(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) There are two main theories of the future – that of a predestined future and that of a free future. The theory of predestination asserts that every future event is the result of past events and if we know all the past then we could know all the future. The idea of a free future is based on quantum "probabilities". The future is either only partially determined or undetermined because of the varied interactions possible at any given point.
[Comment - There is no reason why the 'future' - which is an illusion - couldn't consist of both predestined and free components. For instance, in some bridge tournaments, the tables are pre-established with cards which have been dealt at the beginning of the tournament, and, then, different teams play those same hands according to their understanding of the game and the strategy chosen to try to make the most of what one is dealt.
Moreover, one might also conceive of a possibility in which the 'future' is already set, but we freely choose our way to what is already known by Divinity. Through, say, the quality of omniscience, God knows all that happens, but the Divine Knowledge of how everything will unfold need not interfere with a person's capacity to choose freely that which God knows we will choose.
In addition, until one knows more about why quantum phenomena are the way they are, or even what they are, and what, if anything, quantum phenomena, have to do with issues such as consciousness, choice, identity, intelligence, purpose, and meaning, then, one really is not in any position to say whether quantum phenomena are capable of underwriting some form of a 'free' future. Given that Nobel laureate Richard Feynman, one of the architects of modern quantum theory, once advised a graduate student who was agonizing over the ontological significance of quantum phenomena - 'Just do the calculations, no one knows what it means', can we really assume that quantum processes are at the heart of free will?'
Finally, one cannot assume, as Laura and company seem to, that free will is a function of "the varied interactions possible at any given point" within quantum phenomena. In other words, the mere fact there are degrees of freedom for how a given quantum transaction might take place, this does not necessarily entail the idea of free will.
Currently, we lack the understanding and methodological means which might enable us to penetrate to the heart of quantum phenomena. Consequently, at the present time, we do not know if "the varied interactions possible at any given point" is a reflection of dynamics which have a determinate complexity that is beyond our capacity to grasp or it is reflection of something which provides the space within which free will arises.
Moreover, one is making an assumption of the reductionist agenda when one supposes that free will is, ultimately, a quantum phenomenon. Conceivably, free will arises out of some non-material dimension of human potential which is capable of interacting with the physical/material realm but is not caused by the latter realm.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) This idea of "free will" says that quite deliberate volitional acts may bring about a subsequent change in events.
[Comment - Free will does not necessarily have anything to do with being able to change events. To be able to freely choose means that one has the capacity to make a certain kind of intention, but the steps which are necessary to translate that intention into activity on the physical/material plane is a function of factors which, for the most part, may fall beyond the horizons of free will.
There is nothing which requires that our intentions - which have been freely chosen - will be permitted to manifest themselves. As Robbie Burns once said: "The best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglay (often go astray)."
There may be obstacles preventing our intentions to be realized. Furthermore, it may be that even though we may have free choice, whether, or not, that freely chosen intention is going to be permitted to be manifested into material consequences may require Divine permission.
Free will does not mean one has the capacity to do whatever one likes. Free will means one has the capacity to choose one's intentions, and whether or not such intentions are ever translated into material world activity is another matter altogether.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Those who support predestination say that so-called "voluntary" actions are, in fact, not but are rather the results of incompletely understood causes which have made them imperative acts - in short, nothing is accidental.
[Comment - Free will is not necessarily a matter of voluntary actions but, possibly, of freely chosen intentions. Nevertheless, predestination need not be an expression of what we choose or intend but, rather, could be the result of what Divinity permits to happen in relation to those choices.
Free will is not an accident, and it is not random. Free will is unconstrained by any sort of determining force and is an expression of our capacity to freely intend how we would like to align ourselves with what is on-going.
It is an oxymoron to speak of free will being caused by something other than what it is. The very essence of free will is to be uncaused and indeterminate until a choice is made, and it is free will, and free will alone, which gives choice the character it has on any given occasion.
Many forces may compete with one another to induce a person's intention to move in one direction rather than another. But, the choice to move in one direction rather than another is freely made and not compelled by such inducements.
Learning, knowledge and awareness may all serve as inducements for choice to align itself with such understanding. Nonetheless, we do not always choose in accordance with what we know.
Divine knowledge of how one will choose does not cause that choice. Rather, Divine knowledge reflects such a choice 'before-the-fact' in the eternal Now.
Divine Purpose does not depend on the precise character of individual choice. However we may choose, that choice will serve the Divine Purpose.
Predestination marks the collective expression of a given set of interacting forces, including free will. These forces act in the Now, and their dynamic is expressed in the Now in the form of what is predestined.
The eternal Now is not a point. Its structural character is infinite across infinite dimensions such that what we understand 'now' to mean is not necessarily what God understands Now to be.]
(From the Cassiopaeans) A: The Wave is transport mode.
Q: (L) Is that transport mode for many beings?
A: Yes. Wave is "crowded."
Q: (L) Are you coming to invade us?
A: No, merge.
Q: (L) Are others coming with the intention of invading us?
A: Yes.
[Comment - Whatever the truth of what the Cassiopaeans are saying may be, the so-called wave may well be the ever-present Divine Himma or aspiration which manifests itself according to its Nature. And, yes, such a 'wave' would be very crowded - for it would contain the whole of Creation in the Now.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) The study of wave motion is a precise science and all waves follow the same fundamental rules, which are clearly demonstrable both practically and mathematically. One of these rules states that a wave takes its character from what is doing the waving. Also, waves go through exactly determined cycles, which have "phases" which can be known or estimated. Since this is the case, what we perceive as reality is nothing more than the myriad oscillations of the Primeval Waveform, or 7th density.
[Comment - One might take issue with the idea that all waves must follow the same fundamental rules such that, for example, something which, for lack of a better word, is referred to as a 'wave' by the Cassiopaeans but is spiritual or metaphysical in nature must, therefore, have such properties as frequency, energy, amplitude, and so on. Nevertheless, one can agree that whatever such a 'wave' is, it "takes its character from What is doing the waving."
Perhaps, the Divine Himma or Aspiration out of which Creation arose is a special kind of soliton - that is, a solitary, stable structure that, unlike physical/material waves, is not, Itself, a function of frequency, energy, amplitude, phases, or any of the other properties which characterize physical/material waves but which may give expression to all of these phenomena under certain circumstances that are determined by the nature of the Divine Soliton or Himma (Aspiration). This special form of soliton may have a unitary Nature that is non-cyclic in character - that is, it is what it is, and it does not repeat itself.
The dynamics of the Divine Names and Attributes which give manifested expression to this Soliton of Divine Himma or Aspiration are not a collection of wave forms. This Soliton is a Whole that is manifested as a Whole in the eternal now via the Names and Attributes which merely constitute various manifested forms of Divine Presence. There is no breaking up of this Soliton into sets of sub-waves when it encounters other such solitons (as is the case with physical/material solitons), for there is only one such Soliton in existence - that is, one Divine Himma or Aspiration.
This Soliton need not be a Primeval Waveform from7th density. The origin of this Soliton might transcend all density levels even as that Soliton makes all density levels possible and even as whatever is manifested through such levels of density gives multi-faceted expression to the immanent presence of Divinity as a function of that Soliton.
The Cassiopaeans have described what is coming as being a 'wave'. Conceivably, this term 'wave' - to whatever extent it gives expression to the Truth - constitutes a symbol rather than a material phenomenon.
It is also possible that the Cassiopaeans are interpreting what may be about to happen - assuming that it is about to happen - according to their own hermeneutical orientation to the Truth and, as such, the word 'wave' is the closest they can come in English to translate their understanding of what is about to transpire. And, once again, there is no necessity for their understanding of this 'wave' phenomenon to operate according to the rules of material/physical waves. This is an assumption which Laura and company are making which may not accurately reflect what the Cassiopaeans are trying to convey.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) We must perceive that man is an oscillation of the Absolute and, as such, has the potential of being augmented by other wave-form expressions of energy and thus expanding, so to speak, his own awareness.
[Comment - Nothing requires one to suppose that man is an oscillation of the Absolute. Man is a part of Creation and the Creation and the Creator are not necessarily the same, and, therefore, man may not be an oscillation of the Absolute - although humankind may be, in part, an oscillation of Creation.
There seems to be an element of pantheism in the perspective of Laura and company. However, Divinity may be something more than the set of interacting manifestations which are given expression across realms, worlds, levels and dimensions - that is, the Universe or Cosmos may given expression to Divine Purpose without encompassing what Divinity is.
In any event, pushing the physics of waves as being the appropriate vocabulary for describing and explaining the potentials of human existence with respect to the forthcoming 'Wave' may be a mistake. This analogy may lend more distortion to our understanding than offer heuristic value.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) If a mystical state can be defined as cognition under conditions of expanded consciousness, what may the results be? William James, in Varieties of Religious Experience gives a checklist:
1. Mystical states give knowledge, which nothing else can give.
2. Mystical states give knowledge of the real world with all its attributes.
3. The mystical states of men belonging to different ages and different peoples show astonishing similarity and at times complete identity.
4. The results of mystical experience are totally illogical from our ordinary point of view.
[Comment - Why should one suppose that mystical states are a function of cognition rather than some other internal, non-cognitive faculty? What does one mean by cognition? How does one differentiate the difference between authentic expanded consciousness and a false understanding of the significance of some given state or condition of consciousness?
As far as the checklist of William James is concerned, there also are a variety of problems:
If physics can give answers like nothing else can give, must one conclude that it constitutes a mystical discipline? What are the criteria for evaluating what constitutes being like 'nothing else'?
What does one mean by knowledge? What kind of knowledge is involved in mystical states? How does one know when one is contact with the 'real world with all its attributes'?
The errors of human kind also give expression to an amazing likeness across the ages. Consequently, how do we know that the similarities and likenesses being referred to aren't merely errors dressed up in mystical clothing?
Does the claim that mystical experiences seem totally illogical from the perspective of 'normal, waking consciousness' mean any sort of illogic may pass as mystical. If not, what are the parameters of 'acceptable' forms of illogic, and who gets to establish such standards or criteria?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) That is, "knowledge," by the Cassiopaean definition, is not false. Facts that later prove to be false, were never knowledge to begin with, even if they were erroneously counted as "knowledge."
[Comment - I fully agree with the idea that 'facts' which "later prove to be false, were never knowledge to begin with". However, several questions arise from this acknowledgment.
First, the jury is still out on what, if anything, constitutes knowledge in the above sense as far as the Cassiopaean communications are concerned. Secondly, there are many unanswered questions about which, if any, of the interpretations offered by Laura and company with respect to the 'facts' communicated by the Cassiopaeans, constitute knowledge in the foregoing sense? Thirdly, which, if any, of my 'Comments' concerning both of the above give expression to knowledge in the required sense? Fourthly, how does one go about answering the foregoing questions in a way that will lead to authentic, essential knowledge?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) There is no need to fear the absorption of false information when you are simply openly seeking to acquire knowledge.
This last remark is crucial: "when you are simply openly seeking to acquire knowledge." I know that everyone who is "seeking" thinks that they are "open," but if you carefully examine your thoughts, you will discover that you have a lot of "beliefs" and assumptions that you expect your "seeking" to confirm.
[Comment - Who and what determines whether one is truly openly and sincerely seeking to acquire knowledge? More importantly, why should one suppose that the mere act of "openly seeking to acquire knowledge" will protect an individual from absorbing false information? What are the dynamics of this process of immunizing oneself to false information?
Such a perspective seems rife with a lack of appreciation for just how vulnerable human beings are - even sincere, open ones - as a result of our ignorance and our essential need for assistance to help guide one to the Truth or to the beginnings of Truth. Moreover, the aforementioned perspective of Laura seems rather presumptuous for it appears to imply that a sincere individual will be able to detect every error, every false statement, every mistake in critical thinking - and, yet, there is no proof or demonstration given which might persuade one that the aforementioned claim is correct concerning the alleged way that being open immunizes one to accepting or absorbing false information.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) So, once you rise to a higher state of awareness, such things as physical limitation evaporate. And, when they evaporate, vast distances, as you perceive them, become nonexistent. So, just because you are unable to see and understand has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is or is not possible.
[Comment - How does one know when one has risen to a higher state of awareness rather than some counterfeit state of 'illumination'? Why should one accept the idea that when one rises to a higher state of awareness, "such things as physical limitation evaporate"? - just because the Cassiopaeans say this is so?
One might agree that merely because an individual is "unable to see and understand" such higher states of awareness that this fact, in an of itself "has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is or is not possible". One might also note that the fact one is not able to see and understand the nature of the Truth does not mean that one should accept the word of anyone who comes along and tries to say what is and is not possible.]
(From the Cassiopaeans) Q: (L) And who put the illusion into place?
A: The Creator who is also the Created. Which is also you and us and all. As we have told you, we are you and vice versa. And so is everything else.
Q: (L) Is the key that it is all illusion?
A: Basically, yes. As we have told you before, if you will be patient just a moment, the universe is merely a school. And, a school is there for all to learn. That is why everything exists. There is no other reason.
[Comment - Is the Creator really the Created? And, if so, in what sense is this so? Is there a difference between manifestation and that which makes manifestation possible, and, if so, what is the nature of this difference?
Is a pantheistic perspective being put forth by the Cassiopaeans? If so, why should one suppose that such a perspective accurately reflects the nature of Reality?
What about the idea that although human beings are, in essence, Divine, nonetheless, we are not Divinity in Essence? Isn't it possible that there is a difference between human essence and Divine Essence even as the latter makes the former possible?
Why should one accept the Cassiopaean claim that the Universe exists for the sole reason of learning? What independent evidence supports their claim? Is there no purpose in learning other than learning? Is all learning the same, or some forms of learning more essential than others, and, if so, what are these more essential forms of learning?
Isn't is possible that the Universe exists for something more than learning. For example, isn't it possible that one should apply what one learns or knows?
Isn't is possible that there are duties of care which are inherent in what learns - that every piece of knowledge entails one, or more, duties of care toward others, toward Creation, toward oneself, toward Divinity? If, so, then, what are these duties of care, and if such duties do exist, then, is there not some purpose in learning which is beyond the learning, in and of itself? Giving what is due to everything requires knowledge, but in having knowledge it does not necessarily follow that such knowledge will be used to do justice to Creation or Divinity.
Is Service to Others whatever one wishes to make it, or does Service to Others require that one not only become conversant with the Truth about what constitutes such service, but to live such knowledge as well? Is not Love the medium through which Knowledge is expressed in order to do Justice to both the Love and the Knowledge, as well as to Creation?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) When an individual understands that statement to its greatest possible depth, that individual becomes illumined. And, certainly you have heard of that. And, for one moment, which lasts for all eternity, that individual knows absolutely everything that there is to know.
[Comment - Why should one suppose the capacity to know is the same in everyone - especially in light of the fact that in every other aspect of life we are differentiated, one from the other, by differences in intelligence, creativity, talent, athletic abilities, beauty, character, success, property, and so on? Why shouldn't one suppose there are differences in spiritual capacity to know, understand and experience the Truth as well? Why should one suppose everyone has the capacity to know everything that can be known? Why should one suppose all conditions of becoming illumined lead to the same understanding, as opposed to a unique understanding based on spiritual capacity? Why should one suppose human beings are capable of matching the Knowledge of Divinity? There would seem to be a certain lack of humility in the idea that one can know "absolutely everything there is to know".]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Everything that exists, by the fact of existing, manifests something of the Divine Presence, which by definition embraces all that exists. Therefore, God can be found everywhere, in everything, and all knowledge is knowledge of God.
[Comment - What does it mean to say that an existing entity manifests something of the Divine Presence? Does this mean every existing thing contains the whole of Divinity, or does it mean that every existing thing gives expression to Divine Names and Attributes according to the capacity of that thing to manifest the Truth, and, therefore, while true, is not the whole of the Truth? Or, does it mean something else?
Is saying that Creation reflects Divinity like saying that a mirror reflects reality without being the same as the reality which it reflects? Does saying that all knowledge is knowledge of God mean that any instance of knowledge exhausts what can be known about Divinity?]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) There have always been those who claim to know or teach "philosophies of death" - that we die once and are either saved or damned, that we die and are reincarnated, or that we die and become nothing. In fact, it could be said that all religions are just ways of teaching about death!
[Comment - It also might be said that all mysticism are just ways of teaching about death - but not for the sake of heaven, or reward, or a better karmic state ... rather, for the sake of Truth. When we die to ourselves - our carnal souls, our egos, our nafs, our desires - we become a polished mirror capable of objectively reflecting the presence of Truth according to the capacity of one's essential nature to do so. When we die to our small-s self, we become free to give expression to our essential nature. When we die to our passions, desires, and agendas, we are in a position, God willing, to give to everything what is due to it according to our capacity to do so. When we die to our entanglements with the nafs of other people, then, we become a medium for the expression of whatever Names and Attributes God wishes to disclose through the locus of manifestation which constitutes our essence. When we die to the past and the future, we become capable of radiating knowledge and love through the actions which arise from our being in accordance with Divine Purposes, not human aspirations.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) Ouspensky writes:
"In reality love is a cosmic phenomenon, in which people... are merely accidental; a cosmic phenomenon as little concerned with either the lives or the souls of men as the sun is concerned in shining so that, by its light, men may go about their trivial affairs and use it for their own ends."
[Comment - Neither people nor the rest of Creation are necessarily accidental. Creation may have been brought forth in order for the infinite character of the Divine Treasure to be known in a loving way.
Furthermore, love is not necessarily a cosmic phenomenon which is "as little concerned with either the lives or souls of men as the sun is concerned in shining". Love might be the Gravitational force which binds the universe together through gluons of Knowledge, via the transactional dynamics of the Names and Attributes, so that Justice may be done to the Divine Himma or Aspiration.
As such, Love carries the intimate awareness of Divinity for each and every aspect of the Universe, because the Universe is intended to give expression to the infinite arrays of beauty and majesty emanating through the Divine Treasure which, out of Love and Compassion, is being shared with Creation and in which Creation is permitted to participate. Each facet of Creation participates according to capacity, and, in so doing, unveils yet another dimension of the Hidden Treasure which is to be known. Love is diffracted through the way that every facet of Creation sings the praises of the Beloved, knowingly or unknowingly, by its individual modes of manifested being.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) In the same way our individual lives are the manifestations of some great intelligence. Proof of this is found in the fact that our lives have no meaning whatever apart from the process of acquiring knowledge. And a thoughtful man ceases to feel painfully the absence of meaning in life only when he realizes this and begins to strive consciously in that direction which he was unconsciously following before.
Moreover, this acquisition of knowledge, which constitutes our function in the world,
[Comment - The acquisition of knowledge is not necessarily our function in the world. Our function may be to serve and give reflected and manifested expression to the Truth. Acquiring authentic knowledge is one of the conditions of such service, but, as such, knowledge is a means, not an end.
Our function in the world may be to be what we are, in essence, intended to be as an expression of the Divine Himma or Aspiration concerning the purpose of Creation. Although authentic knowledge may be necessary for coming to realize what the nature of that essence is, the purpose of that essence is not to acquire knowledge, per se, but to be able to freely shine forth as what it is, unencumbered by veils.
The meaning of our being is manifested through the ways in which we lovingly serve the Truth, in others and ourselves, and, in so doing, give to everything what is due to it according to the standards and criteria established by the Divine Himma. Knowledge is necessary for the proper observance of our duties of care to Creation and the Creator - for through knowledge one gains understanding of the character of Justice, but knowledge is, in itself, insufficient.
Our reason for being is to worship the Real through our essential identities and unique spiritual capacities - and, here, worship means to serve the Truth in all of its manifested aspects. Learning to serve requires knowledge, but servitude requires more than knowledge - it requires the free will offerings of our entire mode of being.
We do not stay alive for the purpose of eating, but, rather, we eat in order to stay alive so that existence may serve some larger purpose than either eating or existence. We do not exist for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, but, rather we acquire knowledge to serve the purpose of being which transcends both human knowledge and existence.
God loved to be known. It is not human aspiration which is being served through this knowledge, but the Divine Himma which 'loved' to be known, and, consequently, we serve that purpose to the extent that we love that which comes to be known as so many manifestations of the Hidden Treasure.
Knowledge is Food for Thought. When knowledge is properly digested, it is transformed into Love, and Love burns away all but Itself.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) So, let's state the hypothesis. The only reasonable hypothesis that I can state is that one which comes from the unknown system taught by Gurdjieff. This system tells us that the World has a certain purpose. It tells us that not everything works well. It tells us that there are certain "bugs" in the construction.
[Comment - There are no bugs in the construction of the Universe. The bugs exist in the hermeneutical operating systems which are devised to run the Universal Program - that is, the Divine Himma or Aspiration which underlies the bringing forth of Creation.
As an old computing adage says: garbage in, garbage out. All the garbage comes at the hands of a ego or nafs or small-s self who believes it knows what it is doing when it insists that the Universal Program be processed through the operating systems which it has created out the cloth of ignorance and self-absorption. What has to be de-bugged are the hermeneutical operating systems which are being designed which, in effect, veil the operating system which is already in place within our essential nature - and in the process of de-bugging things, one needs to fire the programmer.]
(From Laura Knight-Jadczyk) It is quite possible that using the meta-language one can prove that any program on that scale must have bugs. So, the Universe is a program, a program which has bugs, but which has the built-in capacity for self-improving.
There are, therefore, certain units that are brought to existence with this specific purpose: to self-evolve to a degree high enough to be able to find out the methods of debugging.
[Comment - It is not necessary to evolve to solve the de-bugging programs which beset us. All that is necessary is to let the operating system in our essential CPU do its job, as it was intended to do, with respect to processing the Universal Program (i.e., the Divine Himma or Purpose).
What we must learn how to do is get out of the way of what already is present and perfectly capable of fulfilling its assigned tasks. We can never sufficiently de-bug our imposed operating systems for them to be able to properly process the Universal Program, and, eventually, God willing, we may come to the realization that although knowledge about de-bugging techniques is very helpful, we really need to be assisted to learn how to let what is already essentially present - that is, the Self - shine through unencumbered.]
| Part One | Part Two | Food Menu |
|
