Poll

[Tarzan]

the results up to this point would be erased


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ah, chris, you must be a closet republican in training...
;-p

funny how a little innocent vote-deleting accident on a
little list can mirror the vote results in our
alice-in-wonderland world of politics. life has humor,
alright.

~seth


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Hamilton]

hi group,

karen had asked a few days ago about questions we should ask about soa (shift of
ages) chapter 3, which i had suggested we read as a result of geometric shape
questions that came up. well, in order for us to know if anyone read the stuff,
i put up a poll to find this out:) the poll will close this friday the 25th.
let's all vote, and be honest about it! if you think there should be another
choice in the poll, let us all know. chris

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Karen Bunney]

hi all,

this is my second time writing this, hopefully i'll get it right. i read the
chapter and found i had some questions for you: the material mentions that each
geometitrical shape represents a dimension? is this correct? if it is, than
is the aether is that what prevents us from seeing what's on the other side of
it?

thanks

karen

chris hamilton <chris.hamilton2@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=mfmr9yeown7h8xighouiiqxdasgyhmrjl3k1mq bl9vxkldbcy5unheg0enygrk-inslsgvwiatxrq5tipraltni3ja)> wrote:
hi group,

karen had asked a few days ago about questions we should ask about soa (shift of
ages) chapter 3, which i had suggested we read as a result of geometric shape
questions that came up. well, in order for us to know if anyone read the stuff,
i put up a poll to find this out:) the poll will close this friday the 25th.
let's all vote, and be honest about it! if you think there should be another
choice in the poll, let us all know. chris

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]


yahoo! groups sponsoradvertisement


---------------------------------
yahoo! groups links

to visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asc2k/

to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=rjun6pwzd6lc4b0i8122ij9ith7djkkvq9fosf rpeg9rurfzbegrbkr1awuzwyvijymkg5pgt88-wcv4uddtsto4fn96h4yylg)

your use of yahoo! groups is subject to the yahoo! terms of service.



---------------------------------
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! mail is new and improved - check it out!

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Chris Hamilton]

from: "karen bunney" <nowtime2002@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=flyll-ho3zm_fm-ppqh_ahynb7kxjh87ggrmiwfabrwrloaf4ccavkbo5haogei0s le2-xtrcfv57xee20kf)>
i read the chapter and found i had some questions for you: the material
mentions that each geometitrical shape represents a dimension?
is this correct? if it is, than is the aether is that what prevents us from
seeing what's on the other side of it?

hi karen,
sorry this took so long to get back to...the first part of your question i
would say yes. as the the geometric shapes are the physical representation
of vibration, and different densities have different vibratory signatures,
then the shapes each stand for a different dimension. the second question
with the aether...i would say that no, the aether doesn't prevent us from
seeing other densities. i would say that we, as physical creatures and based
upon the octahedral geometry, would not see other geometries because we
don't vibrate at the other geometric waves? a guess, and any one else can
chime in here:) great questions karen. thanks, chris

[mawk]

hi karen, chris, all and one,

first please excuse me for the long post but there are no links to this
information. it was provided to me several years ago in a word file and i
think it may prove to be quite insightful for some on the list. i have
edited the original text down some.

the best way i have found to tackle karen's questions, concerning densities
and our relationship to them, requires first for us to realise that our own
experience is filtered. there is no argument here from science. science is
quite comfortable with the notion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and
further, that our primary senses are only capable of picking up a very small
portion of that spectrum. for example we are well aware that radio waves
surround us due to the use of radios, cbs etc, yet we can not put our hands
on a "radio wave".

this begs the question, "if our primary senses are the overriding influence
on our conscious awareness yet it is only a miniscule part of the
electromagnetic spectrum what are we missing out on?" for those who have
delved into meditation the answer is simple, a lot. there is no doubt in my
mind that higher density awareness is available to all those who seek. the
secret to accessing these high levels of awareness from my experience
suggest that we need to be reasonably fearless, our intent needs to be
focused and our heart open. the higher awareness will then manifest in a
myriad of forms such as intuitions, dream insights, meditation insights or
synchronicity, to name a few.

cheers,

mawk

ps chris congratulations on the new job. i knew it wouldn't take long to get
you gainfully employed:-) the pay will be good too, just don't expect
money:-)

on the difference between density and dimension by bruce peret, ph.d.

now, in steps the concept of "density." ra appears to choose words that
best represent the concept he is trying to relate, usually selected from old
latin meanings of english words. density therefore means a level of
compactness, typified by mass per unit volume.

one of the things larson discovered is that space and time exist in
reciprocal relationship. since all structures are composed of both aspects
of space and time, whatever happens on one side is reflected by an opposite
motion on the other. for example, if something expands in space, it
compresses in time. if it compresses in space, it expands in time.

larsonian astronomy is based on this concept as well, explaining white
dwarf stars (star that exploded in time, rather than space), and does away
with "black holes" altogether (as a big mis-identification).

taking a quick look at the atomic world, we find that as the complexity
of an atom increases, moving up the periodic table, it actually gets smaller
in size... seem a bit backwards? i know if i throw more clothes in my
laundry basket, it gets larger, not smaller!

the atom increases in density. larson came up with the answer: an atom is
composed of motion in time, not in space. thus, the "larger" the atom is in
time, the smaller it will appear in space (reciprocal relation), and have a
higher density.

it is this relationship that i equate with ra's description of "density."
some people look at it like "planes of existence", but that is the linear
version, like looking at the rainbow colors of light coming thru a prism. if
you're on the wall where the colors are, it looks like a linear progression
of discrete steps-seven, of course!

now, if you back up and smell the color, you find that on the other side
of the prism, it's all one big white blob-a single, compound motion.

where ra's densities come in, is from the evolutive process-the 3rd type
of polarity. each "density" is an evolutive "color" in the rainbow. the
"host being", outside of all reference systems is still a single, compound
motion, but since those "dimensions" cannot be represented in the
"arithmetic inverse" coordinate system, it is exactly like the rainbow
projected on the wall-it has its elements "linear-ized" along an independent
axis (the axis being the only construct available to our senses).

(just like trying to draw a cube on a sheet of paper-you have to take
advantage of a visual trick known as "perspective" to give a 3-d appearance
to a 2-d drawing).

another of larson's discoveries is finding out what life is. life occurs
when an inanimate motion (atom, element, compound) fuses withs its
"multiplicative inverse"-cosmic (or anti-matter). this causes a "quantum
leap" in the density of the manifestation: a single cell can retain some 3.8
million times the complexity that a single chemical compound can.

one of ra's "densities" occurs for each quantum evolutionary step made.
this puts the 1st density at rocks and minerals. the 2nd forms when those
rocks and anti-rocks merge to form vegetable matter. the 3rd density forms
when that vegetable life develops a "morality", and moves on to animal life.
the 4th comes with the "ethical" transition.

basically, every time you add a "larsonian sector" to a motion, you move
to a higher density. dimensionality is the finite manifestation of those
relationships.

density and dimension

though you provide some interesting quotes on ra's apparent analogous use
of "density" and "dimension", i have found that ra chooses words with care,
and would not have used two words, where one would do, unless there was some
quantifiable difference. fortunately, being the editor of a science journal,
i tend to pick up writing style quickly, and ra's style has a definite
"technical" bias. it finally hit me last night on how ra differentiates the
use of density and dimension. he selects the words based on contextual
style.

"dimension" is used in the context of "space/time", whereas "density" is
used in the context of "time/space," though having a more general
applicability (not only works with space and time, but also with
light/love -- love/light). in other words, just as "space" and "time" are
the two aspects of "motion", "dimension" and "density" are simply the two
aspects of complexity (as in "mind/body/spirit complex"), and are
reciprocally related, and in a geometric sense, are "out of phase" by 90
degrees.
space/time - time/space
light/love - love/light

dimension --> density (spatial dimension = temporal density)

density <-- dimension (temporal dimension = spatial density)

one of those problems of "not being able to find the forest, because
there are too many trees in the way." it's obvious, once you think about it.
the very base manifestion of dimension/density would be in the photon: a
single dimension (rate of motion in space), and its "density" being the
vibratory frequency (rate of motion in time).

the photinos (x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays) are the inverse-a
dimension in time, and a "density" in space, which explains why they pack
such a whallop.

even the physical quantity of "mass"-- in the reciprocal system, the mass
of an atom is determined by its temporal complexity, the more complex the
dimensional motion in time, the more massive the atom is, and the higher its
"density", as measured in space.

therefore, one can conclude that:
1.dimension and density are inversely related, as a type of
"motion."

2.dimension cannot exist without density, nor density without
dimension.

3.dimension is a measurement of vectorial orientation.

4.density is a measurement of scalar magnitude.

5.dimension and density are a measurement of aggregate complexity.

just occured to me when doing #4 above... since "density" is scalar, then
it is actually a 2nd power function of "dimension -- in other words:
"density" is the ratio between the "dimensions of polarity" which
actually makes more sense. density is therefore the measurement of overall
complexity of the dimensional polarities of an aggregate, form, or entity.

ra's descriptions of density:
1st: "this begins with first density which is the density of
consciousness, the mineral and water life upon the planet learning from fire
and wind the awareness of being."

the mineral kingdom, from photon to element #117, culminating in the
expression of rna. the "body" complex, increasing entropy.
2nd: "...the striving towards light and growth."

the vegetable kingdom, and body/mind complexes. "...which includes growth
rather than dissolution or random change." decreasing entropy.
3rd: "...is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness."

"... thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third
density."
the animal kingdom, self-aware body/mind/spirit complexes; increasing
entropy.
4th: "vibration of love", "vibration of understanding"

the body/mind/spirit/love complex. the development of conscious group
mind over instinctive societal behavior; decreasing entropy.
5th: "the fifth density harvest is of those whose vibratory
distortions consciously accept the honor/duty of the law of one. this
responsibility/honor is the foundation of this vibration."

note that the "chivalric ideal" is based on duty, honor, and
responsibility. ra's use of the term "honor" is closer to the original
chivalric meaning of "virtue" and "fidelity." this concept is better
understood today as the knightly concept of the protector of god-given
rights, and seems to be an underlying unconscious expression in today's
political motivations ("sovereignty" versus "global society").

the body/mind/spirit/love/honor complex.
6th: "q: is the higher self of every entity of a sixth-density
nature?
a: this is correct."

the psychological concept of the higher self, the non-anthropomorphic
expression of the "wise old man/women" archetype.

the body/mind/spirit/love/honor/wisdom complex.
7th: the density of unity.
body/mind/spirit/love/honor/wisdom/unity complex. not much
information available here.

"linear" density

now that the relationships between density and dimension have been
identified, one finds densities are actually "overlapped", and not
consecutive with clean breaks between them. for example:
ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ムâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚âƒãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒ ã‚âƒãƒâ‚ã‚â‚ãƒâƒã‚â‚ãƒâ‚ã‚â·1-|-3-|-5-|-7-
-|-2-|-4-|-6-|-
again, giving a wave-like "vibration" to the linear expression of
density, and allowing prior/next densities to influence the lower and
upper subdensities, respectively, of any particular density.

(first density, of course, would be influenced by the 7th density of the
prior octave).

to equate the visible spectrum as a sub-n density structure:
| violet | blue | yellow | red |

+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| uv | indigo | green | orange | ir |
note that there are 2 types of ultraviolet (uv) and infrared (ir) light
observed--"hard" and "soft" uv (soft uv here, hard uv would be the prior
sub-n density), and "near" and "far" ir ("near" here, "far" in the
succeeding sub-n density). uv can be considered "density 0" and ir to be
"density 8".

the overlapping of the primary spectrum colors explains why the rainbow
"blends" between colors, rather than make hard lines, as you would get from
a consecutive structure (as demonstrated by the "black line spectrum" of
minerals).
harvest

"harvest" appears to be the term for making the transition between the
rows in the above figure(s), and also accounts for the inversion of
behavioral aspects when density levels are changed.

i'm not sure if ra mentioned this anywhere, but there is actually a "zone
of harvestability" within the density structure, due to the wave-like
interactions of the preceding and succeeding densities, which can be
computed with mathematical precision. an interesting conclusion here is
that if you "overshoot" the harvest zone within a density, you'll have to go
back, and try again.

this is observed quite plainly in the mineral kingdom, where the heaviest
elements (atomic number 92+) tend to decay to smaller atoms, and start
moving up the periodic table again rather than integrate with anti-matter
and move on to density 2, and the cell structure.

i compute the "primary harvest zone" within this octave to be in about
the middle of the 6th density, spanning from the highest sub-subdensity of
subdensity 2, thru the lowest sub-subdensity of subdensity 6, centered about
subdensity 4 of density 6, where we curiously find the origin of
"wanderers." coincidence?

[Unknown]

hi everybody

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=fixezl48b1oygc4imdyxwjk4u6qqsghq4xkl2w t7vrdsyywipshax0uyunwkyktepazqybwk1h5zcgjm), karen bunney <nowtime2002@y...> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> this is my second time writing this, hopefully i'll get it right. i
>read the chapter and found i had some questions for you: the
>material mentions that each geometitrical shape represents a
>dimension? is this correct? if it is, than is the aether is that
>what prevents us from seeing what's on the other side of it?


in my understanding this is correct.
the higher dimensions according to the ra material choose to be not
visible to us. they vibrate at a higher rate then our 3d sphere.
i agree with chris to that it's because our physical reality is based
upon the octahedral geometry. but also our human body exists out of
the aether so in a way it is the aether that is preventing us. but
everything is the aether only in a diffrent vibration.
in the past there always have been people that are able to see spirits
and aura's etc and that is because they can sometimes open the higher
dimensions or chakra's more. everybody can do this as we have all the
dimensions inside us and are using all of them to some degree it
doesn't necesarly need the effects of aura seeing etc.

hope this helps a bit

peace and joy
Unknown

[Chris Hamilton]

i would like to remind everyone about the poll running. it will conclude on
friday the 25th. so far we almost half of the participants feel they
understand some aspects of chapter 3 shift of ages, but still want
explanations too. that sounds like an excellent learn/teach situation to
me:) thank you mawk for peret's article. now, that was really technical to
me ("where ra's densities come in, is from the evolutive process-the third
type of polarity") phew! ok, i'm on the learn end here, teacher:)
chris

[Karen Bunney]

hi everybody,
i'm still not too entirely sure how to snip, so that you all won't have to read
everything over and over, as daresharesh, wrote this below, and what i think
would have had to do with my next question, which was: do you think that the
aether is soul? the reason i ask is that the aether is intelligent, and so
are we? if it is soul, than it would be the mass consciousness also, is this
correct?

thanks,
karen

but also our human body exists out of
the aether so in a way it is the aether that is preventing us. but
everything is the aether only in a diffrent vibration.
in the past there always have been people that are able to see spirits
and aura's etc and that is because they can sometimes open the higher
dimensions or chakra's more. everybody can do this as we

unknown <Unknown@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=hq6_kuhfs8_sgmkxiqjyumn6lmk0pq995dcjol z4l1gveolw_5k5-9q-gdvzbi37fcpvpqkifnroe4xm)> wrote:
hi everybody

in my understanding this is correct.
the higher dimensions according to the ra material choose to be not
visible to us. they vibrate at a higher rate then our 3d sphere.
i agree with chris to that it's because our physical reality is based
upon the octahedral geometry. Unknown

[Chris]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=unehdx6j3r_os6cr6f0dakqv97yhffspcgbhxg yvc3nj2qz9j85afg1clkdnwlrhra7dz8gnbhb9ju5ecgq), karen bunney <nowtime2002@y...> wrote:
> hi everybody,
> i'm still not too entirely sure how to snip, so that you all won't
have to read everything over and over,

i know we have many new members who are still learning this, and i
can remember fumbling around with this snipping thing when i first
started posting, so here are some pointers: first, pick out that
person's topic sentences or the sentences that bring up what you want
to discuss. this is often the most difficult for individuals to
determine, but practice will generally help you see this more
clearly. once you have determined those sentences you want to keep,
delete the other sentences by holding your index finger down on the
left mouse button and sliding the hilighter over the lines you want
deleted. press your 'delete' key when done. the sliding part is
somewhat awkward when you first start to do it, but, again, practice
makes perfect. chris

[Karen Bunney]

hi
i came up with another question: since our consciousness is linked to our
thoughts, than would it be realistic to say that what happens on the otherside
of the veil is connected to what is happening down here, and the reason our
experience is filtered, i assume you mean by the illusions of separation is for
protecting people that are not ready for this type of thinking?

thanks,

karen

karen bunney <nowtime2002@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=dklqdd6yw-haudqwer6ugeebrl3qio1hcqdbn2tggorpl1oni706m5plboix kfdwba5vuqm7t8iuzla)> wrote:
hi everybody,
i'm still not too entirely sure how to snip, so that you all won't have to read
everything over and over, as daresharesh, wrote this below, and what i think
would have had to do with my next question, which was: do you think that the
aether is soul? the reason i ask is that the aether is intelligent, and so
are we? if it is soul, than it would be the mass consciousness also, is this
correct?

thanks,
karen

but also our human body exists out of
the aether so in a way it is the aether that is preventing us. but
everything is the aether only in a diffrent vibration.
in the past there always have been people that are able to see spirits
and aura's etc and that is because they can sometimes open the higher
dimensions or chakra's more. everybody can do this as we

unknown <Unknown@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=ark1f7otjg0jbgbuhl6spf0afahlfa2xdgapma yqim2icpw9sw9d-en6z40-3dk3oj8rht8d4htaeeo7pn2csoc)> wrote:
hi everybody

in my understanding this is correct.
the higher dimensions according to the ra material choose to be not
visible to us. they vibrate at a higher rate then our 3d sphere.
i agree with chris to that it's because our physical reality is based
upon the octahedral geometry. Unknown





yahoo! groups sponsoradvertisement


---------------------------------
yahoo! groups links

to visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asc2k/

to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=wgbbzsibazqkhunf0q-tiy5vihdgudnmvokrjknvshtrz89tb11cc4w7yiq2yvwt_nyqr evt3cnbmdfbgl3hcncvmmxstpmhf695)

your use of yahoo! groups is subject to the yahoo! terms of service.



---------------------------------
do you yahoo!?
yahoo! mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Unknown]

hi karen

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=guv-sq3a94owrqh3gnedj-bbz8_pqtkor8gvvjzi6f_wdw_42abioyd1plvau7u-o-ubfewicxxaohu-k0dh), karen bunney <nowtime2002@y...> wrote:
> hi everybody,
> i'm still not too entirely sure how to snip, so that you all won't
>have to read everything over and over, as daresharesh, wrote this
>below, and what i think would have had to do with my next question,
>which was: do you think that the aether is soul? the reason i ask
>is that the aether is intelligent, and so are we? if it is soul,
>than it would be the mass consciousness also, is this correct?
>
> thanks,
> karen

in my view the aether is everthing that exists in this universe.
i don't know if it's the soul as this depends on you interpretation of
that word. because in the end the aether itself is an illusion and we
all have a connection back to the source before anything was created.
pure infinity.
i never really thought about it in these terms but i think our
individualized portions of counsciousness(wich means soul or mind to
me) exist out of aether wich looks logical to me if aether is
everything that exists. so also the mass consciousness would exist out
of aether and is another vibration of it. i usually don't label my
mind as being aether usually i see the aether as the underlying energy
of everything that makes everything connected and one in this universe
that is here to experience itself.
thank you for this new insight karen :)

peace and joy
Unknown

[GenoNess1@...]

in a message dated 6/23/2004 10:02:01 am pacific daylight time,
gail.sherman@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=-b_5k7ax1ap-ldrvjimpneagmzm_cewnalaiwv9464k6tjgdvdsixaonopvspe nx9_uifjckl0dzqh5rpeu-6yth-dqjzxa13czf) writes:


it sounds to me like the aether acts as a conductor of sorts.
just like life! you get waht you put into it. it can be a conductor of love,
which just happens to be a very nice feeling, or a conductor of fear, which is
quite a separatist emotion. so to me aether = life. and of course to me life
= much more than many people currently recognize, but thats perfectly fine.
love, me!


[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Gail Sherman]

it sounds to me like the aether acts as a conductor of sorts.



-----original message-----
from: unknown [mailto:Unknown@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=gg-5si3eqgpa1gxay4wfppi2-fyp94hoajnchstx8szkgh8djd6o3oklboevj1z0hg6bbaus-tqobitq-cy)]
sent: wednesday, june 23, 2004 3:12 am
to: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=xd7vkhiwlqrwdiwq8n77jw8bmxj_1pfei4-bw3pijzqb4fcphbqek5n77vbasiaiu7y9pqjudozpurek5cxod g)
subject: [asc2k] re: poll



hi karen

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=xd7vkhiwlqrwdiwq8n77jw8bmxj_1pfei4-bw3pijzqb4fcphbqek5n77vbasiaiu7y9pqjudozpurek5cxod g), karen bunney <nowtime2002@y...> wrote:
> do you think that the aether is soul? the reason i ask
>is that the aether is intelligent, and so are we? if it is soul,
>than it would be the mass consciousness also, is this correct?
>
> thanks,
> karen

in my view the aether is everthing that exists in this universe.
i don't know if it's the soul as this depends on you interpretation of
that word. because in the end the aether itself is an illusion and we
all have a connection back to the source before anything was created.
pure infinity.
i never really thought about it in these terms but i think our
individualized portions of counsciousness(wich means soul or mind to
me) exist out of aether wich looks logical to me if aether is
everything that exists. so also the mass consciousness would exist out
of aether and is another vibration of it. i usually don't label my
mind as being aether usually i see the aether as the underlying energy
of everything that makes everything connected and one in this universe
that is here to experience itself.
thank you for this new insight karen :)

peace and joy
Unknown









yahoo! groups sponsor



advertisement

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/sig=1293vmei7/m=281792.5085342.6209801.1261774/d=gr
oups/s=1705082805:hm/exp=1088080233/a=2058224/r=0/sig=116652qbq/*http:/my.ya
hoo.com/promo/ppets.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?m=281792.5085342.6209801.1261774/d=groups/s=
:hm/a=2058224/rand=467032866>



_____

yahoo! groups links

* to visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asc2k/


* to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=xeytpszje31hfnjolzovnqttkpurvd0027is_l ah4zdjeb5zxaymcot_gxe0fpmzu2dtxskinrygjok6xpltlrxh hoxl0dja2de)
<mailto:asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=xeytpszje31hfnjolzovnqttkpurvd0027is_l ah4zdjeb5zxaymcot_gxe0fpmzu2dtxskinrygjok6xpltlrxh hoxl0dja2de)?subject=unsubscribe>


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



[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[sirius_mre]

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=txofzeo89do1h9qh8xj9xwix5a8n5vqwejohvg ig-xjkp3zv7d5qahuyuvosit9ir60tuzem2dg2hwzqlba7), karen bunney <nowtime2002@y...> wrote:
> hi
> i came up with another question: since our consciousness is
linked to our thoughts, than would it be realistic to say that what
happens on the otherside of the veil is connected to what is
happening down here, and the reason our experience is filtered, i
assume you mean by the illusions of separation is for protecting
people that are not ready for this type of thinking?
>
> thanks,
>
> karen
>
> karen bunney <nowtime2002@y...> wrote:
> hi everybody,
> i'm still not too entirely sure how to snip, so that you all won't
have to read everything over and over, as daresharesh, wrote this
below, and what i think would have had to do with my next question,
which was: do you think that the aether is soul? the reason i ask
is that the aether is intelligent, and so are we? if it is soul,
than it would be the mass consciousness also, is this correct?

damon: aether is intelligent, but is only intelligent to the extent
that it knows only how to make all things at the behest of
consciousness; it does not know what it is making, only that it must
be manifest. aether has no choice but to manifest that which is
impressed upon it. i think of aether like the soil in your garden;
the seed is your focused thought; the plant is the manifestation of
your thoughts. the universe works this way to create all
things, "good" and "bad." this tripartate nature is the root of the
notion of the holy trinity, as well as the whole idea that we create
our own reality.

[Chris]

i went into fix the liberterian spelling change without knowing that
the results up to this point would be erased :( sorry members. i do
think there were 4 kerry, 4 no vote, and 2 (?) bush. just keep that
in mind when we look at the end results in two weeks. or, those of
you have already voted, please go back in and vote again.
thanks,chris

[Unknown]

is this poll for usa people only? :)
obviously europeans and asian people haven't voted :)

peace & joy
Unknown

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=xbpglok7linh9p4foqamdx4thcaxxxilgmrrx0 idefukp6hdiy1ieimssvtmvo7moyh040npfg4aiphd), "chris" <chris.hamilton2@v...> wrote:
>
> i went into fix the liberterian spelling change without knowing that
> the results up to this point would be erased :( sorry members. i do
> think there were 4 kerry, 4 no vote, and 2 (?) bush. just keep that
> in mind when we look at the end results in two weeks. or, those of
> you have already voted, please go back in and vote again.
> thanks,chris