When discussing or relating things of this nature one is naturally asked to define ones meanings, for the words which we use can be highly ambiguous, and to say nothing of the words which one personally coins for concepts and realities which we have discovered no previously existing handle. I would have thought, and perhaps hoped, that I have made my meanings reasonably clear by now. Before closing this volume however, I will briefly run through my terms and their meaning as I use them. It would of course be interesting to know as to how a word comes to have its consensus meaning in the first place, but whichever, if we do not use them with a clear meaning, and used in consensus terms, then language, or should one say communication, breaks down and misses its target.
Mysticism (the word that is) is perhaps one of the most difficult to define in the senses which I use it. However, it is any experience of a deep spiritual significance which cannot be addressed by the existing paradigm. There are plainly two very different modes of mystical experience. One mode is inward looking and the other is outward looking—hence either my old terms of Local and Transcendent or the fairly new academic terms of Introverted and Extroverted mystical experience. There are however, depths and degrees of both kinds of mystical experience, ranging from the minor to the major full blown events. With regard to inward experiences, or inner space and the levels and forces therein, the paradigm of the ‘flat mind’ would totally miss the reality of inner depth. Likewise experiences generated up from those various levels and thence being incorporated with daily conscious experience of the outside world would all seem to be issuing forth from the same level. Experience makes one realise however that spiritual experiences are from a much deeper level of our being than that of psychic experiences. Hence inner depth is important to grasp at the outset.
Transcendence is an experiential event which is both deeply spiritual and inward moving. There are of course those who use the word transcendence to mean any type of experience which goes beyond that of normal daily experience, but I do not use the word in that sense. Once again there are depths to transcendent experience. In my definition a Near Death Experience is a transcendent experience, but it is only partially transcendent, for the process of purgation has not gone all the way. Hence there is full justification for the terms partially transcendent and fully transcendent. Likewise a number of near death experiences (and many out of the body experiences) are far more a product of psychic events than of mystical events. That is to say one can see or feel no spiritual substance with regard to them.
The words Spiritual and Psychic hence relate directly to the part (or depth) of the system from which (or in which) the experience generates or takes place. We are in some mysterious way made of three distinct parts, albeit all connected within one structure. The very deepest and primordial aspect of our being is that which I call the spiritual. Whilst the layers of emanation which arise from it are what I refer to as the psyche. Our primordial self and consciousness is from the deepest level of being, and thus spiritual not psychic.
Life is a word which we all know well enough what it is—but what is it? That is to say what is alive and what is not alive? It is common practice to refer to trees and vegetation as being alive. However, I do not use the word that way. To be alive, in my use and understanding of the reality, is to exist and be conscious of that existence. I have no way of knowing as to if a tree or an apple is conscious of its existence—it would certainly be a very boring existence. No, I consider such phenomena as being self-replicating physical/chemical machines and no more than that. In the deeper sense, of course, they are a part of absolute objectivity. As to what level of conscious incarnate awareness can exist, then I do not know. Cats and dogs are obviously conscious critters, albeit that we cannot prove it. But as to whether an earthworm is a highly evolved living conscious entity or a mechanical machine for shifting soil, I do not know. I know they do a good job however, and as such should be treated with respect; as should any phenomenon in existence. Given that you and I spend moments when we are unconscious and yet can be woken up, then it is plain enough that consciousness itself is not the ultimate criteria of being alive, but without that conscious awareness we would know nothing of it. So it is just possible that trees and vegetation are alive in some way but without being conscious entities. If they are conscious of their existence then it would be a very strange and incomprehensible form of conscious awareness. My criteria of being alive is that an entity can say (or inwardly know), I AM ME. That is to say affirm its existence. I KNOW THAT I EXIST.
When it comes to psychic phenomena however, there are many forms of psychic energy (far more than that of spiritual experiences). There are also of course psychic experiences and also psychic events, and which are not quite the same thing. Psychic events are happening all the time within our system, for that is largely what the system is. A tooth growing is a psychic event. Likewise there are both psychic experiences (an out of the body experience for example) and then there are psychic abilities. Very few people have what is generally considered to be a psychic ‘gift’ or ability—and I certainly have no such ability. Virtually all of us however, at some point in our life, have some degree of psychic experience. Some have few and some have many. The process seems to be much on a par with mystical experience in that if it is accepted and used then they will become more frequent. If they totally freak a person out then it seems that the system can shut down the potentiality for the remainder of their life here. If you do not use it you will lose it. Many of these things are claimed to defy reason. It is not reason which they defy but rather general acceptance and use.
If mankind chooses to negate his and her reason and intellect then mankind fails to make use of their penultimate faculty, and will then reap the consequences of that action on earth. If on the other hand mankind chooses to ignore their emotional powers, faculties and intuitive understanding, then he and she alienates themselves from their deepest root of being and the implicate order itself; and will consequently miss the deeper purpose and function of existence during a lifetime on earth—the very place where it is needed most: for paradise does not need paradise, the earth does. For it is the depth emotional power and faculty of the mind (not reason or intellect) which brings him and her into contact with the transcendent order whilst yet alive on earth during a lifetime. And yet it is emotional movement, as opposed to rational analysis, which is so frowned upon by so many, and a large sector of society. We need to use both—and understand both.
I often use the terms demonstrable event or demonstrable experience. This does not mean that you and I can demonstrate its truth to another person, it simply means that life demonstrates it to us on the inside of our being. A tooth ache is a demonstration (and psychic communication) that there is something very wrong with the tooth, and it needs seeing to.
It is plain enough that most people come to ask themselves questions when something really ‘way-out’ occurs. But not too many, it seems to me, question things too deeply when all is running as ‘normal’ so to speak. An interesting correlation that arises in all the mystics that I have either personally known or read about is that they were all the kind of people to question things in depth even before ever having any such unusual experiences in the first place. Hence it seems that subconscious drives in these fields and levels are working toward a goal long before conscious experiences of it become manifest. Hence the actual experience is an outcome of a process itself which preceded conscious awareness. However, once questions are indeed justified by demonstrable experience there are obviously two kinds of questions which we have to ask.
Let me give a simple analogy of my category of definition here. Let us take any object, let us take a motor car for example. When we observe a motor car we can ask two kinds of questions about it. One question is ‘What is it?’, and the other question is ‘What can it do?’ Thus it is that I make two different definitions for these two categories of questioning and observation. With regard to the nature of ourselves and these different events, I use the term spiritual for the ‘what is it’ question and the word psychic for the ‘what can it do’ questions. The motor car in the simplest terms is a pile of atoms; but an organised pile with functional abilities. It is not a chaotic construct, and mind can detect specific design and function within it; (indeed we designed it and manufactured it). However, even when the motor car is constructed it does not do anything, it is still a manufactured pile of bits and pieces of all manner of materials and much empty space. But by the way it is constructed it then has potentials for specific functions (as does a computer program algorithm). Also, the word motor car has a meaning, it points the mind to that thing. But the thing itself (the extant phenomenon) does not have a meaning, it has potential, purpose and function. Life does not have a meaning, it has a purpose, potential and function. It is for us to recognise these things; and indeed which is the heart and motivation of the rational and scientific methodology itself.
Before proceeding however, just let me talk of something else for a moment, and make an analogy. Imagine that there was a street, a street of life so to speak. Imagine that along that street, say about half way, that there was a library which was next door to a post office, and at the far end of that road there was a park, and there the road ended. Now suppose that you came into conversation with other people who had been down that street to some distance. You would know how far they had been down that street by their description of what they knew along it. If somebody categorically said that there is a library next to a post office then you know that they have been there if they can describe what it looks like. If they cannot describe what it looks like then they may have simply heard of it from somebody who did know. Now, if they said that there is a library and post office but no park, then it simply means that they have not been all the way down that road; and it does not make experience relative to the observer. They just have not been that far as yet. Moreover, if they describe it wrong then you know damn well that they have not been down that road at all and that they are telling whoppers. But you can only know that they are right or wrong from direct hindsight of your own demonstrable experience; hindsight. False gurus beware!
The next thing to keep in mind are the facts of multiplicity and undifferentiated oneness. On the surface of a planet like the earth there is multiplicity of forms, and hence a multiplicity of experience and potentials among those forms, and a lot to see and know. However, as you go deeper down into the structure of creation, as mentioned previously, there becomes less and less variation or multiplicity, and by virtue of it then less and less for consciousness to experience. At the bottom of creation there is undivided uniformity, and only one thing to be known by experience... the ‘park’ at the end of the road (Paradise; or the Paradise Event). All conscious experience is the same and identical at that level of inner creation. It is a fact both in matter and in mind—and many have known it. The amazing thing of course is that consciousness goes that deep at all, but it does—so OK it does; so what? The ‘so what’ is that all these levels are connected to each other and that they have effects on each other. And so it is. Creation is not discreet lumps of things in their own right and independent state of existence—all is for the all.
Within our very deepest nature of self-existence there is a thing that does not do anything (in so far as we are aware whilst there). This does not mean that it is redundant, it means that it is in repose, the state of rest. It is made of whatever it is made of and you and I will never ever know what it is made of in objective terms, for it is impossible to get at it with heavy matter to analyse; many of us call it our spirit. You cannot study an electron with a pair of kitchen scissors. You cannot study the mind other than by way of the mind itself—the brain being somewhat different because it is a physical mass which mediates consciousness and hence connects it to the outer physical world—or some of the time anyway.
This inner thing then is at the dead centre of our own emanation of mass and being (and irrespective of what it is made of in absolute terms). It is our core self. We can call this root core of our being by any name we so choose, but unless we do give it a name then we will not be able to talk about it and communicate about it. Nevertheless that would not stop it being there and existing for that which it does exist for. There is a problem however, for if we decide to call it the inner spirit then there is the chance that many will run off shouting, ‘another religious nut case’—by conditioning and nurture bias: and I would empathise with them all the way. Naturally we could call this thing the inner ‘dynamo’; but what it really is in practice and in experiential reality is your inner ‘I AM ME’ thing, the root and substance of our being; it is what you are in the first and final analysis and knowledge of direct experience; the conscious inner mind prior to modulation by outer sensory data and extension of itself. That inner self which Buddhism claims does not exist (their first premise is that there really is no enduring self in the system—and a very wrong one—for there is). Buddhism does not go far enough. And it is also ‘way out’ in that it is transcendent of topside consciousness and anything known by daily consciousness. But it is directly connected to it nevertheless. It is the reservoir at the bottom of the well of the mind or psyche; the water before running through the tap of experience in extension from its root and selfhood.
Spiritual affirmations by individuals, and later institutions who grabbed the reins of authority, were not initially founded upon a lie or falsehood; they were founded upon direct demonstrable revelation of the experience of this inner and transcendent core. We learn later that others have seen the same identical thing also. Thus it is not relative, it is the very dead central core of every human being; and of course every living creature anywhere in the universe that has mindful existence. It is the undivided primordial root of life and personal being before extended symmetry takes place. Perhaps just as quarks are a consistent phenomena in all material energy. But spirit being the vital ingredient of being, life, nous, consciousness; or whatever you want to call it. It would be simpler if we all used the same word for this central core of being however. But will that ever happen? Heaven only knows. But this thing, this extant phenomenon, is so beautifully, so profound, that I call it the Child, or inner Spirit, or Essence of our own emanation. It is a Being but not a Becoming. Because it comes before temporal consciousness one could metaphorically refer to it as the mother or father of our being. It is like the analogy with the car before it is driven away from the show-room and put into functional use; and shining in all its virgin, pristine glory and wonder therein.
One must state again that this thing is not the creative source of creation as some have made it sound to be: no more than quarks are the absolute essence of material energy. It does not create anything; it does not create itself and it does not create the dimension in which it exists; it is not the life force but a product of it; and these are also experiential facts demonstrated to us whilst in that dimension of mind. One can argue about that prior to knowing it of course—but not afterwards. Then again if you do not know it then your argument is not justified nor does it have any authority. You can certainly argue about something which you know, but not if you do not know it.
However, despite all the other uses the word spirit has in the minds of many, and despite all other possible conceptions of that word (even that of ‘spiritualism’—which is more than enough to put anybody off), then I use that word when pointing to this aspect of our self, our undivided self at root, at the very deepest depths of our being. For without this part we would not exist at all. The child therefore is the proverbial father or mother of the incarnate man! Our ‘father’ which art in heaven, thou art divine! Religions (or many of them) have obviously confused this with our progenitor. The causation of creation however, is not floating around in paradise, as we are, any more than it is floating around on earth or in their churches.
Thus it is then that when using the term spiritual experience then I am referring to a direct experience of this level or dimension of being (introverted): or the effect of an outward experience OF it on earth (Extroverted). When I refer to a direct experience by being within that field or domain then I use the term ‘Absolute Transcendent Experience’, or an (A.T.E). It is the final stage of Introverted Mystical Experience by way of the last process of purgation—stripping away the unenduring from the enduring.
When I refer to an effect of an outer experience of it in the temporal world then I use the term ‘Local Mystic Experience’ or an (L.M.E) and which are far more common. A ‘local mystic experience’ takes place on earth, in otherwise normal time and space—and they are extremely more common as I said. Hence Extroverted Mysticism, meaning that it takes place in normal daily consciousness, and involves objectivity also. About thirty percent of the population seems to have at least one encounter (to some degree) with this during a lifetime. It seems to be as common as Psychic experiences.
I must now briefly mention again another field existing around the spiritual core, but further up the vortex of emanation, (extended further from the root ground) of this inner spirit is what I can only call an extended emanation or ‘inductance cloud of denser energy’. This cloud of energy is a direct emanation of the inner core itself: a bit like the atmosphere existing around the world itself. The earth’s atmosphere would not exist without the earth. I call this energy cloud by the word ‘SOUL’. (There are no souls in paradise only spirit. Matter unto matter and spirit unto spirit.)
On the day (in the dimension of) judgement (discrimination and separation of the parts—viz., the spirit and soul) there will be two in the field (ARKON FIELD of the psyche), one will be taken (the soul cloud) and one will remain (the spiritual core) in paradise. That is a fact of direct demonstrable experience—argue about it until you are dead if you wish. They are both absolutely uncontradictable when happening and known.
When we have an experience emanating from the soul field however, then I call that a PSYCHIC experience. Once again, as with spiritual experience, this can take place from within that field itself, (inside that cloud or energy field), or it can be projected by that energy on to the energy of the outside world as such... extended to some degree by inductance somehow. One such experience within that field proper is the event of a ‘Near Death Experience,’ or an (N.D.E): and which is itself partially transcendent—INWARDS not outwards; and during which one will encounter what I have come to call ‘Arkon Image Emanations’—visions with a meaning.
When we have an experience of that soul cloud of energy which is projected as an outside experience however, (like an hallucination; poltergeist effect; or an out of the body experience) then I call that event a ‘Projected Arkon Image-Emanation’, or a (P.A.I). It does not mean that the real YOU is out there other than as a reflected emanation or extended mirror image inductance somehow. Hence, impressions of the soul vibrations in (onto) the local space-time fabric energy—such as a ghost even... or the experience of travelling outside of the physical body for a while like an inductance field.
I would mention also at this point that irrespective of popular belief a person can have a near death experience whilst they are perfectly fit and well, with nothing wrong with them whatsoever; and that too is a fact of known reality. They have not been called near death experiences simply because the connection was not made between these mystic and psychic events and that of so called near death experiences. You do not have to be hit by a truck first. A near death experience is a matter of a depth of conscious experience and not as to what state the physical body may happen to be in at the time, for they are all events of the mind, soul and spirit and not the physical body or its existing condition. These things can also happen whilst you are asleep (more rare though it is) just as easily as while you are awake. The problem being is that they can then be attributed to dreaming—which they are not; and they are very different from dreams. Such things usually happen whilst one is awake however. In the case of near death experience however (and by definition) it is indeed far more common to be either asleep or indeed near physical death; or indeed while even in the condition of physical death for a short while. But in such events the consciousness does not travel very far down inside its own energy fields.
Another set of definitions is required now however, but an important one for this stage in the proceedings. So far I am generalising by category of where a type of experience has its foundation, i.e. a spiritual (or mystic) experience or a psychic (or soul) experience (circles within circles—and thus inner depth). The former type being of that which the thing is and the latter being the type of what it can also do. There are far more types of psychic events by the way than there are mystic or spiritual events—simply because the further out (extended) creation becomes then the more variety there becomes, and hence more to experience therein.
According to more ancient tradition if a person knows something about something by direct experience of that thing then they are said to be Gnostic of it; they have a Gnosis of it. Do not confuse the choice of this word with the ancient religion of Gnosticism—(and of which the greater portion of Western religion is originally based upon by the way—the evil or less experienced entity and all that). But there is much symbolic truth in all religions, and some literal truth in a few. That which the Gnostics did know was indeed correct, but that which they did not know then they invented. I have always called them ‘half baked mystics’. They knew the transcendent reality but they did not know the reciprocal convergence on earth, and that is for sure. They saw the world as either a trial for the spirit, or some cosmological cock-up created by a lesser god. They did not see the world as an emanation of the divine order. A little learning is a dangerous thing. They filled in the gaps with old myths. Paradise was obviously good and the earth was obviously horrible; therefore the same creative force cannot possibly be responsible for both. My aunt fanny. However, they were wrong.
If a person does not have direct knowledge of something then they are said to be Agnostic of it. Today we seem to have lost such sharp definition of the word and true meaning of knowledge; or as it should be meant as ‘direct personal knowledge’. This word (gnosis) and its meaning has nothing whatsoever to do with either beliefs about something or the lack of them; it is about Knowledge of direct experience only; or the lack of it. And it does not mean second hand knowledge of something (by being told ‘of’ it) it means the knowledge itself or the lack of it. Second hand knowledge (data) is information not Gnosis of that thing. If you have ever been to London then you have Gnosis of it; and you are gnostic of London. If you have not then you may well know a lot of data about London (perhaps even more than those who actually live there even), but you are agnostic of it: you do not know it directly.
These words and their definition are so important in these fields that they must be used and understood well—and not only in spiritual things, but anything at all in which we can and do have both direct and indirect knowledge of something. Without using such sharp definition then you and I have no idea (without laborious dialogue) as to whether the statement ‘I know’ means by direct or indirect knowledge—Gnosis or hearsay. Such sharp definitions should be an every-day occurrence in language.
Let us now have a look at a common phenomenon—hallucinations. Many consider them to be abnormalities of the mind. They are not; they are the mind working on all cylinders with a function and to fulfil a purpose. A drunkard who has been abusing his system for years on overdoses of alcohol has an experience, an awful experience, and generally known as an hallucination: technically known as delirium tremens. He or she is perhaps prostrate on their bed and they have visions of rats crawling all over them, or something of that ilk. The rats are not real, they are an hallucination thrown up by the psyche and experienced in consciousness, or in my terms they are a Projected Arkon Image Emanation a (P.A.I); projected on to the backdrop of the outer reality. “Oh, they were not really real” somebody will tell them. But they were real to them. Of course the rats were not real—he probably fears rats. However, the conscious experience was a real conscious experience, and the effect is a real effect; and the problem is real. Moreover the cause of the effect is real, and that is why he had it. He had it because he has been abusing his system for years with this stuff; and his system is fighting back. The experience is not from the transcendent creative life force or the devil, it is from the deeper depths of his own incarnate system and psyche. The experience itself is what was, in the old days, called an Angel... a message; (an angelus is a message... and for whom does the bell toll then?). He could well have had re-occurring nightmares; or he may have them also. But it is simply a matter (complex, clever and profound though it is) of his inside system throwing up a message of something he will understand—in action terms—in order to try to make him pack it in and pull himself together. Naturally enough many, or most, will these days say that it was from his sub-conscious mind, which of course it is; a rose is a rose by any other name. A man is dying in the desert, starving and thirsty, fed up and depressed. What does he need then? He needs food water and shelter. He has a vision (hallucination—P.A.I) of an oasis. What is an oasis in a desert? It is food water and shelter. And yet the oasis which he sees ‘ain’t there’. So his mind is obviously a nut case box of tricks which simply exists to fool him and lead him up the garden path. Rubbish! It is a message from the depths of his inner being. The message is not ‘look over there chum and you will find food and drink forty yards to your left’. The message is: ‘Do not fear; for that which you need exists; all will be well, do not fear’! That is what the vision means and the message IS.
A person has been knocked down by a truck and is at the point of physical bodily death. They suddenly find their self in a beautiful garden with some mysterious looking sod (or even a past relative) somewhere ahead of them—perhaps behind a fence or over a bridge. They think ‘Gor’d help us I’m in paradise’. But they are not in paradise and they are nowhere near it. When they regain consciousness in this world (otherwise it would not be a near death experience—but the real thing) then the chances are that they will remember nothing of that experience at all; a complete black out maybe; and even though they had it. Then again they may have some vague recollection of it. Then again they may remember every little detail and feeling of it: and all in colour to boot. They have had the same as the drunk and the same as the man dying in the desert except that the vision was not extended on to the backdrop of the outside world. The experience was an inner experience, an ‘Arkon Image-Emanation’. They were indeed Partially Transcendent at that point; but nowhere near ‘Absolute Transcendence’; they had not reached the inner repose of the sacred in the core at the dead centre of their own unity and essence (spirit) of being beyond annihilation. These experiences are very common.
Consider this for a while. One of the reasons why we see things in the outer universe is because of the phenomena of physical light. Even if these things were out there as we actually experience them then we would still not see them if there were no light radiation: and of course we would still not see them if there was nothing to see them with. However, most people dream every night, and many like myself dream in colour; vision is crystal clear more often than not. We cannot see anything, anywhere without light. What then lights up a dream? What kind of light is it? How? Why? So where does the light come from to light up dreams? (A question which I asked myself at the age of six years—but nobody gave me the answer—but life itself seems to have done.) Some will argue that they are not lit up, but they are indeed lit up. It is not of course the same kind of light radiation with which we see things of the outer universe; it is a different light; spiritual light; but it is still light; and seen not with the physical eye, but with the eye of soul itself. Indeed some religions are even based upon the ‘inner light’.
Many people throughout all human existence have called this inner light by many names, we will not go into them here for a rose is a rose by any other; but an inner light there most definitely is. The light which we see in the outer universe is a radiation of energy emanating from energies and forces within stars. There are no stars in our head, soul, or spirit. However, our physical body and brain are the stuff which were also manufactured in the heart of stars. Stars are very beautiful things. They are also quite important; for the physical universe would not exist without them; they are a part of the production line of the universe itself. However stars do not contain their own causation any more than you or I do. The reality and existence of a star is deeper down in the implicate nature of reality than the stars themselves, the stars are but an emanation of a deeper reality.
To say that physical matter is created (manufactured) inside stars does not mean to say that the star is the beginning or end of the production line—just as the brain is not the manufacturer of consciousness. When we type a word into a word processor then the event of hitting the keyboard gives rise to the word; but neither the keyboard nor our finger (or the screen) were the root causation of the word; they were but facets of energy and matter along the production line itself. Volition brought forth the word. So too is it with stars, galaxies, and all that comes into effect from the implicate order after that particular initiation process (The act of physical existence or creation).
Most of the events and changes which take place in the universe are not created however, they are effected; and they are affected by other facets, fields and energies of that physical universe itself—the stuff which is along there with it all. The earth was not ‘created’ it was affected by the then existing fields of energies at that time. Creation however means something very different from the causal chain of effects which come when it is done. Creation is to bring forth that ‘stuff’ which does all things in the first instant. Creation delegates to the parts.
If we do not ask questions then we do not receive answers—for we do not even go looking for them. Keep in mind also that an answer is only an answer when the question has been formulated in mind. There is no answer where there is no question. This does not mean that effects do not have causation; of course they do; all it means is that a question is a phenomena and attribute of MIND and so too is an answer to it; they are facets of consciousness and cognition. Consciousness means to be aware; cognition means awareness which also understands. Understanding does not come from nothing and exists in nothing; it comes from a process and it exists in something... in YOU. The cosmos of creation is, among other things, about cognition; understanding; and thence volition. The whole of creation is a mysterious dialogue with the observer.
Think on this for a while. Any physical object in the space-time fabric (the universe) has its movement governed by the local centre of gravity, it is not a matter of choice as to their movement and where they go. This applies to our physical body also, for it is made of the stuff of the physical universe. Have you ever seen dead bodies walking around? What does a dead body do in the space-time fabric of this world? It falls to the nearest centre of gravity until other forces prevent any more falling. If you happen to die whilst standing on a table then your body will fall to the floor. However, we can walk around on the surface of the earth, and now even leave the earth and go into space. In order to accomplish either of these things we are required to use energy. But what organises that energy (which we do not create) into action and direction then? Volition does. There is no volition in a dead body, so it falls to the centre of gravity in so far as it can get there. Like consciousness (awareness) and cognition (understanding) volition (will) is one of the greatest mysteries and miracles of life and existence. We have no volition in paradise; and that is a fact. Consciousness yes; cognition yes—volition NO!
Transcendence is the event of consciousness (spirit) falling to its centre of gravity also; like snow falling upon snow. If it is said that our conscious and wilful existence is merely the sum of the atoms and their reactions in our physical brain then how come that these cogs become cognition? How does a bunch of atoms ever come to think, laugh and cry? For the trees do not laugh and cry. The trees are machines, they are not alive; they do not say and affirm ‘I AM ME’. Our physical body and brain is a machine; it does not say and affirm ‘I AM ME’. Moreover, you and I intuitively say that we have a body and brain—but what is doing the owning? ‘I AM ME’ is doing the owning. But if you say ‘I have a mind’ then you make an error, for you ARE MIND.
We then come to the question of mind over matter. Many claim that there is no such thing; but it is self-evident. Mind (volition) over matter is self-evident; you are using it all the time. When you pick up a cup to drink, or walk, or talk, you are Mind controlling matter. You are the soft stuff (being and volition) manipulating the hard stuff. It is often taken to mean however that one can somehow manipulate a physical object without intervention of the intermediary physics throughout the structure of emanations. In so thinking then they miss the great miracle of creation itself; and as it really is. I have never moved an object by mere thought waves alone; and I do not want to; it could be damned dangerous if we could. There is one thing that life and creation is not, and that is stupid. When you turn over a page in a book then that is cognition moving the cogs.
To be mindful of existence one has to be conscious. You and I can (and do) still exist without being conscious (as in dreamless sleep for example), but we would not know it; we would not be cognitive, or mindful of existing. We exist during dreamless sleep but we are not aware of existing; for all intents and purpose we may as well be dead during dreamless sleep (from our point of reference at least); and who is to say that perhaps we are not. For what is death anyway? What is the definition and absolute reality of death? What is the experiential difference between sleeping (whilst in dreamless sleep) and being in annihilation before resurrection? Nothing at all—from our point of reference.
Nevertheless we can be woken up from sleep. But when a being leaves this world at the end of a lifetime here then their body cannot be woken up into conscious awareness, for the inner part (spark of nous and volition) has gone; departed from this universe of time and space. So we call that being dead for simplicity. It is certainly dead to this universe. In so far as an objective observer is concerned there is no more contact with that person who has gone; they no longer exist in this world.
If there is one thing which is for sure then it is the fact that if we did not leave this world then we would become extremely fed up in due course. Some, it seems, try to cling to life on earth for whatever reasons (heaven only knows why—probably fear of letting go maybe). Are they then (if in fear of letting go) ‘ghost’ fields of energy maybe? (not my department of knowledge or interest however). If you see one then tell it to bugger off home; unless it has something intelligent to communicate of course—and that would be something new! But what could it communicate of interest if it had not moved on further? Do you want to go on—further? Emmm!
I do not know but I would indeed imagine that there are at least a few people who belong to this or that religion simply in the hope that they will always exist (they must be very young). That of course is not why religions exist originally or what they are really all about in their genuine root. Religion is about seeking the sacred (not believing in it but living in it). ‘Religion’ was originally two words; as mentioned; ‘RE-LEGIO’, and it meant reunion with the divine transcendent order of being. But there is always debris surrounding anything in human terms as mentioned in detail elsewhere.
Irrespective of peoples personality traits, likes and dislikes, there exists direct experience of the implication that we do exist for more than this brief encounter on earth, and that we later reincarnate again into some other kind of extended reality; maybe even back here again (alas) a few times and then elsewhere maybe.
Transcendence teaches and implies not only that conscious cognition is the most important thing in creation, but also that consciousness is never terminated, or should I say that anything which is alive is never anything but alive. That is the message, or one of them, of paradise. But let us hope that we have made this particular world a better place to come to by then if that is how it must be. And we could make it better if we tried hard enough; and had the volition to do so.
But that however, should not be the reason for making it better here. We must make it better here for those yet to come here, and for no other reason than that. But it may well be you yourself that has to come back here as a child all over again. There is an irony with reincarnation however, (there are many ironies in our experience of life). The irony is that reincarnation would always be knowledge of implication and not knowledge of direct hindsight (gnosis) whilst alive on earth. And that is due to annihilation and cosmic amnesia.
Let us look at this ‘knowledge of implication’ as opposed to being Gnostic of something from a fact of hindsight. One can have gnosis of an implication of course. We can have a direct experience of our inner and transcendent spirit; and we can learn and understand what we do learn and understand there. Paradise is a fact of direct spiritual (not outer sensory) experience. That we come from there and also return there is actually learned whilst in it. But we cannot stay there—and that becomes self-evident. Moreover, one would not want to stay there even if we could; (we do whilst in it however for we know nothing else). What we are questioning here then is that of further incarnate lives of some kind; either on earth or some other planet; or even another dimension of being maybe, which is extended from that paradise dimension. I have most certainly never ever had an experience of existing on earth before and the memories which that would involve (thank heaven). Many claim to; but is it really what they take it to be? Well, it may be and it may not be.
I am not questioning the truth of the transcendent existence, for that is knowledge unquestionable (whilst in it); but only questioning that of which is yet to come with regard to incarnate extensions of it. Re-incarnation means to come out of paradise (and or death) again—to ‘Re-emanate’ into a new form and personality. It does not necessarily mean coming here to this particular earth again: it means being in FORM and time extended from the ground of being. Re-emanation from transcendence during a lifetime however, (the mystic death and returning to temporal consciousness) means coming back up ones existing structure or psyche—a mere trip home during an existing lifetime. Reincarnation means a new psyche, form and structure, with no past memories or incarnate experience. Reincarnation means having a new incarnate existence: coming into a world as a child again; a different life—up a new vortex. We could not remember paradise while being born as a child for that memory will not have been recorded on that psychic vortex of energy. Hence cosmic amnesia.
However, for the time being, think upon the concept of these implications whilst in paradise as being the ‘Promises of Paradise’. By that I mean that in the transcendent mode of being one learns things (in a strange kind of way), and one of those things is that you are never ever terminated: only switched off for a while: a broken continuity. However, you cannot stay in the transcendent realm all your existence and you would not want to from hindsight even if you could; for there is nothing to do there except wallow around in absolute love and absolute wisdom and understanding. The greatest gift in life however, is FREEDOM FROM THE DIVINE... not simply hanging around in the basement or ground of our being. Paradise is the beginning and the end of being... not the middle.
This transcendent realm then is not a prize which we get to go to because we have been good or listened to the preacher of your local tribal religious sect whilst alive on this world. The paradise of the transcendent is where we come from; what we are made of; and to wither we return on occasions. It is already ours—from the beginning it was given. It is the cosmological womb (and waiting room) of all created beings; the first created dimension of the life force—the ‘sea’ or reservoir of being. Wombs are not brought forth to stay in. Beginnings and endings are not for staying in. Death exists for life not life for death.
But will you ever come out into another world again? Or of course, to put it another way, will you always come out of annihilation? There is an interesting thought to be sure! The knowledge of implication (or the ‘promise of paradise’) is yes... and forever more; Time and again my love! Time is not what it seems. But we can never ever know it for a fact OF HINDSIGHT (with gnosis) while alive on earth; do you see. Hence the meaning and fact of unconditional love. We do not do things for a future reward, for things to come: we do them for the love of being here NOW; as it IS. And that is how creation itself works—we are made in the likeness of its essences and principles because we are that stuff extended.
In annihilation all past memories are gone (or certainly not accessible by us anyway). Every time we come into a life incarnate then it is NEW; and that new incarnate you has never ever existed before and will never ever exist again after that lifetime on earth; or wherever. So make this incarnate life a good and worthwhile event on earth then; and for all of them on earth; for they are all the divine children of creation. You (the personality) can only go into annihilation ONCE then, (unless also undergoing transcendence during a lifetime also; then it will be twice), for it is always the same event every time you go there! You (the personality) will never exist again. But if you (the spirit) went to paradise ten thousand million times then it is always the SAME TIME and the SAME EVENT. Peculiar isn’t it. Clever!
But it is beyond time you see. This is why I call it the Paradise Event. You cannot think in temporal terms in regards to things deeper than temporal emanations. But, that part of our self which does exist there is nevertheless the real us, the ‘I AM ME’ spiritual phenomenon in paradise; and it is within you now and always—for You are it: it is you. So, in answer to the question they ask... “Will I ever exist again”, then the answer is either yes or no depending on what they are referring to as their self. If they are talking about their body and temporal personality, then the answer is no—once is your lot chum; so make a worthwhile job of it. But if they are referring to their inner and deeper self then the answer is yes—or so one learns whilst in paradise anyway. Does paradise lie? Who cares, Not I. I do not lie so I do not see why paradise should—do you?
Religions (not cults) are based upon past individuals on earth—but why look to the past (the dead from this world) when that which you seek, (the truth and the reality), is with you now and always—Divine Consciousness and Being! You can never not ‘BE’. Neither time nor Eternity knows ‘not being’. Being is all there is. If ever you were not drawn out of annihilation then you would never know it anyway would you—so no problems there then.
A reasonably good analogy of these things is that of a rose on a bush. True enough the rose bush does not last for ever, but I use it only for analogy. This years bloom has never ever existed before in creation: and it will never ever exist in creation again; it comes and it goes like waves on the air. However, the sap which rises and falls within the plant is its vital part (the spirit in analogy). Yet if the flower were to suddenly find out that it is a product of something so very different than the end product itself then it would say ‘WOW, I do not believe it’! (Just as we do after transcendence; or perhaps a fish coming out of water!)
Flowers are not alive however; they are machines for doing various jobs. Making the place look pretty is only one of them. Imagine then the actual ‘consciousness’ of the bloom flipping from the flower into the sap... and then falling back down to the root! That is what is happening with us. We are not only talking about fields and dimensions of energy but that of consciousness existing within those very fields: hence fields of consciousness. Consciousness can hop about (inter-dimensionally). Within our self we have three fields; a trimorphic emanation of our being to hop about in. All the religions know of a trimorphic consciousness (even though they do not talk of it or teach it—I wonder why). How come then?
Reincarnation however, is not just a case of living another pointless lifetime, it is evolution of the incarnate soul. Maybe even evolution of our own personal facet (degree) of spirit stuff; but I am not sure. That is too much for me to think about, and I certainly do not know it to be true or otherwise. Although it makes some kind of sense somehow. The universe is becoming impregnated by incarnate mind. This does not mean that the physical worlds and stars are becoming conscious. We, (I AM), mind, is permeating incarnate creation more and more. (Like the old ‘Earth Divers’ myth). It is our cosmological present, gift, playground; but not simply that, for existence needs us. It is the unfolding of the implicate order in all created things. As it is in the outer so too is it in the inner... evolution—becoming more, and we are a part of that more which itself has to become more.
That the essences and principles of the eternal beauty and profundity of creation and being in essence (seed) becomes on an incarnate world (as they are known, lived and loved in there in the principles and quality of paradise itself) essential being... becoming incarnate... freedom and personal creativity, it is like a painting coming out of the mind on to the paper. That is what creation, existence and being is all about in its becoming; the unfolding of the implicate order of... TO BE. Death (or rather the resurrection back into the permanent now) is being (and really alive to the full extent of gnosis): but life out here is the becoming in form as it is in essence. That is evolution of the form; not the spirit. But evolution is done in time and space; no place else.
Are not even the flowers more beautiful today then they were five million years ago on earth? There was a time when there were no flowers at all. Is not the earth itself now more beautiful than as a primordial lump of cosmic dust? This part of the universe is flowering into bloom. The physical universe is both a part of the process of creation in its becoming and also a place for forms of life to exist within during their becoming. The universe will change, as we change. Many religions are about punishment and reward (they make judgement by their own retarded personalities), existence however IS NOT. If mere human beings on earth can transcend punishment and reward then we would be greater than that which gave rise to us... and that is bull and bunkum. It is the thought of ancient morons and spiritual bankrupts.
You and I on this world have to control temporary abominable behaviour in some way, for the few cannot drag the glory of this world and being down to their existing level; for that would be chaos on earth. But we do not have to frighten them into decent behaviour by the threat of hell and eternal damnation. Mind and volition brings order to that chaos, not threats. And when mind knows eternal love, beauty, wisdom, then it also has gnosis of the reason as to WHY order has to exist, and thence play its own part in the unfolding of the implicate order.
Presumably, or at least hopefully, there will come a time on earth when we will be able to communicate with each other better than we do now; and also that we will be able to communicate these things better than we can now. You and I here and now can communicate them better than individuals of two and three thousand years ago. In two or three thousand years time they will do it even better. But by that time there will also exist a standardised language with regard these things. The words they choose do not matter, so long as everyone has a good idea of what is meant and thence they all use the same word.
In the meantime there are some like myself who mumble and stumble, then there are those who are gifted with words. It is important however not to be taken in simply by the talented use of words and logical argument. Philosophers have interesting minds and they are very clever with words, they seem to come up with possibilities in logic that you and I either do not see or, more often, find them totally irrelevant and academic. Thus, it is important to hear what somebody is saying as opposed to the cleverness with which they say it. So many people are gifted with words and yet have nothing to say alas. Creation does not even use words—and cannot use words—and yet it says everything. My god that is clever and I do not understand it one jot—yet alone talk about it convincingly. Yet to progress in dialogue in regards to such fields then we have to try, and in time to come that trying will pay dividends. To have a language and words with which we can communicate with the young in such ways that does not defy their emotions, innate intuitions and rationality whilst at the same time not demoralising them with the erroneous thought that they are useless entities—will be a future necessity.
* * *