New Article on Ascension [Archive] - Divine Cosmos Discussions

View Full Version : New Article on Ascension

Jeremy Weiland

09-10-2001, 05:11 AM

>i put out new articles after long delays and suddenly it gets quiet. very
>quiet. this has been a pattern! i guess it's a lesson in detachment... :)

yeah... who's been telling everybody lately not to take things
personally? :-)

>many sources, including ra (see companion ra article), edgar cayce, and
>others, say that the oneness essentially got bored or lonely. it needed to
>do something. it needed to create. it wasn't feeling complete just by
having
>this unified consciousness all the time.

i understand that this essay was supposed to be a simplified form of
some of the research david has done. however, is it really accurate to say
that the oneness was "lonely" or "bored"? since reading "a course in
miracles" i've always believed that loneliness comes from separation, not
from unity. ra's explanation of the oneness desiring to "know itself" is a
little bit more vague but doesn't seem to imply the sense of lack that the
word "loneliness" does. unified and whole, isn't the natural, original
state one of complete joy and completeness? just something that i've been
thinking about the past few days. i'm certainly not in any hurry to return
to unity if i'm just gonna be lonely and bored, know what i mean?

i really enjoyed getting an overview of the breadth of ideas covered by
david's research. especially the expanding planet theory and all that,
really interesting, and it makes sense. i was especially interested in
bode's law and stoneking's work, which i hadn't yet seen. i'm curious: do
the natural diatonic distances between the planets have anything to do with
the density they're vibrating in? b/c at first i was thinking that earth
was 3d and that's why it's 3rd from the sun, but then i was thinking about
ra's history on venus, which puts that planet way ahead of ours.
furthermore, if the distances between planets don't conform to the intervals
of the scale, then you can't expect a density progression of 1,2,3, etc.
i'd be interested to know what the relationship of each planet's distance
from the sun has to do with it's density. and i assume that at the
energetic shift, the earth will move up to the next "diatonic tone distance"
from the sun? can we predict how far this will be?

again, great article. really a concise and tidy way of encapsulating
the research and where it's headed. can't wait for the rest of c3!

jeremy

p.s. oh yeah, and the sun's not nuclear - news to me! jeez, it's
amazing how much stuff you think you know can just be utterly wrong and
still a fact in most people's heads...

madonnafra

09-10-2001, 06:07 AM

david,
what is the e-address of your main site where your materials may be read? i
joined this group through yahoo clubs after reading information at a site
that explained what your work is about but when i linked back through my
bookmarks all i got was a bio page and no links to your materials. i tried
to find a link at the club page but i couldn't locate one.
thank you for your assistance.
blessings,
gayle

Gayle

09-10-2001, 08:23 AM

excellent article david,
to see the comparitive numbers of natural disasters from 1975 to
present makes such an impact on awareness as opposed to observing
them listed day by day. as a geometrically impaired individual, it
was a blessing to read your work in a more "at my level" format.
thank you for making your information available to the rest of us.
blessings,
gayle

David Wilcock

09-10-2001, 08:25 AM

<table>
>from: jeremy weiland [mailto:jweiland@nettalon.com]
<tt>
>i put out new articles after long delays and suddenly it gets quiet. very
>quiet. this has been a pattern! i guess it's a lesson in detachment... :)

yeah... who's been telling everybody lately not to take things
personally? :-)

[david wilcock]good point - the monkey lives on. :)</tt>
><tt>
>many sources, including ra (see companion ra article), edgar cayce, and
>others, say that the oneness essentially got bored or lonely. it needed to
>do something. it needed to create. it wasn't feeling complete just by
having
>this unified consciousness all the time.

i understand that this essay was supposed to be a simplified form of
some of the research david has done. however, is it really accurate to say
that the oneness was "lonely" or "bored"?
</tt>
><tt>[david wilcock] well, i was really wiped out wheni did the interview and wish that they could have jazzed up the firstfewsentences so it isn't such a rough takeoff.</tt>
><tt></tt>
><tt>since reading "a course inmiracles" i've always believed that loneliness comes from separation, notfrom unity. ra's explanation of the oneness desiring to "know itself" is alittle bit more vague but doesn't seem to imply the sense of lack that theword "loneliness" does. unified and whole, isn't the natural, originalstate one of complete joy and completeness? just something that i've beenthinking about the past few days. i'm certainly not in any hurry to returnto unity if i'm just gonna be lonely and bored, know what i mean?

[david wilcock]this information is mirrored in a number of psychic sources, including the work of robert monroe. he had some funny, nerdy name for this original state of unity, something like kt-97. he explains that even though it was harmonious there, without the potential for creation and free will experience there was a sense of stagnation. of course, what we now have is much differentthan that. when all returns to unity it will be dramatically enhanced by our experiences.</tt><tt>
>
i really enjoyed getting an overview of the breadth of ideas covered by
david's research. especially the expanding planet theory and all that,
really interesting, and it makes sense. i was especially interested in
bode's law and stoneking's work, which i hadn't yet seen. i'm curious: do
the natural diatonic distances between the planets have anything to do with
the density they're vibrating in? b/c at first i was thinking that earth
was 3d and that's why it's 3rd from the sun, but then i was thinking about
ra's history on venus, which puts that planet way ahead of ours.
furthermore, if the distances between planets don't conform to the intervals
of the scale, then you can't expect a density progression of 1,2,3, etc.

[david wilcock]well, i don't think anyone else here could read my mind enough to answer those questions. there's been some real moving and shaking of planets in our solar system, and i wouldn'trule outthe possibility a la velikovsky that venus was once in a different position and was then jostled into where it is now. its anomalous rotation qualities, as the only planet going backwards in rotation and seeming to slowdown to a stop before going back in the other direction, seem to beone indication that it wasn't always where it is now. andof course, hoagland's latest study confirms that mars was once a waterymoon of alarger planet, which we know of as being maldek. so it's possible that venus "wandered" from a farther position to a nearer position.
>
>i'm also willing to consider the idea thatthe planets have a certain degree of free will in terms of how and when they will evolve, within reason.venus may havebeen able to support higher vibrations sooner than other planets dueto its intrinsic consciousness.

i'd be interested to know what the relationship of each planet's distance
from the sun has to do with it's density. and i assume that at the
energetic shift, the earth will move up to the next "diatonic tone distance"
from the sun? can we predict how far this will be?

>[david wilcock]at first it appears that a planetary system works in reverse from a galactic system. the galactic system has the oldest and highest vibrations in the middle, according to ra, and we on the outside edge are the stragglers who have not yet fully evolved back into unity. i realized that based on the shapes of the energy fields, this too had to be caused by expanding spherical fields of energy, just as the crop formations show. however, our sun is spitting out new planets which seem to evolve more fully as they move farther away. the gas planets, especially jupiter and saturn, have earth-sized rocky cores in the center, and that makes me think that they once were just like us before acquiring so much of that extra atmosphere via continual expansion. i think that maldek would have been a valuable planet in showing us how this transition could be better made between solid and gas. venus' gassy atmosphere might also indicate that it had at one time been farther away from the sun than it is now.
>
>regarding how far the earth will move, i really have no idea. we know that stars continually expand to form "red giants" before exploding in a supernova and collapsing to ultra-densite white dwarves. this is obviously another clear example of expanding-earth theory in action, though the mainstream attributes it to the sun "using up its hydrogen fuel." right. anyway, if you look at stoneking's data you'd see that the planetary positions are all in even numbers of solar diameters away from the sun, thus showing how the sun is creating a wave that holds them in place. so perhaps if the sun spontaneously grows larger there is a burst of energy as this occurs and a "chaotic change in orbital resonance" at the same time. i'm also open to the idea that the non-visible proto-planet that ra refers to, i think in book two, might become a visible energy at this time, thus agreeing with the hopi prophecy that the sun will gain a sister "star" known as blue star kachina. i've had readings and dreams of this as well. 
>
>again, great article. really a concise and tidy way of encapsulating
the research and where it's headed. can't wait for the rest of c3!

[david wilcock]well, i'm glad that we were able to get this out. the whole dna theory didn't emerge into my mind until after the interview was over and i got sent the initialdraft. i was looking at statementsi made about the dinosaurs getting zapped with energy and evolving, and suddenly it all hit me how it would fit together. i stayed up all night working on this, and amazingly that same night gregg braden was on art bell talking about the exact same kind of stuff, even including dr.poponin's dna phantom experiment! that was a remarkable "hundredth monkey"kind of thing, as i truly felt that once that number of humans first were exposed to this idea, something changed in the collective consciousness that i was able to psychically tap into and make those realizations. so this really has a lotto do with the "opening of the hall of records," as i understand it.
>
>lots of email to answer, not enough time-
>
>peace be with you -
>
>-david
>
jeremy

p.s. oh yeah, and the sun's not nuclear - news to me! jeez, it's
amazing how much stuff you think you know can just be utterly wrong and
still a fact in most people's heads...

</tt>

>
<tt>to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com

</tt>

<tt>your use of yahoo! groups is subject to the yahoo! terms of service (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).</tt>

David Wilcock

09-10-2001, 08:55 AM

<table>
><tt>it was a blessing to read your work in a more "at my level" format.
thank you for making your information available to the rest of us.
blessings,
gayle
</tt>
><tt>[david wilcock]my intention has always been to get convergence iii finished with as much rigor as possible; then, as my readings have said, the "copycats" can come in and co-opt it into their own material, boiling it down and taking what they like. right now i'm still working on finishing the master textbook! later on it will be easier to encapsulate various portions.</tt>
><tt></tt>
><tt>peace be with you -</tt>
><tt></tt>
><tt>- david</tt>
><tt>
>

</tt>

>
<tt>to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com

</tt>

<tt>your use of yahoo! groups is subject to the yahoo! terms of service (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).</tt>

David Wilcock

09-10-2001, 11:58 AM

<table>
>the main link to my website is http://ascension2000.com. i hope everyone uses that as their primary source!
>
>peace be with you -
>
>- david
>
<blockquote>
class="outlookmessageheader" dir="ltr" align="left">-----original message-----
from: gs5555@aol.com [mailto:gs5555@aol.com]
sent: monday, september 10, 2001 1:08 pm
to: asc2k@yahoogroups.com
subject: re: [asc2k] new article on ascension

<tt>david,
what is the e-address of your main site where your materials may be read? i
joined this group through yahoo clubs after reading information at a site
that explained what your work is about but when i linked back through my
bookmarks all i got was a bio page and no links to your materials. i tried
to find a link at the club page but i couldn't locate one.
thank you for your assistance.
blessings,
gayle
</tt>

<tt>to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com

</tt>

<tt>your use of yahoo! groups is subject to the yahoo! terms of service (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/).</tt>
</blockquote>