There is a dangerous possibility that can be proposed as a philosophical hypothesis: What if there were a hidden and secret truth in this existence that the mechanisms of the existing system do not want to be revealed? What if there were a secret that humans are not meant to know, or at least are not allowed to see clearly?
This is not a claim that the hypothesis is true, but rather an attempt to follow it to its conclusion and examine the consequences that could result from it.
The Hypothesis of the Lord Who Creates Multiplicity
Let us, within this hypothesis, distinguish between the true God and the being who exercises lordship over creation. Let us place the true God on one side, and on the other side the chief of the angels and what is connected to him from the ranks of the higher world. Then let us assume that the one who exercises lordship over creation is not the true God, but rather the chief of the angels, who performs the function of lordship within the system.
This lord, according to the hypothesis, is the one who determines right and wrong, better and worse, higher and lower, purity and impurities. In other words, he becomes a center to which all standards of evaluation are attributed.
From here, the more dangerous question appears: What if this being is hiding the true God from us?
In other words, what if we are living under the shadow of this lord, rather than under the shadow of the true God? And what if this lord is the one who created multiplicity, forms, and plurality, so that the existence of multiplicity itself has become the veil preventing the being from seeing the truth of unity?
The Simple Truth: You Are Alone
If we take the idea to its simplest possible form, the assumed truth is: You are alone.
Here, an entire set of concepts changes. Lordship has meaning only if there are multiplicity, a servant, and a lord. Division, for example, has no meaning if there is only one. If the entire cake belongs to you, what need is there to divide it? And if everything is one, with whom will you divide it?
From here, multiplicity becomes a condition for the appearance of concepts such as better and worse, right and wrong, pure and impure. If there were only one, it could not be better than something else, nor worse than something else; because the only existing thing cannot be better or worse than itself.
Therefore, according to this hypothesis, the system of preference itself is based on multiplicity, not on unity.
And the lord who creates multiplicity becomes, in this image, the one who creates the field in which comparisons, preferences, and ranks appear.
The Veil That Creates Multiplicity
From here, the concept of the veil takes a central place.
The body itself can be viewed as a veil because it separates the being from unity and makes it appear as an independent individual within a world of multiplicity. Without this veil, there would be no “this person,” “this person,” and “this person,” and there would be no plurality or reproduction.
Thus, the veil becomes what allows multiplicity to exist, and multiplicity is what allows better and worse, higher and lower, good and bad to exist.
This explains, within the hypothesis, the frequent presence of the concept of the veil in religious discourse; for the veil here is not understood merely as a physical covering, but rather as an instrument of separation and manifestation of plurality and ranks.
Proximity to and distance from the center become a criterion of evaluation: the closer the being is to the center, the greater it becomes, and the farther it moves from it, the smaller it becomes. The one at the center appears greater, while the one who moves away from it appears smaller.
Thus, “greatness” and “smallness” are not merely absolute qualities, but become connected to the being’s position within the system.
The Lord as a Center
In this image, the lord becomes the center of the system. The closer the being comes to him, the greater it becomes in the eyes of the system, and the farther it moves away, the smaller and worse it becomes.
From here, some religious expressions concerning mockery and forgetfulness can be read as a reflection of this principle within the hypothesis: whoever takes something seriously is treated on that basis, and whoever diminishes it or mocks it is treated likewise.
What matters here is not proving this interpretation, but observing that the idea can be built upon a single concept: value within the system is connected to position relative to the center.
The Cycle of Reincarnation
If we move to the cycle of reincarnation, another question appears: Who does not want the human being to leave this cycle?
According to the hypothesis, the system that governs multiplicity reflects actions back upon their owners. An action produces an effect, and the effect returns to its owner, so the cycle continues.
The lord, in this image, wants the human being to remain within the system, provided that he approaches him according to the values that he himself determines. The closer the human being comes to the lord, the better his outcome becomes, and the farther he moves away from him, the worse it becomes.
Thus, moving into another life becomes a transition into another body and another veil, perhaps into a better or worse condition according to the human being’s position relative to the center.
The Fixed Body and the Substitute Body
Here appears one of the most extreme ideas in this conception: paradise is connected to the fixed body, while hell is connected to the moving, changing body.
The original body, from this perspective, is a body without deficiency or defect, and it does not drive its owner toward the constant desire for change and replacement. The substitute body, on the other hand, is the deficient and changing body.
Thus, stability becomes a sign of bliss, while vibration becomes a sign of hell.
This idea is directly connected to the previous proposition concerning origin and stability, and appearance and vibration; the one who remains fixed in his origin leaves the world of fluctuation, while the one who remains in movement and replacement stays within the world of illusion.
Paradise and Hell as States of Stability and Vibration
In this conception, paradise is not merely a place, nor is hell merely a place, but rather two states of existence.
Bliss is stillness and stability, while hell is vibration, movement, disturbance, and change.
Therefore, according to this proposition, the people of paradise are those who were able to settle in their decision, while the people of hell are those who remained within the circle of change and the search for a substitute.
Here the idea of the few appears on both sides: most of those who enter paradise remain there, and most of those who enter hell remain there, while there is a small number whose destiny can change, moving from one side to the other.
Human stories, according to this conception, revolve to a large extent around this small group whose fate has not been finally determined.
Bliss Is the Retention of the Blessing
There is another difference between paradise and hell in this perspective: the people of paradise retain blessings, while the people of hell are deprived of them.
For the blessing among the people of hell is temporary; it comes and then disappears, while the blessing among the people of paradise continues and does not cease.
This leads directly to the concept of memory.
The human being who remembers the blessing preserves it mentally, while the human being who forgets lives in a state of constant deficiency and continually searches for a new blessing.
Thus, forgetfulness becomes one form of deprivation, while remembrance becomes one form of retaining the blessing.
Leaving the World with a Complete Memory
Bliss, according to this view, is not achieved merely by leaving life, but by leaving it with a complete memory.
That is, the human being does not want to change his past, erase it, or get rid of its events. If he leaves life wanting to change the past, he returns to the cycle once again.
But if he is able to accept the past as it is, remember it completely, and have no desire to alter it, then he leaves the cycle of reincarnation.
Thus, the real question is not: What happened to me? But: Do I want to change what happened?
If the answer is yes, then the past still holds the human being. But if he becomes capable of carrying his complete memory without the desire to reshape it, he has reached a state of stability.
Masculinity and Femininity as Symbols
In the most extreme part of the thesis, a symbolic distinction between masculinity and femininity is proposed.
Masculinity, in this conception, represents origin, stability, action, memory, and attachment to the covenant and principle. Femininity, on the other hand, represents vibration, movement, change, and the desire for replacement.
Based on this interpretation, the male body becomes a symbol of the complete and original body, while the female body becomes a symbol of the substitute and deficient body.
Religion as a Project of Stability
From here, the proposition moves toward an interpretation of religion.
Religion, according to this thesis, is not merely a collection of commands and prohibitions, but rather a project for returning the human being to stability and distancing him from continuous change.
For this reason, memory, regret, and the feeling of shame become important elements; because the human being who feels regret reconsiders his actions and does not regard himself as infallible.
Regret, from this perspective, is not weakness, but a sign of the human being’s ability to review himself.
The person who feels no shame or regret may become more inclined to change his covenants and principles, because he does not carry the past with him as a living memory.
Memory in Opposition to the Moment
One of the most important ideas reached by the text is that the human being can live according to the moment or according to memory.
If he acts according to the moment, he becomes dependent on what he sees now, and the immediate event or immediate desire may deceive him.
But if he acts according to his memory, he moves based on what he has learned, what he has agreed upon, and what he has previously experienced.
Therefore, masculinity, in the symbolic sense of the thesis, becomes connected to memory: do not change the covenant, do not change the word, do not change the agreement, and do not allow the immediate event to erase what you have previously understood.
The human being who changes everything with every moment loses his stability, while the human being who carries his memory with him preserves the continuity of his existence.
Iblis and the Circle of Hell
In this image, Iblis appears as part of the circle of hell.
The proposition assumes that Iblis, instead of leaving the people of hell alone, works to increase their number because he does not want to be alone.
Between Desire and Change
One of the most dangerous things the text warns against is turning the desire for change into an end in itself.
Not every change is progress, and not every departure from the old is liberation.
Change may be a remedy for a problem, or it may simply be a transition from one disturbance to another.
Therefore, the human being who makes immediate desire and craving his guide may lose his ability to distinguish and become more exposed to noise and confusion.
Hence the importance of reducing “vibration” in the symbolic sense: the higher the confusion, the more the calculations become mixed; and the greater the disturbance, the more difficult discernment becomes.
The Veil, Separation, and Mixing
The text also connects the concept of the veil with separation.
The veil, in the proposed reading, is not merely a piece of clothing, but rather a broader concept based on separating things that should remain distinct : separation, distinction, stability, and the avoidance of mixing.
Criticism of “Change for the Sake of Change”
At the end of the path, the proposition reaches a critique of some forms of contemporary discourse that make change a value in itself.
Change does not become correct merely because it is change, and liberation does not become correct merely because it is a departure from an old rule.
The more important question is: Where does this change lead? What is its purpose? And is there a clear project behind it, or is it merely a desire for movement?
Here, the text criticizes some forms of discourse widespread on social media, viewing them as potentially based on seduction, appearance, fame, and the repetition of rumors, rather than evidence and knowledge.
The problem, according to this critique, is not with a particular woman or man, but with turning platforms into an environment where influence becomes connected to appearance and engagement more than to evidence.
From Noise to Books
Therefore, the solution, at the end of this vision, becomes more practical than merely theoretical knowledge.
It is not enough for the human being to know that he lives amid noise; rather, he must distance himself from the sources of noise and build himself upon something more stable.
Conclusion
All these ideas begin from a single hypothesis: that multiplicity may be a veil over unity, and that the system based on multiplicity requires distinction, comparison, and preference, whereas unity does not require these concepts.
From here, the entire chain of ideas becomes connected: multiplicity, the veil, lordship, preference, reincarnation, the body, stability, vibration, memory, forgetfulness, paradise, hell, masculinity and femininity, and then religion as a project of stability and return to the origin.
The central idea reached by this construction is that the human being is not liberated merely by changing his appearance, his life, or his ideas, but by being able to leave the circle of constant replacement, preserve his memory, and know what he wants to remain steadfast upon.
The problem, in the end, is not that the human being moves, but that he moves without a purpose; nor is it that he changes, but that he makes change itself an end; nor is it that he searches for the new, but that because of the new he loses his memory, his covenant, and his origin.
Thus, the journey from multiplicity to unity, from vibration to stability, and from forgetfulness to memory, becomes the essence of this entire thesis.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment