Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Defining the larger being

Defining the larger being

DeMarco, Frank. Rita's World: A View from the Non-Physical (Kindle Location 3628). Rainbow Ridge Books. Kindle Edition

(A)  Bearing this in mind, among the many things "the larger being" does not mean are:

*  God
*  All humanity
*  All creation
*  Yourself and a few kindred souls only
*  The creator of the universe (if you conceive of this as different from God)

Any of these assumptions will send you down different garden paths.  For our purposes, let us define then so:
Larger beings incorporate smaller but similar consciousnesses and function in a way that is different and incomprehensible to those elements that comprise them.[1]

[1] Much like Ken Wilber's "holarchy" of holons, Seth's "hierarchy" of gestalts (e.g. Seth, Seth 2, Pyramid Gestalts), Lazaris term "Higher Self" (there is no Highest Self!).

Remember, you experience yourselves (usually) as if you were units, whereas it is at least equally true to say that you are communities.  In fact, it might be closer to the truth to say that an individual in 3D is a community learning to function as a unit, and the unit is designed to function as one unit in a larger community functioning as a unit, and so on and so forth, all the way up and down the chain of being.

But "the chain of being" doesn't include non-compound - integral - beings.  It refers to compound beings.

(Q)  Does this imply that our cells are themselves compound beings?

(A)  That is exactly what it implies and it is true, what you intuited, that you as an individual are the equivalent to them of their larger being, and your communications to them are equivalent (to them) of messages from TGU (The Guys Upstairs).  That is, they experience communications from another order of intelligence whose true mode of operation is a mystery to them.

(Q)  Again, as above, so below.

(A)  Yes, only bear in mind, the world is full of many things besides compound beings formed of 3D experience.  And one way in which the larger beings are compound is that they may be composed of elements some of which have not been shaped by 3D, as well as some that have.  Just because we examine any given element in isolation does not mean it may rightly be considered to be truly isolated.  All things connect.  It is merely that for the purpose of close examination and analysis, you can look at only so much at a time.

(Q)  I was struck by something you said in passing yesterday to the effect that any generalization is a slurring of certain differences and an emphasis, perhaps an over-emphasis, on certain similarities.

(A)  Given time and attention such distortions iron out, but it does take time and attention.

Now, your hour is over, and a bit more.  I believe we have answered the question not as posed but as it would be better posed.  If not, we can come back to it.

(Q)  The only loose thread I see is, "How is this useful in daily life?”

(A)  There could be two alternate answers to that.  One, the answer is implied in the description of what the larger being is.  (Consider the difference between our definition and the unconscious assumption built into the term "higher self", for instance.)  The second is, "that's a large topic in itself; either that, or it is the theme of this entire work".  Sorry to be so cryptic, but that's enough said, at least for the moment.  We can continue with question #12 next time.

No comments:

Post a Comment