Bring4th Forums
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:
  • Archive Home
  • Members
  • Team
  • Help
  • More
    • About Us
    • Library
    • L/L Research Store
User Links
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:

    Menu Home Today At a Glance Members CSC & Team Help
    Also visit... About Us Library Blog L/L Research Store Adept Biorhythms

    As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.

    You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022) x

    Bring4th Bring4th Studies Strictly Law of One Material Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self?

    Thread: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self?


    anagogy Away

    ἀναγωγή
    Posts: 2,775
    Threads: 42
    Joined: Jun 2009
    #67
    07-24-2012, 01:46 AM
    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: If your premise is correct than the past has not really happened and memory is not truth.

    Rather than say "happened", which is already setting up illusory boundaries, I would describe all time periods as simply "existing". It's like, if you were to imagine a giant circle, and then further pictured yourself standing in the middle of that circle, this would be an analogy of how things are from the perspective of time/space or the non-physical realm.

    [Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0ByDFRLPltOHIjrcYdLm...hmxrUu2ULw]

    Incarnation is a bit like hopping onto a part of that circle. You go around the circle a bit, and then step off into the middle again. Rinse and repeat. That's reincarnation in a nutshell. Now, from the center, you have access to all time frames. They are all simply existing. You could jump into any section if you really wanted to. Well, more or less.

    Now, this analogy is missing certain components -- namely, that there are vibrational levels within the center area of "no time". These are the vibrational thresholds, densities, or if you prefer "planes" as they exist in time/space, or in other-words, the nonphysical. As you know, there are also space/time densities which are more or less physical or tangible in some way. One's ability to perceive, and/or inhabit these densities (whether they be in space/time or time/space) is restricted to one's vibrational level. These are the fabled "stairs of light".

    It is not completely accurate for me to refer to the center area as "no time", as there is still a kind of change that goes on there, and really, what is time but simply a measure of this thing we call "change"? Think about it, how would you measure "time" if there were *NO* change? You cannot. Time is a factor of change. It has also been described (mostly by physicists) as a kind of "space" as well. That's another way of thinking about it. However, space is also just change. They both have their conceptual limitations and freedoms.

    There are many forms of change or time. Now, in this discussion about time, I want you to consider, for a moment, that ALL states of change are contained within the "One" or "All That Is" or "Source". Whatever you prefer to call it. It's a GIANT repository of ALL possibilities. ALL realities. They ALL exist NOW. All so called "time periods" are just states of change that exist within the creator. Our egos are simply our identification with but a portion of that great repository of infinite "change". Your future self is a more expanded identification of that repository, yet still includes those aspects you currently identify as your "self".

    You see, the higher self is just another more expanded self that has not yet expanded into All That Is.

    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: But what you are automatically implying in considering that you have a higher self in a simultaneously existing reality is that all of creation is already completed. What you are saying is that because the future and past and present all exist in the NOW, then all that exists is existing NOW, meaning that all that exists is done and concluded. Your speculation removes the possible future, and suggests that all that can be done has been done. And the only way that your speculation of simultaneity to work is if you take the unknown future of a continuing creation out of the dynamic. But in drawing that line, in creating that scenario, your circle is no longer infinite. Your ouroboros is not consuming its tail, it has choked on its tail and is now dead.

    Yes, your future is already completed by your future self. But not for you, the present self. The future is unknown to you. And it is also unknown to your Higher Self as Ra has stated. The higher self is a manifestation given to the late sixth density being (which, remember, is just a "state of change" or level of consciousness which has always existed). It uses this form of consciousness (which is mid-sixth density as far as consciousness level is concerned) to guide the past or less developed versions of its consciousness in less evolved "states of change" or past time periods as third density incarnates would call it. That is, if they request such guidance. They don't always do that, of course. Those on the negative path are not so inclined to ask for sixth density positive guidance.

    Now, it is true that there may be portions of yourself that do, in fact, know your so called "future", however, they are forbidden to reveal it to you due to the law of confusion or law of free will.

    The reason why the ouroboros has not choked and died is because there is NO end to this thing we call "change" or "time". It can go on infinitely if so inclined, even though it is essentially an illusion. Now, something that is interesting is that ALL change is contained within the changeless. Intelligent Infinity is changeless. All change is an illusory excursion into separation. Only in separation can change, or time, appear to exist.

    (07-22-2012, 07:30 PM)ShinAr Wrote: What you have done here is avoid answering the actual question by dropping the IF aspect of my question and responded as though I actually suggested that life has no purpose or that the journey does not matter, which is not what I have said here at all. I clearly stated that IF your speculation is accurate THEN the journey would have no meaning because all is already complete and all chopices have already been made. However I do NOT believe that to be accurate or true and so the IF is the biggest part of that question which you really did not answer. Would you reconsider the question as it was actually asked?


    I will attempt to respond to the question in another way. Your original question was:

    "If existence has no end and no beginning, and all is present tense, than the choice which you make in this very moment, is of no future consequence, so what would be the necessity for advice or guidance from a Higher self, when all is already done, despite any choice you might now make?"

    The necessity for guidance from the Higher Self is to assist the evolving soul through the experiences it seeks to experience. The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that your choices have no future consequences. I have never said this. There are consequences to everything you do. There is cause and effect. Now, there are certain causes and effects which will ALWAYS overpower you, because they come from a higher plane of consciousness than you are currently vibrating at, but you really do have free will, and you really can write most of your future as you see fit. You are the creator, after-all.

    The amount of free will you have, is directly proportional to how conscious you are. You cannot exercise a choice you are not aware of. The limiting factor is always the level of consciousness. The more expanded your consciousness becomes, the more power you have to embrace anything you might embrace as a conscious experience. Everything exists within the creator. Everything is One. What "you" identify yourself as will eventually become everything in existence and potential existence. Your freedom is assured. You needn't be concerned with this "dream character". That is just an identity. You are ALL identities.

    Your "self" has a "future". Now, Yourself, as the Creator, has no past OR future. It is totally unconditioned. It is totally changeless. It is totally time-less. This is the still point. This is ultimate freedom. This is the ultimate springboard and stepping off point to anything one could imagine. This is enlightenment. This is awake. This is the changeless container for all states of change.

    (07-22-2012, 07:30 PM)ShinAr Wrote: This is what I have been trying to point out. What you are doing here by trying to make your speculation work is drawing a line where higher self ends. When you speak of higher self you are speaking of it as though it is an entity of some identity from the future which is the same entity/identity that you are now. And you are suggesting that it continues to evolve into higher density having no higher self because it has not reached that point yet. This totally contradicts what you are saying about your present state of being. As well as contradicting what you have said about time being simultaneous and everything being NOW.

    I'm not aware of any contradictions. I'm only aware of some possible misinterpretations of what I have said. What I have been saying (as far as I am aware) and have continued to say is that the Higher Self is what you are now, plus a bunch of future experiences on top of that. It is a more expanded identity than you, yet contains your identity within it, in the same way that the creator houses ALL identities within it. It is the future state of change or beingness that your free-will decisions will eventually take you to. If you want to get all technical, you have a whole host of "higher selves". The "higher self" to the 6th density "higher self" is the 7th density mind/body/spirit complex totality.

    (07-22-2012, 07:30 PM)ShinAr Wrote: Yet when you apply your thinking to that future 6th or 7th density identity of your self, all of a sudden time seems to be of a 'future' dynamic in that it has no higher self in this octave and seeks to reach that state of being.

    I'm not aware of having said anything of the sort. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are asking here.

    (07-22-2012, 07:30 PM)ShinAr Wrote: You have called creation infinite, and yet clearly designated timelines within it including ends and beginnings. The only difference between our definitions of time is that you try to clear up the confusion of your speculation by designating octaves.

    An octave, as defined by Ra, is simply the 7 densities. Ra compares it to a musical octave whereupon the 8th note would begin a new set of 7.

    The densities all contain states of change. Change, by its very nature, is impermanent. It has beginnings and endings. Or "cycles", or "patterns". However you want to look at it. There will always be endings to some stories and the beginning of new ones. Consciousness has no beginning and no ending. It is the platform that everything extends from. Therefore, it is infinite. It is the changeless platform upon which all change takes place in.

    (07-22-2012, 07:30 PM)ShinAr Wrote: If you were to consider The All truly as timeless and simultaneous there would be no need for designating time-points or cyclical turning points.

    I never had a "need" so much as a desire to communicate that reality looks different depending on what level of change you are observing creation from. If you are observing creation from the changeless, there is only infinite and undistorted unity. However, we are not looking at the world from that vantage point consciously yet. That is really the heart of this message.

    Really it is all illusion. However, as long as one is still asleep, one still has to abide in the dream environment. I'm simply attempting to, as accurately as possible, describe the nature of this "dream environment" to those who are curious to know it. We are the dreamer, after all, so we might as well try to understand it. Smile

    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: Might I suggest a few things for thought here.

    The mind/body/spirit complex which you refer to is only totality when you consider totality as One. The problem which you create in your speculation is that you use the totality of individual consciousness to be your higher self identity, excluding the fact that if all is one then that total mind/body/spirit complex must include the All. In other words we cannot apply totality when we want to use it to define our future self, and disregard the fact that true totality would automatically imply that the Highest Self of All must be included in that totality.

    My interpretation of what Ra refers to as the "mind/body/spirit complex totality" is that it is furthest boundary of individuated identity. The next step is dispersion into All That Is, which is "identity-less" so to speak. In the Law of One material, Ra never refers to the mind/body/spirit complex totality as All That Is. Rather Ra says:

    Quote:36.1 Questioner: In previous communications you have spoken of the mind/body/spirit complex totality. Would you please give us a definition of the mind/body/spirit complex totality?

    Ra: I am Ra. There is a dimension in which time does not have sway. In this dimension, the mind/body/spirit in its eternal dance of the present may be seen in totality, and before the mind/body/spirit complex which then becomes a part of the social memory complex is willingly absorbed into the allness of the One Creator, the entity knows itself in its totality.

    This mind/body/spirit complex totality functions as, shall we say, a resource for what you perhaps would call the higher self. The higher self, in turn, is a resource for examining the distillations of third-density experience and programming further experience. This is also true of densities four, five, and six with the mind/body/spirit complex totality coming into consciousness in the course of seventh density.

    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: So if we are to speak of a higher self based upon a total complex system of mind/spirit/body, than this higher self of which we speak must then be the One Consciousness of the All.

    This I would agree with completely. This would make complete sense of all that Ra has said. And this would solve the present dilemmas and paradoxes of your speculations and theories.

    Except for the fact that the Ra quote I just shared completely blew that idea to bits. BigSmile

    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: Nextly, we cannot have our cake and eat it too which what your Ouroboros is trying to do. If creation is Infinite, than by the defintion of Infinity creation is not finished. If it is not finished and the Mystery continues, then so does possibility and the free will of choice. And so continues the evolving experiences of each fragmented consciousness, and the All.

    See, you're still thinking I've said there is no free will despite me emphatically stating otherwise. Also, creation cannot finish because it actually never started. To create implies something doesn't exist, and then it is created and then it does exist. Even Ra has pointed this out to be a fallacy.

    Behold:

    Quote:82.10 Questioner: Why does this partaking in the original thought have a gradient radially outward? That’s the way I understand your statement.

    Ra: I am Ra. This is the plan of the One Infinite Creator. The One Original Thought is the harvest of all previous, if you would use this term, experience of the Creator by the Creator. As It decides to know Itself It generates Itself into that plenum, full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifested to your perceptions as space or outer space. Each generation of this knowing begets a knowing which has the capacity, through free will, to choose methods of knowing Itself. Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself.

    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: All of these paradoxes are created when you try to make your speculations of simultaneity work, and when you try to suggest that infinity is over NOW.

    Infinity simply *IS*. It's like taking two mirrors and facing them towards each other. An infinite stream of reflections. Just because you are currently looking at the first three reflections doesn't mean the next two thousand don't exist.

    Infinity and simultaneous time are not at odds with each other. Only your understanding of them is.

    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: If you consider what I am proposing, these paradoxes do not exist, creation continues to develop, the One continues to evolve, choice continues to be the ingredient which enables catalyst for change, and the future is Mystery.

    With all I have stated, this is all still true. There are no paradoxes, only misunderstandings. The future is still a mystery to the journeyman, the power of choice is still real, and evolution still occurs.

    (07-23-2012, 08:57 AM)ShinAr Wrote: There are simply too many contradictions and paradoxes within your proposal to rationally consider as possible truth.

    I'm still not aware of any paradoxes or contradictions. You do seem to have a powerful ability to ignore any quotes in the Ra material that don't support your notions, though. Wink

      •
    « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

    Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



    Messages In This Thread
    Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by LsavedSmeD - 07-05-2012, 07:40 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-05-2012, 08:28 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Aaron - 07-05-2012, 08:53 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by AndresOr - 07-05-2012, 06:04 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Eddie - 07-05-2012, 06:06 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-06-2012, 08:36 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Cyan - 07-07-2012, 08:39 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-07-2012, 09:03 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-06-2012, 08:48 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-06-2012, 09:18 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-06-2012, 11:03 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by AndresOr - 07-06-2012, 09:37 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-06-2012, 11:15 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by AnthroHeart - 07-06-2012, 10:42 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Cyan - 07-07-2012, 09:14 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-07-2012, 11:51 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-07-2012, 01:13 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-07-2012, 03:54 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-07-2012, 09:01 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-09-2012, 04:54 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-08-2012, 12:07 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-08-2012, 02:46 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Plenum - 07-09-2012, 04:36 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-09-2012, 06:32 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-09-2012, 08:08 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by LetGo - 07-09-2012, 09:30 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-09-2012, 09:32 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-10-2012, 10:24 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-10-2012, 10:38 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-10-2012, 11:08 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-10-2012, 11:13 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-10-2012, 11:14 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-10-2012, 11:22 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-10-2012, 11:27 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-10-2012, 11:32 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-10-2012, 11:36 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-10-2012, 07:20 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-10-2012, 03:12 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Plenum - 07-10-2012, 10:44 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-10-2012, 10:48 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-10-2012, 11:16 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kdsii - 07-10-2012, 11:20 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-10-2012, 12:23 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Plenum - 07-10-2012, 03:52 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by AnthroHeart - 07-10-2012, 05:09 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-10-2012, 05:44 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by LsavedSmeD - 07-15-2012, 06:16 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-15-2012, 11:29 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by LsavedSmeD - 07-15-2012, 01:35 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-15-2012, 02:51 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by LsavedSmeD - 07-15-2012, 09:34 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by kycahi - 07-15-2012, 02:13 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Ankh - 07-15-2012, 02:20 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-16-2012, 06:56 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-21-2012, 09:46 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Patrick - 07-21-2012, 01:17 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Cyan - 07-21-2012, 01:19 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-22-2012, 12:59 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Cyan - 07-21-2012, 10:36 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Siren - 07-22-2012, 02:23 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-22-2012, 04:06 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Siren - 07-22-2012, 08:25 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-22-2012, 05:05 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-22-2012, 07:30 PM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-23-2012, 02:13 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-23-2012, 08:57 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by anagogy - 07-24-2012, 01:46 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Siren - 07-24-2012, 06:48 AM
    RE: Did the first Higher-Self have a Higher-Self before it was a Higher-Self? - by Shin'Ar - 07-24-2012, 11:28 AM

    • View a Printable Version
    • Subscribe to this thread

    © Template Design by D&D - Powered by MyBB

    Connect with L/L Research on Social Media

    Linear Mode
    Threaded Mode