I feel that in the past two years that I have graduated to a more advanced level of metaphysical and consciousness studies.
Until recently, my beliefs have been shaped by philosophies encountered within the writings of Richard Bach, Jane Roberts, Robert Monroe, and several other authors whose books describe a universe based on reincarnation and karma.
As of late, I've been investigating the idea of Subjective Reality -- a philosophy much touted on this very site, I've found -- and I must say that I am definitely becoming a strong advocate of this emerging theory of existence.
My newfound interest in this theory has led me to three authors previously unknown to me: David Hawkins, Neale Donald Walsh, and Gary Renard (The Disappearance of the Universe).
I've read all three CWG books, and Renard's first book mentioned above, and am now engrossed in all six volumes of Hawkins' manifesto. Most interesting to me is the apparent dichotomy between Renard's take on SR versus Walsh's. And this is an extremely important distinction between the two.
The Disappearance of the Universe is actually a primer of sorts on ACIM (A Course In Miracles), a work I have heard about, but never read, though I intend to. According to Renard -- and ACIM -- the physical Universe that we inhabit is completely illusory, and in fact, a false construct of the ego, which was created when the "Christ Mind" created by God had a separate thought for just a nanosecond of what it might be like to exist within a dualistic universe as opposed to its present existence within the Oneness of God.
Renard explains that this thought of the Christ Mind (aka Son of God) led to additional ideas on duality, and out of this, a new consciousness was created (the ego) which quickly forgot who it really was and, reacting from fear of God's wrath for separating from Him, (a false illusion of the ego as no such separation is possible), created duality in the form of the physical universe within which the ego could, supposedly, hide from God's anger.
Allegedly, we (this ego consciousness), cannot return to God until we realize our "mistake" and awaken to our true Reality of Oneness with God. Renard goes on to say and to specifically point out that God did not create the physical Universe because said Universe is imperfect, and it is not possible for God to create anything that is not perfect. Therefore, the Universe must be an illusion, and also a mistake, created by this false entity that believes it has reality -- the ego. This philosophy claims that all of human existence -- in fact, all of duality itself, is nothing more than a "nightmare," from which we must awaken, and when we do, all of this will be forgotten as if it never happened.
In Conversations With God, quite the opposite theory is given, at least as far as the purpose of the physical Universe. According to Walsh's "God," human consciousness has much purpose indeed. In fact, it has the ultimate purpose, which is to make it possible for God to experience Himself as God by experiencing infinite ways of being not God. And that through choosing to continuously remake ourselves into higher and higher versions of who we believe ourselves to be, we are able to experience what it is like to become God.
Of course, both of these philosophies fall under the umbrella of subjective reality, and both purport that All Things Are One and that Duality is illusory. Personally, I have a problem accepting that this Universe we find ourselves inhabiting -- illusory or not -- is little more than a mistaken nano-thought of an "extension" of the Mind of God, and that nothing that has happened in all the experience of all who have ever lived is worth retaining in God's Infinite Memory. For all of the dark and negative experiences we continually face, there is just as much light and beauty here within this illusion of duality, and I believe it must have the Greatest Purpose indeed.
I therefore have to ally my heart -- for now -- with the philosophy within CWG. It does give great purpose and logic to even the illusion of duality. As to the question of whether or not Walsh is actually speaking to God...
Well, if one believes that Existence is, at its core, dualistic in nature, then it's understandable to be skeptical of such a claim.
However, when one believes, as I now do, that the true nature of Existence is Oneness at its core, then the question as to whom Walsh is speaking is academic. Of course he's speaking to God because he is God. We are all God. That is the basic tenet of SR! If you truly are a disciple of SR and question this claim, you are then doubting your own belief system.
I am God myself, writing this post. You are yet another perspective of God reading it. Yet even Walsh himself often doubts the source of the material he writes because he, like all of us, is immersed within this dualistic Universe that constantly tells his physical senses that he is separate from every other thing he perceives. That's okay because it's designed that way by the Creator for a perfect purpose.
Anway, if you haven't read CWG, and you believe in SR, or are interested in the concept, run don't walk to your nearest bookstore and read all three books immediately. Within its pages you will find the God you always wanted to believe in. It's just an observation.
JA  |