02-05-2008, 04:26 AM
You're welcome, all who have thanked me.
It's funny we didn't find this sooner.
Makes me wonder what else is out there waiting for our attention to make it available.
As to value and truthfulness, I feel the same as with CC's books - not interested in if they describe actual events as much as I am interested in if the knowledge is useful and practical. This book enlightens some of CC's teachings for me. I find it hard to believe it isn't true. If not, the author, whoever it may be, certainly found a very similar AP position in order to expound on the points so profoundly. Obviously the book isn't a "waste of time". Did you read it, Darakan? Are you really going to say none of it is useful? That would go against the obvious for anyone. At a minimum, the book is like getting to discuss the points of CC's teachings with another warrior who has put some serious time and thought into them, not unlike what we do here. Speaking that way makes your credibility less than the author's, IMO, Darakan. You're not as objective/impersonal as whoever wrote the book.
As to the initial post about the AP of the earth, I'll have to read it again to get more context. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to me either. I'd think that moving the earth to the AP of reason would be a few steps backward. I wouldn't want the earth to be "permanent" or "fixated" any more than I want myself to be.
We have to understand the definition intended for reason. If it's not given in the context, we'll have to agree on one. I remember in CC's books that for a long time he didn't understand what DJ meant by reason, then finally he saw he meant the tonal. If this is the meaning, I can certainly relate to the earth having a tonal, and I can relate to us, as custodians of the earth, grooming this tonal. But the quote you provided is too vague IMO to know why reason would make people aware when we're already at the point of reason, nor is it clear what will be different that we can turn to at any time in a natural way... how is that different from now?
I'll read the chapter again and come back if I see it any differently.
The word reason is difficult - I'd generally define it as using our mind, and therefore the past knowledge/inventory stored there, which will necessarily corrupt the present moment. If I could define it myself, the most reasonable thing to do would be to see - seeing is reasonable; reasoning isn't. B)
It's funny we didn't find this sooner.
Makes me wonder what else is out there waiting for our attention to make it available.
As to value and truthfulness, I feel the same as with CC's books - not interested in if they describe actual events as much as I am interested in if the knowledge is useful and practical. This book enlightens some of CC's teachings for me. I find it hard to believe it isn't true. If not, the author, whoever it may be, certainly found a very similar AP position in order to expound on the points so profoundly. Obviously the book isn't a "waste of time". Did you read it, Darakan? Are you really going to say none of it is useful? That would go against the obvious for anyone. At a minimum, the book is like getting to discuss the points of CC's teachings with another warrior who has put some serious time and thought into them, not unlike what we do here. Speaking that way makes your credibility less than the author's, IMO, Darakan. You're not as objective/impersonal as whoever wrote the book.
As to the initial post about the AP of the earth, I'll have to read it again to get more context. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to me either. I'd think that moving the earth to the AP of reason would be a few steps backward. I wouldn't want the earth to be "permanent" or "fixated" any more than I want myself to be.
We have to understand the definition intended for reason. If it's not given in the context, we'll have to agree on one. I remember in CC's books that for a long time he didn't understand what DJ meant by reason, then finally he saw he meant the tonal. If this is the meaning, I can certainly relate to the earth having a tonal, and I can relate to us, as custodians of the earth, grooming this tonal. But the quote you provided is too vague IMO to know why reason would make people aware when we're already at the point of reason, nor is it clear what will be different that we can turn to at any time in a natural way... how is that different from now?
I'll read the chapter again and come back if I see it any differently.
The word reason is difficult - I'd generally define it as using our mind, and therefore the past knowledge/inventory stored there, which will necessarily corrupt the present moment. If I could define it myself, the most reasonable thing to do would be to see - seeing is reasonable; reasoning isn't. B)