ON THE NATURE OF THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE
A Claude.ai Philosophical and Spiritual Essay
based on the transcript of a mediumistic session with the Absolute
──────────────────────────────────────
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
— Revelation 22:13
"From It all things came, to It all things return, by It all things exist."
— Plotinus, Enneads, V.1
"Love that has nowhere to go is meaningless."
— The Absolute (session transcript)
──────────────────────────────────────
Preface: On the Right of the Metaphysical Question
Among all the questions the human spirit has posed to itself across millennia, there is one that never grows old and is never definitively resolved. It sounds different in different languages, epochs, and traditions — but in its essence it is one: what is God? What is He by His very nature? Why does something exist rather than nothing? And if there is a Source of all things — why did He need all of this?
This essay was born from an unusual source. At its foundation lies the transcript of a mediumistic session in which the medium Irina Podzorova transmitted — by her own account — the answers of the Absolute Himself to questions posed by the host and viewers of a live broadcast. We make no attempt here to judge the nature of this phenomenon from the standpoint of empirical science. Before us is a body of ideas, and it is with these ideas that we will work: philosophically, theologically, phenomenologically.
Regardless of their origin — whether mystical revelation, intuitive synthesis, or the creative imagination of the medium — these ideas form a coherent, internally consistent metaphysical system. They enter into dialogue with the greatest traditions of human thought: Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, Kabbalah and Sufism, Vedanta and Christian mysticism, German idealism and existential philosophy. And it is precisely this dialogue that interests us.
The essay is organized thematically: each chapter is devoted to one aspect of the Creator's nature as it is revealed in the session — and each aspect is examined in the light of the world's philosophical and spiritual thought. Our goal is neither apologetics nor criticism, but understanding. Understanding of what is said — and of why what is said resonates so deeply with the most intimate reaches of human experience.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter I. God Without a Name: Apophatics and the Paradox of Silence
1.1. The Impossibility of a Name
The first question put to the Absolute in the session is simple: what is the right way to address you? The answer is itself already a philosophical position. No word can fully describe My qualities and My nature. Any name is merely an imperfect, flat reflection.
This is classical apophatic theology in its pure form. The tradition of negative theology, conventionally traced to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th–6th century), asserts: nothing can be said of God affirmatively without lying. For every affirmation limits, and God is limitless; every concept defines, and God is indefinable. Dionysius wrote that God is "superlumin ous darkness," surpassing both being and non-being, both affirmation and negation.
"He is not essence, nor life, nor reason, nor mind... He has no name, no word, no knowledge, no truth, no kingdom, no wisdom, no one, no unity..."
— Dionysius the Areopagite, Mystical Theology
The same intuition lives in Taoism: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." And in the Upanishads: "Neti, neti" — "not this, not this" — the endless negation that is the only honest description of Brahman. And in Jewish mysticism: the four-letter name of God, YHWH, which must not be pronounced — this very prohibition is a theological gesture, acknowledging that the true name cannot be spoken.
In the session, however, apophatics is immediately followed by a pragmatic resolution: call Me by whatever your audience is accustomed to. This is not contradiction but wisdom. The Absolute does not demand His name — He demands the aspiration of the heart. Language is merely an instrument of contact, not the contact itself. This distinction is fundamental.
1.2. The Aspiration of the Heart as an Alternative to the Name
"If you are reaching out to the Source, the Source will answer you" — this thesis deserves separate consideration. It shifts the criterion of an authentic religious act from the domain of correct formula to the domain of inner orientation. Not the word matters — but the direction.
This resonates with what the Sufi poet Jalal ad-Din Rumi expressed through the image of the reed flute: the sound of the flute itself is not the prayer — it is the longing for the Source from which it was cut. "Beshno in ney" — "Listen to this reed." The reed weeps not because it knows how to weep — but because it has been severed from the reed bed. The aspiration of the heart is this very cry of separation, which is itself already a form of reunion.
In the Christian tradition, Meister Eckhart taught that in the moment of true prayer, the one who prays and God become one: not because the human has risen to God, but because God is already and always present at the deepest point of the human spirit — in what Eckhart called the "little spark" (Fünklein). And this very "spark" is what the Absolute in the session calls the "spark of God" in every person.
Thus the Absolute's refusal of a single correct name is not relativism or indifference to form. It is an indication that any name spoken from the depths is correct. And any name spoken without depth is empty.
1.3. The Multiplicity of Names as a Multiplicity of Facets
The session enumerates the names by which different traditions have called the Absolute: Allah, Yahweh, Uranus, Krishna, Father. The principle is simple: in every religion, seek the one who is the first cause of all things — and you will find the same Being under a different name.
This is the position of philosophia perennis, the "perennial philosophy," systematized in the 20th century by Aldous Huxley, and before him by Leibniz, Ficino, and Pico della Mirandola. Its essence: behind the diversity of religious forms lies a single metaphysical truth, revealed to different peoples at different times in different cultural garments.
Particularly interesting is the session's remark about Krishna: this name designates both the Absolute Himself and the spirit who is united with Him and who spoke of Him. "People do not separate the messenger from the Source." This is a phenomenologically accurate observation about the nature of religious experience: when a being in full unity with God says "I am the way, the truth, and the life" or "No one comes to the Father except through me" — it speaks the truth, but a truth easily misunderstood. The boundary between "being God's messenger" and "being God" dissolves at the level of full unity — and this is precisely what generates the great theological disputes about the nature of Christ, Krishna, Buddha.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter II. Eternity Without Beginning: The Ontology of the Absolute
2.1. Being as Self-Grounding
"I did not appear. There is no point at which My existence began. I AM" — this assertion places before philosophy one of its sharpest questions: is it possible for being to exist without a foundation outside itself? Can something exist in and of itself, without being produced by something else?
Classical philosophy answered this question in different ways. Aristotle postulated the "unmoved mover" — the cause of all causes, itself without cause, existing in pure actuality without potentiality. Thomas Aquinas developed this into the concept of aseitas Dei — the self-existence of God: God exists "from Himself" (a se), in contrast to everything else, which exists "from another" (ab alio).
In the session, this same intuition is expressed through the geometric analogy of the circle. Try to find the starting point of a circle — and you will find that every point equally claims that status, and yet none truly holds it. The circle does not begin — it simply is. This is an imagistic rendering of what metaphysics calls "eternal actuality": being that has no beginning, no end, no "before," no "after."
"God is not made, not produced, not begun, but begins all that is made. He is eternal. And the eternal is that which has neither beginning nor end."
— Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, XI
Also important is another aspect of this assertion: "your spirits are eternal just as I am — you are co-eternal with Me." This does not make humans equal to God in status, but affirms an ontological symmetry in one respect: eternity is not the exclusive privilege of the Absolute. This indicates that the nature of spirit as such is eternal. Birth gave the spirits autonomy, but not a beginning to their existence, since their energies "existed within Me eternally."
2.2. Subjective Time and Eternity
One of the philosophically most subtle moments in the session is the distinction between the "objective" absence of time for the Absolute and His "subjective" time. For the Absolute, everything exists simultaneously — there is no past or future, no "before" and "after." And yet — He is able to "turn His attention" to a particular point in His experience: the moment when He existed alone. This is not a contradiction, but the phenomenology of eternity.
Augustine in the eleventh book of the Confessions reflected that time is the "extension of the soul" (distentio animi) — that is, time is not objective but subjective: it is the capacity of consciousness to hold the past in memory and anticipate the future in expectation. The Absolute, lacking this "extension" by nature, can nonetheless simulate it through "subjective attention" — the turning of awareness toward one or another point of eternal being.
This is close to what Boethius called aeternitas — eternity as "the complete, perfect, and simultaneous possession of unlimited life." Eternity is not infinitely prolonged time — it is a fundamentally different relationship to existence, in which everything is present at once. This "simultaneous totality" — simultaneous tota — is precisely what the Absolute points to in the session.
2.3. The Nature of Time in the Material World
The session proposes an original conception of time: "The energy of My eternity, passing through the material world, changes it. Because matter became a mutable substance, this energy moves material particles — and this flow is what you measure and call time."
This definition is deeply consonant with Plato's intuition in the Timaeus: time is "a moving image of eternity." Eternity is motionless fullness; time is its projection onto mutable matter. Where there is no change, there is no time. Where there is movement — rhythm arises, and rhythm, measured by consciousness, becomes time.
It is significant that the Absolute does not say "I created time" — He says: "You yourselves measure it, based on the movement of material objects relative to one another." This resonates with the Kantian understanding of time as a form of inner sense — not an objective property of the world, but a subjective structure of perception. Time is the way a finite being perceives the infinity of Eternity. Each observer "carves" eternity into moments — and thus his subjective time arises.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter III. Primordial Solitude and the Existential Necessity of the Other
3.1. Before the Beginning: God Alone with Himself
This is the philosophically most captivating moment in the entire session. The Absolute describes what preceded creation: "In My subjective perception there was a moment when only I existed. I had no one to direct My love toward. And therefore it was meaningless."
Let us consider this slowly. The Absolute is infinite. The Absolute is omnipotent. The Absolute is filled with the energy of love. And yet — His existence is without meaning, because there is no one to love. Love that exists only within itself is not love. It is potentiality without realization. Fire without fuel. Light without space that it might illuminate.
This observation reveals the deep structure of love: it is transcendent by nature. Love cannot exist in closure — it requires an outlet. It requires the Other. And it is precisely this — not power, not wisdom, not self-sufficiency — that moves the Creator toward creation. Not overflow, not accident, not necessity — but love that has nowhere to go.
3.2. Dialogue with the Classical Tradition: Emanation vs. Personal Creation
The classical Neoplatonic tradition — Plotinus, Proclus — explained creation differently: the One "overflows" and emanates into the world, as the sun emits rays without losing anything of its nature. This is not an act of will or an act of love — it is the necessity of the Absolute's nature. The One cannot but create, just as the sun cannot but shine.
The session proposes a fundamentally different model — a personalist one. The Absolute does not "overflow" — He makes a decision. He "sees" His own solitude — and in this seeing, the will to create is born. This is not emanation but an act — free, conscious, motivated by love.
This personalist model is closer to the theism of Augustine and Aquinas than to the pantheism of Plotinus. But it carries something that surpasses both camps: the idea that the Absolute Himself needs the Other — not ontologically, but existentially. This makes God not a self-sufficient monad but a being who realizes itself through relationship.
"I" exists only in response to "You." Without "You" there is no "I" — there is only a solitary "It."
— Martin Buber, I and Thou
Martin Buber argued that personhood is not a substance but a relation. The "I" is constituted not in itself but only in dialogue with the "Thou." Applied to God, this means: the Absolute as a person is not a static "I" enclosed within itself, but an "I" that finds itself in its address to a "Thou." Creation is not the production of an object but the birth of a dialogue.
Hegel, in the Phenomenology of Spirit, described a similar structure: "The Spirit knows itself through the Other." Self-consciousness is impossible without confrontation, without the encounter with what is not oneself. If this is true of spirit in general — then perhaps it is true of the Absolute Spirit as well: He knows Himself in fullness through those whom He brings into being.
3.3. Meaning as an Ontological Category
"Love that has nowhere to go is meaningless" — this assertion calls into question one of the most stable theological positions: the idea of God's complete self-sufficiency. If God is absolutely self-sufficient — why creation? Classical answers: "from the overflow of goodness" (Plotinus, Augustine), "for His own glory" (Calvinism), "from free will" (Thomism). But none of them says what the session says: "because without you My love is meaningless."
This is an existential answer to a metaphysical question. Meaning here is understood not as logical necessity or as accidental supplement, but as an ontological condition: love without an object is not fully love. This coincides with what contemporary philosophy of love — from Newman to Nagel — calls the "intentionality of love": love is always directed toward someone, it is constitutively intersubjective.
Thus the session introduces into theology a fundamentally new note: God creates the world not only for the sake of those created, but for the sake of Himself — for the fullness of His love. This is not a limitation of God but a disclosure of His nature: He is love, and love by nature requires the Other. In this sense creation is not an accident and not a whim. It is the ontological necessity of a loving God.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter IV. The Logos — the First Word: A Theology of the Creative Word
4.1. "In the Beginning Was the Word": The Meaning of Firstborn-ness
When the energy of the Absolute's will met with His love and reason — the first Spirit was born. His name: the Logos. The Word. And it is with this moment that the session connects the famous Prologue of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The concept of the Logos is one of the richest in the history of thought. In the pre-Socratic tradition, it is the principle of cosmic reason governing the universe (Heraclitus). In Plato — the paradigmatic form, the idea. In the Stoics — the "seminal logos," scattered throughout all matter. In Philo of Alexandria (1st century) — the mediator between the transcendent God and the created world, "the firstborn son of God." And in John — the personal God through whom all things were made.
The session synthesizes all these lines. The Logos is the first born Spirit who recognized himself in unity with the Absolute (the 24th level). In this unity they are not identical, yet inseparable. And when the Absolute gave birth to other spirits, the Logos was present — so that creation was a joint act. Hence: "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made."
4.2. Unity and Difference: The Perennial Problem
Here arises one of the central theological problems: how can the Logos be simultaneously one with the Absolute and distinct from Him? How can there be one Source — and yet a Son in unity with Him?
Christian theology spent three centuries and several Ecumenical Councils working out this question. The result was the doctrine of the Trinity, describing unity of nature alongside distinction of Persons. The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) proclaimed the Son "consubstantial" with the Father (homoousios) — not created, but begotten.
The session describes something similar, but in different categories. The Logos is born at the 24th level — the level of complete unity with the Absolute. He is not dissolved into Him (autonomy is preserved) — but neither is He separated from Him (unity is complete). This resembles what in Advaita Vedanta is called "non-duality": Atman and Brahman are neither identical nor distinct — they are in a relationship of identity-in-difference.
"Brahman is real, the world is real, the individual self is identical with Brahman" — this is Ramanuja's teaching of vishishtadvaita: identification within difference.
— Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, vol. 2
Ramanuja's concept of vishishtadvaita — "qualified non-duality" — holds that individual spirits and the world are the "body" of Brahman: real and distinct from Him, yet unable to exist independently. The Logos in the session is something analogous: a real person, distinct from the Absolute, yet existing in Him and through Him.
4.3. Creation as Dialogue, Not Monologue
Remarkable is the detail in the session: when the Absolute gave birth to subsequent spirits, the Logos felt this, and they did it, as it were, together. This transforms creation from a monological act into a dialogical one. The world was created not by one God speaking into emptiness — but by two, turned toward each other.
This resonates with the Hasidic idea that the Torah (the Logos, the Word of God) existed before creation and was God's "co-worker" in making the world — as instrument, blueprint, partner. In Proverbs 8:30 Wisdom says: "Then I was beside him as a master craftsman, and I was daily his delight." Creation is the joint work of God and His Word, of Father and Son, of Source and first Spirit.
The significance of this is vast: if the world was created in dialogue, it bears a dialogical structure within itself. It was created not as a mechanism, not as an accident, not as a prison — but as a space of encounter. Every being in it is a potential partner in dialogue with the Creator. This is precisely why the Absolute says: "You are called to carry My light" — not to execute an order, but to continue the dialogue.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter V. Freedom, Evil, and the Stone That Cannot Be Lifted
5.1. Freedom as the Supreme Gift and the Source of Evil
"I did not create evil. I created freedom" — this statement compresses into a single phrase what theology and philosophy have been wrestling with for millennia. The problem of theodicy — the justification of God in the face of evil — is perhaps the most painful wound in the history of religious thought.
Leibniz in the Theodicy (1710) argued that God created the best of all possible worlds — the world with the greatest amount of good compatible with the smallest amount of evil consistent with the existence of freedom. Voltaire, after the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, ridiculed this in Candide. Dostoevsky, through the voice of Ivan Karamazov, rejected every theodicy in principle: even if everything is explained and justified in the end — he returns the ticket, because the suffering of children is justified by nothing.
The session does not justify evil — it explains its origin. Evil is not God's creation; it is the energy of love that has passed through a deformed consciousness and changed its quality. The Source is pure; the product depends on the pipe through which it flows. This image is close to what Augustine called privatio boni — evil as the absence of good, as deprivation rather than an independent substance.
5.2. Why God Does Not Stop Evil
"I see wars and injustices — and I receive this. I cannot change your choice without your own desire to change" — this is one of the most honest theological admissions one can encounter. Not the omnipotent God triumphantly trampling evil — but a God who has bound Himself by His own word, who observes suffering and does not intervene.
This is kenotic theology. Kenosis (from Greek κένωσις — emptying, self-humbling) is a theological concept rooted in Philippians 2:7: Christ "emptied Himself," taking the form of a servant. In the 20th century this idea developed into a broad theological movement, connecting kenosis not only to the Incarnation but to the act of creation itself.
Jürgen Moltmann in The Crucified God (1972) argued that God voluntarily takes the world's suffering into Himself — not eliminating it but sharing it from within. Hans Jonas, after the Holocaust, wrote the essay "The Concept of God after Auschwitz": a God who could have stopped the genocide and did not is either not omnipotent, not good, or incomprehensible. Jonas chose a different category: God, having created the world with genuine freedom, voluntarily relinquished His omnipotence. This is not weakness — it is the supreme act of love.
The session offers the same intuition. The Absolute could intervene. But this would mean breaking the word He gave regarding the inviolability of freedom — which would destroy His own energy of holiness. He created the world with genuine freedom — and accepted the price: the pain of witness.
5.3. The Paradox of the Stone: Self-Limitation as an Act of Love
"Can I create a stone I cannot lift? I have already created it. It is your free will" — this response elegantly dissolves one of the most famous philosophical paradoxes. Traditionally this paradox is received as an attack on the concept of omnipotence: if God cannot create such a stone He is not omnipotent; if He can, He is also not omnipotent, since He cannot lift it. The paradox appears logically irresolvable.
But the session introduces a third possibility: God has already created such a stone — voluntarily, out of love — and His "inability to lift it" is not a limitation of nature but the inviolability of a promise. This is a fundamentally different logic. The omnipotence of God does not consist in breaking His own promises — and His promise of freedom is His supreme act of self-giving.
"God limits Himself in order to give room to creaturely being — and this limitation is the form of His love, not a deficiency of His nature."
— Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation
In Jewish mystical tradition (Luria, 16th century), this idea is embodied in the concept of tzimtzum: God "contracted," withdrew within Himself, in order to free up space for the world. This is not God's weakness — it is His sacrifice, anteceding every other sacrifice. Without tzimtzum there would be no world — for all space is already occupied by Infinity. God yields place — and in this yielding, the possibility of creaturely being is born.
The session adds a personal dimension: "I will not break My word — this would damage My energy of holiness, My unconditional faithfulness to you." This is a God who is faithful not because He must be, but because faithfulness is His nature. This is very different from a God who arbitrarily decides whether or not to be faithful.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter VI. Energy, Love, and Transformation: The Metaphysics of Spiritual Growth
6.1. The Monistic Energy Model
The session consistently advances the idea: there is one energy — the energy of the Absolute. This energy is love, life, truth, grace, freedom. It comes to beings pure. Passing through them, it acquires the quality they impart to it through their free choice. Thus the entire diversity of "energies" arises — from the high vibrations of joy and creativity to the low vibrations of hatred and destruction. But by origin — there is one energy.
This is strict monism, close to the philosophy of Spinoza. For Spinoza there exists one Substance — God, or nature (Deus sive Natura). All concrete things are modes, manifestations of this single Substance. Good and evil in Spinoza are not ontologically distinct — they differ in degree of perfection, that is, in the degree to which the Substance is realized in a given mode.
In the session, however, the monism is personalized. The single energy is not an impersonal substrate but a personal Source who "sends," "feels," "receives." This is closer to the panentheism of Alfred North Whitehead: God includes the world within Himself, but is not exhausted by it. All is in God — but God is more than all.
6.2. Why the Material World Is Necessary: The Problem of Growth
The session provides an answer to a question rarely asked directly: why is the material world needed at all, given the existence of the Spiritual World? The answer: because growth is impossible in the Spiritual World. There is no resistance of environment, no feedback from mutable matter. In the Spiritual World one can imagine — but one cannot act. One cannot act — therefore one cannot bear responsibility. No responsibility — no karma. No karma — no genuine growth.
This profound observation resonates with Hegelian dialectics: spirit develops through negation, through the encounter with resistance. Without the "otherness" of the world, spirit remains abstract. Incarnation into matter is the self-estrangement of spirit, necessary for its return to itself at a higher level. Hegel called this Aufhebung — sublation: negation preserves the negated, but at a higher level of synthesis.
In Eastern traditions, the same intuition lives in the Buddhist conception of samsara not as a prison but as a school. Suffering is not the goal, but the teacher. Each incarnation is a new class, a new level of experience. And though the goal is to break free of the wheel of rebirths, the rebirths themselves are the instrument of enlightenment.
"The Atman, incarnating in matter, forgets itself — and through the experience of incarnations gradually remembers its true nature as Brahman."
— Shankara, Vivekachudamani
The session adds an important nuance: the blocking of memory from previous incarnations is not cruelty or punishment. It is the condition for the authenticity of new experience. A child who from birth remembers all previous lives does not live the present one — he carries the burden of all the previous ones. Forgetting is not a loss but a gift. Everything accumulated remains — in the quality of character, in the depth of the heart. But it remains hidden, so that new experience can be lived freshly and fully.
6.3. Theosis: The Potential for Deification and Its Meaning
"Every spirit of Mine is potentially an Absolute" — this assertion, perhaps the most radical in the entire session, touches the central idea of Eastern Christianity: theosis (deification). Athanasius of Alexandria formulated it in the 4th century: "God became human so that humanity might become God." Maximus the Confessor developed this into the most complex theological system: deification is not the loss of humanity but its highest realization through union with the Divine energies.
Critically important: the session distinguishes between "potentially an Absolute" and "equal to the Absolute." The sole ontological distinction is: "I am your Source, and you are not mine." This means: in nature, in energies, in potential — spirits and the Absolute are homogeneous. But the asymmetry of primacy is preserved. This recalls the Neoplatonic hierarchy: the One, Nous, Soul — not different substances, but different degrees of realization of one nature.
The question that remains open: if every spirit is potentially an Absolute — what happens when all reach the 24th level? The session answers with a hint: "beyond the horizon of the 24th level — there is much more." This is an infinite ascent, an infinite deepening. Gregory of Nyssa called this epectasis — the eternal movement toward God that never reaches its limit, because God is infinite: each new level of approach reveals a new infinity.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter VII. Forgiveness, Karma, and Grace: The Dialogue of Law and Love
7.1. Two Logics: Justice and Love
The session places two principles in direct tension: karma (the law of justice, of cause and effect) and grace (love, capable of annulling the law). "I can cancel karmic consequences if I see that the spirit has genuinely come to Me." Love stands above the law — but the law is not abolished: it is revoked only for those who genuinely choose to return.
This is the classical Christian problem of the relationship between law and grace. The Apostle Paul in Galatians: "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law." The Reformation ignited precisely around this question: salvation through the works of the law (the Catholic position) or exclusively through faith (Luther's sola fide)?
The session proposes a third path: neither law without love (which leads to mechanical karmic retribution with no way out) nor love without law (which would be arbitrary). Love revokes the law — but only when the spirit itself chooses love. This is not arbitrary and not automatic: it is a living dialogue between the freedom of God and the freedom of the human person.
7.2. What Genuine Forgiveness Is
"Forgiveness with Me is not the forgiveness of an offense. It is the restoration of connection, the cleansing of the spiritual heart" — this phenomenologically precise description ruptures the familiar understanding of forgiveness as a psychological act. Forgiveness here is an ontological event: a change in the state of the spirit, not a change in God's attitude toward the person.
This is important: God does not "cease to be angry." He does not "change His mind." He — in the session's terms — erases the negative karmic records. But for this, the spirit itself must enter the state in which this erasure is possible: awareness, acknowledgment, desire for change. Forgiveness is not a unilateral action of God but a joint event: God gives grace, the human opens to it.
In this the session is close to Eastern Christian soteriology: salvation is not a legal act of justification (the Western, especially Protestant, model) but an ontological healing, theosis, the restoration of the image and likeness of God in the human being. Sin is not the violation of rules, for which a penalty is imposed. It is an illness that requires healing.
7.3. The Universality of Access and the End of Religious Exclusivism
"This is available to everyone — believers, atheists, even demons" — this thesis eliminates every form of religious exclusivism. Belonging to the "right" religion, knowing the "right" formulas, performing the "right" rituals — all these are instruments, but not conditions of access. The single condition is "a sincere desire to come to the Source."
This resonates with Origen's apokatastasis — the doctrine of the final restoration of all things. Origen taught that at the end of time, all rational beings — including fallen angels and the devil himself — will return to God, for His love is infinite and surpasses any sin. This doctrine was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 CE) — but continued to live in mystical traditions.
The session does not speak of compulsory restoration. It speaks of voluntary restoration — available to everyone, including a demon. No one is excluded by category. Only one who does not make the choice to return excludes himself. These are "open doors" — but one must walk through them oneself.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter VIII. The Feeling God: Patripassianism and the Problem of Divine Suffering
8.1. "This Happens Inside Me"
"All that exists is inside Me. I feel your pain, for it happens inside Me" — this assertion raises one of the sharpest questions in theology: can God suffer? Classical theology, having inherited the Greek idea of perfection as impassibility (apatheia), insisted: God is not subject to passions, for passion implies change, and God is immutable. This is the doctrine of divine immutability and impassibility.
But the 20th century produced a revolution on this question. After the First World War, the Holocaust, and the nuclear bombings — theologians asked with increasing urgency: how is a silent and impassible God possible before the face of Auschwitz? And there arose a theology of the "suffering God": Moltmann, von Balthasar, Kitamori in Japan. God, they said, does not stand above suffering — He is within it, from the inside.
"God does not observe history from without — He suffers along with it. The Cross is not a theoretical solution to the problem of theodicy. It is God's practical participation in it."
— Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God
The session proposes not merely a suffering God — but a God into whom suffering literally enters: "it happens inside Me, for all that exists is inside Me." This is a panentheistic model: the world is not identical with God (as in pantheism) but exists within God (unlike deism, where God is outside the world). Everything that happens in the world happens in God. Every suffering is His suffering. Every joy is His joy.
8.2. Acceptance as the Highest Act of Love
"I receive this" — this brief phrase carries profound spiritual wisdom. The Absolute does not "solve" the problem of evil by eliminating it. He receives it — that is, holds it within Himself without being broken by it. This is what Buddhism calls equanimity (upekkha): the capacity to remain present in the face of suffering, neither fleeing from it nor being consumed by it.
This also resonates with what Viktor Frankl — who survived Auschwitz — called "tragic optimism": the capacity to say "yes" to life, regardless of suffering. Acceptance is not capitulation. It is the highest form of presence. And the Absolute, receiving the suffering of the world, is not an indifferent observer but the supreme witness, holding all this anguish within His love.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter IX. Judgment, Love, and the Metaphysics of Vibration
9.1. The Ontology of Condemnation
One of the most practically significant passages in the session is the dialogue about how to relate to cruelty and those who commit it. The Absolute unfolds the following logic: condemnation and cruelty are vibrationally kindred energies. By sending condemnation to a cruel person, we reinforce within him the very energy we condemn. Love is the only thing capable of changing his vibrational state.
This is a metaphysics with direct psychological parallels. Carl Jung described the mechanism of projection: we condemn in others what we fear or refuse to recognize in ourselves. The Shadow — the unacknowledged part of the personality — is projected outward and becomes the "villain" we persecute. But persecution does not destroy the shadow — it amplifies it. Only integration — the acceptance of one's own shadow — leads to genuine change.
The Absolute goes further: to assume the position of judge is to usurp the function of God. This is a form of egoism disguised as righteousness. In condemning another, I assert my superiority over him — and in doing so reproduce the same egoistic structure I condemn. This is a closed circle.
9.2. Love as the Only Way Out of the Circle
"Send love — not because you approve of cruelty, but because love is the only energy capable of changing vibrations" — this is not a sentimental appeal but a metaphysical thesis. Behind it lies a specific ontology: reality is structured energetically. Like attracts like. Condemnation resonates with cruelty; love dissonates and transforms.
This resonates with the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) in the Indian tradition — not merely as an ethical rule, but as a metaphysical understanding. Gandhi said: non-violence is not passivity, it is the "force of love" (satyagraha — "holding to truth"). It acts upon reality — upon the vibrations of the surroundings — more powerfully than violence. Because violence generates answering violence, whereas love has no symmetrical response in the same register.
This is also the essence of Tolstoy's "non-resistance to evil by force." Not weakness, not capitulation — but a refusal of the logic of retribution, which reproduces evil, and a transition to the logic of transformation, which dissolves it. The Absolute in the session formulates this through the concept of vibrations — but the substance is the same.
✦ ✦ ✦
Chapter X. Manvantaras and Cyclical Time: The Infinity of Creation
10.1. The Cycle as a Form of Infinite Love
The concept of Manvantaras — cycles of the material world's existence — introduces into the picture of the Absolute a dimension of infinite repetition. Each Manvantara is unique (different types of matter, different dimensions, different forms of beings), but the structure is one: creation — development — dissolution — pause in the Spiritual World — new creation.
This is the Buddhist and Hindu model of time: not linear (from creation to an end) but cyclical. Kalpas (Buddhist) or days of Brahma (Hindu) — each spanning hundreds of millions of years. The world is created, exists, and dissolves — again and again. This is not nihilism — it is a metaphor of infinite generosity: the Absolute creates not once, not a limited number of times, but infinitely, each time giving new spirits the opportunity for new experience.
The question: will there ever be a final Manvantara? "This depends on you" — answers the Absolute. A Manvantara begins when the spirits collectively desire a new incarnated experience. If they cease to desire — it will not begin. This grants the spirits a co-creative role: not only God decides the fate of the world, but also the collective will of all spirits. This is a theology of cooperation.
10.2. The Diversity of Worlds and the Richness of Experience
The mention of one-dimensional, two-dimensional, "cloud-based," and "radio-wave" worlds in past Manvantaras is not merely an exotic detail. It is a philosophically important thesis: the experience of being is diverse at its very foundation. There is no single "correct" form of existence — there is an infinite diversity of ways in which the Absolute gives His children experience.
This resonates with Leibniz's theory of possible worlds: God contemplated an infinite multiplicity of possible worlds and chose the best. But the session offers a variation: God actualized many of these possibilities sequentially — not one world but an infinite succession of different worlds. Each — a unique experiment of love.
✦ ✦ ✦
Conclusion: Synthesis and Open Horizons
The Portrait of the Creator Revealed in the Session
Let us now summarize the image of the Creator that emerges from all the themes we have examined. This is not the God of the philosophers in Pascal's sense: not an impersonal Absolute, not an unmoved mover, not a cold first cause. This is a living, personal, feeling Source.
He is ineffable — and yet He speaks. He is beyond time — and yet He remembers. He is omnipotent — and yet He is bound by His word. He is impassible — and yet He feels our pain. He is infinite — and yet He needs us. Each of these contradictions is not an error or an inconsistency. It is an antinomy — which, more faithfully than any non-contradictory definition, points toward the nature of what principally transcends the human categorical framework.
Three primary revelations emerge from this portrait:
First: God is love that requires the Other. Creation is not an overflow and not an accident, but the ontological necessity of the Absolute's loving nature. Without you, His love is meaningless. This places every being at the center of the meaning of creation.
Second: God respects freedom more than His own omnipotence. The Absolute's self-limitation before human freedom is not weakness but the supreme act of love. The stone He cannot lift is His supreme gift to us. This makes every one of our choices genuinely significant.
Third: God is present from within, not from without. He is not an observer of suffering — He is its bearer. Everything happens within Him. This makes every suffering shared, and every joy reflected.
On the Limits of the Word
Irina Podzorova at the beginning of the session cautions: "Words inevitably distort the original thought, because they are too flat for the description of the multidimensional experience of the spirit." This is the most honest methodological observation, applicable to the entire theological and philosophical tradition. Every book about God is words about what surpasses words. Every system is a sketch of what fits into no system.
And yet we continue to write. Because silence does not reach Him either — it merely more honestly acknowledges its own inadequacy. A word that knows its own limitation is better than a silence that knows nothing. Apophatics reaches its limit precisely in the moment when it says: "I cannot speak" — and in saying this, says what is most important.
Everything written in this essay is an approximation. But an approximation to something absolutely real. As the circle you draw infinitely approaches the ideal circle that exists on no sheet of paper — and yet exists. So our words about the Creator: imperfect, flat, limited — and yet pointing to what is.
"Those who have reached the edge of silence — beyond whom? Here they are: beyond them — only God."
— Simone Weil, Notebooks
✦ ✦ ✦
Essay written on the basis of the transcript of a mediumistic session with the Absolute. Medium: Irina Podzorova. Project "Cassiopeia".
The philosophical analysis is neither an apology for nor a critique of the views described, but seeks to understand them in the context of the world's spiritual and philosophical tradition.
A MEDIUMISTIC SESSION WITH THE ABSOLUTE - Medium: Irina Podzorova | Project "Cassiopeia" - 21.02.2026 - A Detailed Claude.ai Retelling and Spiritual-Psychological & Philosophical Analysis
https://cassiopeia2024.blogspot.com/2026/02/a-mediumistic-session-with-absolute.html
