TGU — The higher self

Friday, April 27, 2018

5:30 a.m. A sus ordenes. We haven’t really gotten to the weather yet, have we?

All in good time. Perseverance is key. Over time, various aspects will be filled in, then it is a matter of someone putting it into summary order. If you do not do it, someone else must.

We are encouraging you to think of reality in a different way, a more comprehensive way, than is usually adopted. Rather than concentrating on human life as it is experienced in the physical world, we brought in the non-physical world which, for a long time, you considered separately. Then we helped you to integrate your thinking, so that your new normal “default” position was of human life as being lived in All-D, as All-D beings. No “normal” versus “psychic” life, but life, all one thing.

That All-D life in turn is not separate from what you are in your larger self. In fact – important clarification for some – 3D-plus-Non-3D is not your larger being. 3D-plus-Non-3D is your accustomed being, what you might call your lower selves, not your higher selves. Reintegrating your non-3D components into your self-definition was an important advance, but the All-D self is still your accustomed self, not your higher self. You might say it is you as you live on earth, only with all your senses functioning. That’s an advance in understanding, but it is not what you sometimes think. Your higher self is the part of you that is not confined to your 3D existence, but is prior to it.

Spirit, as opposed to soul.

Yes, but it is well to remind your readers that those terms mean something, they are not interchangeable. Soul may be considered to be spirit as it is bound in one specific 3D life situation. It is the Frankness of Frank, the mind of Frank. Spirit is the essence that is expressing this time as Frank, another time as Bertram, or Joseph, etc. Of course when we say “time” in this context, we mean “general situation.” A person born in France cannot also be born somewhere else. It is an either / or. If born male, then not female; if Italian, then not non-Italian, and so on.

Yes, I get that. Spirit cannot be changed by the events of physical life (as far as I know), whereas the whole point of physical life from our perspective is to change the soul.

To allow the soul to determine changes, yes.

Now, in identifying “spirit” with “higher self,” we will be stitching together two concepts that many people have held in not-interconnecting mental boxes. For others, still recoiling from anything smacking of religion, the very word “spirit” may be suspect, or may be rejected out of hand. But this stitching-together is necessary if we are to sketch a broader view of what you are and what you are doing here, and, in short, what it’s all about.

So, let us say your Sam – the origin and interconnection of so many past or other lives – is in effect your higher self. This will serve as effective scaffolding. Seen this way, you will see a couple of things.

* Sam as we define it is not God, not in any sense the ultimate creator, not in any sense the connector of all beings.

By connector you mean, I think, the common field of being.

That’s right. If your Sam is the connector, the common denominator, of Frank and Joseph and Bertram and so on, still it is not the common field of everyone else’s lives. There are fewer Sams than human lives “past,” “present,” and “future,” but that still leaves room for plenty of Sams!

* A Sam, then, though not the ultimate creator or the ultimate source of life or form, is nonetheless a being at an entirely different level of existence than an All-D human.

It is our greater mind, to which we sometimes have access when we are particularly connected.

It is to you as you are to your kidneys, or your lungs. It is a higher order of intelligence and awareness, primarily concerned with other things.

How far can we push “As above, so below” in this instance?

Pretty far, actually. So consider your everyday mind in relation to your lungs. Your lungs do not read books or watch films. The things you think about or experience directly or vicariously are invisible to them, and would be meaningless to a lung if it could somehow perceive them. Yet, the state of your lungs affects your life. You depend upon their functioning, and if they malfunction, you are affected. Conversely, the lungs are sensitive to your condition. The effects of emotion may affect the lungs, but of course they cannot know what caused the change in their condition. Not only do they not know what changed the chemical balance, say, they cannot even appreciate that there is a balance to be considered. So, you, in connection to the higher self, the Sam. It is an indissoluble link, but it is also alien to your accustomed world.

We may need to be sure nobody got thrown off at the curve, there. I get that you said that just as we and our physical organs have different levels of perception and intelligence, and so in effect live in different worlds, so we in All-D are similarly separated from the next higher level up, which we are calling a Sam. We are intimately tied together, but we are of different levels of consciousness, hence live in different world, among different concerns.

Good enough. Now, can you imagine that your liver cares about your politics or your economic situation or the films and novels you ingest? Conversely, can you imagine even comprehending, let alone being fascinated by, the day-to-day mental life (call it) of your liver? They are two different worlds, and rightly so, and the fact that they can be seen as parts of one thing (as they are) does not change the fact of their difference.

Similarly, can you imagine that your Sam cares about your politics or your economic condition, etc.? Yet, that distance from your All-D concerns is not the same as the distance from a lower level (a lung, say). Because it is a higher order of consciousness, your Sam can comprehend these things. It can be aware of your struggles and amusements and progress and regress, in the same way that you as an All-D creature can become aware of the vicissitudes a lung experiences. A higher level comprehends – includes, incorporates – a lower level, but not vice-versa.

As you say that, I am reminded of E. F. Schumacher in A Guide for the Perplexed discussing the medieval concept of adequatio.

That was in a slightly different context, but the concept is worth exploring, and can be found, presumably, by a search on the computer.

In short, though, it says you can’t comprehend something if your level of being is inadequate to hold it.

Our point here has been to caution you that it is a mistake to think that your higher self is merely you with a telescope, or you with fewer obstacles to your understanding. What you are describing in such cases is not your higher self but your All-D self when seen more completely.

Your higher self is qualitatively different from your All-D self, and the sooner you realize it, the sooner your vision will clear.

Again, we do not say these things merely so you may skim over them and nod approvingly. To benefit from new ideas – to even fully realize the newness in them – you must mull them, must ponder, must knead the dough to leaven the lump.

And that will do for today, and you may wish to take tomorrow off, or not, as you prefer.

Very well. Our thanks as always.

[Found this: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/08/22/schumacher-adaequatio-understanding/]

9 thoughts on “TGU — The higher self

  1. So, we are going as far as we can with our awareness/comprehension (to include 3D, non-3D, All-D), short of Sam?
    That the higher self is “qualitatively different from your All-D self” makes sense, considering what it includes and comprehends, but I am intrigued by what it means.
    Great session.

  2. Thoughts:

    The analogy of “me” (conscious 3d self) in relation to “my” lungs offers a foothold for conceptualization. But I (conscious 3d self) did not create, envision, or form my lungs. Perhaps I secreted (?) them as a necessary condition of my coming to be as this 3d self. But even saying that– “I secreted”– obscures the million and one other co-dependent factors and conditions necessary for just my lungs to come to be; never mind the totality of my 3d self.

    The point I’m trying to get at is while the conceptual distinction between the life of my lungs and the life of the 3d consciousness that is me is clear enough the distinction breaks down if Sam is taken to be my conscious creator. I simply have not consciously created any of the organs I am utterly dependent upon to continue this particular existence. It seems more comprehensible to think of my organs as having collectively created me rather than the other way round. Or more tentatively stated, having creating the conditions that makes me possible.

    But, keeping with the above/below dynamic, perhaps Sam simply secreted me as a necessary condition for doing whatever it is Sam does– much in the way I secreted lungs to make this 3d life possible? Secrete does not present a very lovely image, I’m aware. The other term that comes to mind is precipitate. In any case, the idea here is to imagine a couple of possibilities that are distinct yet related: Sam less as conscious creator carefully crafting thousands and millions of lives, 3d or otherwise, and more an unconscious or dimly-conscious creator like us humans, only on a much vaster scale. The other is to imagine any given 3d life as a necessary condition for Sam to come to be. Perhaps I’m not even Sam’s lungs. I may be just be a few strands of genetic material that can eventually contribute to the formation of the lungs. Yet without me and others like me there is no possibility of Sam’s coming to be.

    1. My initial reaction to this comment was impatience, a sort of “That’s carrying the analogy too far, it’s too literal.” But then as I kept reading, I thought, This is exactly the kind of work they encourage us to do: Think about the material rather than merely accept or reject it.
      So it’s worth thinking about. I did not secrete my lungs; they were created as I was created; no “me” without my lungs, no lungs without me. And I can’t see myself as being on the same level of awareness — same level of being — as my Sam, any more than I can see my lungs as having the same level of awareness as I do.
      Perhaps a productive analogy would be to see my Sam as “growing” me in the process of its own development, as the fetus that became me grew its lungs in the process of becoming a viable being. Further thoughts from you or others would be welcome.

      1. Growing feels “in line” to me, as above so below, Alpha and Omega, the All that ever was and shall be, universe is expanding, no end and no beginning, recycling, ad infinitum.

  3. I continue to find this material meaningful and helpful. I did not get to reading this till late last night. So, I now have a question about scaffolding for you, Frank.

    We have several “pointers” that have been used to describe the “Sam” or “Higher Self” or “Spirit” or “our individual Creator.

    What is TGU’s “amoeba then under this newer or expanded light? Is it simply the community referred to above as the “All-D self” or “accustomed being”?

    I will also comment that it is interesting to me that Bruce Moen’s “disk” (which are familiar with as his publisher) is very similar what has been pointed to and distinguished above. This also appears to be similarities to what Christ’s prayer was directed towards (which Nathaniel recently worded and seemingly pointed to in their “unitary way”).

    I see many intersections of terms here. It might be useful to clear some of this up, especially before TGU’s suggested summary is made.

        1. I had to delete and re-create yesterday’s post in order to fix the problem you pointed out. Thanks for doing so. (Deleting the post also deleted your comment and my response.)

  4. Frank (feel free to post this or not),

    Two days ago I read your next day’s blog posting after this one, and saw your opening comment about whether anyone had read the link you posted the day before. So, I went back to find what I had completely missed. It turned out that my cousin had only last week introduced me to Ms. Popova’s website, which impressed me quite a bit. I am tickled with the reminder of our connectedness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *