Is this correct, insofar as it is briefly explained?
Afterlife
2 months later
It is very succinct.
but does happen that way?
What is the meaning of that, are you eager to return?
Robert Monroe has reported about his "out of body" experiences in three very, very interesting books.
8 days later
C.B. No, I'm not eager to return. I won't return anyway. The Creation life-energy in me is what returns. That is not me.
I posted that because from time to time I like to spread the message on social media in this way. As long as it's correct, that's fine with me. It needs to be succinct because social media isn't the place for going deep into things.
- Edited
As soon as, like you say, the Creation life-energy returns, it is “you” again. Otherwise this topic has no meaning.
- Edited
What are you talking about? That isn't in accordance with the Teaching of the Truth. When you die, YOU, as you perceive yourself, cease to exist. Therefore, YOU do not return. The next personality is unrelated and unconnected to your current personality. And the Creation life-energy in you is not YOU. It is a part of you, but it doesn't identify with you, or as you. The only thing that can be said to connect you and the Creation life-energy is the knowledge gained in your current existence, which is processed after death and turned into neutral-positive energy/impulses.
Joseph_Emmanuel
I have nothing against the teaching of the truth, pal. I just draw my conclusions.
if there is no You any more after you die, then the whole thing is meaningless. You are now but later no more. Why do you care?
I care about the truth. It may appear to be meaningless from a human perspective because we identify with our ego and personality and can't imagine not ever having a continued sense of ourselves. But the evolution of consciousness isn't wholly for the benefit of our human lives, it is for the benefit of the Creation life-energy-form in each of us, and ultimately for the benefit of Creation. The meaning of our lives in the world is found in the possibility of evolution of the consciousness. Having no "you", no sense of ourselves, when we die doesn't make that less meaningful. Is your life meaningless when you go to sleep at night and become unconscious of yourself and the world around you? Of course, it isn't. Your body needs to rest. Likewise, the Creation life-energy-form in each of us needs time out from being in the world in order to process the knowledge we have learned. Meaning is not in identity, it is in evolution.
the problem I see here is that everything is in your imagination. it is the way you perceive or understand something you don’t know directly. And it loses significance when you say that there is no more “You” or “me” after death. If the whole thing is not personal, well, why do you care about something that surpasses you in every sense, that you could do something to improve it.
I can’t se the relation btw your ephimerous self and the whole which is beyond your imagination.
I don't understand. I get that you're supposed to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions - and to be fair, Billy would agree with your right to be wrong about something: we must all follow our own path and evolve at our own pace - but if you're going to read Billy's writings about the Teaching of the Truth, the Teaching of the Creation Energy, the Teaching of the Life, then why would you contradict what you're taught instead of accepting it and trying to understand why it is so? Why would you add or take away from what is written, especially if you're talking about this stuff with people, whether members or friends of FIGU or not? You haven't even admitted that what you are saying is contrary to what Billy has said. People who don't know better could read your words and be misled. I'm not pretending to know more than you. I don't. For all I know, you could be right. But a lot of people who are familiar with Billy's writing and his life put their trust in him because a lot of what he has said and has written resonates with them, despite not being able to prove much, if any, of it. I think you should at least honour him by being honest.
Joseph_Emmanuel I don't understand. I get that you're supposed to think for yourself and draw your own conclusions - and to be fair, Billy would agree with your right to be wrong about something: we must all follow our own path and evolve at our own pace - but if you're going to read Billy's writings about the Teaching of the Truth, the Teaching of the Creation Energy, the Teaching of the Life, then why would you contradict what you're taught instead of accepting it and trying to understand why it is so?
Billy has been wrong about his predictions too and had to correct them. What if you had put your confidence and way of life in these wrong predictions and how do you know all he says is true at all?
He is a human being that can go astray too.
Besides, I’m not contradicting anything of what he teaches. I’m just trying to understand.
Joseph_Emmanuel Why would you add or take away from what is written, especially if you're talking about this stuff with people, whether members or friends of FIGU or not? You haven't even admitted that what you are saying is contrary to what Billy has said. People who don't know better could read your words and be misled. I'm not pretending to know more than you. I don't. For all I know, you could be right. But a lot of people who are familiar with Billy's writing and his life put their trust in him because a lot of what he has said and has written resonates with them, despite not being able to prove much, if any, of it.
I’m not adding or taking away anything of what is written. I just read what you write and answer according to my conclusions. To that, I’m not responsible for what others may or may not understand of what I say.
If a lot of people follow Billy’s assumptions and are happy with them because it “resonates” with them, even though there is no prove whatsoever for those assumptions, well, I’m happy for them. But this is not my way of acquiring knowledge. Even if Buddha says something wrong it is still wrong. Ok?
Joseph_Emmanuel I think you should at least honor him by being honest.
Why do you accuse me now of being dishonest?
I said you are being dishonest because you didn't initially make a point of acknowledging your speculation as your own. I read it to mean that I that I failed to comprehend something. After all, there is a lot that I have to learn. But you did make that clear in your third reply. I shouldn't have said that. I wrote too quickly.
As a rule of thumb: Just take your time, read twice and if you’re sure to have understood then write an answer.
Joseph_Emmanuel I said you are being dishonest because you didn't initially make a point of acknowledging your speculation as your own.
I guess there is a non written rule that if there is no specification we are always the authors of our statements.
Besides, I wasn’t speculating but drawing some logical conclusions. Your second slip.