rubber-stamped from the same template, they are original solutions to the common problem, based on the same general approach: be of God while in the world, and have your eternal destiny in God, not the world. And yes, it can look as if you’re trying to enrich the world or make it better or what not, but that’s merely a corollary, and you’re not investing your energy in the world, you’re corroding the evil nature of the world by remembering God’s light and beauty amidst this ugliness and horror. God’s presence doesn’t enrich hell, it negates it. Negate ugliness with beauty, negate impotence with power, negate poverty with wealth, negate ignorance with knowledge, negate cruelty with kindness, negate injustice with justice, negate lies with truth. This can appear similar to Jordan Peterson’s concept of making it worthwhile, but it’s the focus on God, on the transcendental reality, that makes the difference. You’re not trying to make world a better place, you’re trying to live in a way that reminds you of God, and thus create a small island of heaven amidst hell. You don’t use your own strength, your own energy: you invite God into your life and surround yourself with His holy presence. You hold on to His light, and never let go. You do things in the world that need to be done, all the while trying to maintain His holy presence in your awareness, thoughts and actions, because it’s what you do in the little things that determines your destiny. Awareness of God is how you wash the car, pet the cat, shop for groceries, apply thermal paste to the CPU, write code, wash the dishes, cook, have sex, walk, run and sleep. Renunciation is not a mere absence of things, where you live in a cave and eat nettles, it’s the way you do things – you don’t abandon God so that you could pet the cat, you abandon the world and see God through the cat, surround the cat with God. Essentially, if you renounce the worldly nature of things, you can do anything in God. There isn’t that much difference between a house and a cave, and nettles and a steak; both show your physical inability to live without food and shelter, and you need to work hard just to remain alive, in both cases, and if you can be godless in a house, believe me, you would be as godless in a cave. Poverty and physical renunciation don’t impart holiness on their own, nor do riches negate holiness on their own. It’s meditation on God, or forgetfulness of God, that either create or negate holiness. This world is not passive – it will actively fuck with you, and you need to actively resist it by focusing on God, who is your desired destiny and salvation. Meditation doesn’t just happen, it’s a war against the forces of darkness, where by invoking the names and attributes of the Lord of Light you punch a hole in this damn place, and establish a foothold of God’s presence on the territory of Satan. And it’s not your energy and effort that makes it possible, and the effort doesn’t exhaust you or bind you – it’s only a choice that is yours, a choice to allow God into your life, one small piece at a time.

And unlike the investments of energy and effort into the world, the results of this path remain forever.


Let it go

I watched a recent Jordan Peterson interview on the Joe Rogan show:

Other than agreeing with the common sense stuff that he’s saying, I found one particular issue that bothers me.

Essentially, what Dr. Peterson says is that life is full of suffering, but one needs to find a positive purpose to dedicate one’s life to, that will outweigh the cumulative burden of suffering contained in one’s life, and make it subjectively worthwhile.

My problem with this is that it starts with the first noble truth of Buddhism, that life is wrought with suffering, but then comes to the opposite conclusion, basically that one needs to invest even more energy into his relationship with the world, not noticing the causal relationship between the investment of spiritual energy into the world, and suffering.

So, what was Buddha’s answer to this problem, if we put aside the four noble truths thing, which nobody seems to understand properly? Buddha’s answer is, basically, that there are several components to the human experience, and the result of their interaction is suffering. First component is the world as such – it exists in a way that is extremely conducive to suffering if you get entangled in it. Second component is misunderstanding, where the world is seen as something that will give you desirable results; this is also known as projection of one’s spirit and goals into the world. Third component is inertia, where you tend to repeat the same mistakes that got you entangled in this mess in the first place; essentially, you react to painful experiences by investing more energy into the world, in attempts to make it all better, the way a gambler tries to cover his past gambling debts by making increasingly larger and more dangerous bets.

And this is why Dr. Peterson’s argument bothers me, because it sounds like very dangerous advice, from my perspective, and I think Buddha would agree. He’s not the first one who came up with this idea – it’s the main mechanism that increases spiritual entanglement and increases harm to the point of total spiritual exhaustion and destruction. Essentially, the people who are totally desperate because of suffering already tried investing increasingly more into the world, to the point where they are left with nothing but humiliations, pain and karmic debt. So what do you say to such a person – oh, you should try and project more energy into the world, invest more, make another high stakes bet that will make it all good? I don’t think it’s a good idea.

I know that non-Buddhists, and non-Hindus for that matter, will find my argument unconvincing, because the workings of karma and energy-investment will be foreign to them, but in that case I will refer to Christianity. It was Jesus’ opinion that the worldly battle is already lost and that one should not even attempt to play it – let the dead bury their dead. Build on solid rock, not on sand. Don’t gather wealth of the kind that is consumed by rust and moth. Put your faith in God, make God your goal, project your fulfillment into the kingdom of God, not into the kingdom of man. Don’t try to keep this life, because you will lose it; give it up, and get true life in eternity. You see my point?

Both Śakyamuni and Jesus start with the same basic assumption as Dr. Peterson, that this life is wrought with suffering, and that this can break one’s spirit quite easily. It’s the solutions that differ. Jesus says, put your faith in God, not in this world, because this place will kill you. Don’t resist evil, don’t strike back, carry your cross calmly to the place of execution, follow me. Buddha says, follow the path of renunciation and detachment. Release, don’t hold. Don’t retaliate. Feel the pain, allow it to flow through you, and release your hold over the world, because it will poke and prod you to increase your grip, to invest more, to try to fix problems, to try to cover pain with pleasure, and it doesn’t work, because the solution doesn’t exist in this world, the solution is nirvana, the calm ocean of spirit that is indifferent to anything this world has to offer or threaten with.

Sure, it’s quite easy to follow this advice all the way to despondency and depression. If you don’t strike back at injustice, you will feel hurt, helpless, worthless. If you don’t try to do good in response to evil, what will you do? Choose emptiness? Those are valid arguments. One would think Buddha and Jesus thought of them, but surprisingly they haven’t, and you know why? Because you might think and feel that this world is the only one, or the best one, or the real one, but they knew better. Their advice wasn’t for people who live in a real world, it was for video game addicts, who will moan and bitch about their scores and levels and virtual gadgets going to waste, and the advice of the enlightened ones is, in the immortal words of Queen Elsa of Arendelle, “let it go”. Just let it go, let it die, don’t retaliate, don’t try to invest in yet another round of bets that will cover your prior losses. Turn around and leave. It’s not the real world, in fact you are more real than the world. The world isn’t giving you anything, in fact you are keeping it alive with your investment of energy. Withdraw, become aware, remember God, enter nirvana, regain your inner equilibrium, realize that the fulfillment you seek is beyond the confines of this place and is possible only in God. That’s what they are telling you, and that’s what I kept telling everybody until I bored myself to tears with repetition. So that’s my issue with Dr. Peterson’s roadmap for humanity – it doesn’t see past the confines of this world, and if you apply it as recommended, it is more likely to doom you than to rescue you, because the solution to being stuck in a hole isn’t to start digging more vigorously. At least if you’re not smart enough to start cutting a staircase into the walls of the well.


About immigration and shitholes

The leftists had a fainting spell over Trump’s qualification of certain places in the world, from which people want to immigrate into America, such as Mexico, Syria, or Caliphate of Lower Takfiristan (also known as ISIS), as shitholes.

This comes after they already had a crying spell over poor immigrants who live in hellish conditions in various shitholes and need to be allowed to immigrate into America, because compassion, big heart and all sorts of bullshit.

Make up your fucking minds, because you can’t have it both ways. Either all places are equal and there are no shitholes (removing the need for immigration), or some places are shitholes and there is a need for emigration from there but then you:

  1. can’t whine about Trump calling them shitholes because that’s what they are, and
  2. can’t whine about Trump imposing strict regulations on immigration from shitholes, because all sorts of bad people live there and you need to be careful whom you let in.

So which one is it, then?

The next issue is, if those places are shitholes, and people who emigrate from Shitholistan into America don’t assimilate, and instead try to change America to make it more like their beloved Shitholistan, that could be a problem.

If those places are not shitholes, and all people and places are equally wonderful, stop all immigration immediately because it’s pointless.

Also, if you object to places being qualified as shitholes, stop trying to qualify parts of America that voted Republican as shitholes. How about that, eh?