2007-01-08 19:09:41 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Not bad at all.
2007-01-08 19:14:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I disagree. the book is a bit dualistic in the sense that it negates individuality since the person reasoning it can't harmonize it with Oneness. There is no evaporation of self into the whole, self is an aspect of the whole, and holographic expression. Such people can't seem to understand that life is holographic and although we abide within the "whole" we are "wholes" unto ourselves that must reach our own individual completion. Which is why the many mystics of old said and encouraged man to "know thy self". Our inner source of being is our higher self, being of light, this individuality is not negated.
To know the "whole" you must know thy self, not negate thy self. The being of light, buddha nature, and etc is never negated, most don't understand how complicated soul reality is and what was displayed by mystics. What we are in this world, according to the Gnostics and etc are images/expressions of our higher selves. Lesser selves by which we abide within the mind of our higher selves and are very much so like seed essences of it, like a word pasted down from teacher to student, or like breath cycles or the inhale/exhale. From my own experiences and through my own mystical intellect and gnosis, and the gnostics and otherwise, I thing that book is far out of reality. People should not be trying to lose self but develop their selves through their relationships and experiences. Not to true to negate self which is mentally damaging, but seek to understand self and our RELATIONSHIP with other things and what our minds are reflecting back at us in allegoric form through the senses. experience self.
2007-01-09 03:28:12 · answer #2 · answered by Automaton 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's new age propaganda. According to him we can't know right from wrong. Truth is relative, morality is relative, there are no absolutes, there is no God. The god that he is conversing with is the one that he created within his own reasoning.
2007-01-09 03:34:53 · answer #3 · answered by hisgloryisgreat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never read them. They sound interesting, though.
2007-01-09 03:13:52 · answer #4 · answered by liv 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You cannot believe everything you read. I thought I was rubbish.
2007-01-09 03:16:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋