Positivity

I was just thinking about all the virtue-signalling and posturing that is currently in vogue, and remembered that I’ve sen something similar before: the “positivity” trend of the 1990s.

Positivity actually has a legitimate purpose in psychology, as I would know, having been proficient in autogenous training, which is a form of self-hypnosis, where positive formulation of suggestions is paramount. By “positive” mean statements such as “my hands are warm” instead of “my hands are not cold”, and so on. It seems that human mind doesn’t really work well with avoiding undesirable outcomes; basically, if you tell it what you don’t want, you’re not really telling it what you do want, which is very much like telling your driver to go “not to London”. That’s hardly a useful instruction, because “not London” is quite a large place.

So, positive suggestions such as “drive me to Bristol” or “get me coffee” work, and negative suggestions such as “drive me away from here” or “get me something other than tea” don’t. However, a whole movement of abject charlatanry developed around those basic truths, and “positivity” and “negativity” became amoral substitute for good and evil, and right and wrong, in a moral framework that tried to avoid such designations at all cost, in order to avoid any notion of religion.

You see, there’s a problem with rejecting negativity in expression. While it is true that you need to positively formulate your ultimate goal in order to be able to get there, it is also true that we often don’t have enough knowledge of the goal at the beginning of the journey. For instance, let’s say that you want to reach God, but what is God, exactly, to someone who is a mere beginner? God is something awesome and magnificent at the very extreme end of a multidimensional coordinate system of values – greatest consciousness, greatest truth, greatest power and so on – but what does that actually mean? Here, negativity plays an important part, because you can see all kinds of evil and depravity and say, “I don’t know what God is, exactly, but let’s assume he’s in the opposite direction from this”, and such a statement will, of course, not lead you to God directly, but if you practice the virtues that are opposite to the wicked depravities that are abundant in the world and easy to perceive, it will certainly help to move you from the starting point, and trying to imagine virtues by rejecting sins will give you some idea of where you want to be, which is of course not perfect, but “not perfect” is much better than “horrible” already, and as long as you understand that this is a transitory position and not a destination, I see nothing wrong with it. Hate and disgust directed at evil things imply some sense of goodness and virtue, and this can later be properly formulated, but as beginnings go, hatred and disgust are effective and dynamic enough to give you some momentum. Certainly, that’s not where you want to be stuck permanently, and you do need to transition your understanding from, for example, “I am revolted by all the perversions in modern society”, to “those things are instinctively revolting because they lie in the direction opposite of God, who is truth, reality and fulfilment”.

My problem with the positivity movement is not as much that it is wrong; it’s an ideological poison, akin to the modern variety known as “tolerance” and “diversity”. Positivity on its own can actually be extremely harmful, if it stops you from recognizing and changing things that are obviously wrong; likewise, tolerance for bad things isn’t a good thing, and diversity on its own doesn’t mean anything good, because is it really preferable to have many different bad things, and not one good thing? If you have many things, is it preferable to see them all as equal, or to choose between them based on some criterion of merit? It all looks like some kindergarten ethical philosophy of “nobody is wrong”; in fact, everybody is wrong, and everybody stands to improve, and stupid flattery is of no use whatsoever.

Without an ethical framework based upon the referential target of the Absolute, all quantitative and qualitative designations are pointless and worthless. What is right and wrong without God as the referential truth? What is good and evil without God as the referential goodness? Of what use is positivity without a referential absolute target? Also, if you understand that a statement “Satan is beautiful” is positive, and a statement “Satan is not beautiful” is negative, it becomes apparent that the entire thing on its own has no moral reference, and is a mere linguistic gimmick. Positivity starts making sense only after you obtain your actual moral reference from a worthwhile theology.

Messy realities of life

I am thinking further along the line I explored in the previous article; namely, that life is messy, and sometimes you need to choose between truth, justice, utility, and kindness. Those things seem to converge as you go higher, towards God, and God is at the same time fullness along multiple dimensions. Here, however, not so much. Let’s say you have to deal with a manipulative person in some business dealings. Navigating such a problem can make you choose between multiple bad options, because you can’t approach it from the position of greatest truth, you can’t approach it with kindness because it might be counterproductive (a manipulator interprets kindness as weakness and an opportunity for abuse), and what I end up doing is a melange of forthright truth and utility – in essence, I say how things are, what I want, and I do it in a pretty much brutally straightforward way, without much emotion or niceties; here’s what the contract says, here’s what I will do, and here’s what I want you to do. I turn all empathy off, I don’t complicate things with higher spiritual aspects of the situation, I tell things as they are, adhering to the principle of truthfulness, but I am also governed by the principle of utility – basically, I want to either earn or not lose money, and I try to avoid unnecessary hostilities, but I am also quite prepared to engage in them if it is necessary, just and useful. Also, I have in mind that I’m not really spiritually helping evil people if I allow them to get their way; this would only encourage them in their evil. The principle of ahimsa, therefore, does somewhat guide my actions, but not to the degree where it would always and necessarily prevail. The principle of utility, however, is tempered by the fact that I am an instrument of God, and my personal prosperity and well-being often take a second seat to other considerations.

Truth

I recently saw a video by Jordan Peterson, in which he urges people to always to tell the truth, or at least not to lie. It made me think, because that’s an advice I would always give, and also something I personally can’t really do.

Tell the truth? Sure. Tell the greatest truth I know? That God is the ultimate reality, and this world is an elaborate, persistent illusion? That life and death don’t matter, and your relationship with God is the only thing to consider, always? When exactly should I tell those truths? When the owner of the restaurant asks me how I liked the lunch? When the neighbour asks me what’s up? When the cashier at the store asks “would that be all?”

It reminds me of a Bosnian joke where Mujo managed to burn out the latest AI supercomputer by asking him “šta ima?”, or “what’s up?” in rough translation. The computer of course took it literally and started selecting all things that are up. The answer everybody expects is something along the lines of “oh, nice to see you too man, how’s things?”, which is a trivial social phrase that means nothing, really, and is there merely to keep the pretence of a conversation when there’s nothing to say, and a way to be polite about it. In most cases, truth is neither sought nor required.

So, yes, that’s the way I go about things – answer with polite phrases, go through life providing non-responses to non-questions, because it would be awqward to do otherwise, but the fact remains that by doing so I am living a lie.

Misunderstandings

I was just thinking about one possible misunderstanding that might occur due to my style of writing and speech. You see, I essentially never make outright commandments or prohibitions. I mostly just give my reasoning as to why something is a bad idea, or might have bad consequences, or why something is a good idea.

There are several reasons for this. First, it’s a matter of your free will to do whatever you personally feel you need or want to do. I will just state my opinion, which you might accept or ignore. Second, bad things can be useful. For instance, I read many books that were bad, or outright wrong, but reading them helped me understand how people who are under this or that misapprehension think and feel. Not only that – I occasionally do things that are not wise or recommended, just to test whether my understanding of the principles applies. Of course, there are things that are so outright harmful that trying them causes irreversible harm, and those are always to be avoided; for instance, ingesting chemicals or doing other things that cause brain damage, permanent injury or death. You don’t want to hang yourself or inject yourself with heroin just to see how it feels, for instance. However, it is my experience that all kinds of evil or bad things can be turned around and used to create the kind of wisdom that would otherwise be hard to attain. Basically, doing wrong things and getting wrecked because of it can teach you very valuable lessons about why certain things are bad, or why certain paths don’t work. The reason why I have such a good understanding of things is because I tried many things that didn’t work, and not always intentionally; basically, I learned some things by fucking up so badly I barely survived. The formulation I usually make, saying that something is not recommended, or that it is dangerous, can therefore mean that it is likely to destroy you, but if you survive, you might gain extremely valuable insight, and it’s up to you whether you want to take those chances or not – after all, it’s your life to waste or destroy if you so choose.

I guess this relativistic attitude towards things that others might judge as fatal is a result of my prolonged practice of detachment; you can call it vipassana if you will. I see it all as energy behind this or that vector, and everything can be powered and un-powered, redirected and powered again to test something. “Ah, this is evil, so I know what evil feels like. Now, power off. Wind down. Change direction, slowly add energy. This is good, so this is how it feels.“ Tantra would call this “game” a dance on the edge of a sword, and the sword is indeed sharp.

Non-yogis live in a different world, where they believe that “their nature” compels them to do something, and choices can’t be undone, they need to be punished for the bad things and so on. I live in a world where bad things need to be decoupled from energy and powered down. Where non-yogis think of themselves as victims of things that happen to them, I see myself as someone who can kill processes, create new ones, change priorities and the percentage of CPU power behind each, and so on. Also, I’m not afraid of failure, pain, misery or death, and I see them as merely “things you might want to avoid”, and if you expect stronger wording, you might misunderstand. After all, failure, pain, misery and death can accompany one on their way to God, while another might succeed in things all the way to utter doom.

Caged pig

When I started working with students, what I taught them was very conservative, in the sense that the entire lore of yoga from the most ancient times was based on the very same principle. This principle is, in essence, to list all the things I did that resulted in not dying, not going insane, and attaining great spiritual results, and have them re-trace my steps. To introduce anything that varied much from my own spiritual practice would be, in my opinion, insanely dangerous.

You see, I had very good reasons for all the things I did, and those good reasons had very much to do with not dying and not going insane. I didn’t just pull something out of my arse out of sheer boredom and said, “I should be a vegetarian, that’s something that’s currently in”. In fact, there’s an interesting story on how I became a vegetarian, very soon after I started the practice of yoga. I did know a thing or two on how to meditate, having been proficient in autogenous training, and in one of my first attempts after the darshan/initiation I had a very powerful experience of the “OM” vibration throughout my mind and body. When I say “powerful”, I mean it in a sense of feeling as if it could kill me just like that, just because the resistance of my energy system is too great due to impurities, or if anything went wrong. I was very, very glad I stopped smoking weeks earlier, and the argument against vegetarianism that was universally recommended by all the Hindu teachers, “what would I eat”, was immediately ignored in favour of sheer survival. Obviously, I had to follow the instructions of the people who did this before if I wanted to increase my chances, and introduce changes only if I know exactly what I’m doing. This stuff was very real and very powerful, and very scary.

What I didn’t know at the time was that the majority of those people (orange robes, fancy titles) actually didn’t recommend the stuff they did because the opposite is spiritually or energetically harmful, but out of purely traditional and ideological reasons. Vegetarianism is one of such things, and it’s specific to India; in Tibet, for instance, the very advanced yogis like Milarepa ate meat whenever it was available, and he noted a marked improvement in his spiritual and energetic condition after eating meat. Another thing those swamis are actively trying to prohibit is sex, with all sorts of claims about its spiritual harmfulness. While I certainly won’t tell you that watching porn and promiscuity aren’t spiritually harmful, it is my experience that the most harmful aspect of sex is doing it with the wrong people, from a wrong state of consciousness, and feeling guilty because you think it’s spiritually harmful. What I found out was actually harmful was accepting students and talking about spirituality with others. Essentially, working with students creates spiritual/energetic links directly into your mind that are very similar to the links created when you have sex with someone, only deeper and stronger, and those links are bidirectional. They allow your influence to help the students reach things that would otherwise be difficult, but they also allow all sorts of garbage and disturbances from the students to flow into your mind. This meant that controlling the students, in a sense that they should always maintain spiritual discipline, was paramount. What actually happened is that they for the most part explored all kinds of desires and paths they felt they have the power to pull off now, and the extra energy I was feeding them, that was supposed to feed spiritual ecstasy, ended up feeding hysteria, egomania and madness, in a very large number of cases. All of that was fed back to me and drove me crazy; in fact, I didn’t actually go crazy only because I underwent full vajra initiation prior to working with students, so my spiritual core was beyond such influences, but I understood why all those spiritual teachers go hedonistic and insane – it’s caused by the students who don’t obey the instructions, don’t focus on God, and as a result create a stream of madness that is fed back to the guru, destroying his astral body. In my case, destruction of the astral body is not a big deal, because if I’m left alone for a few days I can rebuild it from above, but if someone is not a vajra initiate, the damage can’t be undone. So, basically, what I found out is that eating meat is not a problem, sex (with the right person) is not a problem, but plugging your astral body into multiple undisciplined people who show signs of potential by reacting positively to spiritual energy, that’s where spiritual people go to die.

Another thing transpired in ways that are obvious in hindsight, yet defies “spiritual” expectations – money is a huge problem, and not in a sense that “money corrupts” or something similarly silly, but in a sense that not having money is not survivable in this world, and so if you have things to do here you must choose between dying and failing to achieve your goals, and trying to get money in ways that might compromise you spiritually. Lack of money caused a constant struggle and huge problems of all kinds, and the most ridiculous thing is that I heard all kinds of “spiritual people” saying all kinds of nonsense about spiritual harmfulness of having money, as if money will somehow tempt and corrupt you. No it won’t; what actually corrupts you is that you didn’t purify your spirit, you aren’t clear about your desires and goals, you suppress things instead of dealing with them in a transparent way, and when you have lots of money you basically pour lots of energy into all that suppressed and unresolved mess, and then all hell breaks loose. What I found out when I had significant amounts of money is that it doesn’t make me do anything I normally wouldn’t. Basically, it allows me to deal with problems that can be solved with money, and that’s it. If my computer breaks down, I can just replace it with one that’s current and good. If my car breaks down, I can either repair it or buy a new one. I can buy a home instead of renting it, and I don’t have to live in some shithole because it’s cheap. Yes, if you’re a “raw” person and you didn’t do any real work on understanding your desires, motives and so on, and someone just removes your limitations and allows you to do whatever you want, it’s going to end badly, probably in the same way things tended to end badly when I fed spiritual energy into my students that would otherwise be beyond their reach. Feeding energy into an unresolved mess inside someone’s astral body is most likely going to make this mess explode and set it on fire. Money is basically the same thing; however, the path of restriction, of not allowing yourself the means and the energy because you fear what you’re going to do is just wrong. What one needs to do is resolve things within himself and understand his desires, and then practice detachment and focus on transcendence. Restrictions and discipline, in my experience, are a great tool in the beginning, but there is a great danger in just leaving them “turned on”, and not resolving the underlying issues because it’s “messy”. Yes, dealing with messy things can spoil your impression of yourself as a pure and very spiritual person, because sometimes you need to deal with very nasty things, and you might not like yourself very much while you do. However, once you’ve actually dealt with them, you find out that you no longer need rules, restrictions or much of a discipline. Sure, some things in this body and in this world tend to feed themselves if left unchecked, so you occasionally have to say “no” to some fancy gadget, but as for the moral restrictions and regulations, you don’t really need those. The religious people tend to imagine all sorts of nasty things one would do if they had no commandments, laws or restrictions, but in reality, do you really need laws to prevent you from diving into a septic tank and drinking sewage? Not really, I would guess; well, that’s why I don’t need laws to prevent me from snorting cocaine from a hooker’s arse. If I’m left alone and unchecked, I meditate, read books, analyse what’s going on in the world, think, write books and articles, do photography and take walks in nature. The difference when I have endless money is that I do it on a more expensive computer, with a more expensive lens on a more expensive camera, and I go to a place where I actually want to be, instead to a place that’s affordable because it’s nearby, and I drive there using a more expensive car. I don’t just magically turn into a pig-werewolf that rapes and kills teenage girls and is stoned and drunk most of the time, just because I have money and no restrictions. The way religious people imagine these things is ridiculous, and is probably a result of awareness of what would happen if they had no restrictions put upon them. That, however, is not the path of yoga. A yogi would rather revisit his “caged pig” and gradually transform it into an angel of God, and you don’t have to keep the angel of God caged to prevent him from fucking everything that moves and ingesting all kinds of drugs. That is not to say that restrictions and discipline are not necessary; I started with them, and I’m sure my students would have found them very beneficial and it would have spared me many problems if they had, but it’s merely a phase that keeps you from going crazy and doing something you will later regret, until yoga had the time to do its thing.

So, the conclusion would be that some things that are commonly seen as dangerous can in fact be harmless or beneficial, while some things that can be seen as beneficial, such as compassion, can be deadly. This means there really is no substitute for having your brain switched on, and observing what’s going on inside you and around you. You can’t just accept some set of religious restrictions and think you’ll be fine; it doesn’t really work all that well for religious people, if you read up about all the scandals. Also, most of the stuff that the religions try to restrict is just misguided; for instance, trying to regulate people’s sex life and food. Instead, if you learn how to disconnect thoughts and emotions from energy, in a practice of vipassana or yoga, to power anything up or down, to see how things actually function under the curtain, where the cogs and wheels of things are turning, you can make very swift progress and actually control things by removing the energy, instead of applying the brakes. Control is absolutely necessary, because in this world we are immersed in satanic energy that forms the background of our every thought, and if you don’t pay attention, the tide is going to wash you away and you’ll drown. You just need to be relaxed and smart about it, that’s all. Relaxed attention, and the ability to disconnect power from any emotion or thought at will – and you find out that control is not hard, if done properly.