2006-1-13 05:35:00
Larry writes:
The point I was making was that theory backed up by apparently "perfect logic" seems to lead to absurd conclusions in some cases, especially when the logic was taken to an extreme. Some examples involved irrational numbers, concepts about infinity, and now the Big Bang theory and the idea of an infinitesimally small "singularity."
I wrote that I think there is an important lesson there. In fact I know there is. I know that there is something important there and I know it by more than reason alone.
However when I wrote that you seemed to be more interested in micro-analyzing my post and finding my errors - contrary to the principle you teach of looking for truth instead of error.
That puzzles me.
You are painting the wrong picture of me. My attention was not on what you were writing that was wrong, but on defending that which my soul has confirmed to me as being correct.
It was you that attacked my teaching and was trying to prove it wrong. I was not trying to prove you wrong, but attempting to clarify and defend that which I saw as already being correct. In that process I saw a lot of what you wrote as being correct, quite a bit as misunderstanding me and maybe one or two things that were not in perfect harmony with my thinking.
I think you are being unfair in accusing me of looking for error when all I was doing was defending that which I saw to be true. I assure you I practice what I teach.
As far as examining your writings I have continually looked for points of agreement and kept stressing how small our differences were in attempts to end our past disagreements.
Concerning your article on your web page I think it is very good. I would only alter the next to the last sentence from: "Perfect reason will ultimately lead you to wrong conclusions, and when you reach that point, all that is left is God."
To: "Perfect reason will often lead you to incomplete conclusions, and when you reach that point, all that is left is God."
Larry:
"You are missing my point again and arguing against a straw man. I have said we incarnate into time, but when we are not in it, time does not exist for us because there is no motion to register in our consciousness."
And you are still misunderstanding me. You say that when we are not in incarnation that "time does not exist for us." I understand what you are saying.
I am saying that whether or not we are directly perceiving time has NO bearing on the existence of time.
I have said this too. I have also said that even though time is going on somewhere if we are not perceiving it then it does not exist in our consciousness.
Larry:
When we die the world, time, and existence does not cease to exist. Existence and time in no way depends on whether any one of us perceive it.
That is as I have taught.
Larry:
Also, I do not necessarily believe that time does not exist for us even then. Maybe our perception of it is different, perhaps we perceive it so slowly that it appears not to exist. But this is all speculation.
Fundamentally I do NOT believe that there is a place beyond time and space. I may be wrong but right now that is my view.
This is where we need clarification.
There is no place that makes time disappear as long as the universe continues, but there are places where time is not registered. To understand my point one has to see that time is created by motion of form and is registered by perceiving that motion.
Imagine yourself walking along in a deep state of thought mulling over a number of ideas. Now imagine your physical body and all form disappearing but your thinking remaining intact. What is moving to create time? Nothing that can be registered by your consciousness.
Does time still exist?
Yes. Time in physical reality still exists. You are just not a part of it at the present and are in an idea world that does not register time.
Larry:
One last thought. I do NOT even think it is possible to speak coherently about a place beyond time and space other than to state that one thinks it exists, or is possible. ANY thing else that one says is incoherent because the concept and premise of existence is built into the very language we use. One can think one is saying something meaningful, but in my opinion the idea of real meaning in such talk is largely illusion.
If you contemplate the state of mind you are in when you receive ideas you can come close. Just visualize working with ideas in a place where there is no form.
Larry:
Now that is my opinion. I understand you may have a different one. But I do NOT think there is any real basis to argue on. As beings that DO exist in time and space we have no meaningful vocabulary to talk about something beyond time and space. Again, that is my opinion.
You are right that it is fairly fruitless to spend much time attempting to explain timelessness. This is part of there reason I have written so little on it. I think I have presented a fairly unique concept of it in the beginning of Book 3 however.
Most disciples feel within their soul that a state of timelessness or an Eternal Now does exist but are unable to explain it completely. Many have also had experiences which verify this concept to their satisfaction.
If a thing isn't worth saying, you sing it. Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799)
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved