Let's continue our exploration of the relationship between the incarnate self (the ego) and the higher self. We begin by taking a step back to look at the overall picture of human mentality. 

First, there is the conscious ego of the incarnate personality. Then there is the subliminal self (as F.W.H. Myers called it), which includes both the subconscious and the superconscious.

The subconscious – dubbed "George" by Arthur Ellison, who compared it to the autopilot of an airplane – is a programmable faculty that can access information and provide creative breakthroughs when properly instructed. It functions largely as an information retrieval service and as a way of organizing information.

The superconscious is the total intelligence of which the earthly incarnation is only a small part. It is typically difficult to access while we are incarnate. Perhaps because the brain serves as a kind of filter, most of the knowledge and wisdom of our higher self or super-consciousness is denied to us during our earthly journey. On rare occasions, some individuals do enjoy brief, tantalizing, life-changing direct access to the superconscious. Such episodes are known as instances of "cosmic consciousness," as described by Maurice Bucke. For the most part, our exposure to the superconscious is limited to bits and pieces that manage to bleed through whatever barrier ordinarily blocks them; it seems that the subconscious serves as a backdoor access route to the superconscious in these cases, and the material often reaches us in dreams or reveries.

The superconscious is what I've called the diamond (an image that's not original with me, having been used by the channeled entity Silver Birch, among others). Our incarnate ego-consciousness is one facet of the diamond. The diamond has many facets, each representing a distinct incarnate personality, which collectively can be described, somewhat inaccurately, as a series of "reincarnations." Together these various personalities and their experiences make up the total self.

But – and here is where it starts to get interesting – the total self is also interacting with other selves, other diamonds. We see evidence of this interaction in the work of hypnotic regression therapists such as Michael Newton who bring patients to a "between lives" state. In this condition, the patient appears to identify not with the incarnate ego but with the higher self. She typically remembers multiple incarnations while understanding her true self to be distinct from any of them. She also remembers the process of learning from each incarnation and choosing the conditions of her next incarnation. And the patient invariably describes herself – i.e., her higher self – as one member of a group of colleagues who are all engaged in the same kind of exploration. In fact, intense emotional bonds form among these various higher selves; hypnotically regressed patients would frequently break down in tears when reunited with their "between lives" friends.

So the diamond is not an isolated thing. Unlike Simon and Garfunkel, it would not sing, "I am a rock, I am an island …" Instead it is part of a community of souls all striving for advancement and needing to advance together.

To extend the diamond imagery, we can imagine these various diamonds as parts of a continuous chain – a diamond bracelet or necklace, so to speak. The total string of diamonds, which may be unimaginably vast, presumably equals the totality of consciousness in existence and is therefore equivalent to "God."

Now here's the tricky part. The diamonds exist outside of our space-time cosmos. They are not bound by temporal linearity. So what they will do, they have already done, and what they will become, they already are. The journeys undertaken by the component psyches have all been accomplished, and the stringing-together of the diamonds into an unbroken strand has already been done.

But the journeys were and are necessary to inform the diamonds. And the journeys were and are bound by linear time.

In other words, we can look at the situation from two very different perspectives – the perspective of linear time, with which we are personally familiar, and the perspective of existence outside of time, about which we can only speculate. Our own perspective, as incarnate beings here on earth, is limited, while the perspective of the total self is unlimited or at least radically less limited. And each perspective is correct in its own terms.

Previously in this blog, we've talked about the brilliant 19th century satire Flatland, by Edwin Abbott, which compares the limited perspective of a two-dimensional being to the more advanced perspective of a three-dimensional being. Flatland is directly relevant to the issue we're facing here.

From a Flatland perspective we are engaged in a long ongoing journey, but from a higher perspective we have already completed the journey. And yet the journey was necessary in order to make the perfection of the diamond possible. What we're talking about is a strange loop, a tangled hierarchy, a hand drawing itself, a snake swallowing its own tail, a Mobius strip. The end is implicit in the beginning; the beginning contains the end. Like the time traveler who saves his ancestor's life and thus ensures that he will be born, the perfected diamond directs the journeys that will make possible its own perfection. 

I admit that there is no way to fully grasp this, inasmuch as it would require a higher dimensional level of understanding, which we as incarnate beings simply don't have. That doesn't mean it's not true, any more than the third dimension (height) is untrue just because Flatlanders can't perceive it. I suppose this is where faith comes in – faith in the original sense of "trust" (the ancient Greek word is pistis). We have to trust that there are not only quantitatively but qualitatively different levels of reality and of consciousness, and that at higher levels the paradoxes and mysteries that presently bedevil us will dissolve.

We can say, then, that the higher self both is and is not God. And the incarnate self both is and is not God. From a timeless perspective, in which everything has been accomplished, the incarnate self is part of the higher self which in turn is part of God, and therefore the incarnate self partakes of God. But from a space-time perspective, the incarnate self is still busy informing and perfecting the diamond – the facets have not yet been polished to a high shine – and the diamond has not yet linked up with the other diamonds, because it is not yet ready.

So from a Flatland vantage point, the incarnate self is on a journey to become a polished facet of the diamond, and the diamond in turn is on the journey to become one facet of God. But from a more elevated perspective, these journeys have already been completed and the incarnate self already is – and always has been – a polished facet of the diamond, which already is (and always has been) a facet of God.

Since we cannot really grasp a non-Flatland perspective except as intellectual abstraction, we cannot quite "see" the diamond chain as a completed fact. To us, if we intuit its reality at all, it is a work in progress. But this is a feature of our limited perspective. If we were able to grasp higher perspectives of consciousness, we would see the whole matter quite simply – just as the hero of Abbott's Flatland, the redoubtable Mr. A. Square, saw everything with startling new clarity when he was lifted up, quite against his will, into Spaceland and observed his two-dimensional home from a height for the first time.

Posted in ,
  1. SPatel Avatar
    SPatel

    Why couldn’t God also be on a journey of self improvement?
    If the journeys are already complete, doesn’t that suggest our paths are completely predetermined?
    Doesn’t seem very comforting?

  2. Claudio Avatar

    Hi, Michael.
    You can handle my paragon, instead of the diamond a human hand. It’s one, but there are 5 fingers and all together can play the piano. Each finger plays its notes, but it’s the whole hand that directs them to the right keys.
    A friend of mine channeled this example about linear/non linear time: here we’re sitting on a carousel so we can see what happens around the carousel in a linear sequence while it revolves around. But, if we descend from the seat, we will get a whole view of the scene around the carousel.
    This info was transmitted by EVP from a High Spirit who’s able to put in contact the deceased with their relatives, who usually give many verifiable facts.

  3. SPatel Avatar
    SPatel

    Speaking of the journey of souls toward self-improvement, interesting article on past-life regression @ Reality Sandwich:
    Love Across Lifetimes
    http://realitysandwich.com/319546/love-across-lifetimes/
    ‘In the third and final scene, he was an African-American male jazz singer in 1920s Chicago, singing on stage during the climax of his favorite song. I couldn’t imagine anything with more vitality and verve. The band played behind him while people danced all around. He saw his white girlfriend in the front row looking at him with eyes so filled with attraction and passion, they could have been the only two people there. Obviously, the love between these two was set against the backdrop of racism, segregation, and prejudice that we are still resolving today. I asked “What is different about this singer from the woman in the village or the young wife in the garden?” and he said “He loves himself.”’

  4. Steve Philbrook Avatar
    Steve Philbrook

    It’s fun to ponder these types of ideas. Supposedly Buddha said “the universe is, and always has been, complete”. I think the best proof is, long before men moved pebbles around to “discover” this, two plus two always equalled four. Likewise all mathematical solutions, no matter how complex, already exist. Just as fire would always have softened metal and planes always would have flown. I’m always amused when the mathematicians crow about how well the universe matches their work. What we don’t hear about is all the calculations that went into the trash until they found ones that match observations!

  5. Joshua Scott Hotchkin Avatar

    Reality as an axiom, then?
    You can only see the data set you are a factor in.

  6. jamesoeming@gmail.com Avatar
    jamesoeming@gmail.com

    Along the lines of talking about models of consciousness, here is a link to a post by the estimable Bernardo Kastrup, author of Materialism is Baloney and other books and articles. It is about an experiment that supports his notion that brains are rather like transient physical “whirlpools” in an ocean of non-physical consciousness. If the brain’s function is reduced in certain areas, Kastrup surmises, the brainbound consciousness will be opened to larger metaphysical vistas. The experiment corroborates this view.
    http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/02/predictions-that-arent-baloney.html

  7. Matt Rouge Avatar
    Matt Rouge

    Michael,
    Brilliant post! I think it sums up a lot, and I suspect that it’s mostly true. One thing I find questionable, however:
    ||I admit that there is no way to fully grasp this, inasmuch as it would require a higher dimensional level of understanding, which we as incarnate beings simply don’t have.||
    I think through spiritual development we *can* begin to grasp it. True, you did say “fully.” The “fully” perhaps only comes from the perspective of Source itself.
    Nice work!

  8. Douglas Avatar
    Douglas

    Over on Bernardo’s forum I posted a link to a PHD thesis which contained a great comparison between Seth’s framework and that of Sri Aurobindo, the Indian guru. The writer is quite astonished by how closely they agree on many aspects, despite coming from widely different backgrounds.
    Of course, if there is any core truth to all this, then such convergence should be expected.
    I’ve always found some traditional philosophy, eg advaita philosophy, a bit unhelpful when it comes to exploring these areas. It reduces everything to an undifferentiated blob. For me Seth has provided a framework in which to make sense of all this.
    ‘Consciousness gestalt’ is a phrase which comes to mind.
    The great thing is, he doesn’t disagree with Advaita – yes it is all one, but within the one there is infinite diversity. It’s the second bit that advaitans can’t seem to handle, or seek to dismiss as ‘maya’. Maya is not to be dismissed; to do so is to disrespect consciousness, for ‘maya’ is how consciousness expresses itself.
    Seth also confirms how much diversity there is *outside* of our own human awareness. Again Advaita likes to make out there there’s consciousness, and then there’s ‘us’, or apparently us, living in illusion – that’s it.
    It forgets the myriad realms and areas of consciousness that all the evidence suggests exists between us and All That Is, and is of course contained within it. It’s a far richer vision.

  9. Amos Oliver Doyle Avatar

    I can see within these philosophies the metaphor of the ‘Diamond’ previously discussed here. That is, an oversoul (or “consciousness gestalt”) is made up of many individual personalities or individual incarnations. Much in the way that I, in old age am made up of an infant personality, a child, an adolescent, a young adult, a mature adult an old adult and an elderly adult. My consciousness is one consciousness but incorporated within it is each of those personalities.
    Similarly, the oversoul is made up of each of its incarnations and perhaps if all of those oversouls merge together at some point, that in fact, they all become one god-like gestalt with infinite diversity.
    Each culture uses its own definitions, analogies and metaphors to try to explain the unexplainable. But I think they are all struggling to define some ultimate gestalt reality or God

  10. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    “Each culture uses its own definitions, analogies and metaphors to try to explain the unexplainable. But I think they are all struggling to define some ultimate gestalt reality or God” – AOD
    Hear, hear! The fact that we all (all cultures) appreciate the concept suggests, at least to me, that there must be some kind of truth/reality behind it.

  11. Matt Rouge Avatar
    Matt Rouge

    Great comments, Douglas!

  12. TonyT Avatar
    TonyT

    this post happily expresses my best guess at the nature of Nature, but I would make a slight change to the metaphor
    the diamond necklace as a model for our local group and something like the Crown Jewels as a model for God makes more sense to me
    assuming Sirians exist, I am not certain the diamond model best expresses the intent or limitations of their incarnation

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Michael Prescott's Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading