Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00025)

Jerry S. wrote:

>Tom:

>>Although I find your theory about the agreements that
>>people have about what they consider to be "reality" being explainable
>>in terms of overlapping of perception to be conceivable, I find it far
>>more plausible to believe that this agreement can be accounted for by
>>postulating a reality that exists independently of perception.

>	This is certainly the prevailing view, and the one Occam's Razor
>would suggest.  It is also the one that I held most of my life.  However,
>when you start to visit other planes and states of consciousness, you
>soon realize that this view is limited and doesn't hold up.  It cannot
>account for the experiences that I have had on the inner planes.  So,
>in an attempt to explain these experiences, I have had to adopt the
>old teaching of a person being a circle with a nowhere center and an
>everywhere circumference.  The I-Not-I Monad Model of reality, that I
>developed in Enochian Physics, allows me to account for my
>experiences in a way that the prevailing One-Universe Model does not.

>From what I can gather about clairvoyance, it follows the same rules
as physical observation.  There is an objective reality which is
perceived.  Seeing anger in someone's aura is different from imagining
seeing anger in someone's aura in that one is objectively true and the
other is objectively false.  Or are you saying that you believe that
imagination and reality are identical in non-physical perception?

------------------------------