As I stated in Analyzing Darshanas:
Is Prabhupada’s Achinthya Bheda-Abheda what I saw? No. I did not see a God with a personality. It was me, and it mirrored me from the outside. I was part of it, and I was the whole too. That was my Darshana.
That’s unlike Prabhupada who says we are part of the whole, but we are not the whole.
Now when I teach it, I must make two points. Firstly, when you see God, you do not see him by logic, and logic won’t be enough to describe the experience. But then, if you need to convey the idea to someone, you need to find a way to describe rationally. And I have managed that after a long time of studying theology.
But my vision was primary, and theology is secondary. The vision is what propelled me to study theology. And even prior to the vision, I had explored the limits of materialist philosophy agnostically before finding difficult problems.
It was like everything was me with myself at the center. And the formation of reality was like me imposing myself onto myself.
Then it is like me, Shiva being the point aspect, and the infinite surroundings being my Shakthi. And I could talk to my Shakthi while being non-different from it.
Is this Advaitha? Yes in the sense of only me and my Maaya Shakthi being real. Is this Achinthya Bheda Abheda? Yes, in the sense of Eeshvara (the whole) imposing itself on the part.
The only difference was that none of these labels applied. No “Shiva”, “Shakthi”, “Eeshvara”, etc. It was just me, and no “Jyothish” either. I felt like I was beyond names.
The Storm.
I saw a storm that was feminine in nature. And from the storm, many creators and worlds were created. This is similar to how many Brahmaa-s are created within Maaya, who create the Loka-s. Then the storm could have been the Maaya Shakthi.
I remember, that I saw the vision of the storm after the first experience, and when after that I returned to the world when it was time. Sort of like Arjuna witnessing the Vishva Roopa of Krishna, except there was no “form” and it was my own self. What I first saw then was a vision of all forms of ethereal worlds, and I couldn’t make sense of reality. I felt like I was travelling through worlds unbound by time, and this experience lasted for a few weeks. When I tried to write it down like I do in my dream journal, I found words inadequate, and I started losing memory of it, sort of like it was trying to make me forget it. And it was shortly after that I had the vision of a storm of emotions being the only mind, which created an infinite tensor-grid of intelligent creators who created worlds with time and space.
Then though I thought the storm was the first nature of God. But now, after learning the Vedas and putting it all together, I realize the storm was Shakthi, and Shiva had to exist before it, to separate Shakthi from itself, and impose it on itself. It is Shakthi that imposes itself on to Shiva.
But in my first vision, when I was one with the Godhead, I had no gender. But in my third vision, I saw the storm, which had a feminine persona, while the creators had masculine personas.
Putting it all together
First Vision: (1) Myself surrounded by Myself. (2) Eternal. (3) Un-Imposed State*, but also Imposed. (4) The Un-Imposed State gave the Imposed State the ability to see both states at once. (5) Imposition of Myself on to Myself is how the Empirical Self was formed. (6) The Mind had all questions answered, but had not put it into words. (7) Trying to put it into words altered the state of the mind, and removed that consciousness. (8) Meditation helped, but life often got in the way. (9) The Self (Both the point and the surroundings, as both are the same) told the mind that it will always be on its side. (10) The mind being rejuvenated, denied help, and chose challenge, hoping to deal with all problems using the intellect alone. (11) Though this would be shown to be not ideal, the ego would want to handle all things by its own, and the Godhead would let it. (12) The path of intellect would always lead to trouble, and I would suffer, yet, I chose it.
*: “Imposed” here means the imposition of the material world on to the spirit. Un-Imposed means free of the material state, and Impose means with the material state.
Second Vision: (1) I saw everything I wished. (2) I saw many ethereal worlds beyond my imagination (I have aphantasia). (3) Trying to put it into words made it endless and senseless.
Third Vision: (1) Storm. (2) Storm was feminine, and was full of emotions, and all-powerful. (3) The storm created a masculine computer-architect for structure. (4) The computer-head was formless, but structured. (5) There were several computer-heads in a tensor-grid. (6) Each computer head created worlds. (7) Some worlds had worlds within them. (8) The worlds are all virtual, so they are equally virtual.
Soon after, I heard dreams by nuages, and started listening to Alan Watts meditation guides and lectures. I did not fully agree with Alan Watts, but I found meaning in his words to keep listening despite disagreeing. The Godhead promised me that it will always be on my side after all.
Aftermath:
- (1) Killing Cockroaches
- (2) Taking Bath
- (3) Getting Sunlight
- (4) Cleaning my room, (5) making it dust-free, and ensuring right (6) air-flow and (7) lighting.
- (8) Making my mind inclined towards cleaning, so much that I tried to clean the backyard and plastics.
- (9) Making me inclined to buy new clothes and accessories, and aesthetic journals.
- (10) Making me set up my own routines and rules - including playing (11) football and (12) watching the sky, especially the moon and the stars at night.
- (13) Making my mind clear like still water, so that I could see everything clearly for a long time.
- Answering my query that women are not to be looked upon lustfully - that is, unless by consent.
- Informing me that I may join clubs and freely date women, but my own nature won’t let me do so.
- (14) And later, after my dad left for Gulf, by February or so, I also started to arrange all my books.
But my father modified the house soon, making it so that (1) the airflow and (2) lighting towards my room was disrupted, (3) the spot where I would get sunlight from was covered, (4) the area where I would practice football skills was shrunk making it hard to practice, (5) the view of the sky was blocked by the new steel roof - and I protested and had him put up a transparent roof, but it was of no use and was only another waste of money as it got covered by dirt, and was not transparent enough to begin with. Further, his dismissive and insecure mindset caused me to rage at him, and (6) that messed up the clarity of my mind. Additionally, (7) he, and my mom too, undid all my efforts at cleaning the backyard by doing it their way, of dumping things at the back during the rainy season, and mixing up the categories of waste I had separated out into a small space - and dad claimed that it is their house, and cleaning would go by their will. Further, when arguments with my parents continued and I had to get bed-rest, my dad added a new window to my room to fix the sunlight and airflow from another direction, which I had not approved of, and (8) that process also put a lot of dust on my books, and (9) I had to move them out of my room. And at this time, (10) I also faced another private personal problem. This whole situation and being ill made it so that (11) I couldn’t clean my room for a long time, and it has remained that way till date, as my studies led me to more studies, and situations led me to keep studying more stuff.
So 10 out of 14 changes in my life were nullified. This was a big reason I found that fate is against a normal life for me.
Teaching My Faith
Theology is not a matter of intellect. I realized this by experience. For that reason, I say, whoever is with me will obey my laws. I am here to proclaim my covenant with God.
On homosexuality, it is permitted, but know that sensual indulgences is not the ultimate goal. This is the law of life. If someone is infuriated by these laws, one must fight them.
Fight in the cause of God. On how to fight, I do not know how, as I’ve never fought before. But I do know that God taught me to kill cockroaches the first day I had the vision. I used to never fight because I was nice, but then, I was informed later by the voice within, that I did not fight when I was attacked, but I got angry when my friends who were innocent were attacked. So I agree that those who fight the innocent must be fought, but I did not see that I myself was innocent, and let myself be attacked. In that sense, I let them attack an innocent person, and I was at fault.
The Pramaana: (1) Prathyaabhinja (This is the method for verification; that which is seen beyond the senses) (2) Prathyaksha (That which is seen through the senses) (3) Anumaana (Logical inference) (4) Shabda (Testimony)
Now, Prathyaabhinjna does not include that which is (1) seen in dreams or (2) inferred mentally by the intellect. With regards to that which is inferred mentally by the intellect, the Pramaana is literally talking about what the valid sources for making such inferences are. You cannot bypass them. About distinguishing it from dreams, when you see it, you will know it is neither a dream, nor hallucination. Because it will make it so clear to you.
If someone persists to say that it is a “hallucination”, then one can only disagree. They are only making such a claim from their materialist viewpoint which we already deny.
Once again, God is within you. God is not the material body. Only when you know God will you be free. It is like how space is within matter. But one usually is not conscious of that, and needs to be reminded.
Likewise, when you know that God is within you, the state of the matter becomes irrelevant. Further, when you are aware of God, you will take care of the matter, and the matter will be taken care of as it is necessary. Nothing more, or less.
God who is within you is not a mere conscious vapour-like spirit, it is the creator of all that is material. Because of that,
Questions and Answers
Q. About God.
God is within me, and God is beyond me. The same is true in all your cases, with the only difference being that I have that realization. It is only when God lifts the veil can you see that for yourself. But it is not necessary to see it.
Then, belief in my religion is based on trust. Now, with regards to trust, one chooses to trust when it seems helpful. Now, one should not question it simply because it can be questioned. Trust is only broken when there is some real reason to it. You may not choose to trust something, but it can come from two sources - of you simply not resonating with it, or you simply saying that it cannot be proven so it is as arbitrary as anything. The former is a valid proposition, while the latter is invalid. Just because you cannot prove that someone slapped you does not mean no one slapped you. To say that this is arbitrarily made up, is something that we deny. This is made with the awareness and permission of God.
Q. Division of the teachings.
I will make is so that prior to reading the whole text, one can read small pieces, and there would be a trajectory by which one can get acquainted with the law.
Soothra: (1) Reading Snippets of 10 at a time (2) Progressing Trajectory (3) Snippets From Different Areas (4) Snippets made from Different Sections of Areas (5) This is to have different parts filled up (like a BitTorrent transfer) (6) Even though BitTorrent transfers are helped more (in case of movies) if you download them sequentially (since you can watch each portion), the teaching is helped more if you understand different areas, still in the right way (7) This is because in holistic understanding, breadth is more important than depth.
Q. Who can amend a law? How will he maintain the quality?
Anyone can amend the law, but they need to have the qualifications. They need to have God-awareness and put in a lot of intellectual effort. They need to feel worthy in the eyes of God, and that is the real indicator.
Q. Thoughts on simplistic guides.
One can think of the C++ compiler code, the C++ standard of a specific year, a C++ guide book by its founder, a “learn it the hard way” C++ course, and a easy way C++ course.
Now, the compiler code will always be the most accurate way of learning how a binary will be generated by a specific compiler. Reading it is akin to reading the law of a specific country, or the laws of a specific jurisdiction. Though there is a general principle to law, jurisdictions will have specific nuances that require their own laws. For that reason, reading the compiler code will be (1) dense, and (2) won’t help you understand the language as it is implemented in general.
The C++ standard of a specific year will always be the most accurate way of learning how an ideal compiler should be generated.keep-writing-here
Clarification
C. About “you are God”.
Aham Brahma-Asmi does not mean your body is equal to God. Your body is material. But your soul is equivalent to God. It is “equivalent”, not “equal”.
The Jeeva-Aatma and Param-Aatma are simultaneously separate and same. Think of the Jeeva-Aatma as a portion of the piece of paper, and the Param-Aatma as the whole paper.
If creation is a drawing atop the paper (which cannot be ultimately real, because the paper alone is real, and the painting would be a temporary formation atop the paper, since the “paper” here has powers), then one portion of the paper does not account for the entire drawing. Likewise, the Jeeva-Aatma does not account for the whole paper.
Though the paper alone is real, as Advaita says, the nature of the paper is such that all portions of the paper are also separately real. Though a paper has no separations, if we mentally impose a separation on to it, then those separate portions are equally real. But the separateness is not real, and only made from within the mind, which exists within the imposed painting. But as long as you are looking from the frame of reference of the painting, these distinctions are real. There is no denying the painting, as though the painting is arbitrary, it is held in place by the powers of the paper for all eternity, and the paper is going nowhere.
C. Why I use Samskritham terms.
Soothras: (1) English has a limited set of terms - (2) Always using expanded definitions is incorrect and redundant - (3) Christians use Greek, Law uses Latin - (4) Samskritham has more nuanced words pertaining to spirituality, being from India.
C. On Marx-ism.
Though I do not deny all portions of what Marx said, and I have not read the entirety of what he said to even make such a claim, what Marx-ism is understood to be today has a lot of connotations. For example, Marx-ist forums are drenched in the red colour, to which I have an aversion, but ignoring that, still, they are highly averse to all forms of super-natural beliefs, even if they do not really pose a threat. That is, they are hard-rationalists, which is something I consider to be self-contradicting, and when you continue to hold such a belief, you fool yourself by dogma, and you become dogmatic.
So I would like to define the good portions of his teachings in my own terms.