Sunday, August 2, 2015
CGJ: This exploration of reincarnation is leading you to places that will either intimidate you – not just you, Frank, but any who read this – or enlighten and inspire you, or confuse and even depress you. So be advised in advance that such reactions are not each intrinsic to the material, or to the exploration, but to the combination of the individual mind that is reacting, and what it reacts to.
F: One size does not fit all.
CGJ: Certainly not. It can almost be said that in a practical sense, no one truth fits all. What is truth for one is oversimplification for another and is insufficiently rigid and sharp-edged for a third and is only provisionally true for a fourth.
Now, I am saying something a little different here than you may at first realize. It is not, exactly, that different minds are able to see only certain aspects of truth, although that is so as well. But in a real and practical sense – even in an abstract and theoretical sense – what is true will differ, depending upon what sort of mind is at the other end of the equation.
F: Truth is in the eye of the beholder?
CGJ: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there was a reason for the Greeks to equate beauty and truth. Truth is relative.
F: You’re going to get me into hot water here, I can see. (Not that I mind.)
CGJ: The point I wish to make is a subtle one, easily missed. Because it is easily missed, it can be the basis of an important mental realignment.
Finite minds can perceive only limited truth. Obvious, and so we understand subjectivity, and think, “ah, but the objective truth is out there, beyond our grasp.” That is so, abstractly, but in practice, the truth for one mind will differ from the truth for another, as the one side of an arithmetical equation will differ depending on the terms on the other side.
You understand what I am saying here? It is not a matter of one mind seeing only so much of the truth. In effect there is only one truth (or set of truths) that will match that mind. From the point of view of any limited mind – and whose mind is unlimited? – truth will show only the aspects that find receptors. Other aspects will not exist for that mind, and it is not a matter of open-mindedness (or lack of it) or education or experience, which is another word for education.
F: We each live in our own worlds, then.
CGJ: Go slowly with a new thought. Accepting or rejecting a new thought too soon will reduce its ability to affect you. Rather than accepting or rejecting, think about it, roll it about on the tongue, so to speak. Resist the impulse to associate it with accustomed thought, saying, “that is only x in new clothes.”
F: All right. Then, a better way to paraphrase?
CGJ: A better way is not to paraphrase, but to wrestle with the words and the idea as given, and see where your mind takes you.
F: So, we each live in a world whose truths are matched to our – to our what? Our total being? To the part of our total being we are aware of? To our – well, to what?
CGJ: Good. Think about it. Now, consider. If truth actually differs among people, how can you expect to convince anyone of anything, when what you experience as truth may not match their experience? I do not mean “opinion” here, quite, nor even experience in the sense of “that which has happened to me up to this point,” but, that which is or ever can be true.
An analogy would be religious missionaries. Omitting consideration of any but those motivated by the purest intent (as evidenced by their willingness to be martyred if need be), you see people whose truth impelled them to share what they had been given – they were giving a gift to the less fortunate – and yet you in your day cannot see it as they did, because you are different. Your times are different, currents of opinion are different, but this is not the decisive aspect of things, because in your times are still plenty of people whose being does have receptors for that truth.
F: But I can remember when I did too, as a boy in the Catholic church.
CGJ: Yes. Your truth (anyone’s) is not necessarily an unchanging set of opinions or tastes. It is the limit of what you can experience. You have experienced great alterations in belief – one might almost say alternations, in that your path has been uncertain and wavering in detail though less so in orientation – but all of that is included in your truth, by definition or you could not have experienced it. Others never believed in missionary work, and others continue to believe. The point is the analogy.
F: It still seems like perceived truth differing rather than truth differing.
CGJ: Another analogy, then. If each mind is a prism –
No, a better analogy. Each mind is at the separative end of a prism, and receives only blue, say, or green, or a blue-green range. That is its truth, and for it red is only theoretical. You might conceivably convince that soul that red can exist or even does exist – elsewhere – but you could not bring it to a practical, tangible experience of red as an input. You couldn’t; it does not exist for it.
F: I can hear the next bit already – “can’t, unless we move beyond the individual mind to the mind from which it was formed.”
CGJ: Yes, only don’t confuse that level with an idea of God. Now send this out and think about it as you can, and we will resume another time after your friends add their pieces to the puzzle.