I am honored that you are asking me these questions, Herb. I do hope that we will have conversational communications. I’d like to know how you see these important questions yourself.
- That question is simple to answer: I was disappointed.
Here is the setup: a friend of mine showed me a toy from the US, a metal disk and put it in my hands. I looked at it but was not impressed. When he spun the disk, however, two circles appeared reflecting light from a lamp nearby. My friend challenged me a bit, saying I had not realized how that simple metal disk could show two circular light reflections until he spun it.
Later I kept thinking about it and came to the conclusion that the two circles were still 2D even though they appeared to be 3D for sure. I could show that anything that was 2D was indeed 2D by putting a pencil on it, for instance, holding a pencil on a drawing. The drawing would remain flat, and the pencil would stick out into the room and declare the paper flat indeed.
Then I did that same pencil exercise in my head with the reality I found myself in (at that point, meditating in bed). I was capable of placing an imaginary pencil on top of my actual reality. I discovered a structure in which I could declare that our 3D reality was really 2D, somehow imaginary.
The trick was to declare this the 4th dimension and that the fourth dimension stated that the third dimension was not real. It was a trick indeed, because it required to accept 3D first before the third dimension could be denied by the fourth dimension.
I guess you understand that this is not fully logical, but it helped me investigate the third dimension. I noticed something was off because dimensions are not static, so when I had three of them, they should be able to move, right?
For the up and down dimension, I let it spin (like the disk had spun) and up became front, then down, then back and up again, a circle therefore. The second dimensions went from front to side to back to other side and front again.
Basically by spinning two dimensions, all bases were covered. I did not need the third dimension.
I played with this idea for a couple of weeks and I was quite excited. Then, one day, all fell into place because all I had done was duplicating other people’s work. When I looked at scientific and philosophical history, so many before me had already shown how everything fit together, and I was disappointed that I had been excited about this ‘new’ perspective on reality, while so many before me had done much the same already. Gödel, Einstein and Bohr, but also Picasso, film makers and artists had been telling the same story for quite some time already how we can trick ourselves into thinking something real and exciting, but in reality quite ordinary.
So, I was disappointed. I thought I had something extra-ordinary, but it was basically a rehash of what others had been doing and reality was back to normal again. Twenty going on twenty-one I had to accept that I wasn’t unique after all.
2. You really have good questions, Herb. If we start out with a prior state in which pure energy existed already, and all that is required is the creation of Heaven’s Gate to have (some of) that pure energy be transformed into matter, then we can ask more questions about what that pure energy was than we can answer.
I actually mean: We shouldn’t be asking questions about what the pure energy was, because they will not be smart questions. The reason it was transformed was through the application of a fundamental nothing that had not existed prior at that level. So, basically when we ask what God is then we are looking in the mirror and are saying “Who are you?” That is not a sensible question. A sensible question to ask would be instead “Who am I?” (“Who are we?”)
And that is where the real fun begins because we have started up a conversation with ourselves and who we are in light of the larger picture. We can call the collective God, and we can even state that the collective of God is mostly on the other side of creation, but we cannot place ourselves in a lower position than God because then we create a fallacy in the order of things.
With Heaven’s Gate, we have an order in which Heaven’s Gate is the highest (but empty) location. God must therefore be placed at a similar level as where we find ourselves — except on the other side of the curtain. It is unimportant if that level is exactly at the same height or not. Important is that it is not straight above us. The message is that we must empower ourselves.
I hope you realize that as soon as we remove the absolute position of God above us, that we end up with a political situation. Some folks represent God this way, other folks represent God that way, and it is up to us to understand that we cannot be other than diverse in our expression of God on this side. There is no unity for all. That’s a fallacy.
Whether there is a unified reality on the other side? I actually and strongly doubt it, even though one can envision that unity is greater among those that are placed in opposition of the mightiest power in the universe: matter. I purposefully call it power because within matter we experience a reality that is stronger than any other reality, like the sun blocking our view on the stars in the daytime sky. It overpowers anything else. We have but one reality in this realm of matter. The other side can be considered fully unimportant (but it is fine to acknowledge it).
Investigate matter, however, and then we have immediately many diverse outcomes. No overall outcome — based on diversity — can be without conflict. But it helps if individuals know that conflict is partially caused by ourselves, even when we may claim innocent positions. We are not guilty because that requires active decision making, but we are involved without escape in the non-uniform world we call Earth.
Why did God create Heaven’s Gate?
That is the deeper question. If we live in Universe 2.0 and derived from Universe 1.0, where did Universe 1.0 come from?
If we follow the Big Whisper setup, then a collective approach was taken to establish an inward motion. That may have occurred by itself (we do not need consciousness, just pure energy in the prior state can already do the trick). But if this was a conscious setup, then this points to dissatisfaction, to a desire, to needing to do something to get out of Universe 1.0.
Basically, it gets murky really quickly, Herb, but if there was a reason for Universe 1.0 to unify inwardly, then it is very reasonable to consider Universe 1.0 not the first universe either. Then, Universe 1.0 is a result from a prior setup. Energy in Universe desired to end up in a unified state (which we can conclude from the inward motion in that setup), and then all hell broke lose.
So, that is where we must draw the line. We can fantasize about the deeper reasons why God had to create Heaven’s Gate, but the more logical explanation is that it was a fatal mistake. The desire was to become One (as perhaps true in the very beginning, but more likely as ideal that never was) and instead we now exist in two realms, the material and the non-material realm. God in the prior state never was united either, and we ended up with Heaven’s Gate that does unite all realms.
3. Fantastic question again. Short answer: Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
There are two positions for any religion:
- We believe there is goodness inside everyone.
- We believe not everyone has goodness inside them.
Many people use Hitler as the example to show that the first option cannot be true, while in reality the answer is that Hitler supports the second belief and can still have goodness inside himself. His problem (and our problem therefore) is that he believed in the goodness of only a select group and not in the goodness of all people.
Is he therefore the personification of evil? He is when we place him in front of all the results of WW II. But I can add a long list of people in front of the results of WW II, call them evil, knowing that a good number of them don’t speak a word of German. All these folks do not see themselves as evil, but rather as people that had to do something necessary because the others were evil. The UK dominating (hogging) the world for three centuries, for instance, helped put Hitler in the saddle. For Hitler, foreign powers steered his power. The UK was a selfish nation of course during those three centuries, not out there to help the world become a better place.
I tend to not use the word evil (but I have no problem using it) because I believe in the goodness of people plus in the ability of people to have just one eye open and not see all very well in the same light. Anyone pointing one finger automatically has one eye closed.
A Supreme Intelligence is what we should be striving for. As people, we owe it to ourselves to remove the Cyclopes out of our governments, out of our societies and only have two eyes open that deliver us depth.
Allow me to take this to the political field because anytime we have a system in place that mimics the position of God above and people below, we are forcing folks to give up on their own personal powers. The Egyptian pyramid has a point in top, but the Mexican pyramid is actually the one we should desire: we need a platform on top where the various forces of society can help establish the decisions that are best (and good) for all.
Lastly, if I take Jesus as an example, then we can become followers in two distinct manners. Either we follow Jesus in a specific community in which we are then followers, or we stand on our own two feet, following the example without becoming a follower of anyone. Jesus did not follow. We either do the same, or we just subjected ourselves to someone else. Anytime, any person takes in a lower position than that of an equal, then that power flows from that person to the other.
We must meet at the highest level. Any level lower, and inequality will warp the outcomes. The good news is that we only need to be ourselves at that highest level.
Wow, Herb, apologies for giving you all this information and not getting any space to yourself for stating your own positions and belief systems. I respect all, and I hope you will do me the honor to share your reactions with me and additional positions and perspectives.
Fred-Rick.
