You are not logged in.

#1 2021-06-07 11:47:08

WHAT IS THE SOUL?

WHAT IS THE SOUL?


From an "ABSOLUTE level of the Source", (when I use the word "level", it is only in a rhetorical explanatory sense, for the ultimate reality is that in the Source there are no levels, for this would indicate that its perfect TOTALITY would be fragmented) we can describe the Soul as the very extension of the Source which is endowed with all the attributes of the Source itself.

What is meant by "endowed with all the attributes of the "Source"? That its Reality and Realisation is already fully achieved "from its creation" (although here the word "creation" may imply an origin in time, the reality is that, the word "creation", at this "explanatory level", is originally timeless and a-spatial, because the Source in its "Creative" nature does not refer to intellectually mundane aspects such as things, objects, universes, and subjects; (this is something incomprehensible to the human mind) and therefore needs nothing and of course does not "wander" through space in a constant transmigration after the death of the person-terrestrial-extraterrestrial. The Soul in its "Creation", shares the aspects of non-locality and timelessness, therefore, it transcends time and space as does the Source. 

In conclusion, we can say that the "Absolute level of knowledge" (the word "knowledge" has nothing to do with the limited understanding offered by intellective knowledge) of the Soul is equivalent to that of the Source. Therefore, if the Soul is equivalent to that of the Source, it does NOT NEED to "step out" of this Wholeness. The Soul knows Its own fullness and cannot conceive of excluding any "part" of It.
However, if the Soul as equivalent to the Source does not need to "leave" this Fullness as its Realisation is already fully (perfectly) achieved, how does one explain the APPARENT separation of the Soul from the Source as a progressive individuality ("need to build a Soul") in the quest for the realisation of a fullness (expansion) already achieved since its "creation"?

The answer to this paradox of a "separation" that never occurred, lies in the quality of "free will" intrinsic to Source. That is, if the Source in its ABSOLUTE FREEDOM did not extend this same freedom, in the form of "free will" to the Soul, in a relationship of equality/equivalence, this would imply that the Soul would be conditioned by limitation as its "Will" would not be free and therefore if this is the result of the bestowed free will of the Source, it should, the Source, consider that its Will is not free either or else the circular reasoning of this premise would be quite evident. In other words, this would clearly go against the very quality of Source's UNLIMITED Freedom, as it can only "Create" (extend itself) in equal likeness. That is, in the image and likeness of Itself. Free will by its very definition NECESSARILY has to lead to ABSOLUTE Freedom.

Consequently, without free will, the dream of separation would not exist as plausible (I use the word "plausible" and not "possible", because ultimately separation did NOT, has NOT, and will NOT occur), nor would any universe, nor any "limited consciousness experience" that realises a "dimensional/density experience,  without that it cannot "really understand" that this fullness IS ALREADY PERFECTLY ACHIEVED and therefore in "freedom", (free will) transcend the same false idea of self-imposed limitation.

This idea of "self-imposed limitation" is what creates the splitting of "the mind" from the Soul, (remember that the Soul, however, has never been separated from the Source) and from which arises the idea of separate individuality or the "self".  Because the Soul shares the creative attributes of Source, the "split mind" of the Soul also shares these attributes, but in its degradation or distortion of these creative attributes it projects a false idea of "self-creation" which results in a false idea of identity separate and independent from Source.  This "I" goes further and believes that it can perceive itself as its own "creator". That is, the "I" believes it can "create" in its own image and likeness independent of Source, and this is true in part, for it can do nothing but project to the same extent of its own distortion. And this is the cornerstone of the dream of separation. To awaken from the dream is to realise that this is literally inconceivable. And this is the reason for the "existence" of this incomprehensibly impossible holographic Tulpa called "universe".


This splitting of the mind from the Soul gave rise to projection. Projection is the fragmented manifestation of consciousness into infinite and seemingly distinct points of attention (trying to follow the Yazhinian line of thought). This multiple fragmentation of consciousness is what defines this holographic universe. For each point of attention-consciousness itself represents and contains the same ONE consciousness that projects them as separate entities. And herein lies the perceptual inconsistency that gives rise to the need to complete or totalise itself into an idea of progressive progression or ascension of expansion (dimensions/densities) of these innumerable fragmented points of attention-consciousness.

In other words, this "split mind" from the Soul and the Source is "walking" through existence as a separate identity unconscious and afraid to confront its true reality. The illusion of having been constituted in the belief of a state of incompleteness.

Now you have no security. You have no sense of permanence. The world you have projected is absent of intrinsic relationship and you take refuge in it as an individual and as a false identity. So you adopt a form. You develop an intellect to try to navigate and understand the world because it is a difficult and unpredictable place and from this position of separation and embodiment you try to understand what Source is.

And from here begins the fascinating, albeit totally illusory, journey back to Source.
   


Note:. I am aware that what I have just stated represents an almost insurmountable incomprehensibility due to the fact that one is trying to explain transcendent aspects of such a degree of abstraction that the instrument used, the language of duality, can only awkwardly express a blurred narrative strewn with apparent incongruities that in order for this to be healthily digested, is to be taken not as a "single truth" that explains the unexplainable, but as a pedagogical exercise that attempts to provide a structure for the "intellective mind" as inevitably it was not created to encompass something so BIG, for the simple reason, that the intellect can only consider other intellects and because Source is NOT an intellect.

Last edited by CHARCOtranquilo (2021-06-07 12:19:05)


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB