Ok, i still dont understand this properly. GOD split him-her-it to BITS... but all the bits are the same? exactly?
love76 wrote:but i am still unclear why a god would want to split into thousand bits..
It is the nature of the structure, which doesn't change, only the perspective changes. It's not any finite number of 'bits' (synonymous with fractals, divisions, mirror shards), it is a whole different realm of thinking. And that's why you're
always at the center surrounded by an infinite potential of other consciousness, any way you go, any reality you shift to. Hope this helps.
but wouldnt some bits be bigger or smaller or shinier or so forth, or is this a 3d way of looking at this<_
i do understand it being different PERSPECTIVES but not all perspectives are the same thats where i get confused.
I would like to add another perspective on why GOD "split". If you go and study NeoPlatonism - btw there is also the notion of the ONE included and its quite fundamental to this philosophical view - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism#The_One
- you can read Plotinus presentation of the One splitting in the Enneads- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus# ... by_the_One
and the important part is taken from -> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/#2
The causality of the One was frequently explained in antiquity as an answer to the question, ‘How do we derive a many from the One?’ Although the answer provided by Plotinus and by other Neoplatonists is sometimes expressed in the language of ‘emanation’, it is very easy to mistake this for what it is not. It is not intended to indicate either a temporal process or the unpacking or separating of a potentially complex unity. Rather, the derivation was understood in terms of atemporal ontological dependence.
What this means is that from our usual perspective "within physical reality" (I understand that reality is within me from Bashar's perspective) we have the notion of space and time. Since we are so locked into using the notion of time we use terms - of how did the Big Bang start? The question is faulty from the very start since you cannot put this question in the first place since the notion of time as seen from physics "started " with the Big Bang.
The same can be said with the split - the idea of splitting is seen from our idea/notion of beginning. There is no beginning since if you go through this in logical manner (relating to the Big Bang) you go ad infinitum asking yourself - what was before that?
Another perspective comes from geometry - in geometry one of the first things you learn is about the fundamental piece - which is the point. The point is considered "adimensional" but is used as a start "point"
for the rest of it - through 2 points it passes a line and so on and so forth.
So to sum up there was no split - you are/were/will always be awareness itself - which by definition requires an "otherness" in order to perceive any sort of reality. The split is used as an analogy in our "usual" terms for explaining a sort of "beginning" - only because of the ingrained idea of time as being "out there".
Another answer would be - we have books with what happens after death - in between lives - but if you think about it a bit - you can ask yourself same as in your dreaming while dreaming - what year is this? or what time is this? When you are dead that question is meaningless since after you die - time has a different quality or notion and it is not any year per se ; the same is in dreaming - if you become lucid in dreams and ask yourself what year is - you can only have a reference since you bring the physical notion of time - and you may say it is year 2017 - using physical reality as a benchmark - frame of reference for the dream; the dream itself is not pinpointed in any time or location. When you wake up you say that you slept between 12 am and 7 am - then again you are using the frame of physical reality as "fundamental" but it is not.
If you want to go more advanced you can study theory of special relativity and in particular - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... multaneity
In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.
Okay I think it is enough for now