Foreword

 

After having read many books by many authors of many different views, and after having spent many hours thinking, debating and meditating on the most basic questions of being, I thought I should write a book on the topic myself. I received the support of the people close to me with whom I shared the basic concept of the yet to be written book. In contrast, I was discouraged by the libraries with similar literature, packed with hundreds of books, many acting as if in order to understand the fundamental questions, one would not need any book other than that specific one; making me doubt I would be capable of coming up with something new.

Ultimately, I resolved to do it. I had a flicker of hope that a new book could benefit, in particular, those who need to find their way among the many theories, philosophies, opinions and -isms, and lack the time and the desire to read all those hundreds of books in order to find their truth.

However, it is by no means my intention to say that I know the one and only truth and that I am graciously presenting it to the reader. On the contrary, the purpose of this book to help readers in their search of their own truth and, especially, to understand the basic principles proposed by various esoteric doctrines, if possible comprehensively and with all their mutual connections. That was, basically, the main reason to write this book. I felt that the books in this field focus mostly on one or two aspects of the great theory of everything (with the exception of the Notebooks of Paul Brunton, which have about 7,000 pages).

Naturally, this book has been influenced by my own points of view, at least as some kind of unifying element for many seemingly contradictory opinions. I also present some alternative views, though it was not possible to do it with everything—the book would have become unbearably long and confusing.

This is an attempt at writing something like a textbook or the books of renowned physicists like Gamow, Capry, Hawkins and Green, and others who have popularised the so-called established sciences (books that I greatly enjoyed and were a major inspiration).

I set myself the task to popularise the para-sciences (though I believe many would rather skip the “ra” syllable), the opinions that could be bundled under the term “alternative paradigm”, meaning an alternative to the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm prevailing in western civilisation (in a nutshell: a mechanistic conception of nature, the dualism of spirit and matter, consciousness as a manifestation of matter).

And hence the subtitle “An Alternative Model of Existence”. On the other hand, the title “The Elegant God” paraphrases the title of Brian Green’s “The Elegant Universe”, which, by the way, I strongly recommend.

There is a subtle difference, though, whereas the established sciences deal by the most part with the question of what the universe is and how it began, the alternative theories also deal with the questions of why it came to be and who, or what, created it.

Another difference is that the alternative paradigm (I found in a book a simple but clear definition of “paradigm”: a model of existence) sees the results of the contemporary established sciences as one of the levels of truth, while the established sciences sees them as the highest level of truth.

One of my incentives to sit down and write was, among other things, the many opinions and statements in the media, where I found ignorance or a lack of understanding of basic principles (for instance, a certain Prime Minister saying that had stopped believing in God after finding out about the concentration camps). I have also gone through a long evolution from a materialist—on the basis of a confrontation with the dogmatic faith personified in God—to my current situation. My only concern is that many of the authors of these statements will refuse to read this book a priori in case it made them doubt their only truth.  Books like this are intended for seekers, but are a waste of time for those who already know everything. My dream is that, after reading this book, the unbelievers (meaning those who do not believe in the alternative paradigm) will say: “I still don’t believe in it, but it does make sense; there is a logic and a system, and, in theory, it could be so” (which applies also to different fields like astrology and homeopathy). Other than that, I would be glad if some thoughts could become an inspiration for new paths of scholarship.

It is, of course, very likely that everything that is written here has already been written by someone else, but my intention was to combine all into one logically coherent system and to communicate it as clearly as possible to the broadest range of people.

Since this an attempt to communicate the incommunicable, much of my effort was put on creating models, analogies, parables, examples and ideas that would be close to “reality”, and yet comprehensible to the average person. Only here I allow myself to make any claims of originality; although it must be said that most of that information came to me as ideas and, sometimes, also as verbal communications during deep meditative states. So, even here the word “my” is very problematic.

I would like to point out that in many cases, for the sake of clarity and comprehensibility, and due to the great limitations of the human speech, there are major simplifications that not misrepresent reality and I beg the reader to understand them as such.

Finally, I apologise to anyone who may feel aggrieved because I explain, in sometimes excessive detail, generally known concepts instead of including them as foot notes. My intention was that this book be comprehensible to the widest range of readers and I know by own experience how bothersome, and sometimes even vexing, it is to understand a text when constantly having to look at the foot notes.

I also apologise to anyone I may offend because I take the liberty to question everything, even the greatest and most sacred truths, trying to find an alternative interpretation thereof. He who tries to find the new must challenge the old, without this altering the fact that he may not succeed.


 

Introduction

 

As any other, this book has two sides: contents (an attempt at a comprehensive description of “the entire reality”—an alternative theory of everything) and methodology (the methods chosen for the description).

The first side, the contents, will fill the remainder of the book, the main topic of which is an attempt to create a model of existence, a comprehensive theory able to explain the World in its entirety—without leaps of logic and contradictions—as a complex system, which is by no means in conflict with the scientific method of observing reality, nor with the transcendent knowledge of mankind.

As for the other side; I would like to deal with it, separately, in the introduction, as I consider it fundamental.

There are many levels of truth; such is the basic principle that I tried to follow while writing this book.

My intention was that the reader always should know which level of truth the information is coming from. I believe it is very important to understand the entire complex of truths manifested at different, sometimes even conflicting, levels.

Even though the multiple levels of truth are an ordinary occurrence, even for the established sciences, in the alternative paradigm “scientists” see them as proof of the system’s inconsistency and illogic.

And, already in the introduction, I will take the liberty of using a small example. Nobody will doubt the truth in Euclid’s claim that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180°. However, according to one Albert Einstein, the sum of the angles of a triangle may be both higher or lower than 180°, depending on the circumstances. And once again, nobody doubts this, claiming that it is not possible because the truth must be either one or the other. Likewise, nobody would say that only the Theory of Relativity or only Quantum Mechanics can be true; on the contrary, they are searching for a unifying theory (for example, the Super String Theory).

I draw attention to this aspect of the truth in order to guide the reader in each chapter, in particular, if for some reason they happen to read the chapters in a different order, or if they skip one or more of them.

For the purpose of this book, I made a great simplification—and therefore, necessarily, a distortion, of which I am fully aware—when establishing four levels of truth. And it is according to them that I divided and arranged the book’s chapters:

1st level corresponding to chapters 1 and 8

2nd level corresponding to chapters 2 and 7

3rd level corresponding to chapters 3 and 6

4th level corresponding to chapters 4 and 5

There are, of course, many more levels; likely, a depressing yet true infinite number, I am afraid.

The multiple levels of truth were also one of the incentives for this work. Most books focus only on one or two levels, or they deal with more, but without making it sufficiently clear what level relates to a given case, or explaining their mutual relation.

From my point of view, acceptance of this principle appears as a method of understanding (and also the scientific method), and an approach to life that is very important and liberating from dogmas.

And in this regard, I once again take the liberty of using a small example. There are many theories about what is behind UFOs. For instance, that they are intergalactic means of transportation of technologically advanced extraterrestrial beings, phenomena associated with manifestations of mentally developed extraterrestrial beings, visits of earthlings from the future, psychic phenomena, secret weapons of contemporary earthlings, physical phenomena like ball lightning, etc., and, last but not least, scams looking for fame and money. Everyone stands by his own theory and looks for or produces evidence to support it. But why not consider that UFOs may be any of those phenomena?

Likewise it is with the supernatural phenomena in The Bible. There are some who say that the God of the Old Testament was in fact a manifestation of technically advanced extraterrestrial beings, others that it represents an ancient advanced civilisation from Earth, while others believe that it refers to a highly advanced being manifesting itself as a divinity, or that it is the manifestation of a single personified divinity or of the One and Only Creator as all the pervading forces.

Why not try again to look at it from the angle of the multi-level truth and consider the possibility that the different cases described in The Bible (which depicts events spanning thousands, or even tens of thousands, of years) are evidence of all, or almost all, of those phenomena?

Perhaps, having the exclusive truth is part of the morals of this age. I hope I have been, and will be able to avoid the lure of such ego; even if I am well aware how incredibly hard it is and how easily can one succumb to temptation and be lead into a role in which one sees the opponents of one’s theory as fools or enemies who try to thwart one’s noble efforts to rescue or uplift humanity.

The clearest analogies for comprehending the hard to comprehend facts are models. Imagine a four-system cylinder (see figures).

Fig 1a

In the first system, consisting of three special and one time dimensions, the observer, perceiving both the special and the time dimensions as one, sees many cylinders forming a compact figure, each of which portraying a cylinder in one moment of time.

 

Fig. 1b

In the third system, consisting of two special dimensions (flat), the observer sees the cylinder intersecting a plane, which in that position could be a rectangle, a circle or an ellipse.

 

Fig. 1c

In the third system, consisting of two special dimensions (flat), the observer sees the cylinder intersecting a plane, which in that position could be a rectangle, a circle or an ellipse.

 

Fig. 1d

In the fourth system, consisting of one special dimension—a straight line—the observer sees the intersection of the cylinder with the straight line, a segment.

Imagine now the hypothetical inhabitants of each of these systems. They are all observing the same object, but each sees something different. Each is convinced that what they are seeing is the true image of reality and that the others are wrong. In fact, even within a system, opinions on what truth is may differ just by a point of view, as is the case in the third, two-dimensional system (flat).