In the previous discussion, we addressed the idea of transferring consciousness from the original body to the substitute body, and we called this process “Degradation,” or Degradation, meaning reduction, lowering, or lowering of rank. In this context, shame can be regarded as one of the results associated with this reduction, not as a passing feeling, but as a deeper state connected to the being’s relationship with its body, identity, boundaries, and existence.
That is, the matter does not concern one substitute, but rather the multiplicity of substitutes. There is one original, and then multiple alternative forms and states multiply from it.
The Original Body and the Substitute Bodies
Originally, there is one body, but the process of reduction, lowering, projection, and embodiment produces a number of substitute bodies. These bodies do not possess the same status possessed by the original body, but rather their capacities are prohibited or restricted by severe limitations.
From here, they can be understood as “punished” bodies. These bodies succeed one another within the cycle of reincarnation, and their appearances continue one after another. Here an important concept emerges, namely “the preservation of forgetfulness”: the continuation of succession within the cycle of reincarnation preserves the body’s forgetting of its cosmic extension, so it remains separated from its original extension and unaware of its complete reality.
This means that the substitute body is not merely another body, but rather a body that lives within a system of prohibitions, restrictions, and continuous needs.
Shame as a Result of the Loss of Unity and Perfection
When many things are prohibited within the body, the being becomes in a state of constant need, pain, and continuous suffering, and begins to search for pleasure or satisfaction outside because it feels that what it needs is prohibited to it internally.
From here, we understand the meaning of shame within this conception.
It was previously said that humiliation is the stripping of the body of its unity and perfection and transforming it into a being that is constantly in need. Therefore, embodiment in the substitute body becomes a humiliation, because the substitute body lives in need, pain, and suffering, and feels that it is incomplete and needs something outside itself.
The more a person’s non-acceptance of their body, identity, personality, and different parts increases, the more this feeling of shame increases. A person who does not accept their existence begins to desire to leave it, and this rejection itself may become a gateway for what surrounds them of beings that drain them, according to the conception we are considering here.
The Number of Bodies Corresponding to the Number of Falls
The multiplicity of substitute bodies can be viewed as being connected to the number of falls or instances of failure to exit the cycle of reincarnation. The human being, according to this conception, possesses substitute bodies in proportion to the number of times they appear in this cycle.
Each time they feel that they have failed to exit the cycle of reincarnation, they need a new substitute body and believe that they have received another opportunity, while the continuation of the cycle is, in reality, a continuation of the same failure.
Thus, continuation in substitute bodies represents another failure to exit the same pattern.
This pattern as a whole can be called the “substitute pattern,” the “opposite pattern,” or the “punished pattern”: a pattern based on the existence of multiple bodies that are substitutes for the original body, and multiple possibilities inverted from the original possibility.
From the Theft of Ideas to the Distortion of the Original
If the process of reduction is the transfer of consciousness from the original body to the substitute body, then human history — according to this conception — has witnessed multiple forms of infiltrations, leakages, and thefts.
Religions, according to this view, have been based on stealing ideas from the original religion, and philosophies and schools have been based on attacking the original religion, the original philosophy, or the original school. Just as there are substitute bodies based on attacking the original body, there are alternative beliefs based on attacking the original belief.
Here the idea of inverted beings emerges.
The inverted being does not respect boundaries, because boundaries appear to it as a restriction and punishment. In the original state, however, boundaries are not merely restrictions; rather, they are what grant the being its sanctity, privacy, and uniqueness. Every being has a sanctuary, and every being has boundaries that distinguish it from others.
The non-fallen being, in this conception, possesses boundaries that preserve its sanctity and privacy, and these boundaries are themselves what allow it to experience perfection, unity, and uniqueness.
As for fallen or inverted beings, they do not respect these boundaries because they see them as an obstacle before them.
The Virus and the Parasite: How Does Distortion Feed on the Original?
The idea can be approximated by the example of viruses and parasites. A virus attempts to penetrate the body’s defenses, while a parasite lives on the body, feeds on it, and drains it. Thus, its existence is connected to weakening, distorting, and exhausting the body until it reaches an incomplete state.
From here, shame becomes more than merely a psychological feeling; it is a state that makes the being dissatisfied with its existence and unable to accept its body, identity, and personality, so it begins to desire to get rid of this state or exit from it.
The more the being becomes distorted and rejects itself, the more, according to this conception, the beings that feed on this distortion and drain it increase.
As for the more the being increases in maturity, wisdom, elevation, and sublimity, the less the presence of these beings in its presence; because it possesses a lofty belief regarding its body, itself, and its thoughts, and does not carry the distorted conceptions that allow it to be drained.
The Distorted Belief and the True Belief
This same idea can be transferred from the body to religion and belief.
Religions that arose as deviations from the true religion — according to the proposed conception — become distorted beliefs about the Creator, the source, the human being, the earth, and truth.
Here, a distinction must be made between two matters: saying that there is a true belief or a true form of truth, and the multiplicity of distorted forms that claim to represent truth.
The existence of a true form of truth does not necessarily mean that truth has no form, no belief, or no rulings. On the contrary, saying that truth exists entails the existence of an image or form that is consistent with it and manifests it.
This is the reason for emphasizing that there is, within this conception, a true belief, a true message, a true religion, and a true form of truth.
The Multiplicity of Narratives and How Truth Becomes Lost
If contradictory narratives about truth become numerous, a person may ultimately come to believe that all narratives are fabricated, and that there is no original narrative that can be trusted.
Here lies the danger of multiplying distorted narratives.
The problem is not merely the existence of multiple narratives, but that their abundance and contradiction may cause a person to lose their compass and feel that the search for truth itself is futile or shame-inducing.
If multiple religions, schools, and sects spread, each one of them claiming to possess the truth, the human being may end up believing that there is no true form upon which they can rely in their relationship with the Creator, the source, or existence.
Thus, they lose hope, lose their compass, and even lose the possibility that there is a correct form they can trust.
The abundance of speech, channels, broadcasts, and lectures sometimes makes the human being enter a state of saturation in which everyone, in their view, is merely repeated copies: everyone repeats, everyone lies, and everyone reproduces.
At that point, even if a true discourse exists among all these discourses, the human being may be unable to distinguish it; because their belief in the existence of something true and original has already been severely shaken.
The Multiplicity of Narratives Does Not Mean That Truth Does Not Exist
From here, one must distinguish between saying that the many narratives are misleading and saying that truth does not exist.
The existence of false or distorted narratives does not mean the absence of the truthful narrative.
Rather, the existence of these misleading narratives may be what obstructs the process of searching for the true extension of peoples, beings, and events. The multiplication of narratives can become a means of falsifying and distorting history, not necessarily by directly concealing the original narrative, but by drowning it among a huge number of alternative narratives.
Thus, the surrounding medium becomes confused to such a degree that all forms appear equal in error, or all narratives appear fabricated.
But according to this conception, not everything is distorted to the same degree; rather, there is a unique, truthful, and original form of truth.
Historical truth does not mean that history as a whole is false, but rather that the numerous narratives surrounding it may conceal the original narrative. Likewise, the truth of the body does not mean that everything said about it is false, but rather that there is an original truth that may be covered by alternative forms.
The Illusion That “Everything Is Correct”
The claim that every form is correct, or that truth can appear in any form contradictory to another, ultimately leads to the elimination of the criterion.
If multiple completely contradictory beliefs are all correct at the same time, how can one distinguish between right and wrong?
A person’s lack of knowledge of the criterion does not mean that the criterion does not exist. The abundance of errors outside does not make error correct.
Indeed, one of the most dangerous results of this conception is that a person reaches a stage in which they say, “Everything is correct,” even if things are contradictory. Truth, if it is truth, cannot contradict itself.
Therefore, the matter is not that all beliefs are correct, but rather that there is a belief that is consistent with truth, while the other beliefs are distorted forms of it.
Demonizing the True Form
Within this conception, the original truth is not intended to appear in a clear form; because the appearance of the one and unique original narrative would reveal many of the alternative forms that were based on distorting it.
For this reason, according to this view, it becomes necessary to demonize the form itself: to tell the human being that truth has no form, and that whoever gives truth a form is imposing a satanic conception upon them.
But the argument here reverses the equation: if there is a true form of truth, then distorting this form or preventing it from appearing is what allows the alternative forms to continue.
When all narratives become fabricated in the human being’s view, they lose the ability to see the one narrative that can unite them with others.
Unity Does Not Mean the Elimination of Boundaries
Here we arrive at a fundamental point: the experience of unity does not mean the elimination of boundaries.
On the contrary, true unity — according to this conception — requires the existence of sanctuary, privacy, and boundaries. For a being to have a unique existence, it must have a private space that others are not permitted to violate.
As for completely eliminating boundaries, this leads to making the being’s sanctuary and privacy permissible.
From here, the relationship between the multiplicity of bodies and the multiplicity of beliefs can be understood: just as consciousness moved from one body to multiple substitute bodies, truth moved from one belief representing it to multiple and contradictory forms of its appearance, until truth itself became lost among these forms.
Restrictions Are Not Necessarily the Enemy of Advancement
Here we arrive at the fundamental paradox concerning reduction and advancement.
The substitute body is full of prohibitions and restrictions, and therefore it may appear to the human being that the path to their advancement requires removing all these restrictions.
But according to the proposed idea, the path of advancement is not necessarily the removal of restrictions, but may be respecting the restrictions and understanding their wisdom.
The inverted beings claim that they want to free the human being from their restrictions and prohibitions, and tell them that they want to liberate their energies and capacities. But the more important question is not: “How do I liberate my prohibited capacity?” but rather:
Why was this capacity prohibited in the first place?
The reason may be that the human being does not know how to use it, and may use it against themselves or to their own detriment.
Therefore, the existence of the capacity does not mean that releasing it without conditions is the correct path.
The Example of the Father and the Son
To clarify this, one can imagine a son who has a wealthy father, and the father used to give him money without limits. Because of this, the son became surrounded by a group of exploitative and parasitic friends; because they found in him an open source of money.
If the father suddenly decided to restrict his son’s spending, the matter might outwardly appear to be deprivation or punishment.
But the actual purpose is not necessarily to deprive the son of money, but to protect him from exploiters, thieves, and intruders.
The restrictions here were not against the son, but rather against him and against those who exploit him.
As soon as the unlimited flow of money stops, most of these “friends” disappear. Those who remain, if any remain, can be a true friend, because their presence was not based on exploitation.
Thus, the restriction also becomes a test: Will the one who claims to support the human being remain by their side when they receive nothing from them?
If they are a true friend, the restriction will not be against them; because they were not benefiting from exploiting the son.
Boundaries Reveal the Exploiter
In this sense, setting boundaries is not hostility toward everyone, but rather a means of revealing the exploiter.
A boundary placed before a person with bad intentions deprives them of exploitation, but does not harm the one who comes with a sound intention.
This can be applied to the human being themselves: the restrictions and obligations they experience may be part of a test, not merely a meaningless punishment.
If the human being understands the wisdom of the restriction and does not rebel against it merely because it is a restriction, they begin to realize that the restriction is not necessarily against them.
But if voices come to them telling them that every restriction is evil, and that their father or Creator is bad because He prevents them from something, they may begin to reverse their relationship with the original.
Beings That Turn the Son’s Relationship with His Father
In the example of the father and son, some false friends may remain after the restrictions are imposed, and begin convincing the son that his father is bad because he does not give him money, and that he controls him and deprives him of his right.
Their function, within this conception, is to turn the son against his father.
At the symbolic level, turning the creature against its Creator.
The party that does not possess legitimacy in the original state can obtain part of legitimacy if it succeeds in making the son himself demand what belongs to the father.
The son, on the one hand, has a connection to the father and can inherit from him; therefore, inciting him against his father grants the instigators indirect legitimacy.
But if the son himself becomes an exploiter, he becomes part of the problem from which the father was trying to protect him.
Therefore, restriction may be entirely necessary if the son himself becomes similar to the exploiters.
The Problem in Reversing Beliefs
The same thing happens, according to this conception, in the beliefs widespread about the Creator, religion, and truth.
The problem is not necessarily that everything is completely inverted; rather, the inversion may be partial, in crucial parts of the conception.
The human being is told that the bad thing is not bad, that what harms them benefits them, that what places a limit upon them is their enemy, and that the unlimited source is absolute good.
With the accumulation of contradictions, the human being reaches a more dangerous conclusion: nothing is bad in the first place.
This conclusion is wrong; because the existence of many errors does not eliminate the existence of a criterion for right and wrong.
Not everyone around you is a friend, not everyone with whom you have a relationship works for your benefit, and not everything that presents itself as helping you wants your interest.
Therefore, the human being needs discernment, insight, and wisdom in order to be able to distinguish.
Corruption Begins with the Rejection of Boundaries
If we want to summarize the issue in one principle, it can be said that corruption begins when the being searches for an unlimited source and refuses to acknowledge boundaries.
When the walls that preserve the blood within its circulation collapse, the blood flows, and when this happens in the sea, its smell attracts sharks.
Likewise, the being that rejects boundaries and seeks unlimited sustenance becomes — in this conception — part of the system of corruption.
Corruption is the deterioration and distortion of boundaries.
Every discourse that appears ornamented on the surface and promises the human being an unlimited source that serves them without conditions must be examined internally: Is it truly liberation, or is it an invitation to remove the boundaries that were protecting the human being?
Respecting the Sanctuary of the Other as a Fundamental Criterion
From here, a practical criterion through which distinction can be made emerges.
The one who believes in the sanctity and boundaries of the being does not need to intrude into the lives of others. They do not go to another person’s broadcast in order to impose themselves upon them, nor do they attempt to violate their privacy or change their thoughts by force.
Every human being, within this conception, is a sanctuary with its own privacy.
If you enter someone’s gathering, broadcast, or space, you must respect the boundaries they establish. And if you do not like their ideas or boundaries, you are not their prisoner; you can simply leave.
It is not necessary to close the door behind you, nor to turn your disagreement into a battle.
But if you remain in the place, then begin attacking and insulting its owner and attempting to change them by force, then disagreement becomes an assault on the sanctuary.
A message based on provocation, attack, and insult is not merely an intellectual disagreement, but becomes an act of violating the boundaries that a sound being is supposed to respect.
Respecting Boundaries Is Not Weakness
If you do not like someone’s words, you can listen and then leave.
And if you do not trust them, you can choose not to follow them.
And if you find their ideas distorted, you can search for other ideas.
But remaining in a place you reject, and continuing to attack its owner despite being able to leave, may reveal that the issue is no longer a search for truth, but has become a desire for exhaustion, control, or changing the other.
For this reason, respecting boundaries is not weakness, but a sign of psychological soundness.
A sound human being does not enter the lives of others like a woodworm, nor does they attempt to corrupt what does not concern them. If they enter a gathering and do not like it, they listen if they wish, and then leave.
This simplicity is one of the forms of respecting the sanctuary.
The Search for the Correct Belief and the Original Narrative
In the end, all these ideas return to the same central question:
If there is one original body, why do we thoughtlessly accept that all substitute bodies are equal?
And if there is an original belief representing truth, why do we assume that all contradictory beliefs are correct to the same degree?
And if there is an original narrative, why do we allow the multiplicity of distorted narratives to convince us that there is no original narrative?
The requirement, according to this conception, is neither to accept everything nor to reject everything, but to search for the correct belief, the original narrative, and the true culprit, so that the human being does not bear the name of a corrupt cause while believing that they are defending a just cause.
The son in the previous example may think that he is demanding his right, while in reality he is becoming a tool in the hands of the one exploiting him. He may think that he is rebelling against injustice, while he is being driven to exploit his father.
Here the human being becomes, at the same time, an agent and one acted upon: they believe that they are choosing, while they are being used as a channel for transmitting what they do not possess its source and do not comprehend its reality.
Conclusion: From Rejecting the Restriction to Understanding the Wisdom
The issue, in its essence, is not that all restrictions are good, nor that everything prohibited should be accepted without question.
The matter is that the existence of a restriction does not necessarily mean that the restriction is your enemy.
Before you attempt to break your boundaries, you must ask why they were placed.
And before you accept a discourse that promises to liberate you from everything, you must ask: who benefits from removing these boundaries?
And before you consider all narratives equal, you must search for the criterion that distinguishes between the original narrative and the narratives that came to distort it.
Just as the substitute body lives amid restrictions and prohibitions, the attempt to remove every restriction without understanding may not be advancement, but may be a transition to a more lowered state.
And just as the multiplicity of substitute bodies does not eliminate the existence of the original body, the multiplicity of beliefs and narratives does not necessarily eliminate the existence of the original belief and narrative.
In the end, the true test remains the ability to distinguish: to know what preserves your sanctuary and what violates it; what serves your existence and what drains it; what leads you toward truth and what immerses you in substitutes; and to realize that not everything works for your benefit, not everyone who asks you to remove your restrictions wants to liberate you, and not everyone who places a boundary for you wants to humiliate you.
Wisdom, within this framework, does not lie in breaking all boundaries, but rather in knowing which boundaries protect you, which ones should be crossed, and why.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment