So it seems some sort of consent, at some level, does play a part in these kinds of 'events'...Regarding the death of Diana and Dodi, I wrote to the list member as follows:
What is decided at “higher levels” can manifest in many ways at this level. The bottom line is: nobody dies unless they have reached a “check-out” point in their “life blueprint.” Whether they agree at some level to participate in an event that leads them down a path to being murdered or otherwise …
Thanks Sid. This is a great read. Not done yet with a few other recommendations within the article that I'm looking at as well but it's kept my Sunday from being unproductive thats for sure! Sometimes I get overwhelmed by the magnitude of reading and learning there is to be done. Just when I feel I am grasping a concept it seems there's another big dipper, another huge piece to learn about and read and delve into. It sure does make the role of the student a lifelong endeavour!Below is the link to Splitting Realities writings by Laura which I mentioned in the reading session. They are an excellent complementary read to current Wave book on Petty Tyrants particularly on how to spot these behaviours ( cue Programs, Buffers and Sacred Cows) inside us and others. Its a multi-part series so, follow the links at the end of each page to the next sections.
Another example is the contrail issue. The group here talked about it quite a bit and the idea being promulgated that contrails are being used to commit genocide on the human race. Well, think about that for a moment. It would sure be a lot easier to commit genocide with land-based vectors – a lot more economical and easier to hide than making such a big display of contrails and then having people connect them with sickness. That does not compute logically.
The Cassiopaeans had told us that it was awareness that binds us to our reality, and by becoming aware, interactively, with the higher reality, we are stretching beyond our normal human limitations. And, when we expand our awareness, as well as act upon higher awareness, we are nurturing that part of ourselves that ultimately grows to “fit” the higher levels, and we then graduate.
I think we might see personality as ego limiting because it limits or defines our connection to essence. But isn't that just a byproduct of being STS?Thanks Sid. This is a great read. Not done yet with a few other recommendations within the article that I'm looking at as well but it's kept my Sunday from being unproductive thats for sure! Sometimes I get overwhelmed by the magnitude of reading and learning there is to be done. Just when I feel I am grasping a concept it seems there's another big dipper, another huge piece to learn about and read and delve into. It sure does make the role of the student a lifelong endeavour!
So, essentially, "ego" is the Latin pronoun equivalent with "I" in English. Freud used this word as the basis for one of his aspects of structural psychology:EtymOnline.com said:ego (n.)
by 1707, in metaphysics, "the self; that which feels, acts, or thinks," from Latin ego "I" (cognate with Old English ic; see I); its use is implied in egoity.
Psychoanalytic (Freudian) sense is from 1894; sense of "conceit" is 1891.They that have pleaded against Propriety, and would have all things common in this World, have forgotten that there is a Propriety, in our present Egoity, and Natural Constitution, which rendereth some accidental Propriety necessary to us (etc.) ["The Practical Works of the Late Reverend and Pious Mr. Richard Baxter," London, 1707]
Wikipedia.org said:Sigmund Freud initially considered the ego to be a sense organ for perception of both external and internal stimuli. He thought of the ego as synonymous with consciousness and contrasted it with the repressed unconscious.
Gurdjieff via Ouspensky in In Search of the Miraculous p.172 said:"It must be understood that man consists of two parts: essence and personality. Essence in man is what is his own. Personality in man is what is 'not his own.' 'Not his own' means what has come from outside, what he has learned, or reflects, all traces of exterior impressions left in the memory and in the sensations, all words and movements that have been learned, all feelings created by imitation—all this is 'not his own,' all this is personality.
"From the point of view of ordinary psychology the division of man into personality and essence is hardly comprehensible. It is more exact to say that such a division does not exist in psychology at all.
"A small child has no personality as yet. He is what he really is. He is essence. His desires, tastes, likes, dislikes, express his being such as it is.
"But as soon as so-called 'education' begins personality begins to grow. Personality is created partly by the intentional influences of other people, that is, by 'education,' and partly by involuntary imitation of them by the child itself. In the creation of personality a great part is also played by 'resistance' to people around him and by attempts to conceal from them something that is 'his own' or 'real.'
"Essence is the truth in man; personality is the false. But in proportion as personality grows, essence manifests itself more and more rarely and more and more feebly and it very often happens that essence stops in its growth at a very early age and grows no further. It happens very often that the essence of a grown-up man, even that of a very intellectual and, in the accepted meaning of the word, highly 'educated' man, stops on the level of a child of five or six. This means that everything we see in this man is in reality 'not his own.' What is his own in man, that is, his essence, is usually only manifested in his instincts and in his simplest emotions. There are cases, however, when a man's essence grows in parallel with his personality. Such cases represent very rare exceptions especially in the circumstances of cultured life. Essence has more chances of development in men who live nearer to nature in difficult conditions of constant struggle and danger.
Gurdjieff via Ouspensky in In Search of the Miraculous p.66 said:"We have already spoken enough about the meaning of being 'born.' This relates to the beginning of a new growth of essence, the beginning of the formation of individuality, the beginning of the appearance of one indivisible I.
"But in order to be able to attain this or at least begin to attain it, a man must die, that is, he must free himself from a thousand petty attachments and identifications which hold him in the position in which he is. He is attached to everything in his life, attached to his imagination, attached to his stupidity, attached even to his sufferings, possibly to his sufferings more than to anything else. He must free himself from this attachment. Attachment to things, identification with things, keep alive a thousand useless I's in a man. These I's must die in order that the big I may be born. But how can they be made to die? They do not want to die. It is at this point that the possibility of awakening comes to the rescue. To awaken means to realize one's nothingness, that is to realize one's complete and absolute mechanicalness and one's complete and absolute helplessness. And it is not sufficient to realize it philosophically in words. It is necessary to realize it in clear, simple, and concrete facts, in one's own facts. When a man begins to know himself a little he will see in himself many things that are bound to horrify him. So long as a man is not horrified at himself he knows nothing about himself. A man has seen in himself something that horrifies him. He decides to throw it off, stop it, put an end to it. But however many efforts he makes, he feels that he cannot do this, that everything remains as it was. Here he will see his impotence, his helplessness, and his nothingness; or again, when he begins to know himself a man sees that he has nothing that is his own, that is, that all that he has regarded as his own, his views, thoughts, convictions, tastes, habits, even faults and vices, all these are not his own, but have been either formed through imitation or borrowed from somewhere ready-made. In feeling this a man may feel his nothingness. And in feeling his nothingness a man should see himself as he really is, not for a second, not for a moment, but constantly, never forgetting it.
"This continual consciousness of his nothingness and of his helplessness will eventually give a man the courage to 'die,' that is, to die, not merely mentally or in his consciousness, but to die in fact and to renounce actually and forever those aspects of himself which are either unnecessary from the point of view of his inner growth or which hinder it. These aspects are first of all his 'false I,' and then all the fantastic ideas about his 'individuality,' 'will,' 'consciousness,' 'capacity to do,' his powers, initiative, determination, and so on.