Shin'Ar makes a good point in another thread:
(08-06-2012, 09:26 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]It would be wise of all LOO students to remember this and to diligently seek for inaccuracies as they study to make sure they are not misled by mistake. Mistakes that could be made in the transmission or the receiving ends of that sharing of fields.
I will say that what I have picked up on is that Ra has, on occasion, used the term Intelligent Infinity when they meant to use Intelligent Energy.
namely that Ra has had difficulties with our language/concepts/numbers. There are numerous cases of numbering mistakes that are on the record. A lot of these center around referring to yellow ray instead of green (Ra counts the
inner rays from red upwards instead of from 1 up). There is also a case of referring to STO as STS (a dipole mistake/mis-assignment) and an example of an archetype naming mistake.
these are understandable; everyone has experienced the case of speaking to someone, and having a conversation flow, and then they interrupt you, and say, hey did you mean to say this instead of that?? and it astonishes you that you mis-used a word, when the meaning was so clear in your mind. Really funny when it happens in a national sports broadcast
Don was vigilant when listening to Ra's answers, and seemed to catch the most glaring, obvious errors.
and yet, we shouldn't become slavish to the text (guilty here!) but rather try to penetrate the meaning/concepts being conveyed by the language.
that will involve individual interpretation.
Ra also mentions that they have difficulty with numbers and dates in 3rd Density and any dates for past events given by Ra might be inaccurate.
But have there ever been any cases where channeling involving dates has been accurate? I am wondering why this is such a big surprise.
True enough zenmaster, and any information about specific dates is somewhat transient by nature anyhow. What's important is that concepts come through just fine.
I think one of the more curious communication kerfuffles in the material is Ra's use of the word "galaxy." Why would Ra have a different definition for an English word with its origins being directly related to the Milky Way Galaxy?
And this wasn't just a mistake in communication...Ra specifically said that they consider our local star system to be a galaxy. Why?
But "There are no mistakes under the Law of One" ~ Ra 12.24
(08-06-2012, 05:29 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]I think one of the more curious communication kerfuffles in the material is Ra's use of the word "galaxy." Why would Ra have a different definition for an English word with its origins being directly related to the Milky Way Galaxy?
And this wasn't just a mistake in communication...Ra specifically said that they consider our local star system to be a galaxy. Why?
Why indeed. Maybe there is a lot more to our "star system" than meets the eyes.
(08-06-2012, 05:29 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]And this wasn't just a mistake in communication...Ra specifically said that they consider our local star system to be a galaxy. Why?
I was just thinking about this today. I think they were considering the creation of a Logos to be a universe and the creation of a sub-Logos to be a galaxy. For example:
Quote:13.13 Questioner: Was the galaxy that we are in created by the infinite intelligence or was it created by a portion of the infinite intelligence?
Ra: I am Ra. The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.
Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational patterns of what you would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has its own, shall we say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.
Ironically, this is one quote where they did use "solar system" instead of "galaxy."
(08-06-2012, 05:29 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Ra specifically said that they consider our local star system to be a galaxy. Why?
I think it's due to the time/space and multidimensional nature of star systems which is not measurable yet. They chose the best word that we had, and that was 'galaxy' - because, perhaps the actual manifold and extensive constructs involved - hyper-dimensionally and metaphysically - would be better defined by that term.
After considering that quote, it could be that the holographic nature of an area of creation - a solar system - is merely sufficient to express the entirety its host galaxy. That is, within the constraints of Ra's level of consciousness.
so then this quote was proven by the article about how the further away we get from our solar system the more different the laws of physics as we know them are? i'll try and find it
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...004112.htm
so does this quote also suggest that eventually we could all become as the sun is to ourselves, a logos of beings we helped create. Basically the next step after the solar system following the galaxy and universe. And what do you think might that creation then be? :-) Now thats a fascinating question, at least to me :-)
Conifer17
Namaste
I love you <3 :-)
(08-06-2012, 06:17 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]But "There are no mistakes under the Law of One" ~ Ra 12.24
(08-06-2012, 05:29 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]I think one of the more curious communication kerfuffles in the material is Ra's use of the word "galaxy." Why would Ra have a different definition for an English word with its origins being directly related to the Milky Way Galaxy?
And this wasn't just a mistake in communication...Ra specifically said that they consider our local star system to be a galaxy. Why?
Why indeed. Maybe there is a lot more to our "star system" than meets the eyes.
Maybe because all is one
.
(08-06-2012, 07:15 PM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2012, 05:29 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]Ra specifically said that they consider our local star system to be a galaxy. Why?
I think it's due to the time/space and multidimensional nature of star systems which is not measurable yet. They chose the best word that we had, and that was 'galaxy' - because, perhaps the actual manifold and extensive constructs involved - hyper-dimensionally and metaphysically - would be better defined by that term.
After considering that quote, it could be that the holographic nature of an area of creation - a solar system - is merely sufficient to express the entirety its host galaxy. That is, within the constraints of Ra's level of consciousness.
Or you could say that, either works.
(08-06-2012, 06:17 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]But "There are no mistakes under the Law of One" ~ Ra 12.24
But there are (grammatical) mistakes in
the Ra Material.
(08-07-2012, 09:47 AM)Siren Wrote: [ -> ] (08-06-2012, 06:17 PM)Patrick Wrote: [ -> ]But "There are no mistakes under the Law of One" ~ Ra 12.24
But there are mistakes in the Ra Material ^.~
Indeed.
(08-07-2012, 01:05 AM)Conifer16 Wrote: [ -> ]so does this quote also suggest that eventually we could all become as the sun is to ourselves, a logos of beings we helped create. Basically the next step after the solar system following the galaxy and universe. And what do you think might that creation then be? :-) Now thats a fascinating question, at least to me :-)
Conifer17
Namaste
I love you <3 :-)
That is fascinating. I'm glad I'm waking back up, because this stuff really excites me. Perhaps in 4D we have a Universe within us. I'm not sure. I'd want to be a planetary Logos, if we got to choose our creations. I think 4D might train us to be co-creators. I'd have a planet of anthro beings I could love with a great love. In 4D we realize new levels of love.
I heard it said that there are beings who love us 10,000 as much as a mother loves her baby. I believe it was Little Grandmother who said that. That shows what 4D love can be. A Logos is really beginning to understand the love/light and light/love.
One individualized consciousness creates one galaxy of stars, the type that has many millions of stars in it. Does this happen?
Ra: I am Ra. This can happen. The possibilities are infinite. Thus a Logos may create what you call a star system or it may be the Logos creating billions of star systems. This is the cause of the confusion in the term galaxy, for there are many different Logos entities or creations and we would call each, using your sound vibration complexes, a galaxy.
does this help clear up anything?
oops, cut off part of the quote. lol sorry.
Questioner: Thank you. Does a unit of consciousness, an individualized unit of consciousness, create a unit of the creation? I will give an example.
One individualized consciousness creates one galaxy of stars, the type that has many millions of stars in it. Does this happen?
Ra: I am Ra. This can happen. The possibilities are infinite. Thus a Logos may create what you call a star system or it may be the Logos creating billions of star systems. This is the cause of the confusion in the term galaxy, for there are many different Logos entities or creations and we would call each, using your sound vibration complexes, a galaxy.
How does Ra define a Logos?
I believe Ra defines a Logos as the focusing of infinity into intelligent energy.
Quote:13.7 Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.
(08-08-2012, 04:21 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]I believe Ra defines a Logos as the focusing of infinity into intelligent energy.
Quote:13.7 Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.
My take is that is a black hole. It's the only force in the Universe that is infinitely dense.
(08-08-2012, 04:21 PM)Spaced Wrote: [ -> ]I believe Ra defines a Logos as the focusing of infinity into intelligent energy.
Quote:13.7 Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.
Therefore a logos is not any one planet or celestial body, or fragment of consciousness, but the infinite intelligence behind creation.
Which is exactly what Ra has tried to explain in the questioners insistence on its acknowledging their perception of sub logos.