If Absolute Nothing ever existed, then Absolute Nothing would still exist today. But since something exists (you, for example), this means that Absolute Nothing never existed. If it existed, you wouldn't be reading this article right now. In your place, there would be only Absolute Nothing.

So, there has never been a time when Absolute Nothing existed. Thus, there is something that has always existed. But what is this Something? If we go back to the very beginning, what was this Something that should have already existed? Was it just one thing, or more than one? And what was that something like, based on what exists today?

Let's explore the role of quantity first. And for this, we turn again to our pitch-black, hermetically sealed room. Imagine that there are ten tennis balls inside the room.

What's next? Let's say we wait a whole year. What will be in the room? Still ten tennis balls, right? Because there is no other power. And we know that ten ordinary tennis balls can't produce new balls or anything, no matter how much time passes.

Okay, what if we only put six tennis balls in there to start with? Would this change the situation? No, not particularly. Okay, but what if there were a whole million tennis balls from the very beginning? Still nothing changes. All we have in the room are tennis balls, no matter how many.

We have learned that quantity does not matter. If we go back to the very beginning of all things, then the amount of this Something that should have existed does not play an important role. Or is he playing?

Let's put away the tennis balls. Now there is a chicken inside the room. Let's wait a year. What's inside the room? Still the same chicken, right? But what if we started by putting one hen and one rooster in the room? What would we get if we waited a year? A whole bunch more chickens!

So quantity matters if there are at least two items inside the room capable of producing a third item. Hen + rooster = chicken. But quantity does not matter if we are talking about at least two items that are unable to produce a third item. Tennis ball + soccer ball = nothing.

So, the question is not so much in quantity, but in quality. What qualities are inherent in our Something? Can Something give rise to the existence of other things?

Let's go back to our chickens, but this time we'll be more precise, because this is very important for the very, very beginning. We have a hen and a rooster in our room. They are in different corners of the room, immersed in nothingness. Will they produce other chickens?

No. Why? Because there is no suitable environment for reproduction. There is nothing in the room but a chicken and a rooster. There is no air to breathe or fly in, and no food to sustain them. They cannot eat, walk, fly or breathe. The environment of their existence is utter nothingness.

Thus, the chicken experiment fails. Chickens cannot exist or reproduce without a specific habitat. In the presence of such an environment, they can breed offspring. And with the environment affecting them in a certain way, perhaps they could - although it seems absurd - eventually turn into a different kind of chicken. In something akin to an otter or a giraffe, for example.

So we have a room with no environment. Thus, we need Something that can exist without an environment. It must be something that does not require air, food or water to exist. Such a condition excludes everything now living on earth. Then what about inanimate matter? It doesn't need a special environment, that's true. But then we find ourselves in the same predicament as in the case of tennis balls. Inanimate matter does not produce anything.

For example, if you had a trillion hydrogen molecules instead of tennis balls, what would happen? Time will pass and you will still have a trillion molecules of hydrogen, and nothing more. While we are talking about non-living matter, let's think about what is needed in order to ensure its formation.

Have you ever heard of the Super Collider? Decades ago, the US government conducted an experiment to create matter. The supercollider is a tunnel that stretches several kilometers underground. Atoms fly through this tunnel at supersonic speed and collide with each other, during the collision the smallest particles are formed. This whole experiment was carried out for the sake of the possibility of obtaining the smallest, microscopic particle of matter.

What does this tell us? That our illustration with tennis balls is not as simple as it might seem. It would take an INCREDIBLE amount of energy to get just one tennis ball out of nothing. And nothing is all we have. After all, there is absolutely nothing in the room.

We settled on this: Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to exist independently of anything else. It must be wholly and completely independent. After all, in the very beginning there was only one Something. And It didn't need an environment to exist.

Secondly, Something that existed at the very beginning must have the ability to produce something other than Itself. If It could not produce anything, then the only thing that would exist today would be Something. But today there is something else. You, for example.

Third, it takes an incredibly huge amount of energy to produce something else out of nothing. Therefore, Something must have at its disposal a huge amount of energy. If it takes kilometers of a corridor and the maximum energy we receive to produce the smallest particle, how much more power would be required to create all the matter in the universe?

Let's go back to our room. Let's say that we have a special tennis ball inside our room. It can produce other tennis balls. He has enough strength and energy for this. And he is completely autonomous, that is, nothing is needed for his existence, because He has everything in Himself. He, this tennis ball, is the Eternal Something.

Suppose a tennis ball produces another tennis ball. Which of the two would be superior, say, in terms of time? Ball number 1. One Ball is limited in time, the other is unlimited.

Which of the two would be superior in terms of strength? Ball number 1 again. He has the ability to produce Ball #2 out of nothing, which also means he is able to interrupt Ball #2's existence. So ball #1 has a power far greater than ball #2. In fact, the very existence of Ball #2 will always depend on Ball #1. But you say, what if Ball #1 gives Ball #2 some of its energy - enough to destroy Ball #1? Then ball #2 will be superior because ball #1 will cease to exist, right?

In connection with this, a problem arises. If Ball #1 shared its energy with Ball #2, that would still count as the energy of Ball #1. The question arises: could Ball #1 use its own energy to self-destruct? No. First of all, because Ball #1 must exist in order for it to use its energy.

Second, Ball #1 is so strong that it can perform any possible action. However, it is impossible for Ball #1 to cease to exist, and it cannot perform this action.

Ball #1 cannot be destroyed since ball #1 was never created. Ball number 1 has always existed. It's Something Eternal. It is existence as such.

This is life, endless life. To destroy ball number 1, someone else's strength is needed. But there is nothing bigger than the #1 ball, and there never can be. It exists without needing anything else. And therefore He cannot be changed by outside forces. He has no end because He has no beginning. He is what He is, and He cannot change. It will not cease to exist, because EXISTENCE is its essence. In this sense, he is inviolable.

So we see the following: Something original will always be superior to Something Other that it will produce. The Eternal Something exists by itself. Something Other, however, depends for its existence on Something. Thus, Something Else has needs. And therefore Something Other is lower in position than Something, and will always remain so, because the Eternal Something has no need for anyone else.

A very important topic, a topic that has been going on for a very long time. There were questions to me, and my questions to myself and the universe. How? Why?

How can a person cross the barrier of impossibility to do this or that thing, to do it well. Achieve success. I have repeatedly “run into” the mysterious figure of 5%, these are those who achieve something in this world (at the level of success).

Yes, an important addition. I'm not going to teach people what they are not ready for in their souls and do not want it. But there are a lot of cases when a person wants, he is interested, but it doesn’t work out!

This is exactly what I want to talk about. What to do, how to be here?

For example, a person wants to sing, draw, but there is no talent, and he does not know where to go, inside there is a stupor, fear ... Attachment to that business, to the work that he is doing now. Maybe to the family, social responsibilities.

And here you can insert any kind of activity (think up your own).

Returning to the title - how to make something out of nothing, relatively .. nothing in the area in which you are going, and you can become someone (something). A manual on higher magic is so named only because in the entire history of mankind there were very few adequate schools that allowed the one who entered "from nobody to become someone." And there is no other way to call it magic - the process of transforming a person from nothing into something.

For some reason, it seemed to me that one of these schools was the school of Gurdjieff, however this distraction is somewhat off topic.

Most of the schools (courses) and so on have a good deal with those who already have something, and simply develop this something.

One of the popular seminarians (leading seminars, not to be confused with the seminary), quite cynically and quite truthfully said: Yes, any seminar and training is just a multiplier! If a person would remain zero-zero, but was a unit, he would become a thousandaire (figuratively speaking).

Everything is clear with this, and everything is known with this. So after all, it is precisely these same 5% mentioned above that just multiply their abilities, while it turns out that the rest are doomed?

So, do not expect miracles from seminars and trainings, these are just amplifiers of what is already there.

I stubbornly wanted to find useful information in this area, but how is it? How to teach a person? I confess that I myself am in those same 5% who already initially know and understand a lot from birth, and for this very reason I did not understand the situation (after all, I saw it from the inside), and constantly told everyone, why are you ...

It's all so simple, take it and do it! Alas, in this sense, I lost. And some of the people I told this to might have believed me and stalled. And my conscience began to torment me.

Now I'm trying to get a rematch. Part of the information was found in Vincent Roazzi's book "Attitude to Success", partly from other authors (I will not mention them here), with the possible exception of Alfried Lenglet, author of the book "A Life Filled with Meaning", although he himself has not yet read it.

Speaking very briefly, such information was revealed to me, what is still needed so that “whoever was nobody would become everything”.

So, point by point:

1) Getting rid of illusions, seeing life as real as it is. Real, meaning from the point of view of psychology (All sorts of matrices, Mayan illusions, and all that, we don’t consider now)

2) Paraphrasing point one (but only paraphrasing, since it is not the same thing), in fact this is work with shortcomings. My favorite parable on this subject: There is a car, filled with gasoline, a person is going to go. But the car is full of holes, the tank is leaking, the wheels are full of holes, the glass is dirty. Will he go far? Or is it worth fixing the car first?

3) What tools do I currently have in order to work with points 1 and 2? Unfortunately, only eniology (I do not recommend eniology to anyone, in any case !!!). Danger!

Why "Unfortunately? Yes, these tools are extremely effective, but then again .. for 5-10% of people who are already on the verge of awareness.

Universal tools, I think so, are labor, traditional attempts at development, and an individual approach to a particular person.

I still think there is a way out for everyone. However, until the key to a person is found, what exactly helps this particular person?

What is for him the key to himself? Without an answer to this question, everything is useless.

I repeat once again - today I have information where the key is for 5-10% of people, with the rest, alas, there are no options yet.

Rather, I can tell them something, but will it work? Question, big question.

In the end, if there was a panacea for everyone, everything would have ended long ago.

Therefore, dear friend and reader, I will tell you this thing:

Take care of yourself, find time for yourself. Understand and think about whether the above is a problem for you at all? Maybe you already have everything and are just too lazy to move on?

If you don't have it, look for yourself! Look for what prevents you from understanding. And read the books mentioned here, what if they help? Suddenly, there is an answer to the question?

One person constantly argues with me and says, they say, if a person is essentially a homeless person or a redneck, or just a dunce, or a layman, then NEVER in this life, he will not stop being like that.

Like, karma, it will develop on its own, and maybe in 100 lives, it will come a little closer to awareness, and then ...

I do not agree with this, although technically, theoretically, he is right. I do not agree that any of these people CAN still wake up, and they have a chance. Change a little, look at the world a little differently, realize something and you are already different.

Maybe this does not happen, but that's another matter and it's none of my business. My job is to give an opportunity, to show.

And you try, make a choice. Look for something that will help you. It can be taijiquan, pilates, yoga (if psychological problems are concentrated through the body). Take the school of the same Gurdjieff, as far as is known - there was work, yoga, special exercises.

And then a man from an insect gradually became a man, feeling unity with the universe.

Maybe this is symbolic modeling, (search for oneself in essence), some other methods. There is only one key here - if the technique is aimed at working with something internal in a person, it can bring an effect.

In contrast, magic, some esoteric exercises, often religion with prayers (the mind rushes out, when there are problems inside).

And I continue to look for more or less universal methods for everyone or for many, how to speed up. Wait not 100 lives, but somehow quickly.

Moreover, a very, very important moment is in the PATH, in general, to determine the direction of the PATH, to understand what you need and what is your meaning.

Perhaps this topic deserves separate consideration. And don't forget about it in your life.

Chapter 9: Nothing is Something

I'm not against ignorance. It doesn't scare me.

Richard Feynman

Isaac Newton, arguably the greatest physicist of all time, profoundly changed our understanding of the universe in many ways. But perhaps the most important contribution he made was to demonstrate the possibility that the entire universe could be explained. With his universal law of universal gravitation, he demonstrated for the first time that even the heavens can be subject to the power of the laws of nature. A strange, hostile, threatening and seemingly unpredictable universe is perhaps another matter altogether.

If the universe is governed by immutable laws, the mythical gods of Ancient Greece and Rome would be powerless. There would be no way to arbitrarily change the world, creating acute problems for humanity. What applies to Zeus will also apply to the God of Israel. How could the Sun stand still at noon if the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, and its movement in the sky is actually caused by the rotation of the Earth, which, if it suddenly stopped, would cause forces on its surface that would destroy all human structures along with by the people themselves?

Of course, supernatural acts are the essence of miracles. They are, after all, the very things that bypass the laws of nature. A god who can create the laws of nature can probably also circumvent them at will. Although why he so generously bypassed them thousands of years ago, before the invention of modern communication tools that could register this, and not today - it's still worth thinking about.

In any case, even in a universe without any miracles, when faced with a fundamentally simple fundamental order, two different conclusions can be drawn. One, made by Newton himself, and previously supported by Galileo and many other scientists over the years, is that such an order was created by a divine mind responsible not only for the universe, but for our own existence, and that we humans, were created in his image (and other complex and beautiful creatures, apparently not!). Another conclusion is that all that exists is the laws themselves. These laws themselves require our universe to come into existence, develop, and evolve, and we are the inevitable by-product of these laws. The laws may be eternal, or they may also have arisen, again, due to some as yet unknown, but perhaps purely physical processes.

Philosophers, theologians, and sometimes scientists continue to argue about these possibilities. We don't know for sure which ones actually describe our universe, and we may never know. But the point is that, as I emphasized at the very beginning of this book, the final arbiter in this matter will not be hope, desire, revelation, or pure reflection. It will be, if ever it will be, the study of nature. A dream or a nightmare, as Jacob Bronowsky said in the opening quote in this book (and one person's dreams in this case could easily be another's nightmare), we need to experience our experiences for what they are, and with open eyes. The universe is what it is, whether we like it or not.

And here I think extremely important that the universe from nothing - in the sense that I will try to describe - having arisen naturally, and even inevitably, is more and more in line with what we have learned about the world. This knowledge is not derived from philosophical or theological reflections on morality or other speculations about the world that surrounds a person. Instead, they build on the remarkable and interesting developments in empirical cosmology and particle physics that I have described.

So I want to return to the question I set out at the beginning of this book: why (why) does something exist and not nothing? Obviously, we are now in a better position to correct this by considering the modern scientific picture of the world, its history and its possible future, as well as an operational description of what "nothing" can actually consist of. As I mentioned at the beginning of this book, this question, too, has been explained by science, like almost all such philosophical questions. Far from being formulated in such a way as to impose on us the need for a creator, the very meanings of the words mentioned have changed so much that the phrase has lost much of its original meaning - a common situation when empirical knowledge sheds new light on the dark corners of our imagination.

At the same time, in science, we must be especially careful with the question "why". When we ask "why?" we usually don't mean "why?" but "why?" or how?" If we can answer the last question, that is usually sufficient for our purposes. For example, we might ask, “Why (why) did the Earth end up 93 million miles from the Sun?” but what we really probably mean is, “Why (how did it happen that) the Earth ended up 93 million miles from the sun? That is, we are interested in what physical processes led to the fact that the Earth was in its current position. "Why" implicitly suggests a purpose, and when we try to understand the solar system scientifically, we usually don't attribute a purpose to it.

So I'm going to assume that this question really means, "Why (how is it that) there is something and not nothing?" Questions “why?”, “How did it happen?” are really the only ones we can give definitive answers to by studying nature, but since this phrase sounds rather unusual, I hope you will forgive me if it sometimes seems that I am using a more standard formulation when actually trying to answer a more specific question "why?"

Even here, from the point of view of genuine understanding, this particular question of "why?" has been superseded by a host of more operationally useful questions, such as: "What could have led to the properties of the universe that most characterize it at present?" or perhaps more important, "How can we know that?".

Here I want once again, as it may seem, to waste time in vain. Questions formulated in this way allow you to gain new knowledge and understanding. This is what distinguishes them from purely theological questions, which usually involve predetermined answers. Indeed, some theologians have demanded that I present evidence refuting the premise that theology has not contributed to knowledge for at least the last five hundred years, since the dawn of science. So far no one has provided counterexamples. The most that I was ever asked in response was: "What do you mean by knowledge?" From an epistemological point of view, this may be a difficult question, but I argue that if there was a better alternative, someone would present it. If I presented the same problem to biologists, or psychologists, or historians, or astronomers, none of them would be greatly confused.

The answers to useful questions like these involve theoretical predictions that can be tested through experiments to move our current knowledge of the universe forward more directly. It is partly for this reason that I have focused on such useful questions up to this point in this book. However, the question of "something from nothing" continues to be relevant, and therefore should probably be considered.

Newton's work has drastically reduced the possible scope of God's activities, whether or not you consider intelligence to be an inherent property of the universe. Not only did Newton's laws severely restrict God's freedom of action, they dispensed with the need for various supernatural interventions. Newton discovered that the movement of the planets around the Sun does not require them to be constantly pushed along the path, but rather, and very unintuitively, requires them to be pulled by a force acting in the direction of the Sun, thereby eliminating the need for angels, who, as was often believed before, determined the paths of the planets. While the ability to dispense with the special use of angels hasn't had much of an effect on people's willingness to believe in them (polls show that in the United States far more people believe in angels than in evolution), it's fair to say that advances in science since Newton's time have more strictly limited the possibilities of the hand of God, manifested in his supposed manuscripts.

We can describe the evolution of the Universe from the earliest moments of the Big Bang, needing little more than known physical laws, and we have also described the possible future history of the Universe. Of course, there are still mysteries in the universe that we do not understand, but I will assume that the readers of this book are not committed to proving the existence of God based on gaps in knowledge, when God is resorted to whenever there is something in our observations. special, which seems strange or completely incomprehensible. Even theologians admit that such recourse not only diminishes the greatness of their supreme being, but also leads to its elimination or further repression when a new work explains or solves a riddle.

In this sense, the something-from-nothing argument really tries to focus on the initial act of creation and asks if a scientific explanation can ever be logically complete and completely satisfactory in solving this particular problem.

It turns out that, given our current understanding of nature, there are three distinct, separate senses of the something-from-nothing question. The short answer to each is "very likely yes," and I'll be looking at each one in turn in the rest of this book, trying to explain why (why), or, as I've just argued, even better, how.

Occam's Razor suggests that if an event is physically probable, we don't need to resort to more extraordinary explanations for it. Of course, an omnipotent deity that somehow exists outside of our universe, or multiverse, while simultaneously controlling what happens within it, is one such explanation. Thus, it should be the last, not the first, saving explanation.

I have already discussed in the preface to this book that simply defining "nothing" as "non-existence" is not enough to suggest that physics, and science in general, is unsuitable for dealing with this issue. Let me make additional, more specific arguments here. Consider an electron-positron pair that spontaneously forms from empty space near the nucleus of an atom and affects the properties of that atom for the short time that the pair exists. In what sense did the electron or positron exist before that? Of course, by any sane definition, they didn't exist. There was, of course, the potential for their existence, but it no more determines being than the potential for the birth of a person is determined by the fact that I carry sperm in the testicles near a woman who is ovulating, and we could mate with her. Indeed, the best answer I have ever heard to the question of what it is like to be dead (that is, to be in nonexistence) is to imagine how you felt before you were conceived. In any case, if the potential of existence were the same as existence, then I am sure that by now masturbation would be as painful a topic as abortion is now.

The Origins Project at Arizona State University, which I direct, recently hosted a seminar on the origin of life, and I cannot help but view the present discussion of cosmology in this context. We have not yet fully understood how life arose on Earth. However, not only do we have plausible chemical mechanisms by which this could be possible, but we are also getting closer and closer every day to specific pathways that could allow biomolecules, including RNA, to naturally occur. Moreover, Darwin's theory of evolution, based on natural selection, provides a convincingly accurate picture of how complex life arose on this planet, no matter what particular chemistry created the first exactly self-replicating cell with a metabolism that captured energy from the environment. (Best definition of life I can think of at the moment.)

Just as Darwin, albeit reluctantly, eliminated the need for divine intervention in the evolution of the modern world, teeming with diverse life everywhere on this planet (although he left an open door to the possibility that God helped breathe life into the first forms), our modern understanding The universe, its past and its future, has made it more plausible that "something" could come into existence from nothing, without the need for any divine intervention. Due to observations and the theoretical difficulties associated with working out the details, I expect that we may never achieve more than plausibility in this regard. But credibility itself, in my opinion, is a huge step forward as we continue to mobilize the courage to live life to the fullest in a universe that has likely come into being, and may well disappear, without a purpose, and certainly without us at its center.

Let's now return to one of the most remarkable features of our universe: that it is as close to flat as we can measure. I remind you of a unique aspect of the flat universe, at least on the scales where matter dominates in the form of galaxies, and where the Newtonian approximation holds true: in a flat universe, and only in a flat universe, on average the Newtonian gravitational energy of each object receiving participation in the expansion is exactly zero.

I emphasize that this was a verifiable postulate. It doesn't have to be like that. This requires nothing more than theoretical speculation based on the consideration of the universe, which could have arisen naturally from nothing, or at least from almost nothing.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of the fact that once gravity is included in our consideration of nature, the total energy of a system can no longer be considered arbitrary, nor the fact that there are both positive and negative components of this energy. The total gravitational energy of objects carried by the expansion of the Universe is not subject to arbitrary definition, the only question of definition is the geometric curvature of the Universe. It is a property of space itself, according to general relativity, and this property of space is determined by the energy it contains.

I say this because it has been argued that the claim that the average total Newtonian gravitational energy of every galaxy in a flat, expanding universe is zero is arbitrary, and that any other value would be just as good, but that scientists have "set" zero point to disprove God. In any case, this is what Dinesh D "Souza argued in a debate with Christopher Hitchens about the existence of God.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The efforts made to determine the curvature of the universe were realized more than half a century ago by scientists who devoted their lives to elucidating the true nature of the universe without imposing their desires. Even many years after the theoretical arguments for why the universe should be flat were first proposed, my observational colleagues, in the 1980s and even early 1990s, sought to prove otherwise. After all, in science, you can make the biggest impression (and often make the biggest headlines) not by going with the herd, but by going against it.

However, these data had the last word, and the last word has become fashionable. Our observable universe is as close to flat as we can measure. The Newtonian gravitational energy of galaxies moving with the Hubble expansion is is equal to zero whether you like it or not.

Now I would like to explain why, if our universe came from nothing, a flat universe, a universe with zero net Newtonian gravitational energy of every object, is exactly what we should expect. The argument is a bit more subtle - more subtle than I could describe in my popular lectures on the subject - so I'm happy that there's room here to try to put it carefully.

First, I want you to understand what kind of "nothing" I am discussing at the moment. This is the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space. For now, I will assume that there is a space in which there is absolutely nothing, and in which the laws of physics still exist. Again, I understand this in a modified version of nothingness, because for those who want to constantly find a new definition for this word, so that no scientific definition finds a use for itself, this version of “nothing” will not do. However, I suspect that, at the time of Plato and Aquinas, when they were wondering why there was something and not nothing, empty space with nothing inside was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking.

As we saw in Chapter 6, Alan Gut explained exactly how we can get something out of this kind of nothing - a completely free lunch. Empty space can have non-zero energy associated with it, even in the absence of any matter or radiation. General relativity tells us that space will expand exponentially, so that at first even the tiniest region could quickly grow to a size large enough to contain our entire visible universe today.

As I pointed out in this chapter, during this rapid expansion, the region that will eventually enclose our universe will become more and more flat, just as the energy contained in empty space grows as the universe grows. This phenomenon occurs without any hocus pocus or miraculous intervention. It is possible because the gravitational "pressure" associated with such empty space energy is actually negative. This "negative pressure" means that when the universe expands, the expansion dumps energy into space, not the other way around.

According to this picture, when inflation ends, the energy stored in empty space turns into the energy of real particles and radiation, thus creating the traceable beginning of our current Big Bang expansion. I say traceable beginning because inflation actually erases all memory of the state of the universe before it began. All the complexities and bumps on the originally large scales (if the original universe, or meta-universe, were large, even infinitely large) today are flattened out and/or carried away so far beyond our horizon that after sufficient inflationary expansion occurs, we will always see almost uniform universe.

I say almost uniform because I already described in Chapter 6 how quantum mechanics will always leave some residual low-density fluctuations that freeze during inflation. This leads to the second surprising manifestation of inflation, which is that fluctuations in low density in empty space, due to the rules of quantum mechanics, later lead to the appearance of all the structure that we observe in today's universe. Thus, we, and everything that we see, appeared due to quantum fluctuations from almost nothing almost from the beginning of time, namely during the period of inflationary expansion.

Upon its completion, the overall configuration of matter and radiation was essentially a flat universe, in which the average Newtonian gravitational energy of all objects turned out to be equal to zero. This would almost always happen if one could fine-tune the rate of inflation.

Thus, our observable universe could begin as a microscopically small region of space, which could be virtually empty, and yet grow to a huge scale, containing as a result a large amount of matter and radiation, without expending a single drop of energy and having enough matter and radiation, to explain everything we see today!

An important point worth emphasizing in this brief summary of inflationary dynamics discussed in Chapter 6 is that something can arise in empty space precisely because the energy of empty space, in the presence of gravity, is not at all what we might expect. guided by common sense, until they discovered the fundamental laws of nature.

But no one ever said that the universe was guided by what we, in our small, limited corner of space and time, might at first consider reasonable. Of course, it seems reasonable to assume a priori that matter cannot spontaneously arise from empty space, so something, in this sense, cannot arise from nothing. But when we take into account the dynamics of gravitational and quantum mechanics, we see that this practical view is no longer valid. In that the beauty science, and there should be nothing threatening about it. Science simply forces us to reconsider what makes sense for the universe, not the other way around.

So, to summarize: the observation that the universe is flat, and that the local Newtonian gravitational energy is practically zero, today allows us to unambiguously assume that our universe arose in a process similar to inflation, a process in which the energy of empty space (nothing) is converted into energy something while the universe became flatter and flatter on all observable scales.

While inflation demonstrates how empty space, endowed with energy, can create almost everything we see, including the incredibly large and flat universe, it would be dishonest to say that empty space, endowed with the energy that drives inflation, is actually nothing. With this picture, one must assume that space exists and can store energy, and using the laws of physics, such as general relativity, one can calculate the consequences. So, if we stop here, it may be fair to say that modern science is far from a real solution - how to get something from nothing. Be that as it may, this is only the first step. As our understanding expands, we will see that inflation may represent just the tip of the cosmic iceberg of nothingness.

| |

In the first three articles of the theme “Life and Death”, I considered the nature of the human soul, the meaning of earthly life, the process of dying and transition to another world, as well as our posthumous existence from three points of view:
- : Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam;
- : the experience of people who have experienced clinical death, as well as the memories of people who have undergone sessions of regressive hypnosis;
- received from the subtle world.

“I know that this is the Eternal Question: “What happens after death?” — but I asked it directly and I hope for a direct answer.

Let me start by saying that there is one thing that is common to all: the experience of death includes several phases, or stages, and the first stage is the same for everyone. At the first stage, at the moment of death, you will instantly feel that life has ended. This is a common experience for all. When you realize that you are no longer in your body, but exist independently of it, a short period of disorientation may occur.

It will soon become clear to you that although you "died", life is not over.At this moment, you will realize and fully experience - perhaps for the first time - that you are not identical with your body. You can have a body but you are not. And then you will immediately pass to the second stage of death. And here the paths of different people already diverge.

How?

If the belief system that you adhered to before death includes the belief that life does not end after death, then, having guessed that you “died”, you will immediately realize and understand what is happening. And in the second stage, you will experience everything that happens after death, according to your beliefs. It will happen in one moment.

For example, if you believe in reincarnation, you will experience moments from past lives that you had no conscious memory of before.

If you believe that you will fall into the arms of God, who gives unconditional love, then your experience will be just that.

If you believe in the Day of Judgment, followed by either heavenly bliss or eternal damnation...

That's it, tell me what's going to happen then?

Exactly what you expect. As soon as you pass through the first stage - death and the realization that you no longer live in the body - the second stage begins, where judgment awaits you, exactly as you imagined during life, and it will take place in full accordance with your representations.

If you died thinking you deserve heavenly bliss, you will get it, but if you thought you deserve hell, you will go to hell.

Heaven will turn out exactly as you imagined it to be, as will hell. If you haven’t thought about the details before, then you will finalize them on the spot - and they will instantly be created for you.

And you can live this experience for as long as you want.

So I might end up in hell!

Let's be clear. Hell doesn't exist. There is no such place. Therefore, you cannot be there.

Another question... is it possible to CREATE a personal "hell" for yourself if that is your choice or if you think you "deserve" it? Yes. Thus, you can send yourself to "hell", and this "hell" will be exactly as you imagined it to be, or as you see fit - but you will not stay there a minute longer than you yourself decide.

But who decides to stay in hell?

You will be surprised... many people live in a belief system that they are sinners and should be punished for their "sins". These people remain in their own illusion of "hell", believing that it is they who deserve such a fate, that there are "reasons" for this and they can only accept.

However, this is not a particular tragedy, since they will not suffer. They will observe themselves from the outside and watch what is happening - something like an educational film.

But if there is no suffering, then what happens?

Suffering will be, and at the same time it will not be.

I apologize?

Everything will look as if a person is going through suffering, but the part of him that is watching this will not feel anything. Even sadness. It will just be watching.

Another analogy can also be used. Imagine watching your daughter play sick in the kitchen in the morning. The girl seems to be "suffering". She clenches her head in her hands or holds her stomach in the hope that her mother will let her not go to school. But the mother is well aware that in fact the girl does not hurt anything. There is no suffering.

The analogy is not very precise, but in general terms it helps to capture the essence of what is happening.

So, these observers look at their torment in a self-made "hell", while realizing that it is not real. When such a person learns what he needed to know (in other words, when he reminds himself of what he has forgotten), he will immediately "liberate" himself and move on to the third stage of death.

And what happens to those who create "paradise" for themselves? Does he also go to the third stage?

In the end, yes. When such a person remembers everything for the sake of remembering what he created his “paradise”, he realizes the same thing that he realized at the end of his earthly life.

Namely?

That he didn't have any more to do.

Goes to the third stage of death. But for now I won't describe it. Now let's look at other options for the second stage.

Okay, come on. For example?

Some die with no definite idea as to whether there is life after death at all.

This is clear. And what happens in this case?

A person is confused, he cannot decide what is happening, and therefore he perceives everything in a completely different way. He is aware that he is not identical with the body, that he is "dead" (this happens to everyone at the first stage), but since he has no definite ideas about what happens next and whether something happens at all, he can linger for quite some time, deciding for yourself what to do next.

Does he get any help?

Any help he can take.

A few seconds after “death”, each person feels the presence of loving angels, guides and benevolent spirits, including spirits, or essences, of all people who were in one way or another important to him during life.

Will I meet my mother? Father? Brother?

Those closest to you will be the ones you loved the most. They will surround you.

This is amazing.

The presence of your beloved souls and angels will greatly help you to "orient yourself", to understand what exactly is happening and what "options" you have.

I have heard before that after death we are reunited with loved ones who help us make the "transition." And I am very glad that this is the case!

You may feel the presence of some loved ones before you die.

Before your death?

Yes. Many dying people, while still in the physical body, report that they see their loved ones or that loved ones have come for them.

Surrounding people often try to convince the dying person that these are just visions - and these are really visions, and the visions are completely real, and other people do not see them due to the limitations of their own horizons. A person's horizons expand significantly after death - and sometimes just before death.

How exciting! After your story, you begin to think that death is an exceptionally exciting event.

And there is. In fact, death is one of the most exciting moments in life. Everything depends on your beliefs. In death, as in life, your experience is conditioned beliefs.

If you die in full confidence that there is NO life after death, then after realizing your death at the second stage, you really feel that there is no life there.

How can I feel that "there is no life"?

You won't feel anything. Complete lack of sensations, lack of new experience. Processes will go on, but you will not feel them. All this is like when a person is fast asleep, and life flows around him.

So there is no hope? My father died in the full conviction that after death there is nothing - no life, no sensations, nothing ... so what ... there is no hope for him ...

I repeat, dying with such a worldview, you seem to fall asleep. To feel something different, you just need wake up.

How can he wake up?

I can please you: wake up all. As in early infancy, a person does not sleep all the time, so in life after death, forgetfulness does not last forever. Eternal sleep does not meet the plan.

The soul wakes up through the efforts of loved ones and angels. She then wonders where she is, why nothing is happening, and what happened in the first place. After that, comparing the available facts, the soul comes to the realization of the second stage of death.

If you are feeling confused and in need of help, you are immediately aware of the presence of beloved souls and angels gathered around to provide support, just waiting for you to notice them.

In any case, soon you will stop at one of the thousands of pictures flashing in your mind, and start creating, focusing on it.

However, it is important to understand that none of the scenarios that I have just described to you has anything to do with the Ultimate Reality. You will meet the Supreme Reality at the third stage. And the scenarios described above refer to the first and the second stages of your "post-mortem experience".

It's clear. So, at the first stage of "death" I realize that I am no longer my body. On the second, I go through experiences that, according to my ideas, are waiting for me when I "die". What is the third stage? Will you tell about him? What will happen next?

You merge with Existence and begin to experience the Highest Reality in the Center of Your Being.

Are you talking about God?

You can call the Ultimate Reality whatever you want. Some call it Existence. Some are by Allah. Some are for everyone. But all these words mean the same thing.

Then tell me, what does God look like? Will I recognize you when I meet you?

What do you want me to look like?

Will you look to me the way I want?

Yes. As with everything else, you get what you choose. Yes, yes, yes and yes again.

If you decide that I look like Moses, I will look like Moses. If you expect me to be like Christ, I will be like Christ. If you want to see Me in the form of Muhammad, you will see Muhammad. I will take the form that you expect to see - so long as you feel comfortable with Me.

What if I have no idea what God looks like?

Then I will feeling. It will be the most wonderful feeling you have ever experienced. As if waves of warm light wash over you; like you're in love.

Or you may feel as if you were in a cocoon - in a weightless luminous cocoon of absolute, unconditional acceptance. However, you will experience the same feeling even if I appear to you for the first time in any physical form. In the end, this form will be melted into a feeling, and you will forever lose the need to give Me any form whatsoever.

Now understand this: your first experience after death is something that you create with your thoughts and hopes. here and now and you will continue to create there and then.

"Hope" also plays a role in this process?

Remember what I told you before. If you have even the slightest hope that you will be helped, angels and the souls of your loved ones will come to you. If you have the slightest hope of meeting Muhammad, Muhammad will be your guide. If you have the slightest hope of Jesus' help, Jesus will be with you. Or Lord Krishna. Or Buddha. Or just Pure Love.

Hope plays an important role in "death" and in "lives" (which are the same thing). Never lose hope. Never. Hope is an expression your deepest desire. This is the proclamation of your wildest dream. Hope is a thought that has gained Divinity.

What marvelous words! Hope is a thought that has gained Divinity. What beautiful words!

Since you liked them so much, I will give you the Formula of All Life in 100 words, which I promised.

Hope— the door to faith, faith is the door to knowledge, knowledge is the door to creativity, creativity is the door to experience.

Experience is the door to self-expression, self-expression is the door to becoming, becoming is the active force of all Life and the only function of God.

What you hope for, sooner or later you will believe; what you believe, sooner or later you will know; what you know, sooner or later you will do; what you do, sooner or later you will know by experience; what you learn by experience, sooner or later you will express; what you express, sooner or later you will become. This is the Formula of All Life*.

It's that simple.

Now imagine a reality where time does not exist. At least not in the way you're used to thinking about it. Where there is only one moment - the Golden Moment of Now.

Everything that has ever happened, is happening or will happen, is happening now.

This applies to all your lives, not just that part of the experience that you call This Life or the Other Life. The only difference is that in the Other Life you know about it. You experience it.

Wait, wait. You just said that all lives happen at the same time. You mean all my incarnations, right?

Yes, but I also mean your many passages through this incarnation.

Are you saying that I have gone through this life more than once?

Exactly. And multiple opportunities, multiple periods of experience, they all happen at the same time.

But if everything happens at the same time... then these are "alternative realities". Are you saying that there are parallel universes next to our world, where "I" go through a different experience?

Um. At the very beginning You warned that some moments might seem “extravagant” to people, and You keep Your promise. Many would say that your latest statement is science fiction.

But this not this way. As I said above, this is science.

Is this also science? Talk about alternate realities - science?

Do you think you live in a 3D world? Ask quantum physicists about it.

But don't we live in a three-dimensional world?

You perceive the world as three-dimensional, but it is not.

What does it mean?

This means that the Ultimate Reality is much more complex than you can imagine. This means that there is actually a lot more going on than meets the eye. I tell you that ALL possibilities exist all the time. You choose from a multidimensional field of possibilities the possibility that you want to experience. And the other "you" makes a different choice - in the same place and at the same time.

Another me?

So you're saying that "I" exists in many dimensions at once?

Exactly.

Everything is intertwined here. None of the facts about life and what you call "death" stand alone. They are all interconnected.

OK. Then answer this question. If everything happens at once, then how is it that "we" perceive events as if they happen separately from each other and sequentially in time.

It's all about what you choose to look at. And this is extremely important information regarding your current path through life.

Your experience is determined by what you look at. Or, more accurately, the way you move through space-time.

In Ultimate Reality, objects exist before you see them. There are always multiple possibilities in the world. Every conceivable outcome of every conceivable situation exists right here, right now—and is realized right here, right now. The fact that you see only one of the options does not mean at all that you have "placed" this option in reality - seeing this or that option, you "place" it only in your mind.

But which of the existing realities do I place in my mind?

The one you choose.

And what motivates me to choose that reality and not another?

That's the question, right? What motivates you to choose exactly the reality that you have chosen?

When you walk past a man sitting on the sidewalk - unkempt, unshaven, sipping wine from a bottle - what makes you see him as either a "dirty bum" or a "street saint"? When a paper arrives from the directorate with the message that you have been “cut off,” what makes you see it as either a “disaster” or a “chance to start a new life”? When you see a TV report about an earthquake or tsunami that has claimed the lives of thousands of people, what makes you see it as either "calamity" or "perfection"? What motivates you to make a particular choice?

My ideas about the world?

Right. And also your ideas about yourself.

Your soul understands everything perfectly - including the idea of ​​"one-sequence". Your soul is aware of the existence of all realities. The man on the sidewalk is both a dirty bum and a street saint. You are both a victim and a villain, and in your life you have played both roles. And none of this is real. Nothing. You are everything invented. You create your experience by choosing which part of All That Is to put your eyes on.

You placed yourself in a body in Space and Time. You see, feel and move in a limited number of dimensions - as far as the body allows you. However, the body is not Who You Are, it simply belongs to you. Time is not something that passes by you, it is you who move through it, as through a room. And Space is not "space" at all in the sense of "a place where there is nothing" - for such a place simply does not exist.

There is time. They say "time goes by" - but in reality it does not go anywhere. This is you going. It is you who "moves through time" - you create the illusion of "passing time" by moving through the Only Moment That Exists.

This "The Only Moment That Exists" is infinite, and as you move through it, you often get the feeling that you're just "floating down the river of time," because it is. You perceive time sequentially, and meanwhile it exists simultaneously in all spaces. Space and time are one-line.

Moving through the Corridors of Time, sooner or later you feel that Space-Time is truly huge. "The Only Existing Moment" is called the Space-Time CONTINUUM (from Lat. Continuum — continuous) precisely because the reality of time-space is and will be continuous and constant.

You, as a Pure Spirit, can move through this One Reality (sometimes called the Singularity, from the wordsingular - “single, exceptional, unique”), through an endless series of cycles, in order to experience your Self. You are this singularity. You are the material of which it is made. Pure Essence. Energy. You are the individual embodiment of this Energy and Essence. You are an "Individual Embodiment of the Singularity".

The Singularity is what some call God. The Individual Embodiment is what you call the Self.

You can split your Personality to move through the Singularity in many different directions. You call these movements through the Space-Time Continuum Lives. This is the essence of the Cycles of your Personality, in which the Personality is revealed BEFORE the Personality through the Cyclic movement of the Personality THROUGH the Personality.

Let me ask You a direct question. It deals specifically with life after death.

If I am an Eternal Being moving through the Singularity we call Time and Space in the endless Cycling of Personality through Personality, then will we ever know eternal life with You - WITH GOD - as promised.

Good question.

And how will you answer?

This continuous cycle of Personality that you are talking about IS the very eternal life with Me that you are promised. Your "eternal life with God" is being lived right now.

Everything happens at the same time, but "seems" as if sequentially.

What you call "death" is used to mark the beginning and end of these sequences. In between sequences, you refresh yourself. "Death" is an energy shift that causes tremendous fluctuations in the vibrational frequencies of your being, causing you to move from what you call life in the physical world to what you call life in the spirit world.

However, "death" is not a necessary condition in order to move through the Space-Time Continuum and experience Yourself at various levels.

"Death" is not necessary condition?

No, if you define "death" as saying goodbye to the physical body. You can absolutely fully feel your spiritual essence while staying in the physical body. There is no need to drop the physical body for this. Moreover, the most complete sense of the physical essence is possible precisely when traveling through the spiritual realm.

So I can take my body with me to the spirit realm?

Can.

Then why don't I do it? And why am I "dying"?

Eternal life in one physical body does not meet the goals of Eternity Itself.

Doesn't answer?

Because the purpose of Eternity is to give you the Contextual Field of Timelessness, where you will have the possibility of Infinite Experience and Boundless Diversity in the Manifestation of Who You Are.

You don't plant just one flower in your garden. No matter how beautiful it is, no matter how captivating its fragrance, God's creation called "flower" can bloom in full force only through a variety of manifestations.

Your goal is to know yourself through experience completely, not partially. If you lived for a whole eternity in one physical form, this would not meet this goal.

However, don't worry. The change of physical form should not give rise to a sense of loss, since you can return to any particular form whenever you want.

This is how you move through life cycles.

These cycles occur simultaneously for many Individual Incarnations that make up the Singularity, which is the One Soul.

You can penetrate Space-Time in different ways, or, as I said above, you can pass the same way several times - move along the same “time tunnel”.

Yes, yes, the last time You told me about it, my head was spinning. And now it's going around.

It's clear. I suppose very soon words will almost cease to serve us at all. Let's see if a mental picture helps us make sense of what we're talking about here.

I want to offer you a metaphor. And then you can use that metaphor for the rest of your life. Therefore, it is very important to understand that this is not an independent truth, but just a metaphor. This is not a description of the current state of affairs, but only an image. However, metaphors are extremely useful when the "state of affairs" is difficult to explain in terms you understand - or when it cannot be explained with words at all.

Metaphors, like parables, help to comprehend the incomprehensible. That is why all the great teachers resorted to them.

So let's call it the Miraculous Metaphor.

Okay, come on.

So... Draw in your imagination a beautiful round juicy red apple. Call this apple Time, and call the inside of the apple "Space". Now imagine that you are a very, very small microbe (small, but very active nonetheless) moving through a tunnel in this apple. The walls of the “tunnel” from our metaphor are the Corridors of Time. On these walls there are marks that mark every millimeter and distinguish each millimeter of the tunnel from all the others. Can you imagine this "time tunnel" with many markers?

Yes, I imagined.

Good. Now pay attention: when you move through this tunnel, time does not pass. It is YOU who are going through TIME.

Hold this image. Try to see that Time is not going anywhere. Time "stands still". It is static, stable, stationary. It is always immobile. Wherever you are in Time, it is always Now.

You are the one who travels. You move through time.

Okay, got it. I keep this image. I move through time.

Now imagine that the microbe that is "you" is part of an apple.

I apologize?

Imagine that you are a tiny particle - an atom, if you will - of this apple. Thus, you move through yourself. Understood?

Well, yes. I guess I understand.

You— an apple atom, a particle of itself moving through itself.

So, you move from the outer surface of the apple inwards - from the outer boundaries of the Self to the innermost depths.

This is your journey through Life. The marks on the walls of the tunnel show where you are. These marks are pictures, and each picture marks a particular moment. Every moment is like a snowflake. In all eternity, no two are alike.

You look at the pictures you pass by. You focus on them. So you move along the tunnel, looking at the pictures - one after another. Finally you come to the Apple Center. This is the goal that you were moving towards initially. The end of this stage of your journey.

In a sense, I am "dying" at this moment. Is that when I "die"?

Yes, you are "dying" at this moment. You have passed through the physical world and reached the Core of this sphere, which encompasses all time and space. This is the "center of the cyclone" - "dead point".

And witty again. And there I remain forever, wrapped in the warmth of the core...

No. A certain experience awaits you there (I have already described it in part and will describe it later), then you leave the Core and head to the opposite outer edge of the Space-Time Continuum - to the other side of the sphere.

That's how you reach "Other Side".

"Other side". Well, of course. An interesting metaphor. Okay, and what awaits me on the "Other Side"?

Another reality.

How different?

Completely different. So different, like an apple turned into an orange. This is what we call the spiritual realm.

What happens when I finally get into another reality, get to the "Other Side", bypassing the center?

How you feel the knowledge gained in this depends on how you went through the Center. If you have freed yourself from your problems and left them in the Core, then you feel "balanced" because you do not drag your "central problems" with you.

If you don’t get rid of them, if you don’t want to let them go, then you will carry these problems to the “Other Side”, where you will meet them again and get a chance to work through them.

If you end your life with the conscious intention of evading these central issues, you still won't be able to avoid them. Instead, you will turn around, re-enter the physical world, enter the same Time Tunnel, and go through the same experience again from the beginning.

What do you mean when you say "central problems"?

The central issues include the fear of being abandoned, the fear of being unworthy, the belief in one's own inferiority, the idea that one is separate from the world, and other false ideas about oneself.

Ultimately, all the central problems go back to one question - to the question of self-identification. The Central Problems vary in form, but they all go back to the One Existing Question: Who Am I?

You travel through the Time-Space Continuum to know and fully experience Yourself - and then recreate Yourself in a grander version and in accordance with the grandest idea of ​​Who You Really Are.

Depending on the nature of the experience that you have planned for yourself in the physical world, you come to the Core of Your Being, and then go to the "Other Side" in one or another state of being.

When you get to the "Other Side" - and find that the "apple" has turned into an "orange" (in other words, that you find yourself in a completely new reality) - you realize that you came there for a specific purpose, for a specific reason, and for "The Other Side" is waiting for you a wonderful exciting joyful work. But at the end of this work, you will need to return back.

At the core, you will get to know your True Self, the Full Self - and remember it. On the "Other Side" there are conditions for the full knowledge of your Self outside the Core - and, engaging in such self-knowledge, you will move along the continuous Corridor of Time to the outer edge of the "Other Side".

Tell me again, please, what kind of “work” do I have to do on the “Other Side”?

This work will not be difficult or tiring. In fact, it will bring you great joy. Joy To know the reality of everything you experienced during the Full Mergence with Existing, the reality of Who You Really Are.

The Other Life is not some time and place where souls exist as automatons, without feelings or emotions. On the contrary, it is a place where feelings and emotions reach their highest intensity, creating a contextual field in which the soul remembers and Re-Knows Who She Really Is.

"Death" is the process by which you reclaim your authenticity. What you call "Heaven" is where this process takes place. Or rather, not even a place, but a state of being. The "Other Side" is not a place in the Cosmos, but a manifestation of the Cosmos. This is the image of life. It is "being in Heaven" in the process of self-expression - which is the manifestation of the Divine B Itself, HOW and THROUGH I.

Do you get it now?

On the “Other Side”, you move away from the Core of Your Being and go to the Spiritual Realm, so that, looking from the outside, you can more deeply Know what you encountered in the Core of Your Being, and then recreate it. AT yourself and HOW myself.

Once at the outer limits of the "Other Side" - in other words, taking the acquired Knowledge as far into the realm of Knowledge as you can - you (metaphorically) turn around and go back.

Again you bring all the acquired Knowledge to the Core of Your Being.

This time you bring Knowledge to the Core of Your Being in order to perform a sacred act: at the Core Level, recreate your Self in a new, more majestic version. This is your Free Choice: based on all the knowledge gained, you make the decision to re-experience Who You Are in a new physical incarnation.

Then you again go through the Complete Merging - gaining "oneness with God" - and prepare for a new birth.

Will I leave the "orange" and return to the "apple"? Leave the spiritual world and return to the physical?

What for? Where can I get such a desire?

To experience what you have known. Knowledge and Experience are different things.

The process I am describing here is cyclical.

This Life Cycle: "life in the physical world - merging with God - life in the Spiritual world" continues forever, as All That Is yearns to Know Itself by Its Own Experience.

In fact, this is the reason for all life.

Remember what I told you: the soul goes to Complete Knowledge along the path of the spiritual world, and to Complete Experience along the path of the physical world. Both these roads are necessary, and that is why there are two worlds. Put them together and you will have the perfect environment where Complete Feeling is possible, generating Absolute Awareness.

Remember what I told you: The moment of Absolute Awareness—that is, the Complete Knowing, Experience, and Feeling of Who You Really Are—is achieved in stages, or steps. We can say that every life is one of these steps.

So, I return to the physical world to go through the "world of experience"!

Exactly. Great wording.

Before returning to the physical world, you dissolve into the Essence of your own Self, into the Core of Your Being. You dissolve and then re-create to continue your journey to the far reaches where you came from.

In the Core of Your Being, All That Is and All That You Are appears in a Singular Form. It is here that Knowledge merges with Experience. There is only a merger, and nothing more.

Yeah, so this is Heaven. And I want to stay there.

No, you don't. You want to Know and Experience this place, but not stay there.

Why not? Judging by the stories, I like it there.

If you Knew and experienced only THIS and NOTHING ELSE, then, in the end, would lose myself in merger. You would no longer remember that you are in a state of fusion, since there would be no other Knowledge or Experience that could be compared with this state. You wouldn't even know who you are. I would lose the ability to isolate and individualize my Self.

So you're saying that "Heaven" might be "too good a thing"?

What I'm trying to explain is that all things are in the Time-Space Continuum in perfect balance. The Essence of Who You Are knows perfectly well when the Process of Life Itself calls you to merge with the One and to exit the merge - thus, you can experience both the bliss of Unity and the splendor of Individual Manifestation.

The system works flawlessly. It has the finest balance. This idea is characterized by the grace of a snowflake.

You return to Oneness, then emerge from Oneness - again and again, forever and endlessly, and even more than eternally. Because life is endless!

Life itself is a splendor and wonder far beyond anything you could ever imagine. And you yourself are no less a splendor and a miracle.

This life that you now live, this life that you are, is eternal. It never ends - never.

All souls interact and co-create at every moment. All souls. They are intertwined like the threads of a single canvas.

And in this interweaving, an amazing tapestry of life is born. Each thread goes its own way, but to conclude from this that each thread exists "in itself" is to completely lose sight of the Big Picture of the tapestry.

Among all that exists, there is one that is closed to human understanding: under no circumstances can one approach it and say more about it than that it is simply "there is". For example, one cannot say what time, space, or even more specifically gravity is. Despite the fact that the laws of the latter are well described and confirmed by experience, its “what” and “why” are still unknown - what it is and why it “acts”.

There are a huge number of such categories, but from all we will choose, perhaps, the most impregnable - the most radical “no” to everything that exists, a wall for any ray of understanding and the gaping emptiness of emptiness itself; we'll choose Nothing.

One area of ​​Husserl's phenomenology was to develop the theory intentionality. This is a fairly simple concept, according to which the consciousness of a person is always directed to some object that exists in reality or just in the imagination. This ray of consciousness is called intention. Where, then, does this ray strike when we think about Nothing? Where do we even look for Nothing? Is it not just an empty possibility of language expression, like incompatible terms? But what, by the way, does language say about Nothing?

Let's say that geologists are looking for oil in such and such an area, but their search is not crowned with success. What will they say? "Nothing," they'll say, "we didn't find anything." In what sense is “nothing”, because geologists could not find the same Nothing in the rocks? Therefore, the desired Nothing is simply a bare negation? Since there is an opportunity to say “no”, then it is possible to say about Nothing. However, Heidegger in his consideration reverses this scheme: negation and “no” exist only because there is Nothing.

Heidegger can hardly be reproached for dualism (like, say, Descartes), however, in his philosophy, two similar terms are quite clearly and clearly distinguished: being and being. Does the ray of intention strike in the same place when these two concepts are thought through? No. These concepts are separated by the following: the existent is always something discoverable, something present, a kind of “that” that can be pointed at with a finger. Being, on the other hand, is the way in which all beings are. It's basically something "there is".

Let us step aside for a moment from these complex concepts and consider how beings are revealed to me; it is discovered that "there is". The answer is obvious - through the senses. Their essence is that they reveal something. Seeing reveals what is seen, hearing reveals what is heard, and so on. Feelings of consciousness reveal sensations for us: sadness, longing, anxiety. According to Sartre's apt observation, the feeling of nausea every minute opens for me my own body, which I normally do not feel.

The body opens up to me as something that exists, that has being. But my consciousness is completely captured by an irresistible feeling of nausea, and such a “discovery” of the being of the body is painful. It is also painful for me when, say, my arm is badly injured, my shoulder is dislocated, or my tooth aches. The existence of the body in these difficult moments becomes closer to me.

But we are not looking for the being of the existent (for example, the body), but Nothing. There must be something that will reveal this to me. The answer voiced by Heidegger is the following: it is horror. It is not, however, fear intensified or brought to its highest point. Fear is experienced in front of something, some existent, but horror is fundamentally different from fear. Horror brings the living into a numb calm, into a realm of terrible darkness, where no one will find - as in the case of fear - any threat. Complete uncertainty reigns here, the ground is literally slipping from under your feet. No one can tell what he is afraid of, he is generally afraid. In horror, existence turns towards us in such a way that it is no longer captured by the senses. "I" does not find support in the overwhelm of horror. Horror thus reveals Nothing.

Such circumstances do not arise in connection with illness or injury (although this also happens), horror does not come from somewhere, it rises from us above any barriers of reason or feeling. Surely someone had to wake up late at night from a sudden clap of thunder or early in the morning from the speakers turned on, the register of which was at full volume.

You are already awake and perhaps you understand how things are, th about you were awakened and that everything is by and large normal, but the communication channel is torn from incessant tension, the consciousness torn from sleep is overstressed by the intensity of the incoming sound information, the “physiological ears” passes the threshold of pain and here, in addition to any thoughts already present in the head, dumb horror sets in , which opens the mouth and causes inarticulate sounds to be exhaled, at the same time contracting the lungs, for which the next breath seems to be no longer intended. Thus the consciousness is captured by the desired Nothing.

Consciousness cannot be switched off for the sake of preserving itself, as happens with seizure-prone ladies, for whom there is always a reflex at the ready against any unpleasant or shocking news. Consciousness, captured by horror, numbs in the horror of the failure of being, but our irremovable presence of ourselves is still there, in horror, where there is nothing to rely on.

“Horror interrupts the ability of speech in us. Since being as a whole slips away and the direct Nothing approaches, all speaking with its “is” falls silent before its face. The fact that, seized with horror, we often try to break the empty silence of horror, no matter what words, only emphasizes the approach of Nothing. That nothing is revealed by horror, the person himself confirms immediately, as soon as the horror recedes. With clarity of understanding, based on the freshness of memories, we are forced to admit: there, in front of which and about which we were horrified, there was, in fact, nothing. So it is: Nothing itself - as such - has come to us"

So, the channel for opening the desired Nothing is found. It should be noted that the ability to discover Nothing through horror, or, say, to discover something sad through sadness, is only for a person, for someone about whom one can say “present”. Can it be said that there are three chairs in this room, even if it is true? No: chairs are only present in this room, as these plants and this dog are.

Presence is given only to man. Only the presence is given the awareness of the existent, its being, and, as it turns out, Nothing, which is also somehow "there is". But we are now interested in the status of this "there is", because even when we are seized with horror, the existence of ourselves and those around us is not destroyed. It's slipping away, we said. Nothing appears in the place of the being that slipped away in horror.

A feeling has not yet been invented to denote the feeling that comes when you stand at the edge of the abyss (real, not imaginary). The only nearest one - rocks or armature - does not just play the whole role of a substance that can be grasped, it appears in principle in the role of some kind of being - as opposed to what opens up ahead and below. Illumination comes at the edge of the abyss, and all meanings glow with an unusual light. My presence at the abyss takes on a certain relation to the few existing around me. But the abyss is a kind of emptiness, just a simplified technical copy of Nothing.

The intention indicated by us earlier is a similar relationship between consciousness and being, my presence and, in principle, some being of some being. The ray of intention continuously strikes where the being and its being will be revealed. But presence without any rays of intention, without revealing the existent, but only in the grasp of the original horror, is a protrusion into Nothingness.

This is what characterizes a person. Since the ordinariness of his consciousness, in which the world around him is revealed, depends on a number of factors, for example, the state of the body, the functioning of organs, and, ultimately, mood, this “ordinary” is secondary and requires many factors. This is very similar to biological life, which, as you know, is also very demanding on conditions. The life of even the most developed animals, who have access not only to the scent or sharp eyesight, but also to a kind of intuitive instinct and a kind of sadness, does not contain the possibility of feeling the horror that reveals Nothing, and consequently, ordinary life that reveals being.

It is true to say that for a person the discovery of precisely being requires certain efforts or circumstances. It is necessary to peer for a long time, perhaps even resorting to the help of the divine Tao, into a certain object (existing) in order to feel its existence (that it "there is"). Or to be at the edge of the abyss in order to feel some “that”.

Here the abyss can be understood not in a metaphorical sense; language does a good job of highlighting this when one talks about the last breath or step or cigarette before a fundamental violation of the circumstances that are developing in biological life.

“On the surface and very often Nothing in its original essence is obscured from us. With what? The fact that, in a certain sense, we allow ourselves to be completely drowned in existence. The more we turn towards beings in our stratagems, the less we allow it to slip away as such; the more we turn away from Nothing"(Heidegger "What is metaphysics?").

The human presence stands with both feet in the found Nothing - just as it stands in the middle of any world existence, no more, but no less. In the half-opening of the Nothing that exists, it escapes in horror. The latter comes both instantly and in the long preparation of a related to him, but still different fear.

Fear in some cases acts as a context for horror, but never as such grows into horror - these are different things. But what would horror look like if it were weaker, when the existent had not yet slipped away, and Nothing had been revealed?

In this case, we are seized by something else, which reveals something other than Nothing. In this case, we are seized either by the strangeness of the existing, or by its unusualness, by its very appearance it awakens us and causes surprise.

The very first feature of human existence is wonder. It also differs according to the classes of tension (for example, incessant surprise is amazement). Surprise is also a kind of revealing of being, but only more tender than the revealing of Nothingness by horror.

Horror is always unpleasant. Surprise always causes pleasure and a desire to continue to be surprised again until the amazing ceases to be informative. In surprise, the being of being becomes for the first time itself, because in a person at the moment of this feeling, understanding and interpretation of this being has not yet matured. It exists solely for the pleasure of surprise and nothing else. It belongs to the property of horror to discover something that, by its nature, cannot deliver any sensations (or deliver sensations from Nothing), therefore, although horror is the primary “door” that unlocks the very first existence for a person (immersion in his native Nothing, in which he always stands), but this is already a jump into the abyss.

Surprise is one step higher and only leads to the abyss, the edge of which is made up of being and shines with all the colors of life. Therefore, surprise is the first passion that does not have an opposite - this is the horizon that closes the existent and Nothing, just like an ordinary horizon closes the Cosmos and the Earth. And since in surprise it is not just the being as such that shines, but the understanding of what it is (its being), this can be considered another proof of the existence of Nothing - both the being and Nothing have their being.

Surprise is the knowledge of being before any knowledge (or perception: in this case it does not matter, since any perception of reality is already a judgment). Surprise, which is possible only in the scenario, when the human presence is placed in Nothing, makes it possible for the question (about being) as such to appear.

Man is the one who asks; any question contains a reference to Nothing.

“For as a result of astonishment, people now and for the first time began to philosophize, and at first they were amazed at those difficult things that were immediately before them, and then gradually moved further along this path and realized the difficulties in larger questions - regarding the emergence of the world.

But he who is perplexed and astonished considers himself ignorant.”(Aristotle's "Metaphysics").

This, in our opinion, is the best explanation of being, given in surprise before any "scientific" knowledge.