113. The third eye: Chapter 12 - How do we recognise reality?

 

In the following, we will attempt to explore the relationship between perception and experience, and dogma. As already mentioned, perception and experience always surpass written dogmatic, because writing, as an expression of perception and experience, can only be a precursor to these, but does not represent their full realization. After all, writing is always a follow-up to events. If in religion writing were to precede the event, it would be a utopia, a fiction, that is, science fiction. Even written prophecies are event-following, apart from the fact that they deal with prediction, i.e., events that have not yet occurred. Reality, the above and below, the outside and inside, can only be recognized in our lifetime, which also means that we must recognize the above here below, that is, we must gain knowledge of the existence here. 

Since both perception and experience—whether rational or intellectual—are individual and not collective (there is no collective soul because everyone's preparedness is different), the idea (whether religious or not) that in a community, or by a community, a person can draw closer to the One, is incorrect. Rational, reasonable thinking and dogma are needed for the formation of a visible community, such as the doctrines and artificial rules of the socialist and capitalist systems devised by the background powers. For true and worthy person to the One and Only dogmas are not enough, because they believe: where reason and rationality ends, there intellect begins. The community, the collective, does not have intellect, but rationality. The foundation of the existence of the collective is equality. In the realm of religion, such equality includes original sin and its cause, free salvation; in the military, the military doctrine. Is mind such a tool supporting rational thinking that aids our return to the One? 

Do we come closer to the One when we think rationally, in accordance with the laws of quantitative mathematics, or when we interpret according to our universal self? Does the body-mind have abilities that may exist without the intellect of the soul, but do they "work"? The power interests and manipulation always prioritize reason, because without cold, rational reason, there is no collectivity, equality, doctrine, or manipulable masses. Religious power, just as psychology does not value the intellect of the soul, the universal self, but only the manipulable individual self, upon whom they can declare guilt. 

But let us not forget that sin is a human-created concept, just like innocence. It should rather be about ignorance and consciousness, deviation and justification, because both are part of dual reality. Sin is not part of reality, but if we do not recognize the concept of sin, we do not know what a sinless reality is. We are in a similar situation if we do not recognize the state of being without grace, we will not appreciate grace. If we do not know what it is like to be in darkness, we will not appreciate the light. But we do not need to identify with concepts. We can free ourselves from both our individual self and sin if we have the lifelong will and courage to do so. In the liberation from sin, from the burdens caused by the individual self—as in the explanation of salvation, and in the other teachings of our Initiation Master—there is nothing extraordinary, because only after renouncing to our individual self do we reach our universal self, the fulfilment of complete life, where sin ceases to exist. 

Only when we close one door does the other open. Complex explanations, excessive and vague interpretations have always arisen and continue to arise from misunderstanding, ignorance, and literal interpretation. When dogma declares that God created the nature of the Earth as eternal, it should also be stated that eternity means circularity, where nothing has a beginning or an end, because everything can be interpreted as repeating, and pulsating processes. John's apocalypse must also be interpreted as necessity, as circularity, so there is no eschatology (end of the world). Note: in the Middle Ages, it was important to dogmatically declare the finiteness of the world, otherwise, there would have been a contradiction with the eternity of the world, or its circularity. Dogma divided the entire world into two parts, creating heaven (above) and hell (below). This justified earthly suffering and the heavenly reward for it. Suffering required the invented sin, and institutionalized forgiveness by power, because otherwise, there would be no suffering and no power. Similarly, the so-called modern science did the same when it divided the world into objective and subjective, giving priority to the objective (material). 

Closely related to perception (observation) and experience is hypothesis formulation and conclusion, where the first two modes of cognition, observation and hypothesis formation, exist freely until the conclusion (inference) is born and fits into some existing conception. The collision or proper validation is always provided by the conclusion. A camp of those who accept and those who oppose the conclusion is formed because there have always been those who clung to the established dogma, to the "usual," and those who dared to go against it. In the former group, there are always many, and in the latter, few. The more rational a conclusion is, the larger the supportive camp will be. A seeker does not rush to draw conclusions because their hypotheses remain free until then. In the three-step process, perception contains the most in terms of knowledge, hypothesis contains less, while conclusion contains even less, possibly just one. 

Using the tools of perception and experience, we establish the hypothesis that our habitat, Earth, is spherical (not a perfect sphere) because the sphere is the network of necessary relationships between components. To illustrate this, we take the "cube or polyhedron" closest to a sphere as an example, where the twelve-sided dodecahedron is closer to the sphere than the six-sided hexahedron, because the dodecahedron has more connections, more sides connected to each other than the hexahedron. The least connection, that is, one, exists when two sides meet or cross. The increase in the number of connections formed by the sides shapes the sphere. If we recall the chemical studies from high school, the two-three-four and covalent bonds between elements, such as in the depiction of methane or glucose, we understand the organization of these connections. The more connections there are, the more we turn from the world of inorganic materials to the world of organic materials.