I am questioning whether or not laws are absolute.
For example, the law of cause and effect, which in Science of Mind is a reduction of a more complicated eastern idea that came to us from Hinduism, through Thomas Troward via Ernest Holmes and others. In various forms of Hinduism that particular law is both relative and absolute (which I prefer as an approach). It has all kinds of mitigating and influencing circumstances and even other laws which can alter and interact with it.
For example, the law of grace, which is both a western and an eastern idea that (to be simplistic) cancels out cause/effect (Ernest Holmes deals with it in the Glossary of Terms at the back of the Text Book). Or, for example the law of intercession, which Ernest Holmes does not mention but both believed in and didn’t’ believe in (Page 222.3 where he asserts that we cannot heal a person of a condition that is the result of a mental attitude they are not willing to relinquish, an idea which is in conflict with his documented practice of treating for the man afflicted with alcoholism, with neither permission nor agreement from the man, and no disclosure that he was doing so -- and yet demonstrating success.)
I’m starting to explore what is absolute. I think the only absolute principle may be Principle. Upper case Principle is not a rule (like a principle is), it is Divinity: a state of integrity, harmony, etc.
But I haven’t finished thinking about it yet and I have to iron my shirt now.
I like to think of laws as not-exactly-perfect (even though everything is perfect), they are multi-layered and have so many facets that our human minds may have difficulty discerning what the "rules" really are.
ReplyDelete