1) The Core Mistake: Confusing the Absolute With Administration
Most criticism of sacred books is not truly about “contradictions”.
It is about a deeper misunderstanding:
✅ People assume the text is always speaking about the Absolute Source itself.
But in reality, much of scripture is describing administration — the Kingdom’s order, structure, laws, agents, decrees, consequences, and governance.
This is the key:
- The Absolute is the King
- Administration is the Kingdom
- Agents are the instruments of order
- And scripture often speaks in the language of governance, not metaphysics.
When someone reads administrative language as if it were metaphysical description of the Absolute, confusion is guaranteed.
2) Why the Absolute Still “Speaks” in Plural or Through Agents
Many texts use expressions like:
- “We”
- “Our decree”
- “We sent”
- “Our servants”
- “messengers”
- “armies”
- “angels”
- “agents”
This is not proof of multiple gods.
It is the language of kingdom structure.
Even in human systems:
- The King is one
- The King’s authority is one
- Yet actions are carried out by delegates and agencies
Still, history records it as:
“The King conquered.”
“The King decreed.”
“The King judged.”
Because administration represents the King’s authority.
So yes:
✅ the outcome is always attributed to the Absolute
even if the mechanism is administrative.
3) Advaita Vedanta: The Absolute Cannot Be Reduced to the World of Change
Advaita Vedanta is valuable here as a philosophical lens:
- The Absolute (Brahman) is beyond form, limitation, and change.
- The world of events is a level of manifestation: function, order, appearance, consequence.
This protects the mind from the childish image of God as a “human-like person” inside time.
But here is the crucial point:
Advaita explains the Absolute well,
but it often does not explain administration in the moral and legal sense.
That is where Kolbrin becomes the missing key.
4) Kolbrin: Above All Named Gods is the Nameless Supreme Spirit
Kolbrin provides the same “Absolute-above-all” principle in a direct way:
SOF:4:3
“To each of you his own god, but above any god which can be named is something that cannot be named, and you shall know it as The Supreme Spirit.”
This one sentence demolishes the childish argument:
“If the text mentions other beings, then the Absolute is not One.”
No.
It means the Absolute is above the entire hierarchy of named powers.
This is not polytheism.
This is administration under the One Supreme Source.
5) Symbolic vs Literal: The Text Decides, Not the Reader
One of the biggest errors in religious debate is this:
People decide in advance:
- “Everything is literal”
- or
- “Everything is symbolic”
Both are wrong.
The correct method is:
✅ Sometimes the text demands symbol.
✅ Sometimes the text demands literal.
✅ And the context tells you which one it is.
A) Symbolic language (when the text points to meaning)
Words like:
- “hand”
- “face”
- “throne”
- “anger”
often function as:
- authority
- presence
- dominion
- consequence
The problem is not the text.
The problem is a reader who thinks spiritual speech must always be physical.
B) Literal language (when the text points to law, action, event)
When a text gives:
- legal instructions
- restitution
- consequences
- governance rules
then it is not metaphorical poetry.
It is describing how the system works.
Kolbrin is extremely strong here because it speaks the language of law and consequence openly.
6) The Test: Why Books Contain Light and Darkness
This is the point where your experience becomes a universal rule:
At some stage, a sincere reader will encounter contradictions, tensions, or confusion.
Two typical reactions appear:
- Idolatry: “My book must be perfect. Every line must match my assumptions.”
- Collapse: “Then everything is false, I quit.”
But the third reaction is the path of discernment:
✅ “The books are as they are by permission of the Absolute.
My duty is to search for light — and become light.”
This is exactly why passages like Qur’an 22:52–53 hit you so hard:
- They function as a direct confirmation that:
- not everything that enters religious history is pure clarity
- but the purpose is to separate hearts
- and test who seeks truth vs who seeks excuses
And the Kolbrin expands the same principle with more detail: repentance, justice, consequence, discipline, and the structure of the Path.
7) “Criticism Of The Books” is Often a Misfire
Most critics attack books for things that are not the book’s problem.
They say:
- “God looks emotional”
- “God changes”
- “God fights wars”
- “God commands law”
- “God speaks like a ruler”
But they missed the category:
They are reading administration as if it were the Absolute itself.
The Absolute is the King.
Administration is the realm of governance.
So “anger” in administration means:
- consequence
- judgment
- removal from protection
- legal response
Not “God lost emotional control”.
8) The Correct Conclusion
Sacred books are not meant to be worshipped.
They are meant to be used.
Not as idols.
Not as tribal flags.
But as mirrors, tests, keys, and warnings.
The One Supreme Source remains above all names and forms.
Yet the world operates through:
- law
- structure
- agency
- consequence
And scripture often speaks in the language of this Kingdom.
So the question is not:
“Is the book perfect?”
The real question is:
✅ “Can you discern light from darkness?”
✅ “Can you understand levels: Absolute vs administration?”
✅ “Can you read symbolically when needed — and literally when required?”
✅ “Can you become light instead of worshipping the lamp?”