02-12-2021, 10:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2021, 10:37 AM by Asolsutsesvyl.
Edit Reason: add clarification
)
Often, I simply avoid saying anything when what others are happy with has nothing to do with a quest for clear structured knowledge, and trying to throw such a thing into the mix would only distract them from what they really find meaningful and are doing. (Edit: I'll leave that in, but it was written in response to thoughts about the whole thread and other things it reminded me of, before the last reply above ce-centered the discussion.)
The topic of traditional "planes" is another general area where clarity is often missing and conflicting labels are flung about. "Astral" spans a wide range of things under one heading, and typical uses group together into something that seems unclear on a closer look. "Lower astral" is an older term which has often been used for what later became called 4D STS. A counterargument to modern such usage I've seen is that people using the term "lower astral" simply didn't know of 4D and used "astral", which corresponds to something below 4D, for lack of later and better knowledge.
In relation to the D-densities, there's the old thread, "Correspondence Between Densities and Traditional Planes of Existence", about trying to get a more definite mapping of sorts. Several conflicting answers are provided, including my own synthesis with the older Fourth Way mapping to the 7 cosmoses in that system here.
My simple three-way merge with the Fourth Way cosmology leaves many questions unanswered, though so far there's not been any further discussion which may lead to exploring that. Anyway, the big difference is that astral=3D in that mapping. Below the astral is the 2D physical constructs with etheric/bio-energy systems attached. Above the astral, mental=4D and causal=5D, which seems to be a match in terms of the "magical" nature of 5D in Ra's cosmology.
The Ra material does provide plenty that allows thinking further where traditional religious systems and dogmas fall apart into utter disbelief given a bit of thought. But it's like little islands of clarity, and some other systems provide other little islands of clarity, the bigger area of thought and meaning remaining mostly a sea of confused ambiguity mixed with trivialities to which enormous meaning is assigned. But the striving for a sober synthesis is not very popular -- in part because it's very difficult, in part because most are happy without it -- and those who produce more well-known attempts at synthesis often make the result anything but sober.
The topic of traditional "planes" is another general area where clarity is often missing and conflicting labels are flung about. "Astral" spans a wide range of things under one heading, and typical uses group together into something that seems unclear on a closer look. "Lower astral" is an older term which has often been used for what later became called 4D STS. A counterargument to modern such usage I've seen is that people using the term "lower astral" simply didn't know of 4D and used "astral", which corresponds to something below 4D, for lack of later and better knowledge.
In relation to the D-densities, there's the old thread, "Correspondence Between Densities and Traditional Planes of Existence", about trying to get a more definite mapping of sorts. Several conflicting answers are provided, including my own synthesis with the older Fourth Way mapping to the 7 cosmoses in that system here.
My simple three-way merge with the Fourth Way cosmology leaves many questions unanswered, though so far there's not been any further discussion which may lead to exploring that. Anyway, the big difference is that astral=3D in that mapping. Below the astral is the 2D physical constructs with etheric/bio-energy systems attached. Above the astral, mental=4D and causal=5D, which seems to be a match in terms of the "magical" nature of 5D in Ra's cosmology.
The Ra material does provide plenty that allows thinking further where traditional religious systems and dogmas fall apart into utter disbelief given a bit of thought. But it's like little islands of clarity, and some other systems provide other little islands of clarity, the bigger area of thought and meaning remaining mostly a sea of confused ambiguity mixed with trivialities to which enormous meaning is assigned. But the striving for a sober synthesis is not very popular -- in part because it's very difficult, in part because most are happy without it -- and those who produce more well-known attempts at synthesis often make the result anything but sober.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)