7/20/2019 7:15 a.m.
Sitting outside. Beautiful morning. So peaceful. Tuning in. [pause, attuning]
The Club: We are here.
So today I would like to talk about the interlife, or life-between-life, or my favorite term for this, “the bardo,” meaning “the space between islands,” whereby islands then mean lives. And how accounts of this do not gel with the model of the soul as composites.
State your differences. And we also recognize your nervousness about this, as you don’t know. So relax into it.
OK. So reincarnation in the traditional sense means a linear progression, as if in time, of several lives, with each life adding to the learning of the soul. In composites there is no “reincarnation” of the same soul, but a soul becomes a strand in a different life. Plus the accounts of the interlife are also very “human centric” with temples, cities, schools, and so on.
Now, as far as all this, note that this is done under hypnosis, and always interpreted though the 3D mind.
But is hypnosis not an altered state, really just a super deep relaxation, so not unlike trance or even to some point what we are doing now?
Yes and no. In hypnosis you are guided by the hypnotist. In trance or here you are free to move wherever it goes. It is a different flow. So, as far as talking about temples [and schools] or whatnot, that is just the 3D mind layering something that it cannot otherwise describe.
Also, instead of concentrating on the differences, you may also look at the similarities. The accounts also stress a complete oneness of the experience – remember, that is what originally attracted you to these. So the soul then is in fact integrated.
OK, yes, but what about schools of learning, soul development, life-plans, and such?
All just different ways to look at it. A life-plan is not unlike the oversoul assembling a certain soul out of strands and inserting it into a situation in the crystal [a metaphor for all-that-could-ever-exist] where the probabilities are high for some experience. Remember it is not just one variant life, but all, that are lived, through all choices, only some carry more weight.
Right. So what about schools and learning? Does this not imply that the soul learns?
Not just the soul, but also, call it, the oversoul, remember? So whenever the oversoul learns through the various lives, all constituents learn with it. There really is no separation, it is only perceived so while in the 3D world.
There really is confusion in all this, a mingling of terms. Clearly, people under hypnosis don’t have the same vocabulary or even starting knowledge that you and we now share. Nowadays, [with] interlife regression, oftentimes people go in with certain expectations, but not all, and the vocabulary is just not the same. So where we speak of oversoul, there is only one interlife.
True. I have only seen “oversoul” mentioned in channeled material about the interlife, or Seth, and so on.* *[ Robert Schwarz: “Your souls plan,” Jane Roberts/Seth: “The nature of personal experience”]
Yes, the difference here is that the channeler is different than the person, so he can access this layer.
So you are saying that the regressed person cannot access his/her oversoul?
Or does not recognize it as such, casts it in terms of 3D life, and thus sees it only as “his soul” having linear reincarnations.
MmHmm. Either he/she is lacking vocabulary or distinction to recognize it.
Either way, the [major] concepts presented are all in line:
- Learning: one view is individual, the other is oversoul [plus learning in 3D]
- [Something "beyond" just 3D life:] life-between-life vs. All-D
- Reincarnation: individual soul vs. soul strand
- [Added later:] wholeness
Can you see it?
Yes, it is a point of view. On the one side, the individual point of view we have here in 3D is carried along into the experience. On the other side, the composite view.
EXACTLY. Now you got it. So it is a point of view. It is not that the interlife reports are wrong, they are just a different way of seeing this – retaining individualism, not realizing the component nature, or if it is seen [or perceived], not knowing what to do with it.
Interesting. I wonder what would happen if a person with understanding of the composite nature would do a regression.
Somehow I got “skandhas.” *
*[ “Skandha” is the Buddhist notion of the five aggregates, which is part of the teaching of sunjata or emptiness: nothing has eternal existance or exists on its own. Buddhists do not believe in the soul as we normally do, that is a unit which reincarnates. Rather, what is transferred and “remixed” between lives are the five aggregates: form, sensation, perception, mental activity, and consciousness.]
Explain that separately. But yes, there we are also at the Buddhist concept of skandhas and how they see “the bardo,” using that term now in the Buddhist sense. Here you have a model of “rebirth,” not reincarnation, that also has a composite nature.
Right, the skandhas are worth an article by themselves.
V: Or a whole book (laughing).
Yes, I laugh, too. Yes, the skandhas were originally the one thing in Buddhism I took “most offense” with, because they deny the existence of a soul, but it was that traditional idea of the soul [as we see it]. Now, with the notion of composite, they are all very cleanly aligned.
Good, so are you clear now on bardo?
Well, wait, no, this is a good rough discussion. Let me reread and see if there is more.
No, you got the major distinction. Point of view and how to interpret this. The rest can be derived form this. If you have more questions, we are always here, but you don’t seem to have any right now.
OK, then, sounds like an ending?
Unless you have more.
Well, let me process all this. Let’s stop. Until next time [ 7:52 a.m. ]
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr