Bring4th

let me get something clear, Unity100.

Spheres are the origin of all things.
The creator experiences itself through the geometry of spheres

Now. You can take it, or leave it

(12-24-2010, 04:55 AM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-24-2010, 04:22 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-24-2010, 03:57 AM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]...............

you are quoting what i said to you, to me, because ?

i wasnt the one who came up with packed spheres proposition, and claimed that there were pointers to its validity in religions and cited english bible, english language for that, and then dodged when queried whether it holds for other languages.

i dont have to prove anything to you - i didnt propose anything, i just queried you on the validity of the proposition you are bringing.

...............

so, i take it that what you propose do not hold valid for languages other than english, and the bibles other than english ?

that is what i understand from your dodging that query and the subsequent proof it requires.

---

Let me tell you what the code is all about, in my humble opinion

The code describes the origin of creation of light, and the universe

The origin is specific, and t is related to specific geometry

Ra's Code describes this origin and this geometry.

From human perspective, the code appears related to what humans can percieve. It is related to space, time, and differentiations in between.

The one shape that all can relate to is that of the sphere. We live on a sphere, and are alive because of a sphere.

The code explains how light was created, and what was created with the light.

That's it. That's what the code is all about.

(12-24-2010, 05:16 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]let me get something clear, Unity100.

Spheres are the origin of all things.
The creator experiences itself through the geometry of spheres

Now. You can take it, or leave it

i dont have to 'take it' or 'leave it'.this is not a place where people present their dogmas unquestioned and others accept it without questioning. we didnt come here for that.

Quote:Let me tell you what the code is all about, in my humble opinion

The code describes the origin of creation of light, and the universe

The origin is specific, and t is related to specific geometry

Ra's Code describes this origin and this geometry.

From human perspective, the code appears related to what humans can percieve. It is related to space, time, and differentiations in between.

The one shape that all can relate to is that of the sphere. We live on a sphere, and are alive because of a sphere.

The code explains how light was created, and what was created with the light.

That's it. That's what the code is all about.

i didnt ask for your opinion, i specifically asked, whether this code you have been proposing does or does not validate the word 'god' in other languages, and the equivalent of the passages/information in the english language bible, in other languages.

this was what you had proposed as proof of the validity of this spheres approach, and the arithmetic involved, and the proof of this is what i have asked.

I don't know what to say anymore, Unity.
You have asked the same question several times, and I have answered it several times. Yet you are asking it again.
This tells one of two things. Either you are not reading my responses, or you don't understand them.
Just for the record, here is the answer one more time.
I found possible code in English, that agrees with the spheres theory that I have had.
So, the idea of the spheres is what is important, not the English code. I also said that maybe the English code is just a bunch of coincidence that seem to agree with the geometry.
I said that the basic code of packed spheres has nothing to do with language, because it is based on geometry and numbers.
Now, If you are gonna ask me again about English, what am I supposed to believe, since I already told you that it is not about language?
We do not care about language when we work with octaves, or Egyptian, Indian, or other scripture. Yet we still use the geometry of packed spheres.
If this can't explain it to you, then I give up, because I really do not think that I can make myself any clearer.

(12-24-2010, 05:16 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]let me get something clear, Unity100.

Spheres are the origin of all things.
The creator experiences itself through the geometry of spheres

Now. You can take it, or leave it

(12-24-2010, 04:55 AM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-24-2010, 04:22 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-24-2010, 03:57 AM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]...............

you are quoting what i said to you, to me, because ?

i wasnt the one who came up with packed spheres proposition, and claimed that there were pointers to its validity in religions and cited english bible, english language for that, and then dodged when queried whether it holds for other languages.

i dont have to prove anything to you - i didnt propose anything, i just queried you on the validity of the proposition you are bringing.

...............

so, i take it that what you propose do not hold valid for languages other than english, and the bibles other than english ?

that is what i understand from your dodging that query and the subsequent proof it requires.

---

Let me tell you what the code is all about, in my humble opinion

The code describes the origin of creation of light, and the universe

The origin is specific, and t is related to specific geometry

Ra's Code describes this origin and this geometry.

From human perspective, the code appears related to what humans can percieve. It is related to space, time, and differentiations in between.

The one shape that all can relate to is that of the sphere. We live on a sphere, and are alive because of a sphere.

The code explains how light was created, and what was created with the light.

That's it. That's what the code is all about.

---

All the ideas that I am presenting depend on one thing, and that is the geometry of packed spheres.
It is impossible to understand what I am sharing without considering the geometry. While simple, it is the source of all complexity.

(12-26-2010, 03:20 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what to say anymore, Unity.
You have asked the same question several times, and I have answered it several times. Yet you are asking it again.
This tells one of two things. Either you are not reading my responses, or you don't understand them.
Just for the record, here is the answer one more time.
I found possible code in English, that agrees with the spheres theory that I have had.
So, the idea of the spheres is what is important, not the English code. I also said that maybe the English code is just a bunch of coincidence that seem to agree with the geometry.
I said that the basic code of packed spheres has nothing to do with language, because it is based on geometry and numbers.
Now, If you are gonna ask me again about English, what am I supposed to believe, since I already told you that it is not about language?
We do not care about language when we work with octaves, or Egyptian, Indian, or other scripture. Yet we still use the geometry of packed spheres.
If this can't explain it to you, then I give up, because I really do not think that I can make myself any clearer.

if you do not care about language, then do not put english language word god, or any excerpt in english language bible as 'supporting' factors or evidence or pointers to what you are presenting.

you have done this. and when queried about the other language bibles, you have first said that it would only make sense because english was the most widely spoken language. this was incorrect, as i have linked various statistics. then when i further queried, you have said that you havent researched the situation in those other language bibles and word 'god' in other languages, but you said that you thought probable analogies would also be in there.

when i queried for proof of this proposition in other languages, you have told me to use logic and see myself.

when i have said that it was not my duty or burden to provide proof for what idea you are proposing, but yours, you have gone dogmatic and said

(12-24-2010, 05:16 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]let me get something clear, Unity100.

Spheres are the origin of all things.
The creator experiences itself through the geometry of spheres

Now. You can take it, or leave it

to which i responded didnt have to 'take it or leave it', and people participating here were not here for dogma.

now you are again going around and saying that you have replied to my queries.

let me put it bluntly as i see it :

you have not replied to anything i have asked. what you are refusing to admit is, there is no similar 'proof' in these other language bibles and word 'god' in other languages, to the proposition of packed sphere 1-7 arithmetic. it does not hold. and because you have shown that as somewhat 'divine' supplementary proof as to the idea you have proposed, you are not able to back from your initial claim and say that they do not hold in those other languages. and because they will come up as not satisfying your proposition, you are unwilling to delve into them and put arithmetic up for them either.

it is understandable that someone may go excited on some idea/philosophy one is discovering, and make a rather broad assumption and statement, like you did with this 'word god and bible supports this'. it happens.

what is not understandable, and moreover, what is unacceptable is that, being unwilling to prove/verify it and accuse those who question/query it with unreceptiveness, impoliteness, negativity and whatnot and being dogmatic and assertive about it.

Quote:All the ideas that I am presenting depend on one thing, and that is the geometry of packed spheres.
It is impossible to understand what I am sharing without considering the geometry. While simple, it is the source of all complexity.

and that complexity, doesnt hold for latin bible and latin word for god. or hebrew. or, german.

if, idea of packed spheres was 'the' thing from the start, as you proposed it, you should have stayed in the original proposition, and didnt put a grand assumption about particular christian religion in english language words and bible.

because, this was precisely what you have done, even going to the extra mile of suggesting a divine hand in this coincidence happening. however, that coincidence, remained limited to the english language, which isnt even the most commonly spoken language, or the original language (or the longest duration language) that christianity had been practiced in.

That's Great

I think that we have come to an understanding.
But let me correct something you said, I never claimed that the possible English code had a divine source. In fact, it appears suspicious. Other sources hint at the information without such exactness.
In any case, I am glad that this misunderstanding is over.

(12-26-2010, 11:18 AM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-26-2010, 03:20 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know what to say anymore, Unity.
You have asked the same question several times, and I have answered it several times. Yet you are asking it again.
This tells one of two things. Either you are not reading my responses, or you don't understand them.
Just for the record, here is the answer one more time.
I found possible code in English, that agrees with the spheres theory that I have had.
So, the idea of the spheres is what is important, not the English code. I also said that maybe the English code is just a bunch of coincidence that seem to agree with the geometry.
I said that the basic code of packed spheres has nothing to do with language, because it is based on geometry and numbers.
Now, If you are gonna ask me again about English, what am I supposed to believe, since I already told you that it is not about language?
We do not care about language when we work with octaves, or Egyptian, Indian, or other scripture. Yet we still use the geometry of packed spheres.
If this can't explain it to you, then I give up, because I really do not think that I can make myself any clearer.

if you do not care about language, then do not put english language word god, or any excerpt in english language bible as 'supporting' factors or evidence or pointers to what you are presenting.

you have done this. and when queried about the other language bibles, you have first said that it would only make sense because english was the most widely spoken language. this was incorrect, as i have linked various statistics. then when i further queried, you have said that you havent researched the situation in those other language bibles and word 'god' in other languages, but you said that you thought probable analogies would also be in there.

when i queried for proof of this proposition in other languages, you have told me to use logic and see myself.

when i have said that it was not my duty or burden to provide proof for what idea you are proposing, but yours, you have gone dogmatic and said

(12-24-2010, 05:16 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]let me get something clear, Unity100.

Spheres are the origin of all things.
The creator experiences itself through the geometry of spheres

Now. You can take it, or leave it

to which i responded didnt have to 'take it or leave it', and people participating here were not here for dogma.

now you are again going around and saying that you have replied to my queries.

let me put it bluntly as i see it :

you have not replied to anything i have asked. what you are refusing to admit is, there is no similar 'proof' in these other language bibles and word 'god' in other languages, to the proposition of packed sphere 1-7 arithmetic. it does not hold. and because you have shown that as somewhat 'divine' supplementary proof as to the idea you have proposed, you are not able to back from your initial claim and say that they do not hold in those other languages. and because they will come up as not satisfying your proposition, you are unwilling to delve into them and put arithmetic up for them either.

it is understandable that someone may go excited on some idea/philosophy one is discovering, and make a rather broad assumption and statement, like you did with this 'word god and bible supports this'. it happens.

what is not understandable, and moreover, what is unacceptable is that, being unwilling to prove/verify it and accuse those who question/query it with unreceptiveness, impoliteness, negativity and whatnot and being dogmatic and assertive about it.

Quote:All the ideas that I am presenting depend on one thing, and that is the geometry of packed spheres.
It is impossible to understand what I am sharing without considering the geometry. While simple, it is the source of all complexity.

and that complexity, doesnt hold for latin bible and latin word for god. or hebrew. or, german.

if, idea of packed spheres was 'the' thing from the start, as you proposed it, you should have stayed in the original proposition, and didnt put a grand assumption about particular christian religion in english language words and bible.

because, this was precisely what you have done, even going to the extra mile of suggesting a divine hand in this coincidence happening. however, that coincidence, remained limited to the english language, which isnt even the most commonly spoken language, or the original language (or the longest duration language) that christianity had been practiced in.

The geometry of spheres is the base of all things, as far as I know.
Our scientific and mathematical equation assume this at times without explanation such as in the equation of force for gravity and electricity.
The geometry appears in all religions as mentioned earlier. In order to understand the hidden ideas within various religions, we must become familiar with the geometry.

(12-26-2010, 09:55 PM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]The geometry of spheres is the base of all things, as far as I know.
Our scientific and mathematical equation assume this at times without explanation such as in the equation of force for gravity and electricity.
The geometry appears in all religions as mentioned earlier. In order to understand the hidden ideas within various religions, we must become familiar with the geometry.

Nabil, I'm confused. Can you provide an example of the geometry in other religions? Or did I miss that? On what basis are you saying the geometry appears in 'all' religions?

In order for you to understand the connection between words of religion and the geometry, you need to become familiar with it.
For example, we need to know what is around a single sphere within packed spheres. How many is it connected to? What would happen if one of the spheres began to spin in place?
Once we know some of the basic attributes of the geometry, we begin to look for any reference to it within the words.
One example is an ancient book called The Stanzas of Dzyan. It say that the origin of all things began when the 3 fell into the 4, and the 4 took unto itself 3. When comparing this to the geometry we find that it fits exactly. That is, all spheres are part of a square of 4 spheres, and a triangle of 3. What's more when considering vibrations, each of the 3 spheres in the triangle is connected 4 other spheres. And each sphere from the square is connected to 3 other spheres.
If we continue reading the Stanzas, we find that it describes other aspects of the geometry.

The same principle applies to other religions.

(12-27-2010, 12:48 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-26-2010, 09:55 PM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]The geometry of spheres is the base of all things, as far as I know.
Our scientific and mathematical equation assume this at times without explanation such as in the equation of force for gravity and electricity.
The geometry appears in all religions as mentioned earlier. In order to understand the hidden ideas within various religions, we must become familiar with the geometry.

Nabil, I'm confused. Can you provide an example of the geometry in other religions? Or did I miss that? On what basis are you saying the geometry appears in 'all' religions?

(12-26-2010, 07:36 PM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]That's Great

I think that we have come to an understanding.
But let me correct something you said, I never claimed that the possible English code had a divine source. In fact, it appears suspicious. Other sources hint at the information without such exactness.
In any case, I am glad that this misunderstanding is over.

we havent come to an understanding, for you havent cleared anything or said one or the other.

so, you are saying that the proposition of english language bible and word god and that 'geometry', is suspicious ?

and then why are you proceeding like the below :

Quote:And each sphere from the square is connected to 3 other spheres.
If we continue reading the Stanzas, we find that it describes other aspects of the geometry.

The same principle applies to other religions.

you are basically saying that 'in order to verify that this proposition of geometry/bible/language word god holds, read other religious scripture'.

again, this is not our burden to undertake. the proposer is tasked with the proof of the proposition.


so basically, you are saying that the proposition you have made sounds suspicious to you, but you are telling us to read bibles and whatnot and confirm it ?

and why should we do it ?

You know what. I am not going to discuss anything with you Unity100.

I do not know where you come with this stuff?
You have no clue still what I am talking about. This is obvious from you latest questions. I feel that it is a waste of time discussing anything with you. You are free to share anything you want, but don't expect me to continue with this charade.

Please remember that you don't have to read this stuff.

(12-27-2010, 03:34 AM)unity100 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-26-2010, 07:36 PM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]That's Great

I think that we have come to an understanding.
But let me correct something you said, I never claimed that the possible English code had a divine source. In fact, it appears suspicious. Other sources hint at the information without such exactness.
In any case, I am glad that this misunderstanding is over.

we havent come to an understanding, for you havent cleared anything or said one or the other.

so, you are saying that the proposition of english language bible and word god and that 'geometry', is suspicious ?

and then why are you proceeding like the below :

Quote:And each sphere from the square is connected to 3 other spheres.
If we continue reading the Stanzas, we find that it describes other aspects of the geometry.

The same principle applies to other religions.

you are basically saying that 'in order to verify that this proposition of geometry/bible/language word god holds, read other religious scripture'.

again, this is not our burden to undertake. the proposer is tasked with the proof of the proposition.


so basically, you are saying that the proposition you have made sounds suspicious to you, but you are telling us to read bibles and whatnot and confirm it ?

and why should we do it ?

(12-27-2010, 05:53 AM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]You know what. I am not going to discuss anything with you Unity100.

I do not know where you come with this stuff?
You have no clue still what I am talking about. This is obvious from you latest questions. I feel that it is a waste of time discussing anything with you. You are free to share anything you want, but don't expect me to continue with this charade.

Please remember that you don't have to read this stuff.

surely i dont have to read this stuff. however, i have taken it into attention, giving it some credence - as anyone should do to anyone else's opinion before dismissing it.

and i have queried you on your various assertions. you have dodged all of these, and continually going back to accusing the person in front of you with 'not understanding' or not being receptive.

you say that your numerological packed spheres approach are verified by various religious books, and you are using that as a proposition to strengthen your approach.

yet you arent willing to prove it.

basically it means, they dont hold. there is no way in which the word gott will hold the same as the word god in the numerology you proposed. it doesnt hold, and you are dodging the question.

and you are, despite being challenged in your proposition and evading to verify it, continually slapping the numerological spheres thing in almost every discussion, without giving much commentary about or establishing relevance with whatever subject that is being discussed in that topic. with a picture of a packed sphere pyramid generally accompanying as attachment.

apart from some phases of this thread we are in, you rarely have mentioned things from Ra material in other threads. you talk about 'ra's code' and it being packed spheres, but, there is not much Ra material found in your discussions.

you continually revolve around the same argument, but, do not answer it, dodge it, and even though you blatantly dodge it, you say 'i am pleased that we have come to an agreement'. then you point to the need to read the other religious books (predominantly of christian origin) to verify the 'packed spheres' logic. which, not you, but those who are asking you have to do, apparently.

for some unknown reason, we have to first be receptive to your packed spheres logic, and then start roaming the religious books for numerological proof that you are sure of being there.

when confronted with these, you accuse the inquiring persona.

I think that a reminder is in order

The Ra code is about the way the universe works.
It is process that repeats infinitely, in Octaves

Being where we are, within the 3rd density of self-awareness, it is very difficult for us to see the unity of creation. Our being is based on an awareness of separation from the totality.
We have just begun to understand the unity within nature around us. We now understand how the weather affect us all, for example. And we are learning that we can affect the weather. This type of understanding connect us closer to the truth.

I apologize for being distracted. I know that I have a lot more to share and explain

Love and Peace

you said that you havent shared the packed spheres idea yet, in the other thread ?

how about finally explaining this packed spheres idea/ra's code, in its true form, as you have said in the other thread ?

Nabil, please check your private messages.

Ra spoke of a universe of oneness
An infinite universe
A universe that is also the creator

Humans must first deal with this fact
before they can understand and accept the unity of creation

Within the veil of the cave, one sees shadows of light only

I chose the title for this post in order to get your attention. The code that Ra reveals is universal, and it is not limited to Ra.
Just like Ra said, The Law of One has been shared with humanity throughout history. Our religious books have information regarding this code.
It is prejudice to discredit all information that comes from the many religions that we have. We need to keep in mind that the code has nothing to do with religious dogma, or with the way people act and believe. It is a code after all. This means that it is undiscovered information.

For those of you that have a problem with religious references, I remind you that religion was the basis for human social evolution.

Religion first, then science.

Ra said this as well. I wonder if anyone can find when or where?

I have shared the English language code before, and I will share it now again.
It takes a great amount of patience and open mindedness not to ignore this stuff. I know that some people have a problem with this.
If you do not have the patience, just ignore it.

The whole universe is built on the simple principle of spheres interacting.
In the drawing below, the red and blue colors represent a direction of rotation on a 2-dimensional plane. Such as left and right.
The geometry shown is one of very few symmetrical possibilities of spheres spinning. Spin and momentum are the basis of all forces in nature.

(12-01-2010, 08:43 PM)Nabil Naser Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you all very much for your welcome, and for your interest in what I have to share. This is exciting for me, because it gives me a chance to share.

I need to add here that while the title of the post is Ra' Code, similar material can be found in all world religions. The information can also be found in myth, social beliefs and creations, untold number of symbols, nature, and science. I have been sharing this information for a while now, and if you would like to have a look at previously shared material, you can visit :
http://theosophical.ning.com/profiles/blog/list
http://nabilnaser.ning.com/forum

You will find a good amount of that information in the Forum sections, particularly in the Science, Art, and General Discussions sections.

I have not shared my information with an audience that is familiar with the Ra material before, and I am not certain how to proceed. I suppose starting with the Pyramid would be as good a subject as any. I need to add that the amount of information that I have is vast, and it will take some time to share. Please be patient with me.

In the Ra Material, the subject of the Pyramid was discussed in some detail. Pyramids can also be found in different parts of the world.

Welcome I like the input it brings a lot to the table, Great observation.

I think that the number 1 is the answer to all things.

Hmmmm , I heard someone wonder.

You see, one is the basic of reality.
There is One Universe
Many believe that there is only One God
Science believes that there was only One Big Bang

I really think that One is the answer.

But for one to be a real answer, it must be related to all things, and everyone.

So, I am sharing it here first. There is a value for God, "or Nature", that is equal to one.

I believe that this is the answer to all the questions that we have so far.