G is for God
Janansan Books. ISBN 0-968730
Copyright © 2000 – 2009
Library of Congress
All rights reserved
Sherman Oaks, CA, USA
To Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, two of the most celebrated atheists of our time, men I admire for their acumen and genuineness. I hope gentlemen that by reading my essay you will come to discover your true potential. Your mercurial minds, engaging smiles and compassion for the underprivileged make you prime candidates for godhood. My only lament is that you resorted to selling your books instead of making them available gratis to the public, as I do here. Mixing commerce with philosophy sends a mixed message that perhaps you are only in it for the money. It smacks of crass televangelism and empire building. You are much smarter than that. Why follow in the footsteps of those you criticize?
What is the meaning of life? That is the ageless question. For some it is a riddle best left unanswered. To others, this sort of discussion represents mere rhetorical fluff, a distraction from the weightier matters of eking a living, planning for retirement, and enjoying the moment. But, in the battlefield of ideologies civilizations rise and fall on the merits of an answer. This program is not a panacea for our social, economic, or political ills. It will take more than an eloquent economic theory or a sound theological treatise to cure this world’s ills. Why then contribute to the cacophony of theories and ideologies?
If theologians have answered the ageless question, then why is it that we pray one day out of seven for transcendence and the rest of the week we prey on each other? For too long, religion has answered the ageless question with paradox. The more esoteric its dogma and the more phenomenal its miracles, the firmer has been its grasp on its followers.
If it is cryptic or spellbinding or implausible they will come. But, we live in a highly rational, technologically advanced era in which we have come to expect more than supernatural wonders and token medieval mantras. Theology which fails to incorporate reason or deviates from certain absolutes ultimately disengages itself from reality and alienates its
followers. As panoramic as its canon may be, and as charismatic its oracles, if it attempts to answer the ageless question with dissonant postulates it will discover in due course that come they may, but sooner or later, they will go.
It is no wonder then that increasingly we have turned to science for meaning. Science is concise, and tidy. Yet, as open as we are to the idea of extra-terrestrial life, we still recoil at the thought of a higher intelligence intervening in our personal affairs. If God exists, we wouldn't be having all these wars, we lament. Of course, the flip side of that coin is: if God didn't exist, we would not have come into being in the first place during that particular creative chapter, or perhaps brought into being in another far more repressed and uglier planet, or even into a planet where there was no challenge at all.
Science is not without its limits. Star Wars initiatives keep us at bay, tethering us like mad junkyard dogs to a crumbling planet. And at the pinnacle of our civilization we still cling to the notion that only the fittest survive. Of course, we sleep better at night when market indices are up; and we are renewed with hope at the thought that genetic engineers may soon isolate the immortality gene. In the meantime, NASA is stepping up its pace to probe the universe. As if we desperately need to
conquer outer space with our yet unconquered inner space. Tidy science is doing more than extending our life span; it is effectively branding our morality in time and space.
In an attempt to arrive at the meaning of life, let us first put to rest the spurious notion that truth can only cascade down from the burnished hallways of academia. Truth knows no social strata. It is not a function of erudition, status, race or political persuasion.
In this discussion we demonstrate our assertions logically by examining the concepts of truth, intelligence, existence, free will, justice, covenant, and godhood. With the exception of the odd metaphor and a few references to physics, the use of hyperbole, mythology, canonized or apocryphal sacred text, epiphany, incantation, history - whether allegorical, apologetic or anecdotal - is intentionally omitted.
The concept of infinity is particularly intriguing. How to describe endless space and time? Conversely, can existence be confined to a finite, closed universe? The mind has difficulty grasping either construct. We adopted infinity as our backdrop for the simple reason that mathematics cannot refute it. We do not catalogue cases in order to emerge with a moral code.
This is not a course in ethics. No path is prescribed; yet, various paths may intersect ours. The answer to the ageless question is neither shrouded nor encrypted in a furtive attempt to allure a following, or market books, but emerges as a critical mass which will hopefully arouse our sensibilities to the astonishing potential inherent in each one of us....and to the
magnificent tapestry we know as Life.
What is the Truth? Furthermore, what is the importance of knowing the
Truth? From a young age we are taught to always tell the truth. We use
the term 'Integrity' to describe people who are True to their convictions.
High Fidelity describes an audio component that reproduces True original
sound. We consider Truth to be something immutable and
irrefutable. In geometry, something either is or is not congruent, or true.
Something true holds up to the test of time and scrutiny. It cannot be
mistaken for anything else.
Science demonstrates Truth empirically. Philosophy arrives at Truth through
flawless logic. Religion establishes Truth (some would argue Irrationally) through
corroborated testimony. Truth cannot be confined by space and time. If a
particle of Truth was to be discovered logically or empirically tomorrow, it would not be
truer tomorrow than ten billion years ago. Electricity and fission
had always existed independent of their discoveries; and, so does much
of the undiscovered universe.
How to imbue meaning to the universe? Of all the methodologies used to discover
Truth, none is more potent than the scientific method. But, it is not
without its inherent flaws, as we shall discover. We could name the
principle by which science tests Truth as empirical certainty.
The only drawback with empirical certainty is that in order for new truth
to be demonstrated, science, or at least the instruments by which it quantifies
phenomena must advance.
It is for this reason and for this reason alone that universal laws remain
shrouded. There are simply no instruments accurate enough with which to
measure and quantify All Truth. While empirical certainty is a necessary
filter for Truth, it is by no means a sufficient filter, for there is much in our
experience which empirical certainty excludes, and which we
nonetheless consider relevant, meaningful, and essential for our survival.
Entire sectors of the economy, such as the filmmaking industry, rely on the soft
science of psychometrics. Institutions and governments
are founded on such unquantifiable maxims as loyalty, love, and patriotism.
Therefore, adopting empirical certainty exclusively as our benchmark in
defining the universe precludes much of what we consider essentially a given in
our existence. Science is limited by a lack of instruments.
We have no choice, but to adopt a more inclusive principle by which to
explain the universe. Let’s call such a principle empirical probability.
It embraces that which we cannot quantify.
If there is no scientific explanation for an event, then it is only Probably
True, not certainly True. Probability has its pros and cons.
Probability, the mortifying idea that uncertainty and
randomness pervades the universe led Albert Einstein to decry Quantum
Mechanics and exclaim: God does not play at dice. But, what did Einstein
know? In search for order and congruence, Albert spent the rest of his
reclusive life trying to discover a theory which would unify the
randomness of Quantum Mechanics with the congruence of Newtonian
Physics into a Theory of Everything. He never found it. Perhaps, he
started out with the wrong assumptions.
In order to begin explaining our universe, we propose an initial equation:
Where U stands for Universe and C for Congruence. The equation is
starkly simplistic. It does not describe the operative laws of the universe. It simply
states: The Universe is a function of Congruence.
We can manipulate the equation to describe unique models. For
argument's sake we could say: U= f[g(C)] , where g represents the law of gravity, describing a
universe that is a function of only one law, Gravity; something which could never happen.
For an ailment such as a brain tumor to disappear inexplicably without
any medical intervention or for a myriad of other paranormal events to occur, the implication is
that some process yet unquantifiable to science is at work. The unquantifiable law
which operates on the inexplicable can be referred to, for lack of a
better word, as Faith (a word I personal decry for its overuse. I could have used the phrase Law of
Attraction, but that would have been another cliche).
Faith attempts to explain the inexplicable. The day inexplicable miracles can be explained with empirical certainty is the day they no longer will be referred to as miracles, but as procedures.
A more fitting equation for our universe might be:
Where ω stands for all universal laws, discovered and undiscovered. This equation assures us that
just as the law of gravity operates in the case of a falling apple, so must
a law operate at some level in the case of, say, thought transference,
clairvoyance, magic, prayer, out-of-body experiences, remote viewing, time travel,
spontaneous combustion, extra-terrestrial life, exorcisms, levitation, or resurrection.
Just as science relies on a preponderance of evidence, conversely Faith
relies on a dearth of evidence. The more insurmountable the explanation, the greater
the need for Faith.
Faith permeates our very existence. It can be found in the game theories of politics, the machinations of personal
relationships, the rules of commerce, not to mention religious worship.
Also commonly known as Trust, Belief, or Confidence, Faith is the bedrock of our
soft science we know as Business, without which life on the planet would
grind to a standstill. When parties to a transaction are said to be acting in Good Faith we
understand that the parties are expected, with some degree of certainty, to
uphold their end of the bargain. In order to arrive at a point where trust
can take root, however, sometimes a token of Good Faith or a pledge is
required to act as evidence that one will remain - here is that word again - True to one's word.
In life, some of the instruments we use to convey our True intentions
include down payments, collaterals, personal guarantees, letters of
introduction and credit, engagement rings, dowries, vows, and oaths. In
finance, disclaimers such as 'past performance is no guarantee of future
results' indemnify financial advisers and infuse investors with Faith.
In investing circles sometimes the evidence is scant, and at other times it is
virtually non-existent. When one's investment decisions are based on shreds of
evidence - or, in more recent years, in shredded evidence - or evidence that runs contrary to
popular opinion, one is said to be a gambler, or a contrarian. 'Going out
on a limb' is an expression suggesting a person has perched one's
fortunes precariously on the edge of the abyss, thereby acting entirely on
unsubstantiated Faith; albeit, one is being simply True to one's convictions.
The principle which most nearly approaches a maxim, or binding principle, particularly in Business,
Covenants keep the unquantifiable irrational portion of our existence in a semblance of rational order; they allow society to experience conflict, accord, resolution, and on a much grander context, Evolution, Progress, and Ascension. We are constantly submitting hard evidence and tokens of Good Faith. Entering into Covenants is as indispensable as breathing air. Faith and evidence, then, are the two constants of our evolution. In our most unreasonable quantum leaps of Faith we have produced some of our greatest achievements. Evidence and, in its absence, Faith are the twin pillars upon which rests the coin of the realm, Truth, in our congruent universe.
As much as we wish to conveniently sidestep the issue of Faith, we cannot escape the fact that our very civilization depends on it. If a law was passed to abolish people of Faith, it would necessarily include Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, proponents of The Secret, Luciferians, Pagans, and any purveyors of sounder social order.
What processes Evidence and Faith? I am belaboring the point intentionally. This is a crucial topic if we are to arrive at the Truth. Intuitively, we know the answer to this question to be: Intelligence, artificial or natural. The concept that only intelligence can comprehend the truth is a self-evident Truth, or a tautology. It is true because it simply is true. The act of comprehending denotes intelligence. The real issue at hand is 'scale of comprehension' and if the term 'God' can be used interchangeably with a High form of Intelligence.
What constitutes higher intelligence? Design is a function of intelligence. A design that requires the collaboration of
quark or as complex and comprehensive as a cosmos.
The question raised is whether or not the universe was organized (some would argue Created) by a higher intelligence, an arch-mastermind, euphemistically referred to as 'God'. How high does Intelligence go? Given that we agreed to employ eternity as our backdrop, intelligence could be limitless. If one fact can be known, a second fact can also be known, ad infinitum.
To answer the question from a different perspective we can introduce probability, Einstein’s nemesis. If we were to assume that everything happens randomly, then the universe must be forever mutating unpredictably. Albert simply could not accept this notion. In such a universe nothing would occur with any degree of certainty. It kept him awake at night.
Some events do seem to occur randomly in our violent and hostile universe. Things seem to bump into each other, or get sucked down black holes with irreparable consequences. An unpredictable violent universe could also be a well-calibrated transformational universe. Let's compare the universe to a top. If I take a top between my fingers and make it spin on a counter, to the untrained eye it may seem to wobble unpredictably and eventually spin out of control off the counter. But, if I understand the exact dynamics of the forces exerted on the top before each spin, I should be able to predict precisely how long it will spin and the complexity of its path..
The story is told of a toddler clothed only in a plastic diaper who fell from a nine story balcony. On the
way down, the diaper filled with air and upon impact exploded into myriad pieces, absorbing his fall and in the process saving his life. Some would call this a miracle. Irrespective of the semantics, the probability of
recreating this event is infinitesimally minute, unless one knew how. Was the child saved by design or mere probability? There are many other stories like it. For some this was a case of providence interceding; for others it was all a matter of probability at work.
Weather is another phenomenon to which we ascribe probabilities. As a hurricane is about to make landfall, weather forecasters collect data from their instruments and predict with various degrees of certainty the probable
path the hurricane will take.
What if one was privy to the combined forces contributing to the dynamic of the hurricane? One could then predict its general and specific effects with 100% certainty. Conceivably, a higher intelligence with the right instruments and with enough experience, could calculate the seemingly infinite randomness of a hurricane right down to its last raindrop, and even alter its course.
If we have arrived at a point in our development where after a mere one hundred years of scientific research we are able to clone life, what could we possibly achieve in another thousand years? Such a peek into the future is a leap of Faith no more daunting than retrospectively explaining our origins. I, for one, have not seen any videos of apes transforming into homo sapiens. I can only imagine the complexity of mounting legions of cameras which would record continuously over a period of a million years. Yet, I still believe in a form of evolution. I have Faith evolution is, to a certain extent, True. Given our predilection to analyze, invent and create, it is mathematically impossible for us, over time, not to develop into intelligences we refer to as 'gods'. Perhaps, that is our destiny and the magnitude and its implications are far too staggering for us. And once gods, perhaps we will create life by bypassing the evolutionary process altogether. Perhaps, we will be in a hurry, and simply use our advanced knowledge of genetic engineering to produce ready-made life forms. Perhaps, some of us will use a combination of evolution and creationism. Perhaps, we will discover a yet third type of biogenesis. Perhaps, we will not wish to undertake such a big job as creating a galaxy all at once. Perhaps, we will be satisfied with creating a planet for starters, and progress to bigger and better things over time. Perhaps, not all of the universe is a product of design. What is so wrong with that? Perhaps, creation implies a collaborative effort, and is not the province of a single 'creator'. Instead of saying, as an egotistical god would, "let me create", perhaps we will say, as egalitarian male and female co-creators, "let us create". Perhaps, the majority of us have not evolved to the point where we can even conceptualize our potential. Perhaps, it is an affront to our sensibilities to be confronted with a concept we have so vehemently denied all our lives. Perhaps, our yet to evolve Faith is focused more on what we can readily acquire in our short life span, than on what we could become as a race or individuals.
Perhaps, it takes a different kind of Faith to contemplate the possibility of becoming a god or goddess. Perhaps, acknowledging our potential would require the disposal of our sacred cows, which provide plentifully for us. Perhaps, inherent in our evolution is a certain acquisition of humility, the acceptance that we have been wrong all along. Perhaps, the ability to eat crow in the universe is a quality found only in more evolved species.. Perhaps, by denying the existence of god, we are snubbing our nose to spite our face.
Perhaps the real obstacle to our actualization is not so much our genetic code, but our inability to self-actualize by conceiving the impossible.
Perhaps, there is a high probability that all of the above is true.
We come full circle. It is conceivable, probable, and certainly within the realm of possibility that certain intelligences, given the predisposition and time to do so, progressed (or evolved) to the point of comprehending all Truth and mastering Faith. We can call these intelligences for lack of a better word (and to the great chagrin of some our great thinkers) gods. We could even go as far as saying that our race is fast approaching godhood, if it doesn't destroy itself in the process, first.. The logical conclusion, by extrapolation, that we can become as 'gods' is inescapable. To deny this conclusion flies in the face of logic, and our strident scientific achievements. If immortality is within our reach, and biogenesis through genetic engineering is already a given, what more does it take to be as a 'god'?
Having established that attaining godhood is not only conceivable, but probable, we must also consider the purpose of a god? Once having made rank, then what? Are there gradations to godhood? To come to a point of embodying all truth and then end up without a purpose would make for such a meaningless journey.
If intelligences by definition Design, then we must suppose the 'most high gods' must have engineered the mother of all Designs. What could that Design be? And what could possibly be their motivation? Only two mutually exclusive motivations could come into play: altruism, or the desire to assist other intelligences in achieving godhood; or, its antithesis: enmity, where the aim would be to thwart intelligences from progressing further. Is it altruism or enmity that motivates the 'most high gods'? Considering the nefarious aims which the potentates of this world have, those who consider themselves de facto demi-gods by virtue of their immense wealth and power over the masses, it should come as no surprise that their motivation is anything but altruistic.
To do otherwise than assist others in their development, to deceive or sabotage, would run counter to the cardinal rule of being True, the mortar of a congruent universe. It only stands to reason then, that the demi-gods are counterfeits of the first order, de-facto impostors, aberrations, and straw-men. Only altruism, or Love, for lack of a better word, is an acceptable motivation for a god.
Design can be expressed as: s = f(I), where I stands for intelligence and s for design. If we include our predisposition to Design as a significant factor in the universe, our equation of the universe becomes:
This evolved equation now accounts for all laws, randomness, and design.
Where did we come from? Now that we are here, it would be nice to
know where we came from. Is our arrival on this planet our final
destination or is it simply a stopover? In the previous segment we
concluded that the motivating force of the gods would be Love. We proposed
that it is feasible for intelligences to progress to a stage where they can
embody all truth and achieve godhood. We maintained that progression
denotes the exponential acquisition and embodiment of all Truth. In
keeping with the principle of eternity, let us propose that we have
always existed, that we have not been created nor can we ever be
destroyed. Then, why can't we remember our former existence? Is it by
chance or by design?
If it is by chance, then we must conclude that from time immemorial
upon arriving on earth we forgot our pre-earth life by pure coincidence.
The odds of that being the case are simply too staggering. That leaves us
with two other possible explanations: an inability to remember; and
Are we perhaps simply incapable of remembering? One would think that
in a progressive universe where traits are encoded in our genetic
memory, retaining a recollection of one's past should have been
embedded in our genetic code eons ago. Recalling one's pre-planet
existence should be as easy as recalling last summer's vacation. Since
that is not the case, we must conclude that this forgetfulness is not due
to any lack of ability, nor is it our bad luck. It can only be attributed to
Somehow, before arriving on earth, we would have understood the
disadvantages of remembering our pre-earth life, and would have
consented to a form of cosmic dementia. We would have understood
that retaining such knowledge would interfere with our mortal existence
on a planet.
The only way we could have been made aware of all the ramifications
would have been if the grand design would have been explained by
intelligences that had previously experienced a similar planetary
existence. What could have been the ramifications of knowing the past?
It could be that upon experiencing the hostile conditions of this planet
we would have yearned to return to the splendor and safety of our
former existence, causing the suicide rate to soar. It could also be that
our brains would have been incapable of coping with millennia of
memories, a case of infinite information overload. Irrespectively, a
temporary forgetfulness, not a complete eradication of our past
existence, would have been necessary in order for us to cope in this
What reasoning could have prompted us to undertake such a journey?
Journeys mean new experiences. Conceptually, we had always understood
a great deal in theory.
In order to incarnate theory, or become the Truth, however, contemplation is not
enough. Being aware that telling the Truth is important does not make
one truthful. One has not become the principle unless one has become
its embodiment, especially under adverse conditions.
Embodying the principle of honesty, for example, is not complete when
one acts honestly only at certain times, but, rather when one cannot but
act honestly under any circumstance. Then, and only then, can it be said
that one is the embodiment of honesty. Based on our understanding of
progression, we must have realized that our experience on a planet
would have been an essential stepping stone to our ultimate destination,
that of godhood. As a result of progressing into a mortal body, we would
feel pain and pleasure, sadness and joy, life and death, things which we
were not able to appreciate as disembodied forms during our quest for
Truth. By experiencing opposites we would come to comprehend the
universe more fully. Affluence would clash with poverty. Freedom and
tyranny would come into sharp contrast. Every principle would be
understood in context of its antithesis. Call it Ying Yang, the law of
opposites; it's all mere nomenclature. What matters is that the sweet
cannot be appreciated without the bitter.
As disembodied intelligences in our pre-existence we would have gained
only conceptual knowledge based on the principles of evidence and
Faith, those two pillars that make for a congruent universe.
Mortality, however, would provide the conditions to choose from a
spectrum of vices and virtues. Upon arriving in a hostile environment of
scarce resources clothed in a fragile body we would need to gain
experience by sorting through conflicting ideologies. A planetary
experience would permit us to fully comprehend the meaning of trust by
embodying trustworthiness. We could choose to become the
embodiment of courage, honesty and humility, or of cowardice, deceit
and vanity. Our actions on earth would be based primarily on Faith,
relying heavily on the testimony and traditions of those gone before us.
As children what choice do we really have? What do we know of the
Prior to our arrival on earth, we would have examined all evidence
supporting the case for coming to this planet.
Since our decision to come to earth would have been based on Faith and
Evidence, it would stand to reason that the most compelling evidence
would have been the evidence put forth by higher intelligences – the
gods - who like us had embarked on a similar journey. The gods would
have had to demonstrate to us, in unequivocal terms, that the journey
we were about to embark on was the same one they had once embarked on,
one which was rife with pitfalls and triumphs. We would have known the
risks and rewards associated with a mortal existence, and the fact that
there would be no guarantees of ever achieving our ultimate
objective. We would have also been given glimpses of intelligences who
had failed to embody Truth during their mortality.
These implications would have had to be fully outlined, disclosed and understood,
in order that we could never claim at some future point that we were never given true and plain full disclosure.
Then, and only then, with our eyes wide open, would we have chosen to step into mortality. Our decision would have been made without any form of coercion or duress.
By induction, we can adduce that our post-earth existence would allow us further exploration
of the Truth, in ways which we couldn't possibly imagine or experience in a
In order to incarnate all Truth, our post-earth
experience would of necessity allow us to comprehend the truth of all matter by
embodying all matter, experiencing the phenomenon by becoming the
phenomenon, knowing a neutrino by becoming a neutrino. In order for
us to comprehend a sun's core we would need to be a sun's core.
That might explain why the gods do not mingle with mere mortals - such an interaction
could pose a serious health hazard. And, if Faith plays such a vital
role here on earth, what role could it possibly play in the hereafter? Concocting a
galaxy could be as rudimentary as making a bowl of Jell-O.
What is Free Will? Is Free Will the equivalent of Freedom? Free Will
refers to one's ability to choose. Freedom, on the other hand, is a condition
in which options and choices abound. The two are not one and the same, but closely
related. Free Will is an innate attribute of Intelligence. Since design
denotes choice from a given number of options; the greater the number, the greater
the degree of Freedom.
Intelligence is a function of Free Will, but not of Freedom.
Prisoners, slaves, and hostages possess Free Will, but enjoy no Freedom.
Conversely, people with mental handicaps and small children may enjoy
Freedom, but their Free Will is impaired. The proper use of Free Will can
lead to greater Freedom. Substance abuse, for example, can deprive one
of the ability to fully experience Freedom. Education almost always
If the Universe is a function of Design, and Design is a function of
Intelligence, and Intelligence is a function of Free Will, then the Universe
must be a function of Free Will.
Would the universe be congruent without Freedom? If there were no
choices, then of what use would be Free Will? Intelligences need choices
in order to progress. Free Will without Freedom is a universe without
purpose. One first chooses one's objective. Then, a course is set and
action is taken to meet the objective; the consequences which follow
are evaluated and the course is either maintained or adjusted. This
feedback mechanism of acting and evaluating we shall refer to as
accountability. If effects could not be evaluated, it would be impossible
to determine whether one made the right choice.
Motives give rise to objectives, and objectives are achieved by their
corresponding actions. This describes a universe in which thoughts play a
great role in the grand design of things. Thoughts can point one in the
right or wrong direction. If one's objective is to travel south, but one
instead finds oneself heading north, that constitutes a wrong action. If
one stops to realize that one is heading in the wrong direction, but does
not turn around, then one has no one to blame but oneself. That is what
being accountable entails.
We briefly touched on the subject of thoughts. Much attention has been
given to the power thoughts have in shaping one’s future. There is ample
evidence to support that theory. There is however one minor detail, that
has not been addressed adequately in any of the literature on selfempowerment.
And this detail can mean everything in one’s life; it can
make all the difference. This book is not the proper forum for such a
discussion. However, it is important enough to note it.
The detail is this: if there are higher intelligences capable of
communicating thoughts, then there is conceivably more than one
source for thought, one’s mind and other sources. The origin of the
thought is critical. Irrespective of the source, at the end of the day, one
must choose whether or not to act on the thoughts.
If attaining godhood is the universe's invitation to us, then any path that
deviates from that objective, even by a small degree, is the wrong path.
Instead of progressing, one may be digressing, or regressing. Actions are
not wrong because the universe has arbitrarily labeled them so, but
because they cause one to miss the mark. Wrong actions impose their
own penalties which may never be felt in mortality. But, this memory
lapse in mortality is temporary, and we will eventually come to know our
true cosmic position in relation to our objective. One may commit
atrocities with impunity in one's lifetime and live to a ripe old age, but
the universe keeps track of us with its highly advanced GPS. To be
accountable, ultimately, is to be able to differentiate between right and
wrong. It is to have a conscience, to be able to experience regret and
If one deviates by a small measure, one feels little regret. The
adjustment is minor. One can simply retrace one's steps. If, on the other
hand, one is off the mark by miles, the thought of having to retrace one's
journey can cause unfathomable regret. At its extreme, regret
approximates anguish. Regret laments the loss of Freedom and the
squalor of resources. Regret causes one to feel alienated from one's own
true potential and from others who are experiencing greater Freedom.
Regret, and its counterpart Joy, are the only gauges we have. Alienation
comes from the acknowledgement that one has embodied the wrong
principle, has lost time, and has separated oneself from communion in a
society of individuals who have embodied correct principles. Regret in its
many forms, from a sense of alienation to mental anguish, is the
necessary and distinguishing mark of a congruent universe.
The more choices one has to choose from, the vaster the degree of
Freedom one enjoys, the greater the latitude for error, and the greater
the likelihood of experiencing suffering. The catchy hip-phrase all is good
is a misnomer for everything comes at a price. The universe may
champion Freedom, but it also champions Congruence. It is not surprising
then, that we invest vast amounts of energy in order to mitigate the
effects of our wrong decisions. Dispensing with suffering seems to be the
final frontier of our ideological gurus and our sacrosanct scientific
community. Yet, without any suffering life can be meaningless.
Why is Justice often referred to as blind? Justice makes certain that
everything balances out.
Justice is the great clearing house of the universe. It brings all causes and
effects to equilibrium. Painting a universe in which Justice is relative or
nonexistent is an exercise in futility, as we shall come to see. And we all
believe in Justice, now don't we?
If we include Justice in our equation, the universe transforms to:
U= f[wsj(C)], where j stands for Justice.
Attaining godhood involves more than simply refraining from doing
wrong. Godhood means embodying all Truth, and acting only for the good of others.
Failure to embody, to incarnate loyalty, altruism, etc. automatically
disqualifies one from experiencing the bliss of godhood. What happens if
one fails to measure up, or if one should be so unfortunate as to be born
at the wrong time and in the wrong place? What provisions and
remedies does the universe make for people in such instances? These
and many other seemingly unanswerable questions are what keep us
clinging to Neo-Darwinism, that tidy law of the survival of the fittest, and
humanism, the assertion that man can do it all by himself without any
assistance from any being outside this planet.
Abrogating a person's human rights is not a good thing. Neither is
committing murder. But, this is not a course in ethics. A universe where
any action is the right action, is a universe void of any suffering,
accountability, and ultimately, meaning. It is an inescapable fact that
actions produce corresponding consequences in the form of regret or
bliss. One is free to choose one's actions, but not free to choose their
consequences. And that keeps things tidy. One cannot break a law,
without breaking oneself against it. Mistakes, if duly noted and
corrected, can lead to greater Freedom.
In the final analysis, all are accountable, even those who have no notion
of right and wrong, for Justice is, after all, blind. And non-duality, the
position that asserts that all is good, only gives rise to chaos, to the
existential angst as our discussion will prove.
Conceptually, if intelligence is a function of Free Will, which is the
inherent ability to choose, and if one's ability to choose is impaired, then
logic dictates that one should not have to answer to Justice; as in the
case where one's morals were denigrated in childhood, or in the case of
a mentally handicapped person.
It is an affront to our sense of justice to suppose that such individuals
should be held accountable for actions which they were either
predisposed to commit from a very young age, or which they had no
control over. The insanity plea works well in a court of law. But, in a
congruent universe murder is murder, regardless of the mental state of
the perpetrator. Someone has to pay. Everything must balance out.
Justice is blind.
Then who will pay for the loss of that life? Who must suffer?
For Justice all that matters is that a wrong was committed, and someone
must pay the price; it's a tidy, simple principle; it's a matter of cause and
effect; if a law has been broken, the effects must be felt. Justice seeks to
keep the universe congruent. It ignores motives or circumstances. The
wonderful thing about Justice is that it is so consistent. It keeps the
universe in perfect equilibrium.
The reason we are so outraged at its exacting demands, of course, is
because we intuitively know that there must be a higher law at work,
some mitigating principle which offsets the caustic effects of Justice on
those who have an impaired Free Will. What is that mitigating principle?
There are four ways to mitigate suffering: 1. by commuting it 2. negating
it 3. preventing it, or 4. assigning it.
Commuting suffering only postpones the inevitable.
The next best method and one which has gained great popularity, is
negating its very existence. One does that by purporting that every
phenomenon, including suffering, is an illusion; that our senses are
subject to error, and therefore not reliable indicators of reality. The
reasoning goes something like this: since all which we experience is a
product of subjective sensory interpretation, then experiencing suffering
is a private subjective matter.
Another variation of the same theme is to negate suffering by negating
one’s Ego. How can suffering affect one’s being if one’s ego is an illusion?
By negating the ego, one need feel neither suffering nor joy, just a state
of endless now where neither thoughts nor feelings exist, which is
tantamount to saying: if you can't stand the heat, get rid of the
thermometer. But, this line of reasoning begs the question: if suffering
and bliss do not exist, then what, if anything, exists? If pain and bliss are
illusions, then who cares how one acts? If suffering is but an illusion,
then is there a need to comply with any law? And, furthermore, what
need is there for law to exist in the first instance? It, too, is an illusion.
Welcome to nihilism, where nothing really matters.
As well, this type of reasoning presents its own kind of spiritual necrosis
as one isolates oneself from the vicissitudes of mainstream humanity.
This is the legacy of negating suffering and the reality of self.
The inability, or unwillingness to recognize the suffering of others as a
necessary human condition leads to a type of dislocation; one becomes
increasingly incapable of empathizing with the joys and sorrows of
others. This dislocation leads to a sterile, uninvolved, detached
But, if suffering and joy are the common lot of all of us, and key
components of our existence, then so is justice.
The universe doesn't play favorites. Rich or poor, smart or senile,
accountable or not, Justice requires payment from all. One may choose a
given path, but by choosing it, one has also chosen the destination, thus
making life predictable and meaningful.
Just as there are many paths, there are also many destinations.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of a mistake, as painful as its
consequences, in the long term the suffering experienced may result in
that essential course adjustment that leads to godhood. Thus, we see
that negating suffering does not produce a congruent universe.
One, of course, can attempt to bypass suffering by preventing it.
Certainly, preventing it in the first place is preferable to experiencing it.
But, in a hostile planet brimming with intelligences that are competing
for the same scarce resources there is bound to be some suffering.
For the vast majority in this world it seems that the only way of
bypassing suffering is by assigning it to others.
It is the mark of a fallen world: assigning the blame, passing on the
suffering. Victims of this phenomenon experience what we shall call
Involuntary Vicarious Suffering (in contrast to Voluntary Vicarious
Suffering which we shall discuss momentarily). Assigning suffering is
pandemic. Scapegoats abound. Much of humanity has been assigned
suffering that it never volunteered for, let alone deserved.
In contrast, as we shall come to see, Voluntary Vicarious Suffering is the
cement which bonds the universe.
Voluntary Vicarious Suffering entails that one, of one's own Free Will,
volunteers to suffer on behalf of others. If the universe's objective is to
bring about godhood, and the purpose of Justice is to maintain
equilibrium, how does Voluntary Vicarious Suffering operate?
This brings us to the topic of a Vicar. Bearing in mind that achieving
godhood is a matter of not only being found blameless before Justice,
but also of being found completely worthy through the embodiment of
truth, the role of a Vicar would be twofold: to expiate, and to
It is one thing to not commit any wrong, it is quite another to actively
embody Truth in the face of great odds and opposition. A life that is void
of wrongdoing is a blameless life, and Justice demands no suffering of it.
A life replete with goodness is a worthy life, which Justice wants to amply
reward. Inasmuch as Justice cannot exact suffering of a blameless life,
likewise it cannot bestow bliss on a less than worthy life. In that context,
only a perfect life, a life that is both blameless and worthy qualifies for
godhood. A Vicar, therefore, must be able to both expiate for the blame
and compensate for the unworthiness of not only one person, but for all
that have existed or will ever exist. This combination of expiation and
compensation we will refer to as Mercy, also commonly known as grace
in some circles.
Mercy does come with its own set of parameters, especially as we
consider the motivation of the Vicar, and the effects of any Voluntary
Vicarious Suffering on intelligences with Free Will and those without Free
But first, let’s examine a Vicar’s motivation. What would motivate an
intelligence to suffer vicariously on behalf of others? Could the
motivation originate from a need for adulation? Adulation, although a
plausible motivation, is certainly not a guaranteed outcome. It could also
be argued that construing events so as to produce the desired adulation
compromises the notion of Free Will, and therefore, constitutes a form
of coercion. For this reason, adulation as a motivation must be
The more plausible motive, is altruism, or simply put Love for those who
must suffer at the demands of Justice. Love, as we shall discuss later,
may also prove to be the unifying mortar of the universe.
What other attributes would a Vicar possess? Since Justice requires the
guilty to suffer, a Vicar could not be guilty of any offense, for any
suffering experienced by a guilty Vicar would only appease the demands
that Justice imposed on the guilty Vicar, and on no one else. Justice,
therefore, requires a blameless Vicar, in order that the (unjust) suffering
suffered by the Vicar may recompense the demands that Justice imposes
on all those who are unjust. As well, logic dictates that a Vicar must
possess the capacity of enduring the cumulative mental anguish of all
intelligences, past, present, and future.
Since godhood implies total worthiness, a Vicar should also be the
embodiment of all Truth, or be totally worthy, in order to compensate
for any deficiencies found in the less than worthy. In other words, a Vicar
should already be a god.
On the unaccountable, those without Free Will, the demands of Justice
are as demanding as on those with a Free Will, the accountable. Let us
examine the type of life and death which would be required of a Vicar in
order to appease the demands of Justice.
The Vicar, being the embodiment of Truth, would need to experience a
life fraught with opposition, temptation, hate, and in the end, a life met
with an unjust, violent death; for if one claims to be the embodiment of
Love, then only an unjust, violent death would constitute the seal, the
final testament, that a gross injustice was perpetrated in the universe
against a perfect life, against a god.
A blameless life, a god's life, experiencing infinite mental anguish would
create an injustice or an imbalance in the scales of Justice that would be
noted by the entire universe; which injustice would eternally expiate the
unaccountable of their suffering. They would no longer have to
experience suffering for their wrongdoings. Justice would have been
A worthy life, a god's life, one that embodied all Truth, experiencing an
unjust, violent death would create another aberration in the universe;
which injustice would justify the unaccountable by compensating their
unworthy lives. We should note that should a Vicar experience no mental
anguish (as it would befit a blameless life), or die a peaceful death (as it
would befit a worthy life), then no injustice would be created, and the
errors and omissions of all intelligences would disqualify, bar, and damn
them from ever achieving godhood. If and only if, a Vicar could suffer
mental anguish and die an agonizing death could Justice be satisfied. This
is the effect, then, of a Voluntary Vicarious Sacrifice on those without
To update our equation, since Justice can be appeased by Voluntary
Vicarious Suffering, our equation evolves to: U= f[wsjμ(C)] , where μ
stands for Mercy.
We have examined the role of the Vicar on behalf of those who are
unaccountable, and have concluded that Voluntary Vicarious Suffering
can mitigate the effects that Justice imposes upon them. The importance
of Mercy becomes more apparent when one considers that it is the
highest form of Love, and cannot be expressed in the Universe without a
Vicar experiencing Voluntary Vicarious Suffering. Furthermore, in the
absence of Mercy, those who are not accountable for their wrong actions
must still suffer at some point of their existence, simply because Justice -
blind Justice - holds them accountable.
If Justice exacts suffering of those who are not accountable, then, what
of those who are accountable? How can Mercy or a Voluntary Vicarious
Suffering intercede on their behalf?
What is a Covenant? A Covenant is the agreeing to abide by the terms
and conditions set forth by two or more parties, and, as we shall come to
see, the only instrument by which Mercy takes effect on those who are
accountable, those who possess Free Will.
As we shall see, Voluntary Vicarious suffering then, not only mitigates
the effects of Justice, but it also, in a far more significant way, champions
If Mercy was not dispensed freely to the unaccountable, to those without
Free Will, it would stand to reason that a gross injustice would pervade
the universe, and that the absence or presence of Free Will would be an
irrelevant principle. Mercy, then, champions Free Will.
Let us summarize our conclusions in a simple equation:
Mercy + Unaccountable = Free Will Championed
We just conceded that by applying Mercy on the unaccountable Free Will
How would Free Will be affected if Mercy was dispensed freely to the
As it happens, Mercy applied freely to the accountable results in the
negation of Free Will. For, to obtain Mercy freely when one's Free Will is
fully functional implies that one can act wrongfully or fail to embody
Truth with impunity. In other words, one is not damned if one does and
not damned if one doesn't. Choice becomes irrelevant. Freedom
becomes irrelevant. And since it really doesn't matter what choices one
makes, Free Will also becomes irrelevant. Every choice is the right choice,
and we end up with the all is good non-duality position. In essence, Free
Will is dispensed with when Mercy comes with no strings attached..
Mercy + Accountable = Free Will Negated
For the accountable, those who committed wrong intentionally, logic
dictates, that for them, Mercy comes at a price, not freely. What quid pro
quo does the universe require of them, other than suffering? The price
can only come in the form of a Covenant.
The terms that would emerge would need to be as follows: if, and only if,
the accountable would voluntarily promise to cease from acting
wrongfully and attempt to embody truth, then and only then, would
Mercy be dispensed to them. This bilateral promise, or Covenant, would
need to be entered into with some symbolism, to evidence that both
parties entered the Covenant voluntarily.
In entering a covenant, there would be no compulsion brought to bear
from either side. The Vicar could not coerce intelligences into accepting
the terms, nor could accountable intelligences coerce the Vicar into
offering the Covenant; any duress or coercion from either side would
render the Covenant null and void. Free Will must be upheld at all costs.
Thus, only by entering into a Covenant without any compulsion could
Free Will be championed.
The gods would assist accountable intelligences in their quest for
perfection as long as they complied with the terms of the Covenant.
Those who would keep their Covenant would be distinguished from
those who would not keep the Covenant in two ways: by the peace they
experienced, as a result of Mercy assuaging the demands of Justice
(suffering), and, by their good deeds, evidence that they were becoming
more altruistic, or the embodiment of Love.
The gods would be bound to keep their end of the bargain as long as
intelligences kept theirs. Conversely, intelligences who would break their
Covenant could not expect the gods to keep their end of the bargain.
Since gods by their very nature cannot lie, it is with perfect certainty that
an intelligence that breaks the Covenant will not be afforded Mercy. In
summary, this is how Mercy operates on those who are accountable:
Covenant + Accountable = Free Will championed
The opportunity to enter into a Covenant would need to be made
available to all intelligences at some point during their mortal or postmortal
existence, for many would have died without even knowing of the
terms. Therefore, in order for the universe to remain congruent and for
Free Will to be championed, all intelligences would need to be given an
opportunity of accepting or rejecting the Covenant at some point of
existence. Alternatively, intelligences could opt to suffer their own
allotted suffering without the aid of a Vicar's Mercy and attempt to
incarnate truth without the instrumentality of a Covenant. Ascendency
and Suffering with or without the aid of a Vicar are the choices given to
Who or what is God? Can God be plural? Are there male and female versions?
The universe is congruent because Truth is immutable. Life
is a journey that can point towards godhood provided Free Will can reign
supreme. Since Design is a function of Intelligence, we must also
conclude that gods must stand united in a single grand purpose, which is
the deification of other intelligences. What mortals experience
intermittently as love, or altruism, a god must embody eternally. The
grand design is an opportunity for intelligences to enjoy the same
freedoms and joys that gods enjoy, and this can only be accomplished by
entering into a Covenant with the gods, in the case of those who are
In accordance with the principle of progression, the emotions mortals
have learned to compartmentalize must necessarily accompany them
into the next life, and beyond into higher spheres. It must be that gods
are able to feel appropriate emotions, as well as enjoy all the pleasures
of mortality. Their memories must be perfect and complete, and they
must enjoy the same relationships they once enjoyed on their planet.
Gods must be intimately involved in the progress of all intelligences.
They must have championed the principle of Free Will by allowing
alternative paths to co-exist within the grand design. Therefore, the
notion of natural selection, the story of the creation as well as other
traditions, myths, and theories must of necessity co-exist to create
choice, Freedom. If the answer is too obvious, there is no choice.
In all fairness to accountable intelligences, the gods must have chosen
intelligences from their pre-planetary existence at various stages of a
planet's history to act as teachers of the grand design. And, it would
stand to reason that the sooner intelligences embody Truth, the sooner
they can attain godhood.
Paradoxically, the universe naturally selects civilizations that have
substituted natural selection with Love.
Since gods are the embodiment of all laws and principles in the universe,
then our definition of a god is:
G = wstμ(C)
U = f[wstμ(C)]
Then, the definition of congruent universe becomes: U = f(G), where G is
The Universe is a function of God
The most difficult concept for the human mind to grasp is that of
Eternity. The question arises: is there an end to intelligences? If
intelligence can neither be created nor destroyed, and yet there is an
infinite number of them, how is that so?
We must concede that a single principle must operate which allows for
an infinite number of intelligences to exist, in keeping with our original
view of a universe which encompasses eternity. What could this principle
From our vantage point, all we can say is we don't know; or more
precisely, we don't know what we don't know. There is a plausible
answer to all this, however, and it may rest on Love, a form of fractal
energy, an energy that increases and replicates itself with use. If Love is
an energy which can emanate from intelligences inexhaustibly, then we
have made a case for a universe that expands ad infinitum. Not only can
Love be passed on, but when passed on it leaves the donor with a
greater capacity to Love. This is the fractal power of Love, the
inexhaustible energy that is ever increasing. And perhaps that is the
meaning of life in a nutshell: Love is the all and be all.
Of course, for that hypothesis to be demonstrated scientifically, science
must first advance, instruments must be discovered...etc.
If Love engenders Love, then we have come full circle. The Love that we
crave is the same Love that gave rise to our existence. We always
existed, but only when we were loved did we awaken to the
possibilities, did we become engendered by gods. We, as the gods, are
made of the same stuff: Love. We have simply forgotten that. Is it any
wonder that we feel most despondent when we are not loving or not
being loved. We don't merely take on a loving nature in this hostile
planet; instead we uncover our very essence, for Love is what we have
For some, the choice was made a long time ago to show Love in love-less
conditions. In this life, circumstances constantly incite us to hate, recoil
and to cloak our loving nature.
Yet, each conflict is an opportunity to exhibit Love, our true nature.
A planetary existence is the gauntlet wherein we prove, against all odds,
that we are in-deed Love. The gauntlet is not a form of punishment, but
the testing ground, the corridor to Freedom. So that we could never
complain in the hereafter that we were never tested, and therefore had
no choice but to be Love. A planet gives us the opportunity to be
something other than our true nature and in doing so, it provides choice,
Freedom, and champions our Free Will.
As to how to explain an open ended universe, we can only surmise that
in order for the universe to have forever existed, there could never have
been a time when Love did not exist. The important thing to realize is
that we cannot come to a full understanding of all Truth in our short
lifespan, especially not with the built-in memory blocks we come
equipped with. What little we can grasp through logic or science is a
pittance compared to what we will remember and come to know in
future realms. In short: it is better to know little and be Love, than to
know it all and have missed the mark.
Meaning is all about being congruent. Any path that does not adequately
and coherently address the principles of truth, intelligence, existence,
free will, freedom, justice, mercy, covenant and god is devoid of meaning.
To refute Truth is to exalt madness. To negate Free Will is to negate
Intelligence. To deny Freedom is to champion tyranny. To eradicate
Justice is to hail chaos. To denounce Mercy is to embrace suffering.
Reason leaves us with no choice. We must choose.