The 8th Archetypes

[Adonai One]

There shall be systems of 8 chakras, 8 densities where the 8th-density is apparently fully seen and clear along with 8 archetypes.

These systems will come to be when the universe begins to absorb into itself rather than expand. When you are ready, you may see visions of these potential realities. These visions may change you.

There are many shadows of the 8th archetypes in our current system. They become clearer by the day. However, not even Ra knows what they will fully be. Our 7th-density friends don't even care to know.

In these systems, I have been told the sixth-density negative entity can attain the oversoul manifestation and proceed.

[Alex Zachary]

But you know.

[Adonai One]

I know 8-archetypal systems can be seen. However, they are not understood by any intelligences within this galaxy.

The day they are understood is the day the 8th archetype is born. This is nearly impossible but minutely feasible.

I am told there is potential for an infinite amount of archetypes. I theorize it is desired to see how many of these aspects of infinity can be finitely understood.

---

In these systems, the individual will have the greatest chance (but not a guaranteed opportunity) to see and understand infinity face-to-face. Only a few planets will have the standing to make such possible. These planets will be more fortunste than Venus.

[Unbound]

Always gotta be at the top.

---

Oh, I don't disagree, but the interpretation of such a possibility is amusing to me aha

[Adonai One]

Tanner, I highly encourage you to seek visions of these potential realities and see for yourself, if you feel comfortable. You will know what I mean once these planets are seen.

[Sagittarius]

You seem to be describing moving into the first sub-scale of 4d space/time.

Also no one will ever know what you mean in a complete sense because you don't even yourself. Your misinterpreting individual catalyst for societal catalyst. You talk to yourself literally your giving yourself advice over and over again.

[Unbound]

Tanner, I highly encourage you to seek visions of these potential realities and see for yourself, if you feel comfortable. You will know what I mean once these planets are seen.

I already have, and have viewed much. I find most interesting the interpretation of the finding whereas the finding itself is only as important as the implications applied to it.

[Adonai One]

You seem to be describing moving into the first sub-scale of 4d space/time.

Also no one will ever know what you mean in a complete sense because you don't even yourself. Your misinterpreting individual catalyst for societal catalyst. You talk to yourself literally your giving yourself advice over and over again.

Societal catalyst is individual catalyst expressed.

[zenmaster]

I'm going to have to agree with Sag there a1 - no one can ever know in a more complete sense because you have not yet explored any of these ideas yourself. These statements of truth are immediate reactions to intuitive notions and therefore incapable of doing much more than suggesting a vague perception which is distant from conscious awareness. My advice would be to consciously develop your "secondary function" more fully, and in so doing the treatment of your intuitive notions will be grounded in some kind of actual experience.

[Adonai One]

I am intentionally being vague. I have explored deeply. That is all.

[zenmaster]

I am intentionally being vague. I have explored deeply. That is all.

No, you're actually not because you do not truly know what you are talking about. And no, you haven't explored deeply. This has become quite obvious now after many, many posts exhibiting the same limitations in experience. (Hence the suggestions from many).

[Adonai One]

You have finally managed to test my patience, Zenmaster. Congratulations.

---

I border the Law of Confusion even posting this thread. I just cannot explain it any further without infringing.

[Fang]

On a somewhat serious note here Mr. Donai I wouldn't put too much trust in visions. It can be hard at first as they hold such appeal, almost confirmation of the "other", that which is possible.

BUT! Regardless of what is envisioned or it's apparent reference to a particular localized space/time/reality you must remember that at the end of the day it comes from your mind. Even if a 6th density entity or something was inducing a visionary state in a human being even if the vision was supposed to be of a specific thing the vision would be filtered through and tainted by the individual's qualities (this includes the limit of being a 3rd density being, you cannot "see" outside 3rd density). Also it should be recognized that this is not an ordinary experience and may be indicative of a neurological complication.
The best thing to do with such things is to consciously realize that it regardless of stimulation the final product came from your mind, and learn about yourself in the process lol. But that's it, it's got to be processed and evaluated rationally, if you leave it as an undigested intuitive by-product it will probably not offer you any benefit that it may have, and it may have a lot.

I've had a lot of visions they come in handy but don't use them as a central part of your perspective of the world, it won't do you any good lol

---

I border the Law of Confusion even posting this thread. I just cannot explain it any further without infringing.

...That's pretty convenient now that you have been challenged.

[Sagittarius]

You have finally managed to test my patience, Zenmaster. Congratulations.

---

I border the Law of Confusion even posting this thread. I just cannot explain it any further without infringing.

Perhaps this inkling of fear at being reprimanded for breaking the law of confusion is an indicator of incomplete understanding.

The law of confusion cannot be broken first of all it is built in-betwixt the very fabric of sensation and experience. It certainly cannot be broken with such a small amount of stimuli from the construct such as a few words. Millions and millions units of time and space perceiving this stimuli hasn't broken it yet you think you can in a blink of an eye ?

Again attending to your own individual law of confusion before dictating percentages and possibilities and actualities for the societal space which mean nothing, I mean what you have presented is a jumbled personal interpretation of a vague mechanic within the construct made up of abstract transposed symbols.

Freshly transposed symbolical understandings are often overestimated especially since the momentary feeling of elevation is quite intoxicating.

[Adonai One]

If you believe I am ignorant, then let that be your belief and, if you choose, your choice of knowledge.

[Sagittarius]

Your choice of knowledge ? Don't get what your trying to say here please elaborate.

[zenmaster]

A1 believes he has transcended our experiential nexus to such an extent that it would be an infringement to introduce his secret perceptions directly. A much reduced, (wishy washy) "veiled" form is however most acceptable or rather convenient since the actual work for maturing the notions from nascent free-association and whim into grounded experience had been utterly shirked.

If an idea merely suggests or hints at transcendence, that little apprehension nugget is often placed on a pedestal rather than consciously made suitable for digestion (for self or others).

[Adonai One]

Your choice of knowledge ? Don't get what your trying to say here please elaborate.

You can believe I am objectively ignorant.

[βαθμιαίος]

Got to admire the way you like every post, even ones you probably disagree with.

---

[zenmaster]

Very admirable indeed. Probably must have disagreed with quite a number of posts then, considering the number of likes accumulated.

[Rake]

Adonai have you wondered why is it that you often receive information regarding 'negative' entities?.

[isis]

There shall be systems of 8 chakras,...

y only 8?

u kno...

some people think there already can be 8:
http://www.judecurrivan.com/media-articl...sal-heart/

some people think there's already more than 8:


some people think there's 114:
"Chakras are energy centers. Although most people have heard of seven chakras, there are actually 114 in the body..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sadhguru/t...44268.html

some people think there's an infinite amount.

[vervex]

I usually avoid defending others, most especially on discussion forums, because I believe a solution between parties will ultimately be found if both sides, with an open mind/heart, work at it enough. That being said, there seems to be quite a lot of confusion and misunderstanding in several topics recently created by Adonai One.

Today, I'm not writing to defend his point(s) or even his mental health. While the former is for you to debate, the latter can only truly and fully be attested in person - a reasonable conclusion which, I believe, applies to everyone. As someone who is very close to him and as a frequent by-stander/observer on these forums, I simply would like to offer a different perspective.

Although I would personally avoid creating a thread if I could not be fully open in regards to a specific topic or discovery I made, I can assure you that Adonai One, in spite of his vagueness, has explored and still explores the topics he posts about in significant capacity. Powered by his mind, he takes a question and decorticates it until his curiosity is satisfied (hint: it is rarely ever satisfied, un/fortunately). Excited by some of his findings and being of a spontaneous nature, he runs off to the forum to create a thread as he likes to share his findings immediately. Except he does not write all his thoughts. There are a few reasons for this behavior; he is motivated by a belief that people should be allowed the opportunity to find out and analyze the truth for themselves (a view I share), a fear of judgement and avoidance of conflict with others. Valid or not in your eyes, those are some of the main reasons which, I have observed, motivate him to keep some details to himself, regardless of their validity, relevance, or lack thereof.

In other words, Adonai One likes to drop clues and hints around, however he does so in a clumsy manner where it sometimes looks to some of you as if he dumps incomplete theories and half-baked thoughts in dedicated threads. His truest intent, I have observed, is to inspire others to think for themselves, and this is what motivates him to create those threads. Some of his opening posts are filled with wonder and harmony, others with fear and paranoia. Expressed emotions are a reflection of one's inner peace or turmoil. I would simply advise against casting a judgment on anyone for we are all human here, and advise instead to look at the core message in order to find out if there is anything in it which is valuable for the self or not. If there is misunderstanding, why not asking questions instead of casting judgement? Why not try to understand and love another instead of pointing fingers?

As a friend and as a reader on Bring4th, I am extremely grateful for his contribution. As a life partner, I'm honored to have the opportunity to witness his growth and his discoveries first hand and in depth. Thank you Adonai One, and thank you members of B4th. It's always a pleasure.

[zenmaster]

We'll have to read all of his idea-threads again, with that frame in mind in order to appreciate what he is perceiving better.

[Unbound]

Isn't it contradictory to attempt to urge others to think for themselves for the sake of free will yet to offer apparently objective observations without any detail or body of thought with which to assess the concept? Isn't that a deceptive form of luring? Isn't that an infringement?

It certainly isn't open, honest communication of the self to other self.

What concerns me is that when people DO think for themselves Immanuel closes up, cites the Law of Responsibility or Confusion, and goes on the defense of his discoveries, but yet insists on their importance. He always says he is open to being wrong or challenged or delusional, yet he keeps secret the key fulcrums of all his workings and only offers out surface details when he feels it is in the interest of his ideal to cause people to think.

I do not doubt Immanuel's intention to do good by any means, but it is my honest opinion that he is operating with methods of interaction he has internally out grown, but externally still seems to be attached to. Perhaps I am completely wrong, but I am thinking for myself and that is what he wants, no?

---

I will admit that personally what bothers me about Immanuel's approach is that it always seems communication is one-sided. I never feel like I am having a discussion, I feel like I am fencing with only one person at a time communicating, back and forth. While that is a perfectly valid form of communication, it isn't my favorite form aha

[reeay]

I guess Manny's intuitive info/philosophy is like learning about Manny and where he's at. He could use law of responsibility bc we're not going to learn about Manny for Manny, that's absurd.

[Fang]

When you start and invite others to a discussion it shouldn't be up to the other participants to simply listen to you talk to yourself.

If there is misunderstanding, why not asking questions instead of casting judgement?

He rarely answers our questions, and questions do get asked, a lot.

Edit: clarity

[vervex]

Isn't it contradictory to attempt to urge others to think for themselves for the sake of free will yet to offer apparently objective observations without any detail or body of thought with which to assess the concept? Isn't that a deceptive form of luring? Isn't that an infringement?

It certainly isn't open, honest communication of the self to other self.

What concerns me is that when people DO think for themselves Immanuel closes up, cites the Law of Responsibility or Confusion, and goes on the defense of his discoveries, but yet insists on their importance. He always says he is open to being wrong or challenged or delusional, yet he keeps secret the key fulcrums of all his workings and only offers out surface details when he feels it is in the interest of his ideal to cause people to think.

I do not doubt Immanuel's intention to do good by any means, but it is my honest opinion that he is operating with methods of interaction he has internally out grown, but externally still seems to be attached to. Perhaps I am completely wrong, but I am thinking for myself and that is what he wants, no?

---

I will admit that personally what bothers me about Immanuel's approach is that it always seems communication is one-sided. I never feel like I am having a discussion, I feel like I am fencing with only one person at a time communicating, back and forth. While that is a perfectly valid form of communication, it isn't my favorite form aha

As I've posted earlier... "he is motivated by a belief that people should be allowed the opportunity to find out and analyze the truth for themselves (a view I share), a fear of judgement and avoidance of conflict with others."

I have seen that a part of him feels threatened when his ideas are challenged. He has the capacity to discuss and explain himself more clearly, as he does it with me daily, but in a social context he seems to block and close himself because of an unresolved fear. It's an issue he has to work with and balance, and although it may seem otherwise, from my perspective at the very least he is actually progressing.

I guess he should be able to reply for himself from now on, if he wishes to. I'm not one to play the intermediary all the time. I've contributed my perspective, now it's for him to open up and stand up for himself in front of a crowd that wants explanation. I won't rob him of that catalyst

I guess Manny's intuitive info/philosophy is like learning about Manny and where he's at. He could use law of responsibility bc we're not going to learn about Manny for Manny, that's absurd.

If that is all you see in his threads, then that is alright and that too is a valid perspective. We take what we need and are ready for from each other.

[Fang]

Everyone has issues, and yeah some of them manifest into serious problems that should be considered and accounted for, but everyone has issues not just you ("I"). If you're going to play the issues card you should accept that others deal with the same cards and you are still to be held responsible for your own behaviour rather than justifying it using whatever means necessary.

[Adonai One]

I'll open up more into the future. My apologies.

My extreme reservations in this thread are due to some fears of the power of these concepts, the archetypes.

These archetypes can be key markers of spiritual development. They can be abused for great power in more ways than I know through discplined development of the self. They can be used for healing and good. My subconcious self gives me warnings regarding these concepts. I am trying to heed them but failing at communicating what I can.

I'll be more tactful into the future.

---

If you're going to play the issues card you should accept that others deal with the same cards and you are still to be held responsible for your own behaviour rather than justifying it using whatever means necessary.

I accept myself. I accept you. I accept things as they are. I have no cost to pay and no honor to lose.