"Your Silence Gives Consent." – Plato
As I began to develop a non-systemic model of engineering space on a quantum level, something occurred to me... We compare the universe to a quantum system, but it is not a self-enclosed system. Although it may function similarly, we know how deeply interwoven all universes in the multiverse are. The same applies to our state system. It functions like a system, but in truth we all know that segregating plots of land into grids does not actually separate from one another. Deep down, we know that sticking an emblem onto a piece of fabric doesn't last forever. At some point, the rulership changes. It is inevitable. Yet, we go through the motions anyway. We behave as if our attachment to royalty, country or even the EU could outlast any hardship. There is only one problem with this attitude: The state is impermanent. There will come a time when governments unite under the false flag operation, which is the current template for globalisation with the added incentive of population replacement (Oops, mass migration) but it'll pass equally as fast. Nothing lasts in this world or any other, literally... However, in the transitory nature of all things is the unchanging. Its freedom is indivisible. It cannot be controlled or regulated, it is omniscient and omnipresent. Those are not characteristics embodied by the state. The state changes as it draws lines across the map. It alters its approach with every new legislation. The phenomenological essence of a state separates all it comes into contact with. It preys on those without the confidence to provide for, govern and protect themselves. In simple terms, statism is the delusional tendency to separate that which can never the separated. Regardless of the physical conflicts, we may face, the state is not a solution. In fact, it often causes the very wars, it then needlessly prolongs for years. It creates a problem and then provides a solution, when the people are too desperate to question. Profit-mongering is just a word in comparison to the massacres the state has committed for the 'greater good'.
Contrary to popular belief, democracy is inherently immoral, when it is not participatory. It implies one person has to suffer for the collective, as much as the collective suffers at the hands of the masses. We vote, because we believe we have to make our decisions together. Whether we repair a road in Piccadilly Square or invest 5 billion in foreign aid should be a collective decision. We vote, not because it is right, but since it is our money. We pay tax, therefore we have the right to know what our investments in the government finances. (Currently, terrorism. Previously, terrorism. Before that, hang on...No, still terrorism...) The last time, the world spent money, where it was meant to go was WW2 and that was a problem-solution scenario in a larger plan. If they could simply enforce their will without pretence, they would without hesitation.
In an enlightened society, there is no government. There are no mosques, temples and churches...Our world would become a global temple for the purpose of liberation. A self-realised populace marks the end of its governments, while it encourages its inhabitants to govern themselves and think freely. An enlightened civilisation has no followers, it cultivates a forwarding-thinking populace, in which every inhabitant is capable of leadership to variant degrees.
Each time we seek to establish control by taking control, we expose ourselves to corruption...Government, law enforcement and all our judicial systems are cesspools of corruption resultant from the immense potential for it in those areas. All systems, which function as safeguards in our civilised society, equally serve a political agenda. No system can serve the people selflessly as long as it betrays them by acting as a suppressive, coercive force for an elite minority.
Historically, law enforcement was tasked with peace-keeping, but whose peace? Law enforcement and judicial systems are institutions, designed to maintain order, but whose order? It is a fallacy that the taxpayer has any power over their existence, when it is funded by the highest bidders. However, let us start at the beginning...Law dates back to our early development. The oldest, existing legal codes in 'recorded' history is the Code of Ur-Nammu, dating back to ancient Sumeria. Except for capital punishment in cases of murder, aggravated as soupy and robbery, the legal system mainly demanded financial restitutions for crimes committed. For example, knocking out a tooth, cutting off a hand or nose, rape, adultery etc. Moreover, they also enforced prison sentences for kidnappers and other offences. My point is that this legal code emphasised similar values as those held in Celtic Britain. It required farmers to take responsibility for their crops. If a farmer turned the field into a wasteland, from which nothing could grow, he had to measure out "three kur of barley per iku of field". Ask yourself, when our legal systems stray from upholding higher forms of justice?
This code was succeeded by the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and then many others. Numerous legal systems later, we arrive at our current interpretation of the law and its administration, which leads us straight to its psychologically revealing qualities:
According to Lao Tzu, the more laws a society has to abide by, the greater the corruption within its walls. In my opinion, laws also serve as an indicator for the inhabitants mental state. The less laws are required, the merrier and more conscientious are the people following them. In theory, a judicial system is designed to regulate behaviour through positive as well as negative reinforcement. However, no system can be applied to a 'systematic non-system' without error. When we apply force to regulate behaviour, we often neglect to analyse the circumstances, leading to the criminal or civil offence. Crime does not simply stop there, it begins to repeat itself endlessly out of desperation. As Marin Luther King Jr. said "Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
If all is preordained by cause & effect in the present,
Then all crime is circumstantial.
It is a matter of choice and thereby collective responsibility.
It becomes an effect of a larger cause and the cause of a larger effect. While there are innumerable motivations behind committing crime, the unequal wealth distribution on a global scale is the core motivator. This does not apply to sexual, need-based offences. Desperation is seldom a wise companion. It can drive the most self-disciplined, buttoned-down people to be ground down to a point, where they lose all restraint. Given any extreme set of circumstances, there is no telling how far we might go...
Without education to cultivate an accurate perception about reality, who we are depends on the information available to us. It determines what we may do in any given situation. When manipulated, suppressed or tightly controlled, it limits the choices that we think we have. Still, in the right circumstances, anyone is capable of anything.
Our system is a reflection of ourselves and it is broken beyond repair. In fact, any attempt to repair our system is futile. The people feel abandoned. Whether we realise it or not, we are being led to the slaughter. Although we blame our reluctance to become revolutionaries on the very system, we refuse to overthrow, we often forget that the system begins with us. For the system to function more effectively, we need to be less delusional and more connected to reality. Not the artificial environment that we have created for ourselves, but actual reality: the Nature of the Cosmos.
There'll come a time for many of when, when we will need to get our hands dirty simply to survive. Until then, we are offered a rare opportunity...We can change the future of humanity, but we have to start today. Otherwise, billions will become collateral damage, after which a small minority merely rebuilds a new world order from our ashes. Before this can happen, our current situation could unfold in a myriad of ways. If we cannot fight our way from Egypt to Jerusalem as we did during the fifth Crusade, then we may bomb ourselves there while we level everything in-between. We may unleash biogenic plagues or they may be unleashed upon us. We might use directed-energy weapons or they might be used against us. What exactly will happen in the coming years is dependent on the events of the coming months, but make no mistake...War will start soon.
All that matters now is where we make our stand. It determines who shall be governed under a one world government and through what means. Remember, this is temporary. There'll always be another 'person' trying to live out fantasies of world domination, but they'll never last. We may be awakening, but every awakening first takes root in our perception, then it is conveyed through our actions. Nothing will change, unless every living being in the global community chooses to govern themselves as well as each other non-violently. Whether we should or should not have laws is immaterial. Any civilised society relies on specific guidelines to achieve a state of peaceful co-habitation. Invariably, to question what legal rules we should be abide by is much more vital as they shape our future development. What we are permitted to do matters just as much as that which we are not. Perhaps, even more so. According to Philip Richlin, the end- goal of our laws should be to maximise biopsychosocial well-being of as many as possible, which implies concern for our global ecosystem since we are dependent upon our global ecosystem.
Without free association or expression, our legal system cannot function under the scrutinising eye of political correctness. When does crime abide by social standards? Was the latest MP or economic migrant with a long history of child abuse politically correct? Did concealing these injustices do anything except increase the likelihood of more victims? Violent crime happens in the highest echelons in our societies and in its deepest, darkest corners. The sooner we realise this, the sooner we understand the nature of violence. We realise that violence does not merely affect one 'person' or ethnic minorities, it affects everyone equally. Colour, creed, gender or race makes no difference. We are all equally at risk. We are all targets of violent crime for various reasons. Perhaps our opinion is unpopular, maybe we have something others wound like to possess or it is possible we do not dress as is demanded under other totalitarian laws.
It is easier to make a species unsusceptible to brainwashing than to create an incorruptible system to govern all aspects of civilisation. Now, the sole means to be immune against coercion, even death, is self-realisation.
There are many ways, in which we may become resilient or remain unaffected by psychological conditioning, regardless of the situation. Conditioning leaves impressions on the consciousness. Therefore, we may reason, to be unsusceptible to suggestion, we have to not only be desireless, but 'unrelenting'.
Firstly, in a society centred around enslavement, free men are liabilities. So we are encouraged to delude ourselves into thinking we are free. We delude ourselves into being what we are not. Secondly, freedom means we must renounce all our selfish behaviours. Look at where the inaccurate interpretation of renunciation has taken India. When you relentlessly teach a nation to give up everything, then eventually there will be nothing left. It highlights our failure to accept knowledge and action are interdependent. To truly know, we must act accordingly. To act selflessly, we must have foreknowledge. Without action, knowledge is more than useless...It is impossible. Within space-time, you need knowledge to act and vice versa.
Back to the point, Renunciation is giving up our lower self for our highest self. Renunciation means sacrificing the accumulation of wealth for consciousness development our pursuit toward self-realisation. It does not matter; if you are prime minister or a veteran on the streets. It consist of questioning, learning and freely educating others. It means developing our internal world in the same swing as our external world. One is a mere representation of the other. It is good to meditate, but you can meditate anywhere. You can be in meditative state, engaging in almost any activity. Renunciation is simply another way of saying "Realise your true freedom, good-will and thoughtless awareness in all you do." It implies we must relinquish our selfish inclinations to establish a morally superior world from within. At the height of ethics, morals vanish. They are no longer laws, guidelines or suggestions. They are us. In a multiveral framework, stretching across elliptical space-time, all is governed by higher aspects of Self. Every thought, word and deed is just a consequence in a chain-reaction that enables our multi-faceted 'experience' and thereby our relative existence. NOTHING in relative space-time is free. Hence, if you seek to last forever, be nothing. As long as we age and die, we are not free from everything. We have not broken the reincarnation cycle nor are we enlightened. The governing principles still apply. Hence, instead of breaking the upper hand, we must reason we are a part of the upper hand, before we can realise there is no upper hand...
'Free men' are as comfortable in a crowd as they are on their own. They can handle excess sensory stimulation and complete sensory deprivation. They behave the same way during tropical heatwaves, the freezing cold or a mild summer breeze. Temperatures do not affect their choices or behaviour... Nothing does. They are as kind when they rich as when they are poor. Conditions no longer apply to them. However, a free man is no longer a man or even human. There is no such thing as a free person. A personification of anything is bound to form it has taken, as long as it identifies with it. It is rooted in the physical plane. It is consciousness solidified, while underneath it purely is...
In other words, there are no free men, just an absolutely free spirit in municipal form. All freedom comes from pure being, which in turn is solely gained through experiential understanding.
People are born, age, then die. That is what people do. Personifications are impermanent. No person is a free spirit. Their lifespan is dependent upon their life-quality (i.e. resource availability, environment, growth, expansion-rate etc.) When they are not embodiments of higher knowledge, they suffer in the absence of self-realisation. Once again, we return to biophotonic absorption. Who we are is as simple as what we are. When we become who we truly are, we transform. Meanwhile, our physical constitution realises itself cell by cell as the infinite light-body it always was. (Although the light-body theory is controversial, it is highly scientific. Perhaps, it is not what all science inevitably leads to or the entire purpose behind existence, but it is a form that endures. It is not born and reverses its ageing process, like the Immortal Jelly-Fish. It exists prior to the Big Bang. It beyond elliptical time or the coming/going in consciousness.)
Perhaps, we should clarify what it means to be free: Freedom is not as simple as equal opportunities, financial security or the right to vote. It is interweaved in every single life-choice. When we are free, we do not fight for our own freedom. We already are free now. All that is left is defend ourselves and to enable others to also gain their freedom (in their own native land). However, what if, freedom is an illusion? What if, freedom does not exist as we perceive it? When all is liberated from the shackles of rebirth, will anything have been liberated? In truth, something that is free by nature cannot lose its freedom. It cannot be conditioned into a state of co-dependency. For as long as we are bound, we are in an interdependent relationship with the world. Only when we awaken, then we have the opportunity to realise ourselves for what we truly are. Wherever we are, we are free. Whatever form we take, we are free. Freedom is not limited to the body or the mind, it transcends them upon realisation of itself. Freedom can solely be obtained through learning, deep contemplation and knowledge. As though, the idea of pain is a fading memory from a distant past, freedom does not begin and end with the physical body. Upon death (or self-realisation), pain abruptly stops. (Mentioned in detail in my doctoral dissertation, the thymus gland releases its own version of morphine to soothe the transmigration process)
We are not our bodies, but we cannot deny that we currently have one. We cannot ignore how our decisions are influenced by the 'material'. As illusory as this physical form may be, to our minds it is as real as the consciousness it appears in. When we cut our flesh, do we not bleed? When we deprive ourselves of nourishment, does our body not slowly digest itself? When we suffer the effect of something that we deem transient, how can we claim to have risen above it? Even when we operate in Theta on a semi permanent basis, we cannot. Until we take the next step in consciousness evolution, our biological requirements are a daily imperative. They are vital in our journey to self-realisation. We cannot be free with them, nor can we survive without them. We want this life to last forever, no matter how implausible this may seem. Bound to this form, we know our days are numbered.
To awaken to the boundlessly free nature of your being, you must know who you are. You cannot rely on heresay, scripture or science, you must find out for yourself! Abandon all notions of who you are. What you are cannot be put into words. You are beyond the paradoxical throws of relative existence. You are absolute in every sense. You are God, if God were more than an anthropomorphic personification of itself. Your Spirit pervades this Universe and all others. Each moment in time is you. Every point in space is YOU! Everything is you, fractured into gazillion pieces, seeking to become whole.
No matter what form you adopt or what name you go by, We are One. There is no difference between you or I. We are intimately connected. We not only share the same fate. Underneath, we are the same. Our differences are illusory. Our similarities are transitory. They are both impermanent. The essence of love is mutually reflective. Stockholm syndrome proves the fact. It does not matter how long it takes, eventually anyone can develop deep, affectionate feelings for anyone else. (For what it is worth, this has recently been illustrated by LGBT marches on behalf of economic migrants, which were disrupted on multiple occasions due to resentful, brutally violent attacks for ideological reasons: (i.e. homosexuality is a capital offence under sharia law) Even when two lifeforms do not have similar atmospheric requirements, they still share psycho- physical needs. They think, feel, love and remember. Their hearts may not be adjacent to the centre of their chests, but they do not lack the capacity for emotion. Emotion is the internal equivalence of kinaesthetic sensation. In a way, it bridges the heart and the intellectual faculties (on its path to the Medulla Oblongata). Before the third barrier breaks, the mind becomes a mere extension of the heart. It knows what the mind cannot cognate yet. We may seem to lack the understanding, but we do not. Deep down, you know right now. You know vastly more than you can think you know. You are more than you could become...
What is the "I" or "We"? What is name and form? A form by any other name or name by any other form would be just the same. A form may go by countless names, but no name can change the unique essence of that which has become this form. A name merely describes a localised set of characteristics. They may be wholesome or they may not. In name or form, we are nothing but a bundle of memories, hopes, dreams, transient longings and pain. Who we think we are changes, as our identity evolves. Yet, who we truly are is unchanging. It cannot be remembered or forgotten. It is in our field of reasoning at all times. When we hold onto to the 'I Am', we transcend the indescribable sense that we are...
It is temporary. In life, similar to our elliptical timeline, 'We are', then when we die 'We are not', then in the Astral 'We are' again. In death, time still passes, if only on a sub-domain. We still retain the sense that 'We are.' However, when elliptical time ends, the 'I Am' ceases along with it. For a while, it falls absolutely silent and there is an 'Amness'...There is nothingness. Everything is prestigious emptiness, filled to the brim with infinite potential. Non-existence does not adequately describe this state. Potential may not be perceptible or tangible, but we do not claim that it does not exist. We refer to this notion as the nothingness of being for a reason. The 'I' or 'We' cannot enter here. Yet, if we focus our attention on the "I Am" long enough, it can open doors to the immaterial...
More importantly, the "I Am" is spontaneous. It is omnipresent, while we hardly keep our minds on it. It comes and goes as long as it appears in consciousness. Everything arises and disappears through it. In fact, that is what consciousness is: a concentrated awareness (i.e. sense of being) at every point in space-time.
Hear me when I say this, the 'I Am' is not peace. Being in localised space-time cannot be equated with peace. When 'I Am', 'I Am' in all forms. Every form dwells within this sense that 'I Am', even those, which have not yet come to pass are as tangible as they would be, if they had. In the 'I Am', everything still is... Yet, as this sense that 'I Am' fades, the world disappears. In sleep, I may experience this 'I Am' through the eyes of others, but I am still 'me'. Like the 'I Am', it comes and goes. When dreams ends, before the 'I' awakens, there is a millisecond between realities. There is a split-second of inner peace, before we feel driven to think, remember, function etc. (Spoiler-Alert: the goal is to wake up in a meditative state) Whilst we transition from one state of consciousness to another, the 'I' is momentarily dormant. Between this 'I Am' and the 'I Am Not', 'That' is interweaved in both states, but it ultimately stands apart from both. At the point when consciousness ceases, its all-encompassing 'I' and its "Amness" vanishes beyond thought or recollection. 'That' does not stand supremely alone, as a self-sustaining existence, it is supreme solidarity.
Our feeling for the non-externalised, 'outside' world is not always in tune with our unique path toward liberation of the spirit. It is difficult to reconcile these two working ideas. We desire self-realisation, but we also want the universe; we want liberation without the world impinging on us, or else. When any of these incidences happen, it indicates our perception and practical experience are at a crossroads. What we do with this world, when our goals are in opposition with its existence (or our internal experiences) defines our perception. If we reject it, where do we think it will lead us? So, should we take it with us? Ultimately, something happens to it or we have to do something with it. According to Swami Krishnananda, we cannot discard the world to independently or individually reach absolute existence, nor can we take the world with us. As intriguing as this may be, this mystery has a simple solution. 'We' do not take this world anywhere. When the observer and the observed become one, they do not 'go' anywhere...
They are, where they are. They are what they always were and will be. Double consciousness is reduced to a source of singular, self-witnessing awareness, which is the one reality in itself.
During these hard times, we may ask 'How am I going to deal with people around me?' or ideally 'What is my duty towards these people around me, if at all there is a duty?' When people in our environment suffer, we cannot say that we have no duty towards them. Equally, when those around us hinder our spiritual progress or attempt to prohibit other spiritual practices through violent means, then we cannot say that we have no duty towards them. We have a responsibility to show respect and kindness toward them as much as we do toward ourselves.
"If you have no duty towards anybody, you need not even feel that they are existing at all." (Krishnananda) Although many people feel this way, they quickly change their minds at the time of death. The world and its inhabitants does not only become suffocatingly real. As though, we are stuck in the eye of a passing hurricane, its total force is yet to be unleashed upon us. In a few seconds, we are expected to process these conflicting notions as well as concurrently come to terms with sudden death. Much meditation on this subject yielded the following realisation: Our duty towards the people is the same our duty toward ourselves. Self-Realisation. In the absence of kindness, compassion or understanding, our species cannot take the next step in its development. Conversely, if events continue to unfold as they are, billions will not be able witness our awakening in this incarnation.
To achieve a state of harmonious co-habitation, we must learn to compromise on certain subjects, but stand firm on others. Once we begin to accept an oppressive regime, which aims to control us by force, we have already sacrificed our freedom for peace. Freedom leads to peace, never the other way round. We cannot expect to sacrifice our personal liberties in anticipation of peace. If we are tempted to do so, then there is a grave inaccuracy in our perception that will set us back decades. (This pursuit has taken more lives than any other. For instance, Merlin, the Aztecs, WW2, 9/11, shall I go on? The Left has always sold out every side to the enemy as a means to prevent war. They tried to sell England to Hitler.)
When our civilisation is at the cusp of a holy war, what is our duty? At first, it was to prevent its occurrence. Europe has been infiltrated. France, Germany and the Netherlands has yet to face 70-80% of its residents to turn against its democratic states. When a wave is about to sweep over your village, would you aim to run? If yes, where to? Just the Flash can outrun the disaster at this point. So, running is not an option. 'White Flight' as it was coined has never truly been a viable long-term plan. It is the equivalence of splitting to regroup for civilians in dangerous territories. We may redirect the tide at great moral cost, but it will hit. In every version of the future that I see coming, a great many people will die. If we have no duty to stop this infectious spread of religious violence, then we have duty at all and nothing could convince us otherwise...Truth be told, we cannot escape our duties. They are our fate. We do not choose them as much as our actions choose them for us. Although our perceived duties become us, we must never mistake them for who we are. We are prior to any adequate description. Still, what we think, say or do is not...
If we are free right now, enlightenment is not. We are not. Nothingness is... Per technicality, the many worlds never happened. What set them in motion never took place. To realise this, we must transcend beingness along with time as we understand it now. The all-encompassing 'I' that we are experiencing is self- centred. It is not in a way that we are familiar with. Meanwhile, it deceives us into believing that it is in every sense. But, if we absolutely concentrate on the 'I Am', it vanishes.
In the early stages of our development, it may seem as if the world disappears along with it, but if we pay closer attention...It is the many worlds in disguise. Our universe appears in consciousness. Remember, anything appearing in consciousness is equally made from consciousness. If every point in space-time is self-witnessing, then what becomes of space or time in its absence: 'I Am Not'?
Final Note: Too few comprehend what heaven is. The highest celestial abode is transpersonal. It is an experience of the deepest nothingness. So loving and blissful, we find a peace inside us that we never realised existed. It should be noted, as stated in my doctoral dissertation, there is a gigantic difference between the