The divine self

We are limited to the forms of our perception, but there is variation in what we perceive through them. But before we explore that, let us speak about the beginnings of our thoughts.

A thought starts up high from a notion that seeks its example or it starts down low from an impression that seeks its relations (cf. Verfolgung und Beachtung in der Vernunft).

The former is like an electrical charge, the latter like a gravitational pull. The origin of the former is unconscious abidance, the origin of the latter unconscious association.

Often these associations stem from memories, but there is one class of associations, whose occurence is shrouded in mystery, namely the expectations of connectedness of our existence.

First, there is just the general feeling that everything in the world must be connected.

From this there is a path to the divine self, or Brahman in the eastern nomenclatura. The self is a threefold all encompassing perspective, under which everything is perceived, done and wanted, i.e. every perception stems from an act, every act is wanted and perceived and every want is perceived.

At least this is the sense in which I usually use the term self (or rather I-structure in German, which appears a little too crude for the English tongue). I have stated earlier that in some contexts it might be advisable to consider a fourth perspective, namely memory, i.e. that everything is remembered as well, and this is of some importance here, but for now I'll exclude it. The general reason for excision is of course that what we remember isn't real.

Some words about the coming about of the self are probably in order. In my analysis the perceptions are the basic elements out of which we construct actions and wanting by

• using the notion that the present perception came from a decision to enact a particular plan of action, i.e. trying to bring about an envisioned perception, and
• using the notion of agreeability that acompanies all plans of action.

Managing to attain transcendence means to open up a channel through which perceptions can come to us. But not all transcendence is the same. There is horizontal transcendence between different creatures, and there is vertical transcendence between the creature and its creator. And the interesting thing about the latter form of transcendence is that its perceptions come to us in such a way that we construct a self to whom they belong, instead of treating their origin just as an unknown object.

Achieving transcendence is concretely the process of establishing the relations of a down low sensed impression of connectedness. The way I took was

1. to immerse myself in the idea that everything is connected and
2. to seek refuge in the connexion.

When I did the latter, the earth shook at the precise time. And immidiately after that I felt an admonition. So in this event alone we have already the building blocks of a self: a decision, an effect and a sense of conditional agreement.

This sense of conditional agreement has been with me ever since, and I've written about it in some posts, notably in Spirituelle Warnungen, Just for the record and Highlander?. A more general discussion of foreign sensations can be found in the article Bewußtsein der eigenen Existenz und Fremdwahrnehmungen.

As is evident by all these posts, I did not understand then that I had formed another self in my consciousness, one that deals not with my life or body, but with all things, and hence its will has become a barrier to my personal will and a condition that my personal self has to respect, for my consciousness isn't its possession alone anymore. I did of course ask for this, when I prayed that God rather kill me than leave me alone.

Anyway, the so far strongest evidence that vertical transcendence works through the divine self that one has awakened in oneself is this:

On January 9, 2018, I condemned the systematic suppression of man's freedom to follow the harmony of his mind, and I felt that the insight, that this was an abomination, was shared by the divine self. I went to sleep and that night the earth shook (cf. As I have witnessed.)

On February 15, 2018, I published The sanctity of man, where I stated that to systematically undermine the receptiveness of the human mind would be an abomination just like the other two (i.e. the previous one and the abomination to claim that man and God are not connected), but I left it at that and didn't actually judge the matter itself, but merely the analogy between the abominations from which the accursedness of the third one would follow. And this time the earth shook not the next night, but the night after.

So the earth shook at the precise time, when I actually made an effort, the next night, when the matter was sealed, and the night after the next, when the matter was deduced, which fits the workings of the mind rather well. (I know what you are thinking. The magnitudes of the earthquakes were 9.2, 7.5 and 7.2.)

So while I would not say that God is necessarily humanlike, connexion with God will result in a divine self besides ones personal self, which couldn't be expressed any clearer than in the Atman-Brahman concept, notwithstanding the issue of complete replacement.

Concerning the latter. I do feel a little inadequate. I can act in accordance with what is demanded of me, but I can't anticipate it, for I don't understand the workings of the divine self. Given the contents of the Revelation I assume that a more complete awakening of the divine self in oneself is possible, one that includes God's memories, but then again I'm not so sure that I want that, at least for the time being.

Yet, what exactly do we expect after parting from life? What more complete union is there?