2008-11-1 07:52:00
This continues the series on my Posts to AOL before The Keys and before I wrote "The Immortal."
I'll go through the highlights of your epistles and comment.
Firstly, you tell me that if something is correct for my soul that it is not necessarily correct for yours or anyone else's.
This is a seemingly correct statement in the illusion of the personality world, but the world of souls is a world of union and oneness, and as the Course in Miracles says: "The truth is true and NOTHING else is true."
Through the maze of illusions created by various interpretation of words, there is a point of truth that is true and "nothing else is true."
Two plus two equals four and nothing else is true that can be demonstrated in this reality. To contradict this statement you have to wander into poetic and mythful thinking which has no basis in this reality except for entertainment purposes.
The souls of all humans are one. Therefore if my soul verifies a point of truth to you, the same point can be verified to me. Now I can tune into my astral body and get all kinds of misleading feelings and think that it is my soul, but if you tune into real soul consciousness and so do I at the same time, we will see "eye to eye." Hope it doesn't offend you that I quoted the Bible there.
To say otherwise than what I say here is to not believe in the oneness of the higher lives. Do you think that in the world of solar angels that two cannot become one in the light of truth? I think it would be depressing to believe that truth cannot lead to unity.
The highest many people have reached is a degree of astral energy which they interpret to be soul contact. All fall into this illusion one time or another because we tend to think that our highest perception is the highest God, Soul, Solar Angel, Universal Spirit, Master, Higher Self or whatever. We are reluctant to think that someone else has made a higher contact than ourselves.
Contact with soul energy is available to all, but there are layers of darkness that must be penetrated to discover it.
When two people reach soul contact together there is always a knowing. They are still two individuals, but of one mind and both know the other is feeling the spiritual feelings.
It would be nice to reach that with you my brother.
You say that you do not agree with my teaching process. Fine. You are free to ignore me. Obviously you're not doing so.
You ask me why I state that my teachings are from a higher source. Am I trying to seem more credible?
No.
I say it because it is true and to present the teachings as if I am solely responsible would be to take glory to myself that I do not deserve and would also be deceptive.
I am not a channel as is Jane Roberts and others where the person leaves consciousness. I work through the union of souls where there is full consciousness for all. That way two minds become one and there is a flashing forth bringing a knowledge of principles from the higher to the lower. I will later write on the difference between principles and facts.
You ask about my books. I haven't published them yet, but will one day. I would prefer to do it myself so they do not get edited.
Tell me one thing you have learned without the help of another person as you seem to indicate that you do?
You ask the question: If knowledge only comes from above, then where did those above us get it?
I did not say that knowledge only comes from above. I said that if we learn from someone who knows, the learning is much faster than if we learn by trial and error.
All useful knowledge when first acquired for a system of humans is won by a teacher who earned it by trial and error, many mistakes, pain and loss of time. Take Edison and the light bulb. It took him over 10,000 trials to produce it. If we were to follow your reasoning we should all just look within and figure out how to make light bulbs. It might take you 100,000 tries to make a light bulb if you are determined to do it all by yourself.
I like my method better. Let's just use the teachings of Edison and enjoy the light and save our great effort to forge into new territory. There's not a lot of advantage to reinventing the wheel. It provides no service to humanity.
I pointed out that when a teacher has definite knowledge learning for the student is greatly accelerated. You disagreed with this saying: "What one considers definite another may consider fluid."
I'm not talking about what one considers, but it turns out he's deceived about it. I'm talking about definite knowledge like how to build a light bulb. Either you know how or you don't. If you do know how to build it there is nothing fluid to it. You can look at the light shining in your eyes and deny that it exists, but that doesn't mean the knowledge is fluid. It means you're in a state of denial.
I'll bet you can't give me one example of knowledge that is fluid. You may give an example, but I can prove you wrong because you're violating a principle here. "The truth is true and nothing else is true."
If knowledge were truly fluid then none of us would have to think. All of us would be right all the time and we would descend to eternal entropy.
If I understand correctly how you define the path then I do not consider my methods of serving the only way to serve. Nevertheless there are certain keys of knowledge that must be unlocked by the aspirant before he can return home, or obtain freedom of movement in the three worlds. For instance, you must achieve a certain level of understanding about who you are. If you are deceived into thinking you cannot rise above the level of a worm, for instance, you must raise your consciousness in order to progress.
These things seem like basic knowledge. It's difficult for me to see how you can even disagree on these things. Oh well, let's continue.
I'm sorry I'm not humble enough for you. Please feel free to continue to keep me in line.
You say: "I accuse you of being...arrogant in the knowledge you have such that you cannot recognize different knowledge as being valid." Are you sure you are not mirroring yourself here?
What "different knowledge" do you speak of that I do not recognize as being valid?
I'm sure you will not be able to give me a specific answer on this one. If you cannot and are honest you must admit the charge is unjust.
If, however, you substitute "theory" for "knowledge" you may have a point.
You make an interesting statement: "Unless words contain the entire universe, they cannot express the entire universe." You direct us to a great truth here. A single great Word created the entire universe. The single Word divided itself into many words. Since all things are created through the power of words then all things can be expressed in words.
Just because you cannot express yourself effectively in words, why do you assume no one else can?
Some have difficulty in expressing "love," "faith," "fear" and other ideas in words. Others have figured out how to do it.
I still maintain that if you cannot put a piece of knowledge in words, then a full understanding is not realized. I am amazed anyone would disagree with this. It seems so basic.
If you do not understand love well enough to express it in words then why not be humble enough to say you do not understand rather than to say you know, but can't explain? That sounds like the Christians talking about God that you so sharply criticize.
For all the bantering we have had I was surprised that you responded to "Who and/or What Am I?" I applaud you. I would have probably reacted similarly in your situation.
What you said in response was good and interesting. But it seems to be describing you as a personality. By personality I mean the combination of body-feeling-mind. I want to go beyond that. If you left the vehicles of your body, emotions, and mind then who and/or what are you?
It is true that you are consciousness, you are "I AM." Every New Age thinker knows this. Feel yourself without your vehicles. Describe something you know about that which remains.
Your comments on your life in the days of Jesus were interesting. Did you obtain this recollection with the aid of another regressing you, or did the memory just come to you? If the memory just came what age did it come? Also, would you give us a brief description of his physical appearance?
I probably agree with about half the things you say, but I comment more on what I disagree with (as do you) because light is revealed by contrasts. I think you would agree with that.
Copyright © 2008 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved