No absolutes in ALL THIS
Walter’s cartoon world seems to contain immutable laws. Any continuity “across panels” invites his ego to claim that some THING exists…such as a law of nature. We know that Walter’s point of view is parochial. Just because the ball “always” had “fallen” downwards, he thought he had discovered an absolute that transcended the power of the author of the comic strip and was “eternally unchangeable.” Walter thought that the author of his world MUST always OBEY a rule. It is beyond Walter’s comprehension that the author might do anything differently in the next panel or even, horrors, “go back” and erase a previous panel’s contents. To Walter, history is inviolate, and he seems oblivious to the fact that if that were true it would limit the freedom of his cartoon world’s author to create. In this fashion, Walter was showing that he denied the omnipotence of the creator of his world. This is cartoon atheism.
Walter Ego declares the existence of gravity. Yet we, completely, WITHOUT EFFORT, standing “outside of his world,” understand that Walter’s gravity does not exist! Walter lives in a world without any actual forces whatsoever. Each panel springs an entirely new Walter at us. He is completely wrong about being a sentient entity or that continuity across panels verifies the substantiality of a law of nature.
So too, in our world, absolutes are illusions. There are no limitations on what the next panel of life might be OR on what life has been! Cherishing such assumptions limits your understanding of Universal Consciousness (ALL THIS, God, Nature, etc.,) and the true absolute witness from which Universal Consciousness springs. Clearly the very root of our attachment to qualities is our insistence that they are absolutely “there.” This is understandable. We ARE, after all, the absolute witness, and even a symbolic reminder of our true status is compellingly attractive. It is a form of “cosmic narcissism.”
In actuality, there is only NOW, and thus the very basis of causality is bogus when continuity is exposed as a trick of memory. There are no laws of nature. If we examine the “now” in Walter’s world-one single panel-we see no laws, because there is no action across panels (time passing) in which to establish continuity. The past does not exist in any linear fashion. Our walter-lives are not a long chain of events caused by events caused by events, etc. Any insistence that there is causality immediately denies the omnipotent potentiality of the truly absolute witness.
So, if we lock ourselves into insisting that any statement, any experience, any THING is separate, immutable, true, and/or “merely a part” of ALL THIS, we create a mindset that absolute reality lies “out there” beyond ourselves. And, devastatingly, we conclude that should we want to discover our eternal, immortal self then it should be sought for “there.” While all along, here is where we are.
Thus we find that the ego insists that continuity (its own basis for believing itself to be real) is an essential part of the proof of any other thing’s reality. The witness fails this test. It is beyond time. It is the now. It has no history. It does nothing. Hence, the ego scoffs and insists that only the ego is the real experiencer of the individual’s life since it can “recall” the past. The ego cannot believe the witness is real-the witness is an illusion to it!
Ask yourself,What possible benefit could there be to thinking everything is untrue? Where would the meaning of life be then? Isn’t this just like Walter’s author trying to convince him of his true status?
How can I ever possibly believe that there is no such thing as a “past that absolutely happened?”
And what about GOD? How could I EVER think that God must have absolute freedom from all the qualities that I have been taught that God has? How can I possibly go against all that I have been taught and believed all my life? How can I add this concept to my “God concepts” collection without creating a mind numbing paradox?
1. Does one plus one equal two? 2. Is a straight line straight? 3. How do I answer these three questions?
If my mirror’s image talked back to me, what would be so wrong with that?