1059. But if we now go in the opposite direction and see this "X existence" of the being as something that dissolves all "temporal" realities and makes these unreal within the sphere of experience itself, we too are victims of an illusion or "muddled thinking", which means mental confusion. If one denies that something is loving within this sphere of experience, which means within daily life, one asserts the opposite of the fact or denies realistic facts. The same is if course true if one denies that something is unloving, that something has age, that something is outside the cycle. Indeed, if one positively asserts that neither "eternal involution" nor "eternal evolution" exist, one also to a great extent voices one's confused thinking or mental ineptitude with regard to the explanation of the interplay between the "temporal" and "eternal" existence of the living being. The experience of life itself can exist only as lived experience. For every experience that enters and forms part of the being's consciousness, it would be contrary to the facts to claim that this consciousness had not been increased by this experience. It is an equally unshakeable fact within the experience of life itself that every addition to a thing means the growth of the thing. And every addition of experiences to a being's consciousness will thus mean mental growth, which is in turn unshakeably the same as "evolution". But since the being must live "eternally" in a "temporal" state, and this state is based precisely and exclusively on the acquisition of experience or mental growth, and this mental growth within daily, "temporal" life cannot be dissolved or wiped out since it then would have to be possible to "undo" "that which has been done", which is of course a total impossibility within the sphere of experience, the concept of "eternal evolution" could thus exist only as an absolutely logical term for this phenomenon.
Return to start page
Previous