08-24-2012, 08:53 AM
In the quotes on the page posted by Austin Ra is adamantly evading the actual designation of some aspect of difference between logos and sub logos.
A logos is a field of consciousness, as we are all. A logos would be much more evolved and ancient.
there are many celestial bodies that no longer contain the field of consciousness that once used them and are now no different than the left over shell of the human form when its use is fulfilled.
Ra makes specific reference to this in this quote:
29.9 Questioner: Then the planet which we walk upon here would be some form of sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. A planetary entity is so named only as Logos if It is working in harmonic fashion with entities or mind/body complexes upon Its surface or within Its electromagnetic field. UNQUOTE
This should suffice as evidence that a logos is a field of consciousness. A planetary body without that interacting consciousness it would no longer be a logos, which is precisely what Ra meant to express.
A logos is a field of consciousness, as we are all. A logos would be much more evolved and ancient.
there are many celestial bodies that no longer contain the field of consciousness that once used them and are now no different than the left over shell of the human form when its use is fulfilled.
Ra makes specific reference to this in this quote:
29.9 Questioner: Then the planet which we walk upon here would be some form of sub-sub-Logos. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. A planetary entity is so named only as Logos if It is working in harmonic fashion with entities or mind/body complexes upon Its surface or within Its electromagnetic field. UNQUOTE
This should suffice as evidence that a logos is a field of consciousness. A planetary body without that interacting consciousness it would no longer be a logos, which is precisely what Ra meant to express.