Basically, I struggle to see how the whole idea of source, higher self, etc, isn't just another dogma enforced from somewhere in order to enslave me and make me do things that someone else wants me to do.
I think your struggle lies in the dogma of seperation and your own definitions of what these discriptions mean to you as being seperate from your own sense of self. It is the paradox of strong sense of seperation while there is none, was none and never will be one in the first place. And at the same time the illusiory nature that is creation provides this possibility of experience (ex-peer-science) as being seperated in order to play a role casting within it wich becomes your 'personal' story.
Words of course can never do full justice describing it, as they are a mere tool of reflection. But it provides a soundboard approaching the concept on a mental level. The real experience is through being consious of it utilising the qualities that you can bring forth.
As much as we place these concepts outside of our selves, something we've been thaught to believe is the "natural order of things" for millenia, it has been abused for the illusion of enslavement, keeping one trapped in a submissive role. That is the dogma part. But it isn't the full story of the nature of Being. These names like higher self, oversoul, source, god are mere compartimentalised concepts from the point of view for Story, while not consiously recognising them in our Being, our sense of self.
Once we do, we no longer speak of higher self, but simply aknowledge them as self, who you are. The reference of difference only applies when consiousness of it is absent... by the illusion of seperation. That is why it speaks of 'the journey back home'. Yet the journey is also the joy of going out. It's as simple as breathing, in and out. It is never this OR that, it is always this AND that.
Free will indicates that you can accept or repulse this, for as long as you want. Yet if one wants to know them selves, it always leads back to One/Source/God-Goddess , whatever designation you'd like to give it. As it simply is all that is, ex-pressed in infinity.
Does this make more sense to you ?
]]>What appeals to me in the Taygetan disclosure is the call to understand things for myself, to strive with my own strength and to live in the manner that would be of greatest benefit to myself and everyone else around. For that to happen though, I see no need in higher self, an over lord soul, or the source. In fact, telling me that I have a higher self, over lord soul or that I am a fragment of the source seems very much disempowering and enslaving.
Basically, I struggle to see how the whole idea of source, higher self, etc, isn't just another dogma enforced from somewhere in order to enslave me and make me do things that someone else wants me to do.
I do understand that sometimes it feels good to be a part of something bigger, something higher, better perhaps, etc, like a collective consciousness, higher self, god or source. But I do not see any of it as really necessary. Not to say that others might not see it differently.
So, perhpas you could explain why do you see the need the consider yourself a part of source, higher self, etc? Why does being a part of source appeal to you?
Thank you.
]]>Hermion wrote:And when nobody is watching how come that they still move like one?
- Love&light Hermi -
I will answer you with another question. When no one is looking, how does that "nobody who does not look" know that they move? ... Even the assumption that they "move" when there is no observer, is another movement not separated from consciousness. If there is no observer, the birds DO NOT EXIST. But going beyond the observer, it does not exist either.
And if you film that by hidden cammera?
They are still there, no matter that noone is looking..
- Love&light Hermi -
]]>Thank you @Mitko and @CHARCOtranquilo for explaining. I understand better now.
And wanted to ask, why is that school of fish or flock of birds move like one body?
Do you agree with mainstream explanation who has theory that each individual watches the one next to him and responses to his change of direction or do you think these clouds of animals are controlled by some sort of oversoul we are discussing here?
- Love&light Hermi -
It is much simpler, and more obvious. "It is you who moves them by observing them." There is no conscience of a flock of birds separate from the perceiver. There is no such separation between the observer and the observed
]]>Hermion oversoul is fragment of the Source but more expanded one. There is no contradiction. We have to use some term to call it somehow in order to distinguish one thing from another.
Merging is uniting with the ideology of the group soul(oversoul). Every point of attention that consist the oversoul is agreeing with the collective ideology and are working like one and becoming one and the same point of attention.
]]>The basic error that is incurred with stubborn frequency by those who try to understand what the Source is, is that the source IS NOT A THOUGHT therefore, to reach their Understanding, IT CANNOT BE THOUGHT
This is the paradox that you have to solve without using thought.
]]>Apologies, I didn't mean to introduce confusion. My question about "oversoul" was related to how Yazhi explained the relationship between her and Swaruu 9. I looked it up now and the exact words she used were "over lord soul".
Please see transcript of "Swaruu and Yazhi - Who Are They? Never Shared Story - Extraterrestrial Contact (Pleiades) - PART 1":
https://swaruu.org/transcripts/swaruu-a … des-part-1
This is an excerpt with that term from the transcript:
"Swaruu 9 was Swaruu 12 when they both were together on the ship sharing the same “over lord soul” for lack of a better term. So they were one at the moment of her death too, and whatever and all that Swaruu 12 knew about matter and bodies being only the reflection and materialization of an ego-self concept and nothing more than potential energy, Swaruu 12 could “dissolve” Swaruu 9's body, right there where she was lying down dead. Just holding on to the idea that she was no longer needed, at the exact moment of her passing. And transferring everything she ever was to Swaruu 12. She just faded away, as if she never existed."
There are other times when Yazhi talks about how concsiousness of a higher density experiences other consciousnesses in lower densities as a part of itself, in a similar way how an individual's consciousness is a composite of all the cells and organs and their consciousnesses. Please note that I am paraphrasing here from memory, so those were not her exact words.
Anyway, I took those explanations as referring to the same "over lord soul" phenomenon. Perhaps it is just another way of saying "higher self"? I don't know. But what I'm getting from Yazhi's talks is that each one of us is basically just a part of some higher entity, and so on indefinitely. And each one of us is essentially just another point of experience/attention for the "over lord soul", which also means that when the "over lord soul" is no longer interested in our point of attention, we would cease to exist, just like Swaruu 9 did?
Either way, in that light, I feel what Andaris was sharing was along the lines of what Yazhi was talking about. So, thank you for sharing, Andaris. I appreciate it!
]]>My oversoul incarnated as 'L' and in turn 'L' incarnated as Me and a number of others.
So in simple terms a soul is just a small piece of the oversoul at the top of your soul family tree, the oversoul experiences ALL of its roles at the same time.
]]>