The Great Way

“The Great Way is not difficult for those not attached to preferences. If you wish to know the truth, then hold to no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.

When the fundamental nature of things is not recognized, the mind’s essential peace is disturbed to no avail. The Way is as perfect as the vast space, where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess.

Indeed, it is due to our grasping and rejecting that we fail to see the true nature of things. Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in ideas or feelings of emptiness. Be serene and at one with things and erroneous views will disappear by themselves.”

Jianzhi Sengcan, from Xinxin Ming

The Pride of Goodness

“It is not so easy to be good. What are you but mere machines until you are free! Should you be proud because you are good? Certainly not. You are good because you cannot help it. Another is bad because he cannot help it. If you were in his position, who knows what you would have been? The woman in the street, or the thief in the jail, is the Christ that is being sacrificed so that you may be good. Such is the law of balance. All the thieves and the murderers, all the unjust, the weakest, the wickedest, the devils, they are all my Christ! I owe a worship to the God Christ and to the demon Christ! That is my doctrine, and I cannot help it.”

Swami Vivekananda, Complete Works, Vol. 2., p. 34.

What is Death?

If death of a loved one is felt as a finite loss for those left behind it is seen as an infinite gain for the departed. His death is in truth your death, the death of multiplicity and the rebirth into an eternal unity. What is apparently perceived as a loss of a loved one is our loss of his/her glance, the look in their eyes, a look that turns away from you and toward God. If the body is lost, the glance is never lost as it is only turned inwardly and reabsorbed into its immutable source in the Disinterested Onlooker, the Witness.

Thus, a man, insofar as he is identified with his consciousness, never really dies but only looks away, hither and thither, appearing as this or that. In his death and looking away you disappear from his sight more than he disappears from yours: If your thoughts of the them are with you, nothing of you is with them because their apparent death is their waking up to your absolute nothingness. For the departed soul it is you who are departed from his eternal glance, now turned away from you and looking into the void where he always dwells.

The glance is the indestructible center of the soul. If I tell you this it is because I have lived so many lives and died so many times, and all this in a timeless instant, the source of all duration but itself not a duration. This worldly life is for the soul like being buried alive, and the apparent worldly death is but the resurrection of the soul, an emerging from the mass-grave that this world is. You people who roam around as if living and willing are indeed the dead and nothing more.

Your worldly death is in truth the death of the world and worldliness of your glance. Death is the withdrawal of your celestial gaze from its captivation with this world-mirage. This worldly life of yours is but a passing deja vu. You think that when you wake up from a dream your dream characters mourn your departure!? No; no one lost anything, for you only left behind, and below, that which never was.

Your worldly death, being the death of the world, is the death of death, hence an eternal birth and breakthrough into the other side of Darkness. When I die in the world I immediately realize that there has been no world to begin with, no life; how could there be any death?! Thus, my life in the world is a living amongst the dead. What you perceive as life is death, and what you perceive as death is birth, an awakening to the nothingness of the world and creaturely existence. Ontological death, i.e. liberation from suffocating existence, is a waking up to the supra-ontological life in the permanent actuality of the Self, a Self that is infinitely like void as is infinitely unlike it. This you shall See for yourself.

Random Reflections

I have been wanting to write something in my blog but I really have nothing to say at the moment, at least the usual stuff that I say. I thought it is a good opportunity to push myself to write when there is nothing to write, that perhaps a new field may open itself up to me which is concealed by what I usually think and say. So I decide to devote this post to free-writing.

I think I have put my mind in an awkward situation: At the same time I have used the analytic part of the mind most of my life, doing only physics, mathematics, and western philosophy. On the other hand, I am inherently drawn to the synthetic language of religion and spirituality. The analytic aspect of me tends to dissolve the whole into pieces, disintegrating whatever comes in its way. The synthetic aspect longs for the shattered whole. No wonder I linger mostly in metaphysics which is the intersection of scientific thought and religious aspirations.

By science of course I mean not modern science which I see as the perversion of the intellect. We should remember that the idea of science as systematic knowledge of totality was handed down to the fathers of modern science, such as Bacon and Galileo, from Aristotle. But in the vision of Aristotle science as systematic knowledge must always contain the two complementary parts, Physics and Metaphysics. Modern science took physics and dispensed with metaphysics, the result being a collection of scattered and mentally challenged disciplines that outwardly behave as science but lack the proper metaphysical foundations. For Aristotle metaphysics is the ground of all science; he called it the First Philosophy, supreme science.

Of modern sciences I like them insofar as they explain phenomena quantitatively but disliked them for their lack of metaphysical foundations. And by modern science I really consider exact sciences; the rest such as psychology, humanities, AI, and even biology and neuroscience don’t even qualify as science; they are awfully misguided in their characters and conclusions because they adopted the methods of physics which deals with inert matter and tried to apply them to totally different kind of phenomenon, life. Their procedures is based on an unfounded assumption that life is nothing but inert matter put together in a complex structure. I cannot see how one can make this unscientific assumption and claim to produce a science out of it!

There is very sharp line between organic and inorganic systems, between life and inert matter. The whole of these pseudo-sciences is based on ignoring this impossible gap between the two kinds of phenomena. We can consider a stone, a piece of wood, water, etc. to be natural phenomena, but we cannot possible consider consciousness too in the same class, for nature and all its phenomena are given to us, and known, in and through consciousness. To say that pure material phenomena and natural processes cause the emergence of consciousness is exactly like saying that the objects in our dream cause the dream experience!

The very basic division that we so take for granted, the objective-subjective divide, is itself a moment of conscious experience. The objectivity that we so much value in science is a possibility within subjectivity. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing but subjectivity; no one can say something that lies outside experience; and even the idea of “outside experience” or “independent of experience” is itself something experienced and cognized by consciousness. Only a subject can think of a world existing independently of him/her; only consciousness can imagine its own absence.

What modern scientific thinking has done was to push everything non-material into the human mind, telling us that imaginations, inspirations, religious experiences, etc. are all in your head, that they are subjective and not in the world. And we have simply accepted this crooked judgment and as a result take our own spirits less seriously compared to the men and women of the golden age. They have created a police state and sent everyone home, into the privacy of your mind. But when science speaks of a God-less, objective world isn’t it speaking of the subjective experiences of a few who consider themselves privileged in their knowledge of what is real and what is unreal?! Isn’t a God-less, objective world itself an idea in the consciousness of those totalitarian institutions known as academia?! What they consider objective reality is really someone else’s subjective experience, the scientists.

We have been raised and educated with this hidden propaganda that the knowledge of reality is only accessible to a few with whose unquestionable verdicts we must agree or else we are superstitious and unintelligent! Their subjectivity is better than ours! Well, if we don’t get caught up in their superficial names and forms we recognize this mentality as almost always present in history: It is nothing but fascism. It has emerged in the realm of religion, race, and now in the realm of intelligence. The dogmatic scientism exercised by many such modern scientists is nothing but intellectual fascism. When you consider your own methods of inquiry and modes of knowledge as superior to others and systematically ridicule and suppress everything that smells of the slightest disagreement, then you are that recurrent fascist who always shows up in history demanding the reign of its own truth and the exclusion and execution of the truths of others.

Modern science is but an abstraction from the immediate conscious experience. To consider these abstractions as the causes of that conscious experience is a self-refutation of science because the results cannot precede the methods by which the results are obtained. Knowledge, scientific or otherwise, is essentially the content of consciousness and cannot account for the existence and form of that consciousness no more that a water in a glass can be the cause of the glass itself. I must add that here by consciousness I mean something broader that the particular human consciousness because our humanity, our mind and consciousness, our existence, etc. are things of which we are aware, and hence they too belong in the content of a more general, universal consciousness who has no personal subject; it is rather subject-less consciousness, or if you like its pure subject is The Absolute, or God. Anything of which we are aware of is always already inside consciousness: We are constantly aware of ourselves surrounded by an external world; thus, we and world with its quality of being give as something outside me are all contents of consciousness. In other words, there is nothing outside consciousness, even the idea of outside-consciousness itself being something inside consciousness.

The problem of course is not with science as such. It is the wrongful role and status that we have assigned to it. We must understand that modern science with its picture of the universe is nothing but an abstraction, however a very practical and beneficial abstraction that can in many ways improve our lives. But this science and its objects have nothing to do with the Reality in itself, reality as it first shows up in our immediate conscious experience, the reality that contains science only as one of its possibilities, a human tradition at best. Science itself is something experienced; it may explain other objects of experience but it cannot explain itself and its own origin and possibility. Modern science as one among the many other human achievements can never understand its own master, the human person, for it is itself produced and conditioned by that person. Therefore, psychology is bullshit.

Good night.

The Holy Gaze

World is a mirage in the gaze of the Onlooker.

This world! This world is nothing but the gaze trapped in the maze of its own making. What is is truth dreaming it is man seeking the truth.

The seeker must at once free the gaze that is entangled in its own fantasy, the world.

The point of this existence is to find the gaze and liberate it. The way out of this maze is to realize that we are at once the maze and the one in it.

Liberation Par Excellence, that is to realize there was no bondage in the first place.

The true seeker is not so different from a kamikaze :), for she knows that the gaze is freed only upon her death; she knows that she must die to achieve immortality.

If all this seems paradoxical it is because it is so; and what is paradox but the state of a consciousness trying to grasp the infinite gaze with a finite mind! Paradox is fitting the ocean in the pond. The gaze itself is pure and simple; paradox is only of minds and men.

The seeker who frees the gaze from the bondage of that beginningless acceptedness, that seeker is forever annihilated in all its personal aspects; what remains is neither the world nor the Onlooker but only the gaze itself.

The seeker must die before dying. It will be known only after her death that there was no death in the first place; she was never born to begin with, and in fact it will be known that she never was. It will be known only after that incomprehensible Return that there was no return at all, that we had never left our home, that the sense of separation was itself part of the mirage in the gaze.

Hence Vico’s maxim: “We can only know what we have made.”

Only upon annihilation it is known that the seeking too never really happened, that nothing ever really happens, that there is nothing to seek as there is nothing lose, that the immortal gaze of the eternal now has been forever free, dwelling in the void and immersed in absolute silence of home.

The Sole Dweller of the Void, that Inexpressible Ray that removes all bondage and ignorance in one glance, that is not a thing; it is pure gaze: It is The Holy Gaze.

The Inverted World

Dated September 26th, 2013

It has appeared to me that all things have undergone a reversal of meaning. Morality is not the only case of this reversal. Meanings of all things have been inverted. I am very much curious to know about the cause of this reversal of all meanings.

Reality has precedence and is absolute, while consciousness is antecedent and emergent. While things are the other way around, consciousness being the absolute and reality being the emergent phenomenon.

Our world is not in need of more philanthropists; our world is not in need of more human and environmental activists. Our world needs no more stitching of this dysfunctional whole with loose fibers of an old rationality. Our world needs no more UNGAs, for the cost of flushing the shit of world leaders can still feed an innumerous unfed. And our world needs no more empathy of its West for its East or of anyone else for that matter. We need no more reporters of people’s misery and misfortune; we need no more analysts and readers and pseudo-intellectuals who consume our timelines like crawling worms feeding their inverted egos.

Our world is inverted because the men and women of our age all of sudden have become concerned about the rest of the world, forgetting their own decaying minds and thoughts: An age in which the grand reversal of values, the machines for the mass production of images and profiles, made every so-called educated person into an accountant of pains and poverties of the rest of the world rather than an active agent dismissing of a time wasted on rotting chairs.

Everything of our world is inverted in its meaning; its good and evil, its better and worse, its rich and poor, and above all its thinking. The reversal of its morals shook the insight of Nietzsche; but in our world the world itself, too, is inverted. It is in such a world that our empathy is more dangerous than our apathy, for it can exceed the latter in its power of destruction. Our world is a world of speculative thinkers: But how did the rational core of true thinking transform into the erotic speculations of those who think that they think, and worst of all rationally?!

Our world is in need of a new rationality, a rationality grounded in and capable of respecting the absolute given: The human consciousness. Our world is in need of a new rationality standing on the absolute truth of human intuition, on the strict relevancy and subordination of our sciences and philosophies to the needs of human existence. Our world is in need of a new rationality which was born by that philosopher of change but hijacked by the accelerating pace of our positive sciences, by Reformation and the French revolution, by the careless polarization of the world into the West and the East.

A rationality incapable of filling the gap between the axioms of pure mathematics and the positive facts of that inverted rationality is no rationality at all. A rationality in which the world is the ground and consciousness its emergent property is no rationality at all. A rationality that can’t validate itself on its own grounds is no rationality at all.

Our world is way past the point of making possible the project of the Genealogy of Morals: Our world is in need of a genealogy of our suspicious rationality.

This world is both upside down and inside out; no wonder we cannot find our way back to the ground.

“Don’t invest in people; people are broke. Invest in yourself; you are not people.”

Truth & Madness

Dated August 21st, 2013

The question rose, in spite of my instinctual optimism, whether humanity and its civilization was essentially masochistic and self-destructive! Aside from its limitless consumption of its own limited resources, which is just a soft touch compared to what follows, I find above all most destructive the pursuit of knowledge. The destructive element here is that this whole pursuit of knowledge, starting from antiquity, is motivated by this prejudice, that certainty is essentially better and superior to uncertainty. How is this prejudice and preference justified I don’t know! What is clear is that the systematic pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and not necessarily for human practical purposes is charged with this preference for certainty over uncertainty. And such preference is sought to its highest degree such that we’re not even content to some relative or practical level of certainty; rather, truth, the real truth, ought to be that which enjoys APODICTIC certainty. The achievement of this APODICTIC certainty is the ultimate goal of any true science or philosophy if it’s to be firmly grounded in evidence. Now, the very fact that it’s a pursuit implies that the truth is not yet known; even if we have some vague idea of our orientation and methodology, we never know beforehand the exact nature of the truth we’re going to attain, for otherwise the pursuit would not be necessary at all.

Now the problem is this: We, as stubborn scientists and philosophers, are after some apodictic truth and we never know beforehand what it will turn out to be. What if, just assuming, and what if we come upon such apodictic truth and know it apodictically such that there is no way to turn away from it or to ignore it, and what if it turns out that the truth is that it’s all bullshit, that it was all from the very beginning our own constructs, intellectual traps, that really the whole world and everything in it, including the questions, truths, doubts, certainties and uncertainties, cosmos, god, and everything that can possibly exist or not exist, was put there by ourselves! Let’s just assume; we then see as truth that it was all just a carrot on a stick and we were the stick, and even our stickness was put there by ourselves. We come to see apodictically that we were nothing from the beginning but a constituting thing, which cannot itself be or become anything because it is itself the origin and condition of thingness, and we realize that our being is in fact our constantly constituting nature and nothing else; and part of what we have constituted, namely showing up as our human selves, has immersed itself in the rest of our constitutions as if we were really out there in the world!

What if we come to see and grasp all this apodictically?! There is no way of turning back; there is no way of unseeing and unlearning what we’ve seen and learnt. What if our pursuit of certain and apodictic knowledge leads to the point I just mentioned?! We don’t know if it won’t, but if it does then we’re fucked in the strictest sense of the word. Would we then rather not know anything with absolute certainty, wishing we had never initiated that masochistic and irreversible journey which consisted in undermining the certainties we had in search of those we didn’t! It’s too late now, for apodictic certainty by its nature can’t be erased or undone. Then are we ready to embrace this new species of madness and psychosis, to forget that we now know that it’s all nonsense, especially that we now know that it was all things of our own making and doing! So you insatiable mankind, beware of what you ask for, or else the real, terminal psychosis could be your next and last moment.