A guide to understanding spiritual phenomena
through rational explanations and personal psychic experience
In this chapter the objective is to compare what we know about metaphysical phenomena
to what we have been lead to believe by science, religion and our own common sense. Since
phenomena like telepathy, which you have hopefully experienced by now, are a reality, then
popular concepts regarding the nature of existence are in some respects in error. If our
consciousness is solely a result of brain function then we should be forever locked inside
the confines of our heads, yet phenomena such as remote viewing and out of body experience
disprove that idea. If time is a linear series of consecutive moments, as it normally
appears to be, then déjà vu and precognition would be unlikely to occur, yet they do.
Religion tells us that after death we live in another world called heaven, yet there would
be no place for heaven to exist if the physical universe occupies all the space there is.
If reality operates differently than we have been lead to believe, then perhaps we can
learn more about it by carefully analyzing the fundamental concepts we have taken for
granted up till now. What is the true nature of time, space and matter?
The Theory of No Physical Physical Universe
Interpretations of the truth, as far as science is concerned, change as new evidence is acquired. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity "disproved" Newton's description of a mechanical universe, yet Newton's laws still apply within the context of objects moving at velocities significantly slower than the speed of light. Any new description of the universe we might come up with to explain metaphysical phenomena will likewise go beyond current scientific reasoning, but at the same time what is known to be true will remain true, within the context where such truths are observable.
Both Einstein and Newton describe the same reality, but from different perspectives. One (simplified) way of looking at this is that Newton deals with effects that are observable from a stationary position, whereas relativity looks at effects involving velocities near the speed of light. Reality doesn't change, but when it is looked at from a different point of view, that same reality appears to behave differently.
Consider a very simple observation anyone can make. If you go outside and watch the sky, it is obvious that the Earth is in the center of the universe with the Sun, Moon, stars and planets all revolving around the Earth once per day. That is an easily verifiable observation. It is also completely inaccurate. If we change our perspective, so that we can imagine the motion of the planets from a point of view a few million miles from the Sun, we then see that the Sun is the center around which the planets revolve.
Observable evidence is relative to the point of view of the observer. The truth, on the other hand, remains the same regardless of perspective. When we go outside and watch the sky with the new information in mind, our observations are not in conflict. It still appears that the planets circle the Earth, but we are able to recognize that this same observation would also be apparent if the Earth were spinning at one revolution per day. Physical science operates on some basic premises which might turn out to be as "incorrect" as the idea that the Sun circles the Earth. The most basic of these is that physical matter occupies both time and space. From our point of view as physical creatures, the reality of time and space seems very obvious.
In order for the above to be true, we must first assume that time exists, one moment following another, the past leading to the unknown future. In the same way, we must assume that space exists, a physical area containing dimensions of height, width and depth. We must also assume that objects are made of matter, the matter being reduced to pure energy from the point of view of sub-atomic particle physics, but from the perspective of our physical bodies, matter is real and solid and occupies physical space.
What we have just listed is not a series of facts, but of assumptions. We can refer to this point of view where everything seems solid as the "physical" world. It's the same sort of perspective we encounter when we observe the Sun circling the Earth.
Please consider the event I described where my friend suddenly went bananas because he was sure he was experiencing déjà vu (the situation where several of us had changed seating arrangements in my car). Later it was me weirding-out believing it had all happened before. In my experience, a similar event had indeed occurred. But how do you explain my friend's reaction on that first occasion? This is rather clear evidence that from some other perspective, time is not a series of moments leading from past to future.
Consider the concept of reincarnation, which more people in this world believe in than those who do not. Science doesn't believe or disbelieve, because when it comes to anything they can't neatly explain, science simply avoids asking the question. Reincarnation could still exist if time were a series of consecutive moments, but how do you explain a person alive now describing events that happened hundreds of years ago when there is no possibility of the information being transmitted genetically?
On a more personal level, many of you using the Psychic Window Technique (visual telepathy exercise) will see images of other people superimposed over the face of the person you are looking at. While it is true that some of the images seen while using the technique are simply hallucinatory, many of those images are very clearly human. They not only look like real people, but while observing these images you experience the "presence" of these individuals. It is as if you are actually looking at someone other than who you are doing the exercise with.
Seth once made an interesting comment while speaking through the body of Jane Roberts. He said that when he communicated with someone in her presence he saw all of that person's incarnated selves and probable selves at the same time, and had to remember which of those personalities he was addressing. (The concept of probable selves will be explained in a moment.) During the experience of using the Psychic Window Technique this same sort of perception can occur, where several different facial images fade in and out of focus. Seth also insists that all time is simultaneous, that everything takes place in what he calls the "spacious present." Evidence clearly exists, then, that from a different perspective than our normal one, time may not be a linear phenomenon.
Time is in many ways a difficult concept to grasp. At one moment your thumb is against the page, in another it is held off the page. What is the "thing" we call time that separates these two conditions?
I can't tell you, because I have no clue. What I can do is demonstrate how time, space and matter may not exist in the way we think they do.
My first memorable exposure to an abstract, mathematical concept was in an eighth-grade math class when I was introduced to the idea of a mathematical point: a place in space that is infinitely small, such as the point where two invisible lines cross. That point exists, but because it is infinitely small it can always be reduced to half of any supposed size assigned to it, again and again, forever.
How big is the center of a dime? One-hundredth of an inch? One millionth? Even if you were to say it is a billion times smaller than one-billionth of an inch, you could always cut any dimension you specify in half, an infinite number of times. A mathematical point is infinitely small. I have always found this to be a very interesting idea, that something can exist, such as the center of a coin, but be so small it can never be located.
What happens if we apply the idea of "infinitely small" to the concept of time? How long does the present moment exist before the next moment occurs? How long is now?
We could say that now exists for a millionth of a second, or half that long, or half that long again, over and over forever. "Now" is an infinitely short duration of time.
Imagine ten separate moments of now. If we line them up in a series to create a length of time that is ten times longer than one present moment, how much time actually passes? The answer is that when you add up two or more infinitely short periods of time, the total time that passes remains infinitely short in duration. All the present moments which have ever occurred add up to a total passage of time equal to one present moment.
Evidence for this being the way things are is demonstrated in the fact that we never leave "now."
Move your thumb up, then move your thumb down. What is that "thing" which separates the two conditions? That "thing" is called time, but it all happens at once. It all happens now.
Time is not a "thing" but an abstract concept. It is a way of organizing perception. Another interesting observation about time and our perception involves gaps between the present moment and our perception of that moment. This delayed perception is clearly obvious when astronomers look at stars many light years away. If a star is 100 light years from the Earth, the light entering the telescope left the star 100 years earlier. It is quite possible that the star may have exploded and disappeared during those 100 years. The astronomers are not actually looking at the star then, but simply perceiving an image. It is very important to understand that what they perceive may in fact not actually exist in the moment it is being perceived.
On a smaller scale the same thing applies to your perception of this page. The page exists in the present moment, but it takes light about 0.5 nanoseconds (one-half of one-billionth of a second) to travel from the page to your eye. After striking the rods and cones in your eye the information must pass along the optic nerves to your brain, and then those signals must be translated into an image your conscious awareness can perceive. Since the present moment is infinitely short in duration, by the time we perceive anything we are no longer in the same present moment. Our physical senses never provide us with a picture of what is actually happening now, but are always presenting us with the past, much like astronomers are not looking at the present existence of a star but at the way the star once appeared.
It seems that the past can be proven to exist, since it is obvious that things change from a previous (past) condition. We can move our thumb and remember that it was in a different position before we moved it. But we can not prove that the past exists.
If I set a burning candle on a table, can you prove how much it weighed five minutes ago? Can you take a scale into the past and make that observation? What about the future? Can you tell me the length of the candle five minutes from now? What if I blow out the candle between now and then?
We can not prove that either past or future exists because we can never leave the present to make the necessary observations. We never experience any point in time other than now. When trying to define the nature of three-dimensional space, we can apply the idea of infinite smallness to space in the same way we applied it to time. If we line up ten mathematical points next to each other in a row, and then measure the distance from the first point to the last, the total space covered is the same amount of space occupied by just one mathematical point. An infinite number of infinitely small points of space lined up in a row create a total distance equal to one infinitely small amount of space.
One might try to argue that even if infinitely small points of space can't be added to create a line, you can still take a pencil and draw a line in what appears to be space. You can also watch an automobile on a television screen, but that doesn't mean you can drive to work in that image. Both are illusions. Thumb up, thumb down. What is the "thing" that separates the two conditions? We think in terms of two different locations in space, but it is impossible for an object to move though enough infinitely small points of space to ever change position.
Space is not "out there" all around us as it appears to be. It is another way of organizing perception.
Physicists might argue that time and space are "continuums," structures that are continuous, without separate parts by which they can be divided. If that were true then there would be no division between the past, present and future -- all time would be simultaneous. Likewise, all of space would be the same space, where all objects exist at once without being separated from one another.
So we return to that initial scientific assumption, that matter occupies time and space. Anyway you look at it all time is simultaneous because we never leave the present moment, and in that case, all matter must exist at once in the same space, which is physically impossible -- unless physical reality is a "point of view" rather than solid matter in time and space.
It is all a "matter" of perspective. Time, space and matter all appear to be very real from the perspective of someone watching the Sun circle the Earth, but from the perspective of the infinitely small, nothing is "real" or tangible in the way we think it is. Atoms are reduced to pure energy at the subatomic level -- nothing solid about it. From the perspective of someone who is infinitely large, the entire universe occurs inside an infinitely small point of space. An infinitely small space can not contain more than one object, and that object can not have characteristics that are not uniformly identical - there isn't enough space for anything to be different from anything else. From that perspective the entire universe can not possibly exist as anything but an organization of perception.
Just because the Sun appears to circle the Earth that doesn't mean it's the way things really are. We live in a universe of pure energy, without physical dimension, where everything happens now.
According to these observations, that is the universe we live in. All of existence is no more solid than our idea of what we perceive. In such a universe it might be possible to experience whatever we can conceive. It becomes a matter of understanding how our perception is organized.
The universe is infinitely large. If it is not infinitely large then something else must lay beyond it, and that something else would have to be infinitely large or an infinity of "something elses" would have to exist in the space that goes forever beyond our universe. On the other end of the spectrum our universe goes out of sight into the infinitely small, which we can never run out of. Time stretches out into the infinite past and into the infinite future. The concept of infinity thus forms the boundaries of our universe. Our physical universe begins and ends in every way with an idea, infinity, and ideas are not physical. How can something exist physically if it turns out to be contained within nothing more physical than an idea?
It has been argued that time began with the big bang, when some microscopically small bit of super compressed energy exploded and formed into our constantly expanding universe. (No one bothers to tell us where all this energy came from in the first place.) The theory is that time began with the big bang, that prior to the big bang there was no motion in the universe, and that time does not exist if there are no objects in motion by which to perceive the passing of time. To me, that is the same as saying time stops within an empty box because nothing is moving inside it. However, I can observe the contents of the box and perceive the passing of time even if I do not detect any objects in motion. If time doesn't actually exist inside a closed box, then if you put a clock inside the box, the clock would not run. If it did run, then you would have to say that the phenomena of time is produced by the clock. That means anyone who wants to have twice as much time on a busy day should simply buy an extra watch. Time is not produced by objects in motion.
Some also argue that the physical universe has a shape, beyond which nothing exists, including space. This would mean that if we launched a rocket from a planet on the edge of the universe toward the area where no more stars can be seen, the rocket would either disappear, ceasing to exist, or it would bounce back off the edge of the universe because there would be no space out there for the rocket to pass through. And that would still leave the question, "what is on the other side of the universe." It is much more likely that the rocket would simply continue moving through limitless space.
The physical universe is bounded in every way by the concept of infinity, by an idea which has no measurable, physical properties. The only way this makes sense is if the universe is not really "physical" in the way it appears to be from our perspective.
The important point is simply to realize that we are not limited by the constraints of physical laws, that this world we experience is some kind of "projection of consciousness." The "illusion" of physical reality has a very definite structure, and while we are experiencing it from the perspective of someone living within it, physical laws will normally apply. But knowing the world is not really "solid" and "out there" gives us an opportunity to investigate our perceptions as the result of "idea construction," as Seth puts it.
One of the benefits of considering the world to consist of something other than solid objects in time and space, is the possibility of other worlds of experience such as "heaven." Scientists who are religious insist the universe takes up all the space there is, yet many of them still believe a place called heaven exists. They just don't know where or how such a dimension could be possible. Science neatly overlooks any conflicting evidence when it comes to questions of a philosophical nature, using the excuse that science doesn't deal with questions of ultimate beginnings or endings. Then they turn around and say everything started with the big bang, and people were once lizards. (If you think my ideas are "far out," try understanding the loopholes science invents for itself.)
Quantum Mechanics and String Theory
There are currently four forces known by science to operate in the universe. The first is gravity, which holds our bodies to the Earth and all the stars and planets in their orbits. The electromagnetic force is responsible for electricity and magnetism. The weak atomic force holds electrons in their orbits around the nucleus of an atom, and atoms to each other. The strong atomic force holds the protons and neutrons of the atomic nucleus together.
The "holly grail" of scientific understanding is the quest to find a single theory which would unify all the forces in the universe into a single, coherent, mathematical description -- a formula describing a single force which would explain why all other forces work in the way they do. Einstein spent the last half of his life in search of this illusive answer.
Physicists studying subatomic particles use quantum mechanics (a set of mathematical rules) to describe and predict the behavior of matter at the subatomic level. A fundamental characteristic of quantum mechanics is that it describes the subatomic realm as being inherently chaotic. For example, quantum physicists can predict the velocity of an electron as it orbits the nucleus of an atom, but not it's position, or vice versa. The more they can predict about one condition the less they can tell about the other. A similar sort of confusion exists with the nature of light, where photons behave as both a wave and a particle depending on how they are observed.
In his quest to discover the theory of unification, Einstein basically ignored quantum mechanics in spite of its obvious use in describing what goes on at subatomic levels. To Einstein, the universe appeared divinely elegant in nature, and he believed any explanation of its fundamental principle would be elegantly simple.
Physicists are presently capable of unifying three of the four fundamental forces together, with gravity being the exception. However, some quantum physicists have postulated what they refer to as "string theory" as a potential way of unifying all these forces. The theory envisions vibrating strings of pure energy, billions of times smaller than an atom, as the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Each string is identical in nature, but the way in which it vibrates determines the type of subatomic particle it is perceived to be when atoms are smashed together in huge particle accelerators.
String theory appears to work, at least in mathematical terms, but because there is no way to test the theory in a physical experiment, it remains a theory rather than a fact. String theory also poses some conditions that not all physicists are willing to accept. Most significantly are the necessity for multiple dimensions beyond our capacity to perceive (eleven dimensions are currently postulated) and the fact that when they apply the math in order to unify gravity with the other forces, their calculations always result in infinity.
Imagine that. Science has trouble accepting the mathematics of string theory because it implies multiple dimensions and a universe based upon infinity.
Multiple Dimensions in the Same Space
Allow me to demonstrate how multiple dimensions of perception can exist within the same space.
If you take a close look at the cover of this book, you will notice a large number of "cartoon-like" faces and other shapes arranged in vertical columns. Whether or not you noticed those faces earlier was influenced by many factors, including how patient or hurried you have felt, the amount of light available, if you have been alone or distracted by others, etc. The reality of those images has always been there, but they may have gone unnoticed if your attention was not tuned to perceive them. The reality you perceive depends on how your attention is focused.
As you study the images you may notice that a small face can also be perceived as being only a limited portion of a larger face. As your point of view expands to include a larger area, a totally different "reality" becomes observable in the same location. In fact, several different "realities" or "dimensions" (images) can be perceived connected to, and a part of, other images. This is particularly observable when you turn the book up-side-down and see an entirely different set of images in the same area where you were "certain" some other particular image existed. Both images exist, but that first image becomes difficult to perceive when the book is up-side-down, when your point of view is altered. The image (reality) we perceive is totally dependent upon how we organize our perception.
The title of that background cover art is "Infinite Images" (#1) because there are essentially an infinite number of images perceivable. By altering our point of view still further, by placing the edge of a mirror against the cover, it is possible to recognize even more images in the spaces between the vertical columns where the other images were earlier perceived. In these areas the mirror can be held either vertically or horizontally to produce new images, half of the image appearing in the mirror, where none were perceivable before.
Multiple dimensions of coherent, organized reality can exist in the same manner. Just as the nose of one face can be viewed as the chin of another, the physical objects we are familiar with could turn out to be portions of other dimensions of perception. An atom could be an entire solar system from some other perspective. This book could be the window of a house in some other reality, or it could be a vast plane covered by low hills where a minute of our time is experienced as an eon there. Our thoughts may be objects in some other dimensions, though it is likely that many realities exist without the necessity for what we think of as objects. The possibilities are endless.
Where do dreams happen? All in your mind? Isn't that saying dreams occur in a world where everything exists as organizations of perception rather than as physical objects? Sounds like a world we are already familiar with, doesn't it? Carlos Castaneda (and others) report sharing dream experiences with other people? How can more than one person experience something that isn't real? I can personally attest to the fact that when my friend and I "transported our awareness" to that farm house we saw the same world there, witnessed the same events, and it was just as real to our perception as this moment is to you.
In fact I have to assume this moment is real to you, since from the standpoint of someone writing this I can never be certain anyone will read it. Your reality is a hypothetical construction in my very objective present moment. In your world there is more evidence to support my existence than there is evidence in my world to support yours. This book had to be written by someone, right? It didn't just appear in front of you all by itself, right? Well, maybe. The next time I look at this page this sentence will already be here. If I woke up tomorrow and found the book completely finished, it would be done even if I had no memory of writing it. So what is actually the criteria of reality here? Memory. The way ideas are constructed that tell us what is real and what isn't. If I wake up tomorrow and remember writing this entire book, and find the information all typed up on my computer, it will be real, even if the words just magically appeared overnight. If you suddenly woke up this very instant and found yourself laying in bed you would have to assume that you had not actually been reading this book but had dreamed the entire experience you consider so real right now. It could happen. Similar events may have happened to you before. Haven't you ever been surprised to wake up from a dream that seemed totally real?
What I am trying to get at here is the importance of memory and ideas in determining what is real from what isn't. If you remember something happening, then it is real to you, regardless of whether others believe you or not. I communicated a letter of the alphabet telepathically with a friend. The friend verified the experience as being real. Later that night I left my body for the first time, but there were no witnesses. When I explained these events to my friends at the coffee shop, none of them believed it happened. It wasn't real to them.
Does something have to be witnessed to be real? Did you brush your teeth this morning? Did it really happen if there were no witnesses? If you believe it, it happened. If you believe you talk with aliens from other planets, it happens. At least in your reality. Seth tells us that we all live in our own reality, literally. That if you and I are in a room with a coffee table, there are two rooms and two coffee tables, and four people -- the two people in your world, and the two in my world. He says that objective reality is a result of agreement, that there is a an agreed upon "objective reality" existing as idea construction, and we manufacture our own perceptions, our individual worlds, by tuning in to that information in much the same way as a radio station is tuned in with a car radio. He goes on to say that there are virtually an infinite number of objective worlds we can tune into, a different world for every significant decision we contemplate. He refers to these worlds as "probable realities." For example, if you seriously considered marrying someone, but didn't, in another world you actually did. A "probable self" is the person who is aware of following a decision we pondered but did not choose to follow with our present awareness. To that person, your current awareness is the probable self.
Whether or not we actually do create our own worlds via idea construction, or if probable realities are created as a result of our decisions, is something neither you or I can be sure of without personal experience which convinces us one way or another. I mention the ideas here because they seem to be possible within a universe that is not limited to the confines of time, space and matter as we normally perceive them to be.
What I would like to introduce next is a different way of looking at reality which seems to explain how many forms of psychic perception might be possible. From the Sun circling the Earth, to the Earth circling the Sun, the next point of view takes us into an entirely different dimension.
We live in what appears to be a three-dimensional (3-D) world of physical space occupied by objects. These dimensions are represented as height, width and depth. Albert Einstein proposed a forth dimension which he referred to as space-time, meaning that not only do all objects exist in the above three dimensions, but these objects exist in connection with a particular area of space as it exists at a particular point in time. Space and time can not be separated because in order for space to exist, that space must exist at a particular point in time. So it appears that from Einstein's point of view, space and time are interconnected in a forth dimension called space-time.
Right. I "thought" I understood all that, but I must also admit that the idea of space-time seemed way too nebulous for me to actually grasp.
Joachim Wolf, in a paper describing what he calls "quantum metaphysics," mentions a little book called Flatland which was published near the turn of the twentieth century by Edwin Abbott. The book humorously describes the experience of creatures having only two dimensions. Visualizing a 2-dimentional world finally enabled me to actually comprehend how a forth dimension can be conceptualized, at least to some degree.
Let's start by imagining what perception would be like for a two-dimensional (2-D) consciousness. A 2-D world would have width and depth, but no height. It would be like an infinitely thin piece of paper. The creatures which inhabit such a world could have shapes as complicated as an ink blot, but it is easier to think of them as circles on a piece of paper. No solid matter would exist there because their world is infinitely thin. Because there is absolutely no height in a 2-D world, if two of these circles came together they could pass right through each other.
Now imagine that we, on the outside of their universe, out here in "3-D land", were to pass a round ball downward through their 2-D plane of existence. What they would perceive is a constantly expanding circle. As the ball descended downward through their flat world, the circle these creatures perceive would constantly enlarge until the center of the ball had passed through. As the ball continued moving downward, the circle would continually become smaller until it disappeared altogether.
Imagine how blown away such creatures would be if they were suddenly able to perceive their world from a 3-D point of view. All the things they know would still exist, but some circles would also be seen as only a small portion of spheres or cylinders, some squares would be recognized as just one component of a cube, etc. Imagine how amazed these creatures would be to perceive shapes as complex as living trees, clouds, mountains and stars. The same universe they have always known would suddenly be recognized as merely a tiny slice of a far greater reality which had existed all the time.
In the same way, space-time may exist as the next dimension for us, as the forth dimension. And I think I finally figured out how to conceptualize that forth dimension in a way that anyone, even slow-to-get-it-me, can grasp. Forth dimensional awareness is the ability to move conscious perception anywhere in space or time.
Maybe this isn't what Einstein meant by space-time, but it goes a very long way to explain how many forms of psychic perception could operate.
It would not be necessary for a forth-dimensional consciousness (4-D) to travel through space in order to perceive distant objects, or to travel through time to see things as they were, are, and will be. Perhaps it would be possible for a 4-D to perceive all of time and all of space in one glance, but such perception is beyond my ability to conceive. It seems more likely that 4-D perception would simply be the ability to move through time and space without limitations. This could explain perceptions such as precognition, déjà vu, reincarnation, remote viewing, clairvoyance, Out Of Body Experience (OOBE), psychometry, and more.
Here is where logic can help us understand even more about forth dimensional perception. Because we exist as 3-D creatures who can remember past events, we already possess conscious awareness at multiple points in time. All those points of existing awareness (our memories) are simultaneously available. In terms of past experience at least, our present consciousness is not stuck in time.
From the perspective of the forth dimension, we would not simply remember a past event, but experience it as it occurred (i.e., déjà vu). Our future experience would also be perceivable. This future experience would include the moment when we became/become (same thing) aware of 4-D space-time perception.
In other words, we do not have to manufacture an awareness capable of perceiving in 4-D. That awareness already exists in the forth dimension, because from that point of view all time is simultaneously available. 4-D perception is inherent in all of us. That means psychic perception is inherent in all of us.
It would seem that what we need is some method of awakening our already existing awareness of forth-dimensional perception. Any drug that alters our perception of time and space is probably causing physiological changes related to 4-D perception. Meditation and self hypnosis can be applied to reduce physical perception and focus attention in other ways, thus becoming tools for exploring forth dimensional awareness, and beyond. Various techniques for using these tools are provided in this book.
In my opinion, the single most valuable bit of knowledge you can acquire in regards to developing metaphysical abilities is understanding that physical reality is not what it appears to be, that it is a form of "idea construction." Whatever you want to call it, physical reality is a manifestation of consciousness, a world without solid matter or time or space. We live in an illusory world of organized perception. The true reality is the yet unknown structure which organizes our perception. That structure produces what we perceive as physical existence, but the structure itself is not physical. It is "metaphysical," and can be manipulated by consciousness. Understand that one point and the world suddenly becomes a magical place where nearly anything is possible.
Perhaps the information in this chapter is simply too abstract for you to believe. But ponder the impossibility of adding together infinitely small points of time or space to create the sort of world we think exists. Realize that the boundaries of our universe exist only as ideas. Observe how physical matter appears to alter before your eyes during the experience of visual telepathy. Consider your ability to perceive more than one dimension in the same space while looking at the cover of this book. Remember waking up from dreams that seem totally real. Understand that on a subatomic level matter does not exist as anything but pure energy -- nothing is solid even according to science.
While I can't prove that anything I have said in this chapter is true, I am not asking you to accept any of it on faith. I am simply pointing the way toward your own, personal evaluation of the nature of your experience. As your experience begins to include more and more perceptions of a metaphysical nature, as a result of performing the exercises in this book, I believe you will find the information in this chapter to have a greater likelihood of reflecting the truth.
Rational Spirituality Main Page