1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.

'levels'

Discussion in 'Spiritual Growth & Development' started by mac, Apr 9, 2019.

  1. mac

    mac Staff Member

    For me the idea of 'levels' is unhelpful.

    I rarely deploy such a notion, preferring to think in terms of our continuous, stepless, personal spiritual progression. I see it as similar to a rainbow where there are no distinct boundaries between the 'levels' we perceive as individual colors.

    If saying that anyone is a 'sixth level individual' (for example) is it reasonable to wonder if that individual is at the start of the level, the middle of it or towards the upper end? To me it's logical that if someone progresses from any numbered level to any other he would also need to progress from the 'beginning' of that level to the 'end' of it before moving on to, into, the next. The upshot would be that an individual at the 'bottom end' wouldn't necessarily be as spiritually knowledgeable or authoritative as another approaching the 'top end' of the level.

    If progression through a level could be linked to a number of earth years should, for instance, an individual who last incarnated hundreds of years ago be seen as spiritually progressed, as authoritative in their guidance, as another who last incarnated thousands of years ago? Or is that a red herring, every individual in a particular level being at an exactly similar level of personal spiritual progression and knowledge; every individual able to 'speak' equally as knowledgeably and authoritatively on any topic as any other individual in that level, irrespective of the 'earth-year-equivalent' time they've been at that level?
     
  2. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear Mac, when our beloved Mikey first was shown the seven-levels diagram that George Meek used and researchers now have generally adopted, he was mystified. He said that he simply "thinks" he wants to be somewhere, and he is there! Which is easy for him to say, of course, since apparently he is near the top of the sixth level so he can stand to be in even the highest vibrations. Thomas has given me the impression that he is upper-fifth-level - and he does seem familiar with Meek's diagram - but he, like many other beings communicating with us, also says that they don't think in terms of levels, and the number of actual vibrational levels that exist is just about infinite. When I asked Thomas how far above him Mikey was, he pointed upward and said, "Do you see that star? That's Mikey." We know from Thomas that Mikey was in the lower sixth level when he chose to come here, but his decision to subject himself to the earth again after more than three centuries of being safely at home apparently staggered everyone! Thomas says that Mikey is now vibrating in the upper part of the sixth level, and although Mikey is too modest to tell us that, he is now studying working with energies; he seems to be preparing to advance to the level of the Collective, although we can't have any idea about timing. So clearly people can be at the lower, middle, or upper vibratory level of, say, Level Four; and within Level Four's middle vibratory area he can be vibrating a bit lower or a bit higher than someone else who is at about his same level of development. And there are reports in the literature of what appear to have been individuals who skipped an entire macro-level because they had far outperformed in one lifetime (I think the woman who did this went from upper 3 to lower 5, but it has been a long time). So, no, it doesn't seem to be necessary to tick upward slowly in each lifetime, but rather you seem to be able to move forward by leaps! And there also is some evidence that you can wipe out your vibrational level and fall lower if you espouse fear and negativity in any given lifetime. I also don't think when a person last incarnated has much of anything to do with it, frankly. As both Mikey and Thomas would tell you, it is all about love and a lack of negativity. And trying to pinpoint actual vibrational levels in the afterlife is kind of pointless too, when there are infinite such discreet levels.

    So I guess I am left kind of sighing and thinking that since it is very important that we all understand that we are here to push against negativity and to grow in love as rapidly as we can, we need a graphic way to show those we are teaching how that looks. And what we have is not great, perhaps, but it seems to beat the alternatives!
     
  3. mac

    mac Staff Member

    Dear Roberta, although I have none of Mikey's advanced understanding I too am mystified and I am unable to reconcile it with what I've understood for many years!



    That mechanism for being 'somewhere different' is how I've always understood the matter myself. Those able to live in the higher/highest 'vibrational levels' ('frequencies') can move freely to regions of a somewhat lower frequency. Yet as I understand matters it becomes difficult for those accustomed to living constantly at those higher frequencies to visit the lower/lowest frequencies.


    I'm guessing that Meek's diagram is a very coarse, graphical representation of a situation where graphical representation can never do justice. The infinite levels your TJ alludes to is what I see as stepless progression, words being a little less inadequate (perhaps) than graphics.


    Without intending any disrespect, the teacher and guide known as Silver Birch had been living at at-least a similarly high frequency for around three millennia before he undertook his teaching mission. Attempting to use earth time or distance units to indicate spiritual progression simply confounds the issue for me.

    I think my last sentence above also applies here.


    This appears totally contrary to what I have learned. The way I understand things is that we NEVER go (in effect) downwards or backwards if things don't work out as planned. We may need to 'mark time' but not go backward.

    Those points are exactly the ones I was trying to make.

    I wonder.....?
     

Share This Page