Author Archives: danijel

About spirituality and sausages

Posted on by
3

There’s one great sentence in Harry Potter books, saying something along the lines of “never trust anything that can think for itself if you can’t see where it keeps its brain”. This sentence came to my mind when I was thinking about why all the spiritual schools and disciplines, abundant in late 19th and throughout the 20th century, seem to have failed.

If you don’t see the connection, I’ll cite another example, of some tech pundit whose article I read on the web somewhere, who said that the reason why Steve Jobs opposed the idea of making a bigger iPhone was that he misunderstood the reason why iPhone was popular in the first place: it was the phone with the biggest screen. Essentially, he got it right, but didn’t understand what exactly made it right. Then he got it right again with the iPad, and still didn’t understand what it means: that people love well made touch devices with big screens. When Apple decided to act independently after his death and made bigger iPhones, they sold the biggest quantities ever. So basically, you can have a very smart and innovative person who got things right twice in the same device group, and still managed not to see what was it exactly that made those devices great. He also didn’t see what made the first GUI devices he made such failures, because he was in love with the concept, and he was right, the GUI concept was great and all our current computers use it. The problem is, this concept doesn’t work well on a machine with 128 K RAM and a 400K floppy drive. It starts working well on a machine with a 100 MB hard drive, 4 MB RAM and a 80386 processor, which is Windows 3.11 generation of hardware. Before that, the GUI machines were technological demonstrators at best, too weak to be actually useful. The problem with Steve Jobs was that he stubbornly insisted on his vision because he saw that those machines were the future, and tried to force the future into existence by force, before its time. Bill Gates, on the other hand, was much smarter. He, too, knew that the GUI machines were the future, but he also knew that the contemporary hardware was too weak to make the system work properly, and he knew that because his team wrote all the software for the first Macintosh, and he knew what tricks they had to pull off in order to create the pretense of a functional machine. It’s not that he had a choice between MS-DOS command-line interface and a Mac-like GUI and he chose MS-DOS; he chose the Mac-like GUI. It’s just that he was smart enough to know that the contemporary hardware can’t pull this off, and he chose to implement the thing that ran efficiently at the moment. Basically, the difference between Steve Jobs and him was that was in touch with the reality of the situation, while Jobs was so blinded by his vision that he decided to yell the facts into submission, and, as a result, was fired from his own company because he simply refused to see reason.

The analogy with spiritual teachers and teachings is clear. When something works for them and they attain results, they seldom understand why it worked. They usually try to reproduce the process they themselves went through, with students, and it sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. As with Steve Jobs, they sometimes fail spectacularly, and sometimes they succeed spectacularly, and in both cases it’s quite possible that they don’t understand the process enough to be able to tell why. Their charisma can lead others into great things: great failure, or great success.

I don’t exempt myself from that. Sometimes it took me a while to stumble around until I figured out why something works, and why something else doesn’t. The problem is, you can’t always wait to have all the answers in order to start doing things. Sometimes you need to sail across the Atlantic with a shitty sail boat, little or no navigation, and stumbling into America by accident, thinking it’s India. Sometimes you domesticate a wolf and it turns out to be a great idea when he kills someone who tries to kill you while you sleep. Sometimes your wolf kills someone’s child and domesticating it appears to have been a terrible idea. However, when you move in uncharted territory every mistake you make is better than staying safe and doing nothing, because it improves the situation for those who will eventually follow in your footsteps. We don’t remember Columbus as the idiot who hit America while trying to reach India. We remember him as the great explorer who discovered America.

It would be all to easy to criticize the mistakes and failures of all kinds of spiritual researchers, explorers and teachers, but realistically, physics didn’t exactly start with getting things right, either. It started with all sorts of bullshit and getting things completely wrong, but improving with each iteration, and it’s now all to easy to forget impetus and phlogiston and alchemy and Ptolemaic geocentrism and all kinds of failures.

In the 1990s, I was on a mailing list that contained a mishmash of all kinds of spiritual practitioners, loosely described as experiencing Kundalini phenomena. What was striking in this group was that you had people with completely different and opposing ideas about what’s going on, what is good and what is bad, and they looked quite similar, going through very similar experiences and experiencing similar forms of mental and emotional instability. Essentially, you had pagans, shamans, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists and Christians experiencing weird shit, which for the most part went against their beliefs about what’s supposed to be going on, with very loose consensus about the proper way to approach it, and with 90% of the participants being quite mad at least part time. The weirdest part is that sometimes people with craziest ideas and weirdest spiritual practice had great spiritual power, and some people with intellectually coherent and sensible world view were spiritually sterile or actually quite fucked up. Things didn’t fit neatly into an orderly pattern. I certainly don’t fit into an orderly pattern about what spiritual people are supposed to look like, or how they are supposed to do things. I am too much of a scientist to be liked by spiritual people, too much of a spiritual person to be liked by the scientists, I don’t seem to conform to any typical pattern, and I don’t even have the ordinary frame of reference for evaluating success and failure of spiritual efforts. I don’t even have the ordinary understanding of truth and reality; I basically couldn’t care less if you believed in talking unicorns that fart rainbows, as long as your inner spiritual concepts associated with that are something I see as useful and uplifting. I also don’t care if you have all the right answers and can name all the right Gods and gurus, if you’re an asshole.

When I say that the problem is that people seldom understand what works and what’s shit, I mean it quite literally. It isn’t about knowing the right God and surrendering to the right guru and practicing the right technique. Sometimes, it’s about having the right attitude, even if it looks all fucked up. Being a fanboy of a comic book superhero can sometimes be spiritually more useful than all the Jesus bullshit that most Christians do. It’s about the actual quality of the spiritual vector, not about what you think it is. What matters is the direction and magnitude. What imagery you use in your head is secondary; you can pray to Batman, for all the fuck I give about it. Sure, it makes sense to clear your head and organize things in a sensible manner, and I guess I’m the prime example of success in that area, but the thing is, people who like the end-result of my thinking would probably lose their shit if they knew how I got there. It’s like sausages: you wouldn’t like eating them if you knew how they are made. One of the main reasons why I managed to figure out so much about how things work is because I experimented with shit so weird you wouldn’t believe. One of the techniques that I did was to go through the entire emotional spectrum, shade by shade, and explore the inner workings of my energy system with each shade. And I mean it quite literally when I say entire emotional spectrum. Die as a slave under a whip. Kill a slave for fun. Be impaled by the Turks. Disembowel prisoners. Be disemboweled and cut to pieces. Torture people. Be tortured. Rape, be raped. Be a pregnant slave girl who is routinely raped by some warlord’s gang and who falls in love with her captors. Be the warlord who beats his henchmen into submission. Be the submissive henchman of a warlord. Be a clerk doing a boring job in his boring life because he always made all the safe choices. Have a wonderful life that’s a fulfilment of all fantasies. Have an average life full of bad things with occasional good things. Have a terrible life that’s agony and failure. Be immensely wealthy. Die in squalor. Deepest depression, slight depression, melancholy, indifference, slight pleasure, profound joy, bliss when touched by spiritual beauty. Be that spiritual beauty that invokes blissful love in others. Explode as the whirlpool of light that grants liberation and knowledge. Be God.

It’s not a linear thing, it’s not about some predictable, stuck-up pattern. Sometimes you don’t know what you’re doing and you succeed, because your heart was in the right place. Sometimes you do all the right things and you end up in flames, because your heart was in a very wrong place. Sometimes Satan seems to be all about love and forgiveness and sometimes God seems to be distant and insensitive, but the surest way to know you fucked something up is when you’re not regularly surprised by the shit that keeps popping up.

Laughter and ridicule

Posted on by
Reply

There is a common prejudice that laughter and ridicule are a positive thing, in that laughter makes one feel better and helps one overcome situations that would otherwise overwhelm him, and ridicule exposes that which is worthy of contempt and thus serves a positive purpose.

I disagree. I think both laughter and ridicule are neutral, in that they can both be good or evil, depending on the circumstances.

Laughter might help people to overcome difficult situations, but personally, I can’t remember ever having such experiences. What did help me overcome difficult situations was either faith, or trust, or someone’s helping hand. I actually find it more helpful to endure difficult situations by admitting their gravity, crying and asking Gods to help me. Laughing in the face of a difficult situation looks more like denial and madness, an attempt to portray a lion as a sheep in order not to fear him, but a lion remains impervious to such mental fuckery and will eat you regardless. I find it more useful to cry for help and beg for a gun, than to pretend that I’m not facing a real lion. Laughing might help you not feel afraid, but it will not help you survive. It’s the opposite of helpful. The Jews in Hitler’s Germany had two options: optimism or pessimism. Those who chose optimism imagined Hitler as a silly character who can’t really hurt them, and those who chose pessimism fled Germany and Europe in general, and made a new life for themselves in America. We know how that turned out for each group. As I said, optimism and laughter can indeed make you feel better and safer, but it doesn’t actually help you solve any problems. It’s a form of putting your head into sand and hiding from reality, and is not all that far from madness, at least the way I see it. What does help you is to acknowledge the gravity of your situation and seriousness of your problem early on, to invest all your powers into solving the problem and asking for all kinds of help in order to increase your chances of overcoming the problem. If you still fail, at least you didn’t die in denial.

Ridicule is similar, but different in that it isn’t directed at oneself, but others. The role of ridicule is to present the object of ridicule as small, unworthy and contemptible in the eyes of the audience; essentially, it’s a form of social manipulation. When used in order to put emotional accent on the conclusion of an argument, essentially by applying tar and feathers to someone whose arguments were soundly defeated, it can be legitimately used in the context of a debate, but when it is used as a substitute for arguments, in order to manipulate emotional responses of the audience when arguments themselves fail to convince, it is a grave logical fallacy and a form of demagogy.

Let’s see some examples of proper and improper use of ridicule.

Let’s say someone is stating that the Earth is flat. Proper use of ridicule is to state that this person obviously didn’t travel much, because if he did, he would notice how the constellations in the southern hemisphere differ from those in the northern hemisphere, which, combined with the evidence of daily rotation of the sky proves we are on a sphere. This form of ridicule uses a strong argument to disprove a fallacious thesis, and then uses the obviousness of the argument as evidence that the person making the fallacious statement is stupid. Essentially, ridicule is corollary to the conclusion, and not an argument in itself, which is why it cannot be considered a form of ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem would be “this person is an idiot, which is why his argument is false”. A corollary of the proper conclusion is “the argument against the thesis is x, and since x is rather obvious and straightforward, this person is an idiot”. Such argumentation serves the useful purpose of encouraging one to perform thorough examination of one’s arguments for obvious errors before expressing potentially idiotic theses in public.

Improper use of ridicule is to use one’s own ignorance and ignorance of the audience as an emotionally charged argument against a valid thesis. Examples of this are unfortunately abundant throughout history; Kepler was mocked by Galileo for stating that Moon’s gravitational influence causes the tides. People who produced meteorites as evidence of extraterrestrial origin of meteors were mocked by Lavoisier. Tesla was mocked by Edison who tried to suppress Tesla’s invention of highly efficient alternating current in favor of his direct current. Jewish physicists were mocked by Hitler and his propagandists for inventing relativity and quantum theory, which didn’t sound “right” to the Nazis. Everybody who expresses support for eugenics or racial differences is immediately labelled as “Hitler” without any kind of argument provided. Essentially, it is used to dismiss an argument by emotionally labelling it as either ridiculous or evil, by association. The problem is, everything can be portrayed as ridiculous. To an ignorant person, Al Gore can be portrayed as over-the-top silly for stating that he took initiative in creating the Internet; an informed person would know that before his “information superhighway initiative”, Internet was an academic curiosity at best, without commercial value to the broader public. He saw the potential and knew what infrastructure needed to be built, and he saw to it; essentially, he deserves more praise for the existence of Internet as we know it than any other person, but he is ridiculed for it because people can’t believe that a single person could be so far-sighted and important. To use an even more shocking example, Jesus was mocked and ridiculed in his suffering and death, because “he called himself the son of God” and “because if he was God, why doesn’t he come down from the cross”. It is very important that we never forget those arguments, because they sounded valid to those who said them, and probably to the audience as well, and we now see them as cringe-worthy, in hindsight. Mockery is a terrible thing, because combined with ignorance, it is a terrible weapon against truth, courage and independent thought, and I am therefore highly skeptical of it. Mockery is like an idiot with a hammer, breaking priceless porcelain and bragging how it was trash to begin with, or he wouldn’t be able to break it. It is the favorite weapon of stupidity against challenging and difficult ideas, and the fact that it can occasionally be used against idiots and stupid ideas doesn’t fully redeem it. I don’t see it as a weapon of mass destruction that must never be used, but more as candy, that can be served after a proper meal of rational arguments and evidence, but never as a substitute. It’s sweet when used in moderation and properly, but misuse it and the consequences can be grave.

Empiricism vs. rationalism

Posted on by
Reply

I learned one important thing a few years ago.

It doesn’t matter if something sounds convincing, or if it makes sense.

It doesn’t matter whether something sounds weird, improbable or tenuous.

It doesn’t matter whether something dovetails nicely with the currently held beliefs.

It doesn’t matter whether there is sufficient reasoning behind something.

The only thing that matters is whether it’s actually true.

Let’s take an example of a platypus and a unicorn. Platypus is a monotremate mammal that lays eggs like a snake and has a duck-like beak. However unlikely or improbable it sounds, it’s real because it actually exists. Unicorn, however, sounds quite reasonable and plausible – a horse with one horn. There’s no reason why it couldn’t exist, but it doesn’t. It’s completely fictional. A platypus exists because it exists, and unicorn doesn’t exist because it doesn’t exist. There’s nothing else to it, no Platonic or Aristotelian issues, and reason doesn’t even play a role. The only thing that plays a role is existence of an actual being and evidence of that existence.

I don’t believe in things because they are reasonable or they make sense. I believe in things because I am presented with evidence of their existence. Reason and sense are something I use in order to arrange evidence of things that exist in some order that doesn’t drive me crazy, but the part where I use reason in order to make sense of things is actually most likely to be false and revised. That’s because reason is mostly glue that fills the parts of the puzzle of reality from which the actual parts of the puzzle are missing, and I need something to hold it all together and present it in a meaningful way.

That’s the main problem of rationalism vs. empiricism; rationalism assumes that things that are true will make more sense than the things that are false, but empiricism is primarily interested in evidence, and only when the evidence is there can it afford to ask about meaning.

It makes sense for me to speculate why a platypus exists, because it exists. I don’t give a single fuck about unicorns. Yes, weird and apparently improbable things sometimes exist, and sensible and probable things sometimes don’t. That tells you more about poor applicability of mind for establishing reality, than anything else.

Good God, evil world

Posted on by
7

I’ve been watching the Game of Thrones clips on Youtube yesterday, as well as some of the reactions.

There’s a character named Ramsay Bolton who is an evil sadistic fucktard (OK, that applies to most characters but he’s above average). There’s a scene where he rapes a female character and apparently there was all sorts of shit in the media about how that’s horrible and how could they film that and how it’s a semi-historical portrayal of the dark ages when women were treated like shit and so on. And it wasn’t a particularly nasty scene, he simply fucks her against her will and treats her like a thing of little worth. Poor women bad men, right?

Not really, since the same fucktard character in another episode has a prisoner crucified in the dungeon, where he cuts his dick off, bores through his foot with a screw, cuts him with a knife and humiliates him in every possible way. A logical conclusion would be that this is a fucktard character, not that women are in a particularly bad position relative to men. If anything, I’ve seen more scenes of men getting a shitty deal, having their arms chopped off, eyes poked out, being crucified, having their cocks cut off, being humiliated and denigrated by both relatives and enemies, being flayed alive, disemboweled, having their heads crushed and so on. Yeah, women are being raped, strangled, stabbed, have their throats slit and so on. It’s a lovely series of which Satan would approve fully.

But there’s an interesting scene, where a female character, Arya Stark, pokes a man’s eyes out, stabs him with a knife multiple times while humiliating and denigrating him, and eventually slits his throat. Not a single feminist seems to be offended by that scene, and I am yet to read a single comment stating that it’s a semi-historic portrayal of the medieval times where men were treated like shit by women because there was no equality or men’s rights. When a man does it, it’s a horrible crime, but when a woman does it, it’s cute. It’s female empowerment.

The problem is, the series is quite realistic. The horrors might be more concentrated than in actual life, but I read enough history to know that reality was sometimes actually worse. Also, although feminist hypocrisy initially pissed me off enough to start writing this article, I quickly came to understand that something else pisses me off even more.

The purpose of this world is, supposedly, evolution, and learning things that would otherwise be impossible to learn, in order to accelerate spiritual evolution. That is according to Sanat Kumar. He’s a really compassionate fellow interested in the well-being of others, or at least so he says.

You get to learn horrors of the kind that are impossible on the worlds that were actually created by God, and not by Satan. You get to be exposed to pressures that would otherwise be impossible, with the purpose of making you believe that God had forsaken you and that you are worthless, trying to break you spiritually and turn your evolution away from God. You get to be raped, starved, tortured, humiliated, exposed to weakness, disease and poverty. And the supposed purpose of all that is “to be like God”.

The actual purpose of all this is to subject souls to such humiliating treatment that they would never even dare to think that their destiny could be anything other than humiliation, pain, weakness and loss. The actual purpose of this world is to convince souls that the Prince of this world is their master and that they shouldn’t even dare to think of any other potential destiny, for instance that which God actually wants them to achieve. The purpose of this world is not evolution, it is to break your spirit to the point of such hopelessness and despair that you accept your enslavement willingly and actually refuse any possible salvation, calling this world the only valid reality, refusing to believe in anything transcendental.

And I agree that this thing is possible only in this world, which is why its creator it the most evil being imaginable. I completely understand why people who think that God created this world want to become atheists (although the argument negates itself, because if you believe that God did something bad, and you renounce his authority because of that, you’re not an atheist, because in order to hate God you have to believe there is one). If I believed God created this place, I would spit in his face and curse him with my dying breath, and I would refuse any kind of an afterlife where I would have to look at the bastard who created this cursed dungeon of a world – because that, too, is the purpose of this world. It’s meant to make us hate God and turn away from him. The whole purpose of this place is to convince us of a lie. But it’s not reality; the true reality is the beauty and magnificence that is God. This is just a very persistent, convincing illusion that is perpetrated by suppression of memory, mandatory restriction on use of spiritual powers, and immersion in a sensory illusion. Imagine the Game of Thrones, a virtual reality engine, that suppresses your memory so that you can’t remember anything before immersion, and then the “fun” starts, when you are forced to try to survive by committing and surviving hideous acts that break and condemn you spiritually, all with the purpose of altering your spiritual evolution so that you become a plaything of Satan.

Tolkien told a story about how Morgoth created the Orcs, by capturing the Elves and deforming them by vicious torture in his dungeons. When I read it, I thought: so that’s where we are, and that’s the purpose of this place. We are in the dungeons of Satan, submitted to vicious torture and humiliation in order to turn us into Orcs.

What I don’t understand is how anyone can look at this world and seriously believe it had been created by a good God. Because there is good in the world? Yes, there is. There’s a good thing on the hook, too, says the fish. The problem is, sometimes it’s the good thing that gets you into trouble, because it’s the real purpose of its presence there. The bait is always a good thing. Discrimination, or viveka, is not so much about knowing what is true and what’s false, or what’s reality and what’s an illusion. It’s about knowing when an apparently good thing is really a bad thing, because, how many fishes would try to eat a hook without a worm on it?

On soul-structure

Posted on by
29

There are some things about karma that are largely unknown or misunderstood. One of those things is that karma is usually understood as a macroscopic phenomenon, influencing soul-entities based on activity-events. Essentially, you do something and you get corresponding consequences.

That’s not really what happens, because karma is a kalapa-level force.

I will again need to resort to the analogy with gravity and say that gravity appears to be a stellar-body-level force, but is in fact a particle-level force, because it is related to mass, and as long as a particle has mass it bends space and thus “attracts” other particles. We usually think of “Sun” and “Earth” as entities, but they actually exist on a rather high level of abstraction. Earth, for instance, gains mass with meteorite impacts, and loses mass with deep-space-probe launches. Before the Theia impact, Earth was a completely different entity. It only really exists as “Earth” in our minds. What really exists are numerous atoms that combine their mass and therefore gravitational influence into one virtual entity.

So, while it makes sense to calculate gravitational influence of the Sun-Earth system using Sun and Earth as entities, and although you will get very accurate results, that’s not really how gravity actually works. It doesn’t take place on the level of stars and planets, it takes place on the level of the smallest massive particles, and if a huge number of such particles join their space-bending properties together, we get what we know as gravity, from an engineering standpoint.

Yes, Sun influences the Earth, and Earth influences the Sun gravitationally, but the effect is proportional to mass. Also, the effects of the increase of an entity’s mass are not linear. You don’t just get a bigger rock, you first get the ability to maintain atmosphere, then you get the ability to have Hydrogen in the atmosphere, and then you get so much pressure that you get fusion of protons and nuclei. Eventually, if you get sufficient mass, you get a neutron star as all the atomic nuclei are forced together into one entity and protons beta-decay into neutrons, and with even more mass, Neutronium collapses into singularity. So, although the increase of gravitational influence with mass is linear, there are other effects that are non-linear.

The same applies to souls. As they grow by including more kalapas of “spiritual substance”, they have more karmic influence, and greater resistance to karmic effects. They are always sensitive to karmic reactions, but this influence is in proportion to their size, and in proportion to the size of the karmic entities that influence them. Essentially, quod licet Iovi non licet bovi. This is hugely important because people usually form theories of karma that reflect some kind of egalitarianism, and this sentiment is misplaced. This makes poor treatment of humans particularly dangerous, because, unlike other terrestrial biological entities that have constraints placed on the maximum soul-size that is able to incarnate through them due to their biology, humans have a much greater variability, and can incarnate entities that range between sub-animal on one extreme and God-level on the other. Essentially, you get a village idiot on one side of the spectrum, and Jesus on the other side of the spectrum, and the problem is that they both look more-less the same if you probe them with physical senses. If you probe them with spiritual senses, a village idiot’s spiritual body (or, should I say, karmic body) looks like a speck of astral substance of dull and impure colors, and Jesus or a similar being looks like you somehow managed to cram a Sun-level star inside a human body, with corresponding order of magnitude of “spiritual gravity”. He bends “spiritual space” in a way similar to that in which Sun bends physical space, and produces huge, vast effects on the karmic bodies of lesser spiritual entities. An appearance of such a vastly huge spiritual being on Earth has effects similar to the transition of another star through the Solar system on a path perpendicular to the ecliptic.

And therein lies the problem. Incarnation in this place creates some rules that mitigate those effects, but those rules don’t apply universally. For instance, interactions with other humans always karmically affect you, but this effect is not directly proportional to the size of the soul that is incarnated in the body you are dealing with. This is due to some kind of an egalitarian, plane-specific law that was introduced by Sanat Kumara and embedded in the basic design of this place. It seems that a part of it is that you can’t be held responsible for something you are unaware of, and therefore it was absent from your motive. Essentially, that means that one can sentence Jesus to death and have him killed, and not suffer particularly grave karmic consequences. However, if he actually knew who Jesus was, and used the opportunity to kill him, with the actual intent to do harm and not, I don’t know, to grant him the opportunity to show how great he is by conquering death, the difference in “karmic gravity” between the entities, and the direction of karmic vectors would be such that it would cause spiritual destruction of the lesser entity, and, most likely, absorption of the resulting fragments into the soul-structure of the larger entity. This is actually described in Bhagavata-purana, when various demons attack Krishna. He not only destroys them, he absorbs their soul-structure into his own.

I also mentioned the analogy with gravity and how it can transform physical matter (fusion of protons and nuclei, neutron star, singularity), and how similar non-linear effects take place with karmic entities. One such effect is transformation of the astral/mental substance of sufficient purity and density into vajra, a higher-order spiritual substance, and there are other, even higher-order substances that make up the spiritual bodies and attributes of Gods. Fundamental structure of souls is not a linear function of their size; there are certain crucial points in spiritual evolution that mandate qualitative leaps.

Such qualitative leaps are in fact initiation into deeper level of participation in God’s nature and character, and also in power and authority. Also, those qualitative transformations make souls immune to certain forms of influence, decay or destruction that lesser spiritual beings can be sensitive to. For instance, an astral being is sensitive to astral influence, but a vajra-being is not. It can wear an outer astral envelope that is sensitive to astral influences, but it can shed it altogether without any harm to its spiritual core. If an astral being’s astral body is damaged, it’s damaged. The effect is real and influences the being’s identity and character. If an astral entity can wear a physical body, and survive physical body’s destruction unharmed, but can’t survive astral body’s destruction, a vajra-being is in a position that’s an order of magnitude better – it can survive physical body’s destruction unharmed, and it can survive the astral body’s destruction unharmed. Whether vajra-core can be harmed is another matter altogether, but you get the general idea. My position is that a sufficient amount of sinful choices and deeds can kill anyone, even the Gods, but the higher quality of spiritual structures makes such choices unlikely, if not altogether impossible. The only way the vajra-level beings can be harmed, in my experience, is when they use their “spiritual jewels” as a pledge that buys the lower-level beings some kind of an undeserved opportunity. If those lower-level beings abuse the gift, the “pawned” jewels can remain locked-out of the higher-level being’s control. The implication is that a higher being can have non-isotropic structure, where some parts are of a higher order than others, and where some parts are more internal than others, and that actually seems to be the case; some beings “wear” vajra-type spiritual jewels as either weapons, shields, robes or other attributes that are more-less inherent to their nature. Loss of control over one’s jewel is always a grave tragedy, where one is bound to a fate he has no control over, bound to a plane of existence that is beneath his natural state. Deceiving other beings into pledging their spiritual resources to his cause seems to be the main element of Sanat Kumara’s “mutually assured destruction” doctrine, where he protects the soul-trap he designed by capturing multiple spiritual jewels and therefore the spiritual integrity of many higher beings, where karmic invulnerability of the trapped structures precludes any attempt to destroy the trap, unless the jewels are disentangled from the structure first, of course.

What this all means is that there is a vast range and diversity in nature and makeup of the spiritual beings. There is no singular end-point of evolution; it doesn’t produce rubber-stamped entities. You basically create yourself by your choices and actions, and the end-result can be anything from your dissolution, merging into another entity, breakup into multiple entities, or higher initiation in various directions – essentially, not only do we have great diversity on the lower levels of existence, such as the Amazon jungle, but we also have great diversity among the Gods.

And most important of all, universality of karmic law does by no means imply any kind of egalitarianism or democracy. If you put the collective soul-mass of all humans on one side of the scale, together with their joined willpower-vector, and one of the Gods with his soul-mass and willpower-vector on the other side of the scale, the scale tips on the God’s side so hard that the collective of human souls doesn’t even make a blip. This means that humans can’t “vote” themselves out of trouble if they find themselves on the wrong side of the will of the Gods, and there isn’t much strength in numbers, because those numbers don’t really mean anything; in a single entity, that much astral substance in a single astral body wouldn’t really hold together unless it were transformed into a coherent form, and then it would produce initiation into vajra. With multiple individual beings, however, such transformation doesn’t take place and their collective spiritual gravity isn’t the sum of their individual spiritual gravities, just as a billion brains of rats doesn’t make their brain-mass miraculously join together and make a huge super-human brain. They are just a billion instances of a rat, with collective intelligence of rat. A billion IQ 80 people don’t join into one IQ 150 person; they are just a collective idiot that is not worth much compared to an individual genius. All the collective efforts of mankind are worthless from the position of spiritual evolution, and if you somehow attempt to join humans into one entity, you get Facebook, which is a collective idiot joined on the lowest common denominator. It doesn’t in any point even reach the value of the spiritually most powerful individual in that group. If that was Sanat Kumara’s intent, it is worthless. Mankind can increase physical power exponentially over an individual human power. It can increase knowledge of the physical world exponentially. However, its efforts are all spiritually worthless and harmful, and the net result is spiritual degradation. I’ve been digging through everything Sanat Kumara created here and I’m yet to find a single good thing. Everything I found was just one abomination and tragedy after another, and evidence of unspeakable evils. Every single attempt to suppress the individual for the sake of some “greater good” invariably results in evil.