Self Identity
Posted by tehotu at 04:14, 19 Jan 2006Let me bring to you the context of the Ego article (my previous post) from this page:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_3.htm...
The following is a quote from the "Buddha Gospel":
"Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existent entities. Thy heart, O Brahman, is cleaving still to self; thou art anxious about heaven but thou seekest the pleasures of self in heaven, and thus thou canst not see the bliss of truth and the immortality of truth.
"I say to thee: The Blessed One has not come to teach death, but to teach life, and thou discernest not the nature of living and dying.
This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it. Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind. Where self is, truth cannot be; yet when truth comes, self will disappear. Therefore, let thy mind rest in the truth; propagate the truth, put thy whole will in it, and let it spread. In the truth thou shalt live forever. Self is death and truth is life. The cleaving to self is a perpetual dying, while moving in the truth is partaking of Nirvana which is life everlasting."
Bookmark/Search this post with
- tehotu's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
1 May 2004
1 year 15 weeks
Souls are not separate self-existent because they are more like experience-seeking memory-accumulators that refine their central ‘diamond’ for eventual sublimation or integration as finality to their purpose.
The intersection between the penetrating 'ray' of the spirit, or source for some, and the fabric, the envelope of the soul, creates the impression of self; the thinking ego. The ego not being transparent but full of the energy of the soul is under the influence of the world from which the soul depends. This remains until the source makes itself manifest when its time has come.
This connection is severed at death for the simple reason that the Spirit or Source does not reside in the world of the dead. This means that consciousness, as we understand it is not perpetuated.
At death, the soul goes back to its world as a contemplative entity for which a new experimental medium is being studied and its memory archived while the source remains to its realm. The soul is then simply and only an active manifestation of the memory of the experience and is blocked from further evolution until it is back into a material body to reconnect with its source.
The body of course also returns to its realm (or remains) but having lost its anima is recycled.
As much as some wish to perpetuate their consciousness into another plane after death, others wish to perpetuate their consciousness pattern during this life by achieving material immortality or at least postpone the demise of their body for as long as possible.
One is like the other, not having understood the experimental, therefore illusory reality of their psychological parameters that are set in the interaction of the source that provides the raw energy of thoughts that is interpreted in relation with the soul's particular need for experimentation within a particular incarnation for the benefit of itself. The vibration of the energy has then been densified from its passage through the soul, the world of the dead, into a form that can be interpreted by the intellect. Of course, in that process, all the implications, including the consequences, have been lost and only the purpose, without explanation, has been retained, to give the ego a direction that will often lead it into a nightmare, personal or collective.
(Not for the benefit of the ego who then becomes trapped in a contest of wishes and yearnings driving him forward or backwards, towards or away from pain and confusion, until his source reveals itself to transmutate the soul's fabric, automatically extirpating it from death but at the same time destroying the self-impression of the ego.
Of course the self-impression is destroyed because that self-impression is a condition of the soul's program for experimentation that becomes the personality traits. Funny that this personality would then insist on wanting to be right where in reality it is only a product in reaction and not a self-construct that creates, that is the center of the conditions of his movement in time.)
This of course means that the self proceeds from the world of the dead and not from the world of the source-spirit, until the source-spirit has made of the ego its own territory.
That is why it has been said that man cannot save himself.
That is also why it has been said that the dead were burying their dead.
Truth, taken in the sense of this text means the penetration of the light of the source-spirit which is the real identity of man.
This is why the ancients often said that the creator talked through them and not from them interpreting reality. Reality talked through them. Reality being their ‘father’ or source.
In that context, where self is ‘truth’ cannot be because the self or the impression of self is destroyed by the penetration of Spirit-reality-source or ‘truth’. On the other hand, there cannot be a return to the world of the death like before when the body is left behind.
Immortality is not that of the body but that of consciousness. It is not the perpetuation of a handicapped psychology but its destruction. It is not an appendage of the instinct for survival or of any instinct whatsoever. It is the superimposition of the energy of life, a takeover of the dense universe.
Life is life and death is death. When we say death is part of life, it is part of our life which is death itself but in no way is it part of life.
This is where it was also said that the ego had to die so it could live.
Just my 2¢
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
what?
Richard, you used to make more sense.
your first sentence:
Souls are not separate self-existent because they are more like experience-seeking memory-accumulators that refine their central ‘diamond’ for eventual sublimation or integration as finality to their purpose.
what does that mean? Or is it just literary exposition, which I think is a fine thing to do.
You, my friend, enjoy twisting language, so that your point cannot be disagreed with.
1 May 2004
2 weeks 3 days
Hi Earthling,
You said to Richard, "You, my friend, enjoy twisting language, so that your point cannot be disagreed with."
Sounds rather judgmental to me, considering Richard did close by saying, "Just my 2¢". Besides, I understood what he was saying - and I disagree with it. So here you go, in plain English...
Because the true self - spirit - cannot express itself through unrefined prima materia - matter, it relies on an intermediary - the soul - to construct a mechanism which can refine matter into an appropriate vehicle of expression for the self. The soul itself is not the individual self, although from a human's standpoint, it certainly seems to be, for eons. The soul projects itself into matter - incarnates in a material form, in order to 'awaken' matter. This awakening happens naturally, but slowly, as a response to the soul's effort to express it's consciousness during the incarnation. When the soul withdraws from the form, the form 'dies', but the matter that composed it retains whatever bit of awakening it achieved. After reflecting on it's efforts, the soul repeats the process, creating it's new form from bits of matter that have achieved the same degree of awakening as the matter in it's last form. At the same time, on it's natural plane of expression, the soul also builds what might be thought of as record of these construction/expression projects/experiments. When it eventually succeeds in refining matter to the point that spirit itself can use it as a vehicle of expression, this record is destroyed - the cosmic egg bursts - and spirit incarnates through the form the soul constructed for it from matter which the soul transmuted into it's highest potential.
That's my 2¢ worth.
Kat
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
again you say nothing with many words, so that you cannot be disagreed with.
And from past discussions, I actually do consider Richard as a friend in a way, I respect him. But I reserver the right to disagree.
If you need 200 words to disagree with 10 of mine, why is that?
Make you point, or don't.
22 November 2004
2 weeks 5 hours
i know it looks like it, but I just need to clarify.
Richard and I have had quite a few discussions over the last year or so. I found them quite interesting, enlightening even. We have different styles, and he knows that. We probably will never have the same conclusions, and that's ok.
Just in this thread, there does not seem to be any point that anyone can identify. Or is there?
1 May 2004
2 weeks 3 days
>>If you need 200 words to disagree with 10 of mine, why is that?
I wasn't disagreeing with you -- I was disagreeing with what Richard had said about the soul.
>>again you say nothing with many words, so that you cannot be disagreed with.
I'd be happy to restate it for you within whatever framework/paradigm you're most familiar with, or most comfortable with. But in order to do that, I'd need to know why you think I said nothing in the post above,i.e. what part of it you don't understand? Do I need to define the terms I use, for instance? And I'd need to know what framework you'd like it restated in, i.e. a particular religion or religious denomination, for instance.
Kat
1 May 2004
1 year 15 weeks
Hi Kat,
I don’t disagree with what you are saying here. I would even say that what you are telling me is both compatible and complementary.
Synthesis of the light expressed by several individuals might lead to a greater reason than the sum of the parts.
One question to bring the two exposes together might be what is ‘awaken matter’.
One could suggest that the soul acted to densify consciousness to first create a sense of self by means of disconnection with the guidance of the identity, forcing the mortal to develop an intellectual and giving the ego the impression of being the center of his reality.
This densification also might result in a totally material mentality (by now the spirit, even the soul, have become the stuff of legends).
I see the ‘vehicle’ and its creation as mechanical constructs. It is a vehicle but not a will. I mean that all energy can be considered at the consciousness level. Not all consciousness has the attributes of universality, this factor being dependent on the presence of spirit and not soul.
I also agree that the incarnation of spirit is dependent on the construction of a vehicle sufficiently equipped to support the fire it brings when it penetrates and that the ego must then be able to support the integration of the soul and the soul’s memory that lead to the destruction of the impression of self, the destruction of the ego’s false security.
The spirit requires an ego strong enough to eventually support and integrate the spirit energy. An ego strong enough to resist the destruction of its personality and its impression of identity; including its values, concepts, beliefs, emotional ties, etc.
To allow this is not only to allow the expression of spirit in this world but to allow the manifestation of a new entity, a new consciousness paradigm. The spirit is not personal but pre-personal. Its integration with the mortal for the immortalization of consciousness also opens the door of the multidimensional reality of consciousness to the ego.
And lastly, in regards to this vehicle, it should replace the astral body that limits interaction with matter from a astral (read world of the dead) perspective and allows the new born ‘son of man’ to project its consciousness in ethers that were hidden behind the cosmic lies carried by the polluted expression of the soul who has been gathering astral dust for too long.
Consciousness as vehicles or, like the ego, as channels, reflect what they contain. If their consciousness is full of the energy of the dead, they are dead. They must be filled with life to radiate life.
For this, the vehicle itself must be transmuted as well as its content integrated and transformed (maybe an equivalent to conscious matter) to start a new evolution outside of the reincarnation cycle that was necessary to personalize consciousness by means of densification of consciousness.
Then, I can see the pre-personal identity becoming a universal personal principle through its integration by its own son.
Does that seem to fit better with your approach?
1 May 2004
1 year 15 weeks
I was basically trying to say why I could agree with the original post.
What I mean by 'not separate self-existent' is that the soul does not have an entire consciousness range but rather has a consciousness programmed for a purpose.
That is if one considers the main aspect of the soul, being memory, accumulating the experiential value all the while pressuring the ego into more experiences for its benefit.
The 'Diamond' I am referring to is what could be referred to a seed. A seed that was 'dropped' into the astral by the spirit and that must have acted as a magnet to densify consciousness in the astral.
This in turn allowed the soul to evolve and gave the spirit a terminal with which to connect once the soul was incarnated.
If you consider the spirit as not being a space-time entity then we can consider it as a radiating ray that transpierces the layers of ether of lower vibrations. The connection between this ray and the seed forming a multidimensional consciousness of which the ego is one manifestation that happens at the intersection between the spirit and the ‘surface’ of the soul can then be considered a non-integrated multidimensional consciousness.
I say non-integrated because I see that in time, this consciousness must become a single identity, fully integrated by the experimental counter-part, the ego.
What I mean by this is that after the final penetration of the human psychic field, the ego must overcome that energy and in turn integrate it. The ego then becomes the next evolutionary step of the spirit.
On the other hand, it made the spirit-part (seed) of that soul prisoner of astral reality effectively locking it into the world of the dead, the astral, forcing it to accumulate more experience that also lead to a densification of consciousness as the soul was retaining more and more of that experience and the emotional charge they generate during the incarnated experience. The other factor that lead to the densification of consciousness was that the accumulated astralized experience acted as an ever thicker veil against the light of the spirit, eventually cutting off all possibility for the ego to recognize its origin. A good description of what a fallen angel might be.
Hello Earthling,
The sublimation of which I was speaking means the destruction-integration of the soul's energy.
Spirit incarnation does not happen like soul reincarnation.
I guess my words sound twisted because I do not see these things as linear correlations but rather as an intertwined web of willed causality.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies some.
1 May 2004
1 week 16 hours
“Take your place in the presence of the wordless.” ~ Hakim Sanai
Take heart on your journey, tehotu...
Regards
aurora
23 December 2004
6 years 2 weeks
I know I do go on about it. But have you read 'The Book of the Soul'? Yes, I know, I'm a walking-talking advert for the damn thing, but it really is that good, and gives some insight into soul-matters discussed here in this blog and these comments, but also talks about some stuff not yet touched. Can I also state that this blog and the discussion therafter has been so interesting. I've really enjoyed reading the whole thing, on all sides.
Love and Light
Kunti