Am I Crazy? You Decide


Am I Crazy? You Decide.

by Anoop Alex



Published by Anoop Alex at Shakespir

[email protected]m



Copyright 2016 Anoop Alex





Shakespir Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to your favorite ebook retailer to discover other works by this author. Thank you for your support.



Am I Crazy? You Choose.


This ebook has been formed, partially, from what I would call spiritual experiences and recent mental chatter. Science may call them psychotic episodes, so I understand if you are skeptical and dismiss them immediately. But if you are still reading, I take you as somewhat more inquisitive than some others. Even I accept my experiences could be psychosis since I have a history of negative psychosis. I am also currently taking anti-psychotic medication But the nature of my message, I feel, is more important than the medium. My experiences and ideas are unverifiable by others, except for one, which I provide a link to check for you to check yourself, since it happened on a forum. You can, if you read this ebook, see how I interpreted my experiences and see if it speaks to you, on some level, as truth, or dismiss it as delusion. My thoughts here may not be appealing, to either theists or atheists, but, at least, you were willing to look.


I do not say that one person is right and that one, who disagrees with him, is wrong. Each may be right within their own reality. I believe I live in a shared but non-fixed objective reality in the material world, which I experience through the immaterial subjective reality of consciousness. Previously, I used to believe in a fixed objective material reality until I had a personal, non-spiritual experience which gave me physical, and still existing, proof you can check, that two people could share an experience but experience it as opposites.


In 2015, I experienced a aberration in my external material reality than made me question the existence of a fixed objective reality. A poster on a Disqus forum replied to my post before I posted it. I replied to his message in my post. but it appeared before his post, on the forum, when I posted it. So, you can see a post responding to a following post. The person involved thinks I am lying and edited my post. I am not saying I am right and he is wrong. I am saying we are both right since we simultaneously experienced shared but differing realities. Like a river splitting at an island of sand and then joining up again. The split is still visible through the following link. This may be the only existing proof, within this, once again, shared objective reality, of a divergence in objective reality. Certainly the only one I know of. I am quite confused by this experience since it is a subjective experience of differing objective reality. The two posts don’t really act as proof that 2 differing realities occurred simultaneously but they do certainly indicate that I responded to a message before it was posted. If you wish, check it and decide for yourself: https://goo.gl/YacaZX



What is reality anyway? What defines something as true? Is it what the majority of conscious observers say it is or is it what, we admit, we personally experience? Many people claiming to experience a different reality from the majority have been considered insane and locked up in madhouses. Normally since their reality could have led to harm of themselves or others. But many have positive messages in their reality too. What if the majority of people on Earth started saying the Earth was flat again? Would RoundEarthers doubt their own sanity? Of course, they could always use a non-conscious machine to verify the truth for themselves but they would be getting the objective info through a subjective experience and the FlatEarthers could always find support in experimental error. At least, until RoundEarthers took a FlatEarther round the world, by taping his eyes wide open, and a compass for company so he couldn’t claim they doubled back while he slept. So, in the end, I guess it comes down to personal experience. Which is subjective. After all, we do have a minority of sincere FlatEarthers even today.


My first spiritual experience took the form of a inner voice telling me “I am God. First I was One, which became Two, which became Three, which became Many.” I was agnostic at the time but the experience turned me into a spiritual seeker and, to my surprise, I found the similarity of the message received incredibly close to the definition of the nature of the Tao which I was unfamiliar with at the time.


My second spiritual experience was when I heard an inner voice tell me “The future is uncertain. Just be.” I experienced this event as a powerful message of insight from God. It shook me to my core and I needed to lie down then. But then I thought, what does God mean by the first statement? I thought God was supposed to be omniscient and know everything. And I realized God could be omniscient about the present and the past but not the future. That is left to us since we are not following a fixed script in life. If we are in a scripted play, we are in improv.


Determinists like to make the claim that we are just machines responding to the environment, not a being of free will. If they want to think of themselves as automatons, that is their choice. This already gives us two ways for an individual to approach a situation. You say yes, I say no. I admit at the physical level we have less free will; for example, shivering in cold and flinching from heat. But I also think the mind can overcome these instincts if it decides to, though not sure how much.


In general, we are free to choose how we respond internally to the outer world since we experience most of it internally through the mind. When determinists can show combos of chemicals and neural nets within the brain that map a non-physical choice someone makes, then I’ll give the theory consideration.


I don’t like implying that we are some super special being but the human mind is special and it is unique. Unlike any other conscious species on Earth, we can ask questions of our reality. Koko, the gorilla who was trained to communicate via sign language, never asked a question even though her trainer claimed she could respond to them. Neither has any chimp who has been taught to sign.


And what was meant by “Just be” ? I believe in a loving higher consciousness that suggests things to our consciousness but lets us decide if we respond with love or react with fear. So there is nothing we should do. We are free agents internally. I could have reacted to my experiences with the fear that I was going crazy and suppressed and run from it. But I did not. I investigated the thoughts and came to my current reality. Maybe you can only come to similar thoughts if you have a similar experience that triggers the need for investigation. Or maybe reading this text can trigger something, if it is followed by contemplation. I do not ask you to accept anything I say just because I say it. I say read it, then investigate if you are interested.


Maybe The Oneness(God) is “Just Being” in a fragmented experience of itself. Souls could be The Oneness seeing how it evolves in a reality of duality and opposites.


Love and fear are two opposing polarities that have a strong influence on us, and, through us, our material reality. But true love can never be overcome by fear. So love eventually accumulates with time while fear ebbs away. I don’t know about the spiritual reality but I believe it is one of love. What I do know about this reality is that it is one in which love has increased as humanity has evolved over time. Fear will always remain a possibility but will never be as strong as love. This is a prediction of a potential future which does not exist, so I could be wrong, but don’t believe I am.


What is the difference between reaction and response? Reaction happens without thinking in the mind while a response is the resulting action after at least a little contemplation. Many times a reaction is based on unconscious fear. We may get into a fight, not solely because of hate or anger but, because of fear our self image will be damaged or fear we may be physically hurt. Response can be based on love. We can internally forgive someone who hurts us and move on without propagating hate.


Don’t you think love has increased over time? One example is that, initially, one way we reacted to those who hurt us was in the way they hurt us. An eye for an eye. You kill my son? I kill you. How do you think children understood their reality when they realized that hurting someone meant hurt in return? This would have brought a form of order in the world based on harm and fear. That is not a world of love. Nowadays, our reaction is closer to a more loving response, with a punishment of life imprisonment, for those who kill. This still makes life hard for prisoners after parole, since their record essentially ostracizes them from reintegration into society. A truly unconditional response of love would be complete forgiveness. This was done by Gladys Staines after a Hindu gang burned her husband and sons to death. The Indian court gave death and life sentences nonetheless. Another example is that initially we were disjointed warring groups that eventually formed the United Nations. Does this mean war has stopped? Possibly not but it is reduced as, while the UN has not revolutionized peace, it has certainly brought more into the world.


Does this mean we should all forgive those who harm us and also live the life of the meek? Like I stated earlier, I don’t believe there is anything we should do. Do what you want. You will know what that is when you make the choice. Gladys Staines was ministering to lepers in India when her husband was burned by a Hindu gang so she was already demonstrating volumes of love before she forgave the gang. Do we have the love within to act the same way? Do we want to? I would say the majority does not. We are slaves to our fears because we do not know that the key to freedom is within our hands. We can choose a response instead of a reaction but many don’t know that we can. Also, doing what we want may lead to a breakdown of order since we live in society with other beings. However, I am not so sure of this. I often wonder if the innocent child will become a cruel adult if fear is not imposed in its childhood and it knows only love.


Now, how do materialists define love and fear? Just a result of hormones and chemicals in the brain? Perhaps they are right. I believe love is from a spiritual source but there may also be a material aspect of it. I know there is a part of the brain called the amygdala that is responsible for the emotions we feel. But we are not slaves to our brain. The amygdala may trigger an emotion, based in neural input, but our consciousness gives us the freedom to choose how we respond. I speak as a temporal lobe epileptic, who has experienced the feeling of fear in “fear seizures” but simultaneously chosen to know I was not afraid. If we make use of that freedom from the consciousness, then, we have a response; otherwise it is more likely a reaction. I make the dubious claim that the former is guided by the Soul, the latter by the ego.


John Lorber, a neurologist, had research suggesting that the ultimate source of consciousness is not the material brain. Could this be evidence for the soul? He discovered patients with extreme cases of hydrocephalic brains who were not even aware of the fact. There were patients with brains weighing around approximately 150g instead of the usual 1.5kg but there was zero mental retardation. Some of them even had above average IQ, with one he mentioned having an honors in mathematics! Lorber was generally ignored by the scientists of his time or it was suggested that he, a neurologist, had misread his CAT scans. However, he was not the only doctor to discover this interesting data.



Nothing external can change our beliefs. I am not saying that things or events in the external reality we live in cannot change our beliefs. Information we get from there can, but the source of change cannot be secondary. We will agree with info from a secondary source if it matches our existing worldview and dismiss if it doesn’t match. A text or speech from another person will not directly change our beliefs. It may if we contemplate it. An objective demonstration by a person, involving non conscious objects, may change our beliefs, if we trust the person, but we may want to repeat it ourselves if we don’t trust that person. Also, a personal experience may change our beliefs. Please note I said may in the last three cases. It all depends on how we choose to interpret it internally. You choose. In everything internally, you can choose. I am just making you aware of info I believe is true.


I think atheists may be some of the more evolved souls on the planet. That is not sarcasm. Nor am I saying God does not exist. But atheists have the courage to accept a reality without a protective Father. I believe it is easier to deal with troubles in life when you have faith there is a universal being of love who is watching over you and who will eventually rescue you. But atheists are facing a reality with the belief that there is no such being. No one carries them; they carry themselves through all their tribulations. Or is that what their soul is telling them? Maybe in that sense it is trying to be more like God? After all, if God is the First Cause there is nobody higher that God can turn to. It has only itself as the highest.


Notice I said atheism represent some of the more evolved souls --- not humans. As humans, I am not going to apply some label for a one-off definition of atheists. As humans, atheists can be good people, sneering militants, Joe Public or all the other variations of human personalities. Humans are defined by their actions, not by their beliefs.


No true atheist will accept my theory. And that is fine. As I said, this ebook could be interpreted by some as the ramblings of a psychotic. It’s just that my voices made me look on my fellow man with a brighter light, instead of telling me to go kill him. No true atheist will assign any validity to the concept of a soul. For them, there is only temporary existence in the material reality and then non-existence. No purpose to material reality except what one may find within it and then it doesn’t matter, for most, anyway, because, in such a short time one, will cease to be. I have found it difficult to find studies, on depression among atheists, that are potentially free of confirmation bias. Dawkins says it is greater among the religious. Christian sources say it is greater among atheists. And since depression has so many causes, it may be difficult to link the depression to atheist belief.


The truth is that, until we experience our present reality we do not know what it will be. We can believe in God or the Devil all we want but we don’t know if they exist or change our material reality. One thing we do know is that love is a force that brings positive change to our shared reality. So why not believe in the power of love instead ? You can know love! Some might say that hate also brings positive change to this reality. e.g. the hate of seeing someone in a state of poverty causes you to help them. But I don’t think so. You can hate seeing someone in an impoverished or potentially fatal state but unless you feel love towards them, you will never help.


We all are doing the things we most want to do, within our capability. We may be working a job we hate because we want to provide for our family, more than we hate the job. We may really want to be millionaires living on a yacht and living large, but most of us realize that as a imaginary dream than a realizable goal.


To me, it makes no sense to say an experience of an external event we feel is loving or hateful resulted immediately in an act of hatred or love from you. In between those two events there was you interpreting the first event and choosing what the resulting act would be by you. In this material reality, it may be better for God to exist merely as an idea associated directly with love, and for that idea to be a guide unto us, than to be an existing being dictating our morality. That may change once we enter the spiritual reality.


Imagine an Earth where the answer to the question of God’s existence and nature was known, not believed in. If the answer was yes, then it would most likely lead to a world of twisted morality, because if God was judgmental of souls based on their life here, then morality of life on Earth would be based on fear of punishment, not free will. Also, our moral or immoral choices of which is right and which is wrong is not always a cut-and-dry case and that would complicate matters and increase fear in that world.


And if, instead, we knew God existed and was unconditionally loving, the material life on Earth would be irrelevant because we would have a guarantee of either an infinite existence beyond the current one, or temporary current existence, no matter what our moral choices here were. So, if God exists, it is better in reality, that we don’t know whether he does or not. That is the way I see it.


What if we knew the answer was no? First of all, I’m not sure what form that knowledge would take since it would be proving a negative. Maybe an inbuilt knowledge that was unquestionable? But unquestionability would also mean the loss of free will. In the end, I think a godless world and a world with an indeterminate god(Earth) would have the same approach to morality since both depend on the Self to choose it’s moral response, not follow the moral ideals of another being.


This makes me question the divine nature of Jesus. If God exists, would he have come to show he did? Also, according to scripture, Jesus knew that his resurrection was going to be a fact before it actually occurred. It is not so impressive going to be human sacrifice for the good of all mankind when you know that you are not sacrificing much since you know that you will rise again regardless. I find the story of the mortal Jesus, who, despite hating the Pharisees, was full of enough unconditional love to go and die for their redemption, more impressive than the divine Jesus.


I don’t know the truth about the resurrection and am not even clear enough on the details to know what I should believe. However, there is another person, in my reality, who stands out almost as much as Jesus. I am referring to Mother Teresa. She, unconditionally, gave up her life for the betterment of others and her biographies imply that she lived this life of love even after she felt she lost God in her reality. So her faith and love was all that kept her going and it did it until the end. I am not aware of anyone who gave so much without faith in God. I am not implying Mother Teresa was an atheist, though some atheists have been quick to claim her as one, based on the revelation of this fact in her life. She had known God and, after she she lost him, wanted to know God. She never turned her back on God. Wanting to know God does not make you an atheist. And despite this incredible distress, she manifested unconditional love in her entire life. Amazing. And Mother Teresa’s life is a known fact, not a potential truth, that may or may not be true, like the resurrection.


As for my belief, on the question of whether God exists, I believe he does. But, possibly, not in the way organized religion teaches. God does not determine our actions or morality for us. He may make suggestions everyday in our mind but leaves the choice, in our life, to us. In my reality, the afterlife will be more like becoming lucid in a dream while sleeping. We can choose to return to the dream of the waking world(reincarnation) or enjoy lucidity(God’s kingdom), a reality we control, for a little while longer. Maybe even choose non-existence. I doubt anyone would wish for permanent lucidity but I could be wrong. I have recently read about many near death experiences where the person was in a black void. Some felt this was a perfect place for quiet self-reflection. Others, thought of it, as a confusing hell. Once again, individual interpretation of current reality dominates. We may assign ourselves to experience heaven or hell for a little while before we return to Earth to continue our spiritual evolution.


If we are really spiritual beings from a spiritual reality experiencing material reality as material beings, this implies some sort of conflict in the spiritual dimension. We were existing there, happily I assume, until some point when we said, “Enough. I have this. I want that.” and decided to experience material reality. So, on some level, conflict is also a part of the spiritual reality. This implies that, on some level, duality is part of that reality too. Based on my first spiritual experience I believe there are 3 planes of consciousness: The Oneness(Undivided God), the Immaterial Duality(Spiritual Universe) and the Material Duality(Material Universe). In the first: Only God. In the second: God and the Soul(s). In the third: God, Soul(s) and Ego(s).


I will also say that, in this third material reality, both the Soul and the Ego try to guide our path as we face decisions in this life. I believe God talks to me as a separate voice in my head. But I suspect the Ego does too. The Self of “me within” is what decides what voice to listen to since both sound the same from in here. I can use love as a guideline on how I want to respond but it is not always a cut-and-dry choice. For example, what if, to help or maybe even save the life of someone I care about, I have to indirectly harm or maybe even kill someone I don’t know? Think organ donation. I would like to think I would have the sense of unconditional love to leave the matter up to reality and see how it turns out without me interfering. Is that a form of cowardice? Unwilling to accept responsibility when it is not our safety that hangs in the balance? Maybe it is. But I am not really unwilling to accept responsibility. I am still walking the path. Just that, when the way is not clear, for a while I let my interpretation of love be my guide. It is still my interpretation so I am still responsible. That is, still, the path that Jesus espoused.


My greatest strength currently, or so I like to think, is my faith in the power of love and the Freedom of Attitude. I am a being made up of three parts: Love(Soul). Fear(Ego). And a conscious Self that can always choose between the two as a response to events in my material life. When we let love be our guide, we are listening to the Soul. When we let fear be our guide, we are listening to the Ego. And both may be aspects of God since he is everything, but he may only associate with one. Like, men and women both have masculine and feminine aspects, but they only associate with one. Since I share my material world with other beings, who I suspect, but can’t prove, have the same makeup of soul and ego, their choices affect my life as well. Both on a global and personal level.


Any negative reality in life can either be changed, or if it can’t, it can be accepted. Misery or worry over a reality you can’t change serves no purpose and since those emotions occur within you, you have full control over them. Pain is inevitable in life but misery is optional. This is the Freedom of Attitude.


Pain occurs on so many levels, from the highest to the lowest. For the nearly worshiped celebrity to the unseen homeless man outside, pain can be either tactile or mental. But we don’t have to be slaves to, and can withstand, both tactile and mental pain. I know this because I once heated a ceramic plate in the microwave for about 2 mins and then held on to it with my fingers, fighting the instinct to drop it. It hurt greatly initially but I held on and eventually the pain was reduced. Possibly due to death of nerve cells. I was able to hold on until the plate cooled down. I ended up with a blister of a 2nd degree burn but had proved, to myself at least, that the mind could overcome physical pain. Now, only a vague scar is seen.


Emotional pain is harder to recreate at will but I was lucky, in that I have epilepsy. A type of simple partial seizure results in deja vu and a strong sense of fear --- an intensified version of what you feel when you are reaching for your wallet to pay and realize you left it at home. I would get this feeling at random times and initially it was really scary but eventually once I recognized what was happening, I would feel the fear but know I was not really afraid. So I have control over my inner reality as well. I couldn’t prevent thoughts initiating within it but I could, if I wanted, easily control their ability to overcome me once I experienced them.


So what was the point of this ebook, if any? There are a couple. I have personal spiritual ones but I guess the main one is to share my belief that it doesn’t matter what your beliefs regarding God in this material reality are. You can be theist, atheist, Satanist or agnostic murderer. When you leave here, you go back to the kingdom of God’s unconditional love anyway. God does not judge you or want anything from you.


However, a Soul may be a fragmented consciousness from God that aspires to God’s level of unconditional love. And you, as a Soul, may judge yourself once you return to the spiritual realm. It may look, in review, upon the life it has just left and decide if the way it has acted there, means it should experience the bliss of God’s love(that is heaven), bear the distress of separation from it for a while as self-punishment(that is hell) or reincarnate to try again. Souls are defined by their acts here on Earth, not by what they believe. God does not judge them in the afterlife. They judge themselves and see if they are closer to the role model of God, by having lived a material life of love for themselves(not narcissism) as well as other humans. Just speculation, but that’s what near-death experiences imply for me.


Faith gives us a lot of strength for the trials of life. But I think the faith has to be genuine. Maybe you don't even need faith in God --- just yourself. Trust yourself to guide yourself. That is close to the atheistic view but I believe they deny the spiritual part of themselves. I believe, if you listen within, you will discover God. I have done this within my reality. God is within you, after all. Try not to let your fears about others or yourself lead to a misstep. It's kinda like climbing a ladder, which has a goal, but you go up sometimes, and slip down a few steps sometimes, as you climb. The journey could potentially be endless. The stronger your faith in your step, the less the chance of slipping. And when you do slip, don't feel bad. Just forgive yourself and try again.


Another point of this ebook was to show that not all thoughts introduced to the mind, based on what current science would classify as negative psychotic experiences are always negative. Hearing inner voices is generally a common experience and can also be positive. Perceiving reality in a non-conforming way does not always have to be negative either. After viewing the links I presented, and reading of my beliefs, many of you may decide I am crazy. But if these thoughts are what being crazy means, then I am glad to be called crazy!


Adios and be well…


The End


Am I Crazy? You Decide

This ebook considers aspects of the soul, love and fear as it pertains to reality. It is a look into what could either be psychosis or spiritual revelation. It includes aspects from both theistic and atheistic belief so both types may either relate with the ebook or both may find it offensive

  • Author: Anoop Alex
  • Published: 2016-06-07 09:20:14
  • Words: 5027
Am I Crazy? You Decide Am I Crazy? You Decide