The presentation followed by the presentation with explanatory notes (in the lower window):
Now with explanatory notes:
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hinduism. Show all posts
Monday, January 14, 2013
Monday, February 28, 2011
On suicide: Some questions for Atheists
I am aware that this has been asked many times before. In fact I did google it and found several forums discussing the very same issues. However, no one I came across, addressed the issues comprehensively and with the seriousness it deserved.
Before I present the issues, which you probably would have guessed by now, I would like to disclose a few things about myself, just to put things in their proper perspective. Though I was born a Hindu, in the past few years I have slowly outgrown such defining labels. In any case, it doesn’t bother me whether I am called a Hindu or not since Hinduism, the way I have understood it, is not really a religion. Not being a Hindu, does not make me an atheist or an agnostic or whatever. I am just a person, that is all. A fifty year old person. I don’t belong anywhere, and there in essence lies my freedom.
Not belonging doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions and views. If it’s any consolation, my views on Nature and Reality are perhaps somewhat close to the Atheist viewpoint (as I have gleaned from various sources). I admire the atheist’s capacity for rational discourse, though I feel they often don’t take their own arguments far enough (I will explain that shortly). Like atheists, I don’t believe in a supreme being that feeds on prayers and defecate all sorts of punishments on us, “sinful” mortals. If at all there is such a being somewhere, I don’t believe it has any interest whatsoever in the affairs of the denizens of this insignificant speck of dust in this seemingly endless cosmos. Like you (the atheist), I believe in evolution, I greatly value Science and seek scientific explanations wherever possible, but I also understand its limitations. But unlike you, I don’t dismiss outright, ideas that do not sit well with mainstream Science. It is a sad trend that I often see in Science today. Something, I am sure will stifle its own growth.
Now that you have a sense of my mind, I will come to the serious problem that I see in Atheism. The crux of my disagreement with the Atheist idea lies in your belief that you cease to exist upon death. That life as we know it is just a brief journey from non-existence to non-existence (when your destination is certain and inevitable, wouldn’t you rather reach there as fast as possible, before the journey loses its appeal and tires you out?) That ultimately, each of us are in this hopelessly one-sided game of chess with Death. Sooner or later, the icy hands of Death will claim our King. So the most rational and sensible thing to do seems to be a “strategic exit”. To resign the game early, when you are playing well, because you know that you are not going to win.
If I had been the average atheist like many of you, I probably would have happily killed myself by now (which would of course make me not average). I am fifty, I am honestly really happy and contended. I have a wonderful family, fantastic health, a lovely wife and two great children, a great job, no debt. I am indeed “blessed” and this is the right time to die! Why? Well, who knows, I might get cancer or a stroke and suffer extreme pain and discomfort and be a burden to my family and then die. I just read that statistically, heart disease (1 in 6 chances), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 28) are among the most likely causes of death. Death from motor vehicle accidents (1 in 85) is also not far behind. We all know that the more you age, the greater the chances of you suffering from heart disease/cancer/stroke and then dying. Worse, what if you become disabled and need help even to kill yourself? You never know what misfortune awaits us tomorrow. On the other hand, death is no misfortune, it is an inevitability. The sooner you do it, the better. Of course, you may argue that your loved ones may suffer. They will. For a week, a month, a couple of years at the most. Then they will get over it. In any case, why should you care, since anyway they too are going to die? At this point, let me affirm that I am not in the least advocating atheists who believe in post-death-nonexistence (hereafter referred to as PDN, which I think most if not all atheists do accept as true) to kill themselves. I am merely pointing out, in my opinion, the fallacy of their belief, concluding by logical reasoning that suicide is the best strategic option such people (who believe in PDN) have.
To me, this belief in PDN, is the most self defeating idea of atheists.
Let me give a structure to this argument:
The Premise: Most, if not all, atheists believe that living things do not exist before birth and after death. That is, apart from the physical body that quickly breaks down and returns to the elements, nothing survives upon death.
The argument for suicide:
1. Suffering is a reality (yes, it is a Buddhist idea. And I maybe closest to being a Buddhist, if anything. But Buddhism itself is generally considered Atheistic). There is no denying that.
2. Death and the subsequent non-existence is an inevitability. But pain/discomfort/depression are entirely avoidable if we choose to kill ourselves when we are happy and healthy.
3. Suicide can be planned and be painless and quick. Thus it is the only guaranteed cure for suffering.
4. The more you age, the more likely you will suffer loneliness, depression, pain, disease and discomfort. You become unproductive and a burden to others and to the system. The faster you die and return to nonexistence, the less you suffer (and then die into non-existence).
5. Not that it matters, but socially, too, it is a responsible decision. It is a well known fact that the older generation is a strain on the resources of a nation. Let’s face it, the medical costs alone to keep this age group alive are a waste of public money. Before you feel disgusted with the previous statement and ask me whether I feel the same way about my aged parents, please read through till the end.
In a preemptive effort, I am putting forth below, atheist’s arguments (within quotes) against suicide and examining them for their worth:
1. “Although nonexistence surely follows death, death by itself need not be inevitable. Science might one day discover means to overcome death and disease, permitting us to live healthily forever. Therefore suicide is unnecessary.”
Let us examine this argument: Although I think it highly improbable that Science will ultimately conquer death, for a moment let us assume that scientists do find this elixir of everlasting life. That means babies are being continuously born (you can’t infringe on the right of people to have children), but people don’t ever die. I think I don’t need to tell you how this would impact global population and resources. Let us assume we do find a temporary solution by colonizing the Moon and even Mars. Then what? When the population levels reach breaking point everywhere, what do we do? Where do we go? The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years away. If we manage to build a space ship that can achieve an average velocity of at least 3 times the maximum speed of the Helios (the fastest manmade object ever), it would take this space ship more than 6,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri! And the chance of finding an Earth like planet circling the star at the right size and at the right distance with the right ingredients (Oxygen, water etc) is itself remote. Meanwhile on Earth/Moon/Mars conditions would be extremely bad. We may live forever, but we would still need food and space. It’s a strange irony that with everlasting life, Humanity is doomed!
2. “Life is too beautiful to commit suicide.”
Yes, life is “beautiful” when everything is going well. When you are healthy, you have money, you have love then life is beautiful. But when things go wrong—and they usually do—life can be a nightmare. Besides, what is beauty but a lie cobbled up by our brain. People say live to experience the wonder of life. The exhilaration of a sunset, the joyousness of seeing a baby’s smile are reason enough to live. But a scientist knows that all these experiences are merely chemical reactions in our brain. They are all transitory and ultimately have no meaning. Certainly not enough to suffer life’s unfortunate consequences.
3. “We have a responsibility to our loved ones/society/betterment of humanity. Committing suicide doesn’t sound right. It is immoral and illegal.”
When they (loved ones etc) too are going to die into nonexistence, what responsibility are we talking about? When one dies and ceases to exist, the universe, as far as he/she is concerned also ceases to exist. The atheist who believes in PDN is only fooling himself when he says he has a social/familial responsibility. He has no responsibility whatsoever. Everyone is going to die, the sun will turn into a red giant and swallow Earth one day, so what if a terrorist kills a thousand people in a neighboring city or a priest continues to sodomize his altar boys. Everything is going to be forgotten and everyone is going to die. I know I am being nihilistic, but it is true that ethics, justice and morality are only human constructs that ultimately have no meaning. Do you find any meaning in Nature? When the tsunami killed thousands, did you find any meaning in that act of nature? So the only sensible thing is to live a life that brings you the maximum pleasure (be it a hedonistic lifestyle or that of a serial killer) and end it quickly. Talking about humanist and social responsibility ultimately contradicts the belief in PDN. Thus Secular Humanism too, which tries to define itself in terms of ethics, justice and the search for truth (whatever that means) through science and reason becomes a cruel joke. Yes, suicide may be immoral or illegal, but why must you care? Once you end it all, “truth”, knowledge, morality, justice, ethics and every other excuse for cowardice ends with it.
4. “We must live to understand nature/the universe. Study science. Explore the cosmos.”
Why? When Nature that wraps around us and constantly inputs us with its visions of grandeur, is as perishable as us, why must we study it? Like I said, the universe, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist (for us), the moment we cease to exist, why must we waste our time studying it? If PDN is true, all the so called “knowledge” we gained is extinguished the moment we cease to exist.
Moreover, our study of this universe cannot be done without our brain and our sense organs. But the truth is that our senses collude with our brain in fabricating a reality that exists only within the dark and mushy environs of our brain. For instance, something so ubiquitous as the colors we see all around us in reality do not exist, but is the fabrication of our brain. So when the brain together with our senses constantly lies to us about the reality that is around us, how reliable would our “study of the universe/nature” be? What is the use of such a study, whose reliability itself is in question?
What if the Universe itself is another big lie, created by none other than You? Yes, You, the observer. The solipsistic idea that the observer alone exists is one that is impossible to disprove. The mind of the solitary observer suspended in a dimensionless (?) universe of inky blackness forever subjecting itself to a reality of its own making. Perhaps this dimensionless mind itself is the universe, trying to understand itself. To beat off the Loneliness, it deludes itself and continuously reinvents reality. It fabricates Time and this dynamic sphere of perception within which it is cocooned in. What a small and simple mind-universe, perhaps carved in shape by the Razor of Occam (;-))! If this is true, this cocoon is the greatest of all intoxicants! Maybe even Time does not really exist, the memory of the last instant may itself be an imprinted lie. So these pixelated ideas were authored by none other than you, for you to disagree and dismiss as ridiculous nonsense. But you don’t have the proof. No, you don’t.
5. “If at all anyone must commit suicide, it is the theist, since he believes that death liberates him and takes him to God. But for an atheist, he has only one chance in life and therefore must live life to the fullest and experience it till its natural end.”
In every religion, suicide is a mortal “sin”. Life, according to most religions, is the greatest gift from “God”. It is as sacrosanct as the “God” that gifted it. Ending it artificially has dire consequences to the soul after life, according to most religious texts. So the argument that suicide takes the theist back to “God” makes no sense. But for an atheist who is not bound by any “dire consequences” after death, he can indeed live life to the fullest, until he faces the risk of pain and suffering or gets tired of it. It’s pointless to risk age, disease and suffering, when the alternative solution stares you in the face.
6. “Suicide is an act of cowardice. If I commit suicide, that means I am a coward. I am not a coward, so I will not commit suicide.”
If suicide is cowardice, then bravery is foolishness. The argument is much the same as before: why must you suffer the high risk of pain, disease, disability, discomfort, depression, old age etc and then pass into nonexistence when you can do it without going through all that hassle? When there is no chance of winning the war, wouldn’t you rather raise the white flag? Suicide, as I mentioned before, is a strategic exit. I would rather be called a coward than foolish. Although atheists, I understand, are divided on the issue, I believe they are generally more supportive of the idea of Euthanasia than religionists, since they don’t believe in the sanctity of life. If they can support suicide for the terminally ill, why not support suicide for the risk of being terminally ill? Life itself is a terminal illness. How much pain is unbearable before it qualifies for Euthanasia?
7. “Human beings have innately a survival instinct. We are programmed to survive as much as possible. Committing suicide will be going against that survival instinct.”
Well, nonexistence is not “survival”. If you believe in PDN, you know you are not going to survive. So the question of survival instinct does not arise.
8. “The truth is I am scared of death. I would rather suffer all the pains of age and disease than willingly jump into that dark and unknowable hole.”
This is probably the most honest answer and hence the one that deserves most respect. Everyone is scared of death. Everyone has experienced some form of pain and suffering in their life and overcome them. But no one has come back from the dead. But if death is just a gate to nonexistence and we have indeed been nonexistent before birth, then why must we fear death? We are just going back to where we came from.
I think I have addressed most of the arguments against suicide. I welcome you to propose any other arguments against suicide that I may have missed. I will try to address them as much as I can.
Now I will attempt to explain my reasons for believing in an unborn and therefore immortal component of our selves that would survive death. I must admit I don’t have an iota of “proof” for the existence of such a thing. But I think I can theoretically explain, standing within known scientific boundaries.
Scientists have no trouble accepting ideas of multiple universes and higher dimensions. String theory suggests there could exist parallel universes alongside our own. The Many-Worlds theory also proposes such parallel universes which are unobservable. In Mathematics we have the celebrated Incompleteness Theorem, which proves that all logical systems are essentially “incomplete,” in that there are statements (that are true) within it that are unprovable staying within the boundaries of that system. In order to prove these statements it is necessary to step outside the system (thereby creating a larger system with its own unprovables) and use rules and axioms external to the system. In other words, unprovable truths, unobservable worlds that exist simultaneously with/within our own are all scientific/mathematical possibilities generally endorsed by the bulk of mainstream scientists. But the reason I am dismayed is the duplicity among these scientists (especially of the atheist cadre) when faced with concepts such as an immortal soul (I hate to use that word). Or even the concept of a God (I hate using this word even more). How easily they dismiss such ideas without examining if they can be accommodated within science! To me, it is a classic case of cognitive dissonance on the part of the atheist scientist, which they constantly accuse the theist of suffering from. Why not just accept such concepts as unprovable and move on? The agnostic position is far more sensible than the hoarse war cries of the new (and growing) breed of antitheists.
I may not believe in a “God”. But I don’t believe, not because there is no proof, but because I don’t believe in the accepted definition and attributes of such a being. For instance, I don’t believe that “God” (if at all it exists) must be “good”. It must be neither “good” nor “bad” or both equally (which probably means the same). I believe that if such a being exists, it must span all dimensions, all multiverses and all possibilities and thereby making this being essentially unprovable and unknowable. Yes, we may have no use for such an impersonal, mute, blind and apathetic “God” who does not listen to our prayers or intervenes in our lives. But if there is a scientific concept that hypothesizes the existence of a Super Universe within which all imaginable universes exist, which is both “complete (immanent) and incomplete (transcendent)” simultaneously, that Super Universe could satisfy this definition of “God”. I don’t deny that it is identical to the concept of the Acosmic and Absolute “Brahman” found in the panentheistic Vedas and Upanishads or even the Monad in Greek philosophy. The object of study of both the mystic and the scientist is ultimately and essentially this “God”/Super Universe. However there are two critical differences between the spiritual mystic and non-spiritual scientist:
(1) the mystic attributes a Consciousness to this Super Universe and calls it “God” or Brahman. The scientist does not, since there is no “proof”. The “burden of proof” takes on a whole different meaning here. It may be a shocking statement, but I think “proof” is indeed a burden that science could have been less reliant on.
(2) the mystic tries to realize this Consciousness (of the Super Universe) within him, whereas the scientist tries to understand this Super Universe. The mystic internalizes that which is also outside him, whereas the scientist externalizes that which he is also a part of. Both goals have their inherent and impossible handicaps. The scientist’s goal is doomed to failure for he can never understand this unknowable and unprovable entity. He is burdened by his methods, his tools and his intellect. All imperfect and with a very limited reach. The mystic’s position is certainly far better than the scientist’s. Mysticism begins where science can go no further. The thinking mystic, bottled in his physical body, is initially unsure whether he has achieved this realization. This sense of Equality with the Super Consciousness … the Becoming. Like the space shuttle that jettisons the rocket boosters for it to reach greater heights, the mystic must finally jettison the tools that launched him into this quest—the body, the ego, the mind. So in a sense, even the mystic’s goal is unattainable as long as he is encased in the physical world. The monistic/Advaitic (Tat Tvam Asi) approaches to realize this Absolute only provides at best a momentary simulation of this Ultimate Reality. That is perhaps as much Man can possibly attain. But this, in a way, is quite an achievement.
The closest analogy to this all-pervading Consciousness/Super Universe that is both “complete and incomplete” is the mathematical concept of zero and infinity merged into one, giving rise to the Infinite Nothingness. Zero is within all numbers (immanence) and Infinity is beyond all numbers (transcendence). Even the countless universes are merely waves of locality (that eventually cancel each other out) embedded in the boundless ocean of this Nothingness. Emptiness—the stuff of all Matter and Thought. And when the mind returns to this Emptiness, the mystic gets a glimpse of this Absolute Reality.
I believe it was Galileo who said that Mathematics was the language with which God has written the universe. Today Mathematics is the backbone on which scientists base their various theories of the universe. I think Mathematics is not just the language of "God", but it is "God"/Super Universe. But that doesn’t mean one can understand God through Mathematics. The concept of the Infinite Nothingness is the most elemental of all Mathematical concepts. Yet it is also the most unknowable. It is not a coincidence that many of the expressions involving only Infinity and Zero are of the indeterminate form, that is, the values are unknowable. Such simple mathematical expressions such as 0/0, 0 to the power of 0, 1∞, ∞ − ∞, ∞/∞, 0 × ∞, and ∞ to the power of 0 are all indeterminate. It is where this Absolute Consciousness draws an impenetrable veil. Take the case of 0/0. If you ask Mathematicians what is 0/0, some will say it is meaningless, some will get angry and say not to ask such “foolish questions”, and the wise ones will simply say they do not know, since it is indeterminate. It is neither a foolish question, nor is it meaningless. It is just indeterminate, or to be more precise, it could take on any value (0/0 means 0 can be taken out of 0 to leave 0 any number of times). But Man, in his vanity does not like to admit being stumped by an expression so elemental in its simplicity. The Ultimate Truth, perhaps, is not too complex for the mind of Man, but of such an elemental simplicity that it is impossible to comprehend.
Before I present the issues, which you probably would have guessed by now, I would like to disclose a few things about myself, just to put things in their proper perspective. Though I was born a Hindu, in the past few years I have slowly outgrown such defining labels. In any case, it doesn’t bother me whether I am called a Hindu or not since Hinduism, the way I have understood it, is not really a religion. Not being a Hindu, does not make me an atheist or an agnostic or whatever. I am just a person, that is all. A fifty year old person. I don’t belong anywhere, and there in essence lies my freedom.
Not belonging doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions and views. If it’s any consolation, my views on Nature and Reality are perhaps somewhat close to the Atheist viewpoint (as I have gleaned from various sources). I admire the atheist’s capacity for rational discourse, though I feel they often don’t take their own arguments far enough (I will explain that shortly). Like atheists, I don’t believe in a supreme being that feeds on prayers and defecate all sorts of punishments on us, “sinful” mortals. If at all there is such a being somewhere, I don’t believe it has any interest whatsoever in the affairs of the denizens of this insignificant speck of dust in this seemingly endless cosmos. Like you (the atheist), I believe in evolution, I greatly value Science and seek scientific explanations wherever possible, but I also understand its limitations. But unlike you, I don’t dismiss outright, ideas that do not sit well with mainstream Science. It is a sad trend that I often see in Science today. Something, I am sure will stifle its own growth.
Now that you have a sense of my mind, I will come to the serious problem that I see in Atheism. The crux of my disagreement with the Atheist idea lies in your belief that you cease to exist upon death. That life as we know it is just a brief journey from non-existence to non-existence (when your destination is certain and inevitable, wouldn’t you rather reach there as fast as possible, before the journey loses its appeal and tires you out?) That ultimately, each of us are in this hopelessly one-sided game of chess with Death. Sooner or later, the icy hands of Death will claim our King. So the most rational and sensible thing to do seems to be a “strategic exit”. To resign the game early, when you are playing well, because you know that you are not going to win.
If I had been the average atheist like many of you, I probably would have happily killed myself by now (which would of course make me not average). I am fifty, I am honestly really happy and contended. I have a wonderful family, fantastic health, a lovely wife and two great children, a great job, no debt. I am indeed “blessed” and this is the right time to die! Why? Well, who knows, I might get cancer or a stroke and suffer extreme pain and discomfort and be a burden to my family and then die. I just read that statistically, heart disease (1 in 6 chances), cancer (1 in 7) and stroke (1 in 28) are among the most likely causes of death. Death from motor vehicle accidents (1 in 85) is also not far behind. We all know that the more you age, the greater the chances of you suffering from heart disease/cancer/stroke and then dying. Worse, what if you become disabled and need help even to kill yourself? You never know what misfortune awaits us tomorrow. On the other hand, death is no misfortune, it is an inevitability. The sooner you do it, the better. Of course, you may argue that your loved ones may suffer. They will. For a week, a month, a couple of years at the most. Then they will get over it. In any case, why should you care, since anyway they too are going to die? At this point, let me affirm that I am not in the least advocating atheists who believe in post-death-nonexistence (hereafter referred to as PDN, which I think most if not all atheists do accept as true) to kill themselves. I am merely pointing out, in my opinion, the fallacy of their belief, concluding by logical reasoning that suicide is the best strategic option such people (who believe in PDN) have.
To me, this belief in PDN, is the most self defeating idea of atheists.
Let me give a structure to this argument:
The Premise: Most, if not all, atheists believe that living things do not exist before birth and after death. That is, apart from the physical body that quickly breaks down and returns to the elements, nothing survives upon death.
The argument for suicide:
1. Suffering is a reality (yes, it is a Buddhist idea. And I maybe closest to being a Buddhist, if anything. But Buddhism itself is generally considered Atheistic). There is no denying that.
2. Death and the subsequent non-existence is an inevitability. But pain/discomfort/depression are entirely avoidable if we choose to kill ourselves when we are happy and healthy.
3. Suicide can be planned and be painless and quick. Thus it is the only guaranteed cure for suffering.
4. The more you age, the more likely you will suffer loneliness, depression, pain, disease and discomfort. You become unproductive and a burden to others and to the system. The faster you die and return to nonexistence, the less you suffer (and then die into non-existence).
5. Not that it matters, but socially, too, it is a responsible decision. It is a well known fact that the older generation is a strain on the resources of a nation. Let’s face it, the medical costs alone to keep this age group alive are a waste of public money. Before you feel disgusted with the previous statement and ask me whether I feel the same way about my aged parents, please read through till the end.
In a preemptive effort, I am putting forth below, atheist’s arguments (within quotes) against suicide and examining them for their worth:
1. “Although nonexistence surely follows death, death by itself need not be inevitable. Science might one day discover means to overcome death and disease, permitting us to live healthily forever. Therefore suicide is unnecessary.”
Let us examine this argument: Although I think it highly improbable that Science will ultimately conquer death, for a moment let us assume that scientists do find this elixir of everlasting life. That means babies are being continuously born (you can’t infringe on the right of people to have children), but people don’t ever die. I think I don’t need to tell you how this would impact global population and resources. Let us assume we do find a temporary solution by colonizing the Moon and even Mars. Then what? When the population levels reach breaking point everywhere, what do we do? Where do we go? The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years away. If we manage to build a space ship that can achieve an average velocity of at least 3 times the maximum speed of the Helios (the fastest manmade object ever), it would take this space ship more than 6,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri! And the chance of finding an Earth like planet circling the star at the right size and at the right distance with the right ingredients (Oxygen, water etc) is itself remote. Meanwhile on Earth/Moon/Mars conditions would be extremely bad. We may live forever, but we would still need food and space. It’s a strange irony that with everlasting life, Humanity is doomed!
2. “Life is too beautiful to commit suicide.”
Yes, life is “beautiful” when everything is going well. When you are healthy, you have money, you have love then life is beautiful. But when things go wrong—and they usually do—life can be a nightmare. Besides, what is beauty but a lie cobbled up by our brain. People say live to experience the wonder of life. The exhilaration of a sunset, the joyousness of seeing a baby’s smile are reason enough to live. But a scientist knows that all these experiences are merely chemical reactions in our brain. They are all transitory and ultimately have no meaning. Certainly not enough to suffer life’s unfortunate consequences.
3. “We have a responsibility to our loved ones/society/betterment of humanity. Committing suicide doesn’t sound right. It is immoral and illegal.”
When they (loved ones etc) too are going to die into nonexistence, what responsibility are we talking about? When one dies and ceases to exist, the universe, as far as he/she is concerned also ceases to exist. The atheist who believes in PDN is only fooling himself when he says he has a social/familial responsibility. He has no responsibility whatsoever. Everyone is going to die, the sun will turn into a red giant and swallow Earth one day, so what if a terrorist kills a thousand people in a neighboring city or a priest continues to sodomize his altar boys. Everything is going to be forgotten and everyone is going to die. I know I am being nihilistic, but it is true that ethics, justice and morality are only human constructs that ultimately have no meaning. Do you find any meaning in Nature? When the tsunami killed thousands, did you find any meaning in that act of nature? So the only sensible thing is to live a life that brings you the maximum pleasure (be it a hedonistic lifestyle or that of a serial killer) and end it quickly. Talking about humanist and social responsibility ultimately contradicts the belief in PDN. Thus Secular Humanism too, which tries to define itself in terms of ethics, justice and the search for truth (whatever that means) through science and reason becomes a cruel joke. Yes, suicide may be immoral or illegal, but why must you care? Once you end it all, “truth”, knowledge, morality, justice, ethics and every other excuse for cowardice ends with it.
4. “We must live to understand nature/the universe. Study science. Explore the cosmos.”
Why? When Nature that wraps around us and constantly inputs us with its visions of grandeur, is as perishable as us, why must we study it? Like I said, the universe, for all intents and purposes, ceases to exist (for us), the moment we cease to exist, why must we waste our time studying it? If PDN is true, all the so called “knowledge” we gained is extinguished the moment we cease to exist.
Moreover, our study of this universe cannot be done without our brain and our sense organs. But the truth is that our senses collude with our brain in fabricating a reality that exists only within the dark and mushy environs of our brain. For instance, something so ubiquitous as the colors we see all around us in reality do not exist, but is the fabrication of our brain. So when the brain together with our senses constantly lies to us about the reality that is around us, how reliable would our “study of the universe/nature” be? What is the use of such a study, whose reliability itself is in question?
What if the Universe itself is another big lie, created by none other than You? Yes, You, the observer. The solipsistic idea that the observer alone exists is one that is impossible to disprove. The mind of the solitary observer suspended in a dimensionless (?) universe of inky blackness forever subjecting itself to a reality of its own making. Perhaps this dimensionless mind itself is the universe, trying to understand itself. To beat off the Loneliness, it deludes itself and continuously reinvents reality. It fabricates Time and this dynamic sphere of perception within which it is cocooned in. What a small and simple mind-universe, perhaps carved in shape by the Razor of Occam (;-))! If this is true, this cocoon is the greatest of all intoxicants! Maybe even Time does not really exist, the memory of the last instant may itself be an imprinted lie. So these pixelated ideas were authored by none other than you, for you to disagree and dismiss as ridiculous nonsense. But you don’t have the proof. No, you don’t.
5. “If at all anyone must commit suicide, it is the theist, since he believes that death liberates him and takes him to God. But for an atheist, he has only one chance in life and therefore must live life to the fullest and experience it till its natural end.”
In every religion, suicide is a mortal “sin”. Life, according to most religions, is the greatest gift from “God”. It is as sacrosanct as the “God” that gifted it. Ending it artificially has dire consequences to the soul after life, according to most religious texts. So the argument that suicide takes the theist back to “God” makes no sense. But for an atheist who is not bound by any “dire consequences” after death, he can indeed live life to the fullest, until he faces the risk of pain and suffering or gets tired of it. It’s pointless to risk age, disease and suffering, when the alternative solution stares you in the face.
6. “Suicide is an act of cowardice. If I commit suicide, that means I am a coward. I am not a coward, so I will not commit suicide.”
If suicide is cowardice, then bravery is foolishness. The argument is much the same as before: why must you suffer the high risk of pain, disease, disability, discomfort, depression, old age etc and then pass into nonexistence when you can do it without going through all that hassle? When there is no chance of winning the war, wouldn’t you rather raise the white flag? Suicide, as I mentioned before, is a strategic exit. I would rather be called a coward than foolish. Although atheists, I understand, are divided on the issue, I believe they are generally more supportive of the idea of Euthanasia than religionists, since they don’t believe in the sanctity of life. If they can support suicide for the terminally ill, why not support suicide for the risk of being terminally ill? Life itself is a terminal illness. How much pain is unbearable before it qualifies for Euthanasia?
7. “Human beings have innately a survival instinct. We are programmed to survive as much as possible. Committing suicide will be going against that survival instinct.”
Well, nonexistence is not “survival”. If you believe in PDN, you know you are not going to survive. So the question of survival instinct does not arise.
8. “The truth is I am scared of death. I would rather suffer all the pains of age and disease than willingly jump into that dark and unknowable hole.”
This is probably the most honest answer and hence the one that deserves most respect. Everyone is scared of death. Everyone has experienced some form of pain and suffering in their life and overcome them. But no one has come back from the dead. But if death is just a gate to nonexistence and we have indeed been nonexistent before birth, then why must we fear death? We are just going back to where we came from.
I think I have addressed most of the arguments against suicide. I welcome you to propose any other arguments against suicide that I may have missed. I will try to address them as much as I can.
Now I will attempt to explain my reasons for believing in an unborn and therefore immortal component of our selves that would survive death. I must admit I don’t have an iota of “proof” for the existence of such a thing. But I think I can theoretically explain, standing within known scientific boundaries.
Scientists have no trouble accepting ideas of multiple universes and higher dimensions. String theory suggests there could exist parallel universes alongside our own. The Many-Worlds theory also proposes such parallel universes which are unobservable. In Mathematics we have the celebrated Incompleteness Theorem, which proves that all logical systems are essentially “incomplete,” in that there are statements (that are true) within it that are unprovable staying within the boundaries of that system. In order to prove these statements it is necessary to step outside the system (thereby creating a larger system with its own unprovables) and use rules and axioms external to the system. In other words, unprovable truths, unobservable worlds that exist simultaneously with/within our own are all scientific/mathematical possibilities generally endorsed by the bulk of mainstream scientists. But the reason I am dismayed is the duplicity among these scientists (especially of the atheist cadre) when faced with concepts such as an immortal soul (I hate to use that word). Or even the concept of a God (I hate using this word even more). How easily they dismiss such ideas without examining if they can be accommodated within science! To me, it is a classic case of cognitive dissonance on the part of the atheist scientist, which they constantly accuse the theist of suffering from. Why not just accept such concepts as unprovable and move on? The agnostic position is far more sensible than the hoarse war cries of the new (and growing) breed of antitheists.
I may not believe in a “God”. But I don’t believe, not because there is no proof, but because I don’t believe in the accepted definition and attributes of such a being. For instance, I don’t believe that “God” (if at all it exists) must be “good”. It must be neither “good” nor “bad” or both equally (which probably means the same). I believe that if such a being exists, it must span all dimensions, all multiverses and all possibilities and thereby making this being essentially unprovable and unknowable. Yes, we may have no use for such an impersonal, mute, blind and apathetic “God” who does not listen to our prayers or intervenes in our lives. But if there is a scientific concept that hypothesizes the existence of a Super Universe within which all imaginable universes exist, which is both “complete (immanent) and incomplete (transcendent)” simultaneously, that Super Universe could satisfy this definition of “God”. I don’t deny that it is identical to the concept of the Acosmic and Absolute “Brahman” found in the panentheistic Vedas and Upanishads or even the Monad in Greek philosophy. The object of study of both the mystic and the scientist is ultimately and essentially this “God”/Super Universe. However there are two critical differences between the spiritual mystic and non-spiritual scientist:
(1) the mystic attributes a Consciousness to this Super Universe and calls it “God” or Brahman. The scientist does not, since there is no “proof”. The “burden of proof” takes on a whole different meaning here. It may be a shocking statement, but I think “proof” is indeed a burden that science could have been less reliant on.
(2) the mystic tries to realize this Consciousness (of the Super Universe) within him, whereas the scientist tries to understand this Super Universe. The mystic internalizes that which is also outside him, whereas the scientist externalizes that which he is also a part of. Both goals have their inherent and impossible handicaps. The scientist’s goal is doomed to failure for he can never understand this unknowable and unprovable entity. He is burdened by his methods, his tools and his intellect. All imperfect and with a very limited reach. The mystic’s position is certainly far better than the scientist’s. Mysticism begins where science can go no further. The thinking mystic, bottled in his physical body, is initially unsure whether he has achieved this realization. This sense of Equality with the Super Consciousness … the Becoming. Like the space shuttle that jettisons the rocket boosters for it to reach greater heights, the mystic must finally jettison the tools that launched him into this quest—the body, the ego, the mind. So in a sense, even the mystic’s goal is unattainable as long as he is encased in the physical world. The monistic/Advaitic (Tat Tvam Asi) approaches to realize this Absolute only provides at best a momentary simulation of this Ultimate Reality. That is perhaps as much Man can possibly attain. But this, in a way, is quite an achievement.
The closest analogy to this all-pervading Consciousness/Super Universe that is both “complete and incomplete” is the mathematical concept of zero and infinity merged into one, giving rise to the Infinite Nothingness. Zero is within all numbers (immanence) and Infinity is beyond all numbers (transcendence). Even the countless universes are merely waves of locality (that eventually cancel each other out) embedded in the boundless ocean of this Nothingness. Emptiness—the stuff of all Matter and Thought. And when the mind returns to this Emptiness, the mystic gets a glimpse of this Absolute Reality.
I believe it was Galileo who said that Mathematics was the language with which God has written the universe. Today Mathematics is the backbone on which scientists base their various theories of the universe. I think Mathematics is not just the language of "God", but it is "God"/Super Universe. But that doesn’t mean one can understand God through Mathematics. The concept of the Infinite Nothingness is the most elemental of all Mathematical concepts. Yet it is also the most unknowable. It is not a coincidence that many of the expressions involving only Infinity and Zero are of the indeterminate form, that is, the values are unknowable. Such simple mathematical expressions such as 0/0, 0 to the power of 0, 1∞, ∞ − ∞, ∞/∞, 0 × ∞, and ∞ to the power of 0 are all indeterminate. It is where this Absolute Consciousness draws an impenetrable veil. Take the case of 0/0. If you ask Mathematicians what is 0/0, some will say it is meaningless, some will get angry and say not to ask such “foolish questions”, and the wise ones will simply say they do not know, since it is indeterminate. It is neither a foolish question, nor is it meaningless. It is just indeterminate, or to be more precise, it could take on any value (0/0 means 0 can be taken out of 0 to leave 0 any number of times). But Man, in his vanity does not like to admit being stumped by an expression so elemental in its simplicity. The Ultimate Truth, perhaps, is not too complex for the mind of Man, but of such an elemental simplicity that it is impossible to comprehend.
It is interesting to note that such indeterminacy is not just prevalent in the abstract world of Mathematics, but also at the very fundamental levels of physical reality, such as Quantum Indeterminacy. I am not going into this at length since a google search can provide you any amount of detail.
Sorry for this unnecessary digression that perhaps revealed my “unpalatable” beliefs. Call me a Hindu Atheist (no, it is not an oxymoron; Atheism is a very valid school of thought within the diverse philosophies that come under the vast umbrella of what is commonly understood as Hinduism) or whatever. The Sankhya school of thought, to which I have a particular affinity, is intrinsically atheistic. Unlike in the west, the lines between Atheism and Theism is very fuzzy among eastern philosophies. And it probably does not adhere strictly to the western connotations of these words. Thus Hindu Atheism is only an approximation of an idea that is, to me, far more liberating than its western equivalents such as Secular Humanism. I will let that comment beg questions and return to the topic…
Now, back to the main issues. The question of this undying component of our selves is also similar. In order for it to be unobservable, it could be of a higher dimension than our own spatially three dimensional plane of existence (I am excluding the dimension of time—even if it is another aspect of space — for convenience). The three dimensional “footprint” of this four (say) dimensional entity within us could be too minute to be observed. Our minds, which we are aware of, could be an aspect of this immortal consciousness. For instance, it is synonymous to flatlander people in a two dimensional universe possessing three dimensional consciousness. If the flatlander’s two dimensional universe is finite but unbounded, it would perhaps resemble the surface of a sphere. By extension, our own three dimensional universe, if finite and unbounded, would perhaps be the 3 dimensional skin of a four dimensional universe, which in turn could be wrapping around a five dimensional universe… Who knows?
Thus we ourselves are “incomplete” systems in this perceivable three dimensional world since aspects of us lie in parallel worlds of higher dimensions. Who knows, our 3d bodies could be the souls of flatlanders and our souls could be the bodies of beings in a 4d universe and their souls… Of course, this all just wild theory, I have no “proof” whatsoever, since in any case, it is unprovable.
The important thing is the belief in an immortal aspect of our selves completely changes the bleak landscape PDN had created. Though it does not necessarily proscribe suicide, it gives more meaning to life or, to be more precise, the “experience” in life. Experience no longer is “just a chemical reaction in our brain”, since it has a non-physical component. Thus barring the lone “experience of suicide” (suicide becomes counter-experience, since it ends life, the only vehicle of experiences) all experiences are priceless and equal. Every single experience in every single world (of various dimensions) becomes the currency of this immortal self, or soul (for want of a better word). The source of its richness and the cure of its Boredom. Thus, in a sense, every experience (and the associated action/inaction) is equally valuable, be it causing/ordering/witnessing a mass genocide or the slight discomfort of a blocked nose. On death, this soul takes back only these imprinted experiences to be born again, perhaps in a different universe of a different dimension, or even in the same household. It must be born again, since experiences are themselves an overwhelming addiction. The more it experiences, the more it wants to experience. Complete imprinted experiences on the skin of this immortal self as complete encoded information on the boundaries of a holographic universe. Though a matter of speculation, it makes sense to assume that the nature of these imprinted experiences determine the world of the soul’s next manifestation. Especially since that is the only thing it gains from life. Yes, call it Karma, or whatever, but it seems to have an intrinsic sense of justice to it. Although it appears as a just law, I personally don’t want to believe in an outerworld that has laws. There are no laws. Not even one. And Karma is not a law at all. It is just the product of a Desire. The soul wants to try out everything! It is like a child in a fairground. It wants to try out ALL the rides! High up in the Ferris wheel, it spies the neighboring Rollercoaster and see the people in it screaming their heads off. The moment it comes out, it heads straight to the Rollercoaster! Unlike the child, who is prone to accidents, the soul knows that it cannot be harmed by any physical body that it momentarily possesses. In one life it may occupy the body of a serial killer. It watches the intense pain of his victims and is dying (no pun intended) to experience it. Although this appears to display a fallacy of sequence, when you consider the Many-Worlds model of the universe, this problem is resolved. In a sense it is the lone Electron in the One-Electron Universe. Moving through Time and Space in order to experience Everything! Yes, in a sense, there is only a single Soul. Call it the Vedantic Atman (it is interesting to note how Atman and Atom share common syllables although the latter’s etymology is understood to be Greek) or whatever. Thus Feynman’s One-Electron Universe appears to be a striking analogy of the Atman-Brahman unity. In Atman/Brahman too we see the same complete/incomplete, immanent/transcendent, zero/infinity duality. And if we marry this One-Soul universe with the solipsistic idea explained earlier we get a reality composed of multi bubbles of perception in a sea of Infinite Nothingness. Each bubble representing the boundary of perception around every being (which in essence is a single soul), in this and every other universe. So the Moon may not be there when no one is looking at it! But whether the Moon is there or not, the most important consequence of this is One is All. Or in other words:
We. Are. All. One. And. The. Same.
Of course, it is not my idea. To those of you who are not familiar: this is a very ancient idea. The significance of the One-Soul idea is the meaning it gives to Love. In the commerce of experience, it is good to give and receive something that is pleasant. And Love fits the bill perfectly as a pleasant commodity. Also Service and Compassion and other such things. Because the Giver and Receiver are one and the same. Thus when you love someone, you are only loving yourself. It is indeed a valid idea and a “humane” interpretation. But ultimately, there is no good or evil in this world. There are only events and experiences. The person who knows this may also experience disease, pain, suffering and old age. But he is not moved by them for they are merely shades of color on a movie screen. Only experiences — silver coins in the sac of his soul. So he lives his life according to his nature that is Simplicity. He attains the ability to mutely observe all the vicissitudes that his body experiences. Suffering and pleasure becomes equal to the spectator that he has become. Thus this idea of a deathless soul does not contravene an atheist/agnostic viewpoint but only enriches it.
Sorry for this unnecessary digression that perhaps revealed my “unpalatable” beliefs. Call me a Hindu Atheist (no, it is not an oxymoron; Atheism is a very valid school of thought within the diverse philosophies that come under the vast umbrella of what is commonly understood as Hinduism) or whatever. The Sankhya school of thought, to which I have a particular affinity, is intrinsically atheistic. Unlike in the west, the lines between Atheism and Theism is very fuzzy among eastern philosophies. And it probably does not adhere strictly to the western connotations of these words. Thus Hindu Atheism is only an approximation of an idea that is, to me, far more liberating than its western equivalents such as Secular Humanism. I will let that comment beg questions and return to the topic…
Now, back to the main issues. The question of this undying component of our selves is also similar. In order for it to be unobservable, it could be of a higher dimension than our own spatially three dimensional plane of existence (I am excluding the dimension of time—even if it is another aspect of space — for convenience). The three dimensional “footprint” of this four (say) dimensional entity within us could be too minute to be observed. Our minds, which we are aware of, could be an aspect of this immortal consciousness. For instance, it is synonymous to flatlander people in a two dimensional universe possessing three dimensional consciousness. If the flatlander’s two dimensional universe is finite but unbounded, it would perhaps resemble the surface of a sphere. By extension, our own three dimensional universe, if finite and unbounded, would perhaps be the 3 dimensional skin of a four dimensional universe, which in turn could be wrapping around a five dimensional universe… Who knows?
Thus we ourselves are “incomplete” systems in this perceivable three dimensional world since aspects of us lie in parallel worlds of higher dimensions. Who knows, our 3d bodies could be the souls of flatlanders and our souls could be the bodies of beings in a 4d universe and their souls… Of course, this all just wild theory, I have no “proof” whatsoever, since in any case, it is unprovable.
The important thing is the belief in an immortal aspect of our selves completely changes the bleak landscape PDN had created. Though it does not necessarily proscribe suicide, it gives more meaning to life or, to be more precise, the “experience” in life. Experience no longer is “just a chemical reaction in our brain”, since it has a non-physical component. Thus barring the lone “experience of suicide” (suicide becomes counter-experience, since it ends life, the only vehicle of experiences) all experiences are priceless and equal. Every single experience in every single world (of various dimensions) becomes the currency of this immortal self, or soul (for want of a better word). The source of its richness and the cure of its Boredom. Thus, in a sense, every experience (and the associated action/inaction) is equally valuable, be it causing/ordering/witnessing a mass genocide or the slight discomfort of a blocked nose. On death, this soul takes back only these imprinted experiences to be born again, perhaps in a different universe of a different dimension, or even in the same household. It must be born again, since experiences are themselves an overwhelming addiction. The more it experiences, the more it wants to experience. Complete imprinted experiences on the skin of this immortal self as complete encoded information on the boundaries of a holographic universe. Though a matter of speculation, it makes sense to assume that the nature of these imprinted experiences determine the world of the soul’s next manifestation. Especially since that is the only thing it gains from life. Yes, call it Karma, or whatever, but it seems to have an intrinsic sense of justice to it. Although it appears as a just law, I personally don’t want to believe in an outerworld that has laws. There are no laws. Not even one. And Karma is not a law at all. It is just the product of a Desire. The soul wants to try out everything! It is like a child in a fairground. It wants to try out ALL the rides! High up in the Ferris wheel, it spies the neighboring Rollercoaster and see the people in it screaming their heads off. The moment it comes out, it heads straight to the Rollercoaster! Unlike the child, who is prone to accidents, the soul knows that it cannot be harmed by any physical body that it momentarily possesses. In one life it may occupy the body of a serial killer. It watches the intense pain of his victims and is dying (no pun intended) to experience it. Although this appears to display a fallacy of sequence, when you consider the Many-Worlds model of the universe, this problem is resolved. In a sense it is the lone Electron in the One-Electron Universe. Moving through Time and Space in order to experience Everything! Yes, in a sense, there is only a single Soul. Call it the Vedantic Atman (it is interesting to note how Atman and Atom share common syllables although the latter’s etymology is understood to be Greek) or whatever. Thus Feynman’s One-Electron Universe appears to be a striking analogy of the Atman-Brahman unity. In Atman/Brahman too we see the same complete/incomplete, immanent/transcendent, zero/infinity duality. And if we marry this One-Soul universe with the solipsistic idea explained earlier we get a reality composed of multi bubbles of perception in a sea of Infinite Nothingness. Each bubble representing the boundary of perception around every being (which in essence is a single soul), in this and every other universe. So the Moon may not be there when no one is looking at it! But whether the Moon is there or not, the most important consequence of this is One is All. Or in other words:
We. Are. All. One. And. The. Same.
Of course, it is not my idea. To those of you who are not familiar: this is a very ancient idea. The significance of the One-Soul idea is the meaning it gives to Love. In the commerce of experience, it is good to give and receive something that is pleasant. And Love fits the bill perfectly as a pleasant commodity. Also Service and Compassion and other such things. Because the Giver and Receiver are one and the same. Thus when you love someone, you are only loving yourself. It is indeed a valid idea and a “humane” interpretation. But ultimately, there is no good or evil in this world. There are only events and experiences. The person who knows this may also experience disease, pain, suffering and old age. But he is not moved by them for they are merely shades of color on a movie screen. Only experiences — silver coins in the sac of his soul. So he lives his life according to his nature that is Simplicity. He attains the ability to mutely observe all the vicissitudes that his body experiences. Suffering and pleasure becomes equal to the spectator that he has become. Thus this idea of a deathless soul does not contravene an atheist/agnostic viewpoint but only enriches it.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Secret of Secrets
The just announced Nobel prizes for both Chemistry & Physics have gone to research related to the Carbon atom. The Nobel Prize for Chemistry went to three scientists for developing a toolkit to manipulate carbon atoms, while the Physics prize has gone to two Russian born physicists for their study on the remarkable properties of Graphene, an ultrathin form of Carbon.
While announcing the Nobel Prize for Physics, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences stated, “Carbon, the basis of all known life on earth, has surprised us once again.”
They do not realize how loaded their statement is. For what we have seen in Graphene is only a small glimpse of the wonders that Carbon is capable of. Especially what awaits us in the very near future!
Before we reveal the form of Carbon that is going to change every aspect of our lives, so completely and so drastically, let us bring to your attention a few other related occurrences that have been making the news in the past weeks.
Recently there was a flurry of concern in the scientific circles regarding the discovery of the sun’s influence on the decay of radioactive elements on earth. It was found that some kind of strange emissions from the sun are causing matter to mutate on earth. Its influence on the decay rates of elements like Carbon-14 has been especially worrisome and unexpected. Carbon, as previously stated, is the basic building block of life as we know it. And Carbon-12 is the most abundant form of carbon accounting for about 99% of all known forms of Carbon. It is the isotope of Carbon that consists of 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. 6-6-6. Does that sound familiar?
After Oxygen, the second most abundant element in the human body is Carbon-12. On cremation, the body returns to its Carbon-12 state. After Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen, which are all gases, Carbon-12 is the most abundant element in the Universe. Carbon-12 is also one of the five elements that make up the human DNA. Thus Carbon-12 is indeed the most crucial element as far as life as we know today, is concerned. This is probably what the writer of the Revelation meant when he said that 666 was the number of man (or number of the beast). It is the number of Carbon-12, which is the basis of Man’s physical body, which ties him to the physical universe. This is especially significant when we understand what transmutation awaits this Carbon-12, which will bestow Man such superhuman powers that will make every technological advancement till date, completely redundant!
Every secret has a time. A time to reveal. A time to celebrate. It is now time to reveal this secret of all secrets. The secret of Alchemy. The secret of the Philosopher’s stone, that which transmutes, in a symbolic sense, lead to gold. The secret of the Elixir of Life. The secret of Amrita or Ambrosia, the nectar of immortality! The secret of something we shall label, Ascentium, since its primary function is to aid the coming Ascension. To form a portal into the higher dimension.
The secret of Carbon-7!
Carbon-7 is the hitherto undiscovered isotope of Carbon, which has 6 electrons, 6 protons and only one neutron. It is the material equivalent of the Kundalini system as well as Metatron’s cube.
Like iron has the ability of sustaining a magnetic field around it, Carbon-7 has the uncanny ability to carry hyperdimensional fields, such as fields of thought around it. Thus it can amplify thought and other hyperdimensional fields, just as the iron and copper in a transformer can amplify magnetic fields.
Naturally, it is formed in the brains of spiritual adepts, when they have out-of-body experiences or perform other supernatural phenomenon such as bilocation or materialisation etc. During such time the glow or halo that is formed around the heads of these highly evolved beings is actually due to the excess neutrons produced when Carbon-12 transmutes to Carbon-7 inside their brains. However this Carbon-7 quickly decays to other stabler forms of matter. Hence it is almost impossible to detect Carbon-7 directly in the human body.
History and Religion has offered us many clues as to the identity of this most wondrous material through cryptic notations, symbols and enigmatic texts. But it had to veil it in the most puzzling language and symbols since this knowledge in the wrong hands could mean the destruction of this planet. Such is its power! In that case, you may ask, why we are revealing it now since the same risks are still prevalent. There are two main reasons for this revelation at this point of time:
1. We are now at the very threshold of the most significant shift humanity has ever experienced. It is the time for all secrets to be revealed. We have been holding on to this secret for a long time. And Nature has spoken through signs that the time for this secret too has come.
2. Although the atomic structure and the properties of this wondrous material are revealed here, it is extremely difficult to synthesize Carbon-7 in a laboratory, other than in expensive particle accelerators.
In the Kundalini system, this 6-6-1 configuration is represented by the male and female counterparts of the 6 lower chakras and the seventh chakra which is the neutral Sahasraara.
In Judaism, Metatron, who is considered to be God’s mediator with Man, is often represented by a cube formed by thirteen circles, comprising of 1 central circle, surrounded by 6 inner and 6 outer circles.
In Christianity, Da Vinci’s famous Last Supper, that depicted a moment before Christ’s Crucifixion and subsequent Resurrection and Ascension, is a symbolic representation of this 6-6-1 configuration where 6 apostles are on either side of Jesus Christ
It is interesting to note that both Kundalini, Metatron and Christ are vehicles of Ascension albeit in different spiritual systems.
This knowledge is known to advanced civilizations beyond our planet who have been watching over us for millennia. The release of this information at this point of time is also meant to accelerate Disclosure. This knowledge with the power to amplify one’s mind will make all technological progress and economic systems completely redundant since in the age of Manifestation and Abundance that awaits us post 2012, technology and money will have no meaning.
In the period post Disclosure, the Conditioning of Man will take place, during which time the collective mind of Man will undergo a quantum shift to expansiveness. A critical mass of humanity will crossover from an egocentric, material life to an egoless, lovefilled and spiritual life. The sun’s activity during this time will ramp up. The final transmutation that will be effected by the sun, will be the transmutation of the Carbon-12 in human DNA into Carbon-7. This will empower Man to survive the Final Double Cataclysm of the Superflare-Pole Shift and migrate to the higher dimensional New Earth.
This is a timeline that we must realize.
Friday, November 13, 2009
2012 - Secrets Revealed Chapter 3 Section 2
Mother Earth as a living organism, Her Nadis and Chakras
Just as all human beings are equipped with the non-physical spiritual organs in the form of the Kundalini system, our mother Earth too is a living, breathing, organism complete with all the seven Chakras, the Kundalini Shakti and the three Nadis.
As I said earlier, the two polar chakras, the Mooladhara and the Sahasraara, are the only two chakras that are not inside the body. The Mooladhara or the Root Chakra is at the base of the spine. In some texts it is mentioned as located at the perineum. In a sense, both are true. The dormant Kundalini shakti lies coiled three and half times, around the anus with its head poised to penetrate the Mooladhara and its tail at the perineum.
The Sahasraara or the Crown chakra is at a point slightly above the head.
Now, in my Chapter 2 video on the Hendaye cross and Kailash, I had disclosed what I believe are the locations of the Root and Crown chakras of Earth. Just to recap, I think the root chakra of Earth is at the Sacred Valley in Cusco, Peru and the crown chakra is Mount Kailash in Tibet. Let us relook once more at the synchronicities of these two places, which clearly hint to their uniquely sacred nature.
The Sacred Valley in Cusco is at the Southern Hemisphere of the Earth, just as the Root Chakra is in a ‘Valley’ of our body in our lower half. Near the Root Chakra are the two genitals of our body from where the dual nadis, the Ida and Pingala commence. Similarly, near the sacred valley are two lakes, the Laguna Piuray and the Laguna Huaypo from where the corresponding nadis of Earth commence. Since the Root Chakra is one end of the Sushumna, the Sacred Valley itself is the Southern end of the Earth’s Sushumna.
And in the northern hemisphere is Mount Kailash, the crown chakra. Near Mount Kailash are also two lakes the Manasarovar and the Rakshas Tal. Manasarovar and Rakshas Tal though much bigger are almost identical in shape with their polar counterparts, Piuray and Huaypo. These lakes near Kailash represent the sun and the moon and are also equivalent to the two eyes of the human body.
Mount Kailash, being the crown chakra, is the point of planetary Ascension.
The Ajna chakra, or the third eye of Earth is at a point beneath these two lakes. Deep within these lakes are also portals that connect to the lakes at Cusco.
As I have mentioned in my Chapter 2 video on the Hendaye cross, Kailash and Cusco are separated by 153 degrees of longitude. 153, like 13 is an Ascension number of great importance. Please refer to my Chapter 2 video to know more about its numerical peculiarities and spiritual significance. As I have said, 153 is a separation number. That is it denotes the degree of separation between the two polar chakras of Earth. Now let us see if 153 has a corresponding significance to the human body.
In the case of the human being, our reality is primarily composed of the (1) tangible physical reality that we perceive through our senses during the waking state and the (2) intangible subconscious reality that we experience during sleep and alternate states of samadhi and spiritual bliss. Therefore, to find out the degree of separation between our root and crown chakras, we must consider the physical separation and spiritual separation.
The spiritual separation is defined by the Kundalini system of seven chakras and each activated chakra carrying the three energies, the Prana, the Apana and the Kundalini. Now, in the activated crown chakra, although there is no Ida and Pingala, the Prana, Apana and Kundalini do exist as separate entities within the Sushumna. Therefore, the number for the spiritual degree of separation between the two polar chakras is 21, which is the product of 7 (chakras) and 3 (energies).
As for the physical separation, the physical equivalent of the Kundalini system is clearly the human vertebral column. And this vertebral column is generally composed of 33 individual vertebrae, which are the equivalent of the Chakras.
The number 33 is another number that has tremendous significance in all the major religions and spiritual traditions of the world. It also holds a deep occult and mystical importance. I will not be going into that since that is a subject by itself.
Now we know that the physical reality that surrounds us and that we perceive is composed of the 4 dimensions of space-time. Each of the 33 vertebrae carries the information of this surrounding 4 dimensional reality. Therefore the number for the physical degree of separation for between the two polar chakras is 132, being the product of 33 (vertebrae) and 4 (dimensions).
Thus we see that the overall separation number in the case of the human body is also strangely 153, being the sum of the spiritual separation number, 21 and the physical separation number 132. This to me, is a wonderful synchronicity that relates man to his planetary mother, Earth.
Also, if you ascribe the first seven prime numbers to the seven chakras, such that for the 1st chakra, that is the Mooladhara, we assign the first prime 2, for the second chakra, we assign the second prime 3 and so on until for the crown chakra we assign the seventh prime, which is 17. Now 17 is directly related to 153. I had highlighted this in Chapter 2 also. The sum of the first 17 counting numbers will give you 153.
This is precisely why the Hendaye cross has 17 flutes in the column that connects Kailash represented by the pedestal and Cusco, represented by the Cross. The Hendaye cross is as much a representation of the Kundalini system of the human body as for that of our mother planet.
17 here, is a connecting number that further reinforces the link between the Kundalini system and the Earth.
Just as all human beings are equipped with the non-physical spiritual organs in the form of the Kundalini system, our mother Earth too is a living, breathing, organism complete with all the seven Chakras, the Kundalini Shakti and the three Nadis.
As I said earlier, the two polar chakras, the Mooladhara and the Sahasraara, are the only two chakras that are not inside the body. The Mooladhara or the Root Chakra is at the base of the spine. In some texts it is mentioned as located at the perineum. In a sense, both are true. The dormant Kundalini shakti lies coiled three and half times, around the anus with its head poised to penetrate the Mooladhara and its tail at the perineum.
The Sahasraara or the Crown chakra is at a point slightly above the head.
Now, in my Chapter 2 video on the Hendaye cross and Kailash, I had disclosed what I believe are the locations of the Root and Crown chakras of Earth. Just to recap, I think the root chakra of Earth is at the Sacred Valley in Cusco, Peru and the crown chakra is Mount Kailash in Tibet. Let us relook once more at the synchronicities of these two places, which clearly hint to their uniquely sacred nature.
The Sacred Valley in Cusco is at the Southern Hemisphere of the Earth, just as the Root Chakra is in a ‘Valley’ of our body in our lower half. Near the Root Chakra are the two genitals of our body from where the dual nadis, the Ida and Pingala commence. Similarly, near the sacred valley are two lakes, the Laguna Piuray and the Laguna Huaypo from where the corresponding nadis of Earth commence. Since the Root Chakra is one end of the Sushumna, the Sacred Valley itself is the Southern end of the Earth’s Sushumna.
And in the northern hemisphere is Mount Kailash, the crown chakra. Near Mount Kailash are also two lakes the Manasarovar and the Rakshas Tal. Manasarovar and Rakshas Tal though much bigger are almost identical in shape with their polar counterparts, Piuray and Huaypo. These lakes near Kailash represent the sun and the moon and are also equivalent to the two eyes of the human body.
Mount Kailash, being the crown chakra, is the point of planetary Ascension.
The Ajna chakra, or the third eye of Earth is at a point beneath these two lakes. Deep within these lakes are also portals that connect to the lakes at Cusco.
As I have mentioned in my Chapter 2 video on the Hendaye cross, Kailash and Cusco are separated by 153 degrees of longitude. 153, like 13 is an Ascension number of great importance. Please refer to my Chapter 2 video to know more about its numerical peculiarities and spiritual significance. As I have said, 153 is a separation number. That is it denotes the degree of separation between the two polar chakras of Earth. Now let us see if 153 has a corresponding significance to the human body.
In the case of the human being, our reality is primarily composed of the (1) tangible physical reality that we perceive through our senses during the waking state and the (2) intangible subconscious reality that we experience during sleep and alternate states of samadhi and spiritual bliss. Therefore, to find out the degree of separation between our root and crown chakras, we must consider the physical separation and spiritual separation.
The spiritual separation is defined by the Kundalini system of seven chakras and each activated chakra carrying the three energies, the Prana, the Apana and the Kundalini. Now, in the activated crown chakra, although there is no Ida and Pingala, the Prana, Apana and Kundalini do exist as separate entities within the Sushumna. Therefore, the number for the spiritual degree of separation between the two polar chakras is 21, which is the product of 7 (chakras) and 3 (energies).
As for the physical separation, the physical equivalent of the Kundalini system is clearly the human vertebral column. And this vertebral column is generally composed of 33 individual vertebrae, which are the equivalent of the Chakras.
The number 33 is another number that has tremendous significance in all the major religions and spiritual traditions of the world. It also holds a deep occult and mystical importance. I will not be going into that since that is a subject by itself.
Now we know that the physical reality that surrounds us and that we perceive is composed of the 4 dimensions of space-time. Each of the 33 vertebrae carries the information of this surrounding 4 dimensional reality. Therefore the number for the physical degree of separation for between the two polar chakras is 132, being the product of 33 (vertebrae) and 4 (dimensions).
Thus we see that the overall separation number in the case of the human body is also strangely 153, being the sum of the spiritual separation number, 21 and the physical separation number 132. This to me, is a wonderful synchronicity that relates man to his planetary mother, Earth.
Also, if you ascribe the first seven prime numbers to the seven chakras, such that for the 1st chakra, that is the Mooladhara, we assign the first prime 2, for the second chakra, we assign the second prime 3 and so on until for the crown chakra we assign the seventh prime, which is 17. Now 17 is directly related to 153. I had highlighted this in Chapter 2 also. The sum of the first 17 counting numbers will give you 153.
This is precisely why the Hendaye cross has 17 flutes in the column that connects Kailash represented by the pedestal and Cusco, represented by the Cross. The Hendaye cross is as much a representation of the Kundalini system of the human body as for that of our mother planet.
17 here, is a connecting number that further reinforces the link between the Kundalini system and the Earth.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
English Gematria:Coincidence or Synchronicity?
In the following video, I have looked at some of the amazing things English gematria reveals on religion and current events. Can this really be coincidence? Or is language encoded with elements of prophecy? Judge for yourself...
English, Gematria, Jesus, Christ, Bible, Christianity, Hinduism, Krishna, Shiva, Kailash, Consciousness, 2012, Ascension, Spirituality, Love, Truth, Peace, Vishnu, Buddha, Om, Aum, Life, Kundalini, Yin Yang, Tantra, Kabbala, Metatron, Sai Baba, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Shirdi, Amma, Financial Crisis, Economic Meltdown, Economic Crisis, Lehman Brothers, Banking Crisis, 911, September 11, Terrorism, LHC, CERN Collider, wormhole, black hole, Particle accelerator, Hari Kumar, Harismind
English, Gematria, Jesus, Christ, Bible, Christianity, Hinduism, Krishna, Shiva, Kailash, Consciousness, 2012, Ascension, Spirituality, Love, Truth, Peace, Vishnu, Buddha, Om, Aum, Life, Kundalini, Yin Yang, Tantra, Kabbala, Metatron, Sai Baba, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Shirdi, Amma, Financial Crisis, Economic Meltdown, Economic Crisis, Lehman Brothers, Banking Crisis, 911, September 11, Terrorism, LHC, CERN Collider, wormhole, black hole, Particle accelerator, Hari Kumar, Harismind
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)