(08-22-2009, 09:29 AM)greywolf Wrote: I would be more willing to accept the view that a planetary "logos" does not exist separately until a planet ascends, and this is what is meant by "harmonious interaction". Then the statement about people being the sub-sub-Logos and that mental interation by mind/body/spirit creates the planetary Logos make more sense. Until then the planet is "part of the logos", which would mean the analogy of a chakra in the solar logos (Ra also mentions a correspondence bewteen the densitities, Tarot principles and the planets). In ancient Egypt where Ra apparently was active the Sun was the main deity (also even the name Ra refers to this sun god), Earth was not venerated.
The concept of a separate planetary logos is also what is apparently used in certain theosophical circles to push for a global dictatorship (in order to enforce the harmonious interaction with the logos as interpreted by a privileged hierarchical elite), which is why I would be more careful with the concept.
Hi greywolf,
Welcome to the forum. As it appears that this is your first post, I can't tell much about your perspective on the Law of One, in particular. Please explain what you mean by "planetary ascension".
Do you mean the movement of the planet and its appropriate inhabitants (i.e., those that harvested in 4D Positive) into 4D? If so, then I would agree that the interaction between Earth and entities would be more "harmonious" afterward. This is an interesting idea, but I don't think that this is what Ra means. Lets look back at this quote (see the emphasized portion in particular):
Ra, Book II, Session 29 Wrote:Questioner: Then the planet which we walk upon here would be some form of sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. A planetary entity is so named only as Logos if It is working in harmonic fashion with entities or mind/body complexes upon Its surface or within Its electromagnetic field.
Questioner: Do the sub-Logoi such as our sun have a metaphysical polarity positive or negative as we have been using the term?
Ra: I am Ra. As you use the term, this is not so. Entities through the level of planetary have the strength of intelligent infinity through the use of free will, going through the actions of beingness. The polarity is not thusly as you understand polarity. It is only when the planetary sphere begins harmonically interacting with mind/body complexes, and more especially mind/body/spirit complexes, that planetary spheres take on distortions due to the thought complexes of entities interacting with the planetary entity. The creation of the one infinite Creator does not have the polarity you speak of.
Based upon this, it would seem that the harmonic interactions can be with mind/bodies (i.e., 2D life forms) as well as mind/body/spirits (i.e., 3D life forms). So by "harmonic", I think Ra means that there is a mutual give and take between the lifeforms - like evolution say - not that the give and take is necessarily always in perfect harmony (as might be more expected in 4D and beyond). So, it wold not make sense to me that a planet would be a Logos while in 2d then revert to its parent Logos while in "disharmonious" 3D until it can again emerge as a Logos in 4D. Much more likely that the Earth has emerged as a Logos distinct from, but hierarchically subordinate to, its Sun Logos when it emerged from its timeless state in late 1D.
It is also interesting to note that, although mind/body or mind/body/spirit complexes have a primary experiential nexus in a single density (2D - 7D and beyond), a planet may express in multiple densities simultaneously (Earth is currently 1D, 2D, and 3D, and will soon be 1D, 2D, and 4D, it may also become 1D, 2D, 3D, and 4D at some point in the future). This points to a distinction between a planet and a mind/body complex or mind/body/spirit complex. The planet (or in later densities the host sun, or presumably even back to the host galaxy, etc.) appear to act as a stage and supporting environment for the free will experiences of the co-creator m/b/s complexes that reside thereon. I believe that this distinction is why Ra actually avoids referring to Earth as a sub-sub-Logos. Ra seems to reserve this moniker for the m/b/s complexes that are free will experiencing and evolving linearly through the densities. But this is really speculation on my part.
greywolf Wrote:The concept of a separate planetary logos is also what is apparently used in certain theosophical circles to push for a global dictatorship (in order to enforce the harmonious interaction with the logos as interpreted by a privileged hierarchical elite), which is why I would be more careful with the concept.
This is an interesting point, and one that I had not considered, but I think that it is improper to limit ones view and pursuit of truth based upon the fact that aspects of truth have been subverted into STS arguments and actions in the past. Truth is simply truth. It has no dog, so to speak, in the fight. And truth, just as the Law of One, favors no side. It is rather how we apply the truth that has polarity. I feel that we should not and cannot shirk from a truth, simply for the purposes of withholding it from our opposite polarity.
Thanks again for your comments, please continue the dialog.
3D Sunset