Rules

Why did I initially advocate for vegetarianism, only to abandon it entirely later?

The answer to this is rather complicated. You see, there’s a very fundamental tradition in Yoga, as practical approach to religion, where people don’t actually know which one of the things they did worked, so they will make a list of every single one of them, and have students reproduce the list in their own practice, hoping some of it will work and the achievement will be reproduced as well. This sounds incredibly non-scientific for something that is often advertised as a scientific approach to spirituality, but that’s what it is, and how it worked for thousands of years. For a system that doesn’t actually know what works and why, it seems to work remarkably well. Also, the reason why the list of things one is supposed to reproduce doesn’t get smaller easily is the perceived cost of experimentation. Essentially, one would have to intentionally risk students by giving them an incomplete list of things to do, and if/when someone fails, repeat his list enough times that you can rule out chance or individual peculiarities of the person in question. Essentially, you would have to deliberately ruin people just so that you could have a more scientific discipline. Since nobody ever did this intentionally, this list of things to do and not to do if you want to be a yogi tends to be remarkably stable.

Things did get crossed out by either chance or necessity, however. For instance, one of the staples of such lists was living in an Indian jungle near a holy river in a hut of your own making. There are even instructions on how to make one in the Upanishads. If this is technically infeasible, you would have to choose between not teaching people at all, or trying to find the closest possible equivalent, which varies between “find an equally extreme form of hermitage, such as a cave in the Himalayas”, and “find a place where nobody will bother you while you practice”. Believe it or not, people tended to go with the first option for a very long time, before enough people, unfortunate enough to lack access to remote caves, had to meditate in their room, managed to get a solid pool of datapoints in, and a conclusion could be formed that not being bothered is the active compound, and holiness of the place itself can be seen as a welcome but unnecessary addition.

There are other items on the list that were considered staples – for instance, celibacy, or brahmacarya. It was assumed to be essential, until multiple married people of both sexes attained success in yoga, after which it was merely “recommended”, and not seen as an absolute requirement. Similarly, vegetarianism is a staple requirement on each and every list I’ve seen, from every single authority on Yoga and Vedanta; at least at the times when I did my initial yogic practice. It’s seen as both a moral issue and an issue of introducing impurities into the system that aggravate the process of purification of the nadis. Since impurities can cause damage to the system when the energy flow increases to the point of stretching the limits of the conduits, you can understand why this is something nobody is willing to play with much in order to understand the exact parameters. In order to learn, you’d have to sacrifice people by pushing them too hard with an impure system, causing mental and physical damage, according to all schools of energetic yoga. Sacrificing students in order to improve your scientific knowledge would be immoral, so nobody does it. However, there are cases where people are literally forced to experiment on themselves and thus establish datapoints. One such example was Milarepa, who unwittingly provided two important datapoints. The first was meditating for a long time on a diet of a nettle brew. Surprisingly, nettles proved to be nutritionally valuable beyond what one would expect, and he managed to survive on this diet for, likely, years. This caused him to lose weight and strength and eventually caused mental fatigue and failure in meditation, and he was forced to interrupt his efforts and beg for food. He was given meat, ate it, and both his health and meditative success improved instantly and greatly. This is the second datapoint – meat actually doesn’t cause problems in advanced yogic practice; in fact, it seems to help. Sure, we can be conservative and say that this proved that starting with a nettle brew and continuing until a point of mental fatigue and failure, and then transitioning to a meat diet, is what will produce the desired effects. In fact, I am not sure I would dare to argue that this line of thinking is without merit, until I see evidence of someone who was always on a meat diet and produced same or superior results.

You see how that works? In science, experimentation is what provides datapoints. In yoga, experimentation is potentially fatal, and datapoints are provided usually only when someone has no other option but to break prohibitions, and then you see what the result happened to be. Even then, you don’t actually willingly repeat it because it could be a fluke, and only when enough people do involuntary experimentation, you can get more datapoints and eventually change the approach.

This was how it worked for me. I started spiritual practice that was initially non-yogic, consisting of advanced self-hypnosis and some concepts to meditate upon. After the initial results, I had experiences that looked very much like the descriptions of impure nadis in literature, and literature from all schools was perfectly clear – no drugs, alcohol, smoking or meat. I never took drugs, stopped smoking recently and drank alcohol only infrequently, so that part was easy. Not eating meat, however, was complicated, because I thought one can’t actually survive without it, and I had to survive in order to practice yoga, so that looked like a no-go. It turned out you can survive without meat, but you can’t just remove meat from conventional Western diet and be left with enough nutrients. You have to find substitutes, so I did that. It seemed to work, so I added vegetarianism to my personal list of things you have to do in order to succeed in spiritual practice. It took me about 13 years and various health issues before I abandoned it. I still think it would be morally preferable to be vegetarian, if it were a feasible option, but in my case, the amount of strain I had to put on my system was such, that it was not. I find vegetarianism preferable in all ways but one – it didn’t work for me in the long term. So, it wasn’t a philosophical change of mind, but a purely practical one, where ligaments on my hands and feet started breaking, and I had multiple injuries in a matter of weeks, one of them permanent. This was combined with a period where I craved meat, and tried to find substitutes. Eventually, I started slowly introducing meat to my diet and the problem with the ligaments was solved, and I had a significant increase in strength and endurance, combined with absolutely no adverse spiritual or energetic symptoms.

This doesn’t mean that I would feel easy recommending beginners to ignore the traditional and scriptural requirement of vegetarianism. I know what worked based on what I did. Advising someone to do something else would feel risky. I am pretty sure eating meat has nothing to do with impurity of the nadis, now, after decades of experience. For the most part, I think it’s about physical body’s slow adaptation to high spiritual states. I would absolutely advise against anything psychoactive, though. First of all, it will interfere with yogic practice, and second, it will be much harder to figure out a point where yoga is starting to become effective, and it’s a very sensitive thing initially.

So, I can positively say that meat is not a problem, while vegetarianism might either help, or get in the way, but only in the long term. Basically, it’s safe to go vegetarian for a few years and then gradually switch to meat. I see no harm in that. As for sex, of course whoring around would be spiritually detrimental and I strongly advise against it. Celibacy, however, isn’t of any good use spiritually, and is merely another set of problems that need to be managed. It doesn’t help in any way. Having a spiritually compatible sexual partner is ideal.

If vegetarianism and celibacy are of no use, what are actually the dangers in spiritual practice, that I am aware of?

Yes, those exist. They are actually described in scriptures and tradition. Interacting with worldly people messes up your concentration and is harmful. You need to reset yourself after every such interaction, and if you don’t, interference builds up to the point where you get so overwhelmed you can no longer practice yoga correctly. Radio, TV, Internet – those are all sources of interference. They are sources of useful information as well, so one would be poorly advised to cut them off entirely, but if you’re not cautious, you get overwhelmed easily. Books written by idiot authors are also harmful, because your mind gets saturated with bad ideas, and you need to purge such influence afterwards by exposing yourself to good things and good ideas before you can properly proceed with sadhana. If something is predictably harmful and you know you’ll have to repair the damage afterwards, it might be better to eschew the problem altogether. Yoga is a process of spiritual purification. You theoretically can alternate between spiritual purification and messing yourself up with stupid garbage online, but one would be justified in asking what exactly is the point of this exercise then. When you can reliably tell that something is harmful to your practice, and it is something you can eliminate, it would be wise to do so. Some things you can’t eliminate, unfortunately. Electromagnetic radiation, pesticides in food, all sorts of stuff in water and air – those, unfortunately, are a given. Also, getting sick will mess you up, and if you have a flu, you won’t be able to practice yoga until you’ve healed. It is what it is. However, adding TikTok to the list is inherently unhelpful. It’s enough that most of us had to live in polluted and noisy cities, and surrounded by unhelpful people. Overcoming those obstacles is hard enough. Introducing unnecessary ones might just be that one straw that makes the difference between success and failure. So, you can understand why I was extremely reluctant to deviate from the course recommended by scriptures and tradition in any way. In some cases, you just can’t help it – if tradition says you need to meditate in Himalayas near the source of Ganga, tough luck, because that’s simply inaccessible. You can understand the general intent of the instruction – find some good spot in nature far from human interference. Some improvisation is required. Also, when I personally found out that some traditional instructions are wrong, I omitted them. I was usually so reluctant to do so, it took me years or even decades to be completely sure, and I would not do so unless I had at least some kind of confirmation from above. Traditions are there because they worked, or at least people thought they worked, and for a long time. I’m not messing with that unless I understand exactly what’s going on and why. Since that’s very hard, I’m usually just not messing with it until absolutely forced to do so.

So, what turned out to be reliably dangerous? For the most part, ego trip that comes with success in spiritual practice that beginners experience. That will mess you up like nothing else. Also, not instantly obeying the guru and instead waiting until you figure it out yourself, because you don’t want to be a blind follower. That’s insanely harmful, because this kind of knowledge comes at the end of things, and is reliably unavailable before that. For a beginner, the expectation that he is to figure out the reason for the command before obeying it is as foolish as it is harmful. If the problem is big enough that your guru resorts to orders, it’s usually immediate and grave and needs to be acted upon instantly. Sometimes you will figure it out immediately after you obey the command, and you’ll see what that was all about, and sometimes you will understand it after multiple decades. The likelihood that you will ever figure it out unless you obey the command is negligible. You absolutely need to be a blind follower. After you do enough blind following and have enough “aha!” moments of understanding what that was about, you will gain independent expertise. No blind following, no expertise. Also, the reason why one would object to being a blind follower is typically insecurity, or some other Western ego trip about emancipation and similar bullshit. Even at this point, if God tells me to do something, I will first do it and then ask what that was all about. It’s probably the most important thing for one to learn, because failure to do so causes the greatest number of fatal errors one can make. I had situations where someone ordered me to suddenly stop in the middle of the road. I did. Seconds later a cistern truck came speeding through the bend, completely on my side of the road. Had I not stopped, it would have killed me. It’s merely one example, and I had loads of them, and only occasionally did I have a luxury of finding out why the order was issued. Mostly, I just survived and went on, not even knowing what I missed. So, obey first, ask questions later.

Another cause of failure is the assumption that problems are a sign you’re doing something wrong. That’s kind of a hard one, because sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not. Sometimes you are causing problems, and sometimes the Devil is causing you problems because he wants you to stop doing whatever you are doing, because it’s working. You need to develop the wisdom necessary to tell which is which, and I can’t help you there.

Paying attention to other people, and not your guru and the scriptures, can also be very harmful. Everybody has opinions, and they will share them with you. Knowing which part of that you can safely ignore, and which part you should pay attention to, is what wisdom is about. Of course you can’t just ignore what people are telling you, because odds are, you will sometimes act foolishly in ways that most people can warn you about. However, sometimes you will only appear to act foolishly, because you know something they don’t. Having enough confidence to discern between the two, and listen to people when they are right and completely ignore them when they don’t know what they are talking about, is a learned wisdom. You will make mistakes. Be sure to learn from them quickly enough and try not to repeat the same ones, because you don’t actually have all the time in the world, and some fuckups can’t be undone.

So, yeah, that’s about it.

Discrimination

There’s a thing that keeps annoying me when someone brings it up, and that’s the attitude of looking for good in everything, as if that, somehow, is a praiseworthy feature, and you’re a good person if you do it. Also, the attitude of not condemning anyone because there’s bad in everyone and good in everyone, and so on.

Let me make a few illustrations.

Let’s take two big containers of ice cream, five litres or so. They are both freshly made and perfectly tasty. Now, we take a spoon of fecal matter – shit, if you like – and mix it into one of the ice cream containers. It’s fraction of a percentage, two millilitres of shit per five litres of ice cream. A few hundredths of a percent, if my math is right. Now we randomize the containers so you can’t tell which is which.

I would like to do that in front of one of those people who tell me they like to see good in everything, and would never discard a person because of a “small flaw”. Go, eat. It’s 99.9% ice cream; by your definition, almost completely pure goodness. Me, I’d throw both containers into the trash, because not only is the contaminated one pure shit, and not 99.9% ice cream, but the other is so suspicious by mere association that it’s shit as well and needs to be disposed of.

That’s what mortal sin is. Not only is it so bad that every single fraction of it in something makes the entire mass shit, but it’s even worse – the other positive virtues make the mass more dangerous and problematic, not less. The fact that 100% shit can look like 100% ice cream and can deceive an innocent person into eating it makes it worse. If you see dog shit on the road, you’re not going to eat it. If you see a bucket of ice cream that contains 0.04% of shit, you might eat it, and for all intents and purposes it’s not less bad than the shit that’s self-evident and thus avoided. Likewise, positive virtues on an evil person make them worse, not better.

What am I saying here? I’m saying that lack of discrimination gets you doomed. Discrimination is the ability to understand what something is, in its nature. Discrimination is the ability to understand what needs to be understood in what context. An insect in amber makes amber more valuable. An insect in coffee makes coffee less valuable. Shit in a garden is useful. Shit in ice cream makes ice cream useless at best and dangerous at worst.

So, we now have to understand that some people have all kinds of flaws, but they are great people. We also need to understand that some people can have only one flaw and lots of virtues, and they can be extremely dangerous and evil. Quantity isn’t even a thing. You can’t just make a quantitative analysis and say that a certain percentage of impurities is acceptable. No; sometimes a huge amount of impurities is not only acceptable, but improves the mixture. An example is penicillin mold in cheese. Sometimes, any amount of AIDS or hepatitis infected blood in the blood bank can make the entire batch useless and dangerous. Having a thin layer of ice on the road doesn’t make it mostly road, it makes it black ice.

In the end, the only criterion is what someone actually does. If a person is mostly virtuous but has a a slight penchant for genocide, you expect that person to be condemned, not 99% praised and 1% condemned. No, you want them 100% condemned, fuck their virtues. Nobody cares that Hitler had good ideas about preserving the environment, increasing employment, making great public roads and was a very good painter. The concentration camps kind of make his virtues moot. Also, you don’t care if some great person had flaws. For instance, Ernest Shackleton had all kinds of flaws, but if you got stranded with him in the middle of nowhere, he was the best person in the world to be stranded with, because he ended up getting everybody to safety, where others calculated with “acceptable losses”. He didn’t have acceptable losses, which is why people he got safely out ended up being his friends for life. Sure, he drank too much and died in debt. People whose lives he saved couldn’t care less.

Various spiritual people have different opinions on this. Jesus, for instance, said that the fruits are the only valid criterion of one’s true spiritual significance. Not what virtues they have, not what flaws they have, not what they look like or what they say – just what the results end up being. If someone is a great person but gets everybody killed, is he truly a great person? Likewise, if one is all kinds of flawed but ends up saving everybody, is he truly flawed?

This puts things into perspective, and the quantitative model of spiritual advancement looks completely inadequate; you know what I mean, the idea that one is increasingly more pure as they approach God. In fact, that doesn’t seem to be how it works at all. Someone can be all kinds of flawed, but if they get the important things right, they can be judged as perfect in the eyes of God. For instance, one of the criminals crucified alongside Jesus, the one who repented and prayed to Jesus to remember him when he gets to his kingdom. That’s the first saint recognised by Christianity. On the other hand, one could look all kinds of pure, but if they hated Jesus during his life, it wasn’t seen as one tiny speck of impurity on an otherwise good person. No, it was seen as a crucial giveaway, a sign that this person truly hates God and is destined for hell. All his other virtues and merits don’t amount to anything at all – they are like an expensive rope on a dead and rotting ass: just worthless trash.

So, if you say you try to see good in everything, what you probably wanted to signal is being a good person that rejects evil and aspires towards the good. What I heard is something altogether different. So, have some of that 99.9% ice cream while trying to condemn God for creating hell that is full of people you would be compassionate enough to save, unlike God who condemned them. You are obviously a better person than God. Either that, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Compassion without discrimination results in evil. Love without discrimination results in evil. Wisdom without discrimination is folly. Without discrimination, you will condemn God and vindicate Satan. Without discrimination, you will end up eating shit ice cream all the way to hell.

About gear and light

I had very good luck with the early evening light and the late spring motives lately:

The wideangles are taken with the FE 16-35mm f/4 Zeiss, and the closeups with the FE 50mm f/1.8. Both on A7CR.

Which makes me think. Yesterday, Sony released the new A7RVI camera, the upgraded version of my A7RV, and it left me completely cold. Sure, improvements are always possible and welcome, but considering how I barely convinced myself to upgrade from the decade old A7II, those improvements would have to be something I really care about, and in this case I don’t see much of those. It’s similar to the A1II now; faster readout, more usable electronic shutter, but if I really cared about those features I’d have gotten the A1II. I actually find the A7CR more usable, because it’s smaller and lighter which allows me to take a very compact setup with me when I’m not in the mood for carrying heavy gear, like for instance in two recent walks when I wanted to walk faster and not stop every now and then to take pictures. Also, better gear isn’t always better. I used the 50mm f/1.8 instead of the optically far superior 50mm f/1.2 GM, simply because it’s small and light, the image quality is still very good, and the prospect of carrying the f/1.2 lens for a long fast walk is unappealing, especially since I don’t know if there will be any pictures worth taking. There’s nothing wrong with carrying heavy gear if I know exactly what I’m after, but that’s not always the case. What I want in those cases is something that will be light enough and work well enough for me to catch the light if it does its thing in the vineyards and the poppy fields. Sometimes, the gear is crucial and I need it to be as good as possible. At other times, the gear just needs to be good enough, and the issue is whether the light and the motive will intersect in just the right way.

It’s this way for other things, as well. A car doesn’t have to be the best one possible – just good enough to do what you need it to do. Your mind doesn’t have the be the best in the world, just good enough for what you need to do. Your character doesn’t have to be the purest possible; just pure enough to avoid the traps of Satan and desire God.

I recently had a situation where I had to revise some ideas from my childhood, and I had some new revelations. One would expect me to have been forced to go through those things much earlier, before initiation into vajra, for instance, but obviously not. One doesn’t have to have complete understanding of everything in order to attain initiation. For instance, if you live in a society with primitive natural science, you can believe in impetus and phlogiston and alchemy, and that won’t be a problem for you spiritually. You can believe your uncle to have been a good person while in fact he turned out not to be, and you’ll have to revise your ideas about him, but it exists on a completely different level – that of understanding, rather than purity. For initiation, purity is essential, and understanding is optional. It needs to be good enough not to get in the way. Likewise, my understanding of my childhood didn’t get in the way, but it turned out to be incomplete and flawed. Things I considered to be my own errors turned to be, in tennis terminology, forced ones. That’s the difference between an error that happens when the other player hits the ball particularly well and forces you into a position where an error is expected, rather than fumbling things yourself and losing a point.

In photography, there’s a difference between a photo failing because your composition sucked, the light sucked or you shook the camera, missed focus, miscalculated depth of field or something similar, or failing because the lens had strong and ugly flare when pointed at the sun, or being critically unsharp at a certain aperture, focusing distance and so on. Basically, the light and the motives can suck, a photographer can suck and gear can suck. There’s only so much you can do with gear – at some point, it is no longer a limiting factor for what you’re doing. At that point, upgrading gear is pointless and won’t produce better results. Upgrading your skills, going places that look good in a photo, recognising good light and motives, and composing everything well, that’s what’s far more likely to give you improved results.

Price of purity

I’ve seen something on YouTube recently; a short fragment from the newest Harry Potter movies with young Grindelwald and Dumbledore. I actually watched only the first movie from the series but in this fragment the Kirin, or Qilin, bowed to Dumbledore, which is supposed to mean he’s of pure heart. People were complaining that it’s not right because Dumbledore was all kinds of flawed, and the authors missed the opportunity for the Qilin to bow to that fat baker muggle guy because he’s supposedly of pure heart.

That’s how people usually think, and they are very much mistaken. You see, people think that poor and powerless people are pure, and rich and powerful are sinful, but if you want to know how pure someone is, give him money and power. Also, I would add, if you want to know how pure you are, practice energetic yoga.

Dumbledore was the most powerful wizard of his era, from a wealthy family, and he made mistakes and corrected them and faced the consequences. He is not pure in some naive way, in which someone is pure because they simply lacked the opportunity or incentive to fuck up. He’s pure because he had to face and overcome his flawed and sinful nature. Purity that wasn’t fought for and gained at a great price might be lost as easily as it was attained.

Revolutions show what horrors poor self-righteous people are able to commit when given an opportunity. We’ve seen how corrupt people can become when they happen to attain money and power. It’s not realistic to assume that a pure powerless person will remain pure if suddenly given all the opportunities for sin, debauchery and evil. Moral purity isn’t something you get to be born with. It’s something you need to develop in face of temptation, error and personal weakness. If we assume that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, imagine how much of a struggle Dumbledore had to face and overcome in order to be this morally clean, while being so incredibly powerful? People think babies are pure, but Hitler was a baby, too. That’s not how that works. To be pure isn’t to never fuck up. It’s to fuck up, see that it’s wrong, say “never again”, and then consistently work on not fucking up again. I don’t believe in the concept of being sinless from birth; I believe in the concept of experiencing failure, experiencing the consequences, understanding the principles, and then working hard to overcome weakness. Only then you can have purity.

You can talk about purity in the context of butterflies, for instance, but if they lack any capacity to be otherwise, is it really of any value? Dumbledore is something like a vegetarian tiger, or a super venomous snake that refuses to bite even when provoked. It is in his nature to be Hitler, and yet he fights it and does good instead. That, I think, is more purity of heart than being pure simply because you lack the means and incentive to do evil.

If your instinct is to drink nectar from flowers and fly around, it is perfectly unsurprising if you hadn’t caused any great tragedy with your actions. However, what virtue is there in it?

Flawed just right

Some people might ask why I haven’t revised or outright removed my old books, since I know they contain errors.

The thing is, yoga isn’t about a “correct teaching”. Yoga is a process of transformation, and therein lies the rub. When I was still intensely practicing it, I understood how my perspective changed since a year ago, and how I would now find it very hard to understand my former position and give proper advice; I’m becoming too far removed. Different problems, different methods, different understanding, different structure of higher and lower bodies. I made a decision to write it all down as soon as possible, so that I wouldn’t forget, because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to pass the knowledge on, and it would again be lost, and everybody would have to start from scratch, like myself. The danger of too high a teaching is that the first step is in the clouds, beyond reach.

The fact that it contains some wrong beliefs is not really a problem. I contained even more wrong beliefs before I wrote it, and yet here I am now, not because I had the right beliefs, but because I followed the right process and had the right understanding – that it isn’t about espousing all the right beliefs, or by doing all the right things all at once. It’s about focusing at the right goal, about being able to transform, to abandon beliefs and form new ones as needed, because you change. In the beginning, and in fact in most of the process, you can’t have a correct understanding of God, because of what you are and what your nature is. You understand that God is awesome, but you can’t really formulate a proper understanding of what that means. What you can do is focus on God regardless, and practice purifying energetic techniques to make non-God stuff on you break up, purify on a particle level, and become closer to God stuff. God is not merely something far that you occasionally see; God is someone you become by following a process.

Yes, my first books contain flawed teachings, but they all contain correct understanding that resulted in much better teachings later on, as the process was given time to transform the slow physical matter of my brain. Yes, those old teachings were flawed, but do have in mind that they are the teachings of Vedanta for the most part, but already upgraded by the practical understanding created by the purification of the elements, initiation into Vajra and a glimpse into the higher substances that I couldn’t yet wield, but which I knew existed. They are flawed by my current standards, but they are better than anything else, and all the techniques and methodology were already perfectly formulated; what I lacked was the exact theoretical understanding of what’s going on. I just knew what you had to do to get results. Also, it’s all written by a version of me that still remembers what problems I had, how I had to solve them, and it’s all more “human” than anything I would write now. I wouldn’t dare to touch the old materials and “improve” them, because the very part that could help an ordinary human become a yogi could be lost, because I could accidentally “upgrade” something to a point beyond ordinary human understanding.

On the other hand, the books I write now are possibly more understandable, because you can explain better when you have a more complete understanding. Where I used to fumble around issues, trying to explain something, I now have a clear, straightforward and simple theory. So, it’s not as simple as it might seem – start with the old books first, and gradually work your way to the current ones. In fact, the opposite might be the best – start with the newest books with the best theoretical understanding behind them, and then work your way back through the older ones, to see how I got there, what I initially got wrong, how I revised it and why, and get to the point where you can do something, yourself. Because, what does it even matter which teaching is more correct and which book is better, if you yourself are not there? You can sit on the fence and watch me struggle with things, and wait until the end to see what comes of it all, but it’s a bad idea since you get to be firmly entrenched on square one decades later. It’s much better to try and fail ten thousand times, than to be safe doing nothing.