Tag: Abstract

Posted on

Knowledge is the substitute for love

Knowledge is needed when you cannot see the thing/person, when you are not connected to the thing, when you are not ATTUNED to that thing.
So in such a state, you are essentially blind, and you’ll therefore need all kinds of memorized knowledge, facts, rigid methods and theories about the thing and use that to RELATE with the thing, which looks like a “black box” to you.
Knowledge is not required however when you can directly SEE the thing/person.
I could say, DIRECT SEEING = LOVE = DIRECT KNOWING/APPREHENSION.
For imagination sake, it is like a superior sense organ that directly sees/perceives/knows instantly.
How is this achieved? – By ATTUNEMENT.

I read a very interesting fact in psychology which now makes a lot of sense:
“The overly solicitous mother is that way to her child, PRECISELY because of her inability to LOVE/CONNECT/SEE the child which makes her resort to such a behavior as a SUBSTITUTE.”

Imagine the situation of the blind men and the elephant.
The blind men are blind from their lack of willingness to SEE (in this analogy).
So each of them explores different parts of the elephant and makes up complex theories on its structure, say.
But supposing you come along and you are in the KNOW/SEEING, then you can directly see the elephant, you can also see the blind men, you can also see their strange theories/deductions and last of all, you can also see the entire elephant and its structure instantly and clear as daylight.
That is the difference that connection/attunement/love/’direct seeing’ make.
Posted on

Stuff about ultimate reality being love sounds like BS to me

Are you universal love right now?
[What if you are feeling all terrible, diseased, sick, disconnected, scattered, lost, miserable, lonely, desperate now? Does that resemble “love” in any way?]
If your answer is no, and that love is another state of exalted existence which is what is actually real and this is partially unreal at-least compared to that, then you are giving that the higher reality status, and have already created a spectrum of:
Less real ———————————- More real
Now, you have to find another reality that transcends this spectrum, and which will send you back to the drawing board with regards to the ultimate truth.
The ultimate truth has nothing to do with a specific experience of ‘love’, by any definition that is commonly known.
If we want to call the ultimate reality as love, then the definition of love would have to be radically revised, and it should mean, Love = Ultimate reality. What could that be? Such a definition of love is as inconceivable and beyond, as ultimate reality itself.
Then why is the word ‘love’ somehow treated as more relatable, than ultimate reality? It looks equally strange/inconceivable/unimaginable.
That is with regard to all the conventional definitions of love, all of which have a connotation of FEELING pleasant/good.
It is exclusive, and not all-inclusive that the ultimate reality is.

Let me try to re-look from a deep esoteric/abstract angle:
If I ponder over it now, I think ‘love’ represents the reclaiming of wholeness in its fundamental substance that is the substrate and field for all form manifestations.
In that line of thought, “Love = Reclamation”.
The self is fundamentally what we claim to be.
So love and self are analogous. Love = Self.
So then I could also say “identification” is love.
Because what we identify with, is our self at that moment.
Then, Love = Self = Identification.
Identifying (as a verb) = the act of loving = the act of self-ing.
We could then say, the journey from “identifying with the personal” to “identifying with the universal”, is the journey of the expansion of identification, the expansion of love, to include everything as one-self.
But it goes beyond the inclusion of everything, because then we are assuming the ‘everything’ has a definite existence, when in truth, its all changing/real-unreal/flow.
So then, if ‘love’ is all inclusive, it also includes love for the process of creation (which we all readily relate to) and for the process of destruction too (which includes all the stuff we generally abhor in our culture – death, sickness, disease, weariness, tiredness etc.).
Universal love would obviously include all forms of the field. That would imply it would also include society’s most hated criminals – serial killers, brutal hate crimes, all kinds of torturers, destructive leaders and every other form of stomach churning/pain inducing manifestations.

And then another common misconception of love is that, it implys/means that you MUST/OUGHT TO serve the CONTINUITY of existence for that living being/object (in whatever form) etc.
Why should that be the case?
Then again such a love is exclusive, since it might exclude your own well-being, like say a serial killer is attacking you.
If you love the serial killer, does it imply that you just ALLOW him to kill you? OR Do you kill him as a preemptive move in order to protect others you love? OR Are you supposed to simply defend yourself by causing the least harm to both yourself and the other?
What is the correct principle or behavior?
Each principle or behavior is invariably exclusive, while love is all-inclusive.
We can know about others only through their behavior.
How can we possibly have any ideology/conception with regards to what all-inclusive love looks like, when it transcends everything?
The love could be both, a nectar that draws you towards it and exalts you or it can also like the moth being pulled towards a flame.
The commonality in both cases is the PULL force.
Then is love the pulling force? No, we can’t say that, because then it excludes the pushing force.
Can a person not push you away, because he/she loves you? (sounds plausible right)
Eventually with this reasoning we may conclude love is existence itself.
But love transcends that too, and also includes non-existence.
I cannot even say love is the movement of existence because love would allow existence to move, be-still and even non-exist, since it is all inclusive.

This inquiry was to illuminate the common notions and expectations of love we uphold, which are all only various forms of exclusion.
Even the serial killer, after all, loves his serial killing hobby (it might make you cringe to even consider that).
In the light of all that, I even question, why do people insist on using the word ‘love’ to refer to the ultimate reality? Is that even appropriate, considering all the baggage it brings at every level?
If love is all inclusive, it allows EVERYTHING, including the most ghastly things that nobody would dare even call love.
Posted on

Louder passions vs. softer passions

Whatever is done/spoken/communicated/acquired in passion – dies with the ending of the passion.
It is a passionate state of mind – and it ends quickly.
The lack of deeper passion is what we call lack of soul OR the deeper passion is subconscious and in chaos, and to escape from that chaos, a passion is created and pushed out – to create the passionate state of mind.
This is what creates the feeling of superficiality and deeper emptiness.
To give an example, Lust is passion too.
The arousal of lust is the arousal of passion.
One can become addicted to states of passion and always desperately stay passionate, because when they sink deeper into themselves, they see the chaos that actually lies underneath.
But passion is a highly limited/limiting state.
The louder the passion, the more limited it is.
Spectrum of passion:
Very soft ———————— Very loud.
The loudest passions take the most energy and are sustained for a very short period of time. They create intense purpose and also dissolute as easily and fast.
The softer passions are the more enduring ones that give a person a sense of prolonged fullness and purpose.
So if you are feeling empty in life – then you probably need to go deeper, and become more dispassionate, silence yourself more and see the softer/lighter/subtler territory you are blind to at present, because of drowning that with louder passions (arousing them to escape the deeper pain).
Passion Blinds! The louder passions drown the subtler ones.
[Like notice when lust fills you up, almost all your motivation energy is redirected]
Moving to the subtler realm of passions may feel like death, because it is sinking and letting go of all the louder passions that have hitherto driven you.
What we call the soul, might refer to this deeper realm of subtle passions/forces.
Passions = Forces, basically.
So it can also be worded as, greater forces drown the subtler forces.
[Just like loud noises drown soft ones, and just like how bright lights drown softer lights (like how we cannot see stars at daytime)]
Posted on

Entropy and Anti-Entropy, States and Stations

Having a specific meaning/story in your experience is still ‘lower entropy’ than changing meaning/story/timelines themselves.
That total shifting of everything is what is called madness.
In-fact greater the extent of shifts and discontinuities – greater the madness.
Whereas when a specific timeline/meaning is retained day after day (the same persistent story), interestingly whatever theme it may take, it is still be lower entropy.
In a sense ego(a persistent self) retaining continuity at almost all times, represents coherence and anti-entropy.
It seems like any DELTA/CHANGE would involve energy expenditure.
Like if you are in dissolution and discontinuity, then to maintain continuity would take a lot of energy.
Similarly if you are highly solid and coherent, then, trying to access ideas of totally changing realities, again will take a lot of energy for you to maintain such states.
It is like states and stations.
Station A ——-x——– Station B ——–x——– Station C ———–x——– and so on.
For a person in station A wanting to reach station C – he needs 2x free energy.
Station C is State C – for a person in station A.
Similarly a person in station C wanting to reach station A again needs 2x energy.
Station A is a State A – for person in Station C.
So the implication of this is that, it is as hard for a 5-D creature to live in our reality(congealing their vibration into a definite form) as it is for a 3-D create to have a 5-D experience (to dissolute yourself and let go enough to reach that).
The 3-D reality is a state attainment for a 5-D creature and the 5-D reality is a state attainment for a 3-D creature.
Another analogy would be of Steam -> Water -> Ice.
It takes a lot of energy to compress steam into ice, just like it takes a lot of energy to vaporize ice into steam.
So, it can very well be, the Gods in the higher dimensions would need a lot of energy to come down and live in earth, just as someone on earth needs great energy to rise to the dimension of Gods.
Which means, both represent distinct realities, and any DELTA/CHANGE OF STATE would require energy – and probably from a transcendent viewpoint, both are creative forms, and both are equally desirable (the god state and the human/animal state).
Another implication of this would be, if any change of state takes energy, then what you effortlessly are – represents 0 distance.
Trying to be anyone/anything else or in any other state would exhaust you and create another cycle of […recuperation -> expenditure/attaining -> exhaustion…]
So freedom in a counter-intuitive way, represents 0 distance, when you remain exactly as you are (If you do not do that, you exhaust that freedom energy by moving elsewhere).
If you are an animal, you stay exactly as that.
If you are a God, you stay exactly as that.
Any attempt to move away from your natural state, will enter dualistic cycles, and there will be periods of seeking/attaining recuperation/exhaustion.
Posted on

High/Low psyche energy duality

Intense psyche energy – moves experience, increases possibilities, novelty, wonder and creates anticipation, joys etc.
When the psyche energy is low – there is flatness, dullness, disenchantment, disinterest, loss of consciousness, loss of interest/passion/desire/love/focus. Such a person falls into a stupor-like state almost only driven by bare survival and when even survival is surrendered, he falls into the unknown void/blankness.
When very low on energy, the strain is on survival only, the deepest desire, attention/focus is pulled from the reserves to do the bare minimum to survive. It is a hard desperate struggling state.

The best way to illustrate this duality is – ON PSYCHEDELICS vs. the next day PSYCHEDELIC HANGOVER.
The psychedelic awakens the soul energy, that is precisely the feeling of high interest/curiosity/wonder/passion/love/joy/abundance/overflow/sparkles of energy/impressions(impressiveness).
The exact opposite happens in the hangover:
disinterest/flatness/dread/deadness/discontent/struggle/scarcity/low energy/depression/unconsciousness.
Posted on

Desire comes from lack

All desire is from lack.
Lack -> (puts out) Desire force outward to seek the lacked quality.
We repress qualities in ourselves and then seek it in others or enhance it with others.
Its as though, we vicariously live those qualities through others (the ones we denied in ourselves, that is)
This repression/denial of quality potentials is unconscious (and might be part of the whole play of existence to believe you do not possess a quality yourself and need an other to get it from).
It is part of the childhood programming, when these structures are formed.
These structures decide, what you will find in yourself and what quality you will seek in an other.
Posted on

The connection between power and resistance

The experience of power is possible only when overcoming resistance.
Power is when you push(force) against a resistant force – could be a medium/field/object etc.
So power needs resistance.
If there is no resistance, power is irrelevant.

Power also needs separation.
Power is a relational quality between 2 separate forces.
The relation of one force with another force.
Posted on

Are creative and destructive forces symmetric?

Initially, I figured that, creative and destructive forces are not symmetric.
The reasoning was that, I saw creative forces as anti-entropic, and destructive forces as entropic.
With that definition, definitely, the creative forces win over the destructive forces.
Because if the destructive forces won, we would not have anything, we would have ‘nothing’, we would not even have the ‘something’ you see all around you.
If the creative forces won, suppose, then we would have ‘everything’ and nothing would ever be lost or destroyed.
From this reasoning, it followed that, life/love is winning over death/loss, that is why all the creation(something) around you even exists.
Another way, to look at is that existence(life) wins over non-existence(death).

But then, this reasoning though it makes sense logically, I always intuitively felt something was off.
Because, by the law of duality everything is bipolar, and therefore creation and destruction would have to be symmetric.
So for a long time I was unable to reconcile the law of duality and the conclusion I had logically come to that anti-entropy is winning over entropy or creation is winning over destruction.

Today, I had this insight that gave me much more clarity and a new perspective.
The logical conclusion I had come to was based on IMAGES of “Nothing” and “Everything” – which were all abstract concepts.
But then I dropped all these images, and looked at actual experience.
I saw that all that there was, was flow/change.
(Note: Even flow/change are concepts but concepts that are closer to our experiential reality)
So imagine a flow:
(infinity)…1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6…(infinity)
From this flow perspective, there is creation and destruction at every moment.
The concept of symmetry does not even arise here, because there is only ONE SPACE in which all is happening.
So creation and destruction are simultaneous and total at each moment.
It is not half creation and half destruction.
At every moment there is simultaneous 100% (total) creation and 100% (total) destruction.
For instance, in the flow shown above, when 1 changes to 2, seen from the point of view facing 1, 1 disappears and dies, seen from the point of view facing 2, the new is born. But both happen simultaneously and are 1 event.

Later I realized, that the previous understanding was 4-D based.
I can take this even further to the 5th dimension, to the level of understanding where we can realize entire timelines are spawned and changed in the NOW.
We are the NOW(5-D), dreaming multiple timelines in the NOW.
To visualize this, it is like:
NOW … –Timeline1———Timeline2——–Timeline3— … NOW
And if I zoom into Timeline1, we would get back our 4-D spectrum:
(infinity)…1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6…(infinity)
Posted on

Noun, Pronoun -> Verb -> Adjective

I had a big shift earlier, where I started to see that there were no real Nouns/Pronouns in existence.
Rather, there were only verbs and processes everywhere.
Today, on deeper thought, I had a flash of an even greater shift from Verbs/Processes to Adjectives.
Everything now can be seen as an Adjective/Quality/Is-ness.

I can correlate it to the dimensions of Space(3-D), Time(4-D) and the Platonic world (world of platonic forms) (5-D).
Space(3-D) = Nouns, Pronouns
Time(4-D) = Verbs, Processes
Platonic(5-D) = Adjectives, Qualities, Essences, Is-nesses, Archetypes

So the Adjective/Quality is the higher dimensional essence which manifests as processes and when you take a snapshot of the process, you get nouns/pronouns.
Posted on

Desire = Focus = Drives Reality

Desire drives focus.
And your reality is what your focus on.
So Desire -> Focus -> Reality.
If at any moment you want focus, find the desire in that moment, that is your focus, and your reality will tune to that.
Also if desire vacates the regular world, society, other people and moves on to something else abstract, the focus will accordingly shift and your reality WILL VACATE the world, the world will cease.
The same rule applies to all out of body states.
It is all driven by desire.
When you desire an out of body state -> you focus on it.
The better your focus, the more that state fills your reality replacing the current reality you are in.
Your potentials for experience therefore depend on the available desires in your reality appearance.