Multiple personality

multiple personalities

Asker: I was watching KCT the other night and they had a program on multiple personalities. One fellow there, I think they had it 53 different personalities. Most of the personalities do not know of the other personalities. What is actually occurring with this person?

Bashar: Much in the same way that many of your psychologists think is happening. They are suppressing portions of themselves and that is the creative way they can allow them to rise to the surface and be equally valid to every other portion. It is then, in this way, their opportunity, their methodology, to believe that they need outside help—as you say, the psychologist—to allow them to integrate all these portions of their personality into one functional being.

We all have portions of ourselves that some of us separate more than others. But some of us are aware of these different portions without having to feel that they are distinct separate beings. What they have not learned in this physical life is the method of communication between those separate portions. Not unlike the frequent inability of ourselves to communicate between our aware consciousness and subconsciousness and unconsciousness.

Multiple personality is inwardly directed autism. Why don’t you understand an autistic individual? It is incommunicative to your outside world but very communicative to its inside world. Multiple personality individual is not communicative to its inside world but very communicative to its outside world.

Multiple personality is almost directly opposite of autism.

See all the multitudinous ways you have in exploring separation of self. We learn a lot from you.

Asker: I would like to ask you about my new baby. Her name… she was my sister. She contracted something called toxoplasmosis during her pregnancy.

Bashar: Lots and lots and lots of touching. Lots of loving. Lots of touching. Lots of mental communication. Lots of reinforcement. Lots of mental imagery of the child being able to communicate in whatever way it needs to. In whatever way it needs to, not how they think it should.

Many of these opportunities are opportunities for your society to explore new ways of communication. This is a service being done by this child. Your acceptance and allowance of this service to be done will allow the parents to communicate fully with the child and the child fully with the parents and the society. This is the lesson being taught by the child. What you’re saying to me only in a sense. Let us say, potentially in the sense that if the message is not received, then understand what it is a reflection of—the individuals not willing to receive the message, their own limitation, not the child’s limitation.

Asker: I as an American Indian, I was a man and my wife and child were killed, destroyed our village, and my wife had been the person—my sister—and a couple days—the child from that life was this child. Do you have that?

Bashar: Only that the symbol being proffered now by the child—who understands in having waited until you were both physically born and into your later years before being born itself—will be that it comes into your world with a greater innocence, less limited understanding of exactly what the created problem was in that time: lack of communication between two different worlds. Lack of understanding. Understand the child. That is all that is necessary. Understand. Stand under. Support the child. Support the idea that the child is expressing and all the messages will be crystal clear. Don’t fight. You fight the child. Thank the parents. For us.

Asker: Yes. Relating to what you were talking about before about letting yourself go and following your imagination—and this is also related to judging others. If we as parents would let our children do whatever they want—

Bashar: I really don’t understand. We’ve got to teach them. Now this does not mean judging. This means preference. The teaching of preference as opposed to judgment which is an invalidation of something. Preference is not in this way. Simply recognize that there is obviously, because of the physical limitations upon the mentality and the consciousness, the opportunity for the training in this way of the child to a certain degree. But also recognize that much of what you fear you must teach the child is because you have already—not saying you specifically, but in general parents—already have taught the child to fear certain things.

Asker: Yes. And thus in this way you will find that the child will be acting on some of those fears or reacting to some of those fears rather than simply being allowed by the parent initially from birth and before birth to recognize that the child knows already when it is born what it is doing in a sense. Right? But we still have to send them to school and we can’t let them play in the backyard—

Bashar: One moment. When they want to play. But understand again, you are only giving excuses—illusions based on illusions.

Asker: What illusions?

Bashar: The idea in the way you have created the idea of going to school and the safety of your children is based upon the fear that you teach them when they are born. That this is the way it must be done because we fear such and such and such and such—and you are creating a loop so that by the time they are doing such and such and such, you say, “Why?” You simply find the only answer to be, “Because this is the way it always has been.”

Asker: I know, but so—from your point of view—how do you see the world, this planet, to be in terms of education of children, for example?

Bashar: In this way, we can only again not tell you what to do but simply suggest by reference, by analogy, that within our society, first of all, we are in communication with the being before they are born. We know who and what they are and why they are being born into our society, and we know they know it also. In this way, their interaction with us is complete and total, and in this way they are not isolated to be taught. They are allowed into the fabric of society to be taught. And in this way each child recognizes each adult to be his or her parents. Each adult recognizes each child to be his or her own in terms of the idea of the spontaneous interactions which take place. There is not the need for the tool of fear. Now recognize that by the time your child is able to be up and about by itself, it has already been programmed by you to know that limitation and know the fears that you have because it has to depend upon you for physical survival.

Asker: It will accept anything you teach it vocally and non-vocally.

Bashar: Not really in its personality. Yes, it will completely.

Asker: What would new parents on this planet should they do to change, or what can they do?

Bashar: Allow themselves to know that they can trust that:

• the child being born knows what it is doing.
• their own connection to the child and the child’s connection to them is never broken.

They are always in communication, and that the child and the parents will always sense what the other is doing and why, and that the child will know instinctively and by receiving from the parents vocally and non-vocally its reassurance of its innate safety and assuredness in creativity that it will always only do that which will be positively manifesting for the child and not negatively manifesting for the child because it will not feel the fear from the parents that the child must react to.

Asker: Back to the question about multiple personalities. Is there frequently cases where they’re actually two beings stuck together to one body?

Bashar: Not stuck. No one is ever stuck. you are experiencing that idea right now. My consciousness and the consciousness of the physical channel form a third personality that you are interacting with.

Thus there are 2 identities that you are now communicating with that has become a third identity.

Recognize all is by agreement. All is by synchronization of vibrational energy, and each concept unto itself is a complete idea. It is not that what you are communicating with is half me and half Daryl. It is its own concept.

Asker: But we wouldn’t normally run into people who are aggregations of lots of personalities that were separate distinct beings.

Bashar: But you do all the time. All of you are aggregations of many different ideas. Yes. But not separate. Not derived from separate songs.

Asker: Some. Could you talk more about that? Why? What’s interesting? Why? What is so interesting about it? That there are several oversouls that can be in one individual.

Bashar: Understand in this way the idea you call oversoul simply will carry within its own revenue a series of reincarnational lives. An oversoul can split off and become another soul. And thus in a way, individuals in one reincarnational cycle can actually have more than one oversoul in a sense. Understand that all of these connections are very arbitrary. They are all products of labeling, all products of diversification, all products of perspective. Especially from the third density point of view, they are all meaningful as tools, valid as perspectives to allow you to explore certain ideas and aspects of yourself, but on another level are all quite meaningless as all is one consciousness.

Asker: Are you saying that one body would be the manifestation of two or more oversouls?

Bashar: It can be if the purposes of the oversouls coincide.

Asker: What frequency or what percentage of the time does this actually occur on this planet?

Bashar: There is no way to translate that to you.

Asker: Would you say it’s rare or common?

Bashar: There is no way to translate that to you. It is something which is beyond time.

Asker: Okay. In general though, what we consider an individual being manifesting in an individual body—I think Ken’s original question was two individuals of that nature inhabiting a single body or more. Is that correct, Ken?

Ken: Yeah. Or 50 might be the case.

Bashar: No, your case was all right. The case in my 40. Thank you. One more time. Allow me to say first of all, we understand the concept you are proffering. But realize that from our point of view, the idea that anything can inhabit a body is a non-sequitur. Recognize nothing can inhabit anything. Your soul does not really exist in your body. Your soul is your body. Your body is your soul from another point of view. Even when you see the idea of being out of body or seeing the soul leave upon death—physical death—this is an interpretation of the third density understanding of the separation of the self. Nothing exists in anything. Everything is everything.

Asker: In that respect, then your entire reality, all physicality, would be the same as what you’re saying.

Bashar: Yes. And therefore it can be said—and why your question cannot be specifically answered—that you are all each and every one of you one thing and all each and every one of you everything and every personality that could ever exist. You are both. You are at both ends of the spectrum. You are the spectrum. You are all personalities. You are all oversouls. You are all spirit levels and alternate dimensions of density. All anything you wish to be. It is only a matter of perspective. How you see yourself.

Asker: One moment. So you wouldn’t find two spiritual entities jointly controlling the body or one mostly controlling the other one contributing ideas in a general sense?

Bashar: As we understand your question, allow me to say generally no. That will be of the most service to you as an answer.

Asker: Was there a male before the female?

Bashar: Yes. Then the female.

Asker: In one view or one perspective upon reality, is that that beingness is the underpinning or the basis for all that is? And that knowingness would be the first separation out of beingness. That physical energy is a product of knowingness.

Bashar: Yes, in a sense it will do.

Asker: How then is it possible to channel, as it were, negative energy—or redirect would be a better word—negative energy so that one would be able to heal? In other words, turn that negative direction into a positive channel so that you could heal either yourself or others by offering a positive vibration and allowing the individual who is expressing and offering the negative vibration to choose a positive vibration for themselves. In other words, offering to them through your knowingness, offering them the opportunity to allow positive energy and negative energy to be equal to each other so that they can choose from equal choices. Right?

Bashar: Okay. Or in the same way offering them the idea that they don’t have to be trapped and that there’s no decision to be made.

Asker: Yes, there is in a sense a decision to be made. But the decision is theirs.

Bashar: Yes. Okay.

Asker: I have another question along another day. The communications device of the several stacked— I would like to make mine out of copper and not use crystal.

Bashar: All right. Will that significantly change? It will change it to some degree. You may, as we have suggested, also substitute for the crystal at this time the substance you call teak wood.

It will allow there to be an appropriate insulator. While not expressing some of the ideas of the crystalline form, it will suffice to prevent a distortion in the field that would result if it were all copper.

Asker: Yes. Very good. The antenna then is to extend out of the top the full—

Bashar: Yes. Okay. Does that antenna extend into only the top pyramid or through all three levels to the bottom? From the top, from the base of the top out only in the top. And the thickness of that—that is a solid rod, not a hollow tube—they are all solid rods.