2nd LOO Question: Creation

[Quantum]

Although the generality of 1D of the previous Octave is 8D of the next, how in the world may you deduce from this that one Octave is even remotely similar to another? It may be.

this octave, builds on the last octave's culmination. in last octave, mover/moved polarity was discovered and refined. this octave uses that polarity, and investigates positive/negative.
this means, the earlier octave, cant be impossibly different from our octave, even if phenomenonally different.
also, this : http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...7#pid20387

You use a previous thread of your own as reference to support your own notions rather the the LOO?

and then there's this as a follow up:

Allow me to demonstrate a better logic from the Ra quotes if I may. If Ra dared not plumb the depths of the next Octave, how then might we plumb the depths of the previous? You assume by your logic that everything may be piecemealed and stacked together very nicely in a hierarchical structure stretching logic to such an extent that it fast becomes illogical.

this is not logic that you are proposing. that is mysticism, and dogma. first, there is no 'dare' in this, if you think about it, you ponder about it. its not a courage challenge.

ra actually did dare 'plumb' the depths of the next octave, they just plumbed the depths of earlier octave.

This sentence is a contradiction. Which do you suggest Ra plumbed? The earlier, or the next Octave? That Ra would not dare plumb the next Octave as stated above is not meant to imply a state of courage versus fear compared to the grandeur of the mystery which is unfathomable. It simply means that Ra did not plumb the next Octave as a a result of same. It is neither dogma or mysticism I reference. It is a Ra quote? Well, I take it back. Ra stated it. Your right. It is mysticism. As regards the Ra's unwillingness to plumb on Ra's part, I dare not plumb the depths of Ra's dogmaticism.

Here is what Ra said:

7.17 Ra: This is true at all densities in our octave. We cannot speak for those above us, as you would say, in the next quantum or octave of beingness.

16.19 Questioner: Can you give me some kind of history of your social memory complex and how you became aware of the Law of One?

Ra: I am Ra. The path of our learning is graven in the present moment. There is no history, as we understand your concept. Picture, if you will, a circle of being. We know the alpha and omega as infinite intelligence. The circle never ceases. It is present. The densities we have traversed at various points in the circle correspond to the characteristics of cycles: first, the cycle of awareness; second, the cycle of growth; third, the cycle of self-awareness; fourth, the cycle of love or understanding; fifth, the cycle of light or wisdom; sixth, the cycle of light/love, love/light or unity; seventh, the gateway cycle; eighth, the octave which moves into a mystery we do not plumb.

in Ra text, there are a few mentions about the earlier octave and its traits, and the next octave. and about entities which 'bring light' from the next octave. and, how going from octave to octave of this creation happens. that means, they have teachers, who in turn have their teachers, and the knowledge/understanding is passed on as much as situation allows.

Ra repeatedly stated they could not/would not plumb beyond 7D. I would be interested to learn where it is you say that Ra contradicted their previous statement of not plumbing into the next Octave? Ra may have teachers from the next Octave unity, but we do not in 3D? We know nothing of the next Octave much less anything of the previous. Ra stated that they do not plumb the mysteries of the next Octave. I submit again, how then may we dare plumb the mystery of the previous?

The next Octave may be constituted of an entire different array of wonder having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this wonder in any manner whatsoever.

cannot.

Interesting that you know this, So, once again Ra must be wrong by daring not to plumb the depths of the next Octave, a mere 1 and 1/2 densities away from them, but you may?

10 octaves earlier would probably be a lot more different than ours. 10 octaves later too.

This is presumably because one Octave for us in 3D (which we still know absolutely nothing of) is so much closer than 10 Octaves, and this in spite of the fact that Ra would not/could not even plumb a mere 1 and 1/2 densities later?

Creation must begin somewhere. Those creations may likewise end as gracefully. Perhaps it begins anew in each new Octave, rather than it necessarily perceived as an ever continuing continuum in a series of evolutions from one to the other? Were this supposition so, it would be an infinitely longer evolution stuck in the creation created simply by virtue of self imposed and rigid constraints simply for having created it, rather than as a more efficient one through the experiments by the Logoi as stated in the LOO by Ra that the Logoi experiment. It stands to reason that they do so in new Octaves. We mustn't with our finite minds constrain Infinity afterall?

creation doesnt need to begin anywhere. infinite creations already exist, as per infinity requirements.

Creation does not need to begin anywhere? This again completely, utterly, irretrievably, and totally contradicts Ra and the LOO unity. This is but yet again one of many many simple examples of many of your contradictions to the LOO. It is unity philosophy. It is not the LOO. Come on. You know this? Your pretty well read on the LOO. You know the exact steps that Ra outlines. Infinity was unaware etc. etc, then came creation. Yet you insist on this Infinity Concept as legitimate, while also in simultaneity quoting adamantly the LOO as source, but only when it fits your propositions, and yet able to outright reject the LOO when it doesn't.

the part of infinity which exists, also has to be infinite inside itself. therefore, with the part of infinity that 'doesnt exist', it can constitute infinity.

Infinity doesn't exist? And you take umbrage when Nihilism is utilized as a definition of what you propose? Your entire definition of Infinity is nowhere within the LOO as you describe it. It is unity philosophy. Again, what is suitable within the LOO to support what you propose is good, while what is not is ignored or outright refuted.

this, pretty much lays the blame on the archetypes employed by this logos, rather than 'inefficient use of catalyst' by 'lazy laggards'.

Its the Logos' fault for entities not efficiently utilizing catalyst, even though once again Ra specifically instructs that some entities simply utilize catalyst more effectively/efficiently than others and that by this subsequently and consequently progress at a more efficient rate. Interesting again.

there are basic core principles which you either extrapolate into new directions, or simply interpret in other ways. I am open to exploring more of what you see as a means of exercising and stretching my own constraints, but would ask always for specific references, given we are hopefully engaging in the study of the LOO exclusively. We are, aren't we?

searching for threads started by me, you will find my replies to a lot of what you ask above.

Yes indeed. And many are in direct contradiction to the LOO.

Unity, I will confess that at at first blush, several posts ago, that your concept on Infinity had some interesting merit. But it quickly begins unraveling. It feels as though it is a concept you are still evolving and working out, out loud no less, but as yet still needs much refinement. As regards working it out within the confines of LOO, it seems that the LOO restricts you much, and that your arguments outstretch it as much, as I'm sure you feel your concept on Infinity surpasses it given your repeated penchant and ability to refute it as often as you cite it to support it. It is a complex concept that can neither make its mind up on which side of the fence it stands on with respect to the LOO, or if it even does support it at other times. No harm is offered, nor is any foul intended. I offer this only as a critical analysis, and as one which you make more than self evident to even the most casual of readers of the LOO.

~ Q ~

[unity100]

Like in the other thread, i think i said all that is necessary to be said. there is no need to go back and reiterate, because someone is, despite having asked before, asking the same questions again, and adding new flavors to them in the process. thank you for your participation.

[Quantum]

Like in the other thread, i think i said all that is necessary to be said. there is no need to go back and reiterate, because someone is, despite having asked before, asking the same questions again, and adding new flavors to them in the process. thank you for your participation.

Thank you for yours as well unity. You fail to recognize that the new flavors added are the new contradictions you offer. As I've stated before, I believe you add much to B4th, this for two primary reasons. One is your ability to stretch concepts in interesting ways. The second is that you offer even to the most casual reader of the LOO, only remotely familiar with the material, the opportunity to refamiliarize themselves more with it enough so as to challenge your sometimes blatant contradictions to it and what Ra has shared. This as interestingly offers the student the ability to stay sharp. Were one to count the number of contradictions you offer, suffice it to say that they would be many. The most recent below appears in your previous post above:

this, pretty much lays the blame on the archetypes employed by this logos, rather than 'inefficient use of catalyst' by 'lazy laggards'.

I am Ra. The latter is more nearly correct. In each beginning there is the beginning from infinite strength. Free will acts as a catalyst. Beings begin to form the universes. Consciousness then begins to have the potential to experience. The potentials of experience are created as a part of intelligent energy and are fixed before experience begins.

However, there is always, due to free will acting infinitely upon the creation, a great variation in initial responses to intelligent energy’s potential. Thus almost immediately the foundations of the, shall we call it, hierarchical nature of beings begins to manifest as some portions of consciousness or awareness learn through experience in a much more efficient manner.

Once again the Ra quote against your quote of "this, pretty much lays the blame on the archetypes employed by this logos, rather than 'inefficient use of catalyst' by 'lazy laggards'" lays blame, if there is blame to lay, on the ability, or lack thereof, wholly on the part of "some portions of consciousness" , rather than at the feet of the Logos.

I too find myself often questioning God, but I don't think I've ever presumed to judge IT, much less lay blame at IT's door step. You contradict Ra and blame the Logos in one fell swoop.

I state again, I mean no harm, nor mean any foul. It is offered as an invitation to look at the many times 'you' offer this as well.

~ Q ~

[βαθμιαίος]

Help me understand more fully your interpretation as per your response I bolded above: "that's not because they were created at higher level than us but because they may have used experience in a much more efficient manner." If I read literally what you state, then you interpret those beings created at higher densities as having greater consciousness not because they were in fact created at the outset with higher consciousness as as a result of their creation in higher densities, but are with higher consciousness more likely because they may have used their experience more efficiently?

Hi Quantum,

Just realized I never answered this. I understand the Ra quote to be saying, not that some entities are created at higher densities than others, but that some progress more quickly through the densities than others. They all, as I understand it, start in first density. Some just move more quickly.

[Quantum]

Help me understand more fully your interpretation as per your response I bolded above: "that's not because they were created at higher level than us but because they may have used experience in a much more efficient manner." If I read literally what you state, then you interpret those beings at higher densities as having greater consciousness not because they were in fact created at the outset with higher consciousness as a result of their creation in higher densities, but are with higher consciousness more likely because they may have used their experience more efficiently?

Hi Quantum,

Just realized I never answered this. I understand the Ra quote to be saying, not that some entities are created at higher densities than others, but that some progress more quickly through the densities than others. They all, as I understand it, start in first density. Some just move more quickly.

Thank you for your response. Here are at least two quotes to ponder with regard to same:

Ra Wrote:28.12 Questioner: Thank you. I’ll call the lenticular galaxy that we are in the major galaxy just so we will not get mixed up in our terms. Does all the consciousness in individualized form that goes into what we are calling the major galaxy start out and go through all of the densities in order, one-two-three-four-five-six-seven and into the eighth, or are there some who start up higher in the rank so that there is always a mixture of intelligent consciousness in the galaxy?

Ra: I am Ra. The latter is more nearly correct. In each beginning there is the beginning from infinite strength. Free will acts as a catalyst. Beings begin to form the universes. Consciousness then begins to have the potential to experience. The potentials of experience are created as a part of intelligent energy and are fixed before experience begins.

Here is another:

30.13 Questioner: Thank you. You stated yesterday that much of this major galactic system dwells spiritually as a part of the Logos. Do you mean that near the center of this major galactic system that the stars there do not have planetary systems? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The Logos has distributed itself throughout your galactic system. However, the time/space continua of some of your more central sun systems are much further advanced.

Herein then lies the dilemma of being mortal, and in 3D: by these quotes it indeed seems that the closer to the center of the galaxy those beings are, so too the more advanced are their consciousnesses formed from the outset for it. The One Infinite Creator created those portions and bodies of consciousness, perhaps as though closer to its own patterns, for lack of better words or understanding, and that as such those portions more close to the center were/are in fact more advanced as such from the outset as a result. May we deduce further that The One Infinite Creator therefore may have in fact created all densities, even perhaps all octaves at once, such that all ingredients of creation preceded us, and that it is we that are filling space and positions, rather than creating them?

Next dilemma: If these creations from the outset are more advanced, it causes one then to question much more than is already questioned to begin with. From an individuated sense of ego identification and differentiation, one might feel less favored, shall we say. Notwithstanding that we're not in a road-race, will we as 3D ever truly be able to catch them, if even approach them, given that they too are presumably always advancing?

Consequence of said mind-bender: It becomes an unimaginable mind-bender if not contradiction therefore to ever imagine that All is ONE, if all can never truly be One, this as a result of All never being able to ever coalesce into One.

Stepping then away from the identification of ego and all inherent differentiation therein vis-a-vis favoritism, and all the "other than-ness-es" that we in 3D just do, i.e., one is more adorned whilst the other is seemingly less adored, this by virtue and status of birthright alone. We are required/requested to stand in faith nevertheless that indeed All Is One irrespective of what our minds otherwise may say to the contrary. Faith is the greatest "Jedi Mind Trick" of all in 3D, this to be sure, in spite of all 3D evidence to the contrary that almost forces an intellectual response as if to sometimes believe that what we believe is fools gold, or to instead resign ourselves to what we think we believe as being incomprehensible to the point of never being understandable of what we believe, this too in spite of our many mantras that we do believe what we don't know what we believe uttered that All Is One, whether it is or isn't. What is clear is that if we are to be intellectually honest is that we don't know what we believe, in spite of our suggesting that we do, or even wishing to, which has nothing to do with our faith, given we believe in something in spite of the fact that we don't know what it is. Unless I as a pip-squeak in 1D-2D-3D can in fact coalesce with these beings within the center of this galaxy, how may one be one with them if they keep marching on in their advancement too? Will they stop at some point as nice guys and just wait or us? Have some who have gotten there already started to stop? Will they at this point enfold us then into the All Is One concept? Or is All just One anyway?

And here's another mind-bender: who is to say how long this has been going on before we ever were created into 3D to begin with? How many infinite untold centers already graduated zillions of eons ago and are far beyond any comprehensible understanding of where they are? If we can not coalesce with even the beings within the center of our own galaxy, how might we ever coalesce with beings that have since gone on jigazillions of eons before that, and are presumably still moving on?

Its late, and I maybe rambling, but it seems these are valid questions within the framework of intellectual honesty and investigation, even if unanswerable? It is all more of an incomprehensible mystery than we may ever be able to even give it credit for. Will "The Mystery" presumably march on in infinity forever as well....???

But alas, its midnight, and I shall retire in the firm knowledge, and rest into the bosom of faith that indeed...... "ALL IS ONE."

~ Q ~

[spero]

Hey Quantum,

With regard to some of the questions you raised in your last post, I present the following quote hoping you will find in it some of the answers you seek, though it appears not even Ra is sure about it all.

28.15 Questioner: Are you saying then that there are an infinite number of octaves of densities one through eight?

Ra: I am Ra. We wish to establish that we are truly humble messengers of the Law of One. We can speak to you of our experiences and our understandings and teach/learn in limited ways. However, we cannot speak in firm knowledge of all the creations. We know only that they are infinite. We assume an infinite number of octaves.

However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery.

[Quantum]

[quote='spero' pid='21124' dateline='1286881526']
Hey Quantum,

With regard to some of the questions you raised in your last post, I present the following quote hoping you will find in it some of the answers you seek, though it appears not even Ra is sure about it all.

[quote]
28.15 Questioner: Are you saying then that there are an infinite number of octaves of densities one through eight?

Ra: I am Ra. We wish to establish that we are truly humble messengers of the Law of One. We can speak to you of our experiences and our understandings and teach/learn in limited ways. However, we cannot speak in firm knowledge of all the creations. We know only that they are infinite. We assume an infinite number of octaves.

However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery.
[/quote]
As always spero, thanks so much for the input. Fascinating to be sure. Lazazza must have been reading my mind (I've asked him to refrain, but have had little success in convincing him of same...maybe you could have a chat with him?) who picked up on this same point with βαθμιαίος within moments of posting similar responses on the thread "Why would the Creator elect to create suffering for ITself? Given your response here is so spot on, I took it from here and posted it there. Lets pick it up there and continue.....

~ Q ~

[βαθμιαίος]

Thank you for your response. Here are at least two quotes to ponder with regard to same:

28.12 Questioner: Thank you. I’ll call the lenticular galaxy that we are in the major galaxy just so we will not get mixed up in our terms. Does all the consciousness in individualized form that goes into what we are calling the major galaxy start out and go through all of the densities in order, one-two-three-four-five-six-seven and into the eighth, or are there some who start up higher in the rank so that there is always a mixture of intelligent consciousness in the galaxy?

Ra: I am Ra. The latter is more nearly correct. In each beginning there is the beginning from infinite strength. Free will acts as a catalyst. Beings begin to form the universes. Consciousness then begins to have the potential to experience. The potentials of experience are created as a part of intelligent energy and are fixed before experience begins.

We discussed this quote before. I pointed out that you omitted the second paragraph then (as now). Taking both paragraphs together, I understand Ra to be saying that because some always learn faster than others it is more nearly correct that there is always a mixture of intelligent consciousness in the galaxy than that all consciousness goes through the densities in lockstep. This doesn't mean, as I understand it, that any entity starts anywhere other than in first density.

Here is another:

30.13 Questioner: Thank you. You stated yesterday that much of this major galactic system dwells spiritually as a part of the Logos. Do you mean that near the center of this major galactic system that the stars there do not have planetary systems? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The Logos has distributed itself throughout your galactic system. However, the time/space continua of some of your more central sun systems are much further advanced.

Their time/space continua are much further advanced. In other words, they started earlier.

Next dilemma: If these creations from the outset are more advanced, it causes one then to question much more than is already questioned to begin with. From an individuated sense of ego identification and differentiation, one might feel less favored, shall we say. Notwithstanding that we're not in a road-race, will we as 3D ever truly be able to catch them, if even approach them, given that they too are presumably always advancing?

They're still in our octave, and Ra says that the creation coalesces at the end of the octave, so I think yes, we will rejoin them at the great in-beating.