‘We are living in a simulation’

Ultimate truth? New false reality? New-normal predictive programming?

[I have been working on this piece every day for the past three weeks trying to reach the point where I can call it ‘complete’ - a most elusive point, for this topic slithers at the improbable edge where I find empirical rationality and the poisonous occult to collide fruitlessly in the fraught terrain of beliefs. But it is a very big topic when the age of virtuality insinuates itself through every new crevice into reality, as befits the peak of krivda with its ‘crooked reality’. So, before I let this prose grow more gooey tentacles, I’ll just hand it over to you and your wisdom.]

Noticing a trend. In both spiritual and scientific discourse, the notion that ‘all this is a simulation’ is on the increase.

The timing for seeding such a big new idea (or an old Indian idea of ‘illusion’ expanded in tech-new garb) seems to be suspiciously opportune, when ‘coincidentally’ Big Tech is churning out a growing array of all things ‘simulation’ - for virtual,  augmented, synthetic ‘realities’.

‘Simulation’, not a frequently used word until recently, seems to be acquiring a quasi-mainstream status.

What is simulation in the first place? To simulate is to copy, to pretend - basic meanings from which fancier scientific ones spawn ‘tabletop exercises’ or predictive ‘models’ of potentialities. The basic meanings imply that in order to exist, a simulation has to have something to simulate. So what is ‘The Simulation’ simulating? Either we know what the ‘original’ is, or we are trapped in yet another ill-defined abstract word that doesn’t quite know what it means, and probably doesn’t want us to know.

Somewhere in Big Tech’s arsenal, there is a grand project called - of course - Simulation. It is said to effectively have been built, such that it has each and every one of us ‘copied’ as a ‘node’, in which case it really is a simulation of an original. By the way, nobody asked whether we agreed to be ‘simulated’, nor are they giving us royalties for copyright or ‘right to copy’ us. As nodes to boot.

It so happens that the business of simulation is a big thing with ‘the gods’ and their priests who, lacking intrinsic creativity, must compensate with cleverly deceptive means. They’ve been at it for a while. One of those ‘gods’ is claimed to have ‘created the world’ in just six days. Considering the actual magnitude of such a task, those have to have been six days of hallucination. Lady Earth must have watched the hallucinatory antics with great amusement - after all, she is arguably the best placed to know what it takes, and how long it takes to bring into manifestation a physical planet out of the realms of pure potentiality.

Closer to the present, ‘simulation’ possesses the minds of youngsters (among others) devoting hours daily to computer games in a predominantly ‘kill or be killed’ genre. A laptop operator sitting in a safe comfortable room is running an on-screen simulation that instructs drones to go kill people in some remote location - a process of simulated reality for the operator whose hands and face are not hit by the real blood of exploded bodies. And its toxic occult underpinnings come through when such a drone program openly calls itself ‘gospel’.

To those with a sense of Reality (like Peter Kingsley, see his volume bearing that very title), the simulator masters of the world are a boring, self-infatuated lot and have been at it for far too long. But today Simulation with a capital S is acquiring a dangerously elevated status - the status of ‘what this reality really is’. It is rudely crowding out the fundamental creativity of life itself that is too busy with reality alive to be bothered with simulating it. Even as religions old and new want us to believe ‘it is all an illusion’, while they go about the business of culling life.

As it goes mainstream, the gospel of Simulation smacks of predictive programming, the techniques of which, honed over millennia, have been systematized in recent decades. Gradually, imperceptibly, persistently, enticingly, it seeds ‘simulation’ in the collective mind and grows it into actual ‘fact’. It now reaches the point where it can pass itself off openly as the ‘real thing’, helping to usher in a desirable evolutionary step for post-humanists, or the worst of dystopias for old-style humanists. The creed and tools of simulation are effectively being unleashed now that our minds and emotions are sufficiently primed to accept, without challenge or resistance, simulation as some sort of ‘new normal’. It could well be the oppressive alien tech version of what has been a ‘very old normal’ for various liberation-seeking spiritual schools.

Humans have overall tended to resist this kind of liberation, but some are seen to be splintering now that the empire of tech is making Simulation so ‘real’ in a world of collapsing certainties.

It is far easier for Simulation to govern humankind if humans can be made to believe that we already live in a simulation anyway. It started a while ago with the basic thing called ‘food’ - decades of ingesting fake food in the belief that it was real food paved the physical way for simulation-as-reality, and the same can be said of ‘health care’ or ‘education’.

Simulation theories

Spiritualists for whom ‘simulation’ explains why this world is as it is (harsh place of suffering, prison planet, ‘matrix’), believe that people who awaken to simulation as the actual ‘fact’ of this reality have a chance to escape to a place of real reality for soul freedom. This requires a lot of tacit assumptions to be made about that place, with roots presumably in a lingering subconscious belief in religious notions of ‘paradise’. The latter being another prior bit of word-spell, since paradeisos, like the Hebrew gan-eden, means ‘enclosed garden’.

On the other hand, certain scientists and mathematicians have theories to ‘prove’, or at least provide ‘solid’ arguments (complicated equations and constructs) to the effect that we live in a simulation. But to ‘prove’ that, they don’t seem bothered with preliminary proof of the ‘original’, of that which is simulated. Is this omission scientifically valid? Or is it the magic of the prize word ‘simulation’ itself that allows its meaning to be brushed aside by the greater authority of brilliant equations?

Does the word ‘simulation’ itself possess a power of attraction that transcends the prerequisite of a real simulated original? That power of attraction might well signal the presence of an egregore, the toxic occult at work.

In simulation theory, the universe is conveniently said to operate on mathematical principles - the abstract nature of which might be well suited, precisely, to ‘simulation’ affording endless potentialities for ‘realities’ beyond reality. In that paradigm it seems legitimate to theorize that perhaps simulation is what runs the tangible exuberance of life, that the universe is actually run by mathematics, in other words by numbers (of course in such elaborate combinations that ordinary people need scientific priests to mediate the universe for them).

In parallel, we can note that there are also top-level scientists (and many spiritualists) who say that ‘the universe is consciousness’. But this is not unproblematic, when ‘consciousness’ is another one of those magic words - pseudo-mystically mechanistic. As far as I can see, ’consciousness’ conveniently and consistently lacks a coherent definition. How the consciousness of the universe relates to what is believed to be the consciousness of humans and that of, say, microbes, remains unexplained. Here again, some priestly intermediation is required to connect - or rather keep disconnected - those ‘levels’ or ‘forms’ of consciousness.

But let’s say that we accept those two scientific principles. Logically, if we combine them, the universe is ‘consciousness’ run by mathematical principles. How does this relate to human or insect consciousness? Does it mean that our consciousness, mysterious and undefined as it is, is also run by numbers?

Well… our consciousness might be run by numbers, if we are prepared to accept two highly contentious propositions - a) our biological brains are the seat of our consciousness, and b) they can be seamlessly plugged in to this or that AI. In which case, the ‘great reset’ of post-humanism techno-priests is completely legitimate. But plenty of research is also finding that our consciousness is not (or not only) a thing of the brain. And the seamless plug-in has unfortunately proven lethal to quite a few of our primate cousins in their capacity as ‘test subjects’. So much for numbers running the consciousness of living beings.

Nevertheless, the fact is that in a universe-as-consciousness run by numbers, a simulation generated and ‘proven’ by numbers can be granted ‘reality’ status without requiring an ‘original reality’ to simulate - we just had a brilliantly un-real one nicknamed ‘pandemic’. In fact, in such a universe the only ‘reality’ would have to be simulation. Something with nothing much, or nothing at all for us to hold onto.

What are ‘numbers’ made of?

This ‘nothing to hold onto’ seems to afflict a substantial proportion of humankind, particularly in the affluent western world where ‘reality’ has become so un-real as to cause soaring rates of depression and suicide. ‘Simulation’ could perhaps be the antidote… But we can note in passing that if large numbers of humans losing their lived sense of reality are dropping out of life, non-suicidal humans are proving implicitly that ‘life’ and ‘reality’ go together, do not want to be dissociated.

Rampant internal dissociation in humans happens to be the kind of thing that is cultivated by MKUltra programming the tools of which specialize in creating havoc in people’s reality. Knowing this, paradoxically there are those who believe that the only way out of such ‘matrix’-type dissociation is to cultivate a sobering view of this world as, precisely, a simulation. But does it make sense to seek one’s salvation from dissociated self-loss in a concept - simulation - predicated on dissociation, on separation of ‘life’ from ‘reality’, on seeing the world as a computer game of mere role-playing ‘avatars’?

In all of these theories and assumptions, the vital core element of natural life itself gets the least attention while it is actually the most ubiquitous, as well as mysterious, definition-evading fact of what we experience as reality. It feels as though life is what simulation (via numbers, theories, abstract beliefs) actually wants to circumvent, a pesky reality to be resolved, made obsolete.

On the other hand, we are far from having completed our exploration of what we call life, be it scientifically or spiritually. Even with the legacy of some ancient cultures’ knowledge available to us, we’ve only scratched the surface. Yet so many of us are already barely alive, barely real…

I advocate for our own, plain human, re-association - the stuff of ‘down-to-earth’, ‘grassroots’, ‘common sense’, embodied things that happen to be really, really hard to simulate. My ordinary down-to-earth life encounters teeming presence of life underfoot, the pulsating warmth of living bodies, the emotional charge of living beings - specifically energies, which by their very nature cannot be generated by the unfeeling coldness of numbers, nor captured by simulation.

If I earnestly do an examination of ‘numbers running my life’, the only ones that govern my consciousness - irritatingly so - are those of the artificial constructs of tick-tock time and of fiat money. With great respect for the usefulness of numbers in calculating weights, prices, measurements, it cannot be said that they run the show of my experientially real life nor of what I take to be my consciousness.

You might object that we are governed by numbers in a big way, those of the regular recurring cycles - circadian, seasonal, lunar, solar, yearly, and the great cycles of the planets, the even greater yuga cycles. They all come in duly measured durations. Fair enough. But is it their duration, the numbers expressing that duration, that run the cycles? Are these numbers themselves the power that moves the heavenly bodies, the great choreography of cycles? Do numbers contain the energy to cause such magnitude of motion, and its rhythmic patterns? Of course not. It is the other way round.

Those cycles are moved by specific energies - in forms and intensities largely unknown to us. The observer’s intellect produces a derivative result - fixed numbers to represent the cycles. The numbers become a convenient mental proxy for the cycles and for what governs their movement, and there comes a point where the abstract scientific (or spiritual) mind uses numbers as if they were a causative factor. An abstract encapsulation of grand phenomena reduced to small cold symbols…

Spiritualism can speculate that ‘at the beginning’ the Zero generated the One and the Two - but the mystic might suggest, of course more fuzzily, that the tremendous prime power of Nothingness seeded the vibrational potentialities of ‘one-ness’ and ‘two-ness’, qualities of a texture richer than numbered quantities. In other words, the unimaginable power of whatever is eternally at the origin of everything is felt to be such by the mystic, but is grasped by the intellect as its representation - a derivative abstract Zero, the symbol that the mind can play with while it cannot play with ‘zero-ness’.

It is said that the zero was ‘invented’ by some ancient Indian seer, meaning a mystic visionary - mystically speaking, that experience of the great Nothingness preceded the emergence of the zero as representation. And to be fair to mathematicians, some of them who reach the zenith of their art have no other way forward than to break loose into the realm of ‘zero-ness’…

Another possible objection is that Nature is full of numbers - the numbers of flower-petals that are so helpful for botanical identification, numbers of legs on insect species, numbers of segments inside citrus fruits, and so on. It looks as though Nature is indeed governed by numbers. But while this notion may satisfy the intellect, the soul resonates with the qualities that such numbers merely represent. Nature’s ‘numbers’ are vibrational patterns that hold a certain rhythmicity, that repeat themselves in each species but never with mathematical precision and quantitative certainty. What makes a four-leaf clover magical is that it breaks the presumptive ‘number rule’ while upholding the vibrational truth of ‘clover’. Nature’s ‘numbers’ are never boringly self-similar - she doesn’t operate a standardized assembly-line.

Are there any equation(s) that would do justice to the minute variability of each five-petaled flower on a single plant, or to its rule-breaking six-petaled ones? The vibrational and rhythmic quality of ‘five-ness’ (or six-ness, four-ness, infinite-ness beyond count) expresses a certain flavor of life-energy. A quality that precedes the quantitative, that no mathematical or theoretical model can account for, nor create. Only the devotional talent of certain artists can capture it, honoring the original with a two-dimensional approximation of its aliveness - misnamed ‘still life’.

In ‘five-ness’ or ‘infinite-ness’ reside qualities, rather than quantities, that make the diversity of Nature vibrant with aliveness, hence real. A reality that cannot be simulated… Nature doesn’t do clones - within a row of oaks, no single tree is exactly like the next. Only a simulator ‘god’ or priest can desire a row of exactly similar trees that obey the exact requirements of the simulator for the sake of profit or convenience - that row of clone trees, assuming it were possible, is ‘dead life’. The aliveness of Nature, a complex pulsating, rhythmic dance of micro- and macro-diversity, is the living proof of her reality. The core of this reality is what generates it, invisibly to us - the greater ‘part’ of it that the mystic perceives.

Many spiritual people are not so mystically inclined. Without the felt power of the invisible ‘part’ of reality, it is understandable that their spiritual sense should reach for the ‘solution’ of a conceptual intangible, such as simulation.

Is life itself simulation? What of?

The theoretical logic of Simulation as ‘real reality’ is profoundly illogical from the standpoint of the compelling, intensely more powerful mystery of life, the invisible force of Life. Which again raises the question - what is simulation simulating as far as life is concerned? The Simulation that says it has a ‘node’ representing every one of us appears to be simulating us as its ‘original’ object. It makes sense as a simulation of ‘us’ but where ‘we’ are reduced to less than a fraction of the original ‘we’.

If this world is ‘a simulation’ - of what is it a simulation, of another world? Or does it mean that ‘this world is an illusion’, in which case life itself - the very substance of this world - is an illusion. Which begs the question, why bother in the first place to establish such a world, with all the intricate complexity and bewildering diversity of Nature and of humans, considering that the ‘creation’ of this world involves unimaginable levels of energy investment, where even ‘energy’ is too small a concept. The sheer magnitude and exuberance of life in this world are such that they could only have been generated by some force(s) of unfathomable skill, power, immensity and subtlety - forces so creative that they would have had absolutely no need for an ‘illusion’. Even less an ‘illusion’ to serve for ‘loosh’ extraction from living beings (‘loosh’ being one of the hypothetical explanations for ‘this world is a simulation’).

Alternatively, if this world is illusory as a simulation of some other ‘model’ world, this prior model world necessarily have to be even more exuberantly alive than ours. Either it exists, or it doesn’t. If it exists, the great mystics, seers, contemplatives - who are not trapped in an ‘illusion’ - would have described it to us, but their other-worldly reports convey nothing remotely similar to the aliveness and diversity of our world, which it should be if this one is a ‘simulation’. For the most part, whatever the contemplatives perceive beyond this world is a realm or realms of oceanically intangible non-material energies, forces, intensities, mostly unnameable, and experienced as more real than this world. More real in terms of being of a more fundamental ethereal density than our physical density, one that compels stillness unlike the moving aliveness of this materially alive world.

The contemplative brings back into this world the treasure of that which is intangibly real, in one of two forms. Either the treasure of that reality dictates the ‘pessimistic’ finding that this reality here is an illusion. Or that reality reveals that this reality is its extension, an optimistic exploration of the manifest form of itself. This latter version reflects a vaster Indian concept than ‘illusion’, one far less known in westernized oriental spirituality - lila, magnificently and emphatically joyful, is the ‘dancing game’ of the great principles of the universe. Lila has no need for illusion or simulation. It generates different combinations of the great subtle forces leading into manifestation as stars, constellations, beings intangible and tangible…

Add to this the further Indian notion that esoterically ‘all that is in the universe is in the human body’ (body both subtle and physical), and you can decide whether we humans are avatars of a computer game on an illusory planet, or manifestations of a great ‘dancing game’.

Does simulation resolve the fact of suffering?

Suffering is real - can simulation explain it away effectively, remove it really, if we just ‘play in the simulation’? This ‘explanation’ resembles the ‘remedy’ many health ‘care’ providers offer to intensely suffering people - ‘it’s all in your head’ - that makes the suffering worse by not acknowledging its experienced reality as real.

Too many people, animals, beings of Nature, who are tortured, raped, abused, cut down, feel excruciating pain as unquestionably real. It is a matter of what is felt. Reality is felt experientially, thus cannot be reduced to mental representations.

[This also means - as counterpoint to all that I am saying here - that if reality is felt to be unreal, and illusion or simulation appear to be the only rational concept to support one through the ordeal of an illusory life, there is no rational or irrational, material or spiritual argumentation to dismantle the certainty rooted in such a felt unreality. But I am still going to carry on with my argumentation…]

A genuine sufferer cannot be expected to believe that the torture and the suffering are ‘not real’. If a sacrificed human, a child, is being simultaneously tortured and assured that ’this isn’t real, it’s a simulation’, the pain experienced will be even more intense, amplifying the dissociation-inducing effects of the suffering. Those who do the torturing know this to be real, which is why they use it. From this perspective, ‘simulation’ feels like a further twist in the perversion of MK programming…

Logically, if the sufferer’s felt reality is ‘not real’, neither is the felt reality of the natural human’s joy, creativity, contributions to beauty of the world. If the experience of emotions, aspirations, feelings, activities is reduced to un-reality, most of what makes us human becomes pointless, non-existent. Is this the point of ‘simulation’?

How does that un-reality sit with the woman carrying a new life in her body, the woman in great labor pain, the woman holding the newborn close? If ever there exists a supremely human experience of real reality, that has to be it - the experience of subtle forces gradually forming into physicality, a truly cosmic experience of what ‘creation’ means. Would women who have experienced this ever imagine or subscribe to simulation as the ‘explanation’ for the generation of new life?

Is there a strange kind of hubris in simulation beliefs? A need to - implausibly - ‘do better’ than the ungraspable immensity of what manifests in this world, the sheer diversity of humans, of all species, of ecosystems, of niches, the complexity of the intertwined mutually influencing great life systems on this Earth plane…

Undeniably, this world does experience a whole spectrum of suffering, which does serve the purposes of parasitic entities gorging on ‘loosh’ and other forms of energy from living incarnated beings. But does ‘simulation’ give us a good enough tool to handle our victimhood, if it is only a matter of waiting to ‘get out’ of the simulation where even our suffering is ‘not-real’?

In this world as reality, we can do far better, by owning our victimhood to the point of breaking out of it, right here. In evolutionary terms, suffering has made us explore it as reality in ways conducive to us learning how it arises, how it peaks, how it is alchemized. It has made us hone our repertoire of emotions, with pain as a vector for our sense of being humanly sensitive, for our cultivation of empathy and joy. Suffering is not the defining feature of being-human, but one of different ways to experience how energy flows or is blocked, and can be recovered. In evolutionary terms, while the parasitic entities live in a dead-end of dependence on us for their ‘food’, our suffering compels us to find new pathways into something better.

Simulation versus ‘the subtle’

The allure of simulation theory owes plenty to our programmed ‘scientific’ belief that ‘real’ means ‘physically, measurably real’, a programming well anchored by a mechanistically materialist, consumerist, commodifying culture. We have been removed from what used to be our natural sense of the subtle intertwined with the physical. I see this as the first stage of the programming - the mind gets dominated by mechanistic materialism.

The cancellation of ‘materialism’ is the next phase when disgust with ‘materialism’ poisons our sense of the physical real.

Finally, when both the subtle and the material-physical are thus displaced and denied, we are ready for the magical solution - the realm of Simulation, un-reality of life as bodies, as Nature, and of the stupendous invisible forces that ensure the constant dialogue of the physical and the intangible.

The realm of Simulation rests on layers of dissociation that have been breaking up subtle-and-physical Reality around and within us for a very long time. ‘The gods’ have been engineering a phenomenal trick on us. From an ancient state of integral wholeness, to a culture of ‘materialism’ without the subtle, to a fumbling quest for ‘spirituality’ against matter… now to let Simulation ‘fix’ it all.

In being simulated away from ‘matter’, we are certainly not encouraged to recover the subtle that is the ultimate antagonist to the enemies of life. Un-reality at all levels is the replacement of real subtle reality. Simulation is the perfect all-round device to take the subtle of reality away completely, under the guise of canceling the reality of physical existence.

What a process we’ve been put through. For this, the high priests have spared no effort, have deployed untold levels, intensities, persistence of violence and deceit, over a very long time. But wait. It seems a disproportionate effort in terms of ‘return on investment’ if said return is comprised only of the various energies they harvest from us (considerable though they are). Something else has to be motivating the investment-savvy high priests with their impeccable track record for big returns to the gods of money, war, science, tech… The sheer size of present-day real investment flows for the sake of false realities, virtual, artificial, simulated, has to be a signal denoting expectations of some very immense prize. A prize predicated upon the final eradication of reality of this world, in us - the reality of the subtle in its dance with the physical? That’s what it feels like… even if we trust reality to remain real. The priests’ window of opportunity in this respect is small. So is ours.

Theirs is a big game, and deeply esoteric. With simulation as a spiritual-and-scientific ‘new real’, we are dealing with something that proves incredibly difficult to think through (as this essay meanderingly shows). For something to aim at canceling all of reality - hypothetically measured as comprising 5% (at most) tangible and 95% intangible/‘dark’/subtle - it has to have deep occult underpinnings. Might this have anything to do with the overlords’ invocations of a new One World Religion? Simulation to absorb into one the religions of ‘gods’ secular and religious, with the falsification of all of real life as the ultimate grand sacrifice to super-empower the jealous Simulator Mind?

Be that as it may, the big esoteric game points an array of distorted mirrors at us, the false reflection of what it seeks to conceal, which is what I claim to be the other esoteric that is natural to humans, rooted in their dual earthling-and-cosmic identity.

Although the Simulation claims that this Earth realm (including us) is not real reality, and doesn’t tell us of what exactly it is a simulation, it seems clear enough today that it simulates what it wants to displace and replace - the reality of the natural human rooted in the Nature of Earth and cosmos. Amounting to a compelling challenge to us to reinvest human subtle wholeness within the tools most often invoked in this war against life (rule of law, ‘god-given’ human rights, democracy, prepping, and prayers…).

The natural human esoteric remains an elusive notion for most of my readers - logically so since the esoteric resides outside our well conditioned habit of ‘thinking in the head’. It is easier to recognize that there is an occult charge inherent in ‘simulation’ that blurs the distinctions available to the rational mind. ‘Simulation as actual reality’ can neither be definitively proven nor disproven by intellectual reasoning, and leaves ‘real reality’ to felt experience, challenging it in cognitive quicksands where sensory and experiential truth is stolen from us.

But beyond words, beyond the convoluted reasoning presented here, it is our own esoteric sense that knows. And I claim that it is part and parcel of our human nature, and in no way amenable to s/Simulation.

In this perspective let me offer a seemingly preposterous kind of ‘thought experiment’.

Throughout the weeks of working on this issue of simulation, contemplative practice has pointed to ‘origin story’ as a sort of ‘antidote’ with a strong element of the natural human esoteric.

A different origin story?

Until now origination myths have implicitly adopted ‘origin as reality’, without much concern for ‘origin as simulation’. In our busy lives, most of us have given next to no attention to our ‘origins’, or more or less accepted those received from our culture(s). How many of us actually own our received origin story?

It is mostly assumed that ‘the Creator’ (most often a ‘he’) made this Earth, and then created us to put us in ‘his creation’. I am endlessly perplexed by the unquestioning use, by many who have moved beyond the Christian story, of ‘Creation’ to denote Earth and of ‘Creator’ as the author of Earth and of us. It would seem intellectually logical, or intuitively appropriate, to consider other possibilities.

None of the origin stories we have are more than scientific theories, exotic indigenous myths, or religious dogma elevated to the status of ‘fact’. The Big Bang origin story is no more than a theory, nicely challenged by the Electric Universe model (itself unconcerned with dimensions of subtle energies beyond the electro-magnetic). The creation of humans by ‘gods’ or aliens is a religious ideology. Darwinian evolution from primitive to higher life forms is a theory, now very contentious. Exotic myths from various indigenous sources contain elements that ‘feel true’ but represent mostly partial remnants of more ancient lost memory.

In such a context of uncertainty, nothing really prevents us from exploring other ‘theories’, or from simply allowing something different to seep through from our souls’ eternal memory. At this point, discredited official versions (‘trust the science/the priests’) leave the space wide open for other possibilities that reside deep inside, possibilities that will not ‘trust the Simulation’.

John Lamb Lash’s remarkable Not in His Image refutes the god of Christian scriptures, and probes the gnostic apocrypha telling the story of Sophia, the Feminine aeon who, on her own impetus, ‘incarnated’ as our planet (allegedly without waiting for her Masculine partner), and of her ‘luminous child’, the human. Lash never tires of asserting that there is no better myth today for us humans than the story of Sophia. He has a strong point, and he builds up the myth with a huge amount of detail. But is it good enough to have a beautiful myth when we are at risk of losing reality?

The gnostic story of Sophia has resonated with my subtle sense, but as an echo of something much more ancient (even beyond the Paleolithic ‘goddess’). In the gnostic rendition, it is heavily colored by the extremely patriarchal culture of the Near East two thousand years ago (whereby the Feminine aeon ‘fell’ and made a ‘mistake’ such that she ‘gave birth’ to the evil demiurge). On the other hand, it has some congruence with ancient Indian Feminine and Masculine Principles, which live on in the esoteric Human path of grassroots Bengal that I mention occasionally, and that probably shares the same very ancient source.

That is in a nutshell the scholarly backdrop for our ‘thought experiment’, taking the hint of ‘a better possibility’ - a Feminine Cosmic Being chose to incarnate as a ‘planet’, with intimate involvement of the Cosmic Human.

Where Lash built up a whole complex story for his myth, our humbler experiment is one that involves less than ‘thought’, rather a contemplative receptivity that simply sits with the possibility of something so ancient that we have no words for it.

The possibility can be nudged by a few ‘what if’ questions.

What if complex life-forms like our own did not emerge in the slowness of Darwinian evolution from a hypothetical bunch of protozoans?

What if we incarnated from the outset as humans, not proto-hominids?

What if we and our Earth were not made by some ‘superior godly creator’?

What if this planet and its human inhabitants mutually co-created themselves, from scratch, dreaming the intangible ethers into form, material-and-subtle manifestation?

What if this cosmic adventure spanned an un-measurable duration to gradually condense the intangible into physicality?

What if a very unique expression of the intangible into physicality were the prime goal of this adventure?

What if the expression of this creativity were such an exceptional manifestation of Life that it attracted the attention, envy and greed of other cosmic entities, their drive to induce degradation, destruction, enslavement, falsification dissociation?

What if the common saying ‘you create your reality’ actually means what it says, but reaches far beyond its ordinary sense?

This preposterous ‘non-thought experiment’ is hardly more preposterous than everything else we’ve been told to keep us subdued with beliefs… Obviously, it can make absolutely no claim of ‘objective truth’. It is not an ‘idea’, certainly not a ‘theory’. I am incapable of ‘thinking’ it, incapable also of ‘imagining’ it, since nothing of our present or even historical collective experience can ‘go there’. It has not yielded a ‘story’.

‘It’ is thus free to convey what it can, bits of something for which I have no words. A treasure more ancient than ancient, unknown but not alien, recognized somewhere inside as real.