Did Ra address the reason for our existence?

[Night Owl]

Hi Billz, I have bolded thep parts which got me interested in your seeking. That's just meant as food for thought, as a mean to reflect on your conceptualizations of the creator.

However, as I reflect on what I've read, I don't remember Don asking or Ra stating our purpose. Why are we here? Is this reality an experiment in experience and collective growth for everyone. I know when we transform to 4D that we'll spend time in between densities reflecting on our personal growth and what remains for our ultimate evolution to the next Octive(s). But I still don't recall a concise answer to "why are we here?" More to the point, why did we ever leave the Creator?

First off, I don't think we can leave the creator, that would imply that something isn't the creator. The idea that the creator is some outside being playing with toys as if this creation was totally external to him is a popular belief among religious background. Although I think it creates a paradox to externalize the creator from it's creation or to conceptualize the creator as all the things while some of the things wouldn't be in accordance with the creator as many religious beliefs pretend. The LOO instead suggest that the creator IS the creation, that it is actively taking part in it, and experiencing it, rather than being outside of it. I think that makes much more sense to me.

I did not read anywhere that the Creator was not omniscient and therefore cannot accept your shifting focus as anything more than mirrors to misdirect the point. I will agree that the Creator enjoys the knowing of itself through out experiences, like a father enjoys the successes of their children. But I believe that it was implied in the text that the Creator was omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent; i.e. Infinite Energy and Infinite Intelligence.

When speaking of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, it seems to me that we indirectly apply the idea of awareness or consciousness to these terms. But what does awareness or consciousness mean? To me it implies the very idea of experience or observation, that is that there is a subject and an object. In short, that there is duality. That means that at this state the creator is split, then it is not united. It seems to me that when we attribute the creator some kind of similar awareness to ours but with some kind of wholeness to it, we are essentially projecting our own understanding of our consciousness to the concept of god. But that seems to me like a limiting idea, to think that the creator would even be limited to awareness is a farfetched claim in my opinion. If consciousness requires duality, then god may be much more than consciousness. The root of the word even mean: con (with) scio (seperation). Although there are many interpretation to the latin roots, some would describe the second part of the word as meaning 'together' but that imply a certain form of seperation doesn't it?

If that is true, then following the semantics of the argument to the end actually points out that the Creator desires to know, from our experiences in our lives at whatever density/octave, the "how" of what we have employed in resolving the issues of our lives. The "why" of our existence then becomes a contradiction to the concept that the Creator as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If the Creator already knows "everything," then he/she doesn't require the additional knowledge that we might provide because it's redundant and therefore superfluous. This "why" premise then indicates a flaw in the Creator. For me, this indicates a flaw in Ra's written dialogue. I will accept that Ra's knowledge is incomplete because Ra admitted on more than one occasion that Ra didn't know everything. Therefore, the flaw in the logic of my supposition is a limitation of Ra and not a possible flaw with the Creator.

You see, the creator is everything, and so cannot be without flaws. It is in fact all of the flaws. Can you see now how we are limiting our own perspective by projecting our own limits to this idea of limitlessness? The creator that is infinite and contains everything must by definition contain all those opposites, else it is very paradoxal. And so the creator contains limits, flaws, unconsciousness, unawareness. That's not to say there is no bigger consciousness behind everything, but there is a distinction I believe between what we consider to be oneness, unity, the source, the creator, no matter how you want to call it, and consciousness.

My personal conclusion, and according to the LOO is that the one thing prior to consciousness is beingness, meaning it is the only thing that is impossible to seperate from the rest. But again that's just my deduction.