Disrespect and hubris

I just know there’s going to be some person who’s going to read the things I’m writing about God and think, “oh, I might visualise God as my wife, that sounds good”. I wouldn’t recommend it, at least if you want to avoid spending eternity in a dog house. I also wouldn’t recommend looking at Krishna’s lilas as if they are something that pertains to you.

Lila is not a form of sadhana. A relationship with God is not something you visualise.

Biljana read the previous article, and smilingly commented that watching girls bathe has apparently always been a thing. I said “It’s a time-honoured pastime of the Gods. Half of them were always watching the girls bathe. The other half? They were the girls.”

If you’re not a God, don’t try to act as if you are, because that is known as hubris, and the Gods are famous for not liking it. Not liking it, as in “cast you in the lake of fire for all eternity” not liking it.

You don’t get to be Krishna’s wife because you like the idea. You get there by wanting to be dust under his feet, or a flower in his garden, or his wife’s maid-servant for a zillion years. It’s all about humility, sacrifice, adoration and growth in Divine qualities. Of course every satanist out there would like to sit on the heavenly throne and fuck God. That’s why they are sentenced to the pit of hell where they are sodomized by others like them, only stronger.

A relationship with God is something that is determined by God. If you have inappropriate, disrespectful thoughts, you never get to find yourself in God’s presence, you remain in your darkness, and your destiny is despair. If you are very honest, good and respectful, God will give you appropriate guidance and teach you. If you are a very good student, you will become an enlightened being. If you are very good at wisdom, sacrifice, love and kindness, and your samyama on God’s aspects is very successful, you might yourself become a Divine being, a person of God. At that point, there will already be enlightened or Divine beings who will be familiar with you and develop a relationship of respect and love with you. That’s the point where you figure out lila, rather than sadhana, and have varied free, unconditioned, God-based interactions.

My relationship with my girl isn’t something you can imitate, and it would be absolute blasphemy to even have such ideas. For women, imagining being God’s wife is a similar blasphemy, unless of course they already are God’s wife, in which case God will tell you himself. The correct attitude would be “let me be pure and deserving enough to be the water used by the least of God’s wives’ maid-servants to wash her feet first, and then maybe I will become worthy to be that handmaiden’s servant”. Lack of humility in beginners is something that prevents you from even starting properly on a spiritual path, and it can be your downfall regardless of how far you ascended. Also, the greatest way to become close to God is not by imagining a relationship with God, it’s by developing a state of metta and enveloping other beings with it. Be loving-kindness to others, be the truth, the reality, the source of happiness to others, and the relationship with God will take care of itself. I said imitation is sometimes useful because that’s how you can learn, but this is one of those cases where imitation is a very, very bad thing. You’re not me. I’m not a “phase” in spiritual growth that you can reach. I was Eternity before time was an idea. The way Goddess is with me is because of who I am and who we are to each other, it’s not a thing to be emulated by others unless you want to be on a shit list that’s very hard for one to remove themselves from. This is not some stupid fantasy where you can imagine yourself as this or that. Gods are not some kind of unconscious aspects of yourself that serve the purpose of your spiritual growth. They are actual persons, like you, only if you attained the greatest and highest things and evolved to the highest mode of being. They are to be treated with respect of the highest order, because if you don’t, you might find out what Goddess has under that tiny dress and then you die the eternal death, as your soul dissolves in the presence of the naked, unshielded presence of God, That which existed before Light was made, That which made Arjuna beg Krishna to hide it because he could not bear it. Tread lightly where Angels kneel.

True power

I was just thinking (which is how, apparently, most of my articles start 🙂 ) how our concepts of God in the West are influenced, if not outright defined, by the concepts originating from the ancient middle-Eastern civilisations; Babylon, Assyria, Egypt. The entire monotheistic thing originates from there and then: you have a strict hierarchy of worshippers, saints, Angels, Archangels, Cherubim, Seraphim, and upon the Throne there is The One God, to whom all are singing praise, lest they be cast out of heaven and into the lake of fire.

Let me just roll my eyes theatrically here, because, for those who still didn’t get the memo, God is not Ashurbanipal, or Ramses, or Hammurabi. People think of those wooden statues of saints in a church, all strict and serious, and imagine God under the influence of that imagery – if the saints are like that, what must their God be like? Even more strict, distant to the point where nobody really sees him, and people pray to the saints because they feel closer, more approachable, closer to their human condition, which might make them more understanding than a distant, supreme God.

In school I read Franz Kafka’s “Process”, which is about nameless, faceless bureaucracy that swallows and destroys a man in a completely impersonal, detached manner, accusing him of unspecified crimes, for which he’s later sentenced to death and executed, and one thing struck me in particular. As he is brought before a judge, in the waiting room he sees the portrait of said judge in all the splendour of judicial paraphernalia, and someone asks him what he thinks about this judge’s status, how high of a judge this is in the judicial hierarchy? He responds that it must be a very high judge, judging by the portrait, but a man says no, he’s the lowest judge in the hierarchy, that’s why he’s making so much of a show of his greatness. This struck me as very true, because that’s how humans function. The lower someone is in the hierarchy, the more he postures. People buying all the status symbols aren’t the really rich, but middle class with aspirations. The really rich tend to keep a low profile because bringing attention to themselves is just trouble. The really, really rich tend to act completely normal. The world’s wealthiest people come here to Croatia acting completely casually, for instance Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos come to the restaurant with their wives and just order normal stuff like everyone else. Elon Musk and Joe Rogan order pizza and fuck around shooting a car with arrows. It’s the wannabes that drive Bentleys, wear flashy diamond jewellery, heavy gold chains and act with all the grace and class of pimps and drug dealers.

There’s another literary example from Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation” series, where Hari Seldon is brought to the imperial palace on Trantor, and granted audience before an unspecified person. Seldon doesn’t know who that is and is warily trying to guess in order to address him properly, and based on the simplicity of the man’s attire he guesses it must be someone really, really high in the imperial hierarchy, which scares him shitless, and he aims very high with the title he uses. He still misses, however, because it turns out this person is actually the Emperor himself. Basically, the lower courtiers will all look like peacocks, but the Emperor looks like an ordinary man in a suit. That’s what the difference between power, great power and scary power looks like. The powerful look powerful. The supremely powerful look casual. If you imagine saints in white robes, angels in white light, archangels in deep light that radiates scary levels of power, you imagine God as that super-scary, super-powerful, super-distant, never-really-seen arch-magnificence. You then imagine it would be safer to pray to some saint or an angel because you don’t want to be pulverised by lightning or something.

The Hindu concepts aren’t this stuck up or influenced by ancient middle-Eastern despotisms, but there’s still a huge difference between how a priest behaves, how a Rishi such as Vyasa or Narada behaves, and how Krishna or Shiva behave. Essentially, a beginner will look like a saint, a saint will look like some kind of a deity, and God will mess around with his friends acting like a shepherd kid. That’s because a beginner tries really hard to acquire certain qualities, and is very serious and disciplined about it, and also tries to make an impression on people, because to him spirituality is a matter of social status. A saint attained a very high spiritual state and very much tries not to lose it, and always tries to be at his best. God, on the other hand, doesn’t really give a shit. He’s not going to stop being God if he does something undignified, like messing with the girls by stealing their clothes while they are bathing in the river, so that they have to come to him naked and get them back, or hiding in a bush with Arjuna to look at the girls bathing, and setting up his friend with his sister. God doesn’t think his crown will fall off if he bows low. He’s not afraid of people not thinking he’s dignified enough. He’s not afraid of losing his status if he’s not acting distant or special enough. God just doesn’t give a fuck. In fact, exactly because he’s the most powerful, he’s easiest to reach and most approachable. He’s much closer than any saint or an angel. God is not a saintlier saint or a more powerful archangel; God is a whole different kind of a thing. There’s powerful, then there’s scary powerful, then there’s omnipotent, and then there’s the barefoot girl in a light dress, or the shepherd kid playing a flute, a carpenter surrounded by his twelve disciples, or something similarly normal and approachable that, nevertheless, makes Bogeyman check under his bed before he goes to sleep.

Truth of the scene

I’ve been watching some photography videos, and among other things some people seem to be praising the 50mm focal length endlessly; mostly for, supposedly, telling the truth about the situation before you, without either doing the wideangle distortion, or eliminating too much from the scene with telephoto isolation.

I’ve been thinking about that. Their assumption is that a photographer is supposed to show the scene as it is, to present reality without distorting it, to tell a story in ways that make you feel as if you’re a part of it.

That’s such fucking nonsense I don’t even know where to start. But first of all, 50mm doesn’t even feel like a focal length that does that. If anything, I would use an ultrawide to present the scene as I perceive it when I’m there, because I perceive so much with my peripheral vision that it’s almost exactly how I perceive a scene when I’m there, only without the geometric distortions. Something like this:

This is what it feels like to be there, on top of the island, and to look at the horizon. You see everything at once. What the 50mm approximates quite nicely is something else: the area of focused attention.

This is a 50mm frame; different island, different scene, different field of view. Does this look like something you actually see in front of you  when you’re there? Or does it look like something you’re looking at when you’re there? The latter, I’d say.

Or should we use another example?

This was also shot with a 50mm lens – same wide open aperture, even. Same evening. You think this is what my eyes saw? Or is it what I focused at and thought about?

Is photography about reporting accurately what was in front of me and telling a story about it, or is it about using bits and pieces of what’s in front of it to create a story about how I feel?

It depends on who you are as a photographer. If you’re a professional, it might be your job to tell other people’s stories, because that’s what you’re getting paid for. If you’re shooting weddings, you need to tell other people’s romantic stories for posterity, and you are merely a paid instrument that serves the purpose of achieving that. If you’re shooting a sports event for an agency, you need to report visually compelling moments from a game, create something that will draw attention to the article to be read. It’s your job to present it as visually interesting, but again, you’re telling other people’s stories, and you are as much an instrument in this as your camera. Basically, it’s paying audience first, motive second, and you and your equipment in service of that.

But I’m not a professional. Nobody is paying me to take pictures of what they want photographed. It’s all about what I want and why I want it. I might want to present the scene I experienced as accurately as possible. Or I might want to present something that drew my attention there, something most people would just walk by.

There’s absolutely nothing about the 50mm lens that I find more compelling, or more honest about presenting a scene than any other focal length. It’s basically a focal length that shows some things and omits others. This makes it no different from anything else, other than being more-less average. Want honest and complete impression of how it felt to be somewhere? Use a wide angle. Or use a telephoto, or use a normal lens, or use a macro. You think it’s not possible to use a macro or a telephoto lens to show what it’s like to be somewhere? I beg to disagree.

This is what it felt like to be there.

Also, this is what this scene felt like.

This, too, was what it felt to be there. The last one was taken with a 50mm lens. I find it no more or less honest than the second image, which was taken with an ultrawide, or the first one, taken with a 35-70mm zoom wide open on macro extenders. They all show some of my impressions, experiences and feelings. They also show something that’s in front of the lens, that may or may not be important.

There are all kinds of pretentious photographers – those with their Leicas and 50mm lenses trying to be HCB, or those with view cameras and f/64 ethos trying to be Ansel Adams, or hipsters shooting through a scratched filter on expired film, thinking that’s art. Whether something is art or not depends mostly on whether the thing you want to express is actually worth showing.

Let me show two scenes that would usually be taken with a 50mm lens, because it’s “honest”:

The first is taken with a 35mm, the second with a 135mm. Both faithfully capture a moment. In essence, if you’re going to do this kind of photography, you’re not bound to 50mm, because it’s not about the focal length or the aperture, it’s about the style and catching the moment. You don’t need a Leica and a 50mm Summicron to imitate HCB, you can be a fake person with any camera and lens. 🙂

Now that sounds like I’m pushing for authenticity, but that’s not really the case. I sometimes find it liberating to imitate someone who made something I liked, without trying to always do my specific thing, because sometimes I don’t actually know what I’m trying to do, and that’s fine. You can’t get new ideas if you always know what you’re doing and why; that’s how you produce more of the same stuff. Sometimes it’s actually fun to go somewhere and be a fake HCB or Ansel Adams. Make a postcard. Imitate something you liked. Get it out of your system. Shoot all the cliche frames first, flush them out, and then you’ll start noticing other things and having actual ideas. Using a 50mm and B&W to fake yourself out is just fine, because after you’re done taking all the fake shots that are in your head, you might actually get it out of your system enough to start doing something else. The way towards originality is often through copying all the stuff you found somewhere and liked. You might fail at copying them just right, but by being a poor copy of someone else you might actually start finding an improved version of yourself.

When knowing little is no improvement over nothing

I swear, people who know little are so much more annoying than people who know nothing. This is the case everywhere – you have people who dabble in psychology and go around sharing their oversimplified, mostly wrong ideas about people and society. You have beginner photographers who heard something about the rule of the thirds or sharpness across the frame and now they endlessly annoy people thinking how every photo has to be composed according to the concepts they heard of in order to be good. Or you have people who just discovered the Bible and go around preaching about this or that sin and how you need Jesus. Or people who discovered spirituality and now they can’t shut up about karma, reincarnation and vegetarianism. Or people who developed some inkling of energetic/spiritual insight and now they annoy people about how impure their aura or chakras are. You know those people. The “saved Christians”, the Hare Krishnas who discovered the “truth” about reality and now they have to preach in order to save the rest of you unwashed masses. The astrology chick who’s all about Mars entering Virgo. The vegan who’s saving the world from cow farts.

The people with simple solutions to complex problems who annoy others to no end with their ego tripping of having an imagined higher ground over others. We all know them, we all sigh deeply, roll our eyes and pray to God to give us patience.

I recently read about something called Matrons’ revolt; essentially, it’s a psychological phenomenon first described in the ancient Rome, where women in their 40s or 50s, basically women whose children grew up and left home, have some sort of an identity crisis because some biological switch flips, and they no longer see themselves as mothers, and start figuring out who they actually are. They first look at their husband, and if his role was merely to provide and protect as part of bringing up children, she decides she has no use for him any more and divorces him. Then they start looking for the meaning of their lives and get into activism, politics, religion, spirituality, philosophy; essentially, they are having a female version of the mid-life crisis, and it seems to be a biological thing. Also, it seems to trigger only if a woman is financially in a position to be independent, which usually means the upper societal classes. Poor people can’t afford the luxury of that kind; they need to stick together and figure out how to pay the bills and get food on the table.

The reason why this was so interesting to me is that it provided an elegant explanation for a phenomenon I encountered – older women, always some kind of upper middle class, who think of themselves as accomplished, esteemed, basically better than others and occupying a higher societal tier, who for some reason got into spirituality, and of course, since they are so awesome, they automatically assume they have a good understanding of it all. They eventually intersect with me, I see that they are a vacuous non-person with a super inflated sense of self-worth, and I summarily dismiss them. Then they have an ego inflammation and proceed to tell all who would listen to them how I’m no good, which suits me just fine, because if anyone would believe them, they’re an idiot and I don’t want them to have a good opinion of me anyway.

It’s kind of funny – I found an algorithm for “spiritual” Karens. 🙂

Gods of…?

The fact that I’m talking about a plurality of Gods – not just one God with many forms taken for the sake of meeting us halfway, that must sound strange, and the first question I would expect is whether there’s something to the ancient polytheisms, where you have gods of respective elements (water, fire etc.), social concepts (war, wisdom, technology), or the Hindu concept of trimurti (creator, maintainer, destroyer)?

No. There are not many things I can state with complete certainty, but this is one of them. Not only did I not encounter gods of specific principles, elements and so on, but I positively encountered so many things that I can state with complete confidence that nothing of the sort exists.

Gods are just… people, I guess. Enlightened souls who became persons of God, the way Jesus is a person of God, not a god of carpentry, resurrection or crucifixion. He’s just a person. A holy person, a Divine person, for sure – but definitely not a metaphor for some aspect of nature, or someone in charge of an aspect of nature. If there are beings in charge of aspects of this world, they are definitely not persons of God – more likely, they are minions of Satan, because that’s who rules this world.

There are holy beings who have been given a task, so now they have a job. That doesn’t make them gods of that task; for instance, a Judge of Karma is merely a holy person with a Title and a job. They are holy enough to guide souls after physical death and to have an objective perspective of their lives and karma. They also have permissions and duty to throw someone into hell or destroy them outright if it’s an extreme case of evil. They can also create an upgrade path for a soul. However, to have that Title and ability doesn’t determine one as a soul. The same Judge of Karma can otherwise be a perfectly ordinary Divine being whose normal activities consist of meditation, prayer and, for instance, composing music. Being a Judge is more a function of purity and general authority than some function within the machinery of the Universe. Any God, by definition, can be a Judge if a situation demands it, because it seems to be a requirement.

Also, the Hindu concept of Shiva being the Destroyer and Vishnu being the Maintainer feels untrue. They themselves and their wives are just God-persons. They are not Gods of anything other than themselves. They are God in different ways, the way their wives are God in their own respective ways; different but holy. That’s the point of evolution – it manifests God in many different persons, in different versions of holy, beautiful and funny. They are idiosyncratic, imperfect in their perfection, funny in their wisdom and deeply touching in their holiness. I have no idea what Brahma is supposed to be. I never met anyone matching the description, other than Sanat Kumar and the Jewel. In fact, my experience of the entire Creation/Destruction is completely different, in a sense that I actually have a pretty good idea about how it works from a first-person position, and I can guarantee it has nothing to do with some Brahma-person.

I know people are also curious about how a completely non-physical being can be as completely and decidedly male or female as I described them. I don’t know how to describe or explain that, but imagine a situation where you feel a presence and you immediately know whether it’s male or female. You just know, it’s obvious. You don’t see a visual form, you don’t hear a voice, you just know. Imagine it this way – when you see a female form, or hear a female voice, the idea of femaleness forms within your mind. That idea can be communicated without any sensory input causing it; it’s a mental object. So, that’s how I can tell that some Judge of Karma is female. It’s just communicated from her presence, the same way her kindness and seriousness is communicated from her presence. It’s instantaneous. There’s more to it, of course –  Gods are incredibly powerful. They can just create a whole set of energetic bodies – mental, astral – with the speed of a thunderclap, if that is necessary. They usually don’t do that with me because I am very skilled in spiritual communication, thanks to their extensive training and guidance in my early sadhana. This is why I can get a short thunderclap of mental objects and I then extrapolate that into a whole book of material for you here. What I’m telling you isn’t what I actually saw. What I saw is usually short, super dense and very frequently something I can’t even comprehend until decades later, if that’s desired or necessary.

But let me return to the complexity of Gods’ manifestation. If Goddess wants to communicate something, she can wrap herself in all sorts of energy layers. She can create herself as a human woman who is born in the physical world, together with an artificially created karmic body that will intersect her with me, so that Goddess can live with me as my wife here in this world, and at the same time she remains “up there” in her original form. I guess I’m also “up there” in my original form while this tulku is writing blog posts. It’s a complex, layered, multi-dimensional reality. Goddess herself can be as human as she wants, instantly, and change or withdraw those structures equally instantly. I’m not fucking with you when I’m saying she’s omnipotent and omniscient. It’s quite a sight, but that’s also not the reason why she’s awesome. She’s awesome because she could lose her omniscience and omnipotence and be reduced to a normal human woman, and be the most amazing person in the world – smart, witty, pure, loyal, virtuous, beautiful and gentle. Those things are not contingent upon her power or transcendental nature. Basically, any God would make a wonderful human being if reduced to human nature. On the other hand, sinful humans would make terrible Gods, which is probably the reason why sinful souls are always restricted to an area where the amount of harm they can cause is limited to their own kind. Basically, there’s a pit where they can torture each other but nobody else needs to be informed about it or otherwise afflicted.

Just remember what humans are doing to each other here – a husband goes to war and his wife gets pregnant by some Chad “because she was lonely”. A wife gets sick and a husband leaves her. A wife leaves her husband because he lost his job, and so on. Humans are just pigs. On the other hand, when I incarnated here, not only did my Lady watch over me and guide me, she created herself as a human woman so that she can be my wife here in the physical as well; she willingly chose to meet me in suffering despite not having to. I have to repeat it again, this holiness, purity, simplicity and super-virtue has nothing to do with being super powerful. Take an ordinary human woman, give her my wife’s powers and you’ll get Satan’s equal. When a normal human woman sees that her husband is having a long period of hard time, she leaves him because “she didn’t sign up for wasting her life like that”. When Biljana sees me suffering due to spending karma, she signs up for spending karma herself, because she knows I’ll be getting stronger from all that tapasya and she doesn’t want to be left behind. It’s not that she’s joining me only in taking pictures of thistles and similar forms of fun; no, when there’s suffering to be had she wants to be included as well. This is why she’s a God, and people, who find this strange or sick, are not. She’s a God because she’s holy, not because she can levitate big rocks.