(05-18-2009, 12:04 PM)3D Sunset Wrote: A much more interesting question to me, is what happens to the mind, and even the spirit of the mind/body/spirit complex.
Consider, for example, the fact that in 4D (as well as in time/space after death) the veil is removed. I think that this fact more than any other points to the profound difference between 3D and 4D. Living as we do in our 3D consciousness, it is extremely difficult to fathom the effect that this could have on our perspectives about everything. This is actually one of my primary reasons for rejecting the concept of instantaneous ascension. Because if it does involve an instantaneous awareness of all of our past lives, victories, failures, trespassings, trials, and tribulations, it would seem to me that the 3D mind would quite likely and quite literally explode.
I found it interesting that in one of DWs arguments, he states that most "gradualists" probably have an unresolved issue with death and are not ready to let go of life. I actually see it a little differently. To me, most people that support the instantaneous ascension theory (note that I avoid creating the label of "instantaneousists", which in my opinion only serves to separate us), seem to be too tied to their existing mind and ego, and want to support a scenario that allows them to remain largely, intellectually, and mentally "in-tact" as it were.
In my opinion, the "I" that will exist in 4D will actually be not unlike a stand alone social memory complex, in that it will have access to the distilled experiences of all of "my" past incarnations, that will have already been accepted and integrated into a "mental consensus" of the associated experiences. I find it laughably absurd that anyone thinks that "they" will awake one morning in a new 4D world with their 3D sensibilities. (As a simple example consider the Thread under Divine Cosmos' Law of One forum, that is entitled "Upcoming 4D Harvest... Will I be able to keep my guitars?", which is a veritable bonfire for the vanities of those involved in the discussion).
Very well put. I very much like what you have to say here dear friend. I am reading in a sense, that perhaps although slightly differently stated, that we may nonetheless be in agreement, this as regards your words here vis-a-vis my last several posts where I suggest that all is a mystery in 3D, as it must be by design, and that though we are compelled to strive to unveil the mystery, and even must attempt to, it is as though we may only reach for the fringes at best. We perhaps get there through here, but not from here, as I suggested in my last closing. How then do we state facts about the mystical and infinite as though "Proof Positive Facts", and this in our puny yet all at once majestic and grandly beautiful 3D? It is almost unconscionable, if not desecrating, if not comedic gross arrogance, which is sadly laughable, tragic, and infinitely humorous at once.
Dear Ali, yourself, Monica, and Yossarian have contributed wonderfully to what has thus far been an intriguing study mechanism of the LOO in reverse, which for this moment we might consider as the Wilcockian path dissected. I think it works rather profoundly in fact. It forces us to look deeply at some rather lengthy interpretations that have in fact acted as the very foundations of knowledge of the LOO for many here. It is the large net you suggested, but that seemingly contains many tangled concepts, as a large net would, full of what might be challenged as many misperceptions.
It could not be done without Ali's grasp of the knowledge, as well as the issue as regards what he has termed the ambiguities. There is no denying his point. Nor could it be done without your keen insights and ability to see so much more otherwise, as seen even here, nor Monica's wonderful observation of a simple sublime and possible homonym, as well as Yoassarian prodding the search for so much of the conspiratorial aspects, which I frankly had a belly full of years ago through so many books, even before the internet (it is amazing how it all reads exactly the same information in almost every single aspect and way to the letter, minus the new events of the day - it only looks as though new to the new reader).
Q