Home page                                                                       HELLO
An attempt to classify laws by the number of variables
Can road rules be called laws?
Can the law of gravity be called a rule?
What’s the difference between a rule and a law?

Where did rules come from?
Rules were created by people, in order to regulate and control relationships with each other.

Where did laws come from?
A law comes from the inner substance of a subject and regulates the relations, interrelations and correlations between given subjects. For instance, all solids with mass are pulled to each other proportionally to their masses and in reverse proportion to the squared distance between these solids. The common in all solids – mass, in this case – regulates the relations between these solids. All solids with mass are subjects to this law and the effect of this law does not depend on the will of a solid. If a solid that has a mass does not want to obey this law, it, according to the same law, either has to become infinitely remote from all other solids or has to lose its mass.

How long does the law exist?
From what was said above, it is clear that as long as exist masses, exists the law of gravity. That means that in relation to a subject with a mass, this law is constant and perpetual. At the same time, this law does not apply to any subject without a mass.

Р.S. There can be a third case, when a subject with a mass is in such an environment that this environment’s energy neutralizes the effect of the subject’s mass. Therefore, for all the surrounding subjects this particular subject seems not to have a mass. Such a subject, together with such environment, can be called an object. In this case we see an application of another famous law: any force exertion can be neutralized with equal, but oppositely directed force exertion.

How long does a rule exist?  With the invention of mobile transport means, the road rules were created, which have been changing along with changes in the transport means, roads and people. For a given quantity and quality of subjects in a given environment there exists an optimal rule. But since the people involved in traffic, as well as the roads, constantly change, the rules also need frequent changes.

Can a rule be broken?
A driver that runs a stoplight, breaks an existing road rule, and he knows that breaking that rule will most likely get him in trouble. Breaking a road rule creates traffic chaos, and that disrupts the transport system, as well as the entire system of relations between the traffic members.

Thus, a rule can be broken, but breaking it leads to exclusion of the responsible subject from the environment where he creates chaos and undermines the stability of the area that lives by the rules being broken. And the environment reacts accordingly and tries to get rid of its destroyer.

Can a law be broken?
The inviolability of a law is in the law itself, because a law – law of gravity, for instance – comes from the internal quality of solids – to gravitate to one another. It comes from the bottom level, is born in the solids themselves and rules the solids. If somebody (for example, a person) does not know this law, it does not exempt him from the effects of the law. And a possible punishment for a misunderstanding of a law comes from the law and is enforced by the law. Or, to be precise, it’s not a punishment, but rather just the law in action. For instance, if a man throws a rock in the air directly above himself, it will inevitably come back, independently of who threw it.

From the example of the gravity law we can see that a solid with a mass can not avoid the effects of the gravity law, and therefore, it can not break this law. It can use another law to avoid being drawn to another solid, but to do that, it has to sacrifice energy, equal to the energy being created under the effect of the gravity law. Take a plane – traction from the engines and a certain shape of the wings pulls the plane upwards, overcoming the gravity force that pulls the plane towards the earth.

What does it mean to break a rule?
Where is the border between obeying and breaking a rule? A road rule is supposed to create the maximal effectiveness of transport movement, together with minimal danger for the traffic members. As the roads (the rule application area), transports and passengers (the rule subjects) change, the rules themselves change so that the aforementioned relationship between effectiveness and danger remains. This relationship is kept when the rules are useful and equal for all the traffic members. If an ambulance has certain privileges over the rest of the cars, this advantage does not cross the borders of its fairness. If the traffic members consider a part of the rule unfair, it lowers the effectiveness of the rule, which, in turn, increases chaos that leads to the destruction of the rule application area.

There is a difference between the unsatisfied. There are progressive members, who may suggest a progressive and useful direction for changing the rules. According to a well-known law, there always are their opposites, who become obstacles to a rule, thus checking its integrity and effectiveness. Existence of both leads to equally useful situations - either progress or regress of a given rule.

The rules themselves can also be outdated or progressive. If a rule does not correspond to the current rule members and the rule's application area, then such rules destroy the members and the area. An environment, where such rules exist is protected by emerging unofficial, parallel and actually working rules. No prohibitions can stop those unwritten rules, because in this case the law of creation and existence of rules is in action.

Rules correspond to rule members and rule's application area, and vice versa.

Why can't a law be broken?
A law can't be broken because it is a consequence of a subject. On one hand, a law represents individual subject's entity and regulates the relations between such subjects, on the other - it is a reflection of our general way of life and regulates the relations between similar subjects with other subjects in an object. The more complex is an object (the more subjects are in it), the more liable is it to a variety of laws. The life of its complex body yields to every law in particular and all of them together. Since all the laws for a given object (f.e., a man) come from one general law and have a common root, they don't contradict one another and don't act like a swan, a lobster and a pike in a well-known folk tale. (This equilibrium can be disbalanced by an artificial manipulation of the object's gene system).

What does it mean to discover a law? Newton wasn't the first or the last to discover the gravity law. Newton was, however, the first to formulate this law in an understandable form. He wrote the law's definition and the formula, by which any knowledgeable person can read the law. But nobody except the man himself can't understand the meaning of the law - he has to do it himself. The law's definition and formula simplify the process of the law's understanding. Understanding the depth of a law is defined by its practical application. For example, knowing the physics laws can be verified by problems - that is, finding out how well a student can solve problems related to a given law.

Is it important how to name a rule or a law?  The word "rule" is commonly understood as something that usually needs to be obeyed, but in certain situations one can make an exception. For instance, every traffic member has the right of choice as far as the road rules are concerned in a particular traffic situation.

The word "Law", as typically understood, implies a mandatory obedience, and non-obedience of it leads to an inevitable punishment. Many understand the absurdity of such a definition, since a law can't be broken or disobeyed. But this is the most common definition of a law, and so I had to write here this incorrect expression as well.

For many people, regulation of interpersonal relations is based on fear of punishment. This fear is sometimes the main force behind artificially created social rules, decrees, edicts etc. And that used to be right. It was just and necessary for the common good of people. And to create the order of interpersonal relations, wise men would write rules by which people had to, under fear of death, obey these rules as laws. Those people were not even told about rules, they were already presented as laws. Those who wrote the rules understood that. But in writing such rules wise men of the old were basing them on their knowledge of the universe laws and tried to bring them maximally close to the latter.

Man is changing and is becoming more and more a man. Mechanically ruling him becomes less and less effective. A policeman can't be assigned to everybody, and a supervisor - to every policeman, and so forth. A man who knows the gravity law is not afraid of it, but rather uses it and can neutralize it by using other laws. A man who knows what he will pay with for lying or stealing according to a real law, won't do that. A man who does not know that law and thus lying, cheating and feeling unpunisheable, convinces himself more and more that the world only lives by the jungle laws. What he does not know is that he destroys himself in the process.

"Sabbath for a man, not a man for a Sabbath".  Those who have read the New Testament may remember this saying. In our society mainly exist state laws (rules) that protect the state and serve the government. But - a man for state, or a state for a man? In currently existing social laws a man serves as raw materials, as energy for growth and development of the state, and the state is more important than a man. Perhaps, in certain times it's justifiable. But in doing so, men exclude and destroy themselves, destroying the state, which becomes a parasite, as well. Only in a society where the state serves the people and in equal proportion the people serve the state, where they need each other equally, where there is balance (harmony), a man and the society can flourish.

But a balance can only be maintained in an unchanging world. We live in an ever-changing one, the man constantly changes as well, and so the balance is often broken, and needs to be constantly reached again. To do that, the man needs to know himself and the world around him - that is, to know the universal laws of existence.

How a rule can be brought closer to a law?  The closer a rule is to the properties of a law, the less breakable it is. If a rule possesses the same properties as a law, it can be called a law.

What properties do laws possess?
-- Eternity.  For example, the gravity law emerged simultaneously with a solid that has a mass, and will disappear together with disappearance of such solids. Therefore, for a solid with a mass this law is eternal, as the timeframe of the law being in effect is equal to the timeframe of the subject's existence.

-- Permanency.  For example, the gravity law is permanent for all solids with mass. In order for it to stop, the mass has to disappear for that time..

-- Laws don't exclude each other, but act each in its own area. One law can change effects of other laws, but at the same time laws don't contradict each other, and don't prevent each other from acting in its area.

-- Fairness.  For instance, a rock and a planet are equally subject to the gravity law, but the effects of the latter on them are not equal. A planet pulls a rock much stronger, and that is fair.

-- Usefulness.  For example, all solids with mass are vitally interested in the gravity law. This law effectively regulates relations between subjects and has maximum usefulness.

-- Beauty.  With changing of internal substance of a subject, the law that defines the relations for such subjects, changes as well. A law is always perfect and thus always beautiful.
For some people, acting "unpretty" means acting not according his conscience (not according to a law). For them the term "beauty" is a criteria for lawfulness. That is, the parameter of beautifulness is a subjective criteria of lawfulness. But the more developed it is for a subject, the more important it is for him. From this we can make a subjective conclusion that, "the more developed a person's sense of beauty, the more lawful are his actions".

-- A law comes from the structure, from the internal substance of a subject. A law emerges together with its subject and disappears together with it. As many various subject, as many laws defining the relations between these subjects.

-- A law affects subjects, from which he comes. Similar subjects exist by similar laws. 

--  A law is primary and objective.  For instance, if a solid has a mass, it obeys the law of gravity. If a subject doesn't have a mass, this law doesn't affect it. But this law exists for all other subjects with masses.

-- Automatic volatility. With changing of a subject, automatically changes the law by which the subject interacts with surrounding subjects. For instance, with changes in the production means, productive relationships also change - that is, with emerging of new means of production, the old ones disappear, and new laws of interaction between those production means emerge.

 -- A law is a derivative of at least two variables.  A law comes from a subject and acts via the living environment of that subject. Changing the subject inevitably leads to changes in that environment, and vice versa.

-- A law has its own contradiction in itself.   That is, a law excludes itself in its own critical development. Every law is subject to a so-called "anti-monopoly law". According to this law, a subject starts to destroy itself when it starts destroying its rivals, instead of changing itself. According to a well-known law, a subject destroys itself when it does not have any rivals and when it can't qualitatively change. A subject at any given moment is either developing (expanding) or destructing (imploding). If it can't expand, it automatically starts to implode, and vice versa.

-- Every law is an effect of another law and the cause of yet another one, et cetera.
   From a tree stem grows a branch, on which grow other branches, etc. There exist a tree of laws, and trees of laws. Every tree is a world, as many trees - as many worlds. Every world is a tree of laws, and as many worlds - as many law trees. Lawfulness (a law tree) is an opposite of chaos. I think that chaos is subject to only one universal law. Under effect from any other forces (internal or external) chaos starts to form some sort of a system. Every branch of a system creates a law which makes the existence of that branch possible. With further structurizing, an object transforms into a law tree. In a reverse process, chaos destroys law branches.
Here an analogy with an embryonic cell can be made. Chaos is potentially similar to an embryo. With the birth or an organism, first form itself embryonic cells, from which emerge other specialized cells (skin, skeleton, heart, liver etc.), and the number of embryos decreases, while the rest of them undergo a qualitative change. The end is well-known ("nothing is eternal under the moon"). And so on, and so forth. Birth of worlds, animals and people goes according to one law.

--All laws are subject to one general law of energy conservation and reallocation.

-- A law can't be created, it can only be discovered.

-- The number of a law's consequences is infinite.   For a given physical law there is an infinite number of practical problems. A pupil that knows this law can easily solve any problem on this topic, and for a pupil that doesn't know this law, every such problem will be very difficult. Similar situations exist in the everyday life of people.

How does a variety of laws interact with one another?   Why does a steel plane fly and not fall down? The constructor of the plane does not consider the plane a miracle - he knows that the plane flies, because it utilizes the effects of many different laws and preserves the general of energy conservation.

Does not knowing exempt from responsibility? 
As was said earlier, a law does not punish, but simply acts. A punishment is a product of a rule and its mechanisms. An ancient man did not know the material (physical, chemical, atomic, biological) laws, therefore he was not using gunpowder, zorine, radium etc. In discovering new things, the man defines the properties of them through their usefulness or harmfulness. For example, Pierre and Mary Curie found out the destructive force of an atom, trying out to learn about it. 
Why and how do mothers, fathers and teachers punish their loved children? 
For them, a punishment serves as the means of teaching and developing their kid, of telling him what's right and what's wrong, what's useful and what's harmful. There's the process of finding out the truth. But some use punishment as the means of self-affirmation, or the means of letting go of his frustration on somebody else.

1. Definition of a law is supported by practice. If a definition is not supported by practice, it is not a definition of a law.

2. If a definition of a law is correct, then a reverse definition is also correct.

3. A full definition (formulation) of a law consists of a definition and a reverse definition.
For example: "A man's existence defines his consciousness and equally his consciousness defines his existence".

A partial definition of a law, for example "a man's existence defines his consciousness", does not fully reflect the law and is not correct, like a coin with only one side. Such definitions are half-truths, and are destructive.

4. If a law acts for a given subject, it acts for all other subjects, if they're similar to the first one.

Therefore, a more general formulation of a law is true.
For example: "Existence defines consciousness and equally consciousness defines existence".

5. IF a law is true for a given action, it's true for all other actions. An action can be expresses via a word, an emotion, a desire, a thought, a deed.

For instance: "Do not judge and you won't be judged, since how you judge is how you will be judged". This definition of a law is true not only towards the action of judging, but towards all other actions. Instead of the word "judge" any other action word can be substituted, but the definition will still be true, since it's still the same law.

If in a law's definition the word "judge" is substituted with an opposite ("love"), the general expression remains: "Love and you will be love, since how you love is how you will be loved".

Principles of Tot:
1. Mentalism principle.
2. Analogy principle.
3. Vibration principle.
4. Polarization principle.
5. Rhythm principle.
6. The cause and effect principle.
7. Sex principle.

Other principles.

1. Expansion principle.
2. Effectiveness (beautifulness) principle.
3. Unity principle.
4. Graduate principle.
5. Training principle.

1. Scientists know that the Universe expands. Therefore, everything in our world expands. Every system has a tendency towards expansion, qualitative and quantitative change. 

2. A system or a subject tend to take such a  position and a form, as to spend the least amount of energy. This comes from the desire to maintain the maximum amount of energy and the ability to preserve it. That is, the desire to accumulate the maximum amount of energy.

3. More energetically capacious systems/subjects have a hierarchically higher place among other systems/subjects and use the lesser systems/subjects as an instrument, a construction material, as energy for self-existence and self-expansion. In return, more developed ones serve as "lighthouses" for the lessers, give them direction, hope, life. Lesser systems/subjects strive for becoming more like the higher ones. But they will never achieve this goal, because the higher ones had other "lighthouses". The strength and stability of this object (a stairs) is in its diversity (the quantity and quality of steps).

Every Tot's or Nick's principle comes from the rest of them and includes the rest of them in itself. Every principle exists self-sufficiently because of self-sufficient existence of other principles, and together they create new ones.

Another method of expansion is through reproduction of internal energy.

4. Expansion of systems/subjects, increase in their energetic capacity happens gradually, discretely, in steps. A mosquito can't instantly transform itself into a human. But a human can transform a part of his energy to a mosquito level. If a mosquito somehow acquires the technology of such a transformation and becomes a human (for instance, via physically changing its genes), it won't be able to exist as a human, because it does not possess the laws of existence and development that are acquired on every step in evolution ladder from a mosquito to a human. He won't have a true goal in life, and such a subject will most likely tend to self-destruct down to his internal mosquito level of development.

5. Every capability of a system/subject are acquired through training. A system/subject change themselves through training - for example, a bodybuilder's muscle after a workout on it becomes somewhat bigger and can take higher workloads in the future. The reverse is also true: unused areas die off due to their unimportance.

Corollary: from this law follows that a thief is stealing from himself. A man who is taking more than he's giving, becomes poorer..

An attempt to classify laws by the number of variables
1. Laws with one variable.
For example, the aforementioned "Do not judge, and you won't be judged" (variable - to judge).

2. Laws with two variables
For example, "Existence defines consciousness, and vice versa" (existence and consciousness).

3. Laws with three variables
For example, "The more a mind is influencing the will, the more alert is this man's conscience, and vise versa. The more a man's conscience influencing his will, the more alert his mind becomes." (mind - will - conscience).


Understanding a principle or a law changes the man and his actions.
A law can't be distributed, it can only be discovered.
He who understood a law, discovered it for himself.
He can only give the formula and definition of this law to others.


Like a tree stem gives birth and feeds its branches, so does the law of conservation exist in all other laws.
The law of energy conservation - "... how much a system's energy changes is how much the surrounding environment's energy changes. In other words, the sum of energy changes is always null - that is, the combined energy of a system and its environment remains constant in any processes of their interactions."

This main law is at the same time the simplest and the most difficult to understand. The simplest, because even for elementary school kids is seems natural. And the most difficult, because people's actions reveal that not a lot of them actually understand it. If there are winnings and windfalls, then there is no conservation. Something can't emerge from nothing. Who hasn't tried his luck in lotteries and such? "But some people win", you can say. If somebody would try to collect detailed information on those winners, a lot could be revealed.

Also known as the training principle, the principle of adaptation.

What is strained, is developing, growing, adapting.
What is not strained - dies off due to uselessness. According to the energy conservation law, dying off is not absolute - there always remains a sort of an "embryo" that contains genetic information created during its development.

From this principle follows a consequence: comfort, inactivity is death. The reverse is also true. Constant and unbearable strain is also destruction and death.

During a subject's evolution happens an expansion of these two extremes. The more developed subject can bear higher amounts of strain and inaction. For further development of such a subject stronger strain and stronger relaxation are needed. In this law, the terms "tension", "strain" and "relaxation" have a broader meaning than just physical tension and relaxation.

Tension and relaxation are indivisible. Restoration of a strained muscle occurs during relaxation (rest). If after a strain there is no relaxation, then there is no development. Only relaxation, without an effort, also does not lead to development. 

According to the hermetic principle of correspondence, the principle of tension and relaxation is true for all subjects and all functioning parts of a subject. It is true for an animal, for a human, for a hero, and for more developed beings. It's also true for human muscles, human emotions, thoughts, immune system and all other functioning parts of a human body. 
When a doctor understands this principle, his treatment methods will become much more effective.

By finding optimal combinations of strain and relaxation, maximal effect in a particular area's development can be achieved. Artificial growth of one functioning system can lead to a disbalance in the entire system, and ultimately leads to ineffective energy usage.
Strong development of just one area of a subject is not healthy, because this development sometimes blocks other parts from developing. I call this "the empty bottle principle".

  Everybody knows this rule, but few understand it as a law.

What does it mean, not to meddle?
When am I meddling?
Why I shouldn't meddle?
Is it possible to live without meddling?
What happens when somebody's meddling?
What to do when somebody is meddling into your affairs?

There are trash containers behind our apartment building. There are many buildings and few containers, so there's often trash on the ground around them. And since it's difficult to pick everything up, yard-keepers constantly burn the trash. Some people do not see the trash from their windows, some are complaining, but nobody hears them. Caustic smoke and a dumpster under the windows creates the living hell for some people. But some are living in dumpsters and are not complaining.

By my one single action somebody can be displeased, pleased or somebody won't care at all. In the first case, my action will harm the one I'm meddling with, in the second - it will help, in the third - it won't make any difference. To meddle means to harm.

I witnessed a typical incident recently. There is a kindergarten near our house. The road to kindergarten goes through our yard. The people that live in our building often sit on the nearby benches. The parents would often drive through our yard to kindergarten, pick up or drop off their kids, make u-turns and leave. Exhausts and the noise obviously bothered the inhabitants, their patience was running out. The next car approached the kindergarten and a parent went to get his kid. In the meanwhile, two more cars came up and created a traffic jam on that narrow street. The first driver came back and, having to wait, started to complain. His complaining was the last thing the apartment inhabitants wanted to hear, and they too started to yell at him not to drive through their yard anymore, but rather leave his car behind the building. Of course, he wouldn't agree with them. Mutual insults and threats started taking place - almost a war.

Sometimes a person may not notice that he's meddling. If a similar action from another person bothers him and brings up his indignation (a negative emotion), then there is a chance that he will someday notice analogical actions on his part. But what if he does not? In that case a conflict will arise and the war is inevitable. One of the leading causes of conflicts and wars is people's lack of understanding of the "do not meddle" law.

One person, doing his thing, may indeliberately harm another, without knowing that his actions bother somebody else. If he does know it, he may choose not to do it. One the causes of harm is lack of knowledge. The combination of lack of knowledge and disrespect creates ignorance. He who steals or murders knows that he harms others. But he typically finds some justifications for his actions, covering his disrespect and contempt for those he harms. Disrespect is also based on the lack of knowledge. He who knows what stealing is, knows the "do not steal" law. He is not afraid of the possible punishment, but rather of the stealing itself - because he knows that he'll pay much more for it.

People are not perfect, so one can't live without meddling at all. It can be said that to meddle is to sin. "Not having sinned, you can't repent." What's more important, is not the sin itself, but rather when and under what circumstances it happens. The great saints became such because they were able to understand what sin is, find it in themselves and extirpate. They see it in others, understand them and realize how long they have yet to suffer in order to approach the holiness they're striving for internally.

When a person sees that he's harming somebody, understands that he's meddling and tries not do that again, he starts protecting himself and the ones around him from similar actions by others.
Respecting the rest of the people, accepting them as they are is probably one of the most difficult knowledge, that's based on understanding many laws of the world.

You probably have noticed before that country people, who are usually less educated, are much more tolerant towards others than city people. The more educated a person is, the easier it is for him to find justifications for his bad actions.

For many years I could not understand the question, why many people do not like the Jewish nation. While studying in Kharkov, I've met some very clever, intelligent Jews. How is it that they are bothering others? - I thought. But once it dawned upon me: CONTEMPT. Well-educated, intelligent people often behave contemptuously toward uneducated, unetiquetted people. They may not even realize it themselves, but by the law of boomerang they get an open, not covered by etiquette, contempt in return. And that strengthens their initial contempt even more. It turns out that emotions in general (and contempt in particular) are also actions that can bother others. And if that's so, then we should mind not only our deeds and actions, but our emotions too. They can be destructive not only for others, but for the one producing them just as well. The same is true even for thoughts, although not quite to the same extent.

Physical influence, a word, an emotion, a thought. I believe that most people realize that in terms of power, these methods of influence are listed in ascending order. In any given deed, all these forms of action are involved, but for every person there are different proportions.

A modern-day person is largely more emotional than reasonable. And he's much better at hearing HOW is something told to him than WHAT. If somebody was bothering you for a long time, and finally you start to complain and call to his conscience, he most likely won't hear you. Secondly, if somebody is bothering you, it's a serious signal for yourself. Think about it, try to recall if perhaps you are bothering somebody as well. Maybe it's worth changing your tone or your social environment, etc. There is no single cause, so for each case there are multiple causes. Some try using all sorts of energy shields. For an ignorant person such shields are like a bomb in the hands of a monkey. I believe that the strongest shield is a person's holiness.

What is meddling? 
To meddle means to harm.
- A person harms because of his ignorance or lack of understanding what he's meddling with.
- Often a person can't see that he's meddling because of his ignorance.
- A person harms because of his disrespect or contempt, which also comes from ignorance - not knowing who he's meddling with or why he has a negative emotion. He does not know that harming his brother, he harms himself.
- A negative thought has the highest destructive power.
- When one person bothers another and does not want to see the viewpoint of the one he's bothering, conflict is inevitable. And the winner of that conflict is known even before it starts. The same happens for groups of people, only there conflicts become wars. Thus, not understanding the "do not meddle" law is one of the war causes. Those who use this law and provoke wars to satisfy their personal interests can make short-term gains - but they probably don't know the main law, by which they will sooner or later have to pay for everything.
- This principle is similar to many other ones. "Thou shall not lie", "thou shall not kill", "thou shall not steal", etc.
Understanding one "do not meddle" law gives understanding of all the rest of them.

- All these laws are branches or consequences of one other,  more general law. In mechanics it's viewed as the three laws of Newton. Therefore, understanding these three physics laws gives understanding of all other "do not"s.

Overall, I believe that studying the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology etc. in schools is greatly underrated, since these laws are reflections of the higher laws. And for the kids, understanding these laws is very useful and important. The empty bottle principle prevents the possibility of simultaneous understanding of spiritual laws and physics laws. 

Every schoolboy knows the law of energy conservation. "The amount of energy in an isolated space is constant". Spaceships, cars, skyscrapers, bridges, atomic stations - all are built from understanding this law. A construction of any complex structure exists because this law is reflected in it.

From general to particular. How understandable is a law can be seen from how people understand its consequences, which are sometimes also called laws. That's how a law grows branches of consequences, creating a law tree. He who understands the law, can see it in different areas and can formulate this law for a specific area. This formulation is a particular case of this law - it's consequence. 

From particular to general. For a regular person, it's easier to understand something concrete, particular. Through understanding particular cases (consequences) and their synthesis we can get to the stem or a bigger branch - a more general law.
Objectively, a law is always general. It acts the same in all areas. What's limiting it, are human definitions and understandings of it.

In aesotherical writings there are sometimes such phrases. "In order to become more perfect, a man has to destroy his ego, his desires, his negative emotions etc." Those who thinks so, I believe, don't completely understand the law of conservation. "Nothing disappears completely, and nothing emerges from nothing." Human desires are results of something. They emerged from something, and having gone through a typical lifecycle, will transform into something else. A person can't turn off or change this cycle.

Ignorance transforms into knowledge, knowledge - into understanding, understanding - into wisdom, wisdom - into kindness, kindness - into sacrifice, etc. None of the links in this chain can be taken out. Every link, having undergone its lifecycle, transforms into a new quality, new link in the evolution chain. Sacrificing, from an ignorant viewpoint, looks like stupidity that this ignorant person simply can't understand. To do that, he'd need to go through some more stages of understanding. A clever person may understand a wise one, but he won't quite understand Ivan the Fool from Russian folk tales. Understanding this leads to understanding the principle of gradualness. To get to the tenth floor, one needs to take a lot of steps, not just one.

The cyclic character of nature - plants, animals, humans - is analogical to the cyclic properties of a person, his feelings, his character, his thinking etc. The law of cycles is the same everywhere. And this law follows from the law of conservation. Its consequence is the law of cause and effect. A particular case of the law of cause and effect is the law of karma. A consequence of the law of cause and effect is the law of gradualness. And so on, and so forth. The law tree and trees of laws grow together in the minds of those who think in analogies, because after all, they all come from one general law of conservation of everything.

To become even a little wise, one needs to have a sufficient level of kindness. The reason is given to the kind, and the reason increases the amount of kindness.

A car won't drive without gas. Everyone understands that to get some use out of a car, it needs to be filled with gas first. Or, for instance, to catch a goldfish, one would have to throw a net in the sea several times. But somehow not everybody understand that in order to get something, you have to give something first, and not the other way around. Those think that they'll give once they're given, they'll be kind once others are kind to them etc. Nobody will give you a bank credit without an interest. Nobody complains about that, either, because a bank exists on the interest charged for its loans. According to the same law, if you've been given something, you'll have to give it back with interest, and definitely not less than what you've been given.

"Why do I have to love him - he doesn't love me!". A mother loves her child not because he loves her. I think that if a woman isn't capable of loving her child, of sacrificing her well-being for that, she won't have a kid. The great story by A. S. Pushkin, "The Goldfish Tale", reveals answers to many similar questions. A greedy person is a poor man, and he only has one broken trough. But a kind man can also be poor, if he indulges the greedy ones and feeds them.

What's altruism? Is there altruism?
It depends on what is meant by altruism. There is a good word "kindness". The word "altruism" is used by unkind people in their personal interest to force the kind ones to work for them. I think that if there is altruism, then there's no law of conservation and its consequences. A person that's sincerely serving, giving himself to something - always gets something in return. But what exactly he gets, depends on what he's giving himself to, what purpose he serves. If he serves kind people, and thus a good cause, he gets a kind reward. If he serves liar, parasites, greedy and evil people (that is, serves evil), he gets a corresponding reward, and that is fair. 

Kindness is a privilege of strong.
Strength is a privilege of fair.
Fairness is a privilege of wise.
Wisdom is a privilege of rich (rich on knowledge, experience, truth)

A kind man has strength, fairness, wisdom and wealth. He's worth giving a kingdom to - and that's commonly found in folk tales.

  How to formulate the law of kindness? 
True kindness is cash, with which you can get anything you want. 
But to get something, you first have to give equivalently to those, who can give that to you.

Or - true knowledge is given to truly kind, pure, modest, loving, strong, beautiful. "To those, who constantly serve me with love, I give understanding through which they can come to me." (Bhagavat-Ghita, 10/10).
Or - reason is given to the kind, and reason increases the amount of kindness.
Or - the amount of kindness in a person is the limit (equivalent) for his knowledge and love.
Or - kindness creates knowledge, true knowledge ultimately creates more kindness.
Or - knowledge is the integral of the amount of kindness.


External influence on a balanced system disrupts this balance in the direction, where the effect of this influence is weakened.
Le Chatelier formulated this principle for chemical elements.
But it's very interesting, how the same law works for all other subjects, including people.

Seven Hermetic Principles, on which the Hermetic Philosophy is based.

These principles are also called the truth principles.
1. The principle of mentalism
2. The principle of analogy
3. The principle of vibration
4. The principle of polarity
5. The principle of rhythm
6. The principle of cause and effect
7. The principle of sex

To restate them is to distort them, to add your own.
They are well-described in the book of Cibalion (Chicago, 1908 - trans. Moscow, 1992, TO "Helios")

  Truthfulness is learned through negation of lie.
True knowledge that reflects the reality, develops a person (a subject). The science with its experiments sorts out false knowledge. The development of science and techniques extends and deepens the understanding of truth. Sometimes what seemed an absolute truth before, is questioned or negated by developing science. The notion of truth is learned discretely and changes (broadens and deepens) as the person is changing. Previous knowledge become in the best case a particular case of a more general law.

The more false ways a person knows, the better he knows the true one.

A false step is not destructive if the right conclusions are made (conclusions that bring closer to truth).

  The law of gradualness
Any change in a person, including evolution, happens gradually. This principle was sufficiently described previously in this text.

Unnecessary haste, as is known, makes the process longer. But even a ripe fruit will rot, if it's not gathered on time.

  The law of training or adapting
The part of a person (for example, a muscle in the hand) that's strained, tries to change so as to weaken the external influence on itself, to become less strained (see the Le Chatelier principle)

For example, straining muscles of a sportsman change depending on the strain type. And on the contrary, an unstrained muscle gradually becomes smaller and can even die off due to uselessness.

Particular conclusion: all medicine, physiotherapeutics, massages and other external influences on a man are applied with the goal of exerting a certain influence on him in order to get a certain effect. But by the law of training, in the end they tend to have an opposite effect on the organism.

The notions of strain and relaxation apply not only to human muscles, but to all parts of a body. Including the ones that control the brain activity, his actions, emotions etc.

Flexing and relaxing diseased organs awakens their internal forces and helps faster recovery. In practice this method is embodied by Hatha-Yoga (curing yoga). Those who are familiar with it, know its miraculous effects on a human organism. But the power of yoga can be destructive, if its exercises are performed without a system. Desire, gradualness, alertness and truthfulness help in understanding this science.

  The reed principle
This principle is a branch of the previous one.

Everybody knows that the first steps are the hardest ones. Once a person has some walking experience, he spends much less energy on the next ones. Having done something for the first time, the next times are much easier. And it does not matter whether the action is good or bad. According to the same principle, once you've committed a murder, the next one will be much easier to commit. Or if you spent huge amounts of energy on your first morning gymnastics in years, the next time you'll spend less energy on the exact same process.

From the reed principle follows the ritual principle etc.
Particular conclusion: don't do something that you would not want to repeat in the future.

  The law of ideal or beauty
The law of beauty includes the previously reviewed principles of usefulness, effectiveness and truthfulness (existence by the true laws that reflect the truth).

A person (subject) strives for an ideal. An ideal gives direction to the life of a person (subject).

  The principle of camerton
If a camerton is hit by a special stick, it will produce a sound of a certain frequency. Different camertons produce different sound frequencies.

If a sound of the same frequency is produced near the camerton, it will start to vibrate with that frequency. You can turn off the sound, but the camerton will still continue to vibrate (due to inertness). Analogically, a person that reacts to certain vibrations (emotions, thoughts etc) is able to produce them himself.

The more harmonic and beautiful a man is, the better he can perceive beauty and harmony. Everybody radiates with he's like inside.

  The principle of irritation
My critical behavior (irritation) towards something is the eye of my mind. It shows me the surroundings, what I don't understand or know, but am ready to understand.

Irritation is the reaction of the senses organ that many people are not yet able to use for their development. I am touched or irritated by what I can't understand. I am irritated in others by what I don't like in them and what's most likely in me as well, I just don't realize that.

  The principle of observation and alertness
In folk tales of various peoples there is the same plot. For example, in a Japanese tale about a body. After doing something bad he was told what he should've done - and then, in a different situation, he did exactly like he was told, and of course got into trouble again. Then he was told what he should've done in that new situation, and in a new situation he'd do exactly what he was supposed to do in a previous one.

The process of learning occurs only through personal observation and personal conclusions. Experience and knowledge of others do not teach until a person mentally and emotionally has experienced them.

  The principle of constant movement
A man lives in a constantly moving time and space. This surrounding environment dictates the same rules for the man as well. He can't remain unchanging in his development. If he's not evolving, he starts devolving. It's either a constant evolution or a destruction. Where the development ends, begins destruction and vice versa. Note that this is true not only for a man, but for groups of people as well.

  The principle of donor and parasite
Living in a world, a man gives something to it and takes something from it. When a man is useful for others and is able to give, he's useful for himself. And on the contrary, when he's taking more than giving, he becomes a parasite.

Is a parasite useful for himself?
In the long run, no. Existing on somebody else's expense, he becomes dependant and eventually dies (disappears) with the donor.

  The most important is what's ahead
This principle is clear and useful only for those that know and believe that their lives do not end with their deaths here, on Earth. In that case he won't say that it does not matter what happens afterwards. He knows that his every step has consequences, and he will have to take another one afterwards. He knows that before making a step, he'll need to see whether this step will lead to his evolution or to his destruction.

  There's God's will for everything, his ways can't be understood by humans
I think that one of the biggest delusions a man can have is to consider everything he has achieved his personal accomplishment. But when it's tough, he still remember the Creator.

A child thinks that he has learned everything he knows by himself. But what would he actually learn without his Creator, his parents and teachers.

A worker often can't understand the actions of his bosses. To understand the boss, you have to get into his position. To understand God, you need to become God.


The more the reason is influencing the will, the more conscious a person is, and vice versa. The more conscience if influencing the will, the wiser he is.

1. As a higher reason, influencing a lesser one, control its will, so does higher conscience (spirit) influence the lesser conscience (soul), controlling its will.

2. If that's true for a person, it's true for everything where this trinity exists.

3. If that's true for this trinity, it's true for all similar to it.

4. As an electric current occurs when there's a difference in potentials, so does the existence of a reason and a conscience create will. By the analogy principle, all consequences that are true for electric current, are true for this heavenly trinity as well.

- According to Kirchhauf's law, the will of a man (electric current) shows itself (flows) in the areas with the least resistance.

- And according to Aum's law, a man's will is proportional to the amount of his reason and conscience (the difference in potentials) and his strength (conducting ability).

As an electric current always runs from negative to positive, so does the will of a man reveals itself from conscience to reason.

And so forth.

  Some doctors help people leave this life? I think that this problem comes from insufficient knowledge of ourselves, the world around us, inattentiveness towards our actions and their consequences, from not knowing the true laws, from not believing in God. Everything that surrounds us was created by somebody. Cities and cars - by Man. Forests and seas - by the Earth, Animals, birds, plants - by Nature. Religions call the creator of a man God. Everything that's created by Man, Earth, Nature and God is created by and because of the true laws. I think, they are revealed in various religions. But the majority of men still do not believe in them yet. Violence and fear of death indicates that we're far from truth. A man who does not believe is forced under the fear of punishment into obeying written laws that were written by certain people, in certain conditions and for certain people. And when a person, having broken a written law, avoids the punishment, he starts to think that all these laws are not applicable to him and he lives by his own laws that correspond to the level of his consciousness.

  It's hard to give a particular advice that would be true in all possible life cases. I believe that the modern judicial system will get itself more and more into a dead end. It's based on the fear of punishment for breaking a law. But knowledge and trust in the true laws of nature do the opposite - remove the fear. A person that knows the law of gravity is not afraid of it, but rather uses it and can negate its effects through using other laws. If a person asks for help, it's a sin to deny him, but the help is not always is fulfilling his request. Without resorting to violence, it's much more difficult to make him realize where he's making a mistake than simply fulfill his request. But can anything be understood without doing it yourself and not by viewing the sequence of actions and consequences on somebody else's example?

Home pageStart of pege      E-mail: Fotonnika@yandex.ru.      URL:http://fotonnika.narod.ru/        01.2003г
Hosted by uCoz