Channeled Download: Objective vs Subjective Reality
A lot of how people organize their thought about what we call "the afterlife" is based on fundamentally inapplicable principles. Our thought here is conditioned by (at least) three fundamentally erroneous ideas: linear time, limited time, and subjective/objective duality. (There's a couple more I can think of but I won't bring them up here.)
If we are eternal beings, concepts that depend upon the premise of limited time will likely produce erroneous ideas and conclusions. An example of this is the idea of substantive "growth" or "learning." The idea that we are on some kind of overall, substantive learning or growth trajectory is incongruous with the idea of us being eternal beings. Simply put, what are you going to learn that you haven't already had time to learn, considering your eternal past? All we can be doing, in an eternal framework, is changing how much experience we remember, how much knowledge we have conscious access to, for the purpose of ongoing experience. We can experience "growth" and "learning" and "new experiences" only in relationship to how much of our eternal nature we hide from ourselves.
If time is not truly linear in nature, the idea of an overall trajectory of growth is similarly undermined. Past and future become dimensional locations, just like a physical road with "future" and 'past" locations and potentials existing like cities on a map. "You" are already in every possible future location ... so what is it that you have to learn? It makes NO rational sense. It's literally nonsensical to see ourselves as in need of growth and learning when we must literally occupy every potential point that exists throughout time and space and dimensions because of this. Are our future selves not already there? Are we not connected to them and have instantaneous access to what they know and have experienced?
Now we get to the problem of the idea of the subjective/objective dichotomy. It's literally impossible to get outside of subjective experience; we hold that the causal source is mind/spirit; why then do we frame what we experience as the "objective, exterior world" AS IF that is the benchmark of what is real? If such an exterior world exists, we cannot experience it directly - it all comes through our subjective senses and mental/psychological interpretations and filters.
Yet, we hold the theory that such a world exists with such an intense commitment that nothing seems meaningful or of value without it. We have direct access to our own personal experience, and yet we devalue that as if it has no meaning or value unless we can correlate that with some hypothetical, objective external world.
Think about how bizarrely incongruous this relationship is. On the one hand, we agree that everything we experience is generated downward from the source at the causal/mental level; yet, on the other, we devalue our own direct, internal, personal connection to that source (and the creative power that implies) unless we can point to something that is hypothetically independent of mind (an objective, external world). What? Those are mutually incompatible perspectives. Either the reality we experience is causally created at the level of mind, OR there is an external objective reality that is independent of mind. You cannot have it both ways.
This makes the personal reality "delusion" every bit as real as any consensus "objective" reality because they are both generated from that which defines and creates any experience of reality - the causal, mental level. The ONLY difference would be that one may have more people in it than the other, or it may be more consensually experience-able than the other; but they would both be entirely real.
That would make the difference one of flavor, not substance. Consensus reality would be akin to retail vanilla ice cream; personal reality would be akin to homemade craft ice cream with any flavor you prefer, including an infinite variety not sold retail. That's not meant to be a condemnation of any sort of mass marketed ice cream; that's what a lot of people enjoy and prefer. But, to say my home-made hazelnut strawberry chocolate ice cream "isn't ice cream" is just absurd.
If we are eternal beings, concepts that depend upon the premise of limited time will likely produce erroneous ideas and conclusions. An example of this is the idea of substantive "growth" or "learning." The idea that we are on some kind of overall, substantive learning or growth trajectory is incongruous with the idea of us being eternal beings. Simply put, what are you going to learn that you haven't already had time to learn, considering your eternal past? All we can be doing, in an eternal framework, is changing how much experience we remember, how much knowledge we have conscious access to, for the purpose of ongoing experience. We can experience "growth" and "learning" and "new experiences" only in relationship to how much of our eternal nature we hide from ourselves.
If time is not truly linear in nature, the idea of an overall trajectory of growth is similarly undermined. Past and future become dimensional locations, just like a physical road with "future" and 'past" locations and potentials existing like cities on a map. "You" are already in every possible future location ... so what is it that you have to learn? It makes NO rational sense. It's literally nonsensical to see ourselves as in need of growth and learning when we must literally occupy every potential point that exists throughout time and space and dimensions because of this. Are our future selves not already there? Are we not connected to them and have instantaneous access to what they know and have experienced?
Now we get to the problem of the idea of the subjective/objective dichotomy. It's literally impossible to get outside of subjective experience; we hold that the causal source is mind/spirit; why then do we frame what we experience as the "objective, exterior world" AS IF that is the benchmark of what is real? If such an exterior world exists, we cannot experience it directly - it all comes through our subjective senses and mental/psychological interpretations and filters.
Yet, we hold the theory that such a world exists with such an intense commitment that nothing seems meaningful or of value without it. We have direct access to our own personal experience, and yet we devalue that as if it has no meaning or value unless we can correlate that with some hypothetical, objective external world.
Think about how bizarrely incongruous this relationship is. On the one hand, we agree that everything we experience is generated downward from the source at the causal/mental level; yet, on the other, we devalue our own direct, internal, personal connection to that source (and the creative power that implies) unless we can point to something that is hypothetically independent of mind (an objective, external world). What? Those are mutually incompatible perspectives. Either the reality we experience is causally created at the level of mind, OR there is an external objective reality that is independent of mind. You cannot have it both ways.
This makes the personal reality "delusion" every bit as real as any consensus "objective" reality because they are both generated from that which defines and creates any experience of reality - the causal, mental level. The ONLY difference would be that one may have more people in it than the other, or it may be more consensually experience-able than the other; but they would both be entirely real.
That would make the difference one of flavor, not substance. Consensus reality would be akin to retail vanilla ice cream; personal reality would be akin to homemade craft ice cream with any flavor you prefer, including an infinite variety not sold retail. That's not meant to be a condemnation of any sort of mass marketed ice cream; that's what a lot of people enjoy and prefer. But, to say my home-made hazelnut strawberry chocolate ice cream "isn't ice cream" is just absurd.
Comments
Post a Comment