Reality in a Metaphysical Model

By Nickson Sylvestre
I ntroduction
A very brief History of Science
An I ntroduction to SPL (Spirito-Physical Linguistic)
The Wisdom Of Kabbalah
Zen and SPL

Abstract: Reality is Perceptual in nature, and from that concept, we can deduce
that it is also a Language. Anything that is real is known to be real through some
form of Perception whatsoever. Perception tends to Interpretation. Everything that
is perceived is being perceived by the brain/Mind (or cognitive function). It is pure
Information interpreted by said Cognitive Function (or Mind). That being said,
Interpretation has to do with Meaning. Thus, Reality is Semantical by nature. And
the Information that is being processed (or transduced) has to be structured or
such Information has no meaning whatsoever. Ergo, Reality is Syntactic. From
Syntax and Semantic, we deduce that Reality is a Language. But, which Language?
The study of Religion and Science shows that there are 2 kinds of Languages:
One is Physical Language (PL)---which usualy tend to Science and Mathematics.
Another one is Spiritual or Non-Physical Language (SL)---which usually tend to
Religion and Mysticism. Ergo, the SPL (Spirito-Physical Language). In this
material, Reality is presented through the Lenses of a new system----a
Metaphysical one termed :" SPL" (Spirito-Physical Linguistic). Although part of a
much longer work, this material tends to show how SPL is conceived and how it
relates to Reality (including the many different Religion and Science).

I ntroduction
Since there was man on Earth (to not say since the Beginning of Time), our race
has wondered about the mystery of the Universe, man has tried to define Reality
using the many different tools that was available to him (at the time). Yet, to this
moment, we seem to not have a framework within which we can , with absolute
certainty, say that this is how Reality is defined. And one has to wonder if---for all
that long we have been exploring (in terms of Concepts) Reality---we have not had
it (refering to the framework within which Reality can be safely defined) and yet
not realizing it (labeling it Pseudoscience or worst "Mysticism).
However, if we don't now have a framework to describe or define Reality, it isn't
for lack of trying. Science has done the most that it could do to provide such a
framework. Mostly in relation to Physics (or what we refer to most of the time as
Modern Physics). "If I have been able to see so far, it is because I was standing on
the shoulders of the giants" (I'm pretty sure I'm paraphrasing here, but whatever...).
This reminds us of Isaac Newton. A genius that he was, he contributed to our
Understanding of the Universe. In fact, even today, with our most advanced
technology, we have to use Newton's laws of motion and Gravity to send someone
on the Moon.
The story of the fallen Apple. Nope, not the one with Adam and Eve (don't know
who gave us that idea the tree of Knowledge of good and evil was an apple
anyway). No, It is a reference to the one that Newton is famous for. From a falling
apple, the story has it, Newton was able to deduce (using Mathematics, of
course---even a special kind of Mathematics developped by him: Infinitesimal
Analysis) that the same law or force that's causing the apple to fall most be same
one governing the motion of all the Solar System (and beyond). This Law or Force,
he called: "Gravity".
Gravity then, became the new Reality Theory (so to speak), because from that
simple Law or Force, He (Newton ) developped a complete (ish) theory as to how
the Celestial Bodies move within space. That gave Newton the title of "The Last
Magician", because he did something Impossible. From one simple concept he
derived a complete Celestial mechanic.
But that wasn't enough. Although an exceptional Magician, Newton failed to
explain how gravity was Operating within space (as in what was the medium
through which Gravity was affecting bodies within space). Actually no, he
proposed a medium through which Gravity affects bodies within space. That
medium was that which that was already known and accepted by the many sages
and scientists of the time namely: The AEther.
A very brief History of Science
Now this is a subject that has been around for times ago. At some point, man
believed that nature could be describd in terms of 4 elements (Earth, Fire, Air, and
Water) surpassed by one elemen (we could call it a Meta-element or
Super-element) known as the Aether---which was known to hold all 4 in
equilibrium. It is this Aether that was believed to have been the medium through
which things are connected, and the medium through which Gravity was affecting
bodies within Space. This could all be okay, but, it isn't. Truth being told, the
Aether has never had empirical evidence. Of course, for the four, it was
somewhat different, for to some measure they could be empirically demonstrated.
But the Aether itself was never empirical.
Newton, however, did not stop here in his thoughts. He concluded that Gravity was
affecting bodies within space through the Aether. That was one thing. He also
believed that his model was not to be thought as explaining why things were the
way they were. He was simply exposing the mechaninc through which everything
seemed to be working. That much he said: God was the one True Power behind it
all. That it wasn't through the means of Self-Maintenance that Gravity was
operating. God was behind it all.
Newton's problem was not just the idea of the Aether as a solution for a medium
through which Gravity must act, it was also the Idea that time was constant
everywhere in the Universe.
Now, as mentioned before, Newton's model is stil being used until today. It is the
same system that is being used everytime we send man on the Moon. But as we
see, the system was limited as it was incapable of providing a complete framework
that would explain not just how Gravity was affecting bodies through Space, but
perhaps, how it was doing it within Time.
Hence, came a young genius known as: Albert Einstein.
Einstein came with a rather unusual Theory: "Relativity". In his Theory, Einstein
took 2 things (with the word things being conceptual here) that were thought to be
separated in Newton's model and combined them as one, namely: "Space and
Time"---ergo, the Space-Time continuum. In providing such a model, Einstein
didn't just gift us with a Relativistic system, he showed us that Everything we
thought to be true was not, that the model of Reality we thought we were living in
was not complete and that "There were more things in Heaven and Earth than that
we dreamt of in our Philosophy (science)".
Although it was already known before Einstein that there was a certain Relativity
in Space (as in the fact that some object could seem bigger and different in color in
relation to how far from or how close to the observer they are)---this was known as
Perspective--- Einstein's Relativity put it a very big step further. It suggested that
Time and Space (as in Space-Time) were Relative to the experiencer. However,
Einstein's Relativity was Geometric (as in it was external) and was not attributed to
Perception itself (as in Cognitive).
One would now think that General Relativity or GR would have scattered our view
of Reality for good, as if there was no more surprise. Then came Quantum
Mechanic or QM. Now that's a theory that could be equalized to
Wonderland---where up is down and down is up. It basically just break your world
QM deals with the Infinitely small aspect of Reality---something that has been
hinted by Einstein's Special Relativity. In this Infinitely small aspect of Reality,
things are not as you would think they'd be. For as GR proposes a world that is
predictable (with specifics sets of rules when understood properly allow one to
make good prediction), QM shows that Reality is not as predictable as we would
expect. In fact, it shows that everything in this Infinitely small aspect of Reality
can be reduced to probabiblity.
Einstein himself couldn't get his head around that idea. He said: "God doesn't play
dice". His vision of a predictable Universe just got shattered in pieces by QM.
And then there was this concept of "Light wave/particle".
In terms of Binary Logic (or any Binary system), a thing can eitheir be 1 or 0. Even
in this Relative world that Einstein had just presented, such concept was still true.
A Thing is eitheir 1 or 0. And yet, in this new, rather crazy theory that we call QM
(short for Quantum Mechanic), when it comes down to the basic stuff that Reality
is made of, as in a Light---which presumably could be eitheir a wave or a
particle---in turns out that it's both "wave and particle". It all depends on the
observer. If the observer expect a wave, thus he/she shall see. If the observer
expect a particle, thus he/she shall see. Unless there is an observer to make the
light wave/particle eitheir a wave or a particle, this light wave/particle exist only in
terms of possibility.
Now the question remains: "How does one harmonize the view of GR that could
be termed 'Deterministic' with the view of QM that can be termed
The doing of that would imply (according to some) creating a Theory of
Everything (TOE). But a Theory of Everything is supposed to be exavtly that: A
Theory of Everything. That is something that we don't have yet.
Then came String Theory. Now. String Theory presents itself as the most capable
(so most people think) Theory of Everything that we have at the moment. It
reduces Reality in terms of Energetic Strings. It says that Reality, as it is, is at its
basis a symphony of vibrating strings. Basically, each string is vibrating in a
certain manner, and the manner in which a string is vibrating creates a certain
particle in the Universe. Now that is very similar to the Idea of the Word that
created everything in the Bible.This is, in a way, quite interesting.
But String Theory itself cannot be considered as a Theory of Everything. If
anything, String Theory is a Theory of Every Physical thing.As for How did
Perception came to be, String Theory has not answered that yet. Although it has
answered the "How" question, String Theory has not answered the "Why" question
yet. What is meant by that, is that String Theory has not been able to answer "Why
the strings are vibrating the way they are vibrating?"---as in "Who or What set the
rules by which they are vibrating?".
Hence entered the CTMU.
The CTMU (short for Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) is a Theory
developed by Christopher Michael Langan that tends to define the relationship that
the Mind has with Reality. In its basic principles, it says that M=R (as in Mind
equals Reality principles). Ergo, the name Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the
Put simply, CTMU says that Reality is Self-Caused or Self-Created. Basically,
what it is saying is that the very Prime Mover or Creator of Reality would be
Reality itself.
Well, if Reality is defined as "All that is real, and only that which that is real". any
first cause or Prime Mover/Creator would have to be inside of Reality itself. For
if anything should be real enough to influence Reality, such a thing as to be part of
Reality. Ergo, Reality is Self-Created.
But how?
It does so through a process called SCSPL (short for Self-Configuring
Self-Processing Language). First we start by defining Reality as a Language (we
might as well call it the Language of God). Notice that Language is presented here
in the sameness as Structured Information. In that case, and since there is no
external Prime Mover/Creator to configure such a Language, the Language of
Reality is Self-Configured. Then a Language has to be interpreted, processed, or
transduced. Since, according to the definition of Reality, there can't be any Prime
Mover or First Cause outside of Reality, Reality as a Language has to be
Self-Processed. Hence the SCSPL (Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language).
Now obviously, having stated that Reality includes all that is real and therefore
does not make place for anything outside of it, it would be improper to talk about
"What existed before the Universe/Reality?". For before implies Time. And since
Time is real enough to influence Reality (on a certain measure), Time is part of
Reality. Ergo, there is no "Before Reality".
So, the question must be addressed differently: If we were to remove everything
that exist (including Time and Space) what would remain? The answer to that is
what the CTMU refers to as 0-constraint.
Note that Reality as it is presented in the CTMU is a Language. Now a Language
has constraints. In such, the absence of a Language (in this case the absence of
Reality) is 0-constraint. This could be expressed this way: "L=constraint,
This 0-constraint state is also known as Unbound Telesis (or UBT for short) in the
CTMU. It is in many ways similar to what the Kabbalists call "Ein Sof" meaning
"The Endless". Perhaps, the Singularity. Timeless, Spaceless, and Dimensionless.
Some even call it the Nothingness.
Now by Nothing, one has to understand that it isn't really Nothing. It is Nothing in
the sense of "Not-a-thing" or "No-thing". Simply put (if you can call that simple) it
is Nothing with the potential for something
It would be improper to not mention the fact that scientists were not the first to
have tempted the idea of defining Reality; way before that, the masters and sages
have done so (in many different ways).
Thus the idea that I wanted to come to through this whole paper. By reading this
whole paper up to this point, one may or may not notice that this idea have been
hinted on many levels. I have hinted the fact that there are some similarities
between some scientific notions or concepts or facts (whatever works better) and
many different concepts in religion and mysticism---even what may be considered
by some to be "Pseudo-Science".
The reason for that---that is before I go into showing you how this works---is
because of that simple (yet almost unnoticed) system known as "SPL" (short for
Spirito-Physical Linguistic). The SPL could be seen as a Metaphysical System that
can be used to analyze virtually anything. It is a system based on Comparative
Theology and Comparative Philosophy (that would include Philosophy of Science
meaning also Computer Science, and Philosophy of Mind as in Psychology). In
respect to that, SPL says that everything is at its basis a SPL (short for
Spirito-Physical Language). What that means is that everything in Reality can be
described in terms of 2 kinds of Language : "Spiritual Language (SL) and Physical
Language (PL)". That is to say that down to its essence, Reality is simply a
Language (just like the CTMU seems to say) and that the many aspects of it that
seem to be so different have to do with "Interpretation"---just a matter of
An I ntroduction to SPL (Spirito-Physical Linguistic)
As mentioned before, SPL describes Reality in terms of 2 kinds of Languages:
"Spiritual Language (SL) and Physical Language (PL)". That being said, SPL
descirbes those 2 Languages as images of each other. That is to say that (PL) is the
image of (SL) and (SL) is the image of (PL). One could think of it like -Infinite
reflecting +Infinite and both being connected through 0 ( with 0 being the neutral
aspect of the model). In respect to that, Language (L) would be the neutral aspect
connecting (SL) and (PL).
To make things a little simpler, let's show how SPL approaches the CTMU.
From the Idea of SCSPL that Reality turns out to be (based on the description of
the CTMU), we derive GOD (Global Orderly Definor). For it would appear that
the Cognitive function of Reality that is at the basis of Reality being a SCSPL is
also Self-Distributed within the whole of Reality. Due to the nature of the
SCSPL, it possesses characteristics that are equivalent to the Theological Fashion
concepts of "Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence". Ergo, GOD.
Kabbalah seems to be saying the same thing.
The SPL says that the Unbound Telesis or UBT within which GOD or the SCSPL
seems to be existing is the same as the Ein Sof (or Endless) of the Kabbalists
within which God or the Word (Logos) seems to be existing. As it is written: "With
a Beginning it created God, the Heavens and the Earth (Bereshit Bara Elohim et
Hashamayim vet Ha'aretz)". Thus we ask, "What is this 'it' that created God?"
"It", it turns out, is the Ein Sof. Therefore we have, UBT or Ein Sof, GOD or God,
and SCSPL or the Word/Logos.
What does SPL say about God?
SPL says that God is Logical Necessity. Of course, this has to do with a definition
of God. If God is defined as the highest form of existence, we can admit (through
logical reasoning) that in the evolutionary chain of existence, there must be a
highest form. Ergo, God. If God is defined as the Creator/Prime mover/First Cause,
we can admit (through logical reasoning) that considering the law of Cause and
Effect (as in Causality), there must be a first cause. Ergo, God. Of course, there is
this idea of Causality that goes indefinitely into the past (as in saying No first
cause). That also doesn't prevent God to be. God is also defined as being Eternal
(ergo Infinite). In such, God exist.
But as mentioned by the CTMU, there can't be any first cause outside of Reality.
This is due to the definition of Reality itself. Therefore, any first cause to Reality
has to be within Reality itself---it has to be part of Reality.
"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (I am that I am)". In this statement, God defines his existence
as being existence itself. This could be stated this way: "I exist because I exist".
That is to say that there is no way to define me because there is nothing outside of
me to which to compare me, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and
the End". The same could be said of Reality. You can't define Reality because
there is nothing outside of Reality to which to compare it. Thus, Reality is
Self-Defined...and so is God.
God, however, is a (SL)---as in a Spiritual Language. By Spiritual, what is meant is
Non-Physical. In such, the SL implies no-restriction. That has to do with the fact
that (PL)---as in Physical Language---has to do with restrictions. laws and
principles acting within Space-Time continuum. With (SL) on the other hand, there
is no Space-Time. That necessarily means that everything (so to speak) within (SL)
is just one thing. "Adonai Echad (The Lord is One)".
Thus, one can say that (SL) deals with Absolute Reality, while (PL) deals with
Relative Reality (so to speak). One has to do with Conception----that is
respectively (SL)---the other has to do with Perception---that is respectively (PL).
Now, what happen is that when facing with the truth of concepts, our mind does it
by interpreting it in terms of Perceptive Reality. Ergo, Angels and Demons and
other kinds of Spirits. For Spirit is One. There is no separation, for there is no
Space within which separation would be defined. Thus, no Time too. So, whatever
is being perceived is nothing but an interpretation of something---the word
something being used vaguely---conceptual.
The question that comes now (among many I might add) is: "What of the Devil
Fairly enough, if God is the Alpha and The Omega, the Beginning and the End,
and since nothing can exist outside of the Beginning and the End, it is only logical
to say that the Devil exist within God. We already know that God, Angels and
Demons (Spirits in general) are part of the (SL) and that there is no separation in
the (SL). There, everything is One and can only be Conceptualized.
"I have created Good and Evil" (I may be paraphrasing here too).
SPL is based on a simple idea, and I think Rav Shaul (The Apostle Paul) said it
better: "If there is a Physical body, there is also a Spiritual Body".In fact,
Kabbalah---which is part of the Hebraic System---is based on the same principle of
SPL. The whole Wisdom itself refers to the idea of Language as a defining aspect
of Reality. "As above So below".
Of course, SPL is not mentioned by name throughout Kabbalah (mostly because
the term itself is new), but the footprint is there.
What SPL is saying is that Science and Religion are not that different. The only
difference exist in Language. Science leans toward (PL), Religion leans toward
(SL). One is more likely to see the difference between Science and Religion when
one has gotten attached to the Language instead of the essence of the thing the
Language is describing. Thus SPL says that when one goes beyond Language,
truth reveals itself. One can, thus, realized that everything is in fact ONE. As long
as one is not willing to see that an Angel is nothing but a conceptual aspect of God
(therefore, an aspect of Reality), one is still going to keep on arguing the existence
of an Angel as a Supernatural being (person) standing next to one. This is the part
that Science has trouble with.
With respect to that, is Science right or Religion is?
Well, why not both? Is it so impossible to imagine both being right? Could it not
be that way?
The problem is not that it can't, but that we've gotten too attached with terminology
instead of that which the terminology is refering to. Instead of seeing the moon the
finger is pointing at, we are more concerned with the finger. Therefore, we miss
the truth. But truly, the truth is in the profane and the profound. In the same way
God is in the profane and the profound. If one cannot see God in both the profane
and the profound, one is missing half of the story.
With respect to that, SPL says that Reality is dual. Of course, in its basic aspect
Reality is a Monad (One). But, in terms of Relativity, Reality is Dual. And that's
where things get interesting because Reality is also a Triad. That is something that
is Perceived---or conceived (for that matter)---when considering the idea of dual.
Think of Here and There, as an example. Here and There represent the idea of
Duality a we know it. But between Here and There, there is the Space-in-between
that holds them. It is the neutral connector mentioned earlier, as in -Infinite and
+Infinite connected by 0. It is this Space-in-between that breaks the world apart.
For once one realizes that the Space-in-between or for simpler term the neutral
connector is of 0-value, one also realizes that that which this connector hold
together is also of 0-value (this will be explained in a more detailed and deeper
work). The same is true for the SPL. It holds that Reality can be defined this way:
On one side there is the Physical Language (PL), on another side there is the
Spiritual Language (SL) or Non-Physical Language, and they are both held
together by Language or the Metaphysical. Once we realize that Language is
Perceptual in nature---that is that it is open to Interpretation---we also realize that
the whole of Reality exist in the same manner (Perceptual).
As we've mentioned before, Reality is based on Comparative Theology and
Comparative Philosophy. In order to understand it clearly and completely, an
exposition of some of the many different Philosophies and Theologies that SPL is
based on is necessary. And what better way to start than with the one that is closer
than ever to what SPL says? Ergo, Kabbalah.
The Wisdom Of Kabbalah
First we start by asking the obvious question: "What is Kabbalah?"
The Wisdom of Kabbalah is very mystical in nature, and because of that answers
concerning what it is can vary depending on who's being asked the question. But
one thing that is sure about Kabbalah is its Etymologycal definition.
Kabbalah, in Hebrew is a derivation of the Word "Kabal" (kbl) meaning "To
Receive". In respect to that, Kabbalah means the same thing "To Receive" or
"Reception". Automatically, one might think and ask "To receive what?" and
"From who?".
Kabbalah can be described in terms of 3 concepts: "A Giver, A Gift, and A
Receiver". It is mostly refered to in terms of what it isn't. As an example, Kabbalah
is not a system. It isn't a dogma. It isn't a religion. It isn't a cult. It isn't a
philosophy. In respect to many things, Kabbalah can be considered a Science. But,
because of the nature of Kabbalah and the Aspect of Reality that it seems to be
interested in, Kabbalah is mostly refered to as "The Wisdom of Kabbalah" instead
of "The Science of Kabbalah".
Kabbalah goes beyond that which that is perceivable and study Reality through the
lenses of that which that is conceptual or conceivable. People who study Kabbalah
and achieve its highest goal are called Kabbalists.
It is said that the first Kabbalist was Avraham (Abraham). He was the first to have
pierced the Nature of Reality and have past it onto his son Isaac (Yitchak). Isaac
did the same and past it onto his son Jacob (Yakov). Jacob did the same and past it
onto his sons and it went on through Israel.
And then there was Moses (Moshe). Kabbalah says that the Torah is a Kabbalistic
work. "Moshe kbl Ha Torah (Moses received the Torah)". In fact, it says that there
are 2 kinds of Torah: "The written Torah (as in the 5 books of Moses) and the
Spoken Torah (as in the Torah or Kabbalah that has been past on through
generations as a tradition)". This explains the reason why a careful reading of the
Torah might show some inconsistencies or missing information.
Kabbalists hold that every aspect of Reality is concealed, and that it is up to the
Kabbalist to decode it. G-d himself is concealed in Kabbalah. With respect to that,
it is always written with a missing "o". The very first verse in the Bible (Torah)
challenges our understanding of God. It's read like this: "In the Beginning God
created the Heavens and the Earth". But kabbalah says that this reading of it might
be wrong. Because of the Mystical aspect of the Hebrew Language, every Hebrew
word may have more than one meaning, and may reflect aspect of Higher Reality
than that which that is known to us today. "Bereshit Bara Elohim et Hashamayim
vet Ha'Aretz (With a Beginning it Created God, the Heavens and the Earth)". This
is one way that this verse might be read. The first thing that comes to mind then is:
"What is this it that created God?". The answer to that is "Ein Sof (The Endless)".
In which case, God would be an aspect of Ein Sof---something that is
Perceptual/Conceptual in nature, something that is open to Interpretation.
Ein Sof in Kabbalah
In God is a Verb Rabbi David A. Cooper says that The Idea of Ein Sof was first
described by the twelfth-century Kabbalist, Isaac the Blind (don't know if he was
really blind or not). He taught that Ein Sof precedes thought (machshavah), and it
even precedes the Nothingness (ayin) out of which thought is born. Nothingness is
viewed as a level of awareness that is the result of the "annihilation of thought".
By its nature, Ein Sof is a paradox. As Rabbi David Cooper put it, As Infinity is
beyond the imagination, what about that which transcends Infinity---that which
created it? Ein Sof is not "restricted" by Infinity. Indeed, we have suddenly run out
of words because the idea of "trans-infinite" is a logical absurdity. What can go
beyond Infinity? Moreover, what can go beyond the Nothingness that surrounds
Infinity?This is Ein Sof.
God and Kabbalah
Kabbalah says that God is not what we think he is. In fact, we shouldn't even call
him "He" or "She". God has no gender. Some even refer to God as it. But even that
is not appropriate. God is not a "It". God is the aspect of Ein Sof that we can work
with. We shouldn't even try to understand or define God. God is the Only definor.
In fact, God is Self-Defined. "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh (I am the I am). This is what
God said about Himself in the Bible.
"Bereshit Bara Elohim et Hashamayim vet Ha'Aretz (With a Beginning 'it' created
God, the Heavens and the Earth)". Then we ask: "What is this 'it' that created
God?". The answer to that turns out to be "Ein Sof". Then we ask: "Isn't God
Self-Contained?". To that, the answer is "Yes and No". No because, as it is stated,
that which we call God is created by "it" (as in Ein Sof). Yes because God, as we
know it, is an aspect of Ein Sof. What is, therefore, meant by "it created God" is
that the aspect of Ein Sof that we've come to know as God has come to exist with
creation. Without creation, there is no God. God is only God in relation to
something else, just like a Father is only a Father in relation to a child. The same
can be said of a Creator. Without a Creation, there is no Creator.
Zen and SPL
Zen, just like Kabbalah, can be difficult to define (especially in relation to its
Mystical aspect). Because of this, one may find many definitions concerning it
based on who's being asked the question (or who's being asked to defined it).
However, it can be defined very simply in relation to its simple-minded goal. The
goal of Zen is Non-Duality also known as Nirvana---a state of complete Oneness
with everything. In this state, one realizes that All is one and One is All. In respect
to that, Zen Students as well as Zen Masters say that Zen is not a dogma. Zen is not
a Religion. Zen is not a Philosophy. Zen is not a sect. Zen is not a cult. Zen is in a
sense Meditation--the kind of Meditation that leads to Ultimate truth. Such
Ultimate truth is known as Absolute. As Reality is Dual and Relative in Nature, the
truth upon which Reality is based is Absolute and Non-Dual. A Zen Master might
say that Zen is that which that leads to the Ultimate Realization:
"Self-Realization". In that moment, one realizes that the Self and Reality are not
separated (that there is no Separation). In that moment, one finally knows Relaity
for what it really is: "Self and Oneness".
Nirvana and Ein Sof and then some
If one simply look on the internet for a simple research on Nirvana, the definition
that is given si breathtakingly similar to or can be associated with the idea of Ein
Sof that we've already established. An article on Wikipedia (hopefully the readers
appreciate Wikipedia) puts it this way: "In the Buddhist context nirvana refers to
the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion
have been finally extinguished. In Hindu philosophy, it is the union with the divine
ground of existence Brahman (Supreme Being) and the experience of blissful
Brahman, in many ways, can be seen as the same as Ein Sof. Just like Ein Sof
Brahman is Infinite to the point that even the word Infinite cannot adequately
define it. Brief, Brahman cannot be defined nor conptualized. Ergo, the many
different gods in Hinduism. Each one of them is an aspect of Brahman---one that
can be conceptualized and understood. In respect to that, Brahman also exist in
sameness with UBT (Unbound Telesis). Truth being told, based on that simple
definition of Nirvana, many correlations can be noticed between Nirvana and many
different concepts in so many other Religions. As an example, in many ways,
Nirvana can also be understood as Heaven or even the idea of the Holy-Spirit
inhabiting man.
Zen Language
The Zen master will use whatever Language that would get the message across. It
does not matter if one is Buddhist or Christian or Jewish. It does not matter what
Language or concept one is more comfortable with. Whatever works, the Zen
Master will use. One should not attach oneself to words or a particular verbiage. If
one gets attached to verbiage or Language, one might end up focusing on the finger
instead of the moon to which the finger is pointing at. Words are noises, utterances
interpreted by one's brain/Mind. This is one concept or notion that the SPL seems
to be promoting (so to speak). If one were to go beyong words and verbiage and
Language, one would find truth for what it really is, one would find Nirvana. If one
can go beyond words, one would be able to see Allah as YHVH and Brahman for
Ein Sof. It does not matter what we call it or term it. It only matters what it is in

The Author, now, wish to thank the many friends who have giving him their time (
not only in reading the many ideas that are presented here---however incomplete
they might be, but) in discussing these many ideas and exploring the many
concepts that are presented here. Although not all of them will be mentioned here
by name (if any), some have been very helpful in being open-minded. A special
thanks go to Garysson Sylvestre for presenting a definition of Zen in the most
simplest form possible. Another thank you also go to Djohndel and Steeve for their
time and Imagination in pushing these ideas further and exploring different aspects
of Reality that may have not been explored before.
Due to the way this document has been put together, it would be really difficult (if
not Impossible) to give a reference for each page in this contenance. For that, the
Author apologize sincerely. However, although not in order, references concerning
the contenance of this document will be presented here for your delight (as in the
readers) and curiosity, and probably for the need of verifying the claims made by
this document.
Conversations with God (Trilogy)
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A new kind of Reality Theory
1 Cor. 15: 44
God is a Verb: Kabbalah and the Practice of Mystical Judaism
Genesis 1: 1
John 1: 1
Psalms 82: 6
Isaia 45:7
Genesis 1:3
Genesis 1: 14-19
Exodus 3: 14
Revelation 22:13
Jewish Kabbalah Meditation from Torah
to Self-improvement to Prophecy

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful