Overcoming empathy

Whenever people talk about empathy, it’s always positive, as if were the single most desirable spiritual quality to have. It is seen as weakening the limiting effects of ego, or some other bullshit.

Let me tell you a true story.

I was born with extreme empathy always turned on. Today I would classify it as strong involuntary samyama, but as a child, it took me more than a decade to even guess what was going on. I simply became a different person when surrounded with different people. It’s not that I absorbed the qualities of the environment, but more than what happened inside my mind changed; its flavor, emotions, thoughts, general attitudes. My entire existence was different when I was with my grandparents compared to being with my parents. School was a nightmare. It wasn’t so much a change as destruction and negation of everything I am in the incredible deluge of chaos. Too many children, all crazy, wrecked my my mind so badly I sometimes wonder how I was able to function there at all; but it was in the 7th grade or so that I started figuring out what was going on, when my technical drawing teacher expressed doubt that the drawing that I did for homework was done by me, because it was so much better than the stuff that I did in school; she thought I had my parents do it for me. I thought to respond “But of course it’s better, I did it at home, where it’s…” and then it clicked. It’s calm, at least compared to school. There were no thoughts of others, chaotically interfering with my own like very loud hissing of white noise. At home it’s not like watching TV signal without an antenna, in an area with poor reception.

To me, empathy is not some positive spiritual quality, as it appears to be to people who talk out of their arses and who never actually experienced what it means to have no personal boundaries, to have such strong perceptions of thoughts and emotions of others that it completely overrides and erases your own, to the point of taking decades to figure out who and what you actually are.

To me, empathy is a terrible, debilitating mental illness that I have to live with. It’s like having no firewall and no antivirus on your computer, and having it constantly hacked and invaded by others, only it’s not your computer but your mind, and it’s not only invaded by those who mean to, but by everyone, all the time. It never ends, it never stops. You cry with other people’s pain and laugh at what they find funny. When you dream, your dreams are mixed with the background noise created by others. When you’re surrounded by a mass of people, you’re flooded with chaos, completely disorderly and senseless, like hundreds of people talking at once. When you’re with one person, you simply adopt his ideas, point of view, way of feeling and thinking, basically you are an empty vessel that is filled by that person’s content. You cannot effectively argue a point, because if that person isn’t receptive, your mind simply stops working. When that person explains his point of view, it becomes yours.

That’s what it feels like to have no ego and to have extreme empathy.

I was completely and utterly confused in elementary school. I didn’t know what was going on, I didn’t know that something was going on. I was just completely and utterly messed up. In the two last grades I started getting my shit together slightly, though, because I started to consciously perceive the differences in the way in which I exist when alone or with different others. Also, I started to self-medicate, so to say.

You see, this extreme sensitivity doesn’t just work for living humans. When I read a book, it recreates aspects of the author’s consciousness in me, in the exact same way the consciousness of living people overwhelms me in person, and I learned that I can drown one influence if I magnify the other. I could, for instance, read something created by a wonderfully organized mind, like Stanislaw Lem or Isaac Asimov or Frank Herbert or Arthur Clarke, and basically “format” my mind with it as I would a floppy disc, allowing it to overrun the chaos and the inferior people’s influence. I couldn’t just turn it off; it never turns off, really, but I learned that I could change the channel, so to speak, and if I chose to fill my mind with one content, I could completely suppress the unwanted noise. I must have looked like a total weirdo in high school; I intentionally adopted a contrarian attitude in order to preserve my identity; I was intentionally reading things that nobody else was reading and doing things that nobody else was doing, just to create some form of a mental boundary between self and others. Also, since I became aware of the difference between self and other influences, I began to perceive my own consciousness under the influence of others as one would perceive a movie screen with movie playing. It took me a long time to understand that I was a movie screen, but then I started to consciously “watch the movies”, so to speak, and it confirmed a hunch I had for a few years at that point, that I was fundamentally, structurally different from all the others that I have met. My own consciousness, when I managed to put it under control, and that was never easy, went deeper than theirs. When I did samyama on deep thinkers and deep ideas, I found out that my own ability was always able to stretch farther than the object on which I did samyama; it was just that I ran out of deep templates on which to focus. I found several ideas in books and several pieces of music that stretched me to my limits and then I could feel things that were so far above my physical life it drove me crazy. I could also feel the Presence, the high consciousness that was always there, always aware, but never actually communicating. Between the violent hell at home caused by my mother’s quickly progressing madness and evil, and chaotic noise and constant bullying I had to suffer at school, and a bus ride in between, and a limit I hit in my attempts to find and explore things that were beyond this darkness and evil that always tried to swallow me and destroy everything that was me as separate from them, I became a combination of distress, frustration and anger, and, unable to find any hope or a way out, I tried to kill myself.

When that failed, I was completely wrecked, because I had absolutely no hope of ever having an existence that’s worth having. I was mentally assaulted by humans and rejected by God, I was locked up in a lunatic asylum, in complete power and control by people who perceived me the way a butcher perceives a pig, and I had nowhere to go. I would have sold my soul to Satan then, had he made me an offer; it was that bad. I gradually pulled myself out by mere contempt and hatred for humans: I simply didn’t feel like allowing the beings that were such incredibly pathetic pieces of shit to defeat me.

Can you imagine what it’s like for an extreme empath to be locked up in a lunatic asylum, among crazy people in a drug-induced stupor, and you’re given psychosis-inducing drugs that limit any attempt to preserve your own identity? It’s worse than a death sentence. However, I learned to adapt. I finally succeeded at learning AT, and I became so good at it, I could re-program my liver to neutralize the drugs they gave me. Having done that, I started to recollect my faculties and replay the strong points from books and music in my head, and I regained coherence. I finished highschool from there, basically learning the entire year’s worth of material from two subjects every week and giving exams. I had to take two weeks for maths and literature respectively but that’s the way I did it. I was so incredibly good at it, I used it as leverage to get myself out, because the false narrative that my psycho parents told the psychiatrists in order to shift the blame from themselves, and onto me, crumbled. The order of magnitude of the problems I had to solve gave me the level of self-confidence I later used to solve other difficult problems, and basically limits my compassion for other people’s whining, because whatever you had, I had worse. Some people may have had one worse week than my average, but that’s it. And I learned how to solve problems, how to shield myself from others’ influence, how to keep strong focus for a long period of time under unyielding, devastating pressure. I learned how to overcome my debilitating weakness.

And that’s how I view empathy. It’s my debilitating weakness, a mental illness that I was born with and have to compensate for in order to be able to exist as a person of distinct and separate identity, will, thoughts, emotions and intent. That’s why I don’t see ego as a spiritual flaw, and empathy as a cure. I actually see it reversed, I see empathy as a spiritual flaw that threatens me with complete negation and destruction of my identity, and ego as cure for that deadly disease. I see ego-boundaries as a shield I learned how to raise in order to first identify myself as a cinema and not as a movie, then to play other movies more to my liking, and then to create my own content, of a higher order of magnitude.

When I say that I learned how to meditate in a bus, in a crowd, while interacting with others, do you have any idea what that means to me, with my inherent weakness?

That’s the cause of my crushingly strong willpower and intent. That’s the cause of my ability to touch the consciousness of others, and then change it; I learned how to turn it the other way, how to influence others instead of being influenced. It’s just a matter of power, and the level of power that I had to master in order to merely survive the shit I was buried under, is essentially unheard of. I find it silly when some “spiritual people” talk about their more-less failed attempts at controlling their own minds. And that’s supposed to be difficult? Try controlling your mind that’s constantly open to every single form of outside influence, by design, from birth, so much that you have no distinct identity, then learn to compensate and overcome, while in a position of slavery, under  others’ total physical control, under extremely harmful and invasive psychoactive drugs, without any resources at your disposal, with everything against you. I see how people envy what I am now, and they think they would like to be me, but they certainly don’t want to go through what I had to in order to become me. It’s like sausages: the result tastes good, but you don’t want to know what went in there.

Spiritual evolution

I know I’m contradictory. Somewhere I speak about attaining salvation/enlightenment as something that is easily achievable for anyone willing to actually invest proper effort, and in other places I make it sound as if enlightenment is almost unattainable.

The fact that I talk about Gods is enough to conclude that there are beings who did in fact attain a state of Godhood. I don’t think any single one of them just happened to be created that way; they all created themselves with their choices and actions. Also, most of them give off a feeling that makes me think they were once human; some feel female, some feel male. Some, however, feel like nothing you can possibly imagine, like having a sentient black hole simply be essential consciousness.

So, there’s my definition of salvation and enlightenment: if you end up as a God or a Goddess, you succeeded. I don’t care for definitions that see enlightenment as basically a lasting samadhi-state, or salvation as God not being pissed at you anymore. I’m more pragmatic, I know it when I see it. If I feel you and I think you “taste” like God having taken form, you’re enlightened. I also understand quantity and gradation. Even if you’re a God, there are often greater Gods. Even if you’re Buddha, you can find yourself in a position where someone greater needs to clean up after you. I don’t see it as some simplified single-point destination; it’s much more complex than that. I don’t see evolution as a path and God as a goal; I see God as material from which you evolve, if you evolve at all. I see it as finding new ways in which to be God.

Foundation, not addition

In the previous article I wrote about the concept that was introduced by Jesus, the narrow vs. the wide road:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Mt 7,13-14

Here’s what it’s about. The huge majority of people will say that they desire salvation. However, they aren’t willing to go much out of their way to attain it. They want to keep their old life, and add salvation to all the great things that they perceive there. That’s the wide road.

The narrow road is to perceive that there is nothing of value in your old life. All is already lost, and trying to preserve anything is insane, like someone being born a pig and trying to preserve his piglets and pigpen.

People who think they already have something of value are disinclined to invest effort into salvation, and will perceive it as a sacrifice. They will see their shackles as jewelry. The people who understand their problem will not see investment of effort into spiritual practice as time and effort taken away from their worldly life, they will see it as the singularly important thing, and everything else as time and effort lost.

Jesus actually talked about that, too:

When one of those who were reclining at the table with Him heard this, he said to Him, “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!”
Parable of the Dinner
But He said to him, “A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many; and at the dinner hour he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for everything is ready now.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first one said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of land and I need to go out and look at it; please consider me excused.’ Another one said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please consider me excused.’ Another one said, ‘I have married a wife, and for that reason I cannot come.’ And the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the head of the household became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the city and bring in here the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ And the slave said, ‘Master, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my dinner.’” Lk 14,15-24

That is the meaning of the other frequently quoted section:

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. Mt 10, 37-39

Also, that is the meaning of “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Mt 19, 24

The Zen version of that would be that in order to put something in a cup, it’s better to start with one that is empty. If one thinks he already has something of value, he will seek everything else only as an addition. Such people then obviously make half-assed attempts at spirituality, and they of course fail. You can’t organize your life so that you fuck yourself up for 16 hours and then sleep, and expect to attain high spirituality. No more can you expect to replace one of those 16 hours with some spiritual practice, as a compromise, and attain high spirituality. No, you must find a way to make the largest possible part of those 16 hours into a spiritual effort. You don’t need to quit your job and live in a cave for that to work. However, you need to have your priorities straight. Washing dishes is one of the most important tools for learning how to meditate during daily activities, and I was surprised to find out that all my students failed at that. It’s not about washing dishes, it’s about being able to occupy the body with a repetitive task that takes time and you’re not bothered by others, during which time you can meditate as deeply as you could if sitting in some asana in a cave. Part of the lesson is what the great Ram Gopal told Yogananda: if you have a room in which you can lock yourself in and be alone, there’s your Himalayan cave, there you will find the kingdom of God. Another part is that meditation can become the norm of your consciousness, rather than the exception. It’s the foundation of karma yoga: the form of yoga where you act as an expression of meditation, act by following the inner spiritual guidance. This is the highest, most demanding form of yoga, but it is also the form of yoga that is most likely to result in high spiritual achievement, because it is inherently immune to bullshit. In every other form of spirituality you can deceive both yourself and others, but in karma yoga, that doesn’t work, because reality of daily action gives a harsh feedback and if you’re doing something wrong, you will either be unable to meditate or you will be unable to work. If your actions are wrong they will snap you out of meditation, they will switch you out of inner alignment. If your meditation is crap, it will interfere with the things you have to do and you’ll do shoddy work.

However, in a realistic situation, it might be the only way for most people. It certainly was the only way for me, to the point where you can live with me 24/7 and not see me meditate, not because I don’t, but because it’s so expertly hidden in everything I do, it’s never obvious. It started with things where I had to do something repetitive and could be left alone – washing dishes, vacuum-cleaning the place, washing the car. Then I added things where I was surrounded by others, but without interaction; taking a ride in a bus, walking through the city, sitting somewhere in a crowd. Then I added intellectually demanding tasks (Object Pascal coding). Eventually, I added interaction, and it didn’t take all that long – it took me less than a year, perhaps, to make meditation the foundation of everything else that I do, instead of an addition that tries to squeeze itself into some miraculously vacant time slot, which never works. That’s the thing about the narrow path, that’s less travelled: instead of finding excuses for failing, you find ways to succeed. There are no important, static elements that can’t be rearranged or removed if necessary. It’s all a matter of priorities.

Mahayana or the wide road to hell

I have an interesting dilemma.

Let’s say you’re Superman. What is moral high ground for you, regarding mankind? Are you bound by ethical principles to help humans? Are you immoral if you simply ignore them and go your own way?

Are you immoral for ignoring ants, mice and crows? When was the last time you sacrificed your interests in order to help a hamster?

Is the analogy correct? Isn’t mankind a phenomenon of a higher order compared to those? I don’t know; maybe if you tried asking a hamster, it might tell you helping it is a praiseworthy effort. I know why you don’t bother with them. First, it’s none of your business, and second, you don’t really give a shit; they are beings of a lower order and bothering with them means to neglect your own, more important business. Sure, if it doesn’t cost you anything you might help an animal and feel great about yourself for doing it, but if you’re honest with yourself, it’s usually the farthest thing from your mind.

But why do the authors of the comic books and movies assume that the higher, more powerful beings would find helping humans supremely important; at least if they are “good” powerful beings, the superheroes. Why would a superhuman find humans interesting? When was the last time you were interested in a human who is 3 standard deviations in IQ distribution below you, and with whom you have nothing in common?

And yet, people assume someone like Jesus sacrificed his life for their salvation, because of course a Superman, a God would do that. He had nothing better to do but find a bunch of total fucktards, teach them something they were sure to misunderstand, and then get himself killed in a very painful way so that their sins would be redeemed, and pray for their forgiveness while they ridicule him.

Really? Honestly, look at yourself and tell me, do you consider yourself worthy of that? Of a God sacrificing his life for your salvation? Would you accept it at this cost? Let’s make it less abstract – let’s make it your best friend or a beloved family member. If you had to push a button and cause that person to die and you are instantly saved, would you do it? OK, let’s make it less causal. Let’s say someone killed that family member or a friend and you need only to accept that it was good and proper for that person to be sacrificed for your salvation, and you’re saved. When does this stop being monstrous? What is salvation, if not loving God so much you want to spend an eternity with him? And if the price of admission is signing off on his murder, isn’t it so contradictory as to negate itself?

Accepting such a sacrifice is morally wrong, but does offering it make any sense whatsoever?

I have serious problems with the bodhisattva concept, where someone renounces enlightenment and instead tries to help others. The entire thing looks like a trap, because there’s the assumption that the world is full of people who would immediately choose to be enlightened if only a bodhisattva stumbled along and offered to teach them. That certainly doesn’t look like the world I know. What would actually happen is that people would ask him who the fuck does he think he is, trying to impose his silly beliefs on them? Of course they know better. The first thing the world would tell a bodhisattva is that he isn’t needed and nobody really gives a damn about him. The saints seem to think that humans are in a terrible need of salvation and he has just the thing for them. However, what humans would actually think is that the saint is in a terrible need of psychiatric help. He needs to be taught that there’s no God or salvation, and he in fact isn’t anything special. In fact, he’s worse than they are.

So, basically, spiritual people live in cognitive dissonance compared to the rest of mankind. They think salvation is in high demand and short supply, and it’s therefore their sacred duty to provide supply in order to satisfy the demand. However, I will offer a different interpretation. Salvation is in great supply and short demand. Whoever wants it, gets it. I can’t remember a single person who was known for making a serious spiritual effort, who actually failed to attain enlightenment. People just don’t care to take it when offered. They simply have other priorities, and different ideas about what would be the best use of their time and efforts.

I once heard a story about Ramanuja, who for a long time wanted to receive a holy mantra from his guru. Eventually, the guru told him the mantra, but warned him not to reveal it to others because that would be a terrible disaster and he would end up in hell. The mantra had such a profound effect on Ramanuja that he decided it makes sense to reveal it to everybody, because it’s not a big deal if one person goes to hell and thousands attain liberation. When his guru found out what he did, he was furious, but when Ramanuja offered this explanation, he was supposedly amazed at his disciple’s compassion and holiness.

But let’s consider an alternative ending, the one I find more likely.

The guru finds out about Ramanuja’s action and his motive, and tells him this: “You stupid, ignorant fool. A mantra is not a hammer, so that anyone could wield it. It’s like a musical instrument, that produces wonderful things in skilled hands, but only terrible noise in unskilled hands. It’s a portal to higher levels of existence, but it’s a door that opens only if you approach it just right, with the proper attitude and motives, in the proper state of mind and emotions. If a mantra is revealed to the impure, ignorant people, they will defile it. They will ridicule it and contaminate its ability to reach the higher spheres of existence, for both them and those who witness such defilement. The mantra works only if it causes the subtle workings of mind in just the right way. That’s difficult to accomplish and easy to disrupt. That’s why it is kept secret, and why it is revealed only to the pure minds of dedicated and holy students, after training, purification and testing. It’s not kept secret because of my lack of compassion, because I would like nothing better than everyone to attain enlightenment, but that option simply isn’t available. What you did, exposed the mantra to the impure minds, and this inhibited its effect on you; you can now no longer use it to reach God. Those others who heard it without proper context and outside of proper training, created a wrong impression of the mantra and its meaning, and that will forever stand in the way of their ability to really understand it; they are forever lost for the mantra, and even if they went through the proper process, the wrong understanding would stand in the way so powerfully, the subtle effects would be impossible to achieve. Basically, you ruined them, you ruined yourself, and you ruined me, because the holy mantra, that was so closely bound with the inner workings of my mind, was exposed and defiled, and this path within my spirit is now broken. And now that you know what you did, tell me, was it really worth disobeying me because you though you knew better, and you thought you were more compassionate than me, in your bloated arrogance and egomania? You, the savior of mankind, will sacrifice yourself in order to save many, and will teach me a lesson in compassion? Isn’t it just great how it turned out, yes?”

As I said, this bodhisattva concept of teaching God a lesson in compassion, that looks exactly like Satan’s motive in creating this whole mess here, because he wanted to demonstrate some collective concept of evolution, that was supposed to be better and more compassionate than God’s concept of individual evolution and initiation of souls. The entire concept reeks of egomania and narcissism and I am incredibly wary of it.

Mahayana means the great vehicle, that can carry many to enlightenment. However, that sounds suspiciously like that wide road Jesus talked about, that leads to ruin and damnation.

Only the narrow path, and the small vehicle lead to salvation. The path isn’t narrow because of some intent to bar access – it’s simply because few choose to traverse it. The small vehicle isn’t small because it’s designed as too crowded – no, it’s small because it automatically resizes itself in order to fit all occupants. The concept that everybody would be doomed if not for your compassion, it’s just incredibly arrogant and deluded; yeah, God didn’t know how to design the Universe and he needs you to teach him. Stand in line, because Satan had this idea first.

Irrationality of truth

Truth is under no obligation to make sense. It is inherently irrational, because truth is obliged only to state the facts as they are, without distortion.

Only conclusions and interpretations of facts can be rational or not. They are rational if they follow Aristotelian logic, regardless of the truth of the premises. You can make a perfectly rational logical process that starts with the premise that all men are crocodiles, another premise that Socrates is a man, and correctly concludes that Socrates is a crocodile. Rationality, therefore, doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with truth.

Truth is also under no obligation to be elegant. The Greeks loved elegant lines of thought, and that almost always resulted in their adoption of utter falsehoods. Truth can be messy and inelegant. For instance, the beings on Earth evolved this way not because some elegant master plan of a wise divine being, but because global cooling and a big asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs, and forced the survivors to either learn to hibernate, or to migrate to warmer parts, or develop big enough brain to be able to make clothes and use fire. This entire set of circumstances is inelegant, but true. There’s no circle or a sphere or a dodecahedron underneath, just a huge mess of thermodynamics, entropy, accident and chaos.

The reason why I believe in some things that sound crazy isn’t because I think they are elegant and rational. The entire model that sees Sanat Kumar as an explanation of the mess we are in is the exact opposite of rational elegance. It is ugly and messy and based on randomness and chance and exceptions, not all-encompassing general rules that make elegant models. So, it’s neither its elegance nor rational aesthetics that make it appealing. Unfortunately, it just happens to be the best interpretation of facts and evidence that I managed to formulate. I didn’t even make it up; for the most part, I simply accepted it, because huge parts of it were already provided by Gods, saints and people gifted with particularly good spiritual vision. I actually knew about that model for a decade and a half before I stopped resisting it – I hate it that much. I prefer impersonal models. I prefer a model of gravity that simply states that mass curves space. I wouldn’t like a model that assumes existence of an evil god Tatarus under the Earth, and explains gravity by him trying to suck everything into his realm. However, the fact that I would hate that model doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t accept it if forced to do so by the facts. That I had to accept a model that ascribes huge part of all perceivable phenomena to a quite insane spiritual being who did it all out of hatred for God and out of wish to prove some crazy point, is painful. I actually tried to come up with some other interpretation of the facts, for instance to interpret the Sanat Kumar phenomenon as a very old giant tulpa created in the Earth’s astral field by some form of coherence in thinking and emotions by a very large number of humans and humanoid beings that preceded them in evolution. If this structure were to behave according to the classical tulpa model, it would be a very good explanation of the perceived reality. However, I am aware that this explanation is merely an outburst of my hatred for the inelegance of my primary model, and that I was willing to ignore a significant amount of facts and evidence just to come up with an impersonal, elegant model.

However, if we come to elegance, how is inheriting a bad powerful entity less elegant than making one gradually by means of collective spiritual pathology of mankind? If we imagine that the Sanat Kumar entity was indeed created by mankind, and that mankind perished in an ice age or a nuclear war, and he survived to make weird, irrational things later on, how would his existence and actions be perceived by our successors? Would they perceive the solution as elegant?

So, my best effort at achieving intellectual elegance only produced the same inelegance, one step removed. It’s like the panspermia theory of the beginning of life – it removes the problem of primordial soup from Earth only to displace it into the supernova remnant cloud. It is for this reason that I simply suspended my desire for rational elegance and accepted this mess as it is – filthy, disorderly and inelegant, with the only condition that it be as close to the truth as I can possibly understand it. And that, of course, is the limit of the entire problem, because the actual truth and the actual facts might be completely beyond the grasp of human cognition, and only accessible in a pure spiritual state, unbound by physical incarnation. Be it as it may, I will continue trying to comprehend it, to the best of my abilities, and without conditioning the facts with the prerequisite of rationality. After all, if platypus and blob fish exist, then any kind of weird inelegant shit is not only possible, but probable.