malai5

Dear John Page.

Why three selves?
Well, we as our 3D selves don't know, it's just the way it is. We could ask the question if you wish and get back to you.

String theory, well why would one think that just because five would fit better that that has any meaning at all.
Up until a few years ago, Q.M. in general had bad press.
Remember, the information we receive is not 3D based, conceptionally or otherwise and as such the closest to 3D theories it comes is the quantum mechanics area, M.W. (multi worlds, David Deutch and others) we believe is the way it really is.

John, we did not think this up. We have been ''receiving'' information for more than 3 years as the three of us working together and over 5 years as individuals. Your question, about being ''delusional'', you may just as well have directed to Einstein when he was thinking about Q.M. in the early days. The proofs came later. In fact, Einstein as you probably know, devised an experiment to disprove Q.M. but when it was able to be conducted 40 years (a bit hazy about the actual number of years) after his death, proved Q.M. to be an actual effect.
So, as we have had other proofs from our sources (they have been 100% right so far), we have no reason to believe this information is any different.
We, and others happen to believe that the hologramatic world understanding is the correct one. However it's up to you, afterall, this is cutting edge stuff and does not sit well with the establishment, but that is the way it has always been.
John, it's up to you, if it ''sits'' with you or not. It does with us.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

Once upon a time, there was no establishment and no cutting edge stuff and only one self. The self began to make changes and created its cutting edge self (continually-coming-into-itself-self) which in its backwash gave rise to it establishment self (I'm-not-really-sure-I-want-to-do-that-self). Thus malai3 was born and the rest is history.
Farewell, from the bottom of my brain stem(s).

Cheers, John

Amos

Because three selves are needed for a troika. The fourth one is the driver and malai thinks that a change of driver is needed to restore peace on earth.

jpbrooks

Hello again, Malai5 l

[The shift key on this computer is not working properly.]

The difficulty with what you have suggested is that the [environment] without is part of what determines our development. Your advice to us about not listening to what is without us, for example, is itself part of what we are experiencing in our [external] environment; that which is without us. We need that which is without us to come to learn how to critically evaluate the ideas by which we live our lives. It would be extremely difficult if, not impossible, to learn what our 'contractual paths' are if all we had to rely on for authoritative information about the world and our lives were our own unexamined ideas.

[Back to the books.]

malai5

Dear John Page.

There has always been an ''establishment'', established way of thought and the assumption that there was only ''one'' self. The world was thought to be ''flat'' once. The self, the True Self did give rise to the ''establishment'' self, the ''little'' self. The True Self was always there as it is the seat of all selves, no it, no you.

Yes, malai5, me, was born and obviously this was part of my role on this earth. Hey, I can't remember choosing it but it is a fact. And yes, it must then be history.

Cheers.

Malai5.

malai5

Dear jpbrooks.

The ''environment'' as you say, is needed for the development of the ''little'' self. And this is a very important part that is played.
However, one cannot stay in ''primary school'' for ever. The problem with the ''environment'', is that it does not stress the need to grow. There is an emphasis placed upon the banal and limited view of life, the societal limitations that do not accept the individuals right to change. Peer group pressure, ''peck'' order etc.

Individuals who do break through the ''glass ceiling'' of the learned behaviours and automatic responses of their societal upbringing and learn to see themselves from the outside, can begin to leave their ''little'' self environment formed view behind. Once you have learned the ''ways'' of the 3D world, you can go on to learn what you truly are. One does not have to stay in ''primary school'' for all of your life. The ''little'' self gets you to the ''jump off'' point, as high school gets you to college.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

Care to define the Neitzsche point, where (you think) you've finally worked it all out and attained a mythical god-like insight into reality? Isn't this the Utter Self?

Cheers, John

malai5

Dear Amos.

The restoration of peace on earth will not come by the actions of those on earth, 3D earth. However, the recognition, by the individual of their responsibility, their individual self responsibility in their daily lives, will go a long way to make their lives and others lives a great deal more pleasant.

To understand what one really is, the 3 selves, and the direct connection your True self has to G.O.D. the Gift Of Design gives to one their responsibility in the G.O.D. Grand Order of Design.
Once ''seeded'' and given your ''life's path'', your ''position'' in the Grand Order of Design, it is then your, your True self's responsibility to play it's part at the level it's continuing growth gives it.

When one understands that this responsibility is part of this 3D life as well, there is an understanding of who really drives the ''bus''. The Gift Of Design has given you life, it's your responsibility to keep up your end of the ''bargan'' and play your part in the running of the ''show'', the Grand Order of Design.

So, there are 3 parts of you, 3 selves, and your connection to G.O.D.
It's up to you, on all levels, to be a viable responsible contributor and part of that contribution is the growth of self and self responsibility.

Do this, and you will be adhering to universal ''lore'', which in turn will help to make the world a better place to be.

Cheers.

Malai5.

malai5

Dear John Page.

We did not work this out. We have been ''taught'' this.
Neitzsche's understanding was based upon existing historical 3D mystical ''thought''. He used the ''ego'' understanding of the ''self'' as the basis for his work. This we do not do, because we are students of this subject, not the one's with all the answers.
What we disseminate, as far as the articles are concerned, is what we receive. What we put out when we discuss, as we are doing now, is our understanding of what we have been taught. As this is written to you, I am drawing on not just the knowledge in the articles, but my collective ''memory'' of the subject.

We are students and are being taught to remember what we already ''know''. We receive ''triggers'' from the articles that we are given, that enables us to expand on the articles, from our collective ''memory'' base of ALL we have learned in ALL of our lives. Bit by bit, we are being taught to access this.
So John, we did not ''work this out'', we already knew it, and are being taught how to ''revive'' the ''memory''.

Cheers.

Malai5.

John Page

OK, when you think you understand how you came to know what you know and whether, therefore, your knowledge is reliable, please tell me how you think you came to know how this knoweldge was acquired.

Cheers, John