Dashboard | Log in | Sign Up | FAQ
18_thumb

Page 6

By then (“y”) it is virtually pure knowing, pure information [and firing it back at/to me]. It had died for the last time and no invades from “the other side” (upper realm) as well as from the future.

This fits in with the “paranormal crisis discloses paranormal powers” and the hiding of these powers overruled by the life threatening situation: this clearly states that I possess the powers. “I know, too” –i.e. am one of them.

I arranged for my own 2-74 disinhibiting.

It’s not him come back from the other side but me; and once I was an Essene. But it is indeed from the other side, no longer humanoid, and it’s in me now: I am right now it. “We shall see him as he really is and we shall be like him”—not him like us. This is a little different from saying, “It’s ourselves in the future”; this says Zebra is specifically me. ---

Fat’s obsessive idea these days, as he worried more and more about Sherri, was that the savior would soon be in the world, he walked or would soon walk the Earth, once

_____ see MS

19_thumb

Page 7

In 3-74 that which was in me was that which was outside me. {1} This is not the Holy Spirit; the only theology which describes this is the Eckehart-Sankara Atman-Brahman or Spark-Godhead - the division between me as microcosm (inner) and the macrocosm (outer) was abolished. This is not "theolepsy" - this is the Eckehart-Sankara concept of Moksa. God born in the person and the Godhead outside. Only my ignorance of theology has prevented me from realizing that only the Eckehart-Sankara concept can explain this experience.

{1} and that which was outside me was not localized (i.e. a part of reality but was the totality, viz.: cf. Xenophanes).

I have confused "theolepsy" with this inner-outer identity (unity) of the divine. Its holiness was indubitable.

Via the Eckehart-Sankara route can I see how my experience could be xtian and Brahmansitic. As I correctly explained it in "Valis" what "Zebra" invades (in theophany) is maya - inner and outer maya.

20_thumb

Page 8

And I entered the "timeless total present" which Eckehart describes as the way God experiences time: all is now.

It's interesting that my coming across this Eckehart-Sankara explanation was held back until after I finished "Valis" - in which (without being able to identify what happened) I depict this Moksa.

The fact that in the writing of "Valis" I suddenly picked "The Friends of God" - which is correct - shows divine inspiration for the book for sure.

Although this (my experience) is above any given religious system (as Sankara) pointed out, my acosmism (maya) points to Sankara - for me, a Sankaran xtianity, which may be the real explanation: a melding of xtianity and Sankarism.

But my contribution is seeing the rational (Christ or God) breaking through into the irrational [1] in terms of this acosmic pantheism.

[1] and overpowering it - Spinoza to the contrary.

Thus I say, "There is only one rational reality: God inside us/outside: all else is irrational."

21_thumb

Page 9

This resembles "Timaeus." Thus I state, as I do in "Valis," an irrational (and irreal) cosmos, into which God (the rational) breaks. This isn't ordinary pantheism or the usual concept of immanent deity.

The only way we could see that our universe - and us - are irrational is when God the rational bursts in and we have something rational to compare the irrational with. This is my contribution to Gnosticism, Eckehart, etc.

And I express this original - with me, from me - cosmological/theological idea fully in "Valis"! I've gotten away from the mere acosmism I express in earlier novels, to something worse. But I am right! I had the rational to compare it with. So "Valis" carries the idea of "Scanner" (occlusion from man to the universe). If the universe were rational, God (Zebra) would not have to invade it.

The clearest way the universe reveals its irrationality is that it continually contradicts itself. The irrational thus becomes the interior bulk, data including info [1] within it. [1] true _____see MS