The Destiny of Being by Mamleev, translated by Timofey Reshetov

The following philosophical tract — published in English for the first time — relates to the very meaning of what we are saying when we talk about connecting with the Higher Self. Yuri Mamleev, the famous Russian author of many well-known and controversial fictional works, has here taken it upon himself to redefine the meaning of Self in such a way as to transcend both religion and the mystical traditions, and to propose — if not an answer — certainly an exploration of the Age-old question of what lies beyond God.

The translator, Timofey Reshetov, is a friend of Mamleev's and spends time with him in philosophical discussion. Timofey reported some of this to us in the form of an interview with the Russian philosopher (actually, it's a dialogue, in the true sense of that word). And although we were unable to get his translation of that edited for this issue, Timofey says he will be glad to communicate with anyone who has interest in these materials or in further explication of Mamleev's ideas. You can reach Timofey by email at Vremakin@mail.ru.

Destiny of Being

by Yuri Mamleev

translated from the Russian
by Timofey Reshetov

The I-Religion (The I-Utrism)[1]

The Faith of I-Ness

This faith proceeds from the primary inner reality, which is the reality that is within me.

Origins of the Faith

The personal origin of this faith was my sense of an inner, a priori reality. It was given to me with my birth. And only later, becoming aware of this reality, I realized the essence of the faith. So this is not a religion of Revelation. This is a religion of Inner Reality, if you will.

The Subject of Worship

The sole subject of worship and faith is the Personal I of the Believer. It is immortal and eternal.

What does it represent? The "I" is the only reality. At the given moment, as a whole, it is concealed. But it partly discloses itself — most fully, in self-consciousness, in spirit.

The "I" also is that which adds up to "selfness" — that which creates feeling (self-feeling, self-consciousness); that which exists for itself; that which gives selfness to any post-spiritual plane, making it real.

The sphere of the "I" that is available for a human may be called the Present-I, or, more precisely, the Given-I, the Realized-I. It is that which will later be unveiled for a human in the stages of the Beyond. It is as the Future-I.

The Future-I, of course, is the Personal I of the Believer as it is related to time. That Future-I is the Higher-I, or the Pure-I. This "I" exceeds the boundaries of that which is human, single, or individual. It exceeds the boundaries of form, space, or time. As the Absolute Spirit, it discloses itself in the Absolute-I.[2]

Besides all that, the "I" has a transcendental aspect — Transcendental-I.[3] And still, it is the same Personal I of the Believer.

On the Subject of Worship

The Given-I — the "I" operating in everyday experience and most vividly showing itself as Spirit (which is still, at the same time, the Personal I of the Believer) constitutes a direct religious subject, proceeding from the point that the Personal-I is the only reality, as well as the highest value.

Thus, a single religious subject is obtained, and one's faith rests on solid ground. The field of this faith, then, is the immortality of this "I," its triumph and "transformation" into the higher forms of the "I."

The Higher-I is the concept that envelops these forms. Despite the fact that these forms may no longer be human or singular, may no longer pertain to the existence of a certain being or be bound by time — still, the Higher-I is the very same Personal I of the Believer, but one that has reached the highest levels. So a human — the Given-I — is but an instant in the realization of the "I."

So the "I" as a whole is a single, central reality of super-high value, and should be differentiated from the observable forms of the "I." And there exists nothing real or valuable except my own "I."

The Higher-I maintains the completeness of reality and transcendence. But the Higher-I also is, at the same time, the Personal I of the Believer. It is the believer's own future. And this point — the Higher-I as the believer's own Future — is the key to the mystery of I-ness.

This concept of the Personal I of the Believer as the only reality does away with the idea of God as a separate reality from the "I."

Spirit and Body

The body observed in terms of self-feeling is one of the lowest levels of the "I." Hence, although it has to do with the "I" and is penetrated by its rays, we may perceive it in the absolute sense as long as it does not hinder us from realizing the higher levels of the "I," such as the spiritual levels. If the body hinders us from this realization, then the lower levels should be dismissed for the sake of the higher ones.

The contrast of body and spirit is thus but a particular case of the contrast between the lower and the higher levels. Whenever a lower level is hindering us from the realization of a higher one, the lower level should be dismissed.

However, since a body somehow relates to the "I," there is no total, fundamental negation of it. Body is not repudiated; it may be considered to be an absolute instance of I-ness.

In the relations between body and spirit, there exists a kind of sweetness. Spirit treats the body as a younger instance of itself.

So a body is not sacred by itself, but only because it is permeated with I-ness. Thus, we can clearly see why dismissing the lower aspects of the "I," if we must, should not become a tragedy, for often it is the other way around. Dismissing the lower aspects, if carried out within the "I" as a whole, and solely for Its sake, may be an act of loyalty to the self.

Love for the Self

Since the sole subject of worship and faith is the Personal I of the Believer, Love for the Self is one of the most religious acts.

Love for the Self may relate to all levels of the Higher-I and the Given-I. Depending on this relation, its forms may vary. However, when Love is directed at the "I" as a whole, it is of supreme value. Thus, there are different levels of initiation in Love for the Self, including a certain difference between prayers and meditations. Some meditations are directed to the Self, the Given-I, while prayers are for the Transcendental-I.

One may pray anywhere. An internal invocation is sufficient.

Structure

All of Reality is concentrated within my own "I," so everything else — the world, Not-I — is defined as "existence of non-existence." Reality, at least thus far, only pertains to the "I."

The concept that Reality pertains only to the "I" means, of necessity, that there are elements of solipsism in the I-Religion: not common solipsism, however, but a self-existing one.[4] [5]

On Structure

What does it mean to say: "World is the existence of non-existence"?

Undoubtedly, the meaning of this definition might be conceived through an intuitive, mystical experience. Let us point out, to begin with, that this definition describes the Abyss between "I" and Not-I. On one side of the Abyss, we find all of Reality concentrated in my own "I." On the other side, the world of Not-I — inclusive of others' consciousnesses. Thus, when existence and non-existence are taken as separate from each other, we have to introduct the concept of something that is beyond both.

One of the aspects of this concept lies in the fact that the world of Not-I is Non-Being turned into existence — a ghost. But it is a ghost that may bite us! A ghost that hurts! It is a very special kind of unreality. And, by going deeper, we stress both the aspect of non-existence and, at the same time, the duality of the world of Non-I.[6]

All of the above is pertinent only to the existing link between the "I" and the world. On higher levels of realization of the "I," these relationships between the "I" and the Non-I may be different.

Again, understanding the world as "existence of non-existence" is related to the most important element of the I-Religion: the Self-Existing Solipsism.

A believer must first possess this original principle. It is solely through the disclosure of this principle that the Personal-I becomes real and absolute.

There needs to be an organic sensation of the Center within the Personal-I. This sensation then may grow into an inexpressible totality of the "I," followed by the mystical perception of the world's non-existence.

It is this innermost organic sensation that gives birth to solipsism; once realized, this sensation raises the "I" to dizzy heights, where it surrounds itself with a kind of love and supreme value toward God and the Self that was inconceivable in earlier religions. Even more so because all earlier those previous religions create alienation — from God (alienation from the Highest), and from one's Self (the Limited One).

This is what comprises the bottomless, mysterious charms of solipsism.

The existence of non-existence from this point is the sign that determines the non-existence and depreciation of the world as compared to the Personal-I, the world's absolutely different, opposite quality. Thus, the Self-Existing Solipsism may be viewed as one of the forms of expression of the mentioned original principle.[7]

Don't fear insanity in Love for the Self, for the insanity that drives one mad emanates from the world. Insane Self-love is the only insanity that creates abundance.

This insanity creates abundance, also, because the existence of life for the Self and Love for the Self constitutes a constant demolition of the false reality of the world.

Remember that there's only One from which alienation is not possible: the Personal-I. ...

The triumph of the "I" may be realized (in a single plane!) as expansion of the I-Reality; or perhaps not expansion, but rather, a qualitative (as self-feeling differs from self-consciousness) intensification of this reality — its elevation to a new hierarchical level.

In the I-Religion, because the "I" is the only Reality, there is no difference between the individual and the Absolute. This means that the Personal-I must withstand the burden of the Absolute and transcendental. More precisely, it becomes merged with this burden.

Since the I-Religion is namely a religion, it may rest upon various (however, synchronized with its theses) philosophical systems. I-logy could be introduced — as differentiated from theo-logy — that would observe the interpretational differences of relevant problems. The I-Religion, though, is immutable.

Self-love may refer to any level of the "I," as well as the total reality of the "I" in general. Orientation of Love toward the lower instances of the "I" remains to be clarified. A possibility of such orientation principally proceeds from the whole doctrine. Let us only point out that, first of all, this orientation corresponds to the will to pre-sense absoluteness at any given level of the realization of the "I." Secondly, it corresponds to the wish to anticipate Love toward the Higher-I through experiencing Love toward the Given-I. And, finally, there's always a possibility to generalize Love to the "lower" instances by penetration of rays from above. Love for the lower instances of the "I" should be discarded only in the case of its contradiction with love toward the Higher-I.

Solipsism in the I-Religion obviously makes Love for the Self more intense and absolute, adding the irresistible irresistible, final triumph to it — albeit sometimes with tracies of higher trans-"insanity." In its turn, the Self-love extends solipsism. It is the subtle yet powerful combination of solipsism and Self-Love — this being one of the acts of the religious reality — that turns Self-Being into an inexpressible flower of the Absolute; into the music of transcendental narcissism.

The I-Religion is determined not so much by faith as by Being. For my sky is within myself; and one can never reach this faith without proceeding from Being, where this "I" is already significantly realized.

Since the "I" passes through levels of realization, what is it that still connects them? Obviously, the answer is something expressed by the prefix "self": self-feeling, self-consciousness, self-whatever. Thus, I-ness may be seen as a sort of metaphysical thread.

The self- prefix, besides other things, discloses what is concealed within: a center of sorts, a circle. Its power of reality is ever increasing along with the movement of the Self. Thus, whatever is concealed in the next Self beyond "self-consciousness" may determine a new level of the "I." From there, due to this inward-bound activity, the levels of reality are revealed as being at the same time the hierarchical levels of values.

The body is sacred only viewed from the "subjective" side, from the "I" side. Viewed from outside, as an interplay of biochemical powers, it has as much relation to the "I" sphere as a dead corpse would have. This analogy also pertains to the personality, individuality, and so on.

Suffering is bearable if it serves the realization of the "I." Any other suffering is senseless. However, almost any bare suffering contains something pathologically acute that reveals the close connection of the "I" with itself — the fact that it cannot be alienated from itself — and, through the insane Self-Love, it furthers the acuteness of the feeling of the "I" (even in its lowest forms). So, in general, any kind of suffering may be turned into something else.

From all of the above, it follows that the I-Religion is indifferent or even hostile to regular egoism, since egoism (even as regards the Higher-I) sees the Absolute in the purely external, functional manifestations and whims of individuality. In a sense, egoism is a betrayal of the Higher-I.

And since the I-Religion incorporates the idea of a transcendental, beyond-human "I," it is obvious that it is not a religion that deifies the human being or the personality. The beyond-human "I" by definition dismisses anything pertaining to the human being.

On the other hand, there exists a difference between all "God" religions and the I-Religion, even where the term "God" implies the Higher-I, coexisting also in the Personal-I of the initiate. For in the East, the Absolute is only aimed at the Higher, Divine Self. The Absolute in the I-Religion, however, must take account of solipsism. As such, differentiating the lower "I" and the Higher, or the subjective and the Divine, makes no sense. In solipsism, anything that relates to the Personal-I is absolute; so we may talk only about some sort of disclosing of this absoluteness within itself. Personally concrete, existing "this-ness" and the Absolute are united into a single, mystic reality.

Is ethics possible in such a religion? I don't mean ethics toward oneself, but external ethics, toward the world of Non-I (obviously, while taking into account the element of solipsism in the I-Religion, other people do relate to this world). With respect to an external ethics, there are at least three options:
1. The world of Non-I as "being" in the form of non-existence does not deserve to be taken seriously in the metaphysical sense of the word. Only the "I" can be taken seriously. This implies a profound inner, implicit indifference to the world of Non-I.
  
  For example, another person need not be hated, exactly because he or she, as a ghost, doesn't deserve this. Any hate (and hate is a more dependent feeling than Love!) stresses the "reality" of the subject. Thus, hate is contrary to the I-Religion. This principle extends to all other negative feelings and actions (greed, murder, etc.).
2. There exists one (one side, version, obviously inescapable) way of understanding the world of Non-I: It is a sort of alienated sphere of the "I," which alienation and non-existence should be abolished through the return to the Personal-I.
  
  At this point Love (ultimately sincere!) toward the world of Non-I, including in particular toward other people, is possible, and may be realized as sublimation of Self-love — sublimation anticipating a future completeness yet possessing the aspect of remoteness.
  
  In this case, the Self is implicitly loved in the "other."
3. Finally, without delving too deeply into the mystery of the world, this "existence of non-existence," we may purely, albeit conditionally, accept the world as if it were real, just as we would consciously accept certain rules of a game. In this way, the traditional[8] model may be adhered to ... .
Not only faith is necessary in the I-Religion, but also at least some degree of realization of the "I."

Also necessary is a certain tendency to solipsistic I-ness and Love. At the least, meditation upon oneself in the metaphysical sense (in the sphere of the I-Religion) is required.

An impulse exists (Love, meditation, prayer, foresight) addressed to the "I" as one's Beyond. Since one's Beyond is still at the same time one's own "I," this impulse is one of the peculiarities of the I-Religion.

Intimacy with the Given-I increases spontaneity. And one may also love the Given-I in an Absolute sense, as sublimation or foretaste of the Higher-I.

In this religion, deliverance proceeds from a kind of innermost combination of Faith and Being — from their further disclosure and interaction, from meditation, from entering the metaphysical reality, from Self-love, and from realization of the Higher-I.[9]

Postscriptum

I created this teaching during the years of my youth in the USSR, long before my closer acquaintance with Eastern metaphysics (this text was written down in 1966). Through this, a new kind of cult was conceived in Moscow, a sort of new "religion."

I find it necessary to point out several important issues, including those relating to the "connection" between the traditional teachings and this one.

Of course, the term "new" may be applied only conditionally to something that is pertinent to the out-of-time sphere. Thus, the I-Religion mainly suggests a new approach to such purely traditional realms as the Self (Atman). However, this new approach engenders a "new" religion.

The term "religion" is not meant in a conventional sense. First of all, the I-Religion is outside the sphere of the Religions of Revelation, outside the sphere of the "historic" religions and all the objectified religions.

On the one hand it is, generally speaking, a "personal"[10] religion, a religion of microcosm[11] (or, to put it differently, a religion of Absolute Microcosm, which, by definition, obsolesces the idea of microcosm). On the other hand, it is more of a metaphysical vision than it is a religion. Thus, although with substantial differences, it is similar to the Oriental teachings.

So the I-Religion is a sort of combination of traditional religion with metaphysical vision, an "innate" (or rather a priori) metaphysical vision aimed at a totally different dimension than any of those that the "objectified" religions deal with. Thus, however strange it may seem, the I-Religion — being a "personal" religion, a religion of microcosm — may in principle, and by wish, be combined with any common "objectified" religion.

In order to comprehend this religion, the following terms were used in Moscow:
1. "Individual religion." But the term "individual" is senseless in purely metaphysical matters. They should have attempted to stress the moment of my own "I" in this religion. ...
2. "Solipsist religion." But solipsism in the I-Religion lacks its ordinary meaning.
3. "Existential religion." Existential because the concept of the "I" is bound up with Being, and because, from this point of view, it's about seeing the Absolute as a quality of Self-Being.
Then, later, I came to the conclusion that what I had meant by the I-Religion was neither a religion nor even a metaphysical vision, but a third option, different from both religion and metaphysics ... I called this third option (i.e. the third method of entering the Sphere of the Absolute) "utrism" (but in the text, in order to preserve everything in its original format, I left in the term "religion").

According to my understanding, utrism is a method of entering the sphere of the transcendental that relies upon an a priori inner metaphysical state (reality) inherent to a person or a group of people.

Obviously, the I-utrism is most similar to the Oriental concepts (Hinduism specifically). What is then the essence of the new approach, and what is the difference?

The difference is stressed in the very text of the I-Religion, where it says that in the East, the Absolute is only aimed at the Higher, Divine Self. The Absolute in the I-Religion, however, must take account of solipsism. As such, differentiating the lower "I" and the Higher, or the subjective and the Divine, makes no sense. In solipsism, anything that relates to the Personal-I is absolute; so we may talk only about some sort of disclosing of this absoluteness within itself.

We should add something here: The difference between the I-Religion and the Tradition lies in a strange twist that happens when we look at the Absolute from a very "personal" viewpoint, stressing the link with the Absolute to my own, given, actual Being, while at the same time making a mysterious projection of the Absolute onto all levels of Self-Being.

A particular example may be relevant here that clarifies at least one formal difference between Eastern metaphysics and the I-Religion. In his work The Quest of the Overself, P. Burton writes that there exists only one Super-I for all people (not a number of Super-I's for a number of people). In fact, although this is a reasonable simplification, it discards many issues for the sake of comprehensibility. For example, the idea of quantity relates only to our world. The sphere of the Self is not merely beyond all numbers (including the One), it is beyond Unity. However, it also is beyond separation.

Thus far, remaining within the limits of the Tradition, the correlary appears relevant: The only existence is that of my own Self. That is, plurality of consciousnesses may be totally ignored. This is just another way of looking at the same reality. This way of looking is surely closer to the ideas of the I-Utrism (besides, "paradox" is a metaphysical banality).

And, finally, the following is relevant concerning the differences between the Tradition and the I-Religion: A new approach apparently is achieved through a certain metaphysical "coloring," a certain emphasis to some, let us say, "qualities" of the Self. In the case of I-Utrism, the emphasis, albeit within a new approach, is laid upon absolute, super-human narcissism: that renowned, Eternal Love of God toward Himself so much spoken of by the medieval Christian mystics.

Of course, on the other hand, a question of contradiction of the I-Religion with the Tradition may arise. So we should note that the question is neither clear nor simple of whether the I-Utrism introduces new, outsider elements or is simply a new approach within the established Tradition. I incline to consider it a new approach. And while the introduction in the I-Utrism of such radical aspects as perceiving the Absolute in all levels of Self-Being may arouse certain doubts, still, we may lay these doubts to rest.

In the I-Utrism, the quality of the Absolute in the lower levels of Self-Being is of a specific nature, and is not aimed against the realization of the Self (otherwise it would be pure Satanism). In this sense, the quality of the Absolute in the lower levels is of non-absolute nature, for it is only in relation to one's own Higher-I. And at the same time, it is of absolute nature, since all levels of Self-Being are pertinent to my own "I" at the same time that they have a special connection with the Higher-I.

Consequently, if in the case of a certain approach the ego and the body become obstacles, then here their illusory and negative nature is taken into account. They may even be completely rejected as having no relation to the sphere of the "I," while the I-ness of levels of Self-Being is stressed. (Upon further examination, the ego and the body themselves, if they become obstacles, are no longer what they are — and even being what they are, they are not to be viewed from their negative side.)

The Last Doctrine

The most profound essence of the Tradition leads us to comprehend that transcendence of God is illusory at its foundation. In fact, there's nothing more intimate for a human than God, for in a human being's higher manifestation he ceases being human and becomes what he really is, that is, God. God appears to be absolutely immanent for a human. More precisely, God is almost identical to that which is disguised as so-called "human." Human transcendence is thus based upon ignorance, upon metaphysical deceit, upon maya — without which world creation is impossible.

Elimination of metaphysical ignorance — elimination of identification of oneself with one's body, mind, or psyche — leads to a revelation in the end of the true human, or, rather, of that which calls itself human: essence concealed beneath the veil of false knowledge.

This false knowledge is at the foundation of the idea of God's "transcendence." Elimination of this false knowledge is the elimination of all false concepts of God. (God is obviously transcendent for the common human mind, but here we are speaking of principal transcendence.) In dualistic religious systems that assume a fatal severance between God and human, these false concepts of God imply an inevitable, latent idolatry.

So reaching God means the end of all religions; it is the "discovery" that one's own true "I" is the source of eternal life and immortality. Reaching God means unconditional victory over Death.

This is the God within us, so much spoken of by the Christian mystics and saints as well as the Oriental ones.

But with all that, does this reaching imply an end of any idea of transcendence?

The idea of the truly transcendent (not the false, based on ignorance) is a cornerstone of human existence. In fact, one may say that a human always aspires to overstep the limits of the achieved, the limits of the realized. ... But is it possible to overstep the limits of God, the Absolute, when divine realization means that the human being identifies himself with God?

Even the way the question is raised definitely appears "strange" from the viewpoint of the Tradition, including the Hinduist. One may recall, however, that Hinduism — more than the other doctrines — proposes metaphysical freedom, and one may also recall the famous concept that the true mystery is enclosed not in the letters of a tradition but in what is between the letters. ... After all, a true tradition should always overstep its limits.

But what would it mean to overstep the limits of God, the limits of the Absolute? God is, primarily, an absolute reality, absolute Being, and "overstepping" the limits of the Absolute would imply the overstepping of any Reality there is. Overstepping the limits of Reality also implies overstepping the limits of the very source of the Reality, the source of Being, i.e., the so-called Divine Nothing (identical to the Divine Plenitude that contains all potentialities of being), that Divine Plenitude which is beyond Being as it exists, although it is neither its source nor its foundation.

Being in its non-manifest, latent, potential state is contained in the Divine Nothing. So the Divine "beyond Being" and the Divine Being compose a Metaphysical Unity, constituting one and the same "nature" of God.

For there's no duality in God, but quite the reverse — a metaphysical unity. It is single in its "essence."

What we are looking for, however, the truly transcendental, the eternally transcendental, should, therefore, be beyond God as a Unity, and consequently, beyond anything that is Reality or what Reality is based upon.

In the Tradition, as it is given to us, we don't encounter such concepts, for the Tradition basically leads us to what is "given" to us, to what is potentially contained within us — that is, to God and to what needs to be "realized." Meanwhile, it is obvious that the truly transcendental does not seem to have been given to us. The traditional Path is but the first step of a True Initiation — and not even an initiation, but a threshold, the reconstruction of what seems to have been lost: the realization of potentiality.

The True Initiation leads to what is not given, what is not contained within us, what is truly transcendental for us. ... But is this at all possible? Can one actually make contact with that which is not given, with that which is for us an Absolute Beyond?

Attempting to answer this question (and ultimately overstepping the framework of all metaphysical traditions, both written and oral), we of necessity enter the sphere of hypotheses and hints, while the realization of a traditional Path is backed up by all the practical experience of sages, yogis, saints, avatars, God-humans — by all the historical spiritual heritage of humankind.

However, some hints definitely do exist, even historically. ... But let us not discuss them now. Let us point out only that the doctrine which teaches of "That Which Is Not," of that which is beyond the Absolute, truly deserves to be called the "Last Doctrine" — although there exists another name for this doctrine — for it is impossible to go farther than this.

Let us again remark upon the hypothetical nature of this doctrine. We hope that those to whom this all is alien will forget what follows below. ...

The Last Doctrine is the teaching of That Which Is Not, of that which is beyond God, beyond the Absolute, of that which is transcendental to God, Reality, and the Higher-I. This teaching is about God's being but a "body" of the truly transcendental (using the method of analogy), but not the essence of the Transcendental; the latter is what could be the true Darkness, the true Ocean, that surrounds the Reality. ...

This Darkness is related to God as spirit is related to body — taking into account that such an analogy is of a purely external nature. It should, however, be noted that all words and definitions that we have to work with here, specifically in this chapter, are, so to speak, "conditional." But in what sense?

It is clear that it is not possible to talk about "that which is" beyond the Absolute (i.e. to talk about That Which Is Not). However, in looking for hints to what may lie beyond words, we may consider the words' capacity for negation.

It is obvious that the entrance into the practice of the "Last Doctrine" (into its so-called "world") by means of Intellect, including the Divine one (since an intellect is pertinent to the sphere of reality), is impossible. Nevertheless:

A Theoretical Anticipation of this doctrine could be introduced through Intellect, and

A certain perception of the threshold of this doctrine is introduced through Intellect, for the threshold has a connection to the real world, to the world of the Absolute, in the real world's relation to That Which Is Not.

The "Last Doctrine" seems to split into two parts:

The first part is that which could somehow be expressed through the Intellect;

The second, basic, and practical part is that whose essence lies outside all that is given to humans or to God.

We can definitely touch only upon the first part, and only then through certain hints. ... Primarily, the initiation into the Last Doctrine (into its first aspect) should begin with awareness. Liberation of Being, or realization of the Absolute, signifies the achievement of the Supreme Repose of Happiness and Immersion into one's Self, whereas the Last Doctrine commences with the principle of eternal transcendence, eternal horizon. ...

Consequently, the Last Doctrine implies disengaging from one's absolute, eternal, fundamental principle — but only after having realized it. The first level of this disengagement is the return from the sphere of the realized Absolute into the Periphery of Being, for it is there — not in the triumphant completeness of the Absolute — that one can locate "holes" into the true Darkness, the Abyss that lies beyond the Absolute. This Periphery of Being determines the higher essence of Being, not just of our own barriered world but of all Creation. For it is not in the dazzling light of the Absolute, but in the world of suffering and negation that a breakthrough into the Abyss becomes possible.

All this suffering and negation, which seems to be concentrated and symbolized by the idea of "death," and which previously had to be overcome on the Path toward the Absolute, now takes on a positive connotation as a metaphor that points to a crack in the Darkness that leads to the Abyss.

Thus far, the first stage is to drop out of the realized Whole, the Absolute, to the Periphery, and to reconsider death, in a positive sense, as the concentration and symbol of all previous negation. However, this is such a deviation, such a descent to a Periphery where nothing gets lost, that the Absolute Self, realized through a normal initiation, remains intact.

In other words, initiation into the Abyss does not cancel the prior initiation into the Absolute, but instead, subsumes it. Only after having obtained one's own true, immortal Self can one attempt to set off for the metaphysical voyage into the Unknown. Without having obtained this immortal Self, all discussions of the Last Doctrine are pointless.

In the beginning of one's voyaging, one should certainly start with God. But now, our affair with God is over, and the realized, immortal Self drops out from the Whole, initiating its own Holy Scripture, a scripture that now relates not to God but to the Abyss. However, this dropping out from the Whole can be realized only if initiation into the Last Doctrine takes place while one is still on the way to the Absolute. ... Otherwise the Whole, the Light, may absorb the One. ...

Dropping out from the Whole to the Periphery is in fact an independent initiation, while at the same time it is a threshold of the initiation to the Abyss — a threshold still within the Absolute, within Being. ...

In terms of Intellect, one may say something about the next stage, that is, about initiation into the very Abyss — although we may convey this initiation only through certain theoretical hints that have nothing to do with practical exercises, for these are beyond both Intellect and Being.

These theoretical hints could be as follows. Since the initiation, the last one, is performed in regard to That Which Is Not, any possession or realization — pertinent only to a regular initiation, such as when a human realizes God within — is out of the question. In any case, the principle of possession contradicts the principle of eternal transcendence.

On our path toward God-realization, we observe the principle of false transcendence, especially when we have a clear feeling that God is still afar, that It has not yet been disclosed, for we are aware of a need to transcend the eternal obstacles in our path. And for those who can finally achieve it, God-realization overcomes these obstacles and creates the apparency of transcendence.

Nothing like this is pertinent to the Abyss, where all principles relating to the world of the Absolute and Being must be disregarded. There simply is no realization or possession where the Abyss is concerned, for one cannot reach That Which Is Not. The principle of realization is obviously pertinent only to the world of Being, the Absolute. Therefore, movement into the Darkness, into the Abyss, can be perceived only based upon the principle of eternal deprivation — although this principle, in this context, should be perceived in a positive way. Here, in this sphere, no victory can occur. The very principle of victory must be rejected, for it relates to possession or realization.

Several issues could be raised concerning the nature of the Abyss. We raise these issues exclusively in terms of Intellect, using analogy. Taking into account that the True Initiation into the Abyss — the second stage — is actually beyond both Intellect and the world of the Absolute in general, we may yet touch upon these issues by indirection, attempting to resolve the question of the essence of Being. This essence consists in self-relatedness — the self-identity — the highest manifestation of which is the formula "I is 'I.' " Any Being includes at least the minimum self-relatedness. But, naturally, it is only within God, within the Absolute Self, that Being and Knowledge may form an uninterruptible whole and self-relatedness may reaches its ultimate expression.

Being is that which somehow knows of itself. Even a feeling is knowledge of oneself. Obviously, a Being completely lifeless, one hundred percent unconscious, could never exist as Being, for that which is totally dead is not aware of itself and is not Being.

With all that, there is no principle of self-relatedness (the principle of Being) in the Abyss, in the trans-darkness. It is as though everything turns out to be the opposite of itself. This ultimate Beyond for the Self, the absolute absence of immanence, signifies, besides other things, the absence of Being, thus determining the new principle of the Night.

While the highest form of self-relatedness and Being may be expressed by the formula:

I = "I"

then in the Abyss one may imagine the other formula:

I = "I" ≠ "I"

This implies that although the eternal "I" has been preserved (the first part of the formula), in the Abyss the identity is broken. The formula "I" ≠ "I" here does not signify identity (as, for example, in the case of having a body), but rather shows that the principle of self-relatedness is demolished in general, and that which is on the other side of the "I" is not the "I" itself (as is the case in ordinary self-identification), but is That Which Is Not.

In contrast to the first part of the metaphysical formula, based upon the principle of self-realization, the second part, pertaining to the Last Doctrine, may be expressed metaphorically as a "blindfold kiss" — the kiss of an invisible Face. ... Therefore, this is the principle of metaphysical anguish, the principle of eternal deprivation; for this invisible Face can never be found or possessed.

This is a marriage to a husband that doesn't exist, a contact with something that is not there.

Leaving behind the sphere of metaphors, we may add that no Intellect ... can conceive of this "is not there" — the Abyss.

To do it, one would need something fundamentally different, an organ by means of which we might establish direct contact with the Abyss. To a certain extent the Last Doctrine may be symbolized by lightning in the Night — the lightning being a symbol of the immortal "I."

Consequently, although the practical initiation into the Abyss cannot be expressed beyond generalities, something still can be said of the first stage of True Initiation, which involves dropping out of a liberated personality from the Whole and retreating toward the Periphery. For this process is still contained in the Intellect.

This retreat, as we have already discussed, is the complete positivation of all negations (of evil and death). These positivations thus become cracks into the Abyss, and one's retreat thus denotes the first indirect contact with the Abyss through reconsideration of the world and transfiguration of the Reality, on which the seal of the Abyss will lie thereafter.

At the same time, this retreat signifies the first obtaining of the Transcendental Name and the first true Fame — for fame means detachment from the Whole. Obtaining the immortal Self, destined for contact with the Abyss or transcendental life, one drops out from one's Origin in order to start one's own transcendental life. Thus, one turns out to be greater than God while still remaining God. In fact — in this case — one is no longer "just" God (or "just" human, if he is incarnate in a human form). The One becomes the Creature of the Abyss (again, while remaining God at a certain level), whose essence is inexpressible in the terminology of our world, the world of the Absolute.

So the negations existing in this world, which had formerly to be overcome on the Path to the Absolute, now start playing a positive role. It is as though they designate a certain break, or interruption, of Being, a catastrophe, a preparation, a crack into that anti-world.

Of more substantial meaning is the transfiguration of the very real world.

Its essence is in the possibility that Being (our world) may bear the shadow, or reflection, of the Abyss. Through this, that which exists may hint of something that is not within it. In other words, the world may point at something which is not the world.

Thus, a Creature of the Abyss — after the new initiation — starts seeing reality as already radically transformed.

For this Creature, the new initiation signifies the end of the abandonment of Darkness. The world takes on a completely new meaning, or rather, a new trans-meaning. It is no longer an illusion that one needs to awaken from, but becomes instead a hint to that which is beyond the Reality, beyond the Absolute.

The world's ultimate transfiguration does not imply, however, its surrealization or symbolization — for any of these only pertain to the world of Reality, where the eternal essence is hidden behind the "things" that symbolize this world. Here, no one hides behind the world or "things." For the real — even relatively real — can never be a symbol of That Which Is Not. Instead, the inexpressible power of the Trans-Darkness, Trans-Abyss, casts a shadow onto the manifest world, transmuting it into its anti-analog, anti-symbol — entering into new absurd-paradox relations with it.

Therefore the Creature of the Abyss is the participant of this transfiguration.

The Creature's personal Self is also transformed (retaining its Divinity) through this contact with the Abyss. Anguish without a cause, into the mystery of which he has been initiated, leads him right into the transcendental Abyss. He may become an Insane-God, A Blasphemous-God, a God-Become-Mad — for this is a God who's going away into endless Night. But this one who goes away, remaining a God, is more than just a God, for his Self gets transformed wherever it touches the Abyss.

Immortality, once obtained, can never be denied or lost. But is it not possible that one could lose the Love of the Immortal Self? And on this level of Self-love, what is the meaning of the search for the Non-Existent, the Post-Absolute?

The retreat to the Abyss in this aspect may be perceived as follows: Realization of the Absolute is related to the achievement of completeness in the Absolute; and this completeness (tranquility, harmony) contradicts the idea of the eternally transcendent. At the same time, a special — perhaps the highest — aspect of Self-love is Love toward the unreachable Self. In other words, the realization of Self-ness relates to only one part of Self-love. Therefore, Self-love may imply a kind of rejection of the Self: speaking metaphorically, a blindfold kiss, the kiss of an invisible spouse, one who cannot be seen due to the very principle of such relations.

This rejection of the Self conceals one of the moments of truly transcendental, truly-Beyond Love — for we are at the threshold of a principally different sphere of the Beyond — "beyond" in the pure meaning of the word, beyond our earthly world and all other worlds from Heaven to Hell. The Devil, Gods, and the Single Absolute — the source and principle of them all — belong, obviously, to one and the same ultimately "beyond" Reality. (Although great caution should be employed when making trips into the unknown based upon the method of analogy. For the sphere of the Abyss is a sphere fundamentally different from that which exists.) ...

Speaking about common motives — why the immortal Self might wish to retreat into the Night — let us say that this could be caused by a special initiation that opens an Eye into the Abyss and creates the necessity for a truly-transcendental life, demolishing previous principles that were based upon the idea of realization. ...

A few words have to be spoken now about the paradoxical Creature that gets in touch with the Abyss, the Creature of the Last Doctrine (who in some cases may be a human — but, of course, only externally).

This Creature includes both absolute completeness and absolute deprivation; both the will to die and immortality; both eternal self-integrity and the risk of self-destruction; both absolute narcissism and the attempt to get beyond Self, God, and "Anti-God." This Creature is the paradox of paradoxes, and even the very fact of its existence my be questioned, in a way, for in its most important aspect it transcends the Reality, overstepping the limits of the world of the Absolute.

It is hard to proceed any further, for the Last Doctrine does not keep on with tradition, but rather leaves it — at the same time preserving it somewhere aside as a first, yet necessary, stage. ...

And everything pertinent to the sphere of contact (or rather, anti-contact) between this Creature and the Abyss — everything that is truly practical and not just preliminary and indirect — is beyond any description of the Absolute in the language, or even in the silence, of our world. ...

Footnotes:

"This work, published here as a chapter from the book The Destiny of Being, should rather have been titled 'The I-Metaphysics.' The term 'religion' is not really appropriate here. A religion is inseparable from a 'revelation,' while this treatise is more of a philosophical/metaphysical nature. Its essence is the search for one's own personal, eternal 'I,' immortal and indissoluble. However, I preserved this term as it was in the '60s — the years of the search and the challenge. I didn't want to make changes to this first philosophical work of mine. It was important to show the process, the evolution, the outlook of our metaphysical search in Moscow in the '60s and '70s. Moreover, the entire book, put together during my immigration years, shows the full panorama of this search. It goes from the I-Metaphysics to the Last Doctrine, and is compared to the metaphysical experience of Hinduism. But still, I added a short post-script in the end of the I-Metaphysics where I actually introduce Utrism as a possible kind of metaphysics. The Last Doctrine itself was created during the '70s by myself and Geidar Jemal. Later on, I came to different ways of understanding it. Here, I present my own version of this doctrine." [Author's note]
The word "utrism" is a neologism — a word created by the author for lack of an English equivalent that translates the Russian accurately. He defines this word later on in the text. [Ed.]
The Absolute in this translation refers to All That Is, the essence of what is meant by "I Am That I Am." [Ed.]
"The Transcendental-I is that 'I' which transcends any conceptions of the 'I' that are known in common traditions." [Author's note]
"Self-existing" basically means "not created." Our everyday concept of God is of a Self-Existing Consciousness — that which always was and ever shall be. [Ed.]
"Solipsism is a philosophical trend in which a human considers himself to be the only thing that exists and the rest of the world is non-existent. It is based upon the fact that only one's own existence is real for any human, and everything else is secondary — that the entire world is but a projection of one's own consciousness. The solipsistic worldview also is pertinent to understanding Hinduism, although there is no solipsism there because consciousness is considered an aspect of Atman or the Absolute. The point of Hinduism is, rather, that the human is the illusion, whereas only God, the Absolute, the Brahman, is truly real. What I refer to is a different kind of solipsism, the self-existing one. In other words, for human existence, the starting point is the human Self, which is the only primary reality. That is, the Being of a human exists only when it is perceived as his own Self-Being: To be means to be aware that you exist; 'I possess only my own Being, and all the rest is available to my perception solely through my own Being.' " [Author's note]
"I should note here that the idea of existence differs from the idea of reality that characterizes my own 'I' as Self-Being. Strictly speaking, existence is relative: something fundamentally non-absolute. Ultimately, existence is something that one cannot feel as Self-Being from within. Thus, the very notion of existence already conceals elements of non-existence. So far, the difference between existence and non-existence is in the degree of their relation to the 'I.' " [Author's note]
Paraphrasing the author, a regular solipsism affirms not that the world does not exist, but that the concept of its existence may be dismissed, since we are stuck in our own experience and can never know one way or another whether it exists or not [a philsophical dilemma known as the "egocentric predicament"]. In the self-existing solipsism, on the other hand, the world is regarded as the "existence of non-existence." So in the regular solipsism, any concept of the existence or non-existence of the world is irrelevant, whereas in the self-existing solipsism, the concept of the world as existence of non-existence is extremely relevant: It proceeds [not from the egocentric predicament but] from the actual nature of the world itself. [Ed.]
Throughout this text, the term "traditional" (or "the Tradition") refers to a primordial, cosmic Tradition that many metaphysicians (at least, those who are outside the Christian fundamentalist tradition) believe has been the source of all knowledge and of the ways this knowledge has been delivered to the people.[Ed.]
"The greatest aspect of the Higher-I may be expressed by the formula: I = I." [Author's note]
"'Personal' in this context, should not be perceived as being limited to the individual, but rather as pertaining to the Personal-I." [Author's note]
"Naturally, the terminology used here is of a relative nature. The essence, in most cases, is beyond the meaning of the words." [Author's note]